Free Downloads are available

I just want to clear up some confusion I see here on the boards about the legality of free download sites.   Sites such as Limewire, Morpheus and Bearshare to name a few offer true p2p services, Peer to Peer service, file sharing, for the uninitiated.  With one of these, if I have a file on my computer and you want it, it is sent to you, and if I want one from you I can have it sent to me.  Simple, right?   Well, there is no law being broke in that transaction.  We are simply sharing.

  Where did I get my file though?

  If I got my file from another person online and sent it to you, no problem.  If I, on the other hand, created that file, by say ripping a cd to my computer then we have a problem.  No not we, if you downloaded it from me, you did nothing wrong anymore than before but I have broken copyright law, so they say.

The RIAA, the recording companys law group, assumes thats how files get online and have been chasing people down and suing them for damages and making a huge stink about it.   But did you know that the RIAA has never once won a case, not once.   They can not prove wrong doing.

  In addition, they are wrong.   The rippers are very few and far between.  Most who rip are doing for their own use as the boards statements support.

  Most people have a centralized file on their computers where they put all downloads and rips, for ease of finding later the needed files.   When every they install new software, they modify it to use that file as the default for all activity.   Limewire and Itunes and Rhapsody and god knows how many others thus share one central location for simplicity.   Thats just common practice.

  But new artist X is a breakout on Itunes and is selling tracks like crazy, yay.   The studio then notices artist X showing up all over the filesharing systems, and yes people, they use them too, but they see this and freak.   But you see what is happening, right?   Itune users will buy tracks and put them on limewire, not even thinking it wrong doing.   And they are not ripping anything.   So please peeps, don’t talk about downloading in hushed whispers back behind the barn with winks and nods, its very very out in the open and a normal course of events.  This just a basic thought from an admitted downloader.  

Is this the New Age warm and fuzzy version of the law?

Just because it’s ripped it’s different?  Some magic fairie flitters overhead, pops her wand on it, and because it meets the warm and fuzzy clause of the above law, all is well?

In your statement, you qualified things by saying the equivalent of, “well, the RIAA hasn’t won a case, so go forth and pillage!”

It’s all about the intellectual property and copyright.  If you were to write a book, or make a music recording, or film a video, that is your property.  If you wish to perform your music at some venue, just because folks show up, it doesn’t give them the exclusive right to come on in and have a seat.  You fund the venue, and charge a fair price for admission.  Your stage crew, your facility, manager, promoter, all have to feed their children; this is what they all do for a living.

If you make a recording, and package it in a wee plastic box, the price of admission is printed on the box.  And the prople who duplicated it, promoted it, packaged it, shipped it, and the retailer all have to make a living.  By standing at the opposite side of the counter, and purchasing the CD, you paid the price of admission. 

Let’s take that one step further.  A physical CD has a physical limitation.  I have the right to give this CD to a friend, and he can listen to it.  Since HE has the disc, I cannot listen to it.  If he likes it as much as I do, he’ll buy his own copy, or he’ll give me the disc back.

Well, that physical CD has changed a wee bit.  Now, we give the music anonymously to untold thousands of “friends” on a peer to peer network.  None of them have paid the fair price of admission, the _magic fairie queen   _ has waved her wand over their heads.  And just how do your warm and fuzzt intentions intend to support the musician that put his heart and soul into the music that makes all of your heads bob up and down happily? 

You just ripped him off!

There is no confusion here, only the mob mentality. 

Bob  :angry:

@ebouc wrote:

With one of these, if I have a file on my computer and you want it, it is sent to you, and if I want one from you I can have it sent to me.  Simple, right?   Well, there is no law being broke in that transaction.  We are simply sharing. 

Its a really bad idea to give advice about laws which you apparently have never read and don’t understand.

In nearly all developed countries, there absolutely are laws being broken in that transaction (Title 17 of US copyright law, if you’re in the US). Only the copyright owner has the exclusive right to copy or distribute copyrighted music (or authorize others to do so).There is no special provision for “sharing”. The US “fair use” exemption specifies commentary and education, not general sharing of copyrighted works.

The exception to this is music which the copyright owner has released to the public domain, of course.

You are correct that file sharing is very common. So is speeding. Neither are legal. Chances are you won’t be caught, but that doesn’t make it legal. Websites typically don’t want to incur the liability involved with recommending illegal activities…particularly when that recommendation is inaccurately portraying them as legal.

Edit: The RIAA actually did win its first case that was taken before a jury, Capital v Thomas. An award of $222,000 (nearly $10K per song) was granted. The judge granted a motion for a new trial, but this certainly doesn’t mean the RIAA lost the first time, or will lose the next. There have been other cases where the RIAA has dropped charges, but that was often after the file-sharer had spent tens of thousands of dollars on defense attorneys.

