Napster, Gnutella and the file sharing revolution

What is [stolen] file sharing?

Put simply [but pompously] it is a method for many different [criminal] users to share [stolen] files on their computers with each other. This creates a sort of [illegal] "shared network" of [stolen] files. [For a criminal] To connect to such a[n illegal] network you first have to install a [contraband] client - such as [outlawed] Napster. Once your client connects, you can [maliciously] view and download shared [stolen] files from anyone else running the same [criminal] client.

Why does the Record Industry find [stolen] file sharing such a [genuine] threat?

The [artistically creative and socially legitimate] record industry has always been opposed to [the hacker tool] MP3; the [illegal] file format used for [stolen] music as they are generally opposed to most [anti-social] technical advances - mainly because they can[']t handle them [without help from our brave law enforcement agencies] and because they don[']t like anything which they can[']t make [well-earned, honest] money out of. Just read this Leaked [and probably fake] document from the RIIA asking competitors to join together to shutdown [illegal] file sharing networks [of malajusted hacker terrorists with no girlfriends].

The main argument that the record industry makes is that [illegal] file sharing clients are encouraging [damnedable] Copyright Infringement by allowing [heinous] MP3 music files of copyrighted music to be shared [illegally]. As I will show later [at tedious length] this argument is wrong [in the eyes of many drug-crazed hackers]and is being used by the record industry as an "easy way out" of the [devastating] piracy problem [that plagues ordinary folks and our whole economic well-being].

Napster - the fallen

We [wanker hackers] all know the story of [wicked, wicked] Napster - the once great [evil] music sharing network [of thieves] who now, unfortunately [are] a wreck [ha ha!], its [weasel] users leaving in [cowardly] droves [back to the hives of scum and stinking gutters from which they slitered up]thanks to lawsuits from powerful record companies including Sony Music, Time Warner, EMI Group and Universal Music amongst others[, companies responsible for bringing countless hours of beloved entertainment to millions of grateful customers around the globe].

In its court case it was decided that [the criminal] Napster [mafia] did "aid" users to [blatantly] violate [just and necessary] copyrights and that [the evil] Napster [syndicate] had [diabolical] control over its [craven minions] but didnt exercise it to prevent the violations [of our nation's democratically created laws]. Well if Napster has been "brought down" by the [valiant] Record Industry [ha ha!] then who's next? [More hackers, that's who] Have these giant corperations really gained control over [illegal] internet file sharing?

The present state of Internet File [Stealing]

In many [many, many] ways there were legitimate grounds for shutting [those crooks at] napster down in that they did have the power to prevent [their criminal]users violating copyright but to use Napster as an example of the fate of all file sharing networks would be [not be] wrong. There are many other [crimial] file [stealing] networks out there: Gnutella, Morpheus, Kazaa and WinMX to name a few [of these dastardly gangs of miscreants]. Law suits are already beginning against Morpheus and Kazaa so is [stolen] file sharing soon to become a [not missed] thing of the past?

The strong contender for survival [of evil] here has to be the Gnutella [Al-Quaida] network. Thanks to the many different [illegal] Gnutella clients available for [Micro-Soft] Windows, L[u]nux and Mac[-Intosh] which all use the same network, the record industry would have to file lawsuits against the authors of each of them. Also, unlike Napster, the [insideous] Gnutella network has no centralized server - all the [criminal] users are directly connected. This makes it very difficult for the Record Industry to shut them down. Sure, they might be able to shut down the [criminal] authors who made the [contraband] clients, but people [of ill-intent] would still be able to use and distribute the [satan-spawned] clients freely anyway.

For example, the authors of one of the [most destructive] Gnutella clients, Xolox, recently stopped allowing people from downloading their [illegal] client from their site because they were scared of a lawsuit [that would bring them to justice]. As they say on their site, they dont think they are in the wrong but they dont have the money to fight the large record companies. Funnily enough, a cracked version of Xolox appeared just hours later which was fully functional. Now who can the Record Industry file a lawsuit against now that the program no longer has an author? [The only possbility is to arrest all hackers and make them share the punishment, and to ban all hacking tools.]

Some [brazenly criminal] Gnutella client authors have taken the opposite defence, charging in rather than running away:

The Limewire client team [of crooks] are trying to develop the network in such a way so that it is impossible for anyone to shut it down [putting decent people everywhere at their mercy. Who will save us?]. They have made the [illegal] Limewire client Open Source so that any [criminal] can download the [illegal] source code and develop their own [illegal] clients. In fact, Limewire's site has an entire section dedicated to [evil] developers. Now that the [contraband] source code for the Gnutella network is released then what chance do the Record Industry have of ever stopping [illegal] file [stealing]?

