I'm new to all this and have a question. Let's say I've downloaded software that is generally sold at a high price. I've discovered this software sends a message "home" each time it is used. Since I never bought it, but instead downloaded it, wouldn't ity be logical to presume the version I have used has "told" its makers data base I (as in they will surely know it's me!) have this running on my machine! And then what??? Are the cop's or fed's or someone going to come arrest me?!?!?

I'm serious... I really want to know what the liability is here. I have no idea whatsoever... and now I feel I maybe should burn my hard disc.

Thanks to any who answer.

In the UK there have only been a few hundred arrests for software copyright infringment that I know of. Generally a fairly pragmatic apporach is taken - the thief is asked to pay whatever the software would have cost them and only prosecuted if they do not. I've no direct experience, but understand US software manufacturers to be more litigious and less forgiving.

this sounds really good!!
i hope the music industry is clever enough to do so, the comparision with the radio is really easy to understand...

back again to the legal thing:
how do i recognise a copyright protectet file???

as long this is not possible, how can i be judged for copyright violation??

(it's like i loose a 100€-note, someone else finds it, but does not know who's the owner...)

let's say i see a file of the-artist-formerly-known-as-whoever, i surely know it's copyrighted, but if i see a file from a band called orange moon ( my own band, our songs without copyright) how shall i know, that i can download them??

Its your duty to ensure that you are allowed to download the files, ignorance don´t protect you.

Morgwen

Lee.......Just a simple question......I purchased LimeWire Pro.....Can I get into trouble with the gov't for downloading music, even tho I paid Limewire for the Pro? In other words, does my 18 bucks keep me out of trouble??? Thanks

No!

You paid ONLY for Limewire not for the music or anything else you are downloading...

Morgwen

Let's be serious here...

The music industry got huge ever since elvis and the beatles. It just grew and grew. Being able to put music on a record, then selling said record allowed a whole industry to spring up, selling something previously intangible.

The internet was a result of the continued advancement of computer and communication technologies. The same basic technologies that allowed the music industry to ever be conceived in the first place. But, it seems that things have flipped around again.

The problem is that the multi-billion dollar music industry understands this, and does not want to lose it's power. (As any business)

It's a very difficult debate, because the question is: Should corporations have the right to rule the public? Not just in law, but in thought as well? If I hear a good idea, and it's copywritten, the world says that I should do my best to forget what I have learnt, otherwise if I ever use that idea I will be sued.

Freedom of thought? I think not.

On one hand, if P2P networks are left alone to share anything that can be digitized, then corporations that built themselves up on being able to sell a product that can now be reproduced by ANYONE, are going to collapse. Jobs will be lost, the economy will fall into more of a depression.

If you can sell a CD for $20 that people will buy, then everyone who buys that cd is willing to work at whatever job they do for $20, for that cd. If they can pirate the cd, they will (obviously) not work that extra $20, and the world has one less worker (for that small amount...of course...you don't just download one cd....you download hundreds)

The other side is...most peopel wouldn't buy 99% of the things they download. They would just do without. But, I pay for internet, I learn how computers work, companies create the hardware, and the communication infrastructures, and I buy their products because I want to be able to do what a computer allows me to do. If you somehow made it so filesharing was IMPOSSIBLE (anything illegal), then a lot of people wouldn't have the money to own a computer, and thus, a lot of people would go without. (Yea right, like a highschool student could afford windows xp and microsoft office)

Which would collapse the computer industry.

It's a lose-lose situation. Except...

If you allow the information to be free, if you allow the music to be shared (to be honest, it's like a radio station....so what! You hear the song, big deal, if you want a nice looking cd, if you want to support the artist, if you want something without skips, or without having to screw around finding good quality songs, then you'd buy it from the record company), then people are going to be able to progress this world a lot quicker.

We're going to put ourselves into a dark age if we say all the ideas the world has learnt are to be sealed away and hidden from the people who lack the funds, but have the potential to invent and create new music, new technology, and perhaps new sciences that might eventually save this warring planet)

Not only that, but you'll have a civil war on your hands. You're going to arrest people who understand computers? You're going to arrest people who just want to hear some music? They're not SELLING the music. They're not makign a PROFIT. They're not STEALING. If someone actually wants to buy a Tool cd, they buy it from the record company. IF they bought it from some person who burns cds, then THAT is theft.

Because what is being stolen is a sale of the cd. When I download a song by metallica, it doesn't mean that I just stole from metallica. I was NOT going to pay them for that song. If I couldn't have got it, I'd never have heard it. If I never heard it, I would never know if I'd have liked it, and if I wanted to buy it, I'd never have heard it! The radio you say? Right. What radio station do you listen to that has the selection of limewire? Besides. I hate the hosts and the crappy playlist. I"ll create my OWN radio.

Think of P2P music sharing as FREE ADVERTISING FOR RECORD COMPANIES.

The real theft is the money. If someone is going to BUY a music cd, and someone goes "no no, don't buy that cd, I'll just burn you a copy for $5" then that's theft. If someone wants to hear the new Avril Lavigne cd to see if it sucks or not, and someone goes "don't buy the cd, here, I'll send you some songs" and you hear it and it SUCKS...

Well that's not theft. THat's just avril lavigne releasing bullshit. And maybe business should be how it used to be: horrible products do not sell. All this "hype" selling is nonsense.

It's like software on the internet. There's so much free-software out there that actually works better than the pay software. But, the pay software makes you think their product can do something incredible, so you buy it, try it, find out it's a waste of your money, and you get pissed off.