Message Edited by bdb on 12-29-2008 09:44 AM

Wow.  You should let everyone know what law school you attended so that everyone can avoid it.  The OP is so full of fail I don’t even know where to begin.

@ebouc wrote:

 Where did I get my file though?

 If I got my file from another person online and sent it to you, no problem.  If I, on the other hand, created that file, by say ripping a cd to my computer then we have a problem.  No not we, if you downloaded it from me, you did nothing wrong anymore than before but I have broken copyright law, so they say.

How did all these files end up on-line in the 1st place? If what you claim is true, then the majority of up-loaders of these songs ARE breaking the law, and contrary to your interpretation of the law, if one knowingly (or even unknowingly) engages or participates in an unlawful act (before, during, or after) then they are equally guilty of the crime as the main perpetrator. By ‘sharing’ or downloading something illegal in the 1st place makes you just as guilty as the person (who by your definition) legally bought the CD, but then copied it and up-loaded with the intent and knowledge that it would be downloaded or ‘shared’ by others and that those others did and are not paying the same royalties to the artist or label as he did, essentially stealing money out of many pockets.

Just ask Sam Watterson of ‘Law & Order’; he’ll tell you. :stuck_out_tongue:

By the way, did you just copy & paste your post (or portions of it) from the legal disclaimer page at limewire.com? Of course they have to publish something that makes them look innocent just to cover their own butts.

Ah, Sam Watterson.

I have today off, good to watch a little Law & Order.

Bob  :wink:

I totally agree with Tapeworm!

IMO the Bottom line is…you don’t pay for your copy of a movie, then it is stealing. By the same token, if I buy the movie, I should be able to copy it as many times as I want, for my use. I own it. Like copying an Album to cassette.

A lot of this is on the studios, they resist giving us content we can copy. For me, give me the oppertunity, and I will pay every time.

I feel guilty copying music videos from youtube, but know of no way to buy them. I justify that by the fact that I pay big bucks for my directv, and pay to see said videos already (If that makes sense) on mtv and such.

Just my 2 cents

Message Edited by ickster on 12-29-2008 10:50 AM

@ickster wrote:

I totally agree with Tapeworm!

IMO the Bottom line is…you don’t pay for your copy of a movie, then it is stealing. By the same token, if I buy the movie, I should be able to copy it as many times as I want, for my use. I own it. Like copying an Album to cassette.

Except you don’t.

I don’t own it?

@ickster wrote:
I don’t own it?

The songs? No.

Tapeworm wrote: 

By the way, did you just copy & paste your post (or portions of it) from the legal disclaimer page at limewire.com? Of course they have to publish something that makes them look innocent just to cover their own butts.

I’ve never used Limewire, but just took a look.  They say:

" To use LimeWire legally, you must have the owner’s permission to share every file in your Library on the Gnutella network. For example, music and movies from major labels and movie studios are copyrighted, and you do not have permission to share these files (even if you bought them)."

 In other words: It’s your responsibility. 

and “Everything you share with LimeWire becomes public and trackable.”

In other words, we won’t help you hide.

The site I use for shared music (bt.etree.org) is mostly concert recordings and they are meticulous about requiring explicit permission from the group before torrents can be posted.    Yes, that means most bands won’t appear there.  I can live with that.

 

 

 

@donp wrote:

I’ve never used Limewire, but just took a look.  They say:

" To use LimeWire legally, you must have the owner’s permission to share every file in your Library on the Gnutella network. For example, music and movies from major labels and movie studios are copyrighted, and you do not have permission to share these files (even if you bought them)."

 In other words: It’s your responsibility. 

and “Everything you share with LimeWire becomes public and trackable.”


So the OP is saying that it’s legal to download what’s there, but illegal to put it there in the 1st place? Huh? Sounds like splitting legal hairs to me.

@donp wrote:

In other words, we won’t help you hide.

Like I said, this is pure CYA. Do what you want here, but we’re not responsible and won’t back you up. We merely provide you with a more convenient way and/or place to commit illegal acts. But WE’RE not an accomplice or have any knowledge of what goes on here. Can they really get by with that ‘ostrich with it’s head in the sand’ attitude?

“Nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say no more, say no more” :wink:

(You MP fans will get this)

First let me state I claim no law degrees, nor to be a employee of Limewire, I mention it so often only because it is what I am used to using myself.    I make no claim with knowing the ins and outs of us copyright law, but I do know the extent of my rights in regards to music ownership.   I follow the RIAA actions and pay attention to case outcomes.  And I have paid attention to what courts have said in those cases.  I break no laws. period.