Why the Record Companies are [not] wrong and can[']t [but] win

You might argue that the record companies are just trying to get more [fair] profit and prevent [wicked] people pirating their music but shouldn[']t they be filing lawsuits againt the [criminal] users who violate copyright instead of the [criminal] authors of [hardly] legitimate [stealing] software? In [evil] networks such as Gnutella, the [criminal] authors have no control over the [viral] program and whether it is used illegally or legally once it is distributed. More[over], they are not even making any profit out of their clients [but rather are motivated by pure evil] so all pass all the violation criteria that Napster failed on in court.

So why exactly is the Record Industry attacking the [wicked, wicked] authors of software rather than the actual [criminal] people doing the infringing? Well As the [zitty, pasty] founder of LimeWire said:

There's nothing inherently different about it than e-mail. People trade illegal things all the time, and the RIAA should go after those [nasty] people. But they don't, because those [damn]people are their [fucken] customers. So they go after some [equally culpable] third party [Shit.]

So it seems that the Record Industry [not] using the wrong means to achieve their [and society's] goal. That[']s if their goal is right anyway[, which it is]. [T]hey are in fact doing so for [valid] commercial reasons. The truth of the matter is that the facts speak for themselves:

-There were over 1.6 million [evil, criminal] Napster users online at any one time during Napsters peak. -There are now 600,000 [drug-addled] Morpheus users online at any one time. -Over 1 million [illegal] copies of Morpheus are downloaded every week.

The facts say that a huge [portion] of the [scofflaw] public [is] indeed what the Record Industry would call [damnedable] "Copyright Infringers". Rather than admit this fact that their [illigimate] customer base is into piracy on a big scale, the Record Industry prefers [not] to sneak around blaming individual entities for millions of other people[']s actions.

The Future of [Illegal] File Sharing It seems obvious that the Record Industry will try to crush the file sharing networks and we will witness a real [triumph] of the justice system [over the evil-doers]. Will the courts take the right decision and tell the RIIA that they should [go on] target[ing] the real criminals or will money and power corrupt the law into siding with large entertainment corperations?

	Kudos Elenchos (5.00 / 2) (#6)
	by ausduck on Fri Jan 18th, 2002 at 06:47:55 AM PST

	That was the finest piece of editing I have seen on this site thus far. Keep up the good work. However, I would disagree with you when you edit that the Record Industries can't but win... With the proliferation of all these illegal hackers copying songs, I think that it is very possible for the criminal underworld to escape the wheels of justice, which seem to move all too slowly.

	i had a better comment before, (none / 0) (#7)
	by derek3000 on Fri Jan 18th, 2002 at 07:18:33 AM PST

	but my 1337 connection wasn't working properly. Basically, I think that it should be up to the artists whether or not the mp3s are legal. If an artist wants to release free music, why stop them? Similiarly, if an artist worked hard on his/her music and wants to collect money for it, you can't stop them from doing that, either. I download mp3s of lesser-known bands to see if I like their music or not, and then buy the CDs if I like them. I think it's important to mention, though, that the MPAA freaked out when VHS came out, and the RIAA freaked when the cassette tapes came out. What they don't realize is that people buy CDs for convenience--it's easier to just buy it than burn it. Also, if you buy it, it comes with liner notes, photographs, etc., or at least it should, to give people the incentive to buy instead of burn. The more extra stuff you package with the CD, the better your chances of selling it. ---------------- "Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

	CDs are cool (none / 0) (#12)
	by eMan on Fri Jan 18th, 2002 at 12:08:35 PM PST

	I like CDs. I buy them because I like having them in a colorful tower next to my stereo. I like the concept of an 'album', which some bands make great use of, so that the number and order of the songs contributes to the experience. Somehow, listening to a CD feels more 'real' than listening to an MP3, even though it's pumped through the same stereo and sounds mostly the same. But I still download tons of MP3s because, like it or not, most music out there is shit. Paying for a CD and then finding out it was pure garbage is incredibly frustrating. I'm in the habit of downloading as many albums of music as I want, then picking only the very best and buying only those particular CDs and adding them to my collection. MP3s are cool, because without MP3s, my CD collection would be much less exciting, and my money would have gone to support artists I didn't like. That's my attitude on this, and the RIAA can go to hell for all I care. Editors, thanks for deleting my semi-troll post earlier. You guys are the best.

