I am interested in purchasing the pro copy of LimeWire - with all of the recent talk of people being charged for downloading "free" music, does the professional edition eliminate this threat, since I would, in a sense, be paying for the downloads?

Any assistance or guidance in this matter would be most appreciated.

Nope, not in the slightest.

Sharing copyrighted material without permission ain't legal. However, there are a few pay-per-download systems from which copyrighted mp3s can be bought with the copyright holders permission, and there are of course lots of genuinely uncopyrighted mp3s available on P2P networks. I can't claim any great taste in music myself, but some of the genuinely free music is a lot better than some of the stuff churned out by the music industry.

You pay ONLY for Limewire - nothing more...

Morgwen

aren't most of the riaa subpoenas against kazaa users anyway, not gnutella users?

The RIAA is attacking Kazaa simply because of the amount of users it has. They could attack any P2P that doesen't require you to pay to download.

deepblue

__________________


"THEY WHO WOULD GIVE UP AN ESSENTIAL LIBERTY FOR TEMPORARY SECURITY, DESERVE NEITHER LIBERTY OR SECURITY."
--Benjamin Franklin

y r u paying for it if u can download it directly by simple method

if u r intrested i can tell u more

you can compile LW for free (open source), download the free installer, download installers others have compiled, etc etc etc.

If you pay, you are giving SUPPORT for the development of the LW project.
http://www.limewire.org/

I wish LW would have kept the idea that it's really a donation, but . . .

Someone told me there's a law somewhere that says you can gack anything and even use it on your website if it's for education and not entertainment. Sounds like urban legend to me but I trust this person (trustwise, maybe not brainwise) and she says her lawyer verified it. If I download a Dead Kennedys song and listen to it to understand the psychology of aggression is it legal?

I'm half joking, half not. I've had to listen to stuff for school in humanities classes (Beethoven, etc.) and besides, I just don't get why it's legal for me to gack pictures for my website but I can't go near music!

Huge corporations like the RIAA, micro$oft, and Wal-Mart, are in a sense above the law. I think the RIAA would persue you just the same. They have the financial backing to do just about anything they want to. It's the sad truth.


deepblue

__________________


"THEY WHO WOULD GIVE UP AN ESSENTIAL LIBERTY FOR TEMPORARY SECURITY, DESERVE NEITHER LIBERTY OR SECURITY."
--Benjamin Franklin

Quote: 'why it's legal for me to gack pictures for my website'
But is it legal? In my web training we were told we had to stay away from pics we had no given permission to use, ie: copyright breach.
(How do you define gack by the way?) Not that I know much/anything about laws governing the net (which is a complex issue anyway since the breacher could be in any country.) So then whose laws would apply? How do you sue a monk from Tibet (just a clumsy example)? (I guess big money spending co.'s find a way!)