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

Yes, there is a legal battle at the moment with SCO for the Linux community. However, judging by the recent antics in court (and SCO's financial problems), I would not be surprised if the whole case is thrown out of court. Bear in mind also, that this is not a simple SCO Vs. Linux case ? IBM is in the firing line for donating code to the Linux project, yet so far in the billions of lines of code that have been verified, little conclusive evidence has emerged.

While this battle is in progress, this does not make Linux or other open-source software 'pirated' or illegal. The other software has almost nothing to do with the Linux operating system/SCO rulings and is still perfectly legal.

The GPL license means that the software is FREE (as in FREEDOM), not FREEWARE. It is up to the software developer/publisher to determine whether they are expecting payment for their software. In most cases, this comes in the form of a donation... usually to cover the developer's bar tab...

I paid $25 to join the club and used Kazzaa to download... all is bull ****! All I got was all the spyware and adware roaming all over my computer! I deleted all of them! Not worth it!

You paid $25 to join what club? Kazaa?

<snicker>

Sorry, but Kazaa is a free download...no fee...but I won't use it because of all the malware/bloatware that comes along with the use of it.

LL1

$1 to rent a movie...? Where? Provide the name, company , place, or URL please. Blockbuster charges $4.02 per rental. Granted, they are probably the most expensive of the places that are available but I've never seen them for $1...anywhere.

Did you know you can get a cable premium channel for $.35 for a day and turn it off the next?...No, I didn't! What cable/satellite service are we talking about here? C'mon buddy...give us the scoop!...

LL1

DirecTv online allows you to turn on and off premium channels on a daily basis. Just watch the schedule for what you want to record and turn it on. Turn it off that day after using it. It will be prorated on your bill. I can TIVO or direct record with my video capture card. So can you.

I live in Southern CA and every Monday at Albertson's I can rent movies for $1.00 and there are many $.99 CD Movie rental stores where I live.

>> I would never suggest you illegally download any file <<

Um, that?s exactly what you?re suggesting here. So your saying that makes you either a liar or a moron.

>> If you can see it or hear it, your computer can record it <<

But should it?

>> Wa-Lah, you have the recorded song <<

Do you mean ?voila?? Literacy is your friend.

>> I am not advocating that you take what you can see and hear on the internet for any illegal purpose. <<

Similarly, O.J. Simpson says he?s not a murderer.

>> So, Join a music system like Napster or On Demand or one of 100 others where you can pay to listen to any of 750,000 or more songs and albums and record and burn your own CD's just by listening. <<

No, not ?just by listening,? it?s by legally listening while stealing a permanent copy. Or don?t you know the definition of ?listening??

>> You pay a small service fee and all the music is free to listen to. <<

Hm, you don?t say it?s free to take a permanent copy.

>> I am sure they are aware it is being recorded. It would be naive to think no one is doing this. <<

I?m thinking of a safe neighborhood where people leave their doors unlocked. It would be na

While I do not speak as you do or follow your principals, I also do not walk in your shoes or you in mine. You are probably from a Foreign Country sucking off the USA.

You can disagree, but, only a selfish, inconsiderate egotist would call another an idiot, to manipulate others not to agree with the opinion expressed.

I have a right to my opinions and you have a right to yours. What I do in the privacy of my own home, I will fight for the right to do, until they pull the weapons from my cold dead hands.

I am an American, and a Veteran, which I do believe you are not, who has to deal with you cowardly bleeding heart Liberals everyday. You are the reason for the high fuel prices because you won't let America drill it's own oil. You think a world government is in your future.

You see, I don't think like you do! And, I have that right as a Human Being and no words you use can ever take that away from me. Not even, "You are under arrest".

For anyone who believes your Garble or enhancement of my post, Good for you! You can't think for yourself either!

Relax, dude, I'm an American, and in this forum I'm defending capitalism against cheats.

