Good thing this was anticipated a long time ago and Frostwire was developed from a fork of Limewire.
P2P file-sharing enabler LimeWire finally lost its long-running battle against music-industry heavy hitters on Tuesday. "As of today, we are required to stop distribution and support of LimeWire’s P2P file-sharing service as a result of a court-ordered injunction," reads a statement by Lime Company CEO George Searle on the …
Good thing this was anticipated a long time ago and Frostwire was developed from a fork of Limewire.
Here it comes, all the bewailing and bemoaning from the freetards about how information only wants to be free and how the faceless corporations are evil blah, blah, blah. Theft is theft, just because the output is digital does not devalue the (creative) input. If you really believe that information wants to be free, I inviote you to post the login and password for your online banking account :-p
Actually the standard comment is tending to come from the paytards who think I should pay for their air (surprise Im not going to - I dont listen to music I dont buy it and I dont download it - ok one exception I did buy RATM because it was cheaper than a phone vote on x-crapter). In the two sided argument, You posted first, so you can dump the 'here it comes' twaddle.
And in future if you cannot understand the difference between subtraction and multiplication don't bother posting.
Raging against comments that exist only in your mind.
I don't think that much of the Reg commentardry would fall into the category you describe.
If you want to have a go at that type of mentality, 4chan is thattaway.
Theft? Are you serious?
When you download an MP3 of an artist's work, legally or illegally, there is literally no theft involved.
The master tapes are still at the studio. The same amount of CDs are still in HMV.
Moan about piracy if you want, but to base your argument on a statement that goes against the laws of physics shows what disregard you have for reality!
...another dickhead who has no understanding of the law.
Copyright infringement is NOT theft. That's not an opinion - IT'S THE LAW.
Conflating privacy and security issues like bank details with copyright infringement is simply a straw man and well you know it.
Here it comes, all the bewailing and bemoaning from the assholes about how tools should be outlawed because they allow copyright infringement to happen. Coming from a country in which firearms are perfectly legal.
That is a standard plank of any competent security policy. That you don't understand the context and implications is not our problem. Do some reading.
If it was a file containing your person details that was downloaded, you'd be first in line to call it theft.
OK, let me draw this in crayon for you. Theft is the intention to PERMANENTLY DEPRIVE someone of something. By downloading something you're not permanently depriving someone of anything. You're infringing copyright for sure, but it IS NOT THEFT! Got That?
And by the same token, if someone posted a file of all my personal details on line I wouldn't be calling it theft, because it's not. It may be a violation of privacy, and potentially data protection, but it IS NOT THEFT! Someone's already made personal details from Facebook available on the torrents, and no one accused them of theft. Scumminess of the highest order no doubt, but *pause for breath* NOT THEFT
Fail for your ignorance of law and willingness to parrot record company propoganda without thinking for yourself
26 downvotes at the time I am posting this, which leads me to conclude: It's definitely half term.
What does it matter what name is given to taking the copyright of something that isn't yours?
Call it what you want, the person who made that work still doesn't get the payment that society says they are due. Semantic arguments don't change the fact that someone is being deprived of their income. If you want to change the copyright system, write to your MP, form a campaign group or stand for election yourself, don't try to justify it with semantics.
Oh and if you want to use the argument that you wouldn't have bought it because it's not good enough, just don't download it: it's not good enough. This will at least send a message to the record and movie companies that their stuff isn't good enough, they may make things that are worth buying. While people download without payment, it will always be seen as a lost sale, why wouldn't it?
"If it was a file containing your person details that was downloaded, you'd be first in line to call it theft."
That particular crime is "Identity theft" or "False Impersonation" depending on your jurisdiction; the data can't be "stolen" by itself, it is the use of said information for fraudulent activities the one that is punished by law.
And as everyone has mentioned before, "copyright infringement != theft". It's been proven every single frickin' time that copied stuff does not translate to lost sales. It isn't harmless either, but it is definitely *not* threat.
"What does it matter what name is given to taking the copyright of something that isn't yours?"
Because, as you say, if you want to change the copyright system write to your MP.
For one, you do not take copyright by copying a file. If you copy a file outside the rights you have (hence "copyright") you would be violating the terms of copyright. This does not imply anything about money, sales income or anything else related to business; that is a separate matter. It is entirely possible to give a copyrighted work away and for someone else to violate your copyright by copying it.
"While people download without payment, it will always be seen as a lost sale, why wouldn't it?"
How it is seen is irrelevant: this simply flies in the face of accepted economic theory.
Namely just because you are willing to consume a good at 0p doesn't mean you will consume the same good at 1p.
And lo and behold companies will use this fact and sell goods at different prices to different consumers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_discrimination
The basic unavoidable problem facing the producers of works that can be copyrighted is that the value of the product is not tied to its physical instance. E.g. 2000 apples is going to be more valuable to a consumer than 1 apple. 2000 copies of the same file not so much. This is why copyright and theft are not the same thing - delete one copy of the file and no one would care, eat one apple and they would.
