Comments on: File-sharing site eDonkey kicks it
P2P firm agrees to $30 million settlement in copyright case, becomes latest victim of illegal file-sharing crackdown.
P2P firm agrees to $30 million settlement in copyright case, becomes latest victim of illegal file-sharing crackdown.
December 3, 2009 9:01 PM PST
December 3, 2009 8:10 PM PST
December 3, 2009 7:45 PM PST
Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.
More feeds available in our RSS feed index.
Related quotes
"P2P networks have succumbed one by one since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in June 2005 that file-sharing services were illegal."
The Supreme Court did not say that file-sharing services were illegal. They said the operators of such services can be held responsible for infringing activity on those services if they take steps to actively promote infringing activity.
As for the New York case strangely I am unable to find any mention of it else where on the net. Usually such decisive wins get ran up the flag poll several times by the RIAA and MPAA (aka MAFIA) .
Speedy
I'm also fed up of it, sometimes I can almost see why people take their lives or sacrifice it to make a point. What's the point of living if you feel like you are living in a prison and have no rights?
P2P software are created, so that, people can share whatever files they want to share. This may include, but not limited to, photos that that person took to podcasts that person created created, and from documents written by that person to music composed by him/her!
So, if people use the software for braking the law by sharing illegal files, how come the software can be pronounced illegal, and its production can be ordered to a halt, and its makers can be forced to pay tens of millions of dollars? Then all the guns must be ruled as illegal and their production must be stopped, since people buy guns and kill other people, which is a MUCH more serious crime with consequences that are crystal clear compared to a crime committed by sharing copyrighted material!
What do you think?
My two cents...
The reason for this is because the United States is not a democracy, nor is it a republic, it is an aristocracy. Plato's Republic defines a government as something that holds in itself the benefit to its people. Thus, to define a government you need to define who is most helped by the governments existence. The United States government is set in place to benefit the aristocracy the most: every senator, representative, judge, and presidential appointee is an aristocrat. Every one of these people is paid more in a year than 75 percent of American citizens, and that is defensively low, undoubtedly, the percentage is a great deal higher than that. Naturally, everyone wants to protect their own and, in fact, that is considered the American way, get what's coming to me, ME, ME! An aristocracy develops and the American dream diminishes for the average person, this coupled with the continuation of a hereditary system of money-gathering creates people that can run for office and people that can't. The deciding factor, money.
With this as your basic assumption here is why the RIAA will win. The RIAA is made up of aristocrats, meaning that their interests will be protected by the other aristocrats, legislators. This allows the RIAA to do essentially almost anything it wants as long as it still appears to pay lip service to the joke that the American Constitution has become. And here is the honest truth, this is one of the battles that is being fought in a long, long war for actual freedoms. Freedoms are disappearing more and more, being replaced by misery, and when finally the average person realizes this, it will be too late. Freedoms will disappear quicker soon after the internet file-sharing battle is won, the war will begin in earnest and when finally the everyman fights back he will discover to his chagrin that the secret to winning a war is, you guessed it, money.
That's why my only advice to you is move to Canada to live out your time, or Portugal, or France, or somewhere far away, because soon Orwell's vision of horror will become a truth the same way Verne's did. Good luck to all of you.
J
they are going after the p2ps.There is a profit to be made and the Idea is to profitable to be free.So they are shuting down the free sites one by one and opening the paysites in there place.
tell me. what is the difference between recording your favorite movie with your vcr or downloading it from the internet?that aspect is well promoted
in main stream culture. So am I a crimminal now that I use a different tool to do the same thing that has been happening since cable television first came out.If thay dont want this type of thing to happen ,then why are they creating product that help create the one thing that they are fighting against.So does that mean that technically they are responsible as well??why arent the companies that make recorders or blank cd/dvds being sued(It helps illegal things to happen).sorry for ranting I'm just confused
them making the profit that's why they're trying to shut down
the p2ps programs. Honestly, there's always going to be new
ways for people to share music.
from sharing music, something that we've already paid for.
Ridiculous!
- Now I Know
- by assbad81 August 18, 2007 11:38 PM PDT
- Ok, after finding out the name of the record companies that are
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(16 Comments)against p2ps. I can guarantee you record companies that I will
never ever again buy any record albums from those that've been
mentioned.