Limewire: (I want to clear something up)

DragonFireOKN · Sep 21, 2008 11:29 PM

For those of you who use Limewire, I would like to let you know about what you are using.

Question 1: Is it legal?

Limewire itself is legal, but if you download a song that has been copyrighted, you ARE BREAKING THE LAW.

Question 2: What could happen if I get caught?

You will get a fine from $750+ PER SONG.

Another fact: If you take your computer in to get fixed and they see you have Limewire on it, it is required by law that they fine you at least 200 bucks.

Question 3: I paid for the PRO version. So is that legal?

No. None of those profits go to the artists in any way. So you are stealing.

I just wanted to clear this up for those of you who think you are using Limewire legally.

The only way you can legally use limewire is if you download non-copyrighted song. However, all the songs you hear on a daily basis or on T.V. are copyrighted.

Don't be fooled by your friends who say: "Oh, it's legal" Limewire itself is legal, but AS SOON AS YOU DOWNLOAD A SONG, YOU ARE BREAKING THE LAW.

Kazoobie64 · Sep 21, 2008 11:32 PM

Who even has Limewire nowadays, anyway?

raven · Sep 21, 2008 11:35 PM

I sort of suspected that might be the case, but wasn't really sure. Why hasn't the music industry shut down Limewire yet?
Thanks DragonFireOKN. The itunes store card thingys that let you buy songs cheaply, that you can purchase at the shops are an ok alternative.

Swaffy · Sep 21, 2008 11:46 PM

True, bro.

Just use iTunes, that has better music quality, anyway.

Aicebo · Sep 21, 2008 11:46 PM

My cousin used to use LimeWire but now he uses iTunes ever since he upgraded to a better iPod.

Spyrorocks · Sep 22, 2008 12:36 AM

In response...

The RIAA are extortionists. They will try to swindle you out of money if they "catch" you sharing or downloading music, although their methods for finding such users are inaccurate and possibly illegal, as an example, they sent an extortion letter to a NETWORK PRINTER in a university. A network printer downloading material, eh?

An IP address CANNOT be linked to the person who downloaded music, thus if you have a wireless network and someone drives up to your house and downloads material, YOU will get the extortion letter. Again, tracking is inaccurate as their methods DO NOT WORK.

The RIAA claims that every download is a lost sale. Not only is it impossible to track download numbers on p2p networks, but is it REALLY a lost sale? A download does NOT equal a lost sale, because a lot of people download music simply because its available.

Can you be sued by the record labels for up to $750? Yes, because they pull statistics out of their *bleep*s and present them in a court room. Will they win the case? Their success of bringing people to court has been low, because people are now fighting back against their efforts to extort money from people. Heres an example of one of their schemes gone wrong: Link.

Why would they shutdown limewire? Its perfectly legal, p2p is perfectly legal, it all depends what sort of data you are transferring.

Do I personally use Limewire? No, its a horribly slow client. I'm more of a bittorrent fan.

Google "skreemr".

Fletch_Talon · Sep 22, 2008 1:08 AM

just a question dragonfire

you say limewire is perfectly legal (which it is)

and yet you claim you can be fined if a repair place finds it installed on your computer...

how does that make sense?

as for downloading songs, i dont listen to a lot of music, if i was to download a song however itd be because i want an individual song as opposed to a whole album, now im aware we have things like i tunes to download individual songs, but i swore not to download apple software ever since quicktime made my computer crash (some kind of vista incompatability resulting in blue screen of death)

besides which with songs, and games if i were to download them, id probably play them either once and then delete, or possibly once every 2-3 months... if their lucky

if i actually wanted something like music or a game and planned to get good use of it then i will pay money for it, example = spore

the thing is, media these days often costs too much (mainly games, i dunno about music) you can pay $99 for a game here in aus, and how crappy is it when you fork over that money only to realise that youll get a good week's use of the game before its thrown in "the pile"

sorry kinda got off track there, but like i said, im not a big listener to music

Spyrorocks · Sep 22, 2008 1:37 AM

I would never use iTunes if it was the last music distribution platform on the internet.