	yes! (none / 0) (#18)
	by derek3000 on Fri Jan 18th, 2002 at 12:42:15 PM PST

	That's pretty much exactly how I feel. I bought a copy of Labradford's "Fixed::Context" (do check it out, great mellow music to chill out to). I can't stand listening to the mp3s being out of order. Also, it would really suck if a song from another album got in there, because that album has its own sound and mood. You can make a playlist, but add in the insert and I'd much rather have the CD, the body of work, than some idea of these 'files' floating around on my hard drive. One thing that does bother me, though, is that the RIAA says that when you buy a CD, you are actually buying the rights to listen to that music, so you can't really copy it. My question is this: what if my house burns down, and the CD is melted? Since the CD was only the method of delivery, am I entitled to a new one, since I have bought the 'rights' for one unit of "Album X"? I'd be interested to hear what adequacy readers have to say on this one. ---------------- "Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

	no its quite funny (none / 0) (#20)
	by PotatoError on Fri Jan 18th, 2002 at 12:58:11 PM PST

	The RIAA says when you buy a CD you are actually buying the rights to listen to that CD. This is their way of making copying your own bought property illegal. But when your CD is destroyed for reasons beyond your control they claim that every copy of that specific CD is different and you only had the rights to listen to your one copy. Therefore you cant claim a replacement. You have to go out and buy rights to listen to another one. This is the opposite of what they say when someone has a pirated CD - then it is considered exactly the same as the real copy and therefore illegal. I think I heard somewhere that if you have bought a CD you can legally download MP3's of that CD but then again it might count as having two copies and you only paid for one (even though they are all supposed to be the same?) Its confusing. <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	you're quite funny (none / 0) (#24)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jan 18th, 2002 at 01:28:45 PM PST

	The RIAA says when you buy a CD you are actually buying the rights to listen to that CD. That's right. It's their product, they set the terms of purchase, which you can refuse by not making the purchase. But when your CD is destroyed for reasons beyond your control they claim that every copy of that specific CD is different and you only had the rights to listen to your one copy. Therefore you cant claim a replacement. Duh. What can I tell you -- buy insurance. As for the rest of your comment, the RIAA's rhetoric is no better than your own. You smuggle quite a few assumptions about property and theft that arent shared by society at large and which, if they were true, would make nonsense of our economic relations. Let me make it real easy for you. Law doesnt recognise copyright infringement as theft, but your clue that it might still very obviously be illegal is the word 'infringement'. It doesnt matter what you people say, file sharing over networks constitutes copyright infringment. It's not the end of the world and well intentioned people arent going to impose overly harsh restrictions on themselves to evade the convenience of modern technology, but dont expect copyright holders to make it easy for thieves, and dont expect reasonable people to believe information wants to be free. Only hackers believe information wants to be free because, uncoincidentally, they are incapable of producing any 'information' worth protecting.

	hang on (none / 0) (#28)
	by PotatoError on Fri Jan 18th, 2002 at 02:32:55 PM PST

	"file sharing over networks constitutes copyright infringment" you mean file sharing of copyrighted files dont you? You do understand that there are a huge number of files out there which can be shared legally? <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	that's true but unrealistic (none / 0) (#36)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jan 18th, 2002 at 04:36:52 PM PST

	You do understand that there are a huge number of files out there which can be shared legally? Yes, they can be, but arent. Why? Because they if they had intrinsic value, that value would be protected by copyright. That means the files have restrictions upon their use, just like the GPL Freedom Software you so tirelessly defend on this site. Believe me, if I had no conscience, I would write a file sharing app that disguises gpl code beyond recognition; but I wont do that because I respect the GPL's list of copyright restrictions, not because I dont think the consequent FSF and Open Source rhetoric would make the RIAA's sound like pillow talk. I think the problem with you "information wants to be free" folks is that you want information to be free on your terms.

	umm (none / 0) (#37)
	by PotatoError on Fri Jan 18th, 2002 at 04:45:37 PM PST

	"Because they if they had intrinsic value" I agree that lots of free files can be explained this way but that doesnt mean they shouldnt be shared or shouldnt exist does it? Also if you visit MP3 websites (legal ones) you will find lots of unsigned bands actually use the internet to freely distribute their music. They could copyright their songs but what they want is recognition and the internet is the best way to distribute for cheap. These are the people who suffer if file sharing apps are illegalised. <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	Copyright (none / 0) (#78)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jan 21st, 2002 at 04:46:54 AM PST

	They could* copyright their songs but what they want is recognition and the internet is the best way to distribute for cheap.* Well, at least in the US, their songs are already copyrighted.

