Internet Downloads

[Jim]

Hi,

I found several web sites like this one called "Sponsored Links" at Google when I tried to find PS2 demos, is this for real. :?:

They offer Movies like "SW revenge of the Sith" that just opened Thursday for DL, as well as Games & Software for $39.95 a Lifetime membership <_<

www.internetdownloads.org

WHAT EXACTLY IS Internetdownloads? Is it a P2P (filesharing service)?

Internetdownloads is a custom service that is geared specifically toward downloading video files, music files, games, and mobile files. It utilizes an extensive high-speed servers database available to Internetdownload's members and is developed to provide a user-friendly and enjoyable downloading experience.

Internetdownloads offers services to download virtually anything from the Internet for free (for members).

Internetdownloads offers direct database downloads, and also the fastest and safest P2P software in the market today.

In regards to the P2P software offered, all of it is proven spyware / adware free (we don't offer kazaa-type programs), allowing our members to be safely connected to the internet 24/7.

Our main policy is computer safety.

100% LEGAL

PLEASE NOTE: YOUR SECURITY IS MANDATORY FOR US.

We are not a P2P based website (filesharing).
Members download for free using direct database connections, without sharing.

However, we do have the best filesharing software available for our members, and in case you have any doubts on filesharing legalities, it has been recently ruled that FILESHARING IS A 100% LEGAL ACTIVITY, continue reading here for more info.

Recent legal court desitions have ruled that filesharing is a legal activity as long as you use your downloads for private purposes, not for PIRACY.

This means that you will be crossing the fine legal line as soon as you start recording you downloads massively with the objective of selling CDs or DVDs which you haven't bought and have got no resale rights for.

You will be also crossing the line if you use your recorded downloads for public radio broadcasting or for public viewing or enjoyement as it would be the case using them in a movie theatre, a bar, pub, disco, and all kinds of other public places.

As long as you don't practice such activities, filesharing is compared legally to the act of recording on tape a song that you hear in the radio.


We will make sure to stay updated regarding this issue.

Management,
Internetdownloads LCC.

[Chesspiece_face]

Hi,

I found several web sites like this one called "Sponsored Links" at Google when I tried to find PS2 demos, is this for real. &nbsp; :?:&nbsp;

They offer Movies like "SW revenge of the Sith" that just opened Thursday for DL, as well as Games & Software for $39.95 a Lifetime membership&nbsp; <_<

www.internetdownloads.org
[right][snapback]78126[/snapback][/right]

Filesharing is perfectly legal. The content that people usually share, however, is not legal.

[Guest]

Downloading pretty much anything is legal I believe.

Up loading is illegal for many "items" in the US although Canuks can legally download music too us.




BTW dont listen to the line media companies give - listen to the judges rulings.

[Alarick]

From what I can gather, sharing any copyrighted material is illegal.

Anything at all that says that you can share anything you want as long as it is private is telling a pretty bold-faced lie.

I did a quick search, but found nothing official that says the truth in either direction. On the other hand, I have a slightly higher than basic knowledge of copyright laws, and I know one of the protections of the copyright law is that the material cannot be distributed without permission of the owner. This is where the legal issues sit.

When you purchase it, does it give you the right to "share" it with friends? What's the difference between handing the original copy of a game to your friend after installing it yourself and sending him a copy of the game?

As it stands, I wouldn't believe any P2P location that calls itself 100% legal. There's a lot of data out there that is definitely not allowed to be shared.

If there's a decision that filesharing is 100% legal, you can be sure that there will be tons of media exposure. That is not something that will be taken lightly by any of the major entertainment industries, and it will certainly be challenged until the end of time.

[Guest]

"gathering" doesnt have much legal validity.

Court rulings do.

[Quark]

Downloading pretty much anything is legal I believe.

Up loading is illegal for many "items" in the US although&nbsp; Canuks can legally download music too us.
BTW dont listen to the line media companies give - listen to the judges rulings.
[right][snapback]78137[/snapback][/right]

And just what rulings have said that sharing (uploading or downloading) copyrighted programs is legal? None that I've ever seen. They have stated that simply because a program allows illegal activity doesn't mean the program should be barred itself.

[Jim]

Hi,

3+ hour wrangle before an audience at Cornell University. You will need RealPlayer Video to view this video <_<

Friday, April 15, 2005

Video of copyright debate of the century

Last night, the copyright debate of the young century was held when EFF Senior IP Attorney Fred von Lohmann and Siva Vaidhyanathan, author of the great copyfight book "The Anarchist in the Library," faced down reps from the RIAA, MPAA, Universal and Napster in a 3+ hour wrangle before an audience at Cornell University. Now the video is online -- well, it's available as a crappy, dropout-prone Real stream. No doubt there will shortly be ripped audio and video available. Real Video Link (via Copyfight)

Video of copyright debate of the century

[Alarick]

"gathering" doesnt have much legal validity.

Court rulings do.
[right][snapback]78142[/snapback][/right]

Oh I realize that. That's why I stated that it was based on my own interpretations of copyright law as it stands in the books.

