| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/25/2005 11:02:01 PM · #26 |
| Lime wire is shareware and spyware, thats how it is done. Problem is when you try to remove it, it will cause your computer to crash.I have seen it make 2 crash mine was 1 of them. $130. latter I was told limewire was the cause. So if you have it just disable it. DO NOT try to remove it. |
|
|
|
11/25/2005 11:39:06 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by BigR:
Lime wire is shareware and spyware, thats how it is done. Problem is when you try to remove it, it will cause your computer to crash.I have seen it make 2 crash mine was 1 of them. $130. latter I was told limewire was the cause. So if you have it just disable it. DO NOT try to remove it. |
If you don't get Pro, and stick with the free version, there's no problem.
At least, I've never had a problem. |
|
|
|
11/25/2005 11:44:07 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by BigR:
Lime wire is shareware and spyware, thats how it is done. Problem is when you try to remove it, it will cause your computer to crash.I have seen it make 2 crash mine was 1 of them. $130. latter I was told limewire was the cause. So if you have it just disable it. DO NOT try to remove it. |
I've installed and removed multiple times on multiple machines and never had a problem with that or with spyware/adware. |
|
|
|
11/26/2005 12:03:06 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by CoztheGrov:
In fact what you suggest is a form of socialism which has been proven not to work by our good friends from the former Soviet Union. |
The Soviet Union was more communist than socialist.
Edit to add: And just because one nation failed to succeed with a "socialist" society doesn't mean socialism won't work - that's just one failed example. Look to countries like Germany or Switzerland. They both have socialist-based governments and are doing just fine. They enjoy the benefits of free health care, etc.
Message edited by author 2005-11-26 00:09:30.
|
|
|
|
11/26/2005 01:10:48 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by CoztheGrov:
Its a shame that people like you theSaj, feel so entitled to have whatever you want for free. I guarntee that with copyright protection and IP protection, 90% of all the things, gadgets, computers, software, cameras that you own would not be available to you as you enjoy them today.
It is NOT up to you to determine what should be free unless you own the right. And that is a protection of our way of life, not a infringement on your personal liberties. (side note: the ACLU has gone this way and sadly even contradicted their own name and purpose.)
In fact without such IP protection, we would not have the free market economy that we enjoy her in the USA. The proection of ideas is part of what spurs innovation. Would you be incentivized to write the next verison of Photoshop if there was no way to get any payment for your work, or if all you could do is sit back and watch other people get rich from it? I seriously doubt it. In fact what you suggest is a form of socialism which has been proven not to work by our good friends from the former Soviet Union.
Everytime you steal software, or music, or anything like that from anywhere, in the case of this thread, Limewire, understand that you are undermining your own freedoms and liberty. |
The Soviet Union was a communist nation..socialism is not a broken model. Ask a child dying of Aids in Africa due to the "freedom and liberty" of drug companies in how the use their goods and how the bottom line comes into play when lives are involved. Ask someone who has lost family due to Malaria why they can't have access to the drugs. Please don't start talking about undermining personal freedoms in reference to Limewire. There are bigger moral issues when it comes to dealing with large corporations. Stealing may be stealing, but I always thought Robin Hood was a good guy. |
|
|
|
11/26/2005 09:37:23 PM · #31 |
Bump - some interesting points made here.
|
|
|
|
11/26/2005 09:50:18 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by bucket:
The Soviet Union was a communist nation..socialism is not a broken model. Ask a child dying of Aids in Africa due to the "freedom and liberty" of drug companies in how the use their goods and how the bottom line comes into play when lives are involved. Ask someone who has lost family due to Malaria why they can't have access to the drugs. Please don't start talking about undermining personal freedoms in reference to Limewire. There are bigger moral issues when it comes to dealing with large corporations. Stealing may be stealing, but I always thought Robin Hood was a good guy. |
That was just so off topic I decided that it should be marked. I'm hearing both sides, and I'm not really convinced by either.
