While I agree with most of what you've said and I find it refreshing. I would like to highlight a few issues.

Out of the five ligitimate options you listed for ways in which consumers can turn the tables on companies. I am a avid supporter of the first two i.e Not buying the products and Finding alternatives or figuring out how to leverage your existing investments to your advantage. In fact, I help businesses do this all the time as it relates to technology deployments. The last two items put you at a disadvantage because they begin to break rules {laws and or agreements} designed to protect the investments of others.

Generally speaking, I can see the benefit of being able to sample music via P2P and then based on whether you like the music or not you purchase it. Although noble, the problems is, this is not the norm. Far too many people don't find it necessary to buy that which they can get for free. This leads to a problem that is effecting the country as a whole. Our values are in direct contradiction with our practices. We want everything for the least amount of cost. In order for many businesses to deliver and still turn a profit [which is what business is all about] they have to resort to outsourcing to the lowest bidder. Which means that people lose jobs or they turn to business practices that ultimately **** some consumers off but are necessary to curb their operational cost. Higher operational costs means reduced profits. Reduced profits means no incentive to provide a said service.

There was absolutely nothing wrong with blacks doing a lot of things in this country but It used to be illegal.

But again, generally I agree.

__________________
Lee Evans, President
LeeWare Development
http://www.leeware.com

A. Would it be illegal for some one to electronically "push" the play buttom on my CD-ROM and listen to, through an internet connection, a CD that I purchased that was inside?
B. If someone else is in the room with me and they hear the CD I am listening to, are they illegally listing to the music?
C. Can I listen to my kids music CDs if I did not purchase them or vise versa?
This is very confusing and I don't quite understand the liabilities I'm faced with..

Try to resist the urge to twist the issue. A lot of slippery-slope arguments are based on irrelevant premises.
case and point:

Yes - it it illegal to play music without a proper license if you are a (business owner) or public institution. That means in stores, resturants, cabs, public transportation and even building elevators.

Music and Videos are licensed for [personal] enjoyment/consumption not [public] performances. Therefore, what you do in the [privacy] of your own home is your business. This whole issue of piracy is the result of people taking the concept of privacy to mean, --in the privacy of their own homes which include a computer that is hooked up to the Internet=(Public).

Simply said, you have limited rights to privacy when you do things in public. You put music on your computer that is hooked up to the internet and more importantly connected to a file sharing service which makes your machine a server and then you specify these files (music/videos) to be shared. At this point you are willfully contributing to copyright infringment / piracy

a) because you as an individual were not licensed to distribute the content in this fashion. No place in any of the documentation / license agreement is it said that your personal enjoyment includes [copying and distributing the content on the Internet.]


b) Part of your agreement with your ISP is that you would not use the connection they are leasing to you (notice it is not private ) to do such things i.e. conduct illegal activities.

I could go on but I would only be repeating that which I have already said elsewhere.

As for who knows? Pay attention I'm only going to say this once.... Me, ISPs, Lawyers, the RIAA, MPAA and most business owners and many in the general public. Those that don't know are:

a) ignorant

b) misinformed

c) looking for ways to rationalize doing what they want to do. (If you don't care about the rules just do what you want but don't be surprised when it's time to be held accountable.)


As for irrelevant premises,

a) If someone could electronically push play on your computers CD player, First, that is primarily a security related issue and is not related to copyright infringement. Secondly, if they could do such a thing --- which I'm sure is possible They, wouldn't be able to hear the music only you would if you were sitting at your computer. ??????


b) It depends on if that room is in the (privacy) of your home, car. (see paragraph 2 above) and if so, how is that relevant to this issue of transmitting copyrighted information over the public Internet?


c) See b) above -- again how is this relevant to transmitting copyrighted works over the public internet without authorization?

I Hope that this helps to put things in prospective for you.

__________________
Lee Evans, President
LeeWare Development
http://www.leeware.com

LeeWare, I likw your style.

Okay folks,
I don't know how to put this but, the only reason I used p2p filesharing just to look for rare musics that isn't the stores or online like (CDNOW) .... Believe I buy all my stuff from Hastings and CDNOW. I like the bootleg stuff better, but you can't buy these anywhere..

I have so many bootlegged Stevie Ray Vaughan songs, that isn't recorded at an studio that RIAA have control over.