People are paying for songs on the iTunes Music Store because they think it's a good way to support musicians. But iTunes misses a huge opportunity. Instead of creating a system that gets virtually all of fans' money directly to artists-- finally possible with the internet-- iTunes takes a big step backwards. Apple calls iTunes "revolutionary" but record companies are using the service to force the same exploitive and unfair business model onto a new medium.
It's too expensive
Let's start simple: the iTunes Music Store is not a good value for customers. Apple says many users are buying whole "albums" for $8-$12 each. That's less than the $16 store price, but used CDs at Amazon or ebay cost $5, and those come with liner notes. If you don't care about liner notes, you can burn the CD from a friend for 25 cents and send the musician a buck. In both cases, you end up with a real CD, and you can always use iTunes to rip it onto your computer or mp3 player. And you don't have to deal with restrictions on how you use it.
Lossy.
Lossy means loss
iTunes AAC files don't sound as good as CDs. AAC is a "lossy" compression format: it shrinks the sound file by throwing away subtle nuance and texture that a computer program thinks you won't be able to hear. The thing is, you can hear it. You might not notice listening to your iPod on the subway, but if you get home, lie back on the couch, and listen to your new iTunes album on a real stereo, it won't have the same nuance, punch, and presence that a CD has. A burned copy of a real CD will always sound better than a burned iTunes album.
"But I don't really care about compression"
Then you're in good company: lots of people just want to hear the songs they like and don't mind listening to compressed music. The majority of those people (the sensible ones) choose peer to peer filesharing programs like Kazaa or Acquisition to get their mp3s. Downloads are fast, there's a bigger selection, and peer to peer sharing doesn't prop up the music industry. Plus it's free.
If you build a shiny new house on a landfill it still stinks
Apple says iTunes is "better than free" because it's "fair to the artists and record labels." That's simply not true. First of all, Apple gets 3 times as much money as musicians from each sale. Apple takes a 35% cut from every song and every album sold, a huge amount considering how little they have to do. Record labels receive the other 65% of each sale. Of this, major label artists will end up with only 8 to 14 cents per song, depending on their contract. Many of them will never Artists Get Ripped Off. even see this paltry share because they have to pay for producers and recording costs, both of which can be enormous. Until the musician "recoups" these costs, when you buy an iTunes song, the label gives them nothing. (Sources: major label musician's cut Apple's cut For a thorough explanation of how recouping screws musicians, see Confessions of a Record Producer by Moses Avalon)
Nothing changed
So why does iTunes give artists such a raw deal? Because it's the exact same deal that artists have always gotten from the big five record companies. Despite huge new efficiencies created by internet distribution --no CDs to make, no distributors to store and ship them, no CD stores to build and run-- artists receive the same pathetic cut. That is the disaster of iTunes. Instead of using this new medium to empower musicians and their fans, it helps the record industry cartel perpetuate the exploitation. Apple might say it's not their fault: after all, they didn't write the unfair record contracts. But when Apple supports and profits from an obviously unfair system, while telling customers that it's "fair to the artists", they are just as guilty. For years, Apple Computer has built a reputation for straightforward business. So
If Apple honestly believes that the iTunes system is fair for artists, we challenge them to display the artist's cut next to each song and let their customers decide:
[If you are a programmer and are interested in working to develop a patch, application, or script that would display this info in iTunes, please contact us.]
If the artist's cut were clearly visible, more people would want to buy music from independent labels, which give musicians a bigger share of each sale. Apple should make the Music Store open and transparent, so that customer choice can push major labels to do better. The major label mess was built on secrecy; when people can finally see how it works, it will have to change.
Keeping progress at bay
iTunes is just a shiny new facade for the ugly, exploitative system that has managed music for the past 50 years. Thanks to peer to peer filesharing, we finally have a chance to break the major record label system-- but every iTunes user who pays 90 cents on the dollar to middlemen props up the old regime and delays the day when corporations finally lose their stranglehold on music. Now that's something to feel guilty about.
Pods looks stupid.
Love not guilt
If you want to support the musicians you love, the best way to begin is by downloading the song for free on a filesharing network. Then send them what you want to give, no middleman. 14 cents. 99 cents. 10 dollars. A site like musiclink.com, though still rudimentary, makes this a little easier and is a step in the right direction. Weed (weedshare.com) is an ingenious new system where songs can be distributed on p2p networks but must be paid for after 3 plays. Instead of pursuing dead-ends like iTunes, we can develop p2p and direct contribution systems into a full-fledged music economy that sustains many more musicians than the current one. If downloading and contributing is made just as easy as iTunes, it could work and it would work. After all, iTunes is already voluntary.
Positive Changes
Since we first created this page about iTunes in August 2003, there have been some positive developments. Apple, which had previously indicated that they would only allow artists signed to record labels to offer music on iTunes, has begun including music from CD Baby. CD Baby allows any artist to join their service and takes a very small cut from each song (about 9 cents). This leaves the artist with about 55 cents from each sale, which is pretty decent-- though it could be a lot better. Additionally, as noted in the "victory" section above, Apple has stopped saying that iTunes is fair for artists, which was our primary concern. The key factor for deciding whether a music purchase is good for artists is the record label-- some purchases on iTunes leave artists with fair compensation, but buying major label music not only leaves the artists with pennies, it also supports a system that marginalizes every independent musician.
To sum up
iTunes can be a good deal for independent labels and musicians (see side bar) and there's no reason for them to boycott-- labels get a somewhat bigger cut than they would from a CD sale and artists on indy labels get much bigger cut than those on major labels. But most people don't find out about music on the internet, they hear it on the radio (that's why the majors sell 85% of all music). If the major labels can eventually use iTunes and similar internet services to survive, independent labels will stay locked off of mainstream radio. Which is why this is not an anti-Apple page-- we own Macs, we run Panther, and we know how much better Apple's computers are. It's precisely because Apple did such effective design on the iTunes Music Store software that it becomes dangerous. An unusable, unsuccessful music service won't keep major labels in control, but iTunes and copycats might. In practice, iTunes is already a voluntary contribution system -- all of their music is available on filesharing networks. It proves that people will contribute to artists if it's easy. Even more will contribute if the artist gets more than 10%.
Source: http://www.downhillbattle.org/itunes/

