# Kazaa



## BobFly (Mar 10, 2003)

Is kazaa safe? yes or no!

i want to download a few songs i heard on XM but not sure if its a good idea or not! 

i read a site saying its not the downloaders that are getting busted its the file sharers(uploaders)! any clue?

thanks


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

The RIAA said they will start busting the casual file sharers, I've been using Kazaa a for a year and a half now and Napster 2 years before that, I have yet to have a guy in a suit knock on my door and take me away in cuffs  I'm still using Kazaa, but might switch to WinMX one of these days. Even though I think this whole thing is a crock, I'd say give WinMX a try just to be on the safe side. If you go with Kazaa make sure to download Kazaa Lite, it includes no spyware.


----------



## BobFly (Mar 10, 2003)

steve 

Thanks for the info! i appreciate it


----------



## mainedish (Mar 25, 2003)

Can you imagine if you could somehow steal DISH and DIRECTV the same way. It would be stealing . But some think it's ok to steal music the same way.


----------



## Jacob S (Apr 14, 2002)

Its a wonder that it had not been done yet over the internet as one could actually put the feed onto the internet but I am sure if Dish and/or Direct found out that they would have it shut down. It could actually be done from OTA or cable as well. This would probably be most likely to happen if internet speeds for a lot of people got very fast and a lot of bandwidth would be had in the future.


----------



## Ric (Apr 26, 2002)

I haven't read all of the arguments, etc on this topic but just can't see how this is really illegal. From a moral standpoint, I understand how people claim its stealing. 

From a legal standpoint, how is this any different from recording a cd, dvd, or vcr and giving it to a friend to watch or listen to? Is it the distribution method that is considered illegal (i.e. I am taking this file from someone without them expressly giving it to me as opposed to the VCR copy in which I physically/expressly give permission for someone to view my copy without receiving profit).

I thought the VCR argument was that as long as you did not profit from the free taping of it, you could freely allow others to watch it. If you puchased a copy, you could profit from that copy but not subsequent copies you may make but as long as those copies were freely distributed, it wasn't illegal. 

Really not wanting to start a flame war but trying to understand the single underlying legal issue as to why someone can not freely give away copies. Maybe it's the gray area that has always been undefined that confuses me (i.e. I am not supposed to copy a book 'in whole or in part' but when I did research papers, there was never an issue of copying parts of a book and professors would even do that as part of the course yet I am not sure if that was really legal).


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

That is right Ric, Kazaa is not illegal as proven by the courts, but using it for illegal activities is. So you have the right to install the program and download programs, songs and such that do not have a copyright, but to download the latest music you heard on XM, that would be illegal. You are allowed to make personal copies of songs you own, but you are not allowed to share them with others. 

What is funny about this is for years music people wanted you to share music on tapes because the quality was so bad, now they realize how wrong this policy was when you get high quality copies from almost any computer....


----------



## BobMurdoch (Apr 24, 2002)

OK, explain this to me.......

It's not OK for me to allow someone to view and copy a music file from my computer.

Then why does my local government FORCE me to pay taxes to buy another form of media and then make THAT available to anyone that wants it?

I'm referring to my local library of course!

I buy one copy of song and load it on my computer. Others may listen to it and enjoy it.

My local library buys one copy of book and others enjoy reading it.

Why is one stealing and the other isn't. J.K Rowlings isn't making any more money after the initial purchase of a book by the library. Why is this legal, nay REQUIRED by my town for me, while a similar format is deemed illegal?

Let's carry this to its' logical conclusion and ban ALL media sharing. Your local video store is now out of business (I don't count Blockbuster who pay a per rental fee to the studios), all libraries are now BANNED (Orwell would be proud), and anyone caught selling any media they "purchased" (which now just means bought a license to use for a limited while for them only) can be made a felon.

Let's continue it forward..... All tangible property is now owned by the original creators. You can't sell your house without paying a royalty to the architect and designer who created the initial design. You can't sell your car, because Ford wants a cut (you're putting hard working union labor out of work by depriving them of the fruits of their labor when you don't buy a new car by buying a used one...... maybe they should start a fund to charge a fee on every used car to be sent to the manufacturers to compensate them for this misdeed).

AAUGH!

