are P2P's ever truly legal?

[john321]

are P2P and torrent sites EVER legal? i think that sometimes yes, they are.. after all, i've downloaded many legal movies (AKA very old, such as night of the living dead, which is public domain now) and have had a blast. Yet many of these sites also carry copyrighted stuff as well. Should the sites be shut down even though they carry very useful tools as well?

 

[WhiteZero]

It's never the site or program that is illegal, it's the actions of it's users.

 

[evil^milk]

btw - which is the best p2p program?

 

[john321]

i suggest limewire for your legal downloading...

and whitezero i think you are correct, yet the RIAA goes after these sites and not the users, which i think is bullsh*t.

 

[Steven]

What cool people do is download games then donate what they should cost to the developers.

Azureus is the best P2P program.

 

[Solver]

Peer to peer is legal. Period. In itself, it's just a data exchange technology, not much different from some multiplayer games. What defines the legality of your P2P downloads, if you're a user, is what you're downloading. If you're downloading public domain stuff, that sure is legal. Of course, 95% or more of downloads though P2P networks are of pirated movies, games and software, thus the most popular uses of P2P aren't legal... however, there are also possible variations to that depending on the legislation in your country.

 

[Laivasse]

P2P is not inherently illegal...that'd be almost like saying HTTP is illegal or something. But yeah, so a lot of copyrighted stuff gets traded on those networks, but even many copyright holders nowadays are realising that the copyright laws are hopelessly out of date. Frankly, there's more important things in life to feel guilty about.

The RIAA et al try to go after P2P sites and programs themselves because it's easier. This is despite the fact that numerous file-sharing programs have had favourable judgements in the courts - unfortunately the RIAA has enough money use the law as a weapon even when it doesn't find in their favour. But since the sites and programs themselves aren't illegal, that's why the big bucks companies have had to start targeting individual users in recent years, but that's more of a scare tactic than anything. You may as well try to make an example to all marine life by stamping on a few crabs at the beach.

But meh...I always get hot under the collar whenever anyone mentions the RIAA and it's not worth it. Answer to the question is that is that OF COURSE there is legal p2p usage, and even when you factor in all the illegal usage it probably does more good than harm.

 

[Steven]

If things go on like this, artists will be consigned to a life of semi-luxury.

 

[Reaktor4]

good article about the riaa http://www.shoutwire.com/comments/13120/F_ck_The_RIAA

 

[Adrien C]

Well, have you seen any movie company, any artist, any actor that has gootten backrupt because of p2p? No
Lets face it, some artist would never be famous with out p2p.

 

[WhiteZero]

Dosent stop it from being illegal.
But hey, that dosent stop most.
*shrugs*

 

[Codcommando]

I barely read this thread but the point is:Musicians will always be rich.... But we are poor and cant afford 20$ for a cd that only has one good song on it.... If musicians really cared about all the BS they talk about in there music then they wouldnt be suing the common folk for an extra $ they dont need

 

[Element Alpha]

*p2p programs are just as legal as anything else
*exchanging copyrighted works is still illegal outside of family & friends circle (in most countries)
*current law surrounding copyrights will not pass the test of time
*the only ones who benefit from current copyright laws are big money publisher companies who don't perform any creative work at all
*most musicians aren't rich, because they can't get a decent contract from said publisher companies, and most initiatives to perform without publishers are shut down through lawyer intimidation and boycotted by mass media companies or use of other scare tactics
*under current laws, any form of public event containing any form of music or other type of creative work requires the event to have permission from associations of copyright holders, even if they don't intend to use any copyrighted work
*the copyright system was intended as a protection and a balance for the artist as well as for the general public - there were no intentions towards publisher companies

I can't wait for the whole copyright system to collapse
edit: It annoys me that we have all this technology that would make so much interactivity possible, but instead we can barely use this technology because some old fat rich spoiled bold guys at some CEO meeting said so.
edit2: My comment is a little short to go in detail, so I'll say my comment is especially regarding music - as software is a little more complicated issue, and you could say a couple of things regarding movies or photography as well.

 

[ComradeBadger]

I barely read this thread but the point is:Musicians will always be rich.... But we are poor and cant afford 20$ for a cd that only has one good song on it.... If musicians really cared about all the BS they talk about in there music then they wouldnt be suing the common folk for an extra $ they dont need

Not all musicians are rich.. maybe the megastars.. but not everyone.. there are a lot of bands out there who need supporting.

 

[StardogChampion]

Honestly, if they made truly good music then they would get signed on a cushy contract no problem. The problem is that so many unsigned bands are just plain average.

I'll admit I downloaded the new Pearl Jam album, but I do that with all of the latest PJ albums. I've since bought them all, usually a few weeks after they're released.

 

[ComradeBadger]

There are plenty of good unsigned bands... Forward Russia and the Long Blondes were unsigned for bleedin' AGES, and it was the same with Milburn..

 

[Kyorisu]

Then again, if your country hasn't signed the Digial Millenium Copyright Act...

 

[Laivasse]

*p2p programs are just as legal as anything else
*exchanging copyrighted works is still illegal outside of family & friends circle (in most countries)
*current law surrounding copyrights will not pass the test of time
*the only ones who benefit from current copyright laws are big money publisher companies who don't perform any creative work at all
*most musicians aren't rich, because they can't get a decent contract from said publisher companies, and most initiatives to perform without publishers are shut down through lawyer intimidation and boycotted by mass media companies or use of other scare tactics
*under current laws, any form of public event containing any form of music or other type of creative work requires the event to have permission from associations of copyright holders, even if they don't intend to use any copyrighted work
*the copyright system was intended as a protection and a balance for the artist as well as for the general public - there were no intentions towards publisher companies

I can't wait for the whole copyright system to collapse
edit: It annoys me that we have all this technology that would make so much interactivity possible, but instead we can barely use this technology because some old fat rich spoiled bold guys at some CEO meeting said so.
edit2: My comment is a little short to go in detail, so I'll say my comment is especially regarding music - as software is a little more complicated issue, and you could say a couple of things regarding movies or photography as well.

Nicely summed up.

 

[Llama]

They can be completly legal - They dont take responsibility for the content shared over the networks. If something illegal is on the network, it is the fault of users, not the system.

If you donwload legal stuff, the system is legal
If you download illegal stuff, the system is not