I don't download music, I just go to my local library and rip CDs. :-)
(I haven't had a file sharing program since Kazaa Lite got shut down) |
|
|
|
11/26/2005 10:01:14 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by LedZeppelin588:
Originally posted by bucket:
The Soviet Union was a communist nation..socialism is not a broken model. Ask a child dying of Aids in Africa due to the "freedom and liberty" of drug companies in how the use their goods and how the bottom line comes into play when lives are involved. Ask someone who has lost family due to Malaria why they can't have access to the drugs. Please don't start talking about undermining personal freedoms in reference to Limewire. There are bigger moral issues when it comes to dealing with large corporations. Stealing may be stealing, but I always thought Robin Hood was a good guy. |
That was just so off topic I decided that it should be marked. I'm hearing both sides, and I'm not really convinced by either.
|
I don't disagree..with regards to the topic of Limewire..but not off topic with regards to :
"Everytime you steal software, or music, or anything like that from anywhere, in the case of this thread, Limewire, understand that you are undermining your own freedoms and liberty."
This is why I went that way...and certainly is not an off topic response to such a statement. I certainly don't equate defending large corporations with personal freedom... |
|
|
|
11/30/2005 02:38:23 PM · #34 |
Ok to chime in, as said Limewire, Kazaa, Grokster. ect are not illegal, it is how you use it.
There are many things in IP and Copyright law that need revised. The big problem with music is fair use. You can go to a concert and makin your own recording and distribute it free and is legal, if it is brodcast over radio you can record it and play for personal use, but downloading it is illegal. This does not compare well to photography because in most cases the Photog is selling the image direct or through a dist and gets a fair share of the profit of the sale. Where in Music the artist makes a very small fraction of each sale after the studio, distributors, retail take their cut. Most bands ect make more money from concerts and endorsements tha from cd/record sales these days.
There is a simila problem to me with software. You buy a copy and you can only use it on one computer, also you buy a copy and then a newer version comes out with new features, nice software gives you Upgrade prices so you can get the new stuff ubt is still usually more than it should be. Others Make you pay full price to add to what you already own. This type of concept has hurt many. For example the Internet gaming shops where people pay a fee to play a game on a fast network aginst other players in the same shop or over the internet, problem is the lisence agreements would only allow the owners the rights to use the games, allowing diffrent people to play on the same computer is a EULA violation. |
|
|
|
11/30/2005 03:11:05 PM · #35 |
| I always love seeing these discussions and wonder what the photographers here involved in the discussion would say when they found their photograph on anothers website without their permission... |
|
|
|
11/30/2005 03:58:11 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by "CoztheGrov":
Its a shame that people like you theSaj, feel so entitled to have whatever you want for free. I guarntee that with copyright protection and IP protection, 90% of all the things, gadgets, computers, software, cameras that you own would not be available to you as you enjoy them today. |
It's a shame people like CoztheGrov believe thought and ideas can be owned. If everyone thought like Coz, there would be nothing but sticks and stones and lawsuits.
I'm sorry, many of the gadgets you list actually were invented when IP laws were much different. And if we continue. We may not have eBay (which technically, according to the law as written eBay should no longer be up online - it received a breach of patent violation). In fact, there is not a computer that exists today which does not have some patent violation in it. If everything was enforced perfectly and all were known...there would be no computers.
"It is NOT up to you to determine what should be free unless you own the right."
Actually my dear mis-informed friend it is my and every other U.S. citizen's right as prescribed in the United States of America's Constitution - Article I, Section 8:
"The Congress shall have Power .... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
As such the people of the United States could in fact remove such power.
Second, the power only grants Congress authority to secure it for a "limited time" (now think about that my friend....this alone shows that copyrights are not ownership. if you own a physical possession you always own it. Rather, a copyright is merely a grant. A grant means the ownership is held elsewhere and the authority is given from another holder. That is "the People"
Thirdly, it is for the sole purpose of progressing the science and useful arts. However, as is currently the case for many patents (especially software and computer patents) a tremendous amount of "progress" is being held up. (If current patent law was implemented 50 yrs ago there would be no software. The "for/next loop" used in just about every application ever made would be owned and there would be nothing we could do about it.