	Maybe your brittish, or maybe im amazed. (none / 0) (#9)
	by BlisterTwister on Fri Jan 18th, 2002 at 07:39:54 AM PST

	Did he author mean to cite the RIIA instead of the RIAA? is that some more nerd droppings. I know that the RIIA is some kind of royal bullspit, and the RIAA is the recording industry association of AMERICA, land of the free, home of the brave. Even brittish recording labels are members of the RIAA. The enlgish may have had some major influences like the beatles, the stones (trying to sound like they are black and american), the zombies (choirboys trying to be the beach boys) etc, but it all comes back to the USA in the end, doesn't it? yes. "Only a coward refuses to admit the shortcomings of one's peers."

	Linux Loses Again (none / 0) (#40)
	by MessiahWWKD on Fri Jan 18th, 2002 at 05:42:54 PM PST

	Once again, the true mentality of the typical rabid Irish hating Linux user is shown when he realizes he cannot deal with the facts. Guardian angel, heavenly friend, walk with me 'til the journey's end.

	The list goes on (5.00 / 2) (#54)
	by T Reginald Gibbons on Fri Jan 18th, 2002 at 11:52:08 PM PST

	"Old Blink 182, Zeppelin, Tom Petty, Beatles, Aerosmith, the list goes on" No matter how far the list goes, it will never overcome the fact that it begins with Blink 182.

	Translation: (5.00 / 3) (#65)
	by T Reginald Gibbons on Sat Jan 19th, 2002 at 02:26:13 PM PST

	"I do not agree with the claims made by some people on this response forum and the opinion of the original author himself. " Translation: I am not yet ready to confront the fact that my morals are no more than thin rationalisations for doing whatever I want, regardless of who I hurt. "Even if it is stealing, I DON'T GIVE A SHIT. WHOOO HOOO I AM A THIEF. Hey BMG come and arrest me. " Translation: I have no morals. I'm also a borderline illiterate. "And while your at it arrest the 20 million other users who are downloading music. The vast majority of the people who download from these p2p networks are north americans. " Translation: Hey, strength in numbers works for drunk drivers and people who disobey the speed limit, right? Right?! "Everyone i know has absolutely no guilty concience at all gettimg music for free." Translation: My friends are a lot like me. "That is because it is monsterously overpriced." Translation: We are monstrously poor. "The word of the people shouldn't be overpowered by the word of some fucked up lawyers telling a judge that just because it has always been that way that we can't change the law to comply with overwhelming public support." Translation: I'm under the misapprehension that there is a serious political message in the songs of Limp Bizkit. I'm also under the impression that they'd be happy to give this message away for free, if the bad, bad corporations would only let them. "HOW FUCKED UP IS THAT" Translation: I'M A FUCKING MORON! "I live in Canada so i really don't give a shit how fucked up your country gets but i don't believe it is a democracy any more" Translation: I feel inferior to the USA, and take my anger out on it by stealing from it and claiming to be better than it for reasons that don't make sense. Also, I don't believe that a fair election could possibly elect someone that I don't like. "Democracy literally means power to the people. " Translation: I'm a little fuzzy on the meaning of "literally". "Well if a few people in courtrooms are decideing for the people it isn't a democracy. " Translation: I believe the people should be allowed to vote on any issue in the land, probably through TV and internet polls. "That is just my opinion though" Translation: Not somebody else's, honest!

	A good point (none / 0) (#15)
	by PotatoError on Fri Jan 18th, 2002 at 12:31:41 PM PST

	"Basically, I think that it should be up to the artists whether or not the mp3s are legal" Yes I agree. But most music on the internet isnt illegal and is produced by unsigned artists who use the internet to distribute their work for free. Even some signed bands have distributed free songs now and again for the publicity. So to ban file sharing because it might allow the few illegal MP3s to be copied would actually discriminate against the majority of MP3s which are legally free and discriminate against thousands of artists hard work. <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	True. . . (none / 0) (#13)
	by Kabn on Fri Jan 18th, 2002 at 12:21:49 PM PST

