5/6/05 What's safe and legal to download using a file-sharing program?

Yes these products are free, but they are not licensed for that type of uncontrolled distribution on P2P networks.

As a general rule, anyone trying to download something like Acrobat Reader from a P2P client is absolutely bonkers, for a number of reasons:

: With big companies like Microsoft or Adobe, their webservers will operate much, much faster than any download you will find on P2P. I would even be inclined to say that other, smaller servers like Nullsoft's Winamp would still be considerably faster.

: You are more likely to get a full and uninterrupted download by using a central server (like Adobe's). You're download is not affected by host logging off, and the likelihood of server failure is seriously remote.

: When downloading direct from the supplier, you are guaranteed a correct and current version ? not an old or potentially hacked version.

: When downloading direct from the supplier, you are also dramatically reducing the likelihood of obtaining a virus in that file.

: And most importantly, you are agreeing to that company's license agreement and obeying the law, instead of breaking it and unwittingly promoting the spread of potentially dangerous software.

So, unless the program is unavailable anywhere else and you are not afraid of breaking the law ? don't download software (even open-source, legal to distribute stuff ? it may be very different from the actual version) from P2P networks.

The usual protection provided by the publisher against tampering, virus insertion, whatever, is some tipe of secure checksum or signature. You compute the signature of the p2p downloaded package against the one on the publisher's server. It is very difficult to change even 1 byte of the package without changing the signature, so that is your assurance that the content is original.

Note that Bittorent (a p2p system) for one does this automatically, though you certainly have to get the torrent file (package specification) from a trustworthy source. Yes, I HAVE gotten software this way from publishers who want to keep their bandwidth bill down.

Please don't project your ideas of what is universally illegal in this area. If a copyright holder allows it, then it is legal. Some do.

All that I can say is this person must work for the FBI.

MI6 actually, but don't tell anyone.

I use it, too, and so far, so good. Dunno what the legality is--and I shut down quickly, also, after a few downloads. But they claim they're legal, and if you pay for the "pro" version, it gets even faster. There's no spyware or popups, and "corrupt" files get caught before they reach you. I really love it, even though I have Rhapsody to turn to, if I want to pay!

As far as the Pro version of Limewire, it is faster and no advertisements. I also found Limewire Pro program on Limewire. Isn't that a little ironic?

As far as viruses, wrong files, broken files, they do still exist on Limewire and Limewire Pro.

My advice to anyone using any P2P program, do not download .exe files at all. And definitly use a good updated anti-virus and spyware program.

ck out

http://www.synerdata.com/requests

for my program MP3Artists Radio.

The show is aired on more than one station..
and the idea behind it is finding the listeners great fre, legal, download music.

also ck bands websites and record labels.
There is a ton of free legal music out there from signed performers and bands.

you just have to know where to look and you have to do it promptly.

In mp3 land you have to "get it while you can", like Janis Joplin once sang.

there are sites that both sell and offer for free download some of this music......

one is

http://www.progarchives.com


<b> as for the main question of whether much of peer to peer is illegal to download.....?</b>

Technically speaking "downloading" music without the owner's permission is not illegal, posting or distributing the music without the copyright owner(s) permission, in many cases there are more than one, is explicitly illegal and has been for sometime, though it is pretty much spelled out that way in "DMCA of 1998" (The Digital Millenieum Copyright Act)


The winning answer has some right elements to it, but it pretty much is technically incorrect when it comes to peer to peer, which is not uncommon.


The best way to learn about copyright , is to research it yourself, and ck out:

http://www.loc.gov

http://electronicfrontier.org

http://www.ARL.org

and

http://www.downhillbattle.com

hope this info helps you !

Please see my previous post:

http://reviews.cnet.com/5208-10149-0.html?forumID=7&threadID=102069&messageID=1173704

>> I have no interest whatsoever in any of the new stuff. My main interest is in the 50's and 60's, maybe some 70's. And there's not much of that available for free and legal. Someone mentioned that they didn't mind paying 99 cents to download a song. Well, if I downloaded 700 old songs, most of which are no longer available commercially, that would amount to $700. <<

It's one thing to download music. It's another to pretend it's ethical to download music. I've downloaded lots of music, often trying to make excuses such as "I already own the vinyl version" or "this is an obscure song I don't want buy a whole CD for" or "I don't really care about this song, I wouldn't pay for it if I couldn't get it for free." These are lame rationalizations, and it doesn't mean it's okay to get cd-quality recordings for free.