When you said, "I would never suggest you illegally download any file," and then you proceeded to suggest people illegally download files, I said you were either a liar or a moron. I guess I should have included "lunatic."

Pay as you go!

Again, you choose to call me names. I am not a lunatic a liar or a moron.

Obviously, USC taught you nothing. I "pay as I go". You didn't learn to read, which is a trait of many CA students. If you follow the track in the post, it leads to the suggestion that everyone join a pay to download site and pay monthly.

So, let's look at the reasoning. This is going to be tough for a USC graduate! Or, did you just attend USC and not graduate. Anyway, let's look at the math; which again will be disabling for a USC maybe graduate's brain.

If, what I read is true, and only a few are actually making the trek to the music store to buy a CD each month, and the industry is suffering, it would make sense to sign up everyone who listens to music to some type of service for a very small fee. Gee! Someone has already thought about that! Well, I'll be! I may even own one of those sites and may profit from the listeners!

My first statement relates to using a P2P network, and I suggested it does not work. You USC, maybe grads, can figure out the legality.

I am suggesting they ALL join and PAY a MONTHLY FEE to some site. Those, like you from USC, will probably not have the talent to process the data as I suggested and will end up paying an additional $.99 per song to download them easily and leagally. That WILL benefit the Industry. In fact, if everyone who shares music now follows my suggestion, there would be a tremendous growth in the Industry.

By the way, even though you went to USC, they will still allow you to take Sylvan courses to learn to read.

It is now time for you to respond with, "OH!" To you I say, "DUH!"

>> Again, you choose to call me names. <<

No, I didn?t. LOL

>> Obviously, USC taught you nothing. <<

Again, when someone resorts to personal comments, it usually means they?ve lost the argument. LOL

Not to mention how little I care about your opinion of what?s ?obvious.? LOL

>> If you follow the track in the post, it leads to the suggestion that everyone join a pay to download site and pay monthly. <<

Oh, right, you?re Mr. Suggestion Man. LOL

You?re the one who said, ?I would never suggest you illegally download any file,? and then spent quite a lot of time suggesting just that. Wow.

>> you went to USC <<

Dude, how many times are you gonna mention that? Jealous much? LOL

Pay as you go!

I know this is an extremely old thread but I had to say this- it is pretentious gits like Eric who harp on about their moral ethics and how they have fallen in the past but now they have polished their halos and are reformed and now feel free to look down upon those, who for one reason or another still like to download for free, that I am glad I download from both Limewire and other p2p sites. Get off your ethical high-horse and criticizing other users. Oh, and it is fantastic to see what the California education system turns out-loquacious prats who say 'dude'...this is why I purposely went out of state. Cheers!

Good thought...however, have you ever not returned something to the public library?...the late fee accrues until the end of time...

LL1

>> The entire accessible Internet is a "public library" <<

What makes you think so?

>> anything downloaded from it is free and useable for private use <<

Nope. It's probably unethical and often illegal.

It kills me when people try to justify getting stuff for free.

I've downloaded music myself in the past, but I'd never claim it's ethical. Now I pay as I go.

Public libraries are able to share books, tapes, videos & other copyrighted media to an unlimited number of people.

The Internet was started as a sharing device between educational and government institutions, just like a library. It now transcends all borders of any one government and any set of laws. It is the truest form of free speech greater than any other form of communication. Are you willing to let one government impose a set of laws (and taxes) on it?
Think for a moment about a standard HTML web page. Copyrighted or not, each visitor automatically downloads the page (the browser's cache) and the material stays on the user's computer for months. It is the responsibility of the person posting the information to determine if they want the information to be made "public". As people and companies began using the Internet for commercial uses the assumed (wrongly) that their "rights" would be protected on the Internet. This assumption would defeat the entire concept of the Internet.

The Internet should be viewed as free as the air itself. Consider this: Are you violating a copyright law if you invite friends & neighbors to view a DVD you just purchased for yourself? How about if you are listening to a CD in a public park on your "boom box", should you be forced to always wear headphones so no one else can hear it (OK, sometimes I wish they would turn it down, but I wouldn't want it imposed on me)?