	It's true that what millions of people (including myself at times) do in downloading copyrighted music without payment is illegal. But don't paint the RIAA as the saint of this fiasco: the innocent that has been taken advantage of and is a hairsbreadth from filing bankruptcy. The year after Napster came out and was in full swing, sales were UP 12%. While sales around universities with broadband access were down, the revenue from the average users that just used Napster and programs like it as "previews" before actually buying the album more than made up for it. I know, this year's sales are down by 2-6%, depending on who you ask, but look at the economy. Find an industry that isn't posting less-than-stellar numbers for the third and fourth quarters of 2001. You can hardly blame file-sharing for that, but Ms. Rosen will probably find a way (look out Shawn, FBI might be making a visit). Also, that complete bullshit a few years ago about "sales of albums are down 35%." Every news source grabbed onto that one and spouted it for all it was worth, touting Napster and all users that refused to bend over the barrel and spend more than $20 for a CD as evil thieves, bent on destroying the music industry and putting artists on the street. That statistic was for singles, which account for less than 0.01% of total sales, but was quite effective in bringing the "technically illiterate" to the RIAA's side, as most news organizations never corrected themselves. When a company openly lies to its customers and charges more for their product only in the interest of profit, all the while complaining about a third party putting a dent in their sales when their cash flow has actually risen, that's when my moral qualms about taking their money all but disappear. "Instead of going out tonight, punch yourself in the nuts three times and the heart twice. This will save you approximately $75" -theonion.com

	Yes but... (none / 0) (#17)
	by PotatoError on Fri Jan 18th, 2002 at 12:39:13 PM PST

	If an artist really doesnt want their music to be downloaded then it should be illegal. The record industry are stealing from the artists as much as from their customers. How much of $20 CD do you think goes to the artists? Its less than $5 for sure. The record industry are only trying to monopolise and prevent any other form of music distribution other than buying CDs in shops. A great strategy would be to directly buy the music from the artists website. This way the customer pays less and the artist get more and no CDs are needed. I hope this will become commonplace soon. Id love to see what lies the Record Industry would come up with to discredit that one. <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	Typical Liberal College Propaganda (none / 0) (#23)
	by MessiahWWKD on Fri Jan 18th, 2002 at 01:19:26 PM PST

	The year after Napster came out and was in full swing, sales were UP 12%. While sales around universities with broadband access were down, the revenue from the average users that just used Napster and programs like it as "previews" before actually buying the album more than made up for it. I know, this year's sales are down by 2-6%, depending on who you ask, but look at the economy. Find an industry that isn't posting less-than-stellar numbers for the third and fourth quarters of 2001. You can hardly blame file-sharing for that, but Ms. Rosen will probably find a way (look out Shawn, FBI might be making a visit). It is funny how you thank Napster for the rise in sales of records, and then blame the economy for the decrease in sales rather than blame Gnutella and FastTrack. I am positive that when the economy is growing again, you will thank piracy software for the increase in sales. I am happy you were able to admit that everybody who uses Napster regularly (i.e. the college students) refuse to support the artists they love. Also, that complete bullshit a few years ago about "sales of albums are down 35%." Every news source grabbed onto that one and spouted it for all it was worth, touting Napster and all users that refused to bend over the barrel and spend more than $20 for a CD as evil thieves, bent on destroying the music industry and putting artists on the street. That statistic was for singles, which account for less than 0.01% of total sales, but was quite effective in bringing the "technically illiterate" to the RIAA's side, as most news organizations never corrected themselves. It is also funny how you will believe every word of an article when it says that Napster has helped the increase of record sales, but refuse to be open minded enough to believe articles claiming that Napster is responsible for a loss in record sales. You are truly full of shit. When a company openly lies to its customers and charges more for their product only in the interest of profit, all the while complaining about a third party putting a dent in their sales when their cash flow has actually risen, that's when my moral qualms about taking their money all but disappear. My moral qualms with pirates is that they act like the victims because they chose to buy records they later found out they didn't enjoy, and feel that stealing from the artists is a good thing. The RIAA might be giving the artists very little, but pirates give them even less. Guardian angel, heavenly friend, walk with me 'til the journey's end.

