You've got lawsuit

[JsARCLIGHT]

An exchange by meaning is "To give in return for something received; trade" so if I allow you to download a piece of music from me, where is the exchange?

"Exchange" in legaleze is not the literal word you think it means. An "Exchange" is simply a transfer of one item to another person. A broader definition is that it is a transfer of one or more items to another person or entity based on a mutual understanding or reception of another item or items. This meaning an "Exchange" can be the transfer of a single item between two people, as in the phrase "the men on the corner made the exchange" meaning one man handed an item to another man. Exchange is used as a verb to define the synchronized action of someone giving and someone receiving. Rather than saying the long-winded sentance "Bob took the item and Fred Gave the item" you simply say "Bob and Fred exchanged the item".

Another thing people need to keep in mind is that the Legislative branch of government enacts the laws and the Judicial branch interprets them... meaning that one judge may view the word "exchange" the way you do and another may see it the other way while the congressman that wrote the law sees it in an entirely different way.

Edited September 12, 2003 by JsARCLIGHT

[Khyron]

Explain how sharing music isn't private especially with p2p.

Private usually means with people you know. P2P on Kazaa or Napster is with a bunch of unknown people. You have no idea who the person is you are dealing with.

As far as the article about the RIAA working with the Internet insead of suing people. Proabably wouldn't work. You know there are tons of people out there that would rather keep stealing music rather than paying a small fee to download it legally.

I haven't been to the site but the Apple site that sells songs for $1 sounds like a great deal & it is legal.

[tom64ss]

Explain how sharing music isn't private especially with p2p.

Private usually means with people you know. P2P on Kazaa or Napster is with a bunch of unknown people. You have no idea who the person is you are dealing with.

PRIVATE:

Pronunciation: 'prI-v&t

Function: adjective

Etymology: Middle English privat, from Latin privatus, from past participle of privare to deprive, release, from privus private, individual; probably akin to Latin pro for, in front of -- more at FOR

Date: 14th century

1 a : intended for or restricted to the use of a particular person, group, or class b : belonging to or concerning an individual person, company, or interest c (1) : restricted to the individual or arising independently of others (2) : carried on by the individual independently of the usual institutions ; also : being educated by independent study or a tutor or in a private school d : not general in effect

2 a (1) : not holding public office or employment (2) : not related to one's official position : PERSONAL b : being a private

3 a : withdrawn from company or observation : SEQUESTERED b : not known or intended to be known publicly : SECRET c : preferring to keep personal affairs to oneself : valuing privacy highly d : unsuitable for public use or display

4 : not having shares that can be freely traded on the open market

- pri·vate·ly adverb

- pri·vate·ness noun

Privacy has nothing to do with familiarity.

[the white drew carey]

Explain how sharing music isn't private especially with p2p.

Private usually means with people you know. P2P on Kazaa or Napster is with a bunch of unknown people. You have no idea who the person is you are dealing with.

PRIVATE:

Privacy has nothing to do with familiarity.

True.

I think the point he was actually getting at was that P2P is not private, since anyone with can browse through the files you've made available. There is no selection process with a P2P and you cannot refuse service to an individual person without, ultimately, refusing service to the whole P2P community.

Privacy, in the long run, means that not everyone is or can be privy to whatever it is that's being held private. P2P is not private.

[Zentrandude]

An exchange by meaning is "To give in return for something received; trade" so if I allow you to download a piece of music from me, where is the exchange?

"Exchange" in legaleze is not the literal word you think it means. An "Exchange" is simply a transfer of one item to another person. A broader definition is that it is a transfer of one or more items to another person or entity based on a mutual understanding or reception of another item or items. This meaning an "Exchange" can be the transfer of a single item between two people, as in the phrase "the men on the corner made the exchange" meaning one man handed an item to another man. Exchange is used as a verb to define the synchronized action of someone giving and someone receiving. Rather than saying the long-winded sentance "Bob took the item and Fred Gave the item" you simply say "Bob and Fred exchanged the item".

Another thing people need to keep in mind is that the Legislative branch of government enacts the laws and the Judicial branch interprets them... meaning that one judge may view the word "exchange" the way you do and another may see it the other way while the congressman that wrote the law sees it in an entirely different way.

think barter would been a better word to use

[tom64ss]

True.

I think the point he was actually getting at was that P2P is not private, since anyone with can browse through the files you've made available. There is no selection process with a P2P and you cannot refuse service to an individual person without, ultimately, refusing service to the whole P2P community.

Privacy, in the long run, means that not everyone is or can be privy to whatever it is that's being held private. P2P is not private.

Oh, I agree that P2P isn't private.

I just don't like it when people make up their own definition for a commonly used word so that the definition somehow fits into their arguement.

Kazaa and Napster aren't/weren't private because any shmoe with a computer could get on it and use it, thus making it a "publically" accessable site. File-sharing in a Yahoo group is private, because they have to approve you before you can file-share, but it doesn't mean I know everybody I'm sharing with in that group.

