Sure, pulling an entire file from an individual has been their technique but it’s also irrelevant… if they will go after ppl for sharing an entire movie or song – they’ll go after you for sharing a piece.. No matter the size.

Oh, but if they just wanted to narrow down to one ip, they’d monitor the incoming packets and block all the ip’s incoming except one in order to have that one user make a complete upload of 1 file. They’ve done weirder things so I don’t think they’re above this either.

Regardless, anyone thinking ANY public p2p where their ip’s are exposed, is safe – would be in error..

Trusted groups – encryption – anonymous transfer… The way of the future for filez…

Don’t get me wrong – I use BT for Linux related files or free avi’s like ‘welcome to the scene’ but short of that, I’d definitely avoid suggesting any p2p as being ’safe’ with minor exception to ANTS/MUTE/(and reservedly, Waste since its more of a trusted group private networking app than what I’d consider a traditional p2p).

Don’t get too trusting in your safety – normally, that’s when something ‘bad’ happens.

Just my 10 cents.
_-Jile-_

On irc you download from bots which dish out the warez so theres no way to catch you sharing etc.

I suggest you have another look at the technology. Why do you think no file sharers have been sued for using bittorrent?

On BT it’s a trivial task to monitor the ip’s your pulling filez from – the riaa-types could easily just sue every ip that they are able to get connection to on a torrent since its the same as any other p2p in that the users you’re pulling from ‘are’ sharing the IP products….

There are only two p2p that claim anonymity – MUTE and ANTS… and they’re basically the same beast. Another is Waste but anyone you let connect to your group can monitor any traffic within the group so that ‘really’ needs to be a trusted-group only app.

*sighs* Please, don’t misinform people about their safety using a public p2p… The closest BT is going to get to ’safe’ is on private tracker items – presuming the users clients are even setup right.. and you cant presume every p2p user is some 1337 user… most are just regular home users ‘having fun’.

Most p2p users accept the odd’s, just like gambling – except in this case the cards are stacked in favor of the users and not the ‘house’… sure, 20,000 people got messed up but how many hundred million p2p users are there? 200m? 300m? The RIAA-Types are really just looking up at the stars and shooting arrows up at them – they’re never going to impact them and the effort is laughable at best… so p2p users being ’safe’ is a generic term that only sort-of applies only because of the improbability of being caught…. ’safe’ isn’t really the case…as people are being ‘caught’ every day..

Just my 10 cents.
_-Jile-_

Streaming radio has been on the net for a long time. Many people get ‘free’ Rhapsody-like service with their internet connection or you can use Streamcast or something similar. You can connect a simple stereo headphone style jack (go to Radioshack or Fry’s or your local mega electronics store) to your speaker-out that connects to your mic-in and use Microsoft’s sound recorder “C:\WINDOWS\system32\sndrec32.exe” that everyone has and save the wav files to your drive, for future burning.

Sure the downside is, you have to basically record long pieces of music and then cut it up later with various ‘mp3/wav splitter’ programs but the difference between this and p2p is this IS legal… and you still get the music you wanted.

It’s only legal if you use it in a certain way though – the streams are your ‘radio’ and you are legally able to record ‘radio’ for future playback as long as its for ‘personal use’ and not being shared with anyone….unless this legality has changed and I’m unaware.

All that said, its completely untrackable and the only sure way you can utilize ‘fair use’ without getting sued or raided. Also, I’ve only given a quickie version of the ‘hard way’ to record net radio – there are programs out there called ’streamrippers’ that do the same thing on the software side instead of using a hardware work around but to each their own. The biggest difference between those ‘easy’ software workarounds and a hardware use like this one is that no matter what DRM is added, the sound still needs to come out of your computer or stereo and once it leaves that device the sound can be recorded on hardware..

*Of course, since I have not re-re-researched the constantly changing legality, I could be proven wrong about its use so if you choose to use this information, you do so at your own legal peril – and agree to hold me ‘blameless’ on your actions.*

Just my 10 cents.
_-Jile-_

Where is the expiration date of copyrighted recordings placed on the records so that we know when we are free to copy?

Answer: Nowhere!

Why is does the copyright laws does not require that the copyright expiration dates be placed on copyrighted documents, photographs, records, etc.?

Answers:
a. Because the intention is that copyrights last forever through trickery.
b. Because people would ask why the “Star spangled banner” and “Happy birthday” is still in copyright and there would be no answer.
c. Because the date is unpredictable.
d. Because it is different for different countries.

Why are 100 year old photographs being printed and sold with copyright notices?
Because they are newly scanned photos of old photos. The person with the scanner and the graphics software is therefore the new creator of the photograph.

If a monkey uses a digital camera, is the monkey the owner of the copyrights of the resulting photographs?
Yes. Button pudhing is considered “art creation” by copyright laws.

If a computer program cleans up scartches of a recording that is in the public domain, can the “new” recording be copyrighted?
Yes, no kiding. It’s done all the time, by record companies.

If I change a couple of notes and a couple of letters on a public domain song can the “new” song be copyrighted?
Yes, no kiding. It’s done all the time, by music publishers.

All put together: Because the law is dumb, made by a comittee of lobbysits and a bunch of jackasses.

Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com

Has anyone e-mailed their senators or House Rep?

Don’t let the RIAA be the only voice that is heard.

Even Patti should be complaining bitterly to her Reps.

BTW: I did complain to one of my Senators.

Nicely put Rafael!

Really, the hypothetical questions must aply to everything copyable (same as “downloaded” from the net. This includes software, images, text, videao and audio.

Until clear cut explanations are given no explanations will suffice. The problem is, that when the explanations are given in a clear cut manner, only two possibilities exists: Shut down the internet or allow free copying.

Here is a though/opinion: Freedom of speech must include freedom of listening. Freedom of speech/listening is incompatible with copyright laws as they exists and as RIAA wants them to be.

Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com