posted
I've been unplugged for a while, and it seems the entire Internet's changed on me since then. WinMX is closed, Kazaa Lite's nigh undownloadable, BitTorrent's not safe -- what's a safe, plentiful client to use? Through my own investigation I've found Limewire, which seems the only one sans spyware and permits searching for bitrates (eDonkey doesn't, and I prefer 320 kbps quality) -- any alternatives?
Also, and this is relevant since I'm again disastrously behind the Internet times, what's a decent cloaking program? I hear good things about Tor -- any others? Or what?
I won't be using filesharing for much, but I'd like the illusion of safety on the (less rare than I'd like) occasions I feel a sudden desire for N'Sync.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was using Limewire, but when I installed the new version it refused to ever close. So I ditched it, and I'm without anything for now. I was using Bearshare last summer, but it has all kinds of adware/spyware junk bundled with it.
I'm not sure what else is out there right now. I'll probably go back to limewire when I really need to hear some Billy Ocean.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have a Post that might help you. There are emerging-in-popularity p2p file sharing programs that are private. Grouper is the one I use. It uses 128 bit decryption for downloading/uploading/chatting. These "private" programs work by creating groups. The only way someone can belong to your group is if you invite them.
You can belong to as many groups as you want, and you can create as many groups as you like. I only have one group. The only person invited to it (for now)is my brother. However, I belong to 2 other groups that I found by browsing the members list. There are a lot of groups that people want to make public--so they advertise for people to join them.
The concept of the "group" is based on having only a certain type of files in each group. If you join an anime group, then you would only share your anime files.
Grouper is cool because you can browse your computer and pick which drives, folders, or files you want to share with each group. I share all of my files with my brother, but I only share a select few files with the two other groups I belong to.
Because it is private and decrypted, it is near impossible to track what you are doing. I am wary of what I put in the 2 public groups I belong to, but I feel secure with my private group with my brother.
The downside with grouper is that you can only listen to other peoples MP3s, you can't download them. You can download wav files. I think you can download MP3s if they are zipped.
There is no spyware.
EDIT: A long time ago I used Ares. I liked it better then Kazaa. I just don't like the public file sharing programs anymore. Too is much spyware and you can't trust the content.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have been using bittorrent for a long time now, without a problem...but I don't downlaod software, and I check the file listing before I download...
I also stay away from the large sites, at least most of the time, and I update my computers security often.
isohunt is a good place to find things, but once again it is large and not private.
sL: Someone found a way to exploit p2p bittorents and create malware that could be trasferred with it, but that problem is overrated, I think.
Then again, compared to most people I don't download a lot of "at risk" stuff, so that may be why I have not had a problem. Kwea
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm personally a fan of DC++. From what I've seen and heard, it's typically used for intranetwork sharing, specifically college networks where downloading programs have been banned and thus don't work.
However, I'm not part of my school's network because I'm not living on campus so I just hop on a few public hubs every now and then. I recommend the UK ones because they speak English. Posts: 2867 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
As I said, I use it for things that are a lot more legal than somne people.
There are sites out there that advertise legal downloads using bittorrent, bands that are putting their own music out there...
Liz gave me a site where they use FLAC because of the better sound quality, and I have found some sites on my own. Those places are a lot more ethical, and safe, than a lot of uses for it, that's for sure.
How is taping movies ethical, or TV shows? Lots of things are questionable, but people do them.
My point is that while some, maybe even most, people use bittorent for illegal downlaods, not all of us do.
posted
That "maybe most" line is a bit disingenuous. But, yeah, I {i]also[/i] have BitTorrent, and use it for legal downloads; a lot of free software, for example, is now available exclusively through the format.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I generally use BitTorrent exclusively for TV shows I miss and feel like watching in High Quality, and not on crappy recorded VHS.
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why disingenuous? I said some, maybe even most....that means I acknowledge the fact that a lot, maybe even most people use it otherwise. At least some of the time.
Sounds to me like I was being completely honest there, not trying to hide a darn thing.
I think a lot of people use it however they want to...they wouldn't turn their nose up at something that was free AND legal. I use it for both at times, although I was more interested in how to do it than the actual programs....I learned so much about how to set up port forwarding and free up ports that people who helped me learn now email me questions they can't answer, and usually I can figure it out pretty quickly.