It's the responsibility of the person with the copyrighted material to protect the copyright of that material (i.e. person who purchased the CD or DVD from the store). Once it's posted on the Internet the damage has already been done. It's the person posting the information for the first time that is violating the law, not the downloader or file sharer. It has to be that way or anyone accessing the Internet is violating the law!

Speech may be limited in some in some respects (yelling fire.. blah blah), but listening (or viewing) anything placed into a free media like the Internet or the air should remain free for the listener or viewer.

I'm sure some of you out there will take exception, but study what I have said, it's your own existing rights you are limiting by imposing laws where none currently exist. Don't let a few companies with commercial interests take control of our Internet.

Thanks for your response.

>> Public libraries are able to share books, tapes, videos & other copyrighted media to an unlimited number of people. <<

Which is still irrelevant, because public libraries don?t give you free copies permanently.

>> The Internet ? Are you willing to let one government impose a set of laws (and taxes) on it? <<

Nope, mainly because it would be impossible. The internet is basically uncontrollable, which is basically good. However, cheating is still cheating, and stealing is still stealing.

>> Are you violating a copyright law if you invite friends & neighbors to view a DVD you just purchased for yourself? <<

Nope, unless I give them a permanent copy.

>> It's the person posting the information for the first time that is violating the law, not the downloader or file sharer. <<

Questions of legality aside, it?s unethical. It?s like receiving stolen goods. And you can?t defend getting CD?s and DVD?s for free.

>> but listening (or viewing) anything placed into a free media like the Internet or the air should remain free for the listener or viewer. <<

That still doesn?t mean it?s okay to get a permanent copy for free.

>> it's your own existing rights you are limiting by imposing laws <<

Oh please. I have a RIGHT to free CD?s and free DVD?s? Ridiculous. People throw around the word ?rights? way too often these days.

>> Don't let a few companies with commercial interests take control of our Internet. <<

First, nobody wants to (or could) control the internet, so relax. Second, ?companies with commercial interests? is known as capitalism.

I've downloaded music myself in the past, but I'd never claim it's ethical. Now I pay as I go.

And thanks for your reply.

I don't think we that are too far apart on our opinions. Sure, I don't believe in "receiving stolen property", we just differ in the opinion on what is "stolen". As for myself, I don't use any of the popular file sharing programs and I have hundreds of purchased CD's, videos, & DVD's. The only thing I download is TV shows I have missed or would like to see again, and software I would like to try (which I purchase if it works well for me). As for the TV shows, there is no difference if I had recorded off the air or downloaded it off the Internet. As for both TV shows & software, I eventually delete the material. If it's something I want to keep, I go out and buy it. Not to get a "legal" copy, but to get the pretty packaging that will look good on the shelf. It's also more cost effective for me to buy it if I want it.
If I had a friend who wanted to borrow one of my purchased videos, I would have no problem loaning it to them, as long as they returned it. The same would be true if I digitized it and sent him a copy over the Internet, under the same conditions. Perfectly legal under fair usage (as reported by other posts in this forum). I don't have any problem with someone borrowing the same thing from the public library, or downloading it from the Internet.

As for the public library, if you read my first post again, I said a user would view the material and "return or destroy it". Not keep it permanently. If everyone were to treat the content they downloaded the same as "checking it out" would we still have the same problem?

Perhaps we need new legislation to define what is fair usage in respect to the Internet. If you put it to a vote, what do you think the outcome would be?

A few ideas to make things "legal":

A downloader would use the material for a limited length of time (30 to 90 days?), then delete it.
If a CD or DVD is burned, it would be clearly labeled "temporary copy" or whatever and would also be destroyed after a short time, if needed.
Uploaders would agree to include the copyright information and source with the content, and a downloader or "borrower" would use this information to pay a license fee if they decided they wanted to keep it, or destroy it if not. [Record companies would probably make more money this way than selling retail.]

