Can anyone suggest any decent alternatives to limewire?

weegie.geek

Google indexes. That's all it does. It strolls around the internet indexing everything. IMO it should be a completely impartial body. It should be a webhost's responsibility to shut down these websites, not google's responsibility to hide them.

thefenman

rpsheridan wrote: »

As limewire is full of viruses I need something else, can anyone help, cheers

Soulseek every time - free and totally unobtrusive.

http://www.slsknet.org/

Mr_Oink

weegie.geek wrote: »

There's a major difference between shoplifting and copying. I shoplift, the owner loses the item forever. I copy, they MIGHT lose the chance to make money from me. Definitely not the same, and where do you draw the line?

You copy it, you break the rules of the provider. Their product, their rules. It's really that simple.

If something isn't available to buy any more, and I download it, should I be prosecuted?

Yes - see below:

If I want to put my CDs on my MP3 player, is that OK? Is it then OK as a timesaving device for me to download them instead? If not, why not?

Because the content owner probably has restrictions, such as the mechanical copyright, on the CD. You are quite welcome to pay the £10,000 or whatever it currently is for an MCPS licence, contact the rights owner and come to a licensing agreement with them. You could, subject to availability, buy a legitmate mp3 version for your mp3 player from someone like Amazon :-) I'm sure you did not take your CD player to a store and swap it for a free mp3 player, so why would you expect to swap your CD's for something you can play on that time saving device you have just paid for - free of charge?

Crux is this. People who steal media will *always* try and justify their take on it and lessen the fact that they are stealing. The rights owner calls the shots with his or her product and attaches legal conditions as they see fit. Their product, their choice.

Best plan in my view - really toughen the laws on this, start putting people in prison for theft and send out a clear message. Digital theft == theft. It's a crime and there is no justification for stealing. In the future masses of commerce will be digital and thieving pykies need to be sent a clear and resounding message ;-)

weegie.geek

You sidestepped my question though, it's not the same and you can't justify saying it should be treated as if it were.

Why should I buy another copy of the music when I already own it, in better quality than amazon/itunes/etc would sell it to me?

This isn't piracy, I paid for the right to listen to the music. Luckily I'm not old enough to have had the music industry treat me with the contempt previous generations were treated with.

Buy an album on vinyl.
Buy it again on tape.
Buy it again on CD.
Buy it again as MP3s.

I think not.

I've bought an album and I'll listen to it via whatever method I like. The physical format won't stop me.

If the music industry has a problem with it, Sony (a major player in the music industry) should probably stop selling things like http://www.play.com/Electronics/Electronics/4-/8858248/Sony-NAS-E300-Giga-Juke-Hi-Fi-System/Product.html

which let you copy your CD collection onto the hard drive inside the hi-fi. That's no different to me ripping the CDs and putting them on my Ipod. Sony make MP3 players bundled with software to rip your CDs to MP3 as well.

So now we've established that it's fine to rip your CDs to mp3 and put them on your mp3 player (approved by Sony, indeed) why is it wrong to save time by downloading the tracks instead of ripping them yourself?

The fact is that while the music industry might not like it, it's in no way morally wrong. I'm more likely to listen to my conscience than legislation designed to fleece consumers and line the pockets of the music industry and its lobbyists.

Mr_Oink

weegie.geek wrote: »

You sidestepped my question though, it's not the same and you can't justify saying it should be treated as if it were.

I apologise, that was not my intention.

When CD's came out and I made the choice of buying a CD player, my local store did not offer me the chance to swap all of my (working) records for CD's free of charge because I made a personal choice to upgrade.

When DVD's came out and I made the choice of buying a DVD player, my local store did not offer me the chance to swap all of my (working) VHS videos for DVD's free of charge because I made a personal choice to upgrade.

When Blueray came out and I made the choice of buying a Blueray player, my local store did not offer me the chance to swap all of my (working) DVD discs for blueray free of charge because I made a personal choice to upgrade.

If you want answers to your questions consult somebody legally qualified to answer them. I am not a lawyer. I'm not interested in getting into some kind of Marxist, communist type debate about it.

To me, the answer to most of you 'why' type questions is simple; because the rights owner says so. Their product, their rules backed up by the law. It's that simple. If you don't like that, don't buy the product! Media is often a luxury entertainment product. Nobody has any God given right to it - just as they have no God given right to chocolate.

tronator

weegie.geek wrote: »

Google indexes. That's all it does

Isn't this what PirateBay does/did? It was just an index of torrents, you couldn't download any copyrighted material from there.

kwikbreaks

IANAL but I suspect the fact that google links which help downloads of copyrighted material are a tiny fraction of the total but virtually all torrents listed by TPB do may have figured somewhere in the legal arguments.

aliEnRIK

I dont see how anyone could hold google responsible for whats on a particular site
And if they ARE held responsible, we can wave goodbye to the way google works.

Mr_Oink

What crosses my mind is this. Say the 'average' mp3 file costs 69p to download from somewhere like Amazon. Say a person has 20,000 pirated tracks on their device. That runs to £13,800.00 of 'value'. If I had stolen items of that value recovered from my home, would I expect to go to jail for it? If I swindled the Benefits Agency for it would I go to jail for it and be expected to pay it back? Given you can get locked up for not having a TV licence (or refusing to pay for one) then the answer is probably 'yes'.

Illegal filesharing is not a trivial problem and no matter how much people may happen to hate those big, 'greedy' media giants it does not make stealing from them 'OK'. It also makes it difficult for small media companies to get a foot in the door and cut a crust when their products are stolen and widely given away without their consent. Clearly the Government and legal experts agree this is wrong and something needs to be done and we have arrived at The Digital Economy Act and I hope, as time goes by, it is tightened up with stiff, deterring penalties.

aliEnRIK

Mr_Oink wrote: »

What crosses my mind is this. Say the 'average' mp3 file costs 69p to download from somewhere like Amazon. Say a person has 20,000 pirated tracks on their device. That runs to £13,800.00 of 'value'. If I had stolen items of that value recovered from my home, would I expect to go to jail for it? If I swindled the Benefits Agency for it would I go to jail for it and be expected to pay it back? Given you can get locked up for not having a TV licence (or refusing to pay for one) then the answer is probably 'yes'.

Illegal filesharing is not a trivial problem and no matter how much people may happen to hate those big, 'greedy' media giants it does not make stealing from OK. It also makes it difficult for small media companies to get a foot in the door and cut a crust when their products is stolen and widely given away without their consent. Clearly the Government and legal experts agree this is wrong and something needs to be done and we have arrived at The Digital Economy Act and I hope, as time goes by, it is tightened up with stiff, deterring penalties.

My personal opinion is they should make our streets safer first. Knife culture and street gangs are getting greater by the year.
Id rather look after the 'old dear' in number 21 before I start having the slightest interest in Microsoft/Sony or whoever losing a few quid

The prisons are already full and theyre constantly letting people out early or even not putting them in jail at all due to this crisis

So your saying let the thugs out but put the pirates in jail? That would be an awesome England to live in (not)