	but (none / 0) (#31)
	by PotatoError on Fri Jan 18th, 2002 at 03:07:43 PM PST

	arent you accusing the Record Industry of the same sort of hypocracy? They jump on the article which supports their agenda view (in this case that record sales have gone down) while refusing to believe the articles that Napster increased record sales. "My moral qualms with pirates is that they act like the victims because they chose to buy records they later found out they didn't enjoy" Maybe the record industry should get their shit together and sort out a way of letting people preview music before they buy it instead of us having to find out our own ways. When 10's of millions of people have broken a law you have to ask yourself why that is, instead of simply calling everyone criminals. Why, for example do so many people pirate music without having a moral problem with it? is it because its overpriced maybe? Is it also because the sale structure is flawed and inflexible? You might even reach the conclusion that this law isnt democratically accepted. If I want to own 10 songs from different albums its going to cost me $100 whereas if I want to own 10 songs from 1 album it only costs me about $20...thats a giant ripoff which just goes to show how much profit is being made from 1 song. A group of friends will no doubt have their own CDs. Then they will probably share music tastes with each other. But in your perfect world its illegal for one of them to borrow a friends CD. Of course im looking at one of my legally purchased CD's now. I dont see anything saying "dont copy this CD" - no license agreement or any shit. With software you get bundles of paragraphs of text explaining your rights and the license to you in extreme detail. How have the record industry got away without doing this? One single 'C' doesnt mean shit. All it says to me is dont copy this physical CD - or dont copy this cover. It doesnt say dont copy the music on the CD, neither does it explain for example what exactly I own on this CD - do I own the actual right to listen to the music on the CD or just this CD. I mean, can I now legally download MP3's of this CD because I now have rights to own the music? or will I be sued for doing so. Maybe this is why noone has ever been taken to court for downloading music. A good argument would simply be: "But I had the original CD so I was allowed to download it. Unfortunately I cant prove this as I melted the CD after I downloaded the music. But I dont have to prove anything - thats the prosecutions job" <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	Debunking the Pirate (none / 0) (#34)
	by MessiahWWKD on Fri Jan 18th, 2002 at 03:37:36 PM PST

	arent you accusing the Record Industry of the same sort of hypocracy? They jump on the article which supports their agenda view (in this case that record sales have gone down) while refusing to believe the articles that Napster increased record sales. Indeed, they are also guilty of the hypocriscy. Maybe the record industry should get their shit together and sort out a way of letting people preview music before they buy it instead of us having to find out our own ways. Ever hear of MTV, MTV2, VH1? When 10's of millions of people have broken a law you have to ask yourself why that is, instead of simply calling everyone criminals. Why, for example do so many people pirate music without having a moral problem with it? is it because its overpriced maybe? Is it also because the sale structure is flawed and inflexible? You might even reach the conclusion that this law isnt democratically accepted. I highly doubt ten million people pirate music, unless you're including citizens of Europe and China, which, seeing as how immoral they are in the first place, don't count. As for not having a moral problem with it, it's probably because they have no morals. It's the same with rapists. Since they have no moral problems with rape, are you implying that it's all right? If I want to own 10 songs from different albums its going to cost me $100 whereas if I want to own 10 songs from 1 album it only costs me about $20...thats a giant ripoff which just goes to show how much profit is being made from 1 song. If you only want one song from an album, then buy the single or buy the album and don't bitch about how you didn't like any other song on it. Of course im looking at one of my legally purchased CD's now. I dont see anything saying "dont copy this CD" - no license agreement or any shit. With software you get bundles of paragraphs of text explaining your rights and the license to you in extreme detail. How have the record industry got away without doing this? Like you actually follow the licenses of software that you use. Maybe this is why noone has ever been taken to court for downloading music. A good argument would simply be: "But I had the original CD so I was allowed to download it. Unfortunately I cant prove this as I melted the CD after I downloaded the music. But I dont have to prove anything - thats the prosecutions job" The reason nobody has been taken to court for downloading music is because the record industry is quite patient. Your time will come. Guardian angel, heavenly friend, walk with me 'til the journey's end.

	ARRRGHHHHH (none / 0) (#39)
	by PotatoError on Fri Jan 18th, 2002 at 05:25:32 PM PST

	Pirates be here! ARGHHH. Id cut you down with me hook or make yer walk the plank ARRGHHH! So found any license agreements on any of your CDs yet? when you say patient do you mean as in ice-ages are patient? "If you only want one song from an album, then buy the single or buy the album and don't bitch about how you didn't like any other song on it." Nah ill probably just download the MP3 come to think of it. You think its illegal. I dont care. Thats fine. <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	haha (none / 0) (#47)
	by Kabn on Fri Jan 18th, 2002 at 07:36:57 PM PST

	Yeah, you've got a point about MTV. But, they don't play about 95% of what I listen to (Old Blink 182, Zeppelin, Tom Petty, Beatles, Aerosmith, the list goes on). Now what am I to do? "I highly doubt ten million people pirate music, unless you're including citizens of Europe and China, which, seeing as how immoral they are in the first place, don't count. As for not having a moral problem with it, it's probably because they have no morals. It's the same with rapists. Since they have no moral problems with rape, are you implying that it's all right?" Wow. You're just out to piss off an entire continent, if not two or three. Better get the Jews, you know how corrupt they are. First of all, do NOT call someone immoral or anything else because of their race. That is beyond ignorant. And as for the rape comparison, if you consulted computer users and people out in the street, I think you would find a little bigger majority of computer users would support file-sharing than people would support rape. Whether you win by a republic vote or outright warfare, it's all about the number of people you can get to follow an idea. Typical of RIAA: "Buy the album and don't bitch about how you didn't like any other song on it." We will give you shit, you will buy shit, and you will like it. We can treat customers like this because they have to get the music through us. Hold it. And that was a pretty handy way to dodge his question. Did you ever find that license agreement? And don't even tell me you've never pirated software, because your comment implies you think it is a pretty ordinary thing. If you've pirated even one software title, you are a hypocrite. Songs, software, it's seen basically the same in the eyes of the law: don't copy it without permission. And face it, as far as the RIAA and prosecuting single users on a dynamic-ip link that don't host any sort of ftp or otherwise illegal site (only d/l, no online distribution, 56k forever!), I'll wait for my turn about the time I pull my first Social Security check. "Instead of going out tonight, punch yourself in the nuts three times and the heart twice. This will save you approximately $75" -theonion.com