{Write your congressperson or representative. }

Even though I believe the above would be true under current laws, perhaps it needs to be spelled out in black & white.
You may think it a bit odd to place the responsibility on the individual to keep it "legal", but look at this blog, most people are defending the "rights" of the record company & studios, even though they have interest in assuring they get their bucks (I whish someone would defend my right to make money). People *can* police themselves.

Sorry about the rant...

>> if you read my first post again, I said a user would view the material and "return or destroy it". Not keep it permanently. If everyone were to treat the content they downloaded the same as "checking it out" would we still have the same problem? <<

No problem there. I sincerely wish your proposal was realistic.

>> Perhaps we need new legislation <<

Oy, new legislation is almost NEVER a solution. I?d say we need more morality, not more laws.

>> to define what is fair usage in respect to the Internet. If you put it to a vote, what do you think the outcome would be? <<

I can?t predict. I can only say I would think the outcome was either a good idea or a bad idea. The majority is not always right. Plus, I prefer to address the ethics of the question, not the legality. Not everything that?s immoral is illegal, thank God. LOL

>> Uploaders would agree to include the copyright information and source with the content, and a downloader or "borrower" would use this information to pay a license fee if they decided they wanted to keep it, or destroy it if not. [Record companies would probably make more money this way than selling retail.] <<

I don?t see how you could enforce the temporary nature of this downloading.

>> most people are defending the "rights" of the record company & studios, even though they have interest in assuring they get their bucks (I wish someone would defend my right to make money). <<

Well, I?m defending the sellers? right to TRY to make money. I?m attacking the idea of getting free CD?s when the legitimate sellers don?t want them to be free.

>> People *can* police themselves. <<

And we need police - and parenting - for those who don?t police themselves.

>> Sorry about the rant <<

Hey, you?re very reasonable. Not once did you call me a doo-doo-head, at least not in print. LOL

they made me study history in school. I was looking at stuff that was not mine that I didn't particularly want to see. were they doing illegal stuff??? can they be sued or put in jail??? If the megacorp could figure out a way to charge for breathing would we have to pay by the year, month, week, day, or just every breath? some people breathe more than others.

The difference here is when you download something from the internet you now have a copy of the original. When you check out a book from the library you read it and bring it back. It is illegal to make a copy of that book - even if you got it from a library! It is illegal to make a copy of the book if you bought it! The publisher and/or the author are the ones that own the content. This applies to music, books, paintings, photos, software, movies - in fact all forms of artwork. If you wrote a song or book I bet you would be concerned with all this piracy. Downloading other people?s work is STEALING plain and simple. Don?t do it!

haven't been in a music store lately, but you used to be able to buy them right after MTV made them popular.

Hi Kim,

While what you're saying is extremely true, it really doesn't apply to everyone.

I, for one, have absolutely no passwords/logins whatsoever stored on my computer. Mind you, I've been banking electronically from my PC for many years.

I don't allow any cookies to be stored on my PC unless I want them there, my cache is set to keep ZERO days in history, I scan my computer for adware/bloatware/viruses/etc. when I am done for the day, I use a hardware AND software firewall...in short I take every single precaution available.

If we are knowledgeable and careful there are ways to avoid the many pitfalls that await us on a daily basis on the internet. All it takes is a little common sense and ALOT of precaution. Mind you, I also always suggest that people steer clear of Kazaa and most other P2P networks...especially people that are not computer savvy.

LL1

Hi Latinlover1,

I do the same things as you, too, and nevertheless I wouldn't dare to use KaZaa. What about all the folks, then, who don't know about elementary protection? I meen: you have to know REAL much about your computer and how to ptotect it to "safely" use filesharing. Is it possible at all, and, more realistically, IF possible, how many do take these precautions then?

Best greetings from
Kim Nissen