The rise and rise of KAZAA peer 2 peer file sharing. 6

[guestgulkan]

I was to say the least , mildly surprised to see KAZAA media desktop software being given away on a freebie CDROM by a reputable PC magazine here in the UK.

AFAIK there is only one purpose behined KAZAA and that is p2p file sharing, also known as piracy.

As someone who also dabbles in computer repair, I would say at least 50% of the computers I see have the shiny green KAZAA shortcut on their desktop.

Yet I hear nothing from the record/media companies about this KAZAA network - but they went after NAPSTER with extreme malice.

 

[ThomasJSmart]

yea, thats what i was going to say but i couldnt find the words ;-)

-k9logic

I learned a bit yesterday, today i learned a lot, imagine what i'll learn tomorrow!

 

[Albion]

The bottom line is that the RIAA, MPAA and their members do not want to lose control of their product and/or profit. Companies like Napster, and more recently Shamen Networks, pose a threat to that control. The entertainment industry does not care about any legitimate uses for the technologies in question, they only care that other people don't get the money they've been getting for the last 50 to 100 years. So much so that they will do anything they can to shut down those who do or may pose a threat.

Personally I equate it to the family of a drug overdose victim suing Boeing or Beachcraft because their vehicles were used to smuggle those drugs into the country. We're all watching the birth of a true capitalism run by monopolies that dictate the law. After all, all they need to do is send you to bankruptcy with years of litigation backed by the billions they have in their coffers.

It's not about ethics or morals anymore either, it's about losing control and power. Just take a look at SCO (and Microsoft for that matter) whose grasping at straws with its IBM/Linux suit over intellectual property. SCO has lost control and they will do anything they can no matter how unethical or unrealistic it is to gain back that control. It used to be that companies feared what the consumer would say about unethical practices that stopped them in the past, but they are starting to realize that 99% of the consumers only care about their illusion/delusion of the American dream.

So where does this take us? It takes us to the point of capitalist monopolies suppressing new technologies to maintain control. Whether or not those technologies are beneficial to society is a moot point. We'll see what happens when China overtakes the US in the technology race. While we're sitting over here floundering with litigation over who owns what, they're working their butts off to send people into space and steal all of the manufacturing from us. Maybe we otta open our eyes and stop bickering about who owns what 4 line piece of code and start worrying about what's really important.

Anyway, I've said my peace.

-al

 

[guestgulkan]

The bottom line is that the RIAA, MPAA and their members do not want to lose control of their product and/or profit.

I've got a lot of sympathy with this view.

I'm not sure of the original charter under which the RIAA was formed, but I'm sure it's no different from any other SIG (Special Interest Groups) - e.g. Recial Eqauliaty groups, Sexual Eqaulity groups, Environmental protection Groups, etc..

These groups form with the best of intentions, but it's not long before they go way OTT and turn into witch hunters/zealots.

Heaven help you if you so much as look at someone of another race in a 'funny' way, or dare say that a woman may not be the best person for a job, or cut down a tree.

These groups often turn into a hinderance to progress rather than a help, and I'm sure the RIAA is no better.

 

[TonyU]

[tt]And soon user groups will start being watched like Kazaa and others....

Delete * from brain Where MaxLevel = "Full" and reaction = "Slow" order by StartOver
​

 

[xutopia]

I've used Kazaa just today to download some MP3s of the CDs I own but are at home. Is this illegal?

Gary

http://www.xutopia.com

Haran
==========================

 

[bassguy]

I think I have a few comments that might be worth mulling over. WHile not Directly related to Kazaa it does deal with the music indusrty and with copyright legislation.

In a former lifetime I was a High School Band director. When you buy Sheet music for a band you get a standard distribution based on what the Model band would be. i.e. 8 flutes, 8 clarinets etc. Unfortunatel, few bands were exactely like the layout. Often times you would have many more flutes than 8 and many fewer tuba players than the 45 parts they would package for you. The publishers made no real accomidations for you to order specifically what you needed. They did however warn and threaten you about Xeroxing the music that you did just buy. if I had 10 flote players I was supposed to Order seperately single copies of the flute part for disproportionate costs. the solution....copy what i needed.

Anyways to go on, I went to a Publishing company and asked why couldn't I just by a Copy of the music on CD or online and then print what I needed. I said I would rather pay more money for a "Liscencing" fee if I could print my own as needed. My response was a flat "NO" After pressing the point a bit more I came to realize that the profit was in the pressing and the shipping. those costs were not paid to the Composers. If they were to make the music available online, how could they charge me $12.00 to ship it and $25.00 to print it to paper? all of which is not reflected back to the artist.

