RIAA and Kazaa

[shartley]

Originally posted by WicKeD_WaYz
no way.

ok plan B. hide my laptop under my bed and say i dont have a computer

Now THAT might work. LOL They can't search what they can't find...... hey, sounds like Iraq!

(Running for cover..........)

[bluefan101]

In reply to a court decision..

Go here...

[einhander619]

That is what Napster thought. They were shut down. They can do it.

Actually, due to the nature of the program, it would very difficult to completely disable the kazaa network. With napster, there was a central server network that all traffic on the service had to go to to get transferred. Kazaa has no central hub, hence peer-to-peer networking. In order to kill kazaa, one would effectively have to shut down every computer connected over kazaa. And since the last time I looked there were 4.3 million users on kazaa, I don't see that happening. However, what the RIAA is claiming to do now is target users with large song libraries and go after them in court. I don't know what constitutes a "large" library, but mine is somewhere in the neighborhood of 2,000 songs. I did the math and found the average number of files each member has is 217.25. Of course this number includes programs, video and images(porn!) So, I would say that I am one of the larger library holders I know that has their entire selection available. However, I have a free T1 so I'm happy to share it. The true beauty of P2P networking is that as more people get on the network, it gets faster and more reliable, again different from napster.

[sneakyhacker420]

Originally posted by FreshmanBob
if you guys want kazaa with out all the adware hit up www.kazaalite.com

I'm not worried about being sued, I only have about 150 songs on my pc.

even better... www.k-lite.tk

kazaa lite... but with a piece of software modded so that your participation level is always at 1000... then you get faster downloads... and i mean ALOT faster


i'd usually get around 30kb/s for songs

now with k-lite i'm usually getting around 150kb/s


yeah!


i dont think they'll pursue 4 million some users with over 11 billion files shared...EVER

[sneakyhacker420]

Originally posted by shartley

Now THAT might work. LOL They can't search what they can't find...... hey, sounds like Iraq!

(Running for cover..........)

LMFAO SAM! I HAVENT LAUGHED THAT HARD IN A LOOOOOONNNNNGGGGGGG TIME

OMFG ROTFLMFAO



ps: napster was a central server with all the music on it when it started... kazaa and the others now are strictly P2P... no central server to download fron

[hitech]

Originally posted by bluefan101
Kazaa and Morpheus won their suit against the RIAA...Kazaa used the claim that it has no control over how their system is used, and cites that is used to "share information."

That is a very tenuous position. Napster took the same stand and lost.

Added. Here is an excerpt from the above link. I think it highlights their tenuous position:

without any information being transmitted to or through any computers owned or controlled by Grokster," Wilson wrote. "Neither Grokster nor StreamCast provides the site and facilities" for direct infringement. "If either defendant closed their doors and deactivated all computers within their control, users of their products could continue sharing files with little or no interruption."

It didn't matter that the companies were aware generally of copyright infringement happening using their software, Wilson added--they would have to know of specific instances of infringement and be able to do something about it, to be liable for those users' actions.

That stands in stark contrast to an earlier ruling against file-swapping company Aimster, in which the judge explicitly said the file-trading company did not need to know about individual acts of copyright infringement as they were happening to be held liable for the illegal activity.

[jinxed]

The main problem with the RIAA is they should of EMBRACED napster from the very beginning.
Napster has a great central network that the major studios would have easily connected to, and charged people at the beginning.

But no. They pissed off millions of people who went to the P2P networks.
So, now they can never shut the networks down.
But now they are pissing people off buy suiing individuals.

So, now there are off-shore P2P setworks, like ES5.com that cloak peoples IPs, so the RIAA can't even find them.

This means that if everyone jumps to the 'cloaked' P2P networks, RIAA will be totally screwed.

If they would only charge $8 per CD, and actually promote some decent music, and embrace the digital age, they would solve all of there problems.

