WHY IS THIS LEGAL & NAPSTER ISN'T?
 

Hello-
I cannot figure out why this gets around the law and Napster doesn't. I am doing a research paper for my freshman comp class at UMD and I cannot find why it is any different?! PLEASE HELP ME!!!

Napster is not illegal, the way in which it is used is illegal. Gnutella is not illegal unless it is used to download illegal things.

First of all napster is not illegal.
Secondly the way it is used is not illegal.
Thirdly THERE ARE NO LOOPHOLES THAT MAKE FILE SHARING ILLEGAL!!
And finally NOTHING transmitted over the internet is illegal,period! The only thing that is illegal to transmit over the internet,and this goes for everything,is STOLEN military secrets and once it has been made public it is to late for them to do anything about it anyway. And I hardly think mp3's qaulify as stolen military secrets and as for whats going on in europe about security software,it is also not illegal to take apart anything to see how it works!!!!even if it is to build aftermarket part's. Can you imagine not being able to make aftermarket part's for a car because ford won't let you cut into thier profit.NOT BEING ALLOWED TO OWN YOU OWN SET OF WRENCHES! Hacking into other people's computers is illegal. Hacking into your own computer is not. Nor is it illegal to decompile or reverse engineer any program or to own software to do it. The only other thing that is illegal is jamming the internet. That is an attack on freedom itself. It is NOT ILLEGAL for people to pool thier resources together. It's so we can all have much more than we could ever have on our own. It works like this, you buy a couple of cd's I buy a couple of cd's and we all chip in a little because we all aren't freakin rich enough to afford all everything, period! And as for the people that don't have anything to share, eventually they will. Besides even if everybody only contributed one song what's one times a million. BESIDES WHAT WE ALL SHOULD BE ASKING IS WHY WE ARE SEEING A WORLDWIDE CORDINATED EFFORT TO SNUFF OUT INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM'S.

I don't believe both are legal (in the eyes of the Hollywood lawyers). Both are distributing privately produced material freely without legal permission - i.e. music & movies which are owned by private individuals and distrobuted/sold at their discretion.

The trouble arises when their is one individual controling or (in the lawyer minds) prompting the distribution of the material without permission. In this case Napster has one central location acting as a go-between. (And anyone, please correct me if I am wrong) People work through the one central server to connect to their associates to trade files. The safe occurs with Scour and ??? - hmmm, I forgot the third that was reently closed down. Anyways, this "Gnutella" and its bretherin (Newtella, Aimster, Toadnode, ect.) do not work through one source but connect to each other indvidually. There isn't one controlling source for the lawyers to attack and take down.

A good comparison would be Cell phones and CB radios. If you knock out the local Cell tower (where the transmitters sit) you've basically whiped out the Cell phones. On the other hand, there is no central location for CB radios. To knock them out, you have to attack each one individually.

I think the big test will happen when some private group opens a Napster-like server outside the US jurisdication (say like Sealand which is just outside of Great Britian and is famous for "illegal" internet hosting).

Well, I hope I've helped. Good luck on your paper. Bye the bye, what is UMD? Is it the University of Minnesota?

Huck
huckleberryfinn@plopmail.com

OVERSIGHT,
You are right in saying neither Napster or Gnutella are technically illegal, but you are wrong to assume that it is legal to trade copyrighted material. Both Napster and Gnutella ARE LEGAL. They are simply file sharing programs (or the medium) to which millions or people illegally copy copyrighted materials. To say that Napster is illegal is to say that cassette tapes are illegal. People used to make copys of tapes/CD's onto tapes for their friends and that's all Napster is. It is the individuals using Napster that are committing the crime, not Napster.
Notice how Napster doesn't mention sharing all music anywhere on the website. They promote new bands wanting exposure and featured artists, because they can't officially condone what goes on.
The IS something wrong with these programs and something will have to be done in the law to prevent programs like this. Gnutella is nice cause it evades the law. As someone else said, there is no central part to attack, just the users!

simple 1 company owns napster and napster logs who downloads what and can attach personal information to the downloads this makes it easy for the music companies to go after the 1 company (napster) andd make them shut down there servers / reveal the identities of downloaders Gnutella however with it's lack of logins/handels makes it a royal bitch to track someone unless you use a little questionable software to hack them while they download (not cool as far as any US judge is concerned) and they can't attack the servers since no one company owns them all you hit one company and you may take down 2 servers and with in 5seconds 30 more can be up to replace them.

more simply put both are equaly questionable as to legality napster just got hit because it's easy to hit and a bigger name.