Oh, an another article about iTunes PIRATING MUSIC FOR PROFIT! Thats much worse then downloading for free for personal use, eh? Making a profit off of someone else work... Read.

Id download music for free then go to an Artist's concert and buy a t-shirt to support them sooner then buy their song from itunes.

Swaffy · Sep 22, 2008 1:38 AM

That's one big kick in the face for RIAA. No more *junk from them.

Swaffy · Sep 22, 2008 1:41 AM

Spyrorocks wrote:

I would never use iTunes if it was the last music distribution platform on the internet.
People are paying for songs on the iTunes Music Store because they think it's a good way to support musicians. But iTunes misses a huge opportunity. Instead of creating a system that gets virtually all of fans' money directly to artists-- finally possible with the internet-- iTunes takes a big step backwards. Apple calls iTunes "revolutionary" but record companies are using the service to force the same exploitive and unfair business model onto a new medium.
It's too expensive
Let's start simple: the iTunes Music Store is not a good value for customers. Apple says many users are buying whole "albums" for $8-$12 each. That's less than the $16 store price, but used CDs at Amazon or ebay cost $5, and those come with liner notes. If you don't care about liner notes, you can burn the CD from a friend for 25 cents and send the musician a buck. In both cases, you end up with a real CD, and you can always use iTunes to rip it onto your computer or mp3 player. And you don't have to deal with restrictions on how you use it.
Lossy.
Lossy means loss
iTunes AAC files don't sound as good as CDs. AAC is a "lossy" compression format: it shrinks the sound file by throwing away subtle nuance and texture that a computer program thinks you won't be able to hear. The thing is, you can hear it. You might not notice listening to your iPod on the subway, but if you get home, lie back on the couch, and listen to your new iTunes album on a real stereo, it won't have the same nuance, punch, and presence that a CD has. A burned copy of a real CD will always sound better than a burned iTunes album.
"But I don't really care about compression"
Then you're in good company: lots of people just want to hear the songs they like and don't mind listening to compressed music. The majority of those people (the sensible ones) choose peer to peer filesharing programs like Kazaa or Acquisition to get their mp3s. Downloads are fast, there's a bigger selection, and peer to peer sharing doesn't prop up the music industry. Plus it's free.
If you build a shiny new house on a landfill it still stinks
Apple says iTunes is "better than free" because it's "fair to the artists and record labels." That's simply not true. First of all, Apple gets 3 times as much money as musicians from each sale. Apple takes a 35% cut from every song and every album sold, a huge amount considering how little they have to do. Record labels receive the other 65% of each sale. Of this, major label artists will end up with only 8 to 14 cents per song, depending on their contract. Many of them will never Artists Get Ripped Off. even see this paltry share because they have to pay for producers and recording costs, both of which can be enormous. Until the musician "recoups" these costs, when you buy an iTunes song, the label gives them nothing. (Sources: major label musician's cut Apple's cut For a thorough explanation of how recouping screws musicians, see Confessions of a Record Producer by Moses Avalon)
Nothing changed
So why does iTunes give artists such a raw deal? Because it's the exact same deal that artists have always gotten from the big five record companies. Despite huge new efficiencies created by internet distribution --no CDs to make, no distributors to store and ship them, no CD stores to build and run-- artists receive the same pathetic cut. That is the disaster of iTunes. Instead of using this new medium to empower musicians and their fans, it helps the record industry cartel perpetuate the exploitation. Apple might say it's not their fault: after all, they didn't write the unfair record contracts. But when Apple supports and profits from an obviously unfair system, while telling customers that it's "fair to the artists", they are just as guilty. For years, Apple Computer has built a reputation for straightforward business. So
