0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
isnt limewire and frostwire illegal
Thanks Doc. Exactly what I was thinking. Say I looked up the word Hott girl. THey'd have so much junk, say virus stuff right? But if you look up say Carry on my Wayword Son it'dbe safer?
Is Frostware safer?
So its got all the same songs and all that good stuff?I might have to check that out.
Quote from: i am bored on 28/01/2008 21:25:28isnt limewire and frostwire illegalWhy should it be illegal?How you use it may be illegal, but why should the software itself be illegal?
Quote from: another_someone on 29/01/2008 03:55:04Quote from: i am bored on 28/01/2008 21:25:28isnt limewire and frostwire illegalWhy should it be illegal?How you use it may be illegal, but why should the software itself be illegal?well its stealing music if you get caught you may have to bay thousands in fines
That's the way the software is used, not the software itself.
RIAA Sues LimeWireAugust 10, 2006By Bill RosenblattThe music industry last Friday filed suit against file-sharing operator LimeWire, charging large-scale copyright infringement. The RIAA, which facilitated the suit, took this action a year after having sent several P2P operators cease-and-desist letters in the wake of the US Supreme Court's Grokster decision, which rendered technologies and services culpable for copyright infringement if their business models depend on it. This RIAA lawsuit offers an important insight into the kinds of technologies that the major music companies will accept as controls on peer-to-peer file sharing. After Grokster, some P2P operators that received letters from the RIAA (like eDonkey, BearShare, and WinMX) elected to shut down. Others, notably iMesh, engaged with the music industry and found a way to control content usage on their networks that the major labels found acceptable: acoustic fingerprinting. iMesh currently holds licenses to major-label music while it tests its copyright-respecting P2P service; the same is true for Mashboxx, which grew out of the ashes of Grokster.LimeWire, on the other hand, proposed a file filtering solution based on computing hash values of music files. The scheme, which it announced back in March, is similar to one that AltNet -- a company affiliated with Kazaa -- had been proposing for some time. To say that the music industry did not take this hashing scheme seriously would be an understatement; it is trivial to hack. We view LimeWire's offer of file hashing to solve infringement problems as disingenuous, a view that the major music companies apparently share. This development also sheds some light on the currently dark issue of the music industry's recent settlement with Sharman Networks, owners of Kazaa, to the tune of over US $100 Million. Apparently Sharman intends to work with the music industry to change Kazaa into a copyright-respecting service, as iMesh is doing. But details of how Kazaa will do this have been nonexistent. The Australian Federal Court had discussed the possibility of Kazaa implementing a keyword-based file filtering scheme to remedy its infringement. Sharman did not do this, yet the court did not hold the company in contempt, which implies that the scheme was a suggestion, not an injunction. A keyword-based scheme is not the same thing as hashing, but it is equally trivial to hack. Therefore it is likely that Kazaa will need to come up with something better in order to get into the music industry's good graces; it may be that the music industry will ask for acoustic fingerprinting.The RIAA's lawsuit against LimeWire is understandable, given what we percieve to be the company's attitude. LimeWire is now forced to choose among cooperation, capitulation, or a courtroom.
Updated The Recording Industry Ass. of America (RIAA) has began a legal spat with a man who copied CDs he had bought onto his computer.Jeffery Howell of Scottsdale, Arizon has taken his case to court after he received a letter from the RIAA, reports the Washington Post.The RIAA, which lobbies on behalf of a music industry hammered by tumbling sales as fans increasingly turn to free downloads and file sharing for their listening pleasure, insists that it is illegal for someone who has legally bought a CD to transfer that music into his computer.And, it seems that Howell is the latest individual the RIAA has singled out for special treatment in its legal pantomime.RIAA lawyer Ira Schwartz argued in a lawsuit brief filed earlier this month that the 2,000 or so MP3 files Howell created were "unauthorised copies" of copyrighted music.So far it is unclear as to how and why Howell was targeted by the RIAA. There doesn't seem to be any suggestion that the MP3s were made available to all comers.On its website the RIAA states: "If you make unauthorised copies of copyrighted music recordings, you're stealing. You're breaking the law and you could be held legally liable for thousands of dollars in damages."Indeed, underlining its uncompromising stance over what it sees as online music theft the RIAA has already sued Jammie Thomas, a single mother living in Brainerd, Minnesota who ended up in civil court for copyright infringement.She was stung with a $222,000 fine after the jury returned the verdict that Thomas was liable for wilfully infringing the copyrights on 24 songs.The RIAA said that it will continue its legal battle against customers that it believes are breaking the law by copying CDs onto their computers.According to the Washington Post a RIAA spokesman said: "It's not our first choice, but it's a necessary part of the equation. There are consequences for breaking the law."Of course it remains to be seen whether the industry's inflexible attitude toward a rapidly changing landscape in which fans consume music will hold water in the long game. But this latest move by the big record companies to hold individuals personally responsible perhaps signals how weak at the knees they have truly become. ®UpdateThe RIAA has since rubbished the Washington Post story as "wrong".In a statement, the organisation said:"As numerous commentators have since discovered after taking the time to read our brief, the record companies did not allege that ripping a lawfully acquired CD to a computer or transferring a copy to an mp3 player is infringement."This case is about the illegal distribution of copyrighted songs on a peer-to-peer network, not making copies of legally acquired music for personal use."
The guy in the second article i quoted, never uploaded or made the music available through a shared folder. The were just in his "my music" folder. How this came to the attention of RIAA was never said - that i can remember.