	hahahaah i am a thief see if i give a shit (none / 0) (#57)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Jan 19th, 2002 at 06:24:25 AM PST

	I do not agree with the claims made by some people on this response forum and the opinion of the original author himself. Even if it is stealing, I DON'T GIVE A SHIT. WHOOO HOOO I AM A THIEF. Hey BMG come and arrest me. And while your at it arrest the 20 million other users who are downloading music. The vast majority of the people who download from these p2p networks are north americans. My nieghbour, my dad, my friends. Everyone i know has absolutely no guilty concience at all gettimg music for free. That is because it is monsterously overpriced. The word of the people shouldn't be overpowered by the word of some fucked up lawyers telling a judge that just because it has always been that way that we can't change the law to comply with overwhelming public support. HOW FUCKED UP IS THAT. I live in Canada so i really don't give a shit how fucked up your country gets but i don't believe it is a democracy any more. Democracy literally means power to the people. Well if a few people in courtrooms are decideing for the people it isn't a democracy. That is just my opinion though.

	yup (none / 0) (#77)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 04:12:02 PM PST

	that translation will help peeps understand what the morons were tryong to say.

	Music (none / 0) (#79)
	by Kabn on Mon Jan 21st, 2002 at 11:37:38 AM PST

	When it gets to the point that all you guys can do is mock the kind of music I listen to, I consider the argument won. Good while it lasted though. QED "Instead of going out tonight, punch yourself in the nuts three times and the heart twice. This will save you approximately $75" -theonion.com

	yeah (none / 0) (#44)
	by Kabn on Fri Jan 18th, 2002 at 07:09:02 PM PST

	I'm not thanking Napster for the increase in sales during it's inception and use, just pointing out that sales did increase (unless SoundScan lies) during usasge. And by the way, I do buy quite a few albums, but only ones that I think are worth the money. Why should I have to pay $20 for two good songs, which is about all you'll find in a lot of CDs. Ah, yes, and thanks for informing me that everyone who uses peer-sharing regularly is a college student. I even hear a college student wrote Napster. Maybe we should just raid colleges, you know, get to the source. I read quite a lot of articles, but I listen to numbers most of all. Overall sales surged during the boom, period. And I admit, it is the artists that are going to suffer. To them I say: set up your own site, sell me the CD direct for 8$ plus s&h, and I'll be happy. And yes, they might have to sign a label to start up, but tell me Metallica and fucking P Diddy don't have the cash to go indie. Then they can actually enjoy a fair share of the profit. "Instead of going out tonight, punch yourself in the nuts three times and the heart twice. This will save you approximately $75" -theonion.com

	My response to the editting of this article (1.00 / 1) (#14)
	by PotatoError on Fri Jan 18th, 2002 at 12:23:59 PM PST

	If Elenchos thinks there is no point for reasonable argument from a contraversial angle then fine he can edit what he wants. If I had written an unoriginal article from the point of view of the record industries then I doubt it would have been editted at all. I dont really have a problem only that this sites mission statement includes the following: Controversial opinions, passionately held. We Are Adequacy.org. There are a number of people who have opinions that don't quite fit the norm. Because of this, they aren't welcome in many places. This is where they exercise their right to speak If adequacy is to just host stories of an un-contraversial/mainstream nature then maybe its mission statement should be changed to reflect the fact. But I dont hold these things against Elenchos as it was kind of funny to read the editted version. My article wasnt a non-depth the law is wrong but an argument as to why the authors of peer to peer systems are not the law breakers. It is hardly a program writers fault if users misuse their program for illegal activities. Like you wouldnt file a lawsuit against the postal service just because it allows people to post hate mail would you? Or sue General Motors because they allow people to joyride. No, in those cases you go for the real culprits - the actual criminals. The fact is that peer to peer systems arent big money business and the music industry is. So in this case the law has been twisted. <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	Controversy (4.00 / 2) (#19)
	by iat on Fri Jan 18th, 2002 at 12:54:23 PM PST

