What is ur opinion on downloading music off of P2P programs??

Question

do u think it is right or wrong??

Answer 1

I think it is not right, but its fine. An important goal in peer-to-peer networks is that all clients provide resources, including bandwidth, storage space, and computing power. Thus, as nodes arrive and demand on the system increases, the total capacity of the system also increases. This is not true of a client-server architecture with a fixed set of servers, in which adding more clients could mean slower data transfer for all users. The distributed nature of peer-to-peer networks also increases robustness in case of failures by replicating data over multiple peers, and -- in pure P2P systems -- by enabling peers to find the data without relying on a centralized index server. In the latter case, there is no single point of failure in the system. When the term peer-to-peer was used to describe the Napster network, it implied that the peer protocol was important, but, in reality, the great achievement of Napster was the empowerment of the peers (i.e., the fringes of the network) in association with a central index, which made it fast and efficient to locate available content. The peer protocol was just a common way to achieve this.

Then again their is so much legal controversy like Under US law "the Betamax decision" (Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.), case holds that copying "technologies" are not inherently illegal, if substantial non-infringing use can be made of them. This decision, predating the widespread use of the Internet applies to most data networks, including peer-to-peer networks, since distribution of correctly licensed files can be performed. These non-infringing uses include sending open source software, public domain files and out of copyright works. Other jurisdictions tend to view the situation in somewhat similar ways.

In practice, many, often most, of the files shared on peer-to-peer networks are copies of copyrighted popular music and movies. Sharing of these copies among strangers is illegal in most jurisdictions. This has led many observers, including most media companies and some peer-to-peer critics, to conclude that the networks themselves pose grave threats to the established distribution model. The research that attempts to measure actual monetary loss has been somewhat equivocal. Whilst on paper the existence of these networks results in large losses, the actual income does not seem to have changed much since these networks started up. Whether the threat is real or not, both the RIAA and the MPAA now spend large amounts of money attempting to lobby lawmakers for the creation of new laws, and some copyright owners pay companies to help legally challenge users engaging in illegal sharing of their material.

In spite of the Betamax decision, peer-to-peer networks themselves have been targeted by the representatives of those artists and organizations who license their creative works, including industry trade organizations such as the RIAA and MPAA as a potential threat. The Napster service was shut down by an RIAA lawsuit.

In A&M Records v. Napster, 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001), the court found that Napster was both vicariously and contributorily liable for the copyright infringement its users were engaged in. Vicarious liability in these types of cases extends to a provider who financially benefits from the infringement committed by its users while having the ability to police that infringement but has failed to do so. The court found ample evidence that Napster’s future revenue is directly dependent upon “increases in userbase.” It also found that Napster could have done more than it claimed with regards to restricting users from sharing copyrighted material. Later on in the opinion, the famous peer-to-peer provider was also found contributorily liable. It knew of the infringing use that Napster could and did have, in a medium where the software provided essential access. The RIAA could have sued individual users at the time for violating federal law, but thought it more prudent to shut down the means by which those users shared music.

Napster's use of a central server distinguishes it, on its facts, from the next generation peer-to-peer technology, in which the communication of files is truly "peer to peer." Therefore, additional litigation was needed to determine the legality of their uses.

In MGM v. Grokster, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed a decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which had granted a summary judgment of dismissal, and held that there were factual issues concerning whether the defendant p2p software providers had, or had not, encouraged their users to infringe copyrights. If they had done so, they could be held liable for secondary copyright infringement.

The main point of the Grokster holding was about "inducement." "The classic case of direct evidence of unlawful purpose occurs when one induces commission of infringement by another, or "entic[es] or persuad[es] another" to infringe, Black's Law Dictionary 790 (8th ed. 2004), as by advertising. Thus at common law a copyright or patent defendant who "not only expected but invoked by advertisement" was liable for infringement …" The court noted that simply providing the material was not enough. While the decision did not find liability, it simply laid out the groundwork for how the law should be interpreted.