Look, I only used Morpheus a handful of times. Whether it or Kazaa or any of those sites survive, doesn't really concern me. What concerns me is that the RIAA keeps using the, "If you're file-sharing, your taking money away from the artist arguement" and gullible people eat it up.

THAT STATEMENT IS COMPLETE AND UTTER BS!

The only people who are going to see any economic change, if any, from an increase of CD sales are retail stores and the big music corporations.

Personally, I don't think it will have any effect on the profits they generate. CD sales dropped in the last few years because people tightened up their wallets during our last economic slump and during that time the music industry has generated nothing but "cookie cutter" pop music, either blatantly (n'Sync, Britney) or cleverly packaged in "underground culture garb" (Creed, Sugar Ray, Dave Matthews). They've sold out every scene and now don't understand why people are sick of it.

They give you these figures saying that, "Our profits have dropped from blah blah billion in the early to mid 90's to blah blah billion in 2000." Well what about the CD sales before the early 90's????? Remember when the last Bush was in office??? Anyone remember the economic climate before Clinton took office???? How come they never give you sales figure from during that last recession???? In case you forgot, that's around the same time the market for comic books came crashing down. Why? Because they give you the year of their highest sales and compare it to recently when it's been at an all time low, and those same gullible people sit there and go, "You know what? That is a lot of money." Well whose to say that when CD sale were at their highest wasn't the freak occurance???

As sad as it is to say, before Nirvana hit it big, music sales were slumping too. Could that be blamed on P2P??? Obviously not. People just got sick of listening to Poison and New Kids and the economy was not looking good. Fortunately for them, MTV started pushing "underground music" like it was the second coming of Christ. When grunge died out, punk had its surge, and slowly, one by one, MTV and corporate music has played out every trend and decade of music to the point where the 80's and boybands are back. Only this time, when the public started to lose interest in the crap they generate, they had nowhere to turn anymore so P2Ps are being used as a scapegoat.

Online music is the evolution of music distribution. Period. The old bastards are just afraid of the impending "changing of the guard".

Edited September 12, 2003 by tom64ss

[JsARCLIGHT]

Here's a stupid question:

Aren't the people being "hurt" by file sharing actually the retail stores? I mean, the music conglomerates sell their product to the retailers, not straight to us. So if someone were to DL a bunch of music rather than buy a CD, isn't that one more CD rotting on some store's shelf somewhere? The music men already got their money out of it when they sold it to the retailer so technically the retailer gets the shaft... the only way the music biz would be impacted would be on stock re-orders, as in they sell the retailer 1,000 units of Mariah Carey and no one buys it then that retailer would be less likely to buy that same number again.

Just a thought.

[CAG]

The point I was making about privacy goes towards the number. DVDs are for private, non-commercial use. If I show it to 1,000 people (300 in an auditorium 3-4 shows) but charge no money it is non-commercial. But it doesn't constitute a private use.

Same deal....you send an MP3 to your friend for no money, its private and non-commercial. You let 4 million people at a time have the chance to upload the file and its no longer private.

[tom64ss]

The point I was making about privacy goes towards the number. DVDs are for private, non-commercial use. If I show it to 1,000 people (300 in an auditorium 3-4 shows) but charge no money it is non-commercial. But it doesn't constitute a private use.

Same deal....you send an MP3 to your friend for no money, its private and non-commercial. You let 4 million people at a time have the chance to upload the file and its no longer private.

Right, but the law specifically states that the RIAA is to tax the medium for which the music is transfered, not the consumer.

Blank Media- They already tax.

ISPs & MP3 player manufacturers-Vague enough that it would take a long legal battle and those companies can afford corporate legal battles.

The file-sharing software companies-Tried that with Napster, who went under when they tried to charge people, thus cutting off their new source of income. The newer companies were ready for the legal battle, during which time people would contiue to download.

So what do they do? They sue the one group that they knew they could scare into paying without going to court. They knew the average uploader wouldn't know about how that law could protect them from the RIAA.

[Mechwarrior]

TechTV will be having a huge debate tonight on this subject. It will have Executives from record companies, music artists, people who do download music,etc. Music Wars it's called. Anyone can join and voice there opinion live at Music Wars.com So muck info will be passed here, I recommend those who are interested to check it out, and if you get TechTV watch it.

[SpacePirateNeko]

The only time i Download music is when i know for a fact that if i didnt i would never have went out and purchased the cd in teh first place....2. its a band id like to get to know better...or 3. and this is USUALLY the case...its rare hard to find songs and then i make a rarities cd or cd's.

Other then that i still love going to record stores and finding great cds ..I love the feel of an album itself ..the booklet the artwork, taking out the cd and placing it in the player liek its a book..reading the lyrics etc etc. I still love vinyl too.....the sound is unbeatable..it sounds raw.....alive.