It's not like comparing apples and oranges: data is a different beast.
38 downvotes at the time I am posting this, which leads me to conclude: you're definitely in a minority.
you don't listen to music? that's possibly the most profound statement I've ever heard.
Limewire manager: is that a black helicopter I hear hovering outside?
Limewire lawyer: yes, but why is there a Apple and RIAA logo printed on the side?
GOOD!!!!!. The application was crap! There are so much better P2P apps out there.
Smiley face cos I'm glad the good ship LimeWire has finally sailed.
for missing the point entirely
Yes you can. I'd spend the entire day sitting here thumping the "upvote" button if I were allowed to.
Sod the music theft^H^H^H^H^Hcopyright infringement*, the best thing about this is that the world's most gaping PC attack vector** has just taken a kick in the nuts.
*Yes I do sometimes pander to petty-minded little pedants. Why do you ask?
**Yup. Beats out Windows itself.
will be watching for the demise off Vuze nee Azureus.
...probably the most popular, and arguably the most capable bittorrent client for mac also runs on java.
But it doesnt matter either way, because it won't be long until all mac apps have to be installed via the app store anyway. that will be a sad day :(
them sheep will feel even more safe, warm and protected.
Bet you a MacBook Pro to a Vaio/ThinkPad etc. that it will never happen.
Harbingers of imminent doom/1984/the-end-of-civilisation-as-we-know-it are getting too numerous.
Anyone for a cull?
"it won't be long until all mac apps have to be installed via the app store anyway"
Paranoid much? But then I doubt you even have a Mac, so your comment is a little silly.
Oh I don't know, I suspect Apple ringfencing all Apple users might be a boon for the world at large...
The Appleists will call themselves an Elite Club and everyone else can get on with getting on with whatever they please, how they please, as they please.
the next release of OSX - 10.7 (lion) has a version of the app store integrated - that's confirmed, u douche! apple will push for complete control of app installation via the app store... it makes sense for them because of a the 30% cut they enjoy and their control freak nature.
so, no I'm not paranoid, just sorry about the direction apple is going in (and fyi i have owned many macs over the years).
anyway, most likely the java depreciation is for security reasons - the first proper OSX trojan (that doesnt require users to enter an admin password to install IAmAnIdiot.app) has just been announced... and it uses a java exploit. So there's that, and the fact that it's, you know, 2010.
Having had to clean up some computationally-challenged folk's PCs I can't say I am sorry to see it go.
But to say it is a major defeat for P2P is a joke as BitTorrent is alive and well and has a lot of good clients, not all java based, so Mac-tards can sleep in peace.
. . . was that you could set it to fire up a virus check on a file as soon as it had finished downloading.
Other than that ----- dunno.
The folk I am thinking of would not have/use/keep updated AV in the first place :(
Also my experience of AV is it is as good a water carrier as a fine sieve. Even on Windows PCs where I installed it for them, they got shafted. I don't know if this was due to 0-day exploits that the AV missed, or some dumb person clicking 'yes' to the AV asking them if shaftmesideways.exe should be allowed to run, but the end result was the same.
Now I set up Linux boxes for friends & family. I get the odd bitching about games not working, but a happy silence about slowness and other infection issues. It helps that some folk don't have sudo rights either...
If, in a more ideal world, Linux were the most popular desktop, people would still need to think about the difference between executable and data content. If what you want is data then don't accept it if using or unpacking it requires you to execute something so unusual the executable has to be packaged with the data, and that doesn't have a trusted and verifiable supply chain. It is true that Linux account security tends to limit the damage, partly by making downloaded content more difficult to execute by someone without a clue, secondly by tighter administration access protocols and thirdly by making nearly every bit of software you are likely to need available through a few quality assured and cryptographically verified distribution repositories.
Seriously though, trying to guarantee against bad things happening by running a program that pretends to know about every bad executables ever designed is just asking for trouble.
In the world of Unix on the desktop as king, the first time an app failed to work everyone would simply starting running everything as root!
as it would not normally be a permissions problem that caused it to fail, unless the person writing the app was a UNIX noob. You're thinking Windows apps on NTFS 5 and non-administrator accounts.
UNIX (and Linux) is normally "install as root, run as any user". Lots of people understand this, but I would guess that you don't. I'm sure there must be a chapter on this in "UNIX for Dummies".
Good riddance to the buggy piece of ****.
" Theft is theft, just because the output is digital does not devalue the (creative) input."
...Yes if these so-called artists are willing to charge REASONABLE amounts for their works. Also, people with valuable opinions don't use the term 'freetard' - it makes you look prejudiced and uneducated.
"if these so-called artists are willing to charge REASONABLE amounts for their works"
Do you not see the irony in that? That you typed "so-called artists" strongly suggests that you don't think much of their work. That being the case why would you want to download it?