I use it for TV shows too, but not that often. Some things I have seen are pretty interesting, but I just don't have the time for it. Not here at Hatrack though. Most of the people here who taught me, or at least got me started on it, no longer post, unfortunatly.
It really is just like a VCR to me...I can live without it, but I love being able to access this stuff whatever the time is, any day of the week. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, Tom, did someone say BitTorrent (in the context of piracy) was ethical?
I have no illusions about the ethicality of it. I jutify it by pointing out the large number of bands it's exposed me to (and the subsequent hundreds I've spent on CDs from bands I wouldn't have otherwise heard of), but piracy's certainly immoral when used solely to copy music without the intent of later purchase.
By the way, you might know -- what is a good IP cloaking program? I'd like anonymity while downloading -- I'll already be in debt until death do me part from tuition, I'd like to stay faithful to academia-based bills.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Eddie, I don't know how often you check your school email or if you check it all, but I sent you an email. *just letting you know*
And so this post follows the topic of the thread, I use BitTorrent for movies and TV shows and Limewire for music (though I haven't downloaded anything in quite a while).
Posts: 1658 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Why is BitTorrent ethical?
Why isn't it? A couple of weeks ago, I decided I wanted to check out Linux. I found a distribution called Xandros that's supposed to be very Windows-friendly.
When I went to download it, one of the options was to download it via BitTorrent. Much better than a straight download.
Why are camcorders ethical? After all, many movies are pirated with camcorders.
Why are cars ethical? After all, some people drive them without a license. <grin>
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Because illegal does not imply unethical, and because sharing is not stealing. Just because the music industry wants their copyright powers to go as far as possible doesn't mean they can can change ethics to make it so.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tresopax, there are people who think that there is an ethical imperative to obey all laws. Except, of course, for those laws they personally consider unethical.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Soon, some copywrite holder will try to sue a consumer for singing along with the song, or singing the song when they aren't listening to it.
Posts: 1132 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
There used to be a lyrics server based in Switzerland. I think it was lyrics.ch. Anyway, all the site did was post lyrics of songs. Stuff that's out there anyway. No music notations or anything. It was for fans who loved the songs, and wanted to see exactly what the words were that they were hearing.
You'd think that'd be harmless. You'd think that'd even be a good thing for the artists.
So the guy who owned the server was in the shower, and he heard his door being busted down, and by the time he got out, the cops had taken his two computers.
I swear, between the Patriot Act and the insanity of the MPAA and RIAA, the whole idea of liberty is going to get flushed down the toilet.
I'm reading Mindscan, right now, by Robert Sawyer. As much as I enjoy the book, the way one of his characters wants to become immortal primarily so that she can retain copyright to her works forever is just sick. Sawyer needs to read the story "Melancholy Elephants", by Spider Robinson. So do the pharmaceutical companies, who abuse the patent system to get around ever letting things go into the public domain, and the MPAA and RIAA.
When I buy a car, I get to test drive it first. When I see a movie that looks like it might be interesting, I test watch it first. I have copies, bought and paid for, of numerous movies that I never would have spent money on had I not first seen them via downloading.
I do not see anything immoral about downloading. I am opposed to the very idea of "victimless crimes". I think that phrase is an oxymoron.
Our intellectual property law is deeply broken. Think about the way in which Marconi is credited with the invention of radio, and Bell with the invention of the telephone. Neither of them was first, but they both got credit for being first.
And people know about Tesla having invented radio only because he won a court case that ruled that way, while Elisha Grey lost his court case to Bell even though the device in Bell's patent application didn't even work.
Look, if I invent something with the sweat of my mind, and someone else does the same, we are both equally entitled, morally speaking, to bring our minds' product to fruition. The whole idea of patents stems from the habit of kings to grant special protections to those they favored. It has no inherent morality attached to it. The idea of intellectual property should mean that I have no right to claim someone else's work as my own. Not that ideas can somehow be owned by someone.