It's too easy to sell crap products if people can't check things out first. You can turn on a television set at best buy to see if the quality is acceptable to you. You MIGHT be able to download limited shareware versions of programs and test parts of them....but when it comes to "Am I actually going to USE this?" you don't know until after you've wasted hard earned money.

Now, it would be lovely if everyone in this world could be turned into idiot slaves who have nothing better to do than work 24/7, and waste all their money on products that suck and they will never use. But think about what would happen to the world if that were the case?

People would be poor. In every aspect of the word. The world will be poor. And the common man will become nothing more than a peon back in the 8th century. Perhaps even less.

What are the music corporations actually selling us? Cds? We can make those ourselves. THe music? Well, the authors made those. If I love the music, if I want to appreciate the authors, I will go to their concerts, buy their tshirts, and their cds and music. The music industry needs to find ways to deliver something a bit more valuable to the public than CD's with a bit of art and a track list. Why not release cd/dvds that have music videos of all the songs? That would be nice. Spend that money used to sue people and develop a new way to sell their product.

Perhaps there was a time when people were slaves. Then there was a time when we were sold the illusion that we were not. Now they want us to be slaves again, and put up with their idealogical business models where the public buys crap they don't want because they don't have the right to try it first.

It seems that the music industry wants the court to view computers are weapons. That can be misused like a gun, or used responsibly.

But it's not so black and white. Any restriction on computers will eventually turn into restrictions on the human mind. Computers amplify human thought. We can 'remember' more, 'communicate' better, faster...you want humans to be telepathic? Stick a microphone/speaker in your ear that has a wireless network hook up, and then start an audio conversation with your friend across the world.

You want an improved mind and memory? A computer helps process information, and store massive amounts of information. I might be able to hum a few bars of some song, but I could never repeat the whole thing note for note like a computer allows me. But the computer IS me. It's my thoughts, my words, my choices. Taking a look at my system is like taking a look inside my mind.

I hope everyone realizes that. Think about how scary it woudl be if the government could control your own mind.

I think they need to stop blaming the public, and blame themselves. If a bank can be broken into with some bug in their system software, then should they be allowed to pass a law that says no one is allowed to exploit that bug? Or should they hire a software programmer to fix the bug?

Things change, but if you look at it carefully, it always stays the same. And history always repeats itself if it is not understood.

All I know is, if my friends, my community, my FAMILY were being thrown in prisons because we were sharing MUSIC....

I might just revolt.
They might just revolt.
The world might just tear itself apart.

I really don't want to live in a world where I'm a slave.
Besides...

You'll never enslave me. Not while I can still die.

Mmm...WAR.

There's just too much to say. What about factories losing jobs to machines? Should the development of robotics be banned because stupid people with no other skills lose their jobs? I'm sorry guys, but this is just what happens. The world is constantly changing, and when you really can't change quick enough, you die.

And don't flatter yourself. Each one of us will eventually reach that stage. So let's just accept life for what it is, and deal with it, instead of trying to tear apart what is real.

Impressive. Fallacy-o-matic gives the above diatribe a whopping 27 points. Have you considered a career writing religious literature, Aro ?

• Appeal to Authority
• Appeal to Common Practice
• Appeal to Consequences of a Belief
• Appeal to Fear
• Appeal to Popularity
• Appeal to Ridicule
• Bandwagon
• Begging the Question
• Biased Sample
• Burden of Proof
• Confusing Cause and Effect
• Division
• False Dilemma
• Genetic Fallacy
• Guilt By Association
• Hasty Generalization
• Ignoring A Common Cause
• Middle Ground
• Misleading Vividness
• Post Hoc
• Questionable Cause
• Relativist Fallacy
• Slippery Slope
• Special Pleading
• Spotlight
• Straw Man
• Two Wrongs Make A Right

Actually...

with the exception of...
... which is - putting it gently here (of course) - utter nonsensical illogical gibberish...
... and a rather soppy thing a wee moment before the end (where he uses the "R" word) that gives me a bit of a problem - (Possibly 'wind' ?)...

Aro has stated a great many things that are real... He has also left out quite a bit that would be even more supportive of his argument... Perhaps he was being gentle for starters ???

Perhaps he was being wise and trying to make it more 'palatable' ???

Perhaps he is completely nuts and believes in 'vicarious learning' !!!!! THE mark of a madman !
lol

__________________
Fusion for REAL!--CDex 1.51--Wackyuses--Bitzi - Check Files Before Download !--.mp3 File Name Change Problems? Try Rename-It!--Alternate PORTS--Avast- Anti-Virus--WindowWasher--IrfanView--PC Pitstop - Test your PC !--Mac OSX Troubleshooting--GO .ape ! - For 'Lossless' Audio Compression--Port :6346 - Test If It Is 'Blocked'--Cole2k Codecs--OldVersion - Newer isn't always better !
Nod32 - Free Virus Scan: Use ESET's Online Antivirus Scanner

Tomorrow's forecast:
Sunni in places, Shi'ite in others...

I'll put my two cents in.

For the file-sharer to have committed theft, the government must prove that the file-sharer's act was intentional.

While it's true that anyone can sue anyone for any reason at any time, for prosecutors to waste the public's money regarding file sharer prosecutions is scandalous during this time of war against terrorism.

Civil suits are another matter, but still, a plaintiff would be required to show that:1) defendants knew or should have known that the person from whom they downloaded the software did not have permission to share and 2) the defendant installed and used the software.