The legality of either is not the real issue. The real issue is that Gnutella CANNOT BE SHUT DOWN. There is NO WAY at all, EVER that someone could shut it down. On the other hand, Napster can easily be shut down. And if you want ot talk about illegal stuff, then technically NONE of what you you people are saying is actually illegal. Napster isn't illegal. MP3s aren't illegal. Even cd rippers aren't illegal. The illegal part is the transmission of songs in any form. Therefore since napster ASSISTS transfering illegal files, it CAN be considered illegal. Since gnutella does the same, it also CAN be considered illegal. However, gnutella is not MP3s only, so is it less legal? If there are different degress of lagality, where do you draw the line? Certainly email is still legal if you send mp3s to your friends so what defines lagality? I don't think that the music industries cares. They just want to shut down whatever is costing them money. However, it all goes back to the same original fact that gnutella CANNOT be shut down and Napster CAN.

you all are losers...

just download your porn/mp3's/warez and be happy...

who cares if its not legal...

Neither are illegal, because some of us don't LIVE in "the country of the free", America... therefore we aren't bound by the rules your stupid antiquated legal system makes. .. Napster, Gnutella, DivX, 128bit encryption... Sorry america, can't stop **** like this happening offshore.

Because these are PRIVATE calls via the switched packet network (just like a voice call, it's digitized too), so therefore you have to WIRETAP someone to figure out FOR SURE WITHOUT A DOUBT that they are downloading a copyrighted song.
You can go to JAIL for wiretapping, THAT'S ILLEGAL! so when the RIAA tells you to stop, you ask them to put it in writing and say how they found out you were transfering whatever they thought you were.
IP addresses are no different then a phone number, GET A CLUE PEOPLE! WAKE UP!
The first time a RIAA lawyer goes to jail for wire tapping, this will stop real fast.
THEY ARE THE CRIMINALS!

I read an article in CNET that the RIAA is talking to ISPs to shut down Napster like services. I'm fairly technical but I do not know if Gnutella can be shut down/blocked trough an ISP.

What are your thoughts?

There is not an IP that controls Gnutella. We are all host/users/clients so we are called Servants. You COULD connect two IP's to each other and nobody else. Share files between them and how would "THEY" ever find out????

http://forums.gnutelliums.com/frown.gif There may not be an IP that controls........, but here is what my IP told me today :
"On the 25 of February, we recorded unauthorized attempts to probe out
networks originating from an IP address of 64.19x.yyy.zzz Our records show
that this IP address belongs to your DSL connection.
We are obligated to contact you and warn you that this type of action is
strictly against the terms of service that you agreed to when signing up for
service."
My agreement with them forbids direct or indirect violation of 3rd party intelectual propertiy rights.!! So they say....stop or they pull the plug. As of today, I don't do audio downloading, nor do I share audio or other proprietary files without previous authorization. DSL has opened up the internet for me.! I am very reluctant to return to my 56K modem.

[This message has been edited by sayhu (edited 03-02-2001).]

Before they pull the plug, don't you think you should ask them why they are WIRE TAPPING your private calls?

These ISP's want the protection of being a COMMON CARRIER (not responsible for your packets as is the phone company, SAME SAME, THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE!)

So why are they allowed to TAP YOUR PHONE/NET CONVERSATIONS?

Ask them for proof, detailed proof, and then SUE THE CRAP OUT OF THEM for invasion of privacy, wire tapping and who knows what else (contact a real lawyer would you?)

This is SERIOUS stuff here. You can always get another DSL provider, YOUR PRIVACY IS AT STAKE (again)

WAKE UP PEOPLE!

http://forums.gnutelliums.com/biggrin.gif I am AWAKE ! I am also 79 years old; and just want to enjoy my final days, learning / discovering, on my computer. on the internet. I have no energy for crusades and, heaven knows, I have had enough confrontation in my life. I will digitize my private collection of music. Can anyone who can point me to the best software for converting / editing my audio cassette collection. Darn, I really enjoyed this forum and the Limewire Client was impressive. Many thanks for the help, particularly from Lightstone,

[This message has been edited by sayhu (edited 03-02-2001).]