Nick

[joeyjoe367]

I don't understand what all the fuss is about. Downloading MP3's when you don't own the CD is stealing, plain and simple. Go ahead and tell me that you're going to buy the CD later, or that you're just "sampling" the music, but the fact of the matter is that you are getting something that you did not pay for and was not willingly given to you. The definition of that statement? Theft.

Plain and Simple.

I have no problems whatsoever with the RIAA defending it's itellectual property. The recording industry has NOT been doing very well as of late and that is not good for ANYONE who likes music.

I don't have to worry about getting sued because I don't have any MP3's that I don't own CD's of. If you're afraid of getting sued, delete your mp3's.

Some of you mentioned something about the RIAA's price-fixing, it's bully-like tactics, etc.. and that's how you justify your theft.

Since when do 2 wrongs make a right?

[Blazestorm]

well if the 2 wrongs are negatives... and rights are positives.

Than in multiplication they do

just messen. Damnit I need to buy that evanescense cd... /me hides. It's only been like 3 months since I said I would buy it! I'm still going to buy it... eventually

[gamarada717]

Kazaa is just like me sharing a file with one of my friends. That's the key word. Sharing. I can't control what they do after that. IMO, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it.

[hitech]

Originally posted by gamarada717
Kazaa is just like me sharing a file with one of my friends. That's the key word. Sharing.

And the problem is that if what you are sharing is copyrighted material then sharing it is illegal.

[SI|ENT|3O|3]

These file sharing programs are not hurting anyone, except for the people that make way too much money as it is. Some musicians have no love for the music anymore, just love for the green(i.e. eminem, ect..) The underground music is where it's at, and people buy it because, it is harder to find on these programs. Flame me all you want. LONG LIVE SHARING FILES!!
haha
-sebastian

[hitech]

Originally posted by SI|ENT|3O|3
These file sharing programs are not hurting anyone...

That is debatable. However, it does not change the fact that sharing copyrighted material is illegal. What if it were you that wrote the song and were trying to make a living from?

[ShooterJM]

Originally posted by joeyjoe367
I don't understand what all the fuss is about. Downloading MP3's when you don't own the CD is stealing, plain and simple. Go ahead and tell me that you're going to buy the CD later, or that you're just "sampling" the music, but the fact of the matter is that you are getting something that you did not pay for and was not willingly given to you. The definition of that statement? Theft.

Plain and Simple.

I have no problems whatsoever with the RIAA defending it's itellectual property. The recording industry has NOT been doing very well as of late and that is not good for ANYONE who likes music.

I don't have to worry about getting sued because I don't have any MP3's that I don't own CD's of. If you're afraid of getting sued, delete your mp3's.

Some of you mentioned something about the RIAA's price-fixing, it's bully-like tactics, etc.. and that's how you justify your theft.

Since when do 2 wrongs make a right?

Now wait a minute. I'm licensing intellectual property for personal use that just happens to be recorded on a CD. That's what your saying I'm doing when I buy a CD? That the CD is just the medium that's used for trasfer purposes?

Then anytime I've broken or permanently scratched a CD I still should retain that license. Now if I go to the RIAA with a broken CD, why won't they allow me to have another CD for the cost of production? Or a let me burn my own CD? Or give me a prorated refund based on the amount of time owned? They do that right? Cause I bet they'll laugh at you if you try it. If you break a DVD they've started a dvd registration program so you get it replaced. That's fine. If the RIAA want's to do that then at least they'll have a consistant stance. But until then they have a conflicted position between selling a product (CD) and intellectual property (music). For some reason people don't grasp that you can't have the benefits of both.

[ShooterJM]

Originally posted by hitech


And the problem is that if what you are sharing is copyrighted material then sharing it is illegal.

Fair use clause. It's only illegal if it's proven that more then one copyrighted material was being played at once. Like you'd both have to be listening to it at the same time..

EDIT: Otherwise lending a friend a CD would be illegal.