What's Legal in Peer-to-Peer Downloading?

Sun Feb 3, 2008 11:41PM EST

See Comments (20)

Reader Key, among others, writes: I know that software like Limewire is illegal when downloading copyrighted music, but should I pay for Limewire Pro (illegal) or a paid version of BearShare which claims to be "legal P2P"? Are there any websites that offer "legal P2P" at all?

The peer-to-peer issue is a tricky one, but despite the rampant proliferation of websites and services that claim they're "legal" peer-to-peer systems, few really are all they seem.*

What's really legal when it comes to P2P? Not a whole lot, to be honest. While P2P technology is perfectly legal, it's the content that these networks carry that is frequently not. On every file sharing network, the vast majority of files being shared are copyrighted movies and music, software programs, and other stuff that the people sharing them have no legal basis for doing so. The law is pretty clear on this one, and thanks to Jammie Thomas's case, a fairly strong precedent has been set: Downloading something that's protected is illegal. Offering something on P2P network that's protected is illegal, even if they're no evidence that anyone actually downloaded it. In the eye of the court: Pretty much everything associated with P2P is illegal. 

That's not to say that you can't find exceptions. Yes, some bands and filmmakers make their material available for free, and some even encourage sharing. (This is why YouTube is so popular, after all.) But those artists make up a tiny minority of those represented on P2P networks. Search for just about any keyword on a P2P network and the vast majority of results will be protected works. (Note, however, that things differ a bit in Canada, at least for now.) As well, BitTorrent, for example, is being used for file distribution by some content providers, but these cases are still rare.

That leads us to so-called "legal" P2P services. BearShare and iMesh (which also owns BearShare) both operate hybrid services where users can share files with other users, but which are really geared toward selling you music on a subscription basis a la Napster. They claim "100% legal" status because the labels get paid for those subscription downloads, but the user-offered downloads are a little less clear. 

While these emergent services, including Qtrax (which never quite materialized the way it promised), do offer legal, ad-supported music downloads, they aren't P2P in the sense that most have come to understand it, where one user is sharing a file of his own (anything he wants) with the rest of the world. Is the sharing section legal? Maybe, probably because it's heavily policed: I searched BearShare for songs from big name artists and mostly came up with preview clips, live show bootlegs, and music videos. Very little of it was of the quality that you'd actually pay for. So, yeah, it's probably legal to download this stuff, but I doubt you'd actually want it. Anything you would want is protected by DRM and requires you subscribe to the BearShare service to be able to play it; you get 30 days free when you first download the software. In other words: It may be legal, but it isn't really P2P.

Bottom line: There's no shortage of legal ways to get P2P music or movies, but none of them are free. If you're getting music or movies without paying for them, it's almost a given that you're breaking the law.

(* Please note I am not a lawyer and that this post should not be construed as legal advice.) 

Comments on What's Legal in Peer-to-Peer Downloading?

Post a Comment

Join in the discussion. Here you'll see the comments in the order they were posted.

  • 1 Posted by rbkl@pacbell.net on Mon Feb 4, 2008 1:22AM EST Report Abuse

    Back when I used limewire, I downloaded limewire pro using my free version of limewire...

  • 2 Posted by slycktom2003 on Mon Feb 4, 2008 1:46AM EST Report Abuse

    This article is factually wrong from the get go...lets start here: "The peer-to-peer issue is a tricky one, but despite the rampant proliferation of websites and services that claim they're "legal" peer-to-peer systems, few really are all they seem.*" There's no trickiness about it. BitTorrent, Inc., based in San Fran, is a completely legal entity. What goes transpires on the network, is another matter. "The law is pretty clear on this one, and thanks to Jammie Thomas's case, a fairly strong precedent has been set: Downloading something that's protected is illegal." This is totally wrong. She was sued for UPLOADING music - not downloading. No one has been sued for that. "Pretty much everything associated with P2P is illegal." Too bad you didn't study civil law vs. criminal law before you wrote this article. Jamie was sued in civil court, therefor the criminal connotations of "illegal" are totally irrelevant. You can't be found "guilty" of something "illegal" in civil court. She was found LIABLE for copyright infringement, however. "That leads us to so-called "legal" P2P services. BearShare and iMesh (which also owns BearShare) both operate hybrid services where users can share files with other users, but which are really geared toward selling you music on a subscription basis a la Napster" Neither BearShare or iMesh are considered P2P...both these programs are owned by the same company, and are not part of the true file-sharing community. They are - by all accounts - rubbish. "If you're getting music or movies without paying for them, it's almost a given that you're breaking the law." Again, its the difference between civil and criminal law. No one has been sued or found liable for downloading music. In fact, the RIAA doesn't care about downloading - only uploading. So, unless you're uploading tons of material, there's little to worry about.

  • 3 Posted by m4alphacustomx on Mon Feb 4, 2008 3:16AM EST Report Abuse

    I read Mrs. Thomas case, and it's true that she got sued for sharing copyrighted files using kazaa, maybe we should stop ourselves for letting our personal 'copyrighted' files open for others to download in the net, that way we can protect ourselves and others too.

  • 4 Posted by m4alphacustomx on Mon Feb 4, 2008 3:16AM EST Report Abuse

    I read Mrs. Thomas case, and it's true that she got sued for sharing copyrighted files using kazaa, maybe we should stop ourselves for letting our personal 'copyrighted' files open for others to download in the net, that way we can protect ourselves and others too.

  • 5 Posted by kupriaa1 on Mon Feb 4, 2008 7:40AM EST Report Abuse

    slycktom2003,- your whole argument is based on precedence. However, given the term of precedence- saying that "there's little to worry about" is a bit hasty. I agree with your technical statements- but you should remember that few people care about the distinction between civil suits and criminal suits. One little detail you should remember - copyright is when one entity copies protected information belonging to another entity. When you download data you are making a copy. Dont pigeonhole someones statement next time.

More Posts: First Prev 1 2 Next Last

Post a Comment

 

Sign In to see your profile information, saved products and more...

Register Sign In

My Favorite Gadgets

 

Recent Activity

 

Recently Viewed

on | off on | off
 

Recent Searches

on | off on | off
 
 
 

Also on Yahoo! Tech

Computers Home Office Wi-Fi & Networking Phones & PDAs Cameras & Camcorders TV & Home Theater Portable Audio
 

Question and Answer content at Yahoo! Tech is written by Yahoo! users at Yahoo! Answers. Yahoo! does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any Yahoo! Answers content. For more information, read the Full Disclaimer.

Opinions expressed by the Advisors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Yahoo! Inc. Yahoo! receives no compensation from any manufacturer or distributor nor does it compensate any Advisor for the coverage of any product or service in any Advisor's content.