Is distributing P2P programs legal ?

[Hey]

I am planning to start a site with P2P downloads , is my distributing of them legal or not ? Or could I put a notice which would make it legal or what ? I'm assuming it's possible to do it legally since download.com does just that .

$50 Dnf To The First Person Who Answers Me Correctly !!!

 

[GT Web]

Depends on what the downloads are...

If they are pirated games, music, software, etc, then yes, it is illegal...

 

[gariben]

I think he is referring to offering something similar to Kazaa and Limewire.

You can easily rip mp3, software, movies, etc.

As to why they are legal, I have no clue.

 

[Jack Gordon]

As to why they are legal, I have no clue.

Why are guns, baseball bats, crowbars, cars, airplanes, skateboards, motorcycles, alcohol, hamburgers, etc. legal?

They are all clear causes of death and injury, but unfathomably they remain legal and readily available to us.

 

[Steen]

50 DNF$? lol

So when you get sued you can let everyone know you paid 50 "DNF dollars" for legal advice on a forum? Someone here might think it's legal.



If you are seriously interested in the answer, I think it would be best to consult a lawyer.

 

[Hey]

50 DNF$? lol

So when you get sued you can let everyone know you paid 50 "DNF dollars" for legal advice on a forum? Someone here might think it's legal.



If you are seriously interested in the answer, I think it would be best to consult a lawyer.

But than again someone might know for sure , but I see so many people offering it including download.com I think it's atleast legal to have for download on your site . I would ask a lawyer but %99.99999999999999999+ of lawyers don't accept DNF :-(

 

[GT Web]

lol, ya 50 DNF$ is pretty cheap, I dont know any lawyers that would for under $50 USD

 

[namedropper]

Why are guns, baseball bats, crowbars, cars, airplanes, skateboards, motorcycles, alcohol, hamburgers, etc. legal?

Guns? Because of the second amendment to the US Constitution and highly paid teams of lawyers sent in by the NRA to twist it into meaning things that it wasn't meant to cover.

The other things? Because they have legitimate legal uses that far outweigh any harm they cause. Well, maybe not so much with alcohol, but when that was banned it caused even more problems.

P2P network apps are a horse of a different color because just about everything ever distributed with them is a copyright violation. It's kind of hard for a lawyer to get up before a judge and argue that the software is fine because maybe one in a thousand files sent across the system is actually legit.

 

[jberryhilljberryhill is verified member.]

It's kind of hard for a lawyer to get up before a judge and argue that the software is fine because maybe one in a thousand files sent across the system is actually legit.

It's not hard at all, and was successfully done in the recent Grokster/Morpheus case. The software architecture differed from that in Napster, since the more recent P2P applications do not require a central index server that can be used as a point of control.


http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/MGM_v_Grokster/20040819_mgm_v_grokster_decision.pdf

In this case, the Software Distributors have not only shown
that their products are capable of substantial noninfringing
uses, but that the uses have commercial viability. Thus,
applying Napster I, Napster II, and Sony-Betamax to the
record, the district court correctly concluded that the Software
Distributors had established that their products were capable
of substantial or commercially significant noninfringing uses.
Therefore, the district correctly reasoned, the Software Distributors
could not be held liable for constructive knowledge
of infringement, and the Copyright Owners were required to
show that the Software Distributors had reasonable knowledge
of specific infringement to satisfy the threshold knowledge
requirement.

 

[namedropper]

Gee, John, that sounds like it was a lot of effort for $50 DNF.

I don't buy that there's substantial non-infringing uses, but then of course it's not up to me to decide. And the specific infringement clause seems stupid to me because it's rewarding people financially for turning a blind eye and not doing anything to stop the routine and constant thefts they know their product is being primarily used for.

 

[Ovicide]

It's not hard at all, and was successfully done in the recent Grokster/Morpheus case.

http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/MGM_v_Grokster/20040819_mgm_v_grokster_decision.pdf

Thanks for that URL, John. It was well worth the time to read.

 

[GT Web]

John, is there anything you dont know?

 

[Dave Zan]

John, is there anything you dont know?

Probably only that he is not asked about. :cheeky:

Thanks for the great read, John! Another educational tidbit you shared! k:

 

[jberryhilljberryhill is verified member.]

John, is there anything you dont know?

Yes.

Have you seen my car keys?

 

[GT Web]

lol :-D

do you need someone to be your long lost nephew?

 

[Hey]

So do you think I should only offer Morpheus or would the others be fine also ?

It's not hard at all, and was successfully done in the recent Grokster/Morpheus case. The software architecture differed from that in Napster, since the more recent P2P applications do not require a central index server that can be used as a point of control.


http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/MGM_v_Grokster/20040819_mgm_v_grokster_decision.pdf

In this case, the Software Distributors have not only shown
that their products are capable of substantial noninfringing
uses, but that the uses have commercial viability. Thus,
applying Napster I, Napster II, and Sony-Betamax to the
record, the district court correctly concluded that the Software
Distributors had established that their products were capable
of substantial or commercially significant noninfringing uses.
Therefore, the district correctly reasoned, the Software Distributors
could not be held liable for constructive knowledge
of infringement, and the Copyright Owners were required to
show that the Software Distributors had reasonable knowledge
of specific infringement to satisfy the threshold knowledge
requirement.

 

[jberryhilljberryhill is verified member.]

So do you think I should only offer Morpheus or would the others be fine also ?

First, the law that applies to your activities might depend on things such as in which country you are situated. You might be in Togo for all I know, and I don't know anything about Togo. Maybe that's where my car keys are.

Second, you are not going to get legal advice on a public bulletin board. When I comment here, it is to provide relevant background that might be generally applicable to a variety of issues. On the subject of P2P software, the Grokster case is a recent relevant case, which draws certain distinctions over Napster. Under