There's something I can't seem to figure out. I Googled it, but can't seem to find the answer. How does the government catch you downloading things illegally? A friend told me that one way to protect yourself is to not share any files. Is this true?

What is your opinion on file sharing?

Is it ethically wrong to download a perticular episode of a show that you missed just so you can see it, later deleting it?

On piracy: I guess the Windows monopoly would be lesser if there were no piracy. There are open source alternatives available. File sharing technology must be available and it's being harmed with senseless piracy too. There are alternatives too to the music being sold. There are live-sets of willing musicians available. Also, I know people that download a CD just before making the decission to buy it. The music companies would have to open to the concept, but they're acting desperately. They're losing it.

The companies sometimes share the file themselves to see who downloads it. In the US, this is entrapment, and can thus be defended against. Other times, like on BitTorrent, they will download the torrent and see who is seeding it. The seeders get busted. This cannot be defended against.

Actually entrapment laws only apply to law enforcement agencies not private companies in the US anyways.

The RIAA may be using some very questionable tactics if there is any truth to these allegations;

http://recordingindustryvspeople.blo...back-sues.html

You may also want to investigate your ISP's policy on providing evidence in civil law cases. I think in the USA ISP's are under considerable pressure to hand over this information.
If you already pay a subscription for a TV channel, or the program is freeview (Fox ,ABC, etc.) why should you not be allowed to download it ? Are people really being sued for this ? This sounds like the battle over the right to use VCR's in the 1970's.

Yeah. That's what I was thinking. The TV program was aired. Meaning, anyone anywhere could view it for free. Even record it. If it was aired on TV, what is a difference between downloading it just so we can watch it and turning on your TV to watch it?

When the movie industry and broadcasters failed in court to stop the sale of vcr's they decided to embrace the technology. They ended up making huge profits with video tape sales and rentals.

If ABC or CBS are so concerned about illegal distribution of their programs why don't they distribute the programs themselves ? They could offer a download
complete with commercials to provide revenue. Instead they stick their heads in the sand and come up with the idea of broadcast flags. When groups such as library associations and the Electronic Frontier Foundation sued (and won) in court to stop this technology the broadcasters did an end-run and put pressure on electronic manufacturers and signal providers. http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/HDTV/ (how EFF attempted to stop broadcast flags)

How will DRM affect open source ? These corporations should look for more innovative solutions.

EDIT: In response to the previous post mentioning free live music, I like to browse through the lists on e-tree. It's nice to know which musicians respect their fans.

DRM itself does not conflict with Open Source. The technologies used might but not the concept. Basiclly its n eforcement that a Copyright owner may choose to employ.

I think it's most fair to say that "change is coming .. to the music and the motion-picture industries .. whether they like it or not. And they don't."

The music industry was, at one time, against:

• Playing songs on the radio.
• Having radios in automobiles.
• Cassette tapes.
• Digital tapes.
• Recordable CDs and DVDs.
• The iPod.

Many people do not realize that their favorite artist can be in debt to his record label, earning no royalties at all because everything's going to "pay the debt." Every project is charged with the "expenses" involved in producing it -- and those expenses are basically whatever the record label says they are. Sales are reported by the labels and often doubtful but there is no effective audit.

For many, many years, the recording industry was the only way to get your music heard or your movie seen by the public. They knew it, and sought to cement their control. During the 1990's, ClearChannel Communications won (bought...) a change in FCC rules and immediately started buying up properties. The idea was: we own the label, we own the recording studios, we own the radio stations, we own the music venues. We own everything. Now, what in the heck is this new thing called "the Internet?" Oops!

If Napster proved anything, it was that the actual demand for music is much greater than the recording industry could ever acknowledge .. or service. The demand for music is obviously and insistently shifting toward downloads -- where there is no "inventory," almost no "promotional costs," and the other "expenses" that are usually charged against a project are almost completely eliminated. Recording-sessions can be done in individual musicians' homes (on their computers) with files electronically shipped for mixdown at someone else's home machine. The "record label" itself is becoming as obsolete as broadcast radio ... and those industries DO NOT like it.

"They'd rather fight than switch." They hopelessly dream of having the whole thing declared "illegal" so they can go back to the status quo that they spent hundreds of millions of dollars to buy up in the last ten years. But they cannot stop the tide.

"borrow" it .. if you like it buy it if not ditch it .. simple as that

All the RIAA wants is control over the industry. Before napster, they could pretty much tell us what to buy. Now, independent labels are growing and they're losing marketshare. What they should have done is bought Napster while they had the chance, not running around like a bunch of cry-babies sueing everyone.

To respond to the question about how can the Government catch you; I think its a mix of your ISP dobbing you in, people sharing way to much on a port that watchers know is LimeWire etc...

Most people share 10Gb of data and wonder why they bust you. So far, apart from a few cases, they normally focus on those who share loads, as they are causing the most damage.

But the only way not to get caught is to not do it.
---------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with the comments made about the music industry, they do not want change because they will have to offer an album at half the cost on the net, than they would get in a shop.
It is nothing to do with the artists they represent, most money goes to the fat cats who own the record label, and they want it to stay that way.
Pure and simple.

I find it strange how its normally Sony vs 10 year old girl who downloaded nursery rhyme, and the RIAA against Mr Blogs. I have so far never seen Britney Spears vs Mr Blogs.

I wonder why?

I think there is a difference between music and tv shows. Music is the product that the companies are trying to sell. TV is a vehicle for their main money maker, ads.

If an artist doesn't want his music shared freely, downloading it for free is stealing.

But I don't understand why a network channel would care if people shared it programs freely (as long as the ads weren't stripped out). Isn't ABC going to start distributing reruns for 99 cents already? Cable networks are a different thing though...they get paid from commercials and get a cut of your monthly cable bill.

As I've said in another thread, not necessarily. Where I live (the Netherlands) downloading songs from p2p networks is not illegal....yet. Uploading without paying the copyright holder is illegal though.

Kinda strange but the argument is that someone who downloads a song does not know whether or not the uploader paid the copyright holder and can therefore assume that the licenses have been paid. This will all change of course in the (near) future.

You are right, but even though it not illegal, its still stealing.