	If adequacy is to just host stories of an un-contraversial/mainstream nature then maybe its mission statement should be changed to reflect the fact. I disagree that your article was controversial in any way. As you said yourself, "There were over 1.6 million Napster users online at any one time during Napsters peak. -There are now 600,000 Morpheus users online at any one time. -Over 1 million copies of Morpheus are downloaded every week". How is it controversial to reassure a million people that what they're doing is good, acceptable and morally defensible? If I had written an unoriginal article from the point of view of the record industries then I doubt it would have been editted at all. You're right, it wouldn't have been edited. It also wouldn't have been posted. In fact, without elenchos' intervention, this article wouldn't have been posted either. Elenchos's editing turned a Kuro5hin/Slashdot-style article that wouldn't be of interest to Adequacy's readership, into something that some of us found amusing. You should really thank elenchos for editing your article, for without him all your hard work writing the article would have gone to waste. Adequacy.org - love it or leave it.

	Dont get me wrong (none / 0) (#21)
	by PotatoError on Fri Jan 18th, 2002 at 01:02:22 PM PST

	I found the editting amusing. At least the thought of how much time he must have spent changing it bought a smile to my face :) But you dont think that this is even a slightly contraversial topic? When all the media are out and against file sharing programs and I am trying to defend it? Even most of the people on this site seem to (without elenchos editting) put "criminal" before "peer to peer client". <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	None of them would read it. (4.00 / 1) (#22)
	by elenchos on Fri Jan 18th, 2002 at 01:17:11 PM PST

	This is your essential mistake: that "everyone" has heard of this Napster case. "Everyone" doesn't give a crap and has no idea what you are ranting about. The only people who follow this stuff are net heads who read Slashdot and the Register and all that crap. And that audiance already knows this stuff. They've seen every line you wrote a thousand times on the geek sites and know the whole argument backwards and forwards. Was there a single original fact or idea in your article? On the other hand, proposing that all forms of programming or tools that allow users to use computers in ways that they were not specifically designed is highly original and very controversial, especially when addressed to an audiance of Internet freaks. I do, I do, I do --Bikini Kill

	Giving a crap (none / 0) (#26)
	by eMan on Fri Jan 18th, 2002 at 01:54:38 PM PST

	You're right that nobody gives a crap about Napster or the RIAA. But if you look at the posts in response to this article, it's clear that most people don't give a crap about the editing, or your "highly original and controversial" idea either. In fact, comments here look an awful lot like the stuff that gets posted on Slashdot every time some RIAA-related debate comes up. People regurgitate exactly the same arguments and numbers every single time this topic comes up - this article and thread are just Yet Another Copyright Debate. Aside from the two posts that say essentially "nice editing, elenchos", there's no debate whatsoever on this page about "programming or tools that allow users to use computers in ways that they were not specifically designed" and whether or not they're legal or should be. Perhaps that's because this is a topic that comes up on adequacy every single day as well. So much for original ideas, and wasting time editing crap.

	Well, if it were up to me... (none / 0) (#29)
	by elenchos on Fri Jan 18th, 2002 at 03:03:02 PM PST

	...95% of our users would not be able to view the site, and 95% of those allowed to view it would not be allowed to post. We've allowed far too many common people here, and you can see what that leads to. Maybe it should be 99%, come to think of it. I do, I do, I do --Bikini Kill

	I agree (none / 0) (#33)
	by iat on Fri Jan 18th, 2002 at 03:36:25 PM PST

	We've allowed far too many common people here, and you can see what that leads to. Adequacy's never been the same since we publicised the site to people who weren't on The Who? Page. For a brief couple of weeks when we had just 30 or so users, the server was fast and there were no users abusing the site by posting illiterate comments or trolls. I miss the good old days. I think it's time that we shut our doors to the unwashed masses and returned to our roots as a discussion site for a select few members of the intellectual elite. Adequacy.org - love it or leave it.

	Ah, but we won't (none / 0) (#38)
	by eMan on Fri Jan 18th, 2002 at 05:03:36 PM PST

	"I think it's time that we shut our doors to the unwashed masses and returned to our roots as a discussion site for a select few members of the intellectual elite." Yes yes, sealing ourselves off from the common rabble would be quite nice, but this is much more fun - we get to openly spit on the flawed logic and subpar prose of the lesser masses from the secure enclosure of our respective ivory towers. And we enjoy the power, do we not?