It costs the record industry 20 cents to create a CD in bulk. It is now cheaper than the LPs that they replaced in REAL dollars, not inflation adjusted ones. So Why did an LP cost $8 in 1988 and costs $20 now. And I'M the thief.

Fine. I own 3000 CDs which I paid for. Over 30% of it is crap that I never would have bought if I could here it first or return it after realizing it was crap. I now realize that as a music fan I have to do my part and stop supporting these weasels. I've cut back my purchases 90%. Seal and Dido will probably be the only two CDs I buy now until the end of the year. I haven't gone on WinMX in 2 months where I only went to download music that I couldn't buy in the stores (old 80's remixes and UPop that wasn't released over here). I'll just have to get by with My XM subscription and my collection I've built up until now.

Good luck with the crusade RIAA, I used to buy 170 releases a year and now I will buy 2. Although, I'm sure you'll blame file sharing for THAT revenue drop as well.


----------



## Rick_EE (Apr 5, 2002)

Your analogy falls down in that the people are making copies of the files. I cannot go to the library, check out a book and photocopy it. When I check it out, no one else may use it. 

I don't disagree with the rest.


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

BobMurdoch said:


> <snip>


I don't get what you are saying? Renting a book or a movie is totally different than stealing someone's work. :shrug:

I agree, CD's are too expensive and most music sucks these days. But that doesn't allow you to download music that you did not pay for. Copyrights are what allows people to invent and invest in industry. Without them, there would be no incentive to create.


----------



## BobMurdoch (Apr 24, 2002)

When you are reading a book you gain whatever benefit you get from reading a book. When you download a song, you listen to it.

You aren't paying the copyright holder for either one of them, yet you get the benefit. If, while on a file sharing service, 30 people grab a file off my computer, how is that different from a library where 200 people will read it before it starts to fall apart. 95% of the music on my computer was bought by me. The others, I was unable to buy, and went to the only source I could to find them. (Anyone else sitting on a copy of the Wouldn't It Be Good remix by Nik Kershaw from 1985 where Burgess Meredith does the Twilight Zone intro... this was an official studio release in the 80's and was unavailable anywhere EXCEPT WinMX where someone copied it from 12" Single to an mp3 file) 

James, why is renting a book or a movie different? The copyright holder gains no revenue from the rental which is their beef. Saying that there is NO incentive to create is a fallacious assumption, since authors would not be able to survive only on the revenue from libraries only, yet bookstores still manage to stay in business. Not to pick a fight here, but WHY is a library different when you break it down to the core concept behind the RIAA's current beef?

Why does the RIAA assume that ANY song downloaded would have been purchased otherwise? Bottom line, the average person who downloads has a limited means of income, normally students. They will spend that money on a multitude of items, but if they don't have it they can't spend it. It is a zero sum game where most of the music would NOT be bought if they had to pay for it. They would just suffer through FM radio/MTV until they heard the songs they liked. How many bands would NOT be discovered if their music wasn't heard? And given the contracts favoring the record companies, the artists themselves (other than some of the megamillionaire artists that CAN get a fair deal) rarely make that much off the CDs and make most of their money off of concerts and merchandise. How many artists were discovered by fans finding their music for free, and then buying either the CD, a concert ticket, and/or a concert T-Shirt afterwards?

1999 was the last healthy year that the record companies point to when claiming that the piracy reached critical mass and started bleeding off sales. It was also the last year Napster was at full strength. The following year, Napster began trying to placate the RIAA and wound up making the site worthless. Sales soon began to fall. The RIAA wants you to believe that fils sharing is totally to blame for the fall in sales. The economy, a 16% drop in quantity of product (ie. new releases vs. the previous year), the disappearance of a lot of established acts (Lillith Fair, etc.), and not to mention the beginning of the era where an industry began to blame its customers for its problems (NEVER a good idea), were all dismissed as irrelevant.


----------



## BobMurdoch (Apr 24, 2002)

Rick Densing said:


> Your analogy falls down in that the people are making copies of the files. I cannot go to the library, check out a book and photocopy it. When I check it out, no one else may use it.
> 
> I don't disagree with the rest.