I haven't had the time, nor the drive, to search through the recent court hearing and find the relevant ones to US law.

I am 100% sure, however, that there is current no 100% legal P2P file sharing system.

If this were the case, it would be everywhere in the media. Not only would the news networks be talking constantly about the trial, the big industry leaders would be out there just as much trying to keep people from realizing that the outcome happened while they appealed it.

[Guest]

We are both wrong I think now.

P2P file sharing is legal - its what is shared that isnt.

[Alarick]

We are both wrong I think now.

P2P file sharing is legal - its what is shared that isnt.
[right][snapback]78171[/snapback][/right]

Makes sense to me.

[Jim]

How about a DVD recorder, the Warning quoted below is at the end of the Spec page <_<

**You may use this product only to reproduce or copy materials for which you "OWN"&nbsp; the copyright or have obtained permission to copy from the copyright owner or for which you otherwise have a legal right to reproduce or copy. Unless you own the copyright or have obtained permission from the copyright owner or otherwise have a legal right to reproduce or copy, you may be violating the law, including copyright law, and may be subject to payment of damages and other remedies.

Panasonic DVD Recorder FAQs:

#2. Can I record from a commercially-purchased video cassette or DVD?

No. Since duplicating copyrighted material is illegal, most commercially-sold video cassettes and DVDs are encoded with copy encryption, so they cannot be recorded by our recorders.

Q. DVR: What type of copy-protection is available on the Set-top DVD Recorder?&nbsp;
&nbsp;
A.
You cannot record copy-protected video using this recorder. Copy-protected video includes DVD-Video discs and some satellite broadcasts.

If copy-protected material is encountered during a recording, recording will pause automatically and an error message will be displayed on-screen.
Video that is ‘copy-once only’ can only be recorded on the HDD or a DVD-RW disc in VR mode.

When recording a TV broadcast or through an external input, you can display copy control information on screen

Pioneer FAQ

[Brista]

How about a DVD recorder, the Warning quoted below is at the end of the Spec page&nbsp; <_<
[right][snapback]78193[/snapback][/right]

Read with care

You may use this product only to reproduce or copy materials for which you "OWN"&nbsp; the copyright or have obtained permission to copy from the copyright owner or for which you otherwise have a legal right to reproduce or copy

you "OWN"&nbsp; the copyright

ie you wrote/composed/created it

or have obtained permission to copy from the copyright owner

ie the person who wrote/composed/created has specifically told you that you personally may copy it or there is a general "please feel free to copy this" attached to the work

or for which you otherwise have a legal right to reproduce or copy

a cop-out clause indicating that Panasonic gathers that copying is sometimes legal and sometimes not but that in any event they're not responsible for either unfairly limiting your freedom by implying restrictions that don't exist nor for affecting someone else's intellectual property rights by implying a freedom to copy which doesn't exist. In other words what they're essentially saying is 1) if you wrote it you can copy it, 2) if the writer says you can, you can copy it, 3) otherwise you're on your own bud. It's actually quite a well-written piece of legalese if you bear in mind that its primary purpose is to make sure Panasonic can't be sued for anything done after they sell the item.

[jahcs]

We are both wrong I think now.

P2P file sharing is legal - its what is shared that isnt.
[right][snapback]78171[/snapback][/right]

And the manner in which the copyrighted material is gathered in the first place usually isn't either - especially for first run movies that have barely made it to theaters.

[Alarick]

And the manner in which the copyrighted material is gathered in the first place usually isn't either - especially for first run movies that have barely made it to theaters.
[right][snapback]78335[/snapback][/right]

Or the movies or software which haven't even been publically released...

[Darian]

or for which you otherwise have a legal right to reproduce or copy

a cop-out clause indicating that Panasonic gathers that copying is sometimes legal and sometimes not...
[right][snapback]78199[/snapback][/right]

It also sort of covers the implied-by-precedent standard which states that in the case of recordings (video, audio or data; digital or otherwise), the consumer has the absolute right, if they're able to do so, to make a copy of the media for backup purposes unless the copyright holder explicitly offers to replace it in the event of loss.

It's an interesting twist in the way copyright law is constituted. When you buy recorded media -- let's use Windows XP as an example -- there are two ways to look at it which are mutually exclusive. The first is to look at is as "I have just bought these CDs, which contain software. The CDs are mine to do with as I please." Obviously, Microsoft wants nothing to do with this view of things, so they accept the second view: "I just bought a license to use Windows XP. The software is on these CDs. I can do whatever I need to do to ensure that I continue to have the use of the software I've licensed, so they can't stop me from copying the discs in case I lose the originals."

[jahcs]

Heh, is possession of a copy of stolen property nearly the same as possession of stolen property? In the case of software, movies, and music I would think so.

