I'm with Filo, if you don't want to share your files or bandwidth then stay off of mine. As for that nonsense about fear of prosecution for allowing access; what bullsh*t. U can be prosecuted for up and downloading, do 'em both or do neither.

Incidentally, they cant prosecute everyone, as there are 100,000s of users worldwide, and the costs of prosecuting and administering the collection of unpaid fines will run into figures way too high to be deemed tenable by courts and local authorities anywhere. A few of us will be slammed as a warning to the rest, thats it. Dont be fooled, its the last gasp of a dying industry trying to protect its share holders. BTW I'm a musician and all my stuff is up there for free.

People have been "file sharing" and "pirating(?)" (you know what i mean) for decades in one form or another, from cassette taping vinyl albums to recording films onto video from TV. I spent many a happy hour as a kid taping tunes from the radio, and by the way it never stopped me from spending pocket money on stuff I really liked. Most of us cant afford to chance our hard earned cash on a reviewers say so only to find that we dont like the trash we bought. Many other industries have a "try b4 u buy" policy, Limewire is giving us the opportunity that is missing in the entertainment world. Music, films etc will always be subject to copying and if we hadn't been paying through the nose for CDs, Vinyl, Cassettes and Videos for all these years then P2P software and companies like Gnutella and Napster might not have been brought into existence in the first place. Now is your chance to be a modern day Robin Hood, take it and partay....

PS ANY software that allows people to broadcast footage of the many and various atrocities that occur around the world, atrocities inflicted on innocent people by their own government forces, or by immoral foreign totalitarian governments, atrocities which largely go unreported by the corporate media groups which are owned by tiny, rich cartels, groups whose financial interests are served by those same governments, has got my vote.

We might be swapping our favorite tunes at the moment, but in an age when civil liberties are being systematically curtailed in all of the industrialised nations of the west due to spurious "terrorist threats", and when there are fewer or no civil liberties in Western made third world countries, you may at some time in the future have a moral obligation or a survival need yourself, to turn your upload bandwidth to max in order to send footage of victimisation, police brutality or government sponsored terror inflicted on you, your family and your community. (see infowars.com for a taste) You probably wont think of that until it's happening in your backyard, but I bet you wont be worried about prosecution for nicking the latest Kylie single then....

Ok, from what I've heard, the lawyers in the U.S. mostly go after people who share 500 or more files. So I usually keep the files in my folder under 100. So does that make me a free loader? I also was under the impression that downloading wasn't illegal (in the big fat U. S. of A.) but that it is illegal to share them. Anyway... keepin' them under 100 makes me feel small enough that they may leave me alone.

OK, some clarification needed here.

I actually didn't mean you Kwazywabbit but reading it again I can see how you interpreted it that way. I meant say hello to me. From that point on I cleared my availability folder and decided to just download what I wanted when I wanted. However, I have changed my mind on that now. There are people out there trying to do the decent thing by giving as well as recieving and to put myself in the camp of the freeloaders was not obtaining what was best for all (yeah, alright, I went off on one, ok).

My original gripe was with chat enabled users who blocked, without answer, my polite request to share but still expected to rip the bejesus out of me and block bandwidth for legit users. It still is, but thanks to kwazywabbit pointing out the obvious, they now get firewalled.

In the matter of being a target for authorities watching and waiting to pounce on me for file sharing, I'm really not that bothered in light of the numerous 'companies' and people on ebay and Amazon claiming they sell originals. I've lost count of how many times i've bought a 'Genuine' DVD from there only to find it's a copy (No booklet and barebone features is a dead give away). Why should I be worried when the authorities can't even stop them? What they can gain from taking my PC away from me, I don't know. I could be rekitted and back on the net within hours.

One final point - So, Sony are putting pressure on the courts. If that is supposed to deter me then let me say this - given they have taken over one of the largest companies dealing with multimedia software (Sonic Foundry) and not only does that software copy media, but allows you to CHANGE it, it smacks of double standards in pursuit of profit by any means and won't stop me one bit from copying material. As for artists rights, some deserve their royalties and so i'm quite happy to purchase their material. Others on the other hand have been sucking their fans dry for years and deserve to have their material nicked (look at Elton John's 'candle in the wind' version when Diana died. Where was his compassion while his bank account got fatter on the back of her death?)

I guess the thing to do is Rip while you can. Theres always restriction round the corner in one shape or another.

[FONT=arial]Sorry Filo, I thought you were either being sarky or down right rude! Again sorry, but Hello

Lets clear up this law business, When you buy a cd or dvd, in effect all you are doing is buying a licence to play that material for your own personal enjoyment. The purchase does not allow you copy, sell, or lend the material without permission from the copyright holder.

I don't know exactly how it works in America, but over here in England, it is even illegal to copy your own cd collection to your hard drive - The CD police are not exactly going to call round to check, but this is the letter of the law.
I think though it's a case of so many people do it - judges and the police included - that you would end up clogging up the courts with minor copy theft charges, although stranger things have been known, watch this space....

SONY are well known for working both side of the fence when it comes to copyright, they own both music and movie publishing/distribution companies, but they also manufacture walkmans... their software Sonicstage was an example of protecting their interests.
This software was produced to allow MiniCD owner to copy music from the hard drive of thier computer (illegal, remember!) onto a miniCD player, heres the catch though! the early versions of the program would only let you transfere a track 3 times - when you finished with a track on your player, it had to be transfered back?? most users have given Sony the finger ,,1, and now use Real player.
Was'nt Sonic forge a music sequencer? I did'nt know it could copy, but then most music software can these days.

Think thats fun? 10 years ago, while DVDs were in their infancy, Sony wanted to install a time limit on thier discs, so oyu could watch the movie... say 5 times and after that you had to pay to watch your film. Thank heavens thats a plan that never came to bare fruit.

And Finally..
I really need to correct you on this Candle in the wind thing.
When it was re-released as "England Rose" a very large portion of the procedes went to the Terrence Higgins Trust, a charity for AIDS victims - a cause which Diana supported in life. The remainder went into the production of the discs and admin, etc...
Elton John was a personal friend of Diana's and did'nt recieve one penny.

If you want to point fingers though, try George Lucas.. How many times has he re-released Star Wars, Talk about new money for old rope!

As a final post to this dying thread, I will say I stand corrected over the elton john comment. I think what stood out about it when it was released was elton using an old tune with new words and expecting the public to buy it. It just didn't seem the right way to honor her.

And heres a thought re-quoting Kwazzy -
"When you buy a cd or dvd, in effect all you are doing is buying a licence to play that material for your own personal enjoyment. The purchase does not allow you copy, sell, or lend the material without permission from the copyright holder."
A) Who owns the disc you have in your posession?
B) If I buy it, are my family allowed to view it or do I kick them out of the room first?
C) If I refuse to give a borrowed or rented disc back, what do I get charged with?

It's good to end on a smile.