I think the same could be said of the RIAA. they decry the artist is getting hosed with the use of KAZAA and I agree, he is. But the reason the industry is not going to the net as a delivery system is because there is no profit in it. they allready have a infrastructure in place that has made them rich. whay would they want to chose a less profitable method?

just a few thoughts.

bassguy

 

[cdogg]

xutopia,

Should it be legal?
- Yes

Is it legal?
- RIAA and copyright buffs wouldn't think so




~cdogg

"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."
- A. Einstein

 

[xutopia]

cdogg,

don't you hate it when doing something legal becomes impossible?

The reason is simple. There are people that steal and there is a greedy industry that won't sell cheap enough to make it accessible to everyone.

What a sad state of affairs!

Gary

http://www.xutopia.com

Haran
==========================

 

[CajunCenturion]

xutopia - Yes it is illegal. You did not buy the rights to download or copy the files from that source. And that should remain illegal.

Now, can you rip your own copy of the CD? Yes, I think so, provided you do not share or otherwise violate copyright laws with respect to the copies.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[cdogg]

You know, I once thought that if I owned something, I was entitled to make a copy in case something happens to the original - as long I'm not using the backup while the original still exists and is in use.

But then you see those DVD's occasionally say:

Duplication in whole or in part is prohibited


My question: Is it legal unless this is stated somewhere in the usage policy, or is it always illegal regardless if this statement was included or not?

Notice that it doesn't mention distributing or backing up. It seems to be cutting out the "intent of use".




~cdogg

"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."
- A. Einstein

 

[CajunCenturion]

In the USA, the general rule is that if the law does not prohibit it, then it's okay. But don't forget the companion, "ignorance of the law is no defense."

That being said, just because a DVD that you purchase does not say "Duplication in whole or in part is prohibited" does not mean that you can make copies. Copyright law still applies, as it applies to all published material, whether registered or not.

But even if you're making a backup copy of your CD, that is not the same as downloading, because you copying from a difference source. You own the source you bought, but you do not own the source you downloaded.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[xutopia]

This different source BS has got me worried about our sad state of affairs.

How bad is it when the RIAA can tell you it is alright to backup your CD's to MP3s yourself but it is illegal to get them already ripped from someone else even if you own the CD?

How bad can things get?

RIAA - "It is alright for you to go to your washroom but not to share your washroom with others. Your friends must go home for that."

In a world like this one I find normal that people are fighting back with file sharing!

Gary

http://www.xutopia.com

Haran
==========================

 

[CajunCenturion]

There are a couple of issue at play. First of all, when you buy a CD, you're buying that CD, not every copy of that CD. Secondly, neither you or anyone else has the right to share that CD with the general public.

I guess you think that if you buy the latest Tom Clancy novel, and while on vacation you can go into the local bookstore and say, "heys guys, I've already purchased this novel, and in fact, here is my receipt, so do you mind if I photocopy on of yours?"

And yes, if it's your restroom, you have every right to decide who can and cannot use it and when. It's your property. And how bad can it get - many companies do not allow the public to use their restrooms, and frankly, I don't blame them.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[EricDraven]

Its not just music files that are being downloaded though!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/2940270.stm

Arte Et Labore

 

[xutopia]

Cajun,

The store analogy is bad.

Let's use a music store as it would be more appropriate. If I bought a CD and go back to the store and ask them if I can make a copy they'll tell me to go to hell.

However if it is your friend that you ask he'll most likely won't mind. If you own the CD at home and you are on vacation and take a copy from someone else so you can listen to the music you paid for the right to listen it shouldn't matter. Byte per byte it is the same music as the one on your home computer right next to your pile of bought CDs.

Like I said I find this ridiculous and if no one else does then I find that ridiculous. I prefer MP3s over CDs anyday (I have an MP3 player but no diskman). What is ethically wrong with me listenin to the music I paid for regardless of where I got it? Byte per byte again, it's the same darn thing. Why should it matter?

Gary

http://www.xutopia.com

Haran
==========================

 

[CajunCenturion]

You are right - the music store would respond as you say. You'd be asking them to break the law and participate in your illegal copying.

It's true that your friend most likely won't mind, but you're both still both breaking the law. Is that ethical - to knowingly violate a law?

If you want to listen to your music while on vacation, then bring your music with you.

What is ethically wrong with me listening to the music I paid for regardless of where I got it? - Because you didn't buy the music. You bought a CD and the right to listen to the music on that CD. So if you got the music for another source, not authorized to share the music, then you have obtained the music unethically. You are in violation of copyright law, and that's why it's unethical.

I do not have any qualms with your objections to the law. If that’s your motivation, then fight to have the law changed. But I don't feel that disagreeing with a law is sufficient ethical grounds for breaking that law.