As to your saying most of your desired songs are "no longer available commercially," what makes you think so? Amazon.com has a huge library. Then there's Ebay. I doubt you've fully explored the concept of paying legitimately.

I've been a "sinner" in this regard, getting cd-quality music for free, but I'd never claim it was ethical.

Music downloaded on a peer to peer is a far cry from CD quality. If you examine the actual waves that make up a CD and a typical MP3 you would understand why.

The best quality you get off peer to peer downloads is substandard even by FM Stereo standards. You are dealing with fidelity that would make someone go out and buy the CD just to get decent sound quality.


You are completely wrong about the sound quality of MP3s and that is easily scientifically proven.

I know I have to re engineer mp3s for airplay , DAILY, because of poor recording anf encoding.

>> Music downloaded on a peer to peer is a far cry from CD quality. <<

Blah, blah, blah. My point is, it?s okay if I make a CD by uploading my vinyl into the computer, because what I get is still only vinyl-quality music, with pops and hisses, etc. People who download songs and try to justify it by saying ?I already purchased the vinyl? are still getting far better quality without paying for it, and that?s cheating.

In the past I downloaded music and tried to rationalize it just that way myself, but I was sort of fooling myself. Now I pay as I go.

right we believe you'er just a poor guilty conscience racked ex downloader reformed sinner.

Dude you don't know jack about audio science, ethics , or THE LAW.

The Law clearly states an owner of media containing copyrighted intellectual property, may be backed up using whatever technology is available to that media's owner.

Why don't you go satisfy your deep downloading desires
and get yourself some more porn or music that you already have on your hardrive and never got rid of from your "downloading days". Get an education, you obviously know little or nothing but your own opinion on this.'

Wow, dude, if this is your idea of flirting, you?re not very good at it. But let?s stay on the subject.

>> The Law clearly states an owner of media containing copyrighted intellectual property, may be backed up using whatever technology is available to that media's owner. <<

Um, any particular country?s law you?re quoting here? Oh, wait, you're not even quoting it. LOL

Questions of legality aside, I?m against cheating. If I own the vinyl, and I download an MP3 and burn a CD, then I?m getting a free CD, and that?s cheating.

I realize that when master debaters engage in personal attack it usually means they?ve lost the argument, but give it a try anyway, okay, little buddy?

It's not just illegal to share copywritten material without permission, it's immoral. If you don't own it and the owner hasn't given you permission but you download it or upload it for others to grab - You are stealing it.

Many artists do provide some of their work for free download, I do myself, with the caveat that it's for personal use. It's good business - give folks a sample and they'll buy whatever it is your selling.

Google the band name if you're looking for some of their work. Look for permissions to make sure it's legal. Please don't steal - songwriters deserve the opportunity to retire too.

hmm let's see here...immoral to steal songs is it...well then I guess everything is immoral than. Take a look around you...even in your songs. Everyone is immoral. Deal with it.

Your message does not make any sense. Of course it is immoral to steal, no matter what it is. I don't get how you take the leap to everything and everyone is immoral. Are you on something?

Michael

It just doesn't make sense how one minute people find certain things immoral and other things not. Like people who smoke medicinal marijuana are considered immoral in the eyes of the feds. On one hand people view these people as not immmoral, while others do. I was just stating the obvious. Anyways, if it can be retrieved off of the net, like I could do a background check on you for $20...is that a moral thing to do...probably not, but I can. So to answer a few questions about the internet...if I can get it for free I will and I have no qualms about it since I have no morals...I could care less about other people's opinions and morals since I would rather live my life carefree. Sorry if some people do not agree with that style of life, but guess what...it's my choice...and your choice is either complain and whine...or change the channel.

I am glad you have finally shown your true colours. You have said that you couldn't care less other people and have no qualms getting something that is not free, for free, if you can. That definition makes you a thief at worst and a receiver of stolen goods at best.

No I don't agree with your style of life, I live believing in other peoples rights to make an honest living and to help and have compassion for each other. It is your choice and also your choice to whine and complain about other people who disagree with you and to try to justify your pathetic and sad attitude. I also have the right to express my point of view.