A little over a year later, the RIAA initiated the first major post-Grokster case, Arista v. Limewire, in Manhattan federal court. Lime Wire has counterclaimed in that suit, charging the major record companies with antitrust violations and other misconduct."Lime Wire Sues RIAA for Antitrust Violations"

Shortly thereafter, the lower court judge in Grokster found one of the defendants, Streamcast, the maker of Morpheus, to be liable under the standards enunciated by the Supreme Court. "Streamcast Held Liable for Copyright Infringement in MGM v. Grokster, Round 2" ("Recording Industry vs. The People")

The foregoing cases dealt with 'secondary liability' under the Copyright Act, i.e. whether and when the p2p network software providers can be held liable for 'primary' infringement by their customers. Meanwhile, the underlying question of what uses those customers can make of p2p software without committing a primary infringement is a matter just beginning to be explored, most notably in litigations brought by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) against p2p customers.

In Elektra v. Barker, an RIAA case against Tenise Barker, a Bronx nursing student, Ms. Barker moved to dismiss the complaint, contending, among other things, that the RIAA's allegation of "making available" did not state any known claim under the Copyright Act. The RIAA countered with the argument that "making available" is a copyright infringement, even though the language does not appear in the Act. Thereafter, several amicus curiae were permitted to file briefs in the case, including the MPAA, which agreed with the RIAA's argument, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), the U.S. Internet Industry Association (USIIA), and the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA), which agreed with Ms. Barker. The US Department of Justice submitted a brief refuting one of the arguments made by EFF, but did not take any position on the RIAA's "making available" argument. The Elektra v. Barker case was argued before Judge Kenneth M. Karas in Manhattan federal court on January 26, 2007, and as of this writing is awaiting decision.

Anonymous peer-to-peer networks allow for distribution of material - legal or not - with little or no legal accountability across a wide variety of jurisdictions. Many profess that this will lead to greater or easier trading of illegal material and even (as some suggest) facilitate terrorism, and call for its regulation on those grounds. Others counter that the presumption of innocence must apply, and that non peer-to-peer technologies like e-mail (for which there are also anonymizing services), have similar capabilities. Further, the potential for illegal uses should not prevent the technology from being used for legal purposes.

In the European Union (EU), the 2001 EU Copyright directive, which implemented the 1996 WIPO treaty ("World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty"), prohibits peer-to-peer, claiming it is a violation of the directive. However, not all European member states have implemented the directive in national legislation. Notably, on December 22, 2005, after discussing the EU directive, the French parliament passed two amendments legalizing the exchange of copies on the internet for private use. In a later proceeding, the French government withdrew the article in question and made illegal any p2p client obviously aimed at sharing copyrighted material. The term "obviously" was not defined. The project of law (called DADVSI) has still to be discussed by the French senate and, if the decision differs too much from the Parliament's, it will be debated on second lecture back at the Parliament (Assemblée Nationale). Interestingly, Canada stands out by authorizing, at least until the projected copyright reform, downloads on peer-to-peer networks under the "private copying" exception.

Answer 2

As far as being right or wrong, I have to admit some amount of loyalty to the artists. They aren't seeing any revenue from it. Personally, about 95% of the stuff I download is rare or hard-to-find music. Imports, b-sides, remixes, stuff like that. Most of the stuff I download I would buy if I came across it in a store, so that makes it seem...I don't know, better to me. A good example: I downloaded Evanescence's new album to check it out. Liked it, so when I was at the store, I bought it. Which I may not have if the only song I ever heard was Call Me When You're Sober. The other 5% or so of songs I download are songs that are either stuck in my head for some reason, or are older and I just want to hear it. There's no way I'd ever go out and buy a whole album just because one night I wanted to hear a song off it, especially if it's an older song. I might only like one song from an artist, so if I happen to come across a single cd, I'd buy it even if I already have it downloaded. If I'm unsure about a song or artist, I'll download some to try out. If I don't like it, then I won't buy the cd. But I certainly won't buy it just outright without knowing whether or not I'll like it. So, that's my justification.

Answer 3

I think its bs that they call it stealing, when someone is giving music that they purchased to someone else. It was bought and is being given away, period. Be careful with the P2P sites though. They can give you nasty viruses and trojans. I gave up with those sites because I rarely ever found music that wasnt tampered with. I now use www.gomusic.ru. You have to pay 10 to 15 cents a song, but they have a huge selection and they are all good quality.