  However, when you start talking about the musicians getting paid and their hardwork, I agree they deserve fair payment.  What you may not realize is that artists dont make bank on album sales, the studios do.  The artists get paid primarily by ticket sales at live performances and merchandise sales at concerts and events.  Radiohead recently demonstrated that very fact by giving away, literally, their newest album.   They asked that you pay only what you desire to pay.   10-15 percent of the sales were to people who gave more than retail price willingly, while only about 20% went out free of charge, the rest paid like normal.   The band said they need to drum up support for the coming tours and they also were giving the finger to the studios basicly.  Artists generally are in favor of file sharing because it intruduses them to so many new ears and creates new fan bases.  I for one, would never have bought some of the artists I have downloaded, simply because they would be out of my comfort zone and not someone I would risk blowing 15 bucks on hating.   And who hasnt bought an album for that one or two songs you heard on the radio only to have the rest of the tracks sound like crap.   

  I really am not trying to convince anyone to download, its up to you if you want to or not.   All I am saying is that it isnt back alley trading and its very very common.   Its a Moral decision, not a legal one.

And another thought,  nothing stops me from starting a used record\cd store, right?   Assuming I have the cash, I can rent the building and get the licenses and then buy and sell all these IP’s all day and night without a problem.  I could even give them away, right?  And if those I get them from are willing to give to me for free there is no law still to be broken, right?  So whats the difference?

Everybody Listen VERY Carefully… Unless you have sat across the isle from the Mighty RIAA you have no Idea! They dont win but they NEVER lose they only destroy! I have been sued by RIAA 3 times. Never for piracy but only for Theft of intelectual property, which is what you actually run into in the Case of P2P networks. And in these cases RIAA Wins… Always. They dont win piracy cases but they do intellectual property cases. And no matter the outcome they destroy their oposition, and make you wondered why you ever wanted the music to begin with. So to believe you are in the right at anyponit when you download music from a P2P network is  absurd.

As I have said before SOME Acts put there stuff in limewire on purpose and I support that but nothing eles. Also something many of you may not know about is the creative commons licence, this allows for free downloads of entire albums or tracks by aritst who make their stuff avalible this way. For this Check Frostclick.com and google creative commons license. 

@tapeworm wrote:

Like I said, this is pure CYA. Do what you want here, but we’re not responsible and won’t back you up. We merely provide you with a more convenient way and/or place to commit illegal acts. But WE’RE not an accomplice or have any knowledge of what goes on here. Can they really get by with that ‘ostrich with it’s head in the sand’ attitude?

 

Is there a reason why they should be more responsible for illegal use then the phone company is if someone commits extortion or conspiracy or whatever other illegal thing you could do over the phone?  

 Same with the post office.  They ship envelopes from one place to another.  THere are laws about what you can mail, but they don’t pay much attention to what’s in the envelope until they get a complaint. 

@ebouc wrote:
And another thought,  nothing stops me from starting a used record\cd store, right?   Assuming I have the cash, I can rent the building and get the licenses and then buy and sell all these IP’s all day and night without a problem.  I could even give them away, right?  And if those I get them from are willing to give to me for free there is no law still to be broken, right?  So whats the difference?

No you couldnt, you would also need permission from labels to resell new/unused albums. Used what you need to do is to sell the CD for what you bought it for (So for instance I sell you Metallica’s Kill 'em all for $5 you cant sell it for more than $5 with out haveing to pay royalties).

@ebouc wrote:

 Its a Moral decision, not a legal one.

Incorrect.  Here are a couple of cases of people being sued for downloading music.  You don’t pay settlements for moral issues.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,96797,00.html

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/280423_download08.html

@ebouc wrote:

 What you may not realize is that artists dont make bank on album sales, the studios do.  The artists get paid primarily by ticket sales at live performances and merchandise sales at concerts and events.  Radiohead recently demonstrated that very fact by giving away, literally, their newest album. 

This may be the best way for them to get new fans/customers, but under law it is their choice, not yours.

People who sell pirate band/tour T-shirts will argue that the band should make their money on album sales.

What is your buisness model for a musician who performs all the instrumental and vocal parts himself?  He/she is dependant on overdubbing to bring it all together, so the total song is a studio product and can not be performed live.  So no concert tour unless you are willing to shell out the bucks to watch him walk on stage and load a CD.

 

@ebouc wrote:
And another thought,  nothing stops me from starting a used record\cd store, right?   Assuming I have the cash, I can rent the building and get the licenses and then buy and sell all these IP’s all day and night without a problem.  I could even give them away, right?  And if those I get them from are willing to give to me for free there is no law still to be broken, right?  So whats the difference?

 

Conversionbox brought up royalties on markup.  I can’t speak to that… I’m sure ASCAP or BMI will be delighted to fill you in and  send the necessary form.

 The big difference is that each original CD or record carries an implied right to use license, same as a copyrighted book does.  In each case selling or loaning the original is legal, but simply posessing a copy of a book does not give you a right to publish and sell more copies.  That is what copyright is all about.