You said it worthless! Hell yah!

i think its simple as this:

napster is not illegal. Only trading copyrighted material is illegal. The problem with napster is that it is a centralized operation with its own legal entity becuase it is a corporation.

Gnutella on the other hand is in loose terms a bunch of people trading files directly with each other. There is no way to shut down gnutella because it is not a corporation and nor does it have a legal entity. To shut it down you have to sue every single user, which is pretty much impossible.

Hope this helps.

This site is for recording LP to CD, but it should help you.

http://homepages.nildram.co.uk/~abcomp/lp-cdr.htm

From the FAQ:
How do I record from cassette tape to hard disk?
http://homepages.nildram.co.uk/~abco...aq.htm#rectape

[This message has been edited by MrAlaska (edited 03-04-2001).]

Ummm ... actually, no. Wiretapping and sniffing internet packets are not the same thing. Time after time, the (United States) courts have backed up those doing the sniffing, sadly. That's because TCP/IP is an inherently insecure protocol, and one can (and has) effectively argue that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy when sending and receiving information via unencrypted TCP or UDP packets. That's what Napster uses, and it's what Gnutella uses. Operation Carnivore is a good example of this. The courts ruled it was okay for the FBI to eavesdrop on emails because there is no reasonable expectation of privacy on the part of the sender and/or recipients.

Face facts, and wake up yourself before you start instructing others on the law. There is no way to ensure privacy on the internet. But that's nothing new. There's no way to ensure privacy anywhere. The key is being smart. Use encryption when transmittting sensitive information. Be careful about what information you chose to send via the internet, as opposed to other media. Don't send anything via email, web form transmission, or other insecure formats (including gnutella and napster) that you wouldn't send via a postcard with no envelope.

But this is really besides the point. Fact is, all the RIAA has to do is connect to the Gnutella network and start downloading songs. If they find people sharing their copyrighted material, they can go after the users they downloaded the material from. Your internet addy is prominently displayed in the servents, and even if it wasn't, anyone with any knowledge of internet protocols can determine the ip addy in a matter of 5 seconds.

The question of whether or not they will actually go after individual users in an effort to discourage the larger population of gnutella users remains to be seen, but there's really nothing to stop them from trying.

Three issues here you should be aware of.

First, what they're yelling at you for isn't sharing copyrighted material. They're mad because your gnutella servent was probing a domain for possible connections. While your activity was innocent, this activity can also be the work of a hacker trying to find vulnerable systems to compromise. Therefore most ISP's explicitly forbid "scanning" of this nature.

Second, despite the bogus advice you've received, it *is* legal for an ISP to monitor your internet traffic. The courts are ruling fairly consistently that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to unencrypted internet communication.

Third, your ISP would be fairly hard pressed to prove you were sharing copyrighted material, and i doubt they independently try to find customers engaged in such behavior. This would require enormous resources on their part. They would have to log every packet of every customer, then reassemble those packets on the other end, *and* then deal with the encoding inserted by various softwares. Lots of disk space, lots of cpu time, lots of bandwidth, no noticable payoff.

However, a third party, say the record labels, *could* very easily call them up and say "we downloaded copyrighted material from this ip address and we demand you pull the plug!" They probably couldn't use legal means to force the ISP to unplug you, but if your TOS explicitly forbids such activities, your ISP could do it simply to maintain their image as "good net citizens," and in fact, many ISP's do just that.

All that said, you still have a problem. Your isp is ticked off because you're scanning domains for gnutella servers. That activity continues regardless of whether you're uploading, or simply downloading, material. So their complaint will be repeated unless you find a way to either convince them that your scans are innocent, or find a way to run your client without scanning entire domains for servents.

Good luck.

When I write a note on a piece of paper, fold it and stick it in an envelope then place it in a box on the street, I am transferring information (regardless of its content - legal or not). Many people, possibly hundreds, handle this 'packet' on its way to its destination.

Someone then puts it in an unlocked box on the sidewalk outside someone elses house. Where, apart from trusting the operators of this service ie: the post office, is the security in this? A piece of paper in a box on the sidewalk has no security at all. But an expectation of privacy? You bet, in fact it is vigorously protected and enforced by law. We all know the consequences of 'peeking' at someone elses mail.

