Can anyone suggest any decent alternatives to limewire?

Mr_Oink

Like I say, there are always those that will try to justify it......

weegie.geek

Mr_Oink wrote: »

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.

Again you've sidestepped half of my points to blather on with your pro-industry rhetoric. You keep going on about laws. Something being illegal is different to it being wrong. Laws differ from country to country. Morals, on the whole, don't.

I don't expect the music industry to swap anything for anything, never mind a substantially better quality version as would be the case for VHS>DVD or DVD>Bluray, and it's rather silly of you to imply that this is what I expect.

I do, however, expect not to be forced to pay for an inferior quality copy, when it's perfectly reasonable for me to transfer my existing CDs to mp3 or whatever other format my player supports. I don't expect to get anything other than the right to use what I already own in any way I like.

You'll find, also, that your DVDs work in your Bluray player, so that's hardly a decent analogy.

Content that is worth money should be bought, where possible. Content creators should be supported. Customers shouldn't be exploited though, and this seems to be what you're arguing for.

aliEnRIK

Mr_Oink wrote: »

Like I say, there are always those that will try to justify it......

Im not justifying anything. Im prioritising
And you never actually answered the question ~ are you saying youd rather have muggers, thieves, rapists, killers etc let loose so we have room to put the parents of little johnny away because he downloaded the latest madonna album?

Mr_Oink

I am saying that any thief, be they digital or physical, should be held to account on the value of their theft and treated like any other criminal who steals to that value. If that means locking them up I'm *definitely* for it. The sentiments about muggers and rapists almost drop into one of those 'why have you stopped me speeding' type retorts and the same answer is applicable; if you don't want to do the time, don't do the crime. Nobody forces anyone to mug, rape - or wait for it - steal media ;-)

With regards to your response weegie.geek, again - your personal and lifestyle choices do not mean you can rewrite rules and laws to suit your personal desires and circumstances. I'm sorry if you can't accept that - but that is how it is.

kwikbreaks

Something for the jail-em and flog-em fans.....

I listen to Radio 4 as I drive in to work. On the Today program this morning someone (I don't listen that closely) was asked what the forthcoming 25% budget cut would mean to the home office (police, prisons, etc.). The interviewee reckoned about 60,000 job losses in the police service alone (didn't mention prisons).

Now given that just how much priority should we be giving to jailing what I suspect are mostly kids for downloading hookey music and movies? How much time should the forces of law and order be spending on it?

Mr_Oink

My view, treat it in exactly the same way as physical like for like theft. So if you rip a CD to an mp3, share that with 100 people, that's £69 worth. What would you get if you got caught stealing £69 worth of goods from Tesco? What would you get if you kept doing it? What if the offence was so serious that the value was tens of thousands of pounds?

I just feel there should be 'like for like' equality in punishment for digital and physical theft. But it's just an opinion - no more right or wrong than anyone else's opinion. This thread is running the risk of dropping into trolling -v- Godwins law, and I don't have anything useful to add, so that's me done on this.

weegie.geek

Mr_Oink wrote: »

Given you can get locked up for not having a TV licence (or refusing to pay for one)

No, you can get fined for refusing to pay for a tv license, *if* you are in the position of needing one.

Non-payment of the fine is what might get you locked up.

Mr_Oink wrote: »

I am saying that any thief, be they digital or physical, should be held to account on the value of their theft and treated like any other criminal who steals to that value.

And I'm saying it's not even theft.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft_Act_1968

A person shall be guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.

Someone copies an album, nobody is deprived of it. It's quite a simple concept to understand.

If that means locking them up I'm *definitely* for it. The sentiments about muggers and rapists almost drop into one of those 'why have you stopped me speeding' type retorts and the same answer is applicable; if you don't want to do the time, don't do the crime. Nobody forces anyone to mug, rape - or wait for it - steal media ;-)

I find it quite hard to believe you're doing something as ludicrous as comparing piracy to rape, mugging or speeding.

With piracy, someone is possibly deprived of the possibility of selling the pirate something. Not definitely deprived of the revenue, possibly deprived of the possibility to sell them something. To even argue that it's deprived revenue you'd have to be able to demonstrate that without the option of piracy someone would definitely buy the item.

With mugging and rape... Hell, I don't even have to continue that sentence. You've taken the conversation to nonsensical depths.

With regards to your response weegie.geek, again - your personal and lifestyle choices do not mean you can rewrite rules and laws to suit your personal desires and circumstances. I'm sorry if you can't accept that - but that is how it is.

Cheers for putting words into my mouth. And I guess this is where I bow out of the thread, since you're not responding to any points being made, you're just repeating the same old claptrap over and over.

You seem to think I'm justifying piracy. The things I have justified, I wouldn't even call piracy. Using something I've paid for in a way that's convenient to me? String me up! :rotfl:

kwikbreaks

> Godwins law

you were expressing some rather right wing views

Although there is no justification for breach of copyright there is also no justification for pricing a copy at what it would have sold for retail because the chances are there would be no sale made if it had to be bought.

Esqui

Besides, there's plenty of good copyright-free music available if you look for it.

If you want more popular stuff, that's for sale, then buy it. If you download that for free, then I'll have a free product/service of whatever you do for a job, thanks