Granted, I'm not selling a copy of the book, yet I don't derive any income from the music file I download. If I carry away the book from the library and get my enjoyment from it, how does it differ? I HAVE photocopied articles for classes in the past, which would seemingly violate the letter of the law that the RIAA is trying to enforce here. You can't just cherrypick the parts of the law that support your argument and ignore the rest (even if the lawyers will try to do so).

The reason that BAD laws are written is that they address a negative situation that exists, even if the solution is sometimes worse than the problem. My reason for attacking the library model is to expose the stupidity of the whole RIAA argument. I'm not the book burning type by any means, and I'm hoping that the debate might reach the ears of SOMEONE who can make a difference and stop this insanity.

They are now serving subpoenas to grandparents with computers for files that their grandkids downloaded and for which the owners of the device did not violate any laws, yet they will be the ones who are liable by the letter of the law. Taking THIS to its logical conclusion, I can get a job at a small business, bypass the company firewall which most file sharing programs can do, and download to my hearts content. If the company gets nailed, I shrug my shoulders and walk away, leaving the company with the legal bills.

Part of me hopes they continue this strategy, so that Joe SixPack and Grandma AARP will hear of someone who got burnt and scream holy hell to their lawmakers. Then this mess will go away. Unless, you want to open a new wing at the local jail for those who downloaded music. Jeez, as if the jails weren't crowded enough already.

This whole file sharing thing is rapidly displacing speed limit and jaywalking violations as the most widely ignored laws in the US. Making it a felony will not stop it, only force a more creative solution as this Pandora isn't getting stuffed back in the box.


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

BobMurdoch said:


> *When you are reading a book you gain whatever benefit you get from reading a book. When you download a song, you listen to it.
> 
> You aren't paying the copyright holder for either one of them, yet you get the benefit. If, while on a file sharing service, 30 people grab a file off my computer, how is that different from a library where 200 people will read it before it starts to fall apart. 95% of the music on my computer was bought by me. The others, I was unable to buy, and went to the only source I could to find them. (Anyone else sitting on a copy of the Wouldn't It Be Good remix by Nik Kershaw from 1985 where Burgess Meredith does the Twilight Zone intro... this was an official studio release in the 80's and was unavailable anywhere EXCEPT WinMX where someone copied it from 12" Single to an mp3 file) *


I'm still not sure what you are saying here? Just because I read a book means that I've stolen the property? Blockbuster pays much more than we do for those videos we rent and they have an agreement with the copyright holders to rent as do most libraries. These entities are not just buying a book at a discount price and then lend it out. The are legally bound by their contract with the copyright holder. You buy downloading a song do not enter into any contract.
*



James, why is renting a book or a movie different? The copyright holder gains no revenue from the rental which is their beef. Saying that there is NO incentive to create is a fallacious assumption, since authors would not be able to survive only on the revenue from libraries only, yet bookstores still manage to stay in business. Not to pick a fight here, but WHY is a library different when you break it down to the core concept behind the RIAA's current beef?

Click to expand...

*As I said, the copyright holders enter in to agreement with Blockbuster and your local library to rent books and music. The local library here has an agreement you can read which states that they are allowed to lend books, music and videos to you. It also says that if you make a copy of it you are in violation of that agreement. When you rent a car from Hertz, does Ford get the rental money? No, but Ford does realize the extra sales from their cars going to rental lots. Same with Blockbuster and Libraries.


> *
> Why does the RIAA assume that ANY song downloaded would have been purchased otherwise? Bottom line, the average person who downloads has a limited means of income, normally students. They will spend that money on a multitude of items, but if they don't have it they can't spend it. It is a zero sum game where most of the music would NOT be bought if they had to pay for it. They would just suffer through FM radio/MTV until they heard the songs they liked. How many bands would NOT be discovered if their music wasn't heard? And given the contracts favoring the record companies, the artists themselves (other than some of the megamillionaire artists that CAN get a fair deal) rarely make that much off the CDs and make most of their money off of concerts and merchandise. How many artists were discovered by fans finding their music for free, and then buying either the CD, a concert ticket, and/or a concert T-Shirt afterwards?*


I don't think they do. There is a huge difference with today's technology and what they allowed years ago. By sharing a song on Kazaa, you are sharing it with millions of people. Years ago, copying a album off of a record and on to a tape was a transaction that occurred with 2 people. That is what is scaring the RIAA. But it still doesn't matter. They own the rights to the songs, you do not. Even if you buy the song you don't own it. Much like that copy of windows you have. You own a license to use it. 