"And that is a protection of our way of life, not a infringement on your personal liberties."
Yes, but said protection must be a balance. It must ensure a) continued progress b) continued growth of public domain c) fair and free use of said IP by the People. When these three things are infringed. The balance is loss. And the point is moot.
"In fact without such IP protection, we would not have the free market economy that we enjoy her in the USA. "
Bull....IP is in fact directly opposed to free-market concepts. IP is essentially a "state granted monopoly" on use. That's NOT free-market. Free market says who ever can build a better mouse-trap and build it cheaper and market it....gets too.
We'd have alternative powered vehicles a decade ago if not for IP.
"Would you be incentivized to write the next verison of Photoshop if there was no way to get any payment for your work, or if all you could do is sit back and watch other people get rich from it?"
Ah...and this is where copyrights came in to "encourage progress". And were supposed to be short-term. In truth, after 5 yrs or that version of Photoshop should be free. And ironically, I just moved to Open Office. Totally free software.
"In fact what you suggest is a form of socialism which has been proven not to work by our good friends from the former Soviet Union."
No, what I put forth is a balance, which has been severely broken. When copyrights were for 7-14 yrs and are now for 70-unending years. That is "fascism". :P
Originally posted by "nicklevy":
How many years before every one can get their High-Definition DVD player at home? |
Too late, what use is 16-32gigs? By the time HDVD finally settles on a format (or two) we're going to need much more storage. I am already wanting something to back up 100gigs. This patent war is leading to a storage problem. We currently have no means to back up our large information archives. Thus, my life, my fortitude, my personal property are being endangered by a patent system that instead of encouraging progress is greatly delaying it.
I doubt the advanced Digital CD formats will ever catch on.
Originally posted by "laurielblack":
If I download songs on my PC that I do not burn or copy or share with others, but just listen to on my PC while I work, is that legal? |
No, technically this is illegal. In fact, technically if you owned an album on tape and downloaded the same album from online. That is considered illegal.
In fact, for commercial use it's even worse, if you bought the CD (and even paid BMI/ASCAP's performance royalty fees) and wanted to convert it to an digital file on a computer for a public performance - that too is illegal (except for broadcast radio stations which have a special exception clause) - so even though you shelled out the $10-$20 for the CD (which you receive NO LICENSE with) you are still breaking the law.
And even if you downloaded the music legally from bands websites, etc. Guess what...did you receive a license with that download? Do you have any proof it was a legal download?
So in reality, even if you downloaded a bunch of songs legally you could still find yourself face to face with a $150,000 fine and a felony crime on your record (which means in many states you lose the right to vote). Because you are never given a license.
Many companies got hit with thousands and thousands of dollars of fees by Microsoft when they did corporate license audits. Of course, how many people have all their manuals and software licenses. Even though companies legally bought Windows for their computers. Because they did not have the licenses they were forced to re-buy the software because they had no proof of ownership.
Yup...this just shows how screwed up our current copyright laws are.
Originally posted by "TooCool":
I always love seeing these discussions and wonder what the photographers here involved in the discussion would say when they found their photograph on anothers website without their permission... |
Oh by the way, if anyone is wondering...NO, I do not have any problem with anyone downloading my photos and saving them for their personal pleasure. Want to use one as wallpaper go ahead. Want to give it to a friend? Go ahead. As long as you are not profiting for yourself and as long as you attribute authorship I am totally fine. And this has been my stance thru out all these IP arguments regarding personal use of IP for non-profit based uses.
Now, that does not mean (as one person tried to demonstrate) that you can say take a picture of me the Saj and deface it and say "Saj is a moron" as although posting my photo is fine by me, the latter actions of slander & libel are illegal. But if someone liked one of my photos and wanted to post it on their website for personal use...than fine, just include authorship and credit. |
|
|
|
12/02/2005 01:55:44 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Yup...this just shows how screwed up our current copyright laws are. |
It would do if your examples were valid. It is not "illegal" to, say, copy a CD to your iPod.