If Apple honestly believes that the iTunes system is fair for artists, we challenge them to display the artist's cut next to each song and let their customers decide:
[If you are a programmer and are interested in working to develop a patch, application, or script that would display this info in iTunes, please contact us.]
If the artist's cut were clearly visible, more people would want to buy music from independent labels, which give musicians a bigger share of each sale. Apple should make the Music Store open and transparent, so that customer choice can push major labels to do better. The major label mess was built on secrecy; when people can finally see how it works, it will have to change.
Keeping progress at bay
iTunes is just a shiny new facade for the ugly, exploitative system that has managed music for the past 50 years. Thanks to peer to peer filesharing, we finally have a chance to break the major record label system-- but every iTunes user who pays 90 cents on the dollar to middlemen props up the old regime and delays the day when corporations finally lose their stranglehold on music. Now that's something to feel guilty about.
Pods looks stupid.
Love not guilt
If you want to support the musicians you love, the best way to begin is by downloading the song for free on a filesharing network. Then send them what you want to give, no middleman. 14 cents. 99 cents. 10 dollars. A site like musiclink.com, though still rudimentary, makes this a little easier and is a step in the right direction. Weed (weedshare.com) is an ingenious new system where songs can be distributed on p2p networks but must be paid for after 3 plays. Instead of pursuing dead-ends like iTunes, we can develop p2p and direct contribution systems into a full-fledged music economy that sustains many more musicians than the current one. If downloading and contributing is made just as easy as iTunes, it could work and it would work. After all, iTunes is already voluntary.
Positive Changes
Since we first created this page about iTunes in August 2003, there have been some positive developments. Apple, which had previously indicated that they would only allow artists signed to record labels to offer music on iTunes, has begun including music from CD Baby. CD Baby allows any artist to join their service and takes a very small cut from each song (about 9 cents). This leaves the artist with about 55 cents from each sale, which is pretty decent-- though it could be a lot better. Additionally, as noted in the "victory" section above, Apple has stopped saying that iTunes is fair for artists, which was our primary concern. The key factor for deciding whether a music purchase is good for artists is the record label-- some purchases on iTunes leave artists with fair compensation, but buying major label music not only leaves the artists with pennies, it also supports a system that marginalizes every independent musician.
To sum up
iTunes can be a good deal for independent labels and musicians (see side bar) and there's no reason for them to boycott-- labels get a somewhat bigger cut than they would from a CD sale and artists on indy labels get much bigger cut than those on major labels. But most people don't find out about music on the internet, they hear it on the radio (that's why the majors sell 85% of all music). If the major labels can eventually use iTunes and similar internet services to survive, independent labels will stay locked off of mainstream radio. Which is why this is not an anti-Apple page-- we own Macs, we run Panther, and we know how much better Apple's computers are. It's precisely because Apple did such effective design on the iTunes Music Store software that it becomes dangerous. An unusable, unsuccessful music service won't keep major labels in control, but iTunes and copycats might. In practice, iTunes is already a voluntary contribution system -- all of their music is available on filesharing networks. It proves that people will contribute to artists if it's easy. Even more will contribute if the artist gets more than 10%.
Source: http://www.downhillbattle.org/itunes/
Id download music for free then go to an Artist's concert and buy a t-shirt to support them sooner then buy their song from itunes.

