POLL: Dare to Download?

Remove all ads!

Well, now that hundreds of lawsuits have been filed against people who download music off the Internet...I was just wondering if any of you guys are going to take the chance and download songs off the web.

Personally, since I have no clue on how they are able to track down and prosecute downloaders, I've decided to move all the files I've ever downloaded into an un-shared folder and now I'll only download stuff that I can't live without...how about you?

Poll Information
This poll contains 1 question(s). 31 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: Dare to Download? (31 votes.)

Do You Dare to Download? (Choose 1)
* Yeh I'll still download stuff...they won't catch me... - 58% (18)
* Yes, but only on rare occasions. - 23% (7)
* No, not anymore...at least, not on my computer... - 0% (0)
* No, never... - 6% (2)
* Just the results for me. - 13% (4)

 

It's downright wrong what they do and accessing files not meant for them to see (i.e. browsing your disk) is plain burglary. It outranks downloading a song by far. But they won't even be told off for what they do. They will, however, get obscene amounts of money in punitive damages from you. The same is with software. Now it's also illegal in EU to copy copy-protected CDs even for your own use. This means that you have to use the original CD all the time and buy a new one when it wears off. Pretty convinient for someone, isn't it? Damn, such people just waste air. I can't understand such greed (the whole, not exclusively this one law in particular). It's not human. Even animals don't behave like that. And don't tell me about the rights of the artists. Who's so concerned with them? Distributors who give them some one digit percent of sales income?

 

I live in Canada, so the law doesn't concern me... yet. Even if it did, I wouldn't worry about it. If I get caught, I get caught. I still think it's all bull****. I read somewhere (sorry, it was a mag so no link) that the AMA produced 2000 less artists then previous years. They are still selling MORE records per artist than any other years, they're just not producing as many. It really gets me because they're complaining like *****es, but they still make billions a year!

 

I fear Chevy that animals are far better than us in this issue. I will continue to download whatver i can get my hands on but now i watch mainly for freeware not shareware no nothing. But if i see something i like i will get it. That is all i will say because i am too emotionally stirred up with this subject that i may cross some borders.

 

You know how it can get to your personal data? Your ISP (Internet Service Provider), IP (Internet Protocol) Address and your Creditcard

They don't normally access your files, they have trafficscanners, and sometimes they even distribute the warez and report anybody who takes it.

It is that easy, the only reason you have for not getting paranoid is that you're one of the millions doing nasty things on the Internet.

 

Really? Well it ain't illeagal here in Finland even though we are in the EU. If I do not remember all wrong even downloading music and movies is allowed here not sure about software though.

Well the piracy situation is pretty bad and I kind of understand their desire to stop it with any means possible but spying on ones computer most certanly is not the correct method to do that.

 

I recently heard that the music industry is planning to make an uncopiable (did I just invent a word?) cd....That to me is just plain wrong.

I think they should shut download free downloading sites, and set up pay site to download music. Maybe fifty cents or a buck per song would not be outrageous. Then you could get clean coppies of music for your own use.

Making uncrackable cds however, is a bit over the top. If I shell out the clams for a cd, and I want to make a mixed cd of my favorite songs for my personal use - I should be allowed to do that.

As for file swapping - I think folks are getting away with stealing as it stands right now...

[ September 15, 2003, 19:34: Message edited by: Sir Belisarius ]

 

They have been planning to do that for years, and when they think they have it they shout it of the rooftops. Only to be cracked in the next week.

BTW, there hasn't been any cd around which my CloneCD couldn't copy.

 

BTA - Your scenario is correct, yet flawed. Not everything on your computer is stolen property. It's like if you steal something, then they come into your house looking. They ransack your house and look through your "untouchables"( ). They then sue you for stealing, what is compared to them, a peanut. Now, I admit, when millions of people steal many peanuts a day it gets troubling. But it's not like the AMA is suffering.

 

No, BTA, you are rather discussing your own points using something I said than actually replying to my points. I understand your wish to advocate software companies, but you are not even referring to what you quote

How could you get the impression that I referred to checking your shared folder that all can see as burglary is beyond me, really. I would have to be a retard, do I look like one?

No matter the reasons, it's wrong when I private company accesses non-public information from your computer. Tracing the traffic for a specific IP externally is unfair and intrusive, but it's not restricted information in most cases and also in some cases it's justified. However, breaking in (going around protections etc) and extracting information from your computer like your directory structure, even automated checking for specific files and their contents is just like burglary or spying. There's also abusing your bandwidth, slowing your transfer etc etc. Just to check if you don't have a pirate program.