Originally posted by theSaj:
As long as you are not profiting for yourself and as long as you attribute authorship I am totally fine. |
This is the mixed up part of your thinking. Do you want any profit from your work? If not, why should other people not profit from your work? If you did want to profit in some fashion, can people still give away your work at cost so as to deprive you of any profit?
If you want to protect intangible assets, control or profit from them, or prevent others from profiting from your assets against your wishes, you need some form of enforceable right against those who will take and use your assets for their own ends without further reference to you. Aka copyright.
|
|
|
|
12/02/2005 02:02:15 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by theSaj:
Yup...this just shows how screwed up our current copyright laws are. |
It would do if your examples were valid. It is not "illegal" to, say, copy a CD to your iPod.
|
Not getting involved, but it's useless to argue "what's legal" or not without providing a context.
In Canada, for example, it's legal for me to borrow my friend's cd and burn it or copy it onto my iPod and then give the cd back.
|
|
|
|
12/02/2005 02:11:00 PM · #39 |
LimeWire rules :) This program is fantastic. You share folder with the rest of the world. Till now I'm absolutely thrilled with the all the things that you can download. And the search is very fast. The downloads are stable not like the other programs. But if you want to download music or whole albums, I recomend U "Soulseek". No spywere & viruses
|
|
|
|
12/02/2005 02:33:30 PM · #40 |
I know it's been stated a dozen different ways, but I want to add one more...
A gun is legal, but can allow you to perform illegal acts. Same with lime.
When you download limewire it asks if you plan to use it for copyright infringement. If you answer you might, it will not let you download it. While this doesn't stop anyone (a simple lie will bypass this) it definately covers limewire's ass in court.
So, yes, limewire is a legal product. |
|
|
|
12/02/2005 02:42:35 PM · #41 |
New question - Is it legal to be the 'sharer' of your mp3's in a program such as this?
I assume it is legal, and that it's the act of downloading them that is illegal. However, putting them there you "know" they will be used for illegal purposes. Does that knowledge change anything?
I have two "mix-cds" on my website for free downloading. It's been there over a year, noone's ever said anything. Is that legal? I couldn't find anything but hearsay as to whether they were or not. |
|
|
|
12/02/2005 02:52:04 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
It would do if your examples were valid. It is not "illegal" to, say, copy a CD to your iPod. |
All my examples were valid. No, it is not illegal to copy a CD to your iPod. Nor to download music that was provided by the artist.
However, since you are not given a license when you download music. Were you to be brought to court for having music on your computer you have no means to "prove" your innoncence. And thus, could be susceptible to a $150,000/per incident fine and a felony criminal record.
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
Do you want any profit from your work? If not, why should other people not profit from your work? |
Within the world of commercial enterprise yes...but within the confines of personal use...not as big a deal to me. And for profits I think such should only be for a short period of time.
I believe in performance payments NOT recording payments. By that, I believe that you pay a photographer to take the pictures, do any edits, but I believe printing you pay the "Printer" for the work. And if you do the work yourself than there should be no need to pay a 3rd party.
You pay a band to perform. 200-400 yrs ago songs were performed by artists. And they would simply attribute authorship of the song if it were known. But it was not an issue. And you paid the performer for the performance.
|
|
|
|
12/05/2005 02:06:37 AM · #43 |
This thread has sparked a really interesting debate, and I hope that it will continue...bump.
|
|
|
|
12/05/2005 11:25:32 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by jadin:
New question - Is it legal to be the 'sharer' of your mp3's in a program such as this?
I assume it is legal, and that it's the act of downloading them that is illegal. However, putting them there you "know" they will be used for illegal purposes. Does that knowledge change anything?