Also most artists do tend to charge a fairly reasonable amount. Record companies and distributors take a much larger cut, which is of course the real bone of contention. Digital music should be much cheaper than conventional physical media. There are no costs associated with manufacturing, transport or physical premises in every town centre. There are much lower staffing costs since you don't need a real person to sell you a download. So why do downloads cost as much as a physical CD? The record companies conveniently blame the artists, but they won't give us a breakdown of the costs because they know they couldn't justify their cut or the distributors cut.
Thank you! A fair point well made.
The other thing to consider is that artists tend not to set the cost of their albums and make very little from album sales. The real money for most artists comes from gigs/tours/PAs etc.
Now, if gig tickets were deemed too expensive (I.E. £60/head for Kings Of Leon @ M.E.N arena this year- not worth it on the strength of their latest album imho) then the artists CAN take a modicum of stick for that.
I seem to be able to use my current version of Limewire client, regardless of the notice that appears at startup. I don't know if there is some sort of centralised kill switch which can render existing clients inoperative or whether the genie is simply out of the bottle now.
As long as the Internet is available to everyone, file sharing will never stop.
The Entertainment Industry may have won this battle but they will never win the war.
The quicker these P2P networks are shutdown the better, because when the media corps have no more things to blame and their profits don't suddenly make a miraculous recovery they seem to be convinced they will, on that day I will laugh my freaking arse off!
I have no problem with P2P, but media corps seem to think that simply shutting them down will stop "piracy" in it's tracks and the record biz will suddenly pickup, the sun will shine and world peace will ensue. Will it balls!
Oh no, will somebody please think of the lawyers! They will have to go back to chasing ambulances and making f**king stupid ad's on TV with shots of people falling off ladders and tripping over dogs. We may need to set up a charity now. "They once helped you to win big, now they seriously need your help. Just £50/hour will keep just one lawyer practicing, help him keep his £900k house and two 10 reg Mercedes' on the drive. So please help a lawyer today!"
If a lawyer's any good, he wouldn't still need to practise...
We've had home taping and now copyright infringing downloads blamed by the music industry for killing music. Except home taping never *did* kill music even though it's been a "problem" for a sizeable portion of the history of recorded music, and nor has downloading/ripping since it became technically reasonable to do.
It would be good for the industry to be forced, finally, to look at what is really killing music. In the last couple of years we've maybe downloaded a dozen tracks from Limewire, and bought 3 or 4 CDs. Over half of those downloads were tracks from one of the CDs we ended up buying anyway (on the strength of what we'd already heard). We have a lot of CDs, not buying many more is a relatively recent phenomenon for us.
That speaks to the overall quality of product coming out of the big recording labels, not to the ease of piracy. We could easily have downloaded thousands of songs and bought no CDs at all but really, what's the point when much of it is pure crap?
It won't happen though, as long as there's an internet, and as long as CD production is outsourced to the cheapest available place without regard to local copyright laws, there'll be piracy. And the industry will be able to point a finger of blame ANYWHERE but itself until the market finally stops buying their rubbish entirely.
Abso fecking lutely
The only music I've bought on CD going on ten years now is the music i first downloaded and liked.
I also attend every concert for my favourite bands, which is how they actually make a living.
The music industry is killing itself, pirate downloads are just a way for them to shift blame like taping was before hand.
Besides, who uses limewire to download individual tracks when whole discographies come on bittorrent? They have stopped nothing...
cut off one head and several more appear. There are scores of bittorrent clients available and always will be.
They are simply pissing into the wind.
I like many others will download an album before i buy so i can see if it's any good.
Now what are my options?
These people are killing their own industry as many studies have shown downloaders to spend more on music than the average person.
Will i blindly buy something i may not like? No
"I like many others will download an album before i buy so i can see if it's any good."
We all know that's shite don't we? So can you offer evidence that every album you have ever downloaded free has been deleted? If what you say is true then you must have deleted all of them. Either because you bought a legitimate copy or because you didn't like the album. By your rationale those are the only two choices.
"These people are killing their own industry as many studies have shown downloaders to spend more on music than the average person."
That's more shite. The majority of regular downloaders I know never buy music or movies. These "studies" are as much use as the studies that show that 4 out of 5 thirteen year olds living in inner city areas have tried class A drugs. Ask the average thirteen year old if they have tried class A drugs and they are likely to tell you that they have out of bravado. Can you supply some hard evidence to back up these studies?
As for killing the industry? Well the record industry seems to be in rude health. Neither the downloaders or the record industry itself seem to be doing it any harm.
"I like many others will download an album before i buy so i can see if it's any good.
Now what are my options?"
Well you can always check the song out you want to look at on YouTube or Spotify to "try before you buy".
There is no reason to have an MP3 copy to do that.
...and I do the same, but I will go to the cinema and pay to see a movie on the back of what I heard/read about it; why shouldn't it be the same for music?
Chances are, it's still going to have been uploaded by someone without the rights to do so, so it's still copyright violation somewhere down the line, innit?
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017