Michael

My question to you is why do you have morals...is it due to religion or due to self-righteousness. However, what troubles me is why am I considered a thief? Riddle me this....with the expanse knowledge one can learn from the internet and use in reports (for college homework), and likewise...why do college professors consider that sometimes immoral to copy and paste certain paragraphs...or better yet, you change the format of a paragraph into your own words...yet they still call it plagarism. It's a no-win situation...basically what I am trying to condone is that RIAA and the MPAA, as well as glorified artists who should really make the same amount of money as the people who run this website (the average Network Administrator makes 150k to 300k). While a singer gets over a million a year because they sang and toured. Wow...a network administrator has more responsibility than a singer should ever have. People should be paid within reasonable salary ranges...not glorified, over-inflated wages. Thus my opinion...singers, musicians, and bands make way too much money so they should not gripe...and of story...next case.

You ask 'why do I have morals?' what a weird question. I am not religous and I consider your attitude more self rightous so why do I have morals? Well I can't answer that, I suppose I believe in the basic goodness and honesty of people and like to do the right thing than purposely hurt people for my own selfish goals. Apart from that I think the question is very sad and feel very sorry for you.

The reason why professors do not like plagarism is because you are taking someone elses intelligence, effort and perseverence and passing it of as your own. Thats pretty low. Apart from that it also means that you have not learned anything, which is why you are there in the first place. I mean all you have demonstrated is that you are capable of using ctrl c followed by a ctrl v and performing some formatting, in my book that means you learned nothing, did nothing and trying to get something for nothing, which I think sums you up nicely.

As for the size of pay packets who are you to decide what someone is worth? Network administrator are paid that much because through hard work, perseverence and attitude they have learned a skill that a company values to that degree. The money is not coming out of your pocket. Likewise if an artist makes a company millions because millions of people derive enjoyment from their art, novel, music or whatever then they receive what they are worth to that company. It should be noted though that most artists do not make enough from their passion to make a living. Also the disaster of a life most artists, actors etc have and there lack of privacy, trivial and shallow relationships etc does not make me envy them at all.

You should stop feeling sorry for yourself and envying everyone else and go out there and carve out your own niche in this world. It may take some hard work and effort but the rewards and satisfaction will be well worth it

Michael

Hmm I don't seem to feel sorry for myself...and I don't envy other people. I happen to enjoy my life, technically everyone around me says I have too much positive energy, as well as I have the energy of most 10 year olds. Regardless, my comment about artists was not that I envy them...I just don't believe in their salaries regardless if they make millions of people like them, it's ludacrious. Anyways, I like staying home and enjoy raising my son, playing video games with him, as well as playing video games by myself. I do have morals...and you are right...I am self-righteous, since I believe that a world without religion would be a better place since there would be no wars over religion, amongst other things.

Hmm pathetic and sad attitude huh...hmm let me ponder that for a bit...on second thought, I don't have to. I have more than helped lots of people who have asked for things for free and not pay the over glorified costs of music. Regardless, I find it funny how you think I live a pathetic life when I'm livin it up, amazing...didn't you get the memo...nice people finish last.

So you help people get things for free, that does not make you a philanthropist when you give people stuff that is not yours.

And I did not say that your life was pathetic (it might be, I don't know) only that your attitude was. If you are living it up so much why do you have to steal?

Didn't you get the memo...what comes around goes around.

Just to sum me up and explain myself a bit. Highly energetic, suffers from ADHD (actually I enjoy every minute of it), work 2 days a week at a non-profit organisation on their computers, have a 5 year old son, and have had a steady relationship with his mom. Now to flip the coin on it's edge...I have done the whole nice guy thing...and paid for everything...don't get me wrong...when Microsoft releases a new OS, or the next great video game comes out, or Anti-Virus...I pay for those (pirating those are no fun due to the hassles of single-player only, and the loss of definition updates). This is the come around part for me...the goes around part was them.

My feeling is that the world needs to worry more about the more important immoral decisions people are doing (rape, terrorism, murder, drugs, expensive health care, higher interest rates, credit scores, gas price gouging, etc.). So the world as a whole needs to clean up these immoral eye sores, before worrying about P2P people.