I don't have the sanity to read all that! LOL o_O

dragon protector x · Sep 22, 2008 2:26 AM

Downloading the music isnt illegal. Its called File Sharing. We share files on it...we arnt selling it to each other.

raven · Sep 22, 2008 2:33 AM

dragon protector x wrote:

Downloading the music isnt illegal. Its called File Sharing. We share files on it...we arnt selling it to each other.

True you're not selling it, but the music artists aren't making profits from distribution of their music. They could be selling a CD or song to you for money, instead of you getting it for free. I think that's why they don't like file sharing with music (although I'm kind of unfamiliar with how the music profits/royalties system works).

Spyrorocks · Sep 22, 2008 2:44 AM

Pay for music you like, but try to find a way to pay for it that gives the max amount of money to the artists, not the RIAA and the other middlemen.

Buy a t-shirt at a concert, make a donation, find a way to give them some publicity, etc etc. When you buy a CD, money goes to the RIAA which in tern helps them extort people. I need not say anything more for itunes.

SpiritofCynder · Sep 22, 2008 4:34 AM

limewire/frostwire, etc is good for downloading individual songs
BitTorrent is excellent for download an entire album, or game, or movie, etc.

I do all my downloading via BitTorrent.

Fletch_Talon · Sep 22, 2008 4:39 AM

SpiritofCynder wrote:

limewire/frostwire, etc is good for downloading individual songs
BitTorrent is excellent for download an entire album, or game, or movie, etc.
I do all my downloading via BitTorrent.

id agree with that, i cant be bothered looking for individual songs on torrent, i use limewire for that and bittorrent for things like games/movies

Spyrorocks · Sep 22, 2008 6:13 AM

LimeWire really is a horrible way to get music when there are hundreds of MP3 indexers on the internet..

google "skreemr".

DarkMaster · Sep 22, 2008 6:17 AM

wow that is scary!

Spyrorocks · Sep 22, 2008 6:38 AM

Whats scary?

Getting an RIAA extortion letter asking for money?

Ha, just use online MP3 search engines. The RIAA can't track you there tongue

dragon protector x · Sep 22, 2008 8:55 PM

Like i said i use Lime Wire to share music with others. I just resently had trouble finding the video of Rianna playing Disturbia at the MTV music awards 2008 video because no on recorded it, but found it on Lime wire. same with the song.