I have two "mix-cds" on my website for free downloading. It's been there over a year, noone's ever said anything. Is that legal? I couldn't find anything but hearsay as to whether they were or not. |
Unauthorised distribution of MP3s (even if titled to suggest that it is a mixed CD) and file sharing of copyrighted materials are usually in breach of copyright. Uploading and downloading are both in breach, but the uploader is causing more economic damage to the copyright owner so is more liable to prosecution (it is easier to prosecute the one who uploads causing damage of $1 per upload to 10,000 people for $10,000, than it is to prosecure 10,000 people for $1 each).
Originally posted by theSaj:
Were you to be brought to court for having music on your computer you have no means to "prove" your innoncence. |
It would not be that hard to "prove" this, either by showing that the music was made available for free download or by producing a copy of the CD you ripped.
Originally posted by theSaj:
You pay a band to perform. 200-400 yrs ago songs were performed by artists. And they would simply attribute authorship of the song if it were known. But it was not an issue. And you paid the performer for the performance. |
The reason why copyright was introduced was because there are now distribution mechanisms beyond personal appearance. The logical conclusion to this argument would be for you to receive no money for taking photographs (you should have been paid by the subject of your photos) - that only works for events such as weddings (where it is already a functioning payment mechanism that works very well within the realm of copyright).
|
|
|
|
12/05/2005 12:07:37 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
It would not be that hard to "prove" this, either by showing that the music was made available for free download or by producing a copy of the CD you ripped.
|
Sure, when one owns the CD. But we're not talking about that scenario but the download scenario. Gee...MP3.com had lots of music, most of it direct from artists. Now the site is gone. Please tell me how you would show proof that you legally downloaded it.
In fact, it is not uncommon for an artist to have a track available for download from their website. Especially when small. Then as they get bigger *poof*. But I seriously doubt that most people are taking screen shots of the sites they download legal music from.
So once again there is little evidence for someone to show that they in deed did legally download it.
Now, even going back to the CD question. What happens if your CD carry-all was say lost and stolen. So the only thing you have left were your digital back-ups. How do you show proof then?
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
The reason why copyright was introduced was because there are now distribution mechanisms beyond personal appearance.
|
Well gee, if that's the case. Let's look at digital distribution's super low costs. Or even the fact that CD's cost less than a $1 to make and distribute.
If copyrights were introduced because there were new distribution mechanisms. Maybe we need "buyerights" to address the new technical mediums. If something new technically is enough reason to create copyrights than likewise, it should be enough to implement "buyerights".
Originally posted by jadin:
New question - Is it legal to be the 'sharer' of your mp3's in a program such as this?
I assume it is legal, and that it's the act of downloading them that is illegal. However, putting them there you "know" they will be used for illegal purposes. Does that knowledge change anything?
I have two "mix-cds" on my website for free downloading. It's been there over a year, noone's ever said anything. Is that legal? I couldn't find anything but hearsay as to whether they were or not.
Unauthorised distribution of MP3s (even if titled to suggest that it is a mixed CD) and file sharing of copyrighted materials are usually in breach of copyright. Uploading and downloading are both in breach, but the uploader is causing more economic damage to the copyright owner so is more liable to prosecution (it is easier to prosecute the one who uploads causing damage of $1 per upload to 10,000 people for $10,000, than it is to prosecure 10,000 people for $1 each).
Originally posted by theSaj:
Were you to be brought to court for having music on your computer you have no means to "prove" your innoncence.
It would not be that hard to "prove" this, either by showing that the music was made available for free download or by producing a copy of the CD you ripped.
Originally posted by theSaj:
You pay a band to perform. 200-400 yrs ago songs were performed by artists. And they would simply attribute authorship of the song if it were known. But it was not an issue. And you paid the performer for the performance.
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
The logical conclusion to this argument would be for you to receive no money for taking photographs (you should have been paid by the subject of your photos) - that only works for events such as weddings (where it is already a functioning payment mechanism that works very well within the realm of copyright).
|
Okay, so let's think landscapes, cityscapes, etc.
