eDonkey Firm to Pay RIAA $30 Million
Posted by Sicarius on 13 September 2006 - 10:15 · 12 comments & 5696 views
About the Author
Full name: Unknown
Forum name:
Sicarius
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Full name: Unknown
Forum name:
SicariusContact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Slashdot It!
Submit to reddit
Submit to blinklist
Bookmark on del.icio.us
Add to furl
Share on Facebook
Add to Windows Live
Add to Google- Advertisement
-
-
#1 Posted by Fubar on 13 Sep 2006 - 10:18
- sorry but edonkey was so like 2000 :s theres bigger faster ways of getting stuff these days legal or not , its just futile nice to see the riaa making 30 million out of it though , im sure they can all eat and sleep safely now cos where all terroists
-
#2 Posted by Suicide on 13 Sep 2006 - 10:18
- "0day, warez!" omg! nooo! it makes me scared when i hear those words
-
(1 reply)
#3 Posted by Elite_graphix on 13 Sep 2006 - 10:23
- who even uses edonkey.. its such an old p2p prog. and way slower than torrents..
way to go is usenet. :yes: -
#3.1 Posted by Wiggz on 13 Sep 2006 - 10:48
- Quote - Elite_graphix said @ #3who even uses edonkey.. its such an old p2p prog. and way slower than torrents..
way to go is usenet. :yes:
Way to go?? It's the way things used to be. Usenet has been around since before all these p2p apps and will be around after. For one reason and one reason alone however. Usenet was originally used to legitimate use (and still is as well). p2p networks in their modern guise are almost whole heartedly targetted at warez sharing.
If they attempted to do things legally as well, they might well have lasted longer.
Long live......well...other ways
.
Like the ad said, Respect Music, Download Legally
-
(1 reply)
#4 Posted by antaris on 13 Sep 2006 - 10:53
- I don't know why all these big networks are attempting to go legit with "online retailer operating in a closed P2P environment" ideas. They just don't work. Take Napster, Kazaa etc for examples, they just don't perform as well as the owners would hope.
-
#4.1 Posted by C_Guy on 13 Sep 2006 - 15:30
- Exactly. They all start out as illegal file-swapping services (And by "illegal" I mean the technology is legal but the way 99% of people use it is for illegal purposes) and when they finally get sued they convert themselves to a merchant (Perhaps trying to earn some money to pay the fines?)
-
#5 Posted by Magallanes on 13 Sep 2006 - 14:25
- I dont believed that edonkey can pay $30m.... this sue sound fishy for me, maybe riaa buy edonkey months ago and now tried to show some spectacle about "crime never paid".
-
#6 Posted by mel00 on 13 Sep 2006 - 19:11
- $30 mil, I wonder how much artist is going to be. heh.
-
#7 Posted by gadean on 13 Sep 2006 - 21:10
- The RIAA is stupid. They are fighting a never winning battle.
-
#8 Posted by Buttus on 14 Sep 2006 - 03:41
- They should just sue Microsoft and be done with it... If people didn't have windows, 90% of the piracy would be gone...
-
#9 Posted by DaViD_BRaNDoN on 14 Sep 2006 - 09:41
- ...eDonkey? That's so Y2K-ish...
-
#10 Posted by GamblerFEXonlin on 15 Sep 2006 - 13:40
- If you steal music or movies, you are breaking the law.
Not to beat a dead horse, but it's copyright infringment, not theft. From glancing at your user info page you've clearly been on Slashdot long enough to know the arguments, but for the sake of completeness:
Theft or stealing requires directly depriving the owner of something. That is, the thief now has use of the item (or money, or land, or whatnot) while the original owner does not. Copyright infringment is often argued to be theft because the infringer deprives the copyright holder of potential revenue. That is, had the song/movie/software/etc not been available through free, infringing channels the infringer would have been forced to purchase it and provide the copyright holder monetary compensation (i.e. buy the cd/dvd/etc). However, copyright infringment does not *directly* deprive the copyright holder of the song/movie/software/etc or cause them to have less money than they started with, as the copyright holder (as well has whomever is distributing the copy) still have their own copies and no money is stolen. Thus, it's not theft.
Please note, I'm not arguing morality at this point (see below for that argument). There are very strong arguments that copyright infringment, while not theft, is immoral and it is certainly illegal (at least in the United States). But it's not theft.
Now for the argument on morallity...
Not surprisingly, I think the distinction is so important because I don't place copyright infringment on the same moral level as theft. In the United States, at least, copyright is defined in the Constituion to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." I think the current copyright system is no longer for a 'limited' time in any sane fashion and, as such, have absolutely no moral qualms about infringing on old (subjectivly defined) copyrights. Thus I would say most - if not all - of the music you're talking about, the rock classics, should be fair game both constitutionally as well as morally in relation to the social contract copyright entails.
More recent copyrights are, for me, a stickier issue and one I'm still mulling over. Currently, I do infringe on recent copyrights but make an effort to purchase whatever I feel is worth the money. For example, while I download Battlestar Galactica I also make sure to buy the DVD sets when they come out. Likewise with Futurama. Arrested Development may have to be my next purchase, purely from having downloaded episodes and enjoying them enough to think they deserve my money. Now, again, their are reasonable arguments against my position and you're welcome to try and convince me I'm wrong. I've thought about it a lot, so I don't think you will convince me, but I'll try to listen with an open mind.
Please note I'm also not trying to make a semantics game to avoid calling myself a thief. I've stolen things before (including media I could have obtained through copyright infringment) and, in those cases, I was a thief. Plane and simple. However, when it comes to copyright infringment, I honestly beleive that, morally, I'm not stealing and that, in a more sane world, I wouldn't be doing anything illegal either.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=193819&cid=15892674
The file sharing network that eDonkey connects to, known as ED2K for short, does not have a centralized server. Most users on the network are currently using an open source client called eMule. For this reason, the network, as a whole, will mostly likely remain unaffected.
The eDonkey home page displays the following message:
The eDonkey2000 Network is no longer available.
If you steal music or movies, you are breaking the law.
Courts around the world -- including the United States Supreme Court --
have ruled that businesses and individuals can be prosecuted for illegal
downloading.
You are not anonymous when you illegally download copyrighted material.
Your IP address is xx.xx.xx.xx and has been logged.
Respect the music, download legally.
________________________________________
Goodbye Everyone.