There's a guy who has gone out and trademarked common words, and sues companies that use those words for infringement. They often pay him money just to get him off their backs. A dozen people started using the term "Three-play" when the Bulls won their third championship. But one person managed to get it trademarked first, and from that point on, everyone else had to pay them royalties to use the term.
That's not property law. That's using the government to jockey for position over others. It's unjustifiable.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see the sarcasm of a statement that means absolutely nothing -- "there are people who do, except when they don't".
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
No doubt IP law is broken, but the lyrics case is a horrifically bad example of it (at least, ignoring that it should have been civil, rather than criminal, infringement).
Lyrics are clearly creative works. They are clearly valuable creative works. Control over who can distribute those creative works is clearly valuable. They fall soundly under copyright, and the distribution of lyrics from a whole cloth falls soundly under copyright infringement and isn't even remotely fair use.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: I don't see the sarcasm of a statement that means absolutely nothing -- "there are people who do, except when they don't".
I'm talking about people who think others need to obey all laws, but make exceptions or the ones they don't want to obey.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So from what you're saying, fugu, it would be 100% legitimate to sue someone for walking down the street singing a popular song, unless they'd paid for the right to do so.
Had the lyrics site been selling access to those lyrics, you might have a point.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lalo, that's not the same thing. But as it happens, this site existed before Internet advertising went completely over the top.
There's a panhandler on the way to work who sings as he's standing out there. Someone should notify the RIAA, no?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Singing a song you heard on the radio in a non-performance situation falls soundly under fair use. Why should something only vaguely related to the example you used have the same outcome?
Your comparison is like saying because I can read a book aloud while walking down the street I should be able to put the text of the book online.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd also like to point out that if you're going to be pirating music on your school's network, you might want to check on your school's policy on such things.
posted
I know of not a single case where pirating music has lead to a school reporting a student, and I keep up on that sort of thing.
I know of plenty of cases where schools have taken their own actions against students pirating music, or where the music industry has detected a student and asked the school to take action, but none where a school has alerted the music industry.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, severe penalties are more and more common, but that's not the same as your school reporting you to anyone.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
I don't understand how you can say this. If you download a song that you have not paid for that is stealing. You can listen to it whenever you like, burn it on a CD, put it on an mp3 player, etc. If you've downloaded it for free, there is no added advantage to buying it other than that you legally have it. When you get a product that should be paid for without paying for it, that's stealing.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
So... it's okay for schools to monitor what's done on their computers. What do y'all think about schools that plug their computers in through that cute little device that blocks Fox News?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by raventh1: Amanecer, Technically it isn't stealing.
Stealing is based on the deprivation of something from someone else. In this case it's not taking an item that could be sold if you hadn't taken it.
IP law is rather nested with things like this.
Not true at all. If you go and make copies of the goevernments plans for a new sub, but don't take the original, it is still stealing.
Stealing isn't JUST taking something and depriving others of it, it is accessing things you have no right to have access to as well.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by raventh1: Amanecer, Technically it isn't stealing.
Stealing is based on the deprivation of something from someone else. In this case it's not taking an item that could be sold if you hadn't taken it.
IP law is rather nested with things like this.
Not true at all. If you go and make copies of the goevernments plans for a new sub, but don't take the original, it is still stealing.
Stealing isn't JUST taking something and depriving others of it, it is accessing things you have no right to have access to as well.
Let's please try and differentiate between illegal and immoral. When you talk about right and wrong, it's important that you make clear what context you're using for that.
For example, it is illegal in the city of Joliet, Illinois, to mispronounce "Joliet". But immoral? In Muncie, Indiana, it's illegal to bring fishing gear into a cemetary. Now, that sounds a little weird, but it doesn't strike me as even possibly immoral to bring a rod and reel into a graveyard.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Stealing refers directly to material goods. If you take papers from somewhere copy them and return the papers, you stole the papers momentarily, but 'theft' isn't the charge.
Posts: 1132 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, stealing is not just related to material goods. Copyright and trademark infringements are also forms of stealing. You have no right to somebody else's work. Selling that work is how they make their livelihood. By taking the work but not paying for it, you are stealing it and depriving them of their livelihood. This is both illegal and immoral.
I think you are agruing against this so much because it allows you to justify your actions.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
Lalo, don't get me started.