DragonFireOKN · Sep 22, 2008 9:34 PM

I only use Limewire to get music that cannot be purchased from the owner. They never released an MP3 to the public....so yeah.

However, Limewire is notorious for viruses. Watch yourself.

raven · Sep 22, 2008 9:43 PM

DragonFireOKN wrote:

I only use Limewire to get music that cannot be purchased from the owner. They never released an MP3 to the public....so yeah.
However, Limewire is notorious for viruses. Watch yourself.

Yes, they sure do. You can usually tell, because if you type in a song like "jovi highway", most of the results will say "Bon Jovi - Lost Highway" with the hyphen in there, whereas the viruses just have your exact keywords in it just like how you typed it (jovi highway) or it'll have those exact words followed by some pornographic description.

spyromaster330 · Sep 23, 2008 9:05 AM

I use Limewire just to download songs that i havent heard from a band i like and if i like the song i always go out and buy the cd. I prefer to have a cd then just having it on the computer. All the songs i have on my computer i also have on a cd.

Kamineko · Sep 24, 2008 12:37 AM

I just download torrents so I can get the entire discography in one click.

Still illegal, but oh well.

Swaffy · Sep 24, 2008 12:53 AM

Spyrorocks wrote:

LimeWire really is a horrible way to get music when there are hundreds of MP3 indexers on the internet..
google "skreemr".

That deserves to be added to my Favorites folder.

bmah · Sep 24, 2008 3:04 AM

I personally use uTorrent to download most things, and sometimes BitComet.

#1 Sep 21, 2008 11:29 PM

Limewire: (I want to clear something up)

#2 Sep 21, 2008 11:32 PM

Re: Limewire: (I want to clear something up)

#3 Sep 21, 2008 11:35 PM

Re: Limewire: (I want to clear something up)

#4 Sep 21, 2008 11:46 PM

Re: Limewire: (I want to clear something up)

#5 Sep 21, 2008 11:46 PM

Re: Limewire: (I want to clear something up)

#6 Sep 22, 2008 12:36 AM

Re: Limewire: (I want to clear something up)

#7 Sep 22, 2008 1:08 AM

Re: Limewire: (I want to clear something up)

#8 Sep 22, 2008 1:37 AM

Re: Limewire: (I want to clear something up)

#9 Sep 22, 2008 1:38 AM

Re: Limewire: (I want to clear something up)

#10 Sep 22, 2008 1:41 AM

Re: Limewire: (I want to clear something up)

#11 Sep 22, 2008 2:26 AM

Re: Limewire: (I want to clear something up)

#12 Sep 22, 2008 2:33 AM

Re: Limewire: (I want to clear something up)

#13 Sep 22, 2008 2:44 AM

Re: Limewire: (I want to clear something up)

#14 Sep 22, 2008 4:34 AM

Re: Limewire: (I want to clear something up)

#15 Sep 22, 2008 4:39 AM

Re: Limewire: (I want to clear something up)

#16 Sep 22, 2008 6:13 AM

Re: Limewire: (I want to clear something up)

#17 Sep 22, 2008 6:17 AM

Re: Limewire: (I want to clear something up)

#18 Sep 22, 2008 6:38 AM

Re: Limewire: (I want to clear something up)

#19 Sep 22, 2008 8:55 PM

Re: Limewire: (I want to clear something up)

#20 Sep 22, 2008 9:34 PM

Re: Limewire: (I want to clear something up)

#21 Sep 22, 2008 9:43 PM

Re: Limewire: (I want to clear something up)

#22 Sep 23, 2008 9:05 AM

Re: Limewire: (I want to clear something up)

#23 Sep 24, 2008 12:37 AM

Re: Limewire: (I want to clear something up)

#24 Sep 24, 2008 12:53 AM

Re: Limewire: (I want to clear something up)

#25 Sep 24, 2008 3:04 AM

Re: Limewire: (I want to clear something up)

Board footer