> *
> 1999 was the last healthy year that the record companies point to when claiming that the piracy reached critical mass and started bleeding off sales. It was also the last year Napster was at full strength. The following year, Napster began trying to placate the RIAA and wound up making the site worthless. Sales soon began to fall. The RIAA wants you to believe that fils sharing is totally to blame for the fall in sales. The economy, a 16% drop in quantity of product (ie. new releases vs. the previous year), the disappearance of a lot of established acts (Lillith Fair, etc.), and not to mention the beginning of the era where an industry began to blame its customers for its problems (NEVER a good idea), were all dismissed as irrelevant.*



Wait, the consumers are stealing products that don't belong to them. Why shouldn't the RIAA stop them? It doesn't matter that they may or may not like today's music. They are thief's and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. I am a software developer and I cringe ever time I see my software on Kazaa. These people are stealing my work which is not distributed over the net at all.

Anyone who steals something that is not theirs should be fined and pay the owners of the material a penalty whether it is Microsoft, AOL Time Warner or James Fee.


----------



## BobMurdoch (Apr 24, 2002)

Once again, I'm not trying to pick a fight here, only trying to expose the flawed reasoning behind the thrust of their argument. If you reread my first post, you will notice that I mention that I don't include Blockbuster as they have a revenue sharing agreement. However, the independent Mom and Pop store do not have such an agreement. They can buy a DVD wholesale, and then rent it out until the scratches are so bad that it is unplayable. The copyright older gets the proceed from the original sale and then nothing else.

When I buy a CD and put in on my computer (or the original supplier of the file does the same), the copyright holder gets a piece of the profits. Same thing with a library book. I haven't seen anything in the law which specifically excludes public libraries (Hmm. Maybe the file sharers should do their downloads at the libraries).

Once again, I find myself in the unusual position of intentionally pouring fuel on the fire here, but I so strongly feel that the law, in its present form, is drastically wrong.

As a software developer, I respect YOUR fervent belief in the law, but you have a better recourse. You can program in locks that will engage if payment isn't made (if it is a purchase made over time), or build in a secure key to activate the software, OR have your software "phone home" via a live internet connection (openly or not) to make sure that the copy is licensed properly. Most of us used to buy a Windows 95 upgrade and update our office computer, our home computer, our laptop, and Junior's computer. The software won't allow that now and the problem doesn't exist anymore. If the RIAA wants to stop the problem than they should drastically drop the price of SACD and DVD Audio which DO have copy protection and start making that channel more attractive. This approach worked marvelously well with DVDs (copy protected) vs. Laserdiscs (no protection). Give the consumer value (iTunes comes to mind), and they will get on board. Take the lead of the DVD folks and make the songs available (especially the obscure ones). I'll pay for it that way if I can GET to it. Don't just make the same 100 songs available. AND make it so I can make copies to take in my car or mp3 player on the go. Apple showed that this approach could work (even BEFORE word began spreading about the lawsuits).

Once again, James... I'm not trying to raise your blood pressure here, just point out the inconsistencies of the RIAAs argument. If they want to make it illegal to share media, then they can't FORCE me to pay library fees to commit a crime that the libraries are perpetrating, can they? And if they are merely choosing not to enforce the law against libraries, then THAT flies in the face of what companies such as Disney have said for years regarding copyright violations (we have to protect the copyright by suing EVERY guy who rents out a Mickey Mouse costume from his costume shop... true story down here.... The court said that the company had a duty to vigorously protect its copyright or "it" has no value)


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

The point I'm making is that its irrelevant what RIAA stance is. Stealing something that doesn't belong to you is wrong. I want a Ferarri, but I won't go out and steal one because it doesn't cost less than $20k... 

I will fight for your right for "fair use" but that doesn't include giving it away to millions. 

As far as my own software, its only for the U.S. Navy and I shoudn't have to put locks on it. Someone at the Navy is giving it away, or most likely sharing it without their knowledge. 