[pazuzu]

I like to twist words a little to avoid confusion:
Filesharing is legal, breaking copyright is not.
In simple terms, one might say that sharing files on the internet is the same thing as broadcasting it (it's actually taking a step further, but lets keep it simple) - meaning that if it's reasonable to say that you're not allowed to broadcast it you're not allowed to share it on the internet in any way.
Having filesharing-applications illegal (the way some companies and politicians want) makes no sence. You can't make sharing data illegal, it would make this forum illegal, as well as any internet-/network-related activity. However, you can make it illegal to give away or sell copies of copyrighted work, such as today.
The problem here is that it's nearly impossible to prevent this from happening, and trace everyone who does it. You're pretty safe when sharing or downloading pirated (illegally obtained, altered and/or shared) data today, wether it be sowftware, music or movies. Even in the US.
The business needs to protect itself against this culture. Enter the people responsible for the medium for this activity.
Here we enter a gray area:
They aren't actually doing anything wrong, they just provide a way for people to share data. However, they are knowingly providing a way to perform illegal activities.
I myself have a hard time deciding what rules should apply in such a case. I'm tempted to point out similarities to 'real life' scenarios, but I can't. Because it doesn't compare. The internet (and similarily other large networks) gives possibilites that can't be reproduced elsewhere.

In Norway I can copy a CD and give it to my friend as a gift. I can give a copy to my whole family and every friend I have, in fact. From there, I'll slowly be passing a huge grey line between gifts to close relations and breaking the law. Profiting in any way from this, however, makes it illegal (set aside the debate on wether you profit from giving a gift to a friend who in return gives you a gift later on). I can't sell copies, as I don't own the right to profit from copies of that work. To me, this sort of makes sense. Once I've bought a CD, it's mine to what I want, or just about so. There are a few obvious exceptions, such as selling copies (it's not mine to sell, it's just mine to use), claiming it's actually made by me or producing a nearly identical copy and selling that one as my own work.
I won't profit from sharing my stuff on the internet either (now enter the debate on wether I profit from sharing stuff for free to in return get loads of stuff for free in an organized manner) yet it makes more sense that this is illegal.
Cussing once in a restaurant may give me some raised eyebrows but constantly cussing nonstop will get me thrown out for sure - and this makes sense.

As of today (my opinion on the matter changes about as often as I change my socks, every two weeks that is :P ) I sort of feel that the authorities should have easier access to any listing of what is downloaded and from/by who. Now, this is a minefield of great proportions, with the big brother syndrome lurking dangerously close. I know. But seriously, one should not be able to hide completely on the net no matter what one does.
"Spying" on the internet is not the same as invading our private homes, the internet is public domain and public domain needs a little structure.

Wow, I just realized I've completely outgrown my rebellious years of fighting for internet anarchy. I think I need to lay down a little.

[jahcs]

They aren't actually doing anything wrong, they just provide a way for people to share data. However, they are knowingly providing a way to perform illegal activities.
I myself have a hard time deciding what rules should apply in such a case. I'm tempted to point out similarities to 'real life' scenarios, but I can't. Because it doesn't compare. The internet (and similarily other large networks) gives possibilites that can't be reproduced elsewhere.
[right][snapback]78371[/snapback][/right]

A company can design a car that will go 200 miles per hour. They are giving you enough rope to hang yourself with if you choose to use the car in the wrong area in the wrong way, i.e. driving on city streets as if you were at the racetrack.

Somone can market a DVD burner and provide software to rip DVDs. It is legal in most areas to buy and possess these items. Their most common use usually violates the law.

[Alarick]

In Norway I can copy a CD and give it to my friend as a gift. I can give a copy to my whole family and every friend I have, in fact. From there, I'll slowly be passing a huge grey line between gifts to close relations and breaking the law. Profiting in any way from this, however, makes it illegal (set aside the debate on wether you profit from giving a gift to a friend who in return gives you a gift later on). I can't sell copies, as I don't own the right to profit from copies of that work. To me, this sort of makes sense. Once I've bought a CD, it's mine to what I want, or just about so. There are a few obvious exceptions, such as selling copies (it's not mine to sell, it's just mine to use), claiming it's actually made by me or producing a nearly identical copy and selling that one as my own work.
[right][snapback]78371[/snapback][/right]

There's a lot of grey area in these matters. I can take songs from a large number of CDs I own and create a compilation. This isn't illegal, and as far as I know it isn't illegal to give such a thing to another person. You aren't selling it, nor are you claiming the copyrighted work as your own.

Stepping into the even "greyer" areas, what happens if the compilation is almost exactly the songs from a CD. Perhaps you put them in a different order, or combined the songs from two very short albums. Where does it change from creating a simple compliation to producing a legal or illegal copy?

What I won't get into here is the large number of issues I have with copyright law in general. I'll give a short description here: The law provides too long a protection, especially in the digital realm where the length of protection surpasses the life span of the media by 10 or 15 times.

[jahcs]

Stepping into the even "greyer" areas, what happens if the compilation is almost exactly the songs from a CD.&nbsp; Perhaps you put them in a different order, or combined the songs from two very short albums.&nbsp; Where does it change from creating a simple compliation to producing a legal or illegal copy?
[right][snapback]78392[/snapback][/right]

Each song on an album is copyrighted, not just the complete album.