What's next? Breaking into my PC and looking at every single jpg I have, halving my transfer, to check if there aren't any nude minors in any of them?

I don't want any American company folk looking through my files, period. It would be abhorrent even if it were my own sovereign country's cops, but third party private persons or corporate representatives from other countries? I don't want anyone to see a single byte of my file or to use a single byte of my bandwidth without first asking me.

To use your analogy, would you allow a robbed shop owner to take a trip and look through his neighbours' houses in search of stolen refrigerators?

And it's not amusing.

 

Well, but I am referring to searching your disk for specific files or specific content of specific files or looking through your directory structure and then files and NOT to checking your shared folder you expose to all. But I have said this twice, haven't I?

It happened in past, happens now and steps have been taken to make it oficially legal in US by a Congress bill. Yes, privately owned companies (not cops on their request) looking through your files legally if they suspect that you have pirated a piece of their software. Please, you don't believe it's right, do you?

It's like with that plan to introduce compulsory scanning at US airports that would allow strangers and even not cops but private people to see you naked just because you could be smuggling a gun under your clothes. Of course scanning of not only US citizens.

 

Please forgive me if it sounds like I am climbing unto my favourite hobby-horse but;

For a prosecution to be successful the prosecutor must prove that the software/music/pictures on the computer was downloaded with the full knowledge of the person being prosecuted.

The downloaders/uploaders identity is in doubt if:

1. There is more than one person with access to the computer holding the downloaded material.

2. The alledged downloader claims a virus/trojan downloaded the software. In the case of the Blaster worm, the entire Kazaa program or any alternative could have been downloaded and executed by the worm. (People whose homepages have recently been hijacked have downloaded porn through no fault of their own).The original Kazaa is spyware/malware and always downloads material beyond the users control. ( Kazaa Lite doesn't).

3. The alledged downloader has an alibi from a respected official that he was elsewhere at the time the download was initiated.

4. The alleged downloader claims an as yet unknown hacker placed the software/music on his machine. (The Recording Industry Association of America RIAA that is bringing these cases to court has its site hacked every time it appears on the web. Usually it can stay up for only a few hours before a Denial Of Service attack is launched. On one occassion a group of hackers managed to upload a number of pirated MP3s to the site, which were then made available (by an unwitting RIAA) to anyone who wanted to download them. I can't prove this story is true, but I read the explanation of how the Exploit was carried out, and it sounds perfectly feasable.)

5. The XP Remote Assistance function was active allowing someone else to have complete control over the computer.


This doesn't even touch on the multitude of other extenuating circumstances such as:

6. The title/listing/description of the software was misleading, causing the copyrighted material to be downloaded.

7. It was downloaded for review for a magazine article. (Certain countries)

8. The downloader is under 16.

I could go on, and I could also predict how the filesharing situation can easily be changed in the downloaders favour by using currently available technology if sucessful prosecutions against (non-profiteering) individuals become the norm. But everyone likes surprises, no?


[Note on my personal position; If you try an artists work and you like it, then support the artist and buy their stuff, or else there will be no more of it. At the same time I am in favour of sensible copyright laws whereby I don't have to be dead twice over before Art can be reused and reformed into something that is equally available to rich and poor (I'm talking Developing World poor here, not mallrat poor ).

 

Why the hell would the AMA want an apology? Anyway, I don't think there will ever be a shortage of artists. There are sooo many that a few who don't make it won't really be missed. I'm not going to feel bad that I put someone out of business. Everyone else has to compete, why should musicians be exempt? The Land of Competition, as Bad Religion put it. Besides, the music industry survived the 80's and early 90's when taping was popular.

 

It's happened to me or my family many, many times. It's a way of life. That's what capitalism is all about. Anyway, I don't have a broadband connection, so I can't download songs. I buy alot of music, so I do my part but I won't comdemn someone who downloads all their music. I myself have about 3500 MP3's because I rip all my CD's as soon as I get them. MP3's are the next stage in music, and people should try to harness that and quit *****ing!

My favorite band was disbanded by bull**** regulations (Tipper Gore and her lackeys). I have no qualms with screwing the music industry. Don't tell me this has anything to do with the artists, it's the industry that's the problem.