But I can certainly see why, given your inclination to break a law that you don't agree with (at least copyright law), that you value your right to privacy above the rights of the copyright holder.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[psemianonymous]

I have a strong distaste for anything that sounds hypothetical. It is much simpler for you to simply rip your CDs from home; why not do so? Instead you download a program (Kazaa) that installs several layers of spyware, at work no less, then log on to a network dedicated 99.9% for illegal purposes. You then proceed to download hundreds (maybe as few as 30 or so?) of songs, just like every other user, and proceed to complain about the situation on an Internet messageboard. Problems with this:
1. This is like going to Hong Kong, buying an entire stand of pirated CDs, stuffing a suitcase full of them and claiming in customs "But I already own copies of all this software; I'm just getting fair use/backups". Yeah right. Kazaa is every bit as seedy as your neighborhood Asian pirated CD stand.
2. Who downloads CDs when you can rip them yourself? Ripping isn't fun, but at least you know what you're getting. Ripping CDs takes about 10/20 minutes per CD, whereas downloading a CD off Kazaa takes anywhere from an hour/several hours with no upper bound of time cost.
3. At work? Are you insane? At least use WinMX, which does not install spyware.
4. This entire story is fishy and reinforces my "not in real life/only on the internet" theory, that people will invent situations/stories to prove a point. I have never heard anything like this story in real life, nor have I heard anything remotely like the testimonials found in this thread in real life. I just don't believe you.

 

[xutopia]

Laws are not always ethical. I don't think it is breaking the law to download a backup rather than physically backup myself. I've yet to see where the law says it is.

One law in a civilized country says that a school teacher should only meet for courtship on sunday afternoon in public and with a chaperon.

Why should such a law be allowed? Is it ethical to inforce such things? If the law is unethical is it unethical to break that law?

I'm sorry but law is not an ultimate truth protected by divine sanctity. It is imperfect like many aspects of life. Just because law is law doesn't mean it is ethical.


Gary

http://www.xutopia.com

Haran
==========================

 

[psemianonymous]

You're working on the assumption that copyright laws are unjust when you proclaim civil disobedience. There is a difference between (very) stringent fair use regulations and some Victorian-era law that is no longer enforced anyway. You can always point out the "boundary conditions"--in this case laws that are outrageous and possibly un-enforceable, but that doesn't mean that copyright laws fall in the same category. Because they don't. Copyright law is necessary, believe it or not, and enforcing intellectual property rights is going to become more and more difficult as the internet/P2P grows.

Even if all the major media companies don't know, we computer people know that any digital media is crackable, given time, and thus the future of digital media is very shaky. Maybe they do know this, and thus the crackdown on every form of P2P imagineable. Thus I support the harsh anti-piracy measures: so be it, say I. If it swings too far (which it has) towards strictness, I believe that it will also correct itself. Maybe it won't, and maybe we will be registering everything with a centralized "Passport"-style service before using any product--but I don't think this is our future.

Instead of thinking of piracy as "free speech" or other nonsense, try and think of it as speeding in your car. If you're caught speeding, there's really nothing to it but getting a ticket. Correspondingly, if you are unhappy with "Big Media"s treatment of P2P, take it in stride; after all, it is illegal.

Maybe they shouldn't be hunting you down for downloading (allegedly) MP3's of songs you already own. But think of speeding tickets--they also give them out to speeders who go way above the limit, or go 70 in a school zone where your children attend. Yes, this analogy stretches to accommodate "serious crimes" which are also committed using the same service you are using.


The concept of "illegal but not unethical" was described to me in a Larry Niven novel, of all places--wherein he described smuggling as illegal but not unethical. In the same way, you don't have to feel bad (and you obviously don't) about bending/breaking the law. Though I still don't believe you're being honest about your adventures in P2P piracy, even you admit that your behavior is illegal by current law. Don't feel bad about it. BUT ADMIT THAT YOU'RE BREAKING THE LAW. You're not fighting the good fight; you're not fighting for freedom of speech as described in the first amendment of the Constitution. You're just downloading some files in a way which happens to be illegal.

 

[skiflyer]

Cajun....

I don't agree with your ethical logic there. Legally what you're saying is even debated and not yet clear, ethically, in my estimation, I just disagree.

In my estimation you're buying the CD and jewel case, and liner notes as a method of conveyance of the content within.

Now you've purchased the content and a certain method of it.

Now, if you want to backup your CD, you're perfectly fine to do so. But if you're friend (or some other source) has backed up this particular CD en masse, you're committing an unethical act to take that backup? (possibly paying a small fee for the media itself, but no profit for the content)

I follow the argument, and I think we just disagree as to what you've purchased when you've purchased a CD. (or a book, or software or any other piece of intellectual work) In my estimation you're paying a fee for delivery (somewhere between very little to very much depending on the mechanism) plus a fee for content. According to fair use laws we are then allowed to do a set number of things with the content. Just because one of those (backing up) might be done from a different source copy (when it's the identical content) does not in my estimation make it unethical... unfortunately, according to some interpretations it remains illegal. But note, not even the RIAA would try to take someone to court for this act... they're very particularly going after the clear cases, where people are stealing content flat out.

-Rob