And yet the internet, with its packets of information are also open for abuse and you say that we should accept that the law does not protect us from those who would have a peek?

I will never agree that purley because of the system used to convey the information, that we should never have the right to expect privacy. A bit of enforcement of those who choose to sneek a peek will soon (i hope) make the wider community accept that morally (and it should also be legally) it is wrong to do so, as with post office mail service. Does the Post Office have the right to ban you from ever purchasing a stamp again just because they are told that you included illegal content (ie: slander, language, criminal plans etc) in a letter to your girlfriend? Then why should an ISP be allowed to 'sniff' TCP packets? Even the Post Office isn't allowed to inspect every package.

Analogue mobile phones were completely insecure, yet it was still upheld that the users did have protected by law their right to the expectation of privacy. Just being told that devices such as 'scanners' (RF) existed did not waive your right to privacy.

As for the RIAA employing people to use gnutella and download mp3's to use as evidence against an individual, just who is breaking the law? OK, i made the file available, but they initiated the download, re-compiled the file and were then able to play the copyrighted music.

I think the reason they haven't done anything to gnutella yet (the napster drama has been going on for ages...) is that, at this point, they don't know how to, legally. Thats why things like worms embedded in files and distributed by the industry seems like a more likely, clandestine scenario to me. Pretty scary, but would they dare? I doubt it. I guess we'll see.

True enough. However, you were smart enough to put it in an envelope. Emails are more like postcards. Anyone can read them. With minimal effort, I could read at least my neighbor's emails, if not every email sent over the @home network in my section of town. It's so easy a child could do it. In fact, lots of children DO do it.

If I sent you a postcard that said "Meet me at the First National Bank at 12 noon for the Robbery", you'd better believe the cops would be within their rights to arrest me (and maybe you) for consipiracy.

If you encrypt it, then you've put it in an envelope, and the law is more likely to protect your right to privacy there, since a reasonable person could expect that communication to be private.

I didn't say you should accept it ... I don't like it. Good news is, it's not a law, in the sense that it's not legislation. It is, however, law in the sense that this is how the courts are interpretting the Constitution with regard to the internet.

Another example: If i commit an illegal act in front of a window that faces the street, a cop walking by is within his rights to bust down the door and arrest me, and search the crime scene. Why? Because I had no reasonable expectation of privacy, since I made no effort to conceal my activity. "Reasonable expectation of privacy" is a legal term. Agree or disagree, that's the way the court rulings are going. It's important that people know this. Right now, it is absolutely legal for your ISP to sniff your internet packets. If you want to change it, contact your Congress person, or your Senator. I wouldn't expect much out of dubya.

Umm ... that would make you the criminal. It's their copyrighted material, remember? They can do whatever they want with it. As long as they're not sending you emails begging you to share the files, they're not entrapping you, they're just catching you. And they have done this before.

This is exactly how Metallica got users banned by Napster. They downloaded copyrighted material, recorded the name of the user, and sent the list to Napster, who, as required by law, banned the users from their service. Again, this is the law. If you share copyrighted material via the net, the owner of the copyright has the right to have you shut down. If you don't like it, write your congressman or congresswoman. Whining here doesn't help matters any.

Oh ... and as for embedding worms in files and releasing them, I'm not sure that you could successfully code a worm into an .mp3 file ... that would require your .mp3 player to do some pretty strange things, and I just don't see it happening. You could do with an .exe file, but anyone ignorant and/or stupid enough to open an .exe file downloaded from a network like the gnutella network deserves what he/she gets.

Like you said in a later message, THAT SUCKS!

But we can do something about it, start saying it's now legal to tap the president, congress and any other polititions you can think of because their packets on the "phonenet" (internet, gnet no dif) are not secure.

Watch how fast they don't want you to know about their girlfriends on the side.

How do you think the cell phone thing went through so quick?

Actually, the possesion of an mp3 file is completely legal. Say you have the cd then make an mp3 for convenience sake, no law is broken. Once you have bought the cd you have bought exclusive rights to it's private usage. It is only illegal when the file is distributed to the public either actively or passively. You can make as many tapes, mp3... as you want as long as you do not let it get into the hands of the public. Also if memory serves me right there is a 24 hour grace period where one may sample the mp3 or has that changed.