If a band i like is coming out with a new album ...i might download a song or two...listen to clips etc...but in the end i hold off from most of it so when i buy the album its new and fresh and its a suprise.

File swapping has put a rut in only one pocket..the music industries...artist get very little money from the sales and sometimes none at all. The music industry isnt worried about the great indie artist out there..they are wooried about the big bloated rap rock bands and brittany spearsers being downloaded.

Real artists make all their money from touring live, since very few make much money for getting record deals on an indy label. If anything file swapping is helping advert more indy bands and getting more people to their shows.

The only one losing here is the big industry ...and frankly they have nothing to do with music anyway. They make money off of top 40 music cds being sold for 15 bucks in tower records. They arent really needed except to launch careers of no talent people to make some cash...and lip sync on stage.

I say screw em who needs em, its time to do away with the big labels

[vlenhoff]

I personally have always bought CDs. I did downloaded a bunch of songs that I didn't even know what they were called. Using Klite I typed a part of the song and it popped up. Also, I got music from Argentina, and other places that are really hard to find here on the US. If I really like the music I'll buy it!

vic.

[Winkle]

Hrm... what the RIAA is doing only makes me want to download even more MP3s just to spite them.

Honestly, they are waging a war they cannot hope to win. Granted, they will be able scary off the casual internet user from downloading mp3s in the future, but the real hardcore junkies (nerds/geeks) won't be intimidated by the RIAA's scare tactics. So they're going after individuals now, well that will only motivate the programmers out there to redouble their efforts to hide from the RIAA, there are already a number of programs out there that will protect your computer from RIAA informats.

Also, they killed Napster a few years ago, well that accomplished about... nothing. The death of Napster gave rise to KaZaa. Now they are going after KaZaa (everyone slapped with a lawsuit so far uses KaZaa). Great, they're going to kill KaZaa... only to have another improved P2P program take its place. The RIAA will go after that and kill it only to give birth to YET another P2P program. Its an unending cycle, as long as people want stuff for free (and they always will), piracy will continue to exist. The RIAA is doing this the idiotic way, if they want to kill this "problem", they need to embrace it, fighting it only strengthens piracy.

As an example, I believe it was a year or so ago that the RIAA announced the development of a new protection code which they would implement in all future music CDs. They said this code was supposingly "uncrackable" and will kill music piracy completely. It took 2 weeks before a university professor cracked the code and released the method on the net. The RIAA then moved to try and legally force the professor to remove his findings from the internet but the courts ruled in his favour.

If they continue on their current path, the RIAA will loose.

[muswp1]

As an example, I believe it was a year or so ago that the RIAA announced the development of a new protection code which they would implement in all future music CDs. They said this code was supposingly "uncrackable" and will kill music piracy completely. It took 2 weeks before a university professor cracked the code and released the method on the net. The RIAA then moved to try and legally force the professor to remove his findings from the internet but the courts ruled in his favour.

That's a great example of misused technology. And your point about Napster is right on. The more the RIAA tries to supress file-sharing, the greater the backlash will be.

[Yamato Lover]

What these constant lawsuits against P2P sites will do is simply force downloaders to switch to setups like the iMacross servers.

These servers have the material (music, video, games) uploaded to them instead of people browsing each other's computers to do so. Also, the iMacross servers are significantly harder to log on to--password, IP address and preset usernames, so it isn't as easy for "industry informants" to simply run the program and gain access for the sole purpose of monitoring a user's actions.

If KaZaa, Napster, WinMX, etc. were set up similar to this, the MP3s contained on those servers wouldn't be so easy to distribute. There's also the issue of bandwidth. Only a certain number of users are allowed onto the server at a time, as opposed to the millions of users on KaZaa at any given time.

Just a thought.

Does anyone see where I'm trying to go with this rambling?

Ben

[ShadowerV2]

Hi

I'm doing a news article for my University in Australia. Anyone interested in commenting about this please PM me. I'm also interested in hearing from people who think that downloading Anime is illegal or that it's ok.

Thanks. For those interested if you could let me know so I can send you an email with the interview questions. Please add your own comments if you want.

[kensei]

Hi

I'm doing a news article for my University in Australia. Anyone interested in commenting about this please PM me. I'm also interested in hearing from people who think that downloading Anime is illegal or that it's ok.

Thanks. For those interested if you could let me know so I can send you an email with the interview questions. Please add your own comments if you want.

Which uni u at ShadowerV2? I got several messages concerning this at UWA. Was it because people were actually caught using university com facilities to share music files or just a geral warning because of recent events?

[ShadowerV2]

UWA? Your at the University of Western Australia? I'm in the Queensland University of Technology. Could I interview you one of these days? Thanks.

[Jolly Rogers]

Does anyone see where I'm trying to go with this rambling?

Put a spotlight on the iMacross hosts?