The bigger issue is why should I lose my rights to do what I want with my music, just because some college student is too cheap to buy a CD.


----------



## BobMurdoch (Apr 24, 2002)

At this point I'm going to resist the urge to go much further for both of our sakes, and just agree that you feel that this media sharing is stealing, and agree that I feel that libraries are media sharing (I haven't read of ANY agreements between publishers and libraries, although I heard a news story a year ago about some publisher who wanted an additional revenue stream from libraries, but the story went away). It was a fun debate and hopefully it will get other people to discuss the issue further as well and make their own decison.

On a separate note, my condolences on your avatar's loss,.... I've been a fan of his (since my beloved Mets have been useless the last few years, watching other players on other teams has been my sole pursuit in regards to baseball) and felt he got a raw deal when the world gave a collective shrug when he beat McGuire's home run record based solely on his rumored belligerent attitude. Hopefully, there will be more of a fuss made when he beats Aaron, which I fully expect him to do barring injury.


----------



## rbonzer (May 13, 2002)

I understand the RIAA like this...

If you purchase music, you can listen to it! You can copy the music you puchased for your use.

If you decide to lend your CD to your friend, you can't listen to it until your friend returns it(because your friend has it!) If you have copies, you shouldn't listent to it. Its just like a library.

If you bought the album, but your friend has the CD, you can't copy his CD, even though you bought the album. You have to copy your album.

I don't see what is so bad about that. 

I guess some people think that intellectual property is free. Anything digital is free. The only thing that costs money is a physical object. They don't want to believe anything else.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

Most publishers WANT their prodict in libraries. Some donate it or "Rent" copies. Butt ehy do not allow copies to be made.


----------



## RichW (Mar 29, 2002)

The problem is that whether its stealing or not (and a lot of the MP3 stuff being shared has been passed into the public domain, so it isn't stealing). The problem is that P2P file sharing is so pervasive now that, short of throwing about 20 percent of the USA population into prison, it ain't gonna stop. And if all the music lovers are fined or in prison, then who will buy the the music. The RIAA continues to shoot themselves in the feet. Better to embrace a Napster-like service where, for a small monthly fee, folks can get quality MP3s of all but the newest releases.


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

Very true Rich, but as this thread proves, there is a huge hatred to anyone who tried to protect their copyright. Why is this happening in a country that has a history of protecting copyrights to allow innovation. :shrug:


----------



## BobMurdoch (Apr 24, 2002)

I believe it is because their is a lack of perceived value for the record and software companies which are the biggest offenders and the biggest villains for the average user.

When we were all younger we could all buy a 45 single for .45 in the seventies. Now if you want to buy that new Evanescence song, you have to buy the whole album for $14-20, whether the rest of the songs are good or not. Microsoft charges, depending on the product, up to $300 for a program such as Powerpoint that many people will use only occasionally.

Once again, I'm not condoning the practice, just saying that I understand the motivation. Little guys such as yourself are the ones hurt the most, but most of the file downloaders have a hard time sympathizing as they picture either the rock stars who are paying thousands for Dolce and Gabbana outfits, or the record companies that screw over the new and up and coming acts as the "victims" and have a hard time feeling sorry for them.

As for why it is happening,.... it could be the same motivation that forced a bunch of traitors/patriots to dump a bunch of tea into the harbor. Perceived Greed on the part of those with the product have pushed a bunch of normally law abiding citizens into illegal activities.


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

Wait....

Did you just compare the downloading of material you don't own with the boston tea party?

LMAO... Since when does Taxation without Representation have anything to do with this?


----------



## thevoice (Sep 24, 2002)

I think at one point a large company who manufactures game machines (particually a one and two) beat this by saying you didn't actually own the contents on the CD - you just owned the CD and the casing... So if you made a backup of the CD, it wouldn't be legal b/c it wasn't yours to own.


I could see the music industry moving to something like this...


----------



## lee635 (Apr 17, 2002)

Latest version of morpheus allows you to use an anonymous proxy, and you can download a block list of ips known to be used by, say record companies. Be sure to update the list occasionally as you would update your antivirus software....


----------



## sampatterson (Aug 27, 2002)

You can also try BitTorrents - much faster than Kazaa has become and more anonymous.


----------