I am still confuse about RIAA, I think we'll get 'em to quit their bulls#$t if we stick together............ Well I got get back to jammin' session,
take care

Attached Thumbnails

 

In a nutshell, prior copyright law held that a copyright was for 28 years, renewable. Currently, copyright law holds that a copyright exists for 70 years *AFTER* the death of the copyright holder (one of the things I"d like to know is whether a corporation, which is a copyright holder, can hold a copyright for the duration of its existence, even if that means a term of copyright lasting for centuries). The original intent of of IP law and copyright was to protect the profit-making abilities of the creator of the work in question, so that he (not being sexist but copyright law is pretty old and back then, women weren't allowed to own copyrights) could provide for his family. As an aside, there are a great number of copyrights held by estates.

No. You have the legal right to back up the music on your cassette into a digital format (be it CD or WAV/OGG format (note: unless you have a license from the folks at MP3, you actually don't have the legal right to create MP3 files from such content, due to copyright restrictions)) but you can't download the same content. Same line of reasing as, for instance, you downloading files to replace a CD that became damaged, was stolen, lost in an accident/fire, etc.

N/A, as the answer to 2 was no.

Ah, here's where RIAA et al. aren't allowing the press to fully report on the issue. Also, consider the plight of the disabled, who aren't even able to have as many choices as you presented. Not to mention the outrageous price of new CDs ($20 for a CD, of which you'll maybe like one song...)

What I find more interesting is that the copyright holders aren't really benefitting that much from all this, given the relatively minuscule percentage that the artist receives in royalties from sales of copyrighted works....

See my response to #5, above. =)

Brother. What a pathetic thread. KUDOS to the OP for attempting to band us ALL together as one!! How disappointed he must be. Through all of these posts, not one good idea has emerged other than the incessant babblings of Leeware to not share copyrighted material. Just brilliant. I suppose if we did that Leeware might actually shut the hell up. And you know what, it just might be worth it! I do believe this is his gameplan and from the looks of it, he has enough idle time and determination to do it. Let me spell something out for you Mr. Wizard - - - > (let me know when you are ready??? OK, I will post really really slow...)

THE PURPOSE OF THIS THREAD WAS TO SHARE INFORMATION TO PROTECT AGAINST RIAA LAWSUITS AND CONTINUE TO USE P2P.

Did you get that? Do you understand? Reminds of a stupid doctor joke when the guy goes into the doctor and says, "Hey doc, my hand hurts whenever I move it this way." And the doctor's solution is, "Don't move it that way." NO sh#t you academic dumbass. UUhgh. I've wasted enough time here.

THanks again OP. Here's my contribution...

Use PeerGuardian.

Obviously, I'm not the only one with a lot time on my hands. However, I have enough money that I can pretty much do as I please.


I don't have to figure out ways to protect myself from pirating the works of others. If I want it I buy it. If I need it I buy it. If I don't like it I don't use it. If I don't need it I don't buy it.

Also, try to remember everyone using P2P is not a pirate. There are completely ligitimate uses for this technology.

http://www-cs-students.stanford.edu/...ngingUses.html

Not only do I talk about these uses I put my money, my time and my effort in to bringing this point home. Further more, I would stand up in any court of law to fight not only for my right to use the technology but for everyone elses right.

So, when the day comes that someone says that P2P technology should be shut down because it's used for piracy I'll be there with an actual production record of it's non-infringing uses. I'll be able to present hard facts and numbers of the interest in non-infringing uses of P2P technology. Let me say it slow so that you can understand.

It's not my fault that you don't like hearing the truth!

Anyway, as i said before I'll be there to stand up for not only my right to use technology in the way it was intended to be used but for everyones rights to do the same.

I wonder where you'll be?... oh wait a minute, in your parents basement trying to figure out how to not get caught pirating stuff.

__________________
Lee Evans, President
LeeWare Development
http://www.leeware.com

Well put Lee.

The cheapest, easiest way to get free music is still to shoplift it from your nearest superstore. Yes, the big music companies are cynically profiteering and deserve to be brought down a peg or two, but demanding that P2P technologies legitimise copyright infringement to do so is unreasonable.

P2P has great potential to *allow* copyright holders to cheaply make their unwanted material free to others - for example marginal or outdated television series that are not commercially viable, or back-catalogues of unpublished/unpublishable music. However, unless the networks offer legitimate content there is a great danger they'll be shut down, denying us all this opportunity.

Sadly, the public perception of P2P networks as a means of teenagers to get free music is rapidly becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. The efforts of those trying to encourage a more healthy balance of content on the gnet should be applauded as it's their effort that will determine if it has a future or not.