Well, seeing as few photographers "own" that which they are photographing. Is it really such an issue? It's not like the "moon in the night sky" is owned by the photographer. To charge for that which is freely seen?
Wouldn't the logical conclusion be that you should pay the owners of said objects in said scenes? If I photograph New York City, shouldn't the owners of the varied architecturally designed buildings have a right to claim royalty against my photograph? In fact, shouldn't I get their permission (license) from them the right to photograph their buildings? Imagine trying to get such permission from ALL the owners of the various buildings in the Manhatten skyline.
Sound crazy...in some countries (I think Canada is one) that is in fact an issue. The architectural rights presuppose the right of imaging any architecture as a copyright.
This is the problem with copyrights. They unceasingly grow larger and larger in scope and control until they become assinine and insane. Just look where we are headed with the new software and business model patents. It's become ridiculous. In engineering microprocessors there is no way one can avoid not violating someone else's patents. Especially as we allow more and more vague patents.
It will eventually collapse under it's own obese weight....
Message edited by author 2005-12-05 12:13:34.
|
|
|
|
12/05/2005 12:37:43 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Well, seeing as few photographers "own" that which they are photographing. Is it really such an issue? It's not like the "moon in the night sky" is owned by the photographer. To charge for that which is freely seen? |
I'm sorry, I'm not quite following where you're trying to go with this argument. Are you suggesting that as I don't own the moon, I shouldn't be allowed to charge for a photograph that I take of it?
If you're in a creative industry (be it music or photography or software or whatever) then copyright is an important protection of your investment. If people were allowed to freely copy anything they happen to have in their hands then the companies that are creating the content in the first place don't get the income they need to continue producing it.
You can invent all the pseudo-legal justifications for it you like, if it makes you feel better while you break the law, but copyright theft is theft all the same. |
|
|
|
12/05/2005 01:00:16 PM · #47 |
If you do not own or have permission of the owners of the Empire State Building, you should not be able to take a photograph of their building and sell it.
Does this sound outrageous too you? Well, it's the LAW in a few countries. (I think Canada is one of the nations that have an architectural law such as the above but I'd have to double check on that.) |
|
|
|
12/05/2005 01:02:09 PM · #48 |
You can invent all the pseudo-legal justifications for it you like, if it makes you feel better while you break the law, but copyright theft is theft all the same.
*shrugs*
a) I don't see it that way
b) nor am I trying to justify my actions for a clear conscience
c) As a DJ & Collector, I probably buy more CDs than everyone else in this thread combined. (I am probably at around 2,000-3,000+ CDs.)
d) it is not theft, even according to the law it is merely an infringement of a state granted monopoly. It is akin to having offered telephone service during the Ma Bell days.
- Saj |
|
|
|
12/05/2005 01:05:15 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
If you do not own or have permission of the owners of the Empire State Building, you should not be able to take a photograph of their building and sell it.
Does this sound outrageous too you? Well, it's the LAW in a few countries. (I think Canada is one of the nations that have an architectural law such as the above but I'd have to double check on that.) |
US copyright law recognizes architectural structures as eligible for copyright since around 1986. As such, I think you can photograph the Empire State Building. King Kong is probably still covered by copyright though : (
Message edited by author 2005-12-05 13:06:05. |
|
|
|
12/05/2005 01:27:12 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
You can invent all the pseudo-legal justifications for it you like, if it makes you feel better while you break the law, but copyright theft is theft all the same.
*shrugs*
a) I don't see it that way
b) nor am I trying to justify my actions for a clear conscience
c) As a DJ & Collector, I probably buy more CDs than everyone else in this thread combined. (I am probably at around 2,000-3,000+ CDs.)
d) it is not theft, even according to the law it is merely an infringement of a state granted monopoly. It is akin to having offered telephone service during the Ma Bell days.
- Saj |
You've already made it crystal clear that you feel you are justified in your theft. Just because you don't "see it that way" doesn't make your thievery OK. Some people don't see anything wrong with robbing banks or scamming little old ladies, but that doesn't make that right either.
|
|
