Filesharing of copyrighted material...

is it legal nowadays?

[zeb]

This quote is from Google Adwords terms and conditions:

Google strictly prohibits using the Google Web Site or any Partner Site(s) ... (ii) to advertise substances, services, products or materials that are illegal in any state or country where the ad is displayed...

If I do a search for the most common filesharing term (the "two letters one number" term), I can see two ads for paid filesharing programs on top of the serps! Has filesharing suddenly become legal or is Google making money on advertising illegal activity?

[Brett_Tabke]

Most cars can go 90 miles per hour. Few states allow that high of speed on the roadways. Does that mean the car is illegal?

Just like the car you can drive 90 in the 60 zone, you can certainly do illegal things with file sharing programs. File sharing is in no way an illegal activity.

I've picked up a bunch of techno stuff that was distributed net only via file sharing programs.

[Josk]

Everything is legal as long as you don't get caught.
Everything is moral as long as you don't care

[zeb]

File sharing is in no way an illegal activity.

Brett,

You must have missed the title of this thread. "Filesharing of copyrighted material". AFAIK it still is illegal.

I symphatized with Napster, but I must say I deeply dislike programs that either show ads or "kidnap" affiliate links. The same goes for these new subscription file sharing programs that benefit from sharing copyrighted music, films and software = other's work.

I think Google should keep it's fingers away from this money!

Just my two cents.

[progen]

It isn't illegal to write and distribute the software, it's the users who break the law by distributing copyrighted material.

Until it's proven in a court that you are deliberatly damaging the interests of copyright owners you're doing nothing (legally) wrong.

In my opinion filesharing is a backlash at an over priced industry that has milked the public for years and google does right in not taking either side of the fight.

[andreasfriedrich]

Itīs not the copyrighted in Filesharing of copyrighted material that makes it illegal, itīs the implied without the copyright holderīs consent ;).

Andreas

[progen]

Yea, there are ocassions when you don't need the owners consent such as the purpose of research or private study.

Think i'm going to go and study my mp3 collection again (privatly).

[andreasfriedrich]

But research and private use privileges donīt justify using file sharing utilities that are open to just anybody (in Germany). Even a closed system within university is problematic if there are 20,000+ students able to access it.

Andreas

[shady]

Really, if these legitimate filesharing programs were actual expected to be used for legitimate file sharing, they could easily check whether there is a copyright embeded in the executable (about 5 minutes programming).
With this in mind, one might assume that they are designed for illegal activity (I wish I knew how to add a smiley!)

[progen]

Yes :) There are still a lot of legitimate reasons to have filesharing software it's just common knowledge that their main use is piracy.

Filesharing has faced the same onslaught as VCRs and Audio Cassettes did, but i can't see the RIAA getting away with any of it's crazy ideas about enforing copyright laws. They were even talking about using lawful Denail of Service attacks.

Back to the point though, filesharing software isn't illegal.

[andreasfriedrich]

they could easily check whether there is a copyright embeded in the executable (about 5 minutes programming).

Thatīs an interesting point. There has been quite a lot of research into the question whether computers may be able to solve legal problems. If laws are just rules as suggested by Hart then one could expect such an endavour to work. However, most such attempts failed since there is more to administering law than simply applying rules.

BTW the shared resources are not protected by copyright laws because they contain a statement like "Copyright by..." but because the law attributes this status to certain things.

Andreas

[Sasquatch]

Really, if these legitimate filesharing programs were actual expected to be used for legitimate file sharing, they could easily check whether there is a copyright embeded in the executable (about 5 minutes programming).

Virtually everything is copyrighted, that does not mean that it cannot be legally shared.

Let's see, as far as software goes, there is linux, gnu, netscape, acrobat reader, thousands of shareware programs, anything GPL.

Then there is the evil swapping of music, tapings of the Grateful Dead, Dave Matthews, David Grisman. Files released by artists to be traded for marketing reasons (they consider P2P to be a good thing).

Until the software itself is declared to be illegal, it is not illegal. By the way, winning a civil suit against napster did not make the software illegal, it just caused the network to be shut down. There is a difference.

[Brett_Tabke]

>"Filesharing of copyrighted material".
>AFAIK it still is illegal.

Of course it is, but that has nothing to do with Google taking ads for file sharing programs and does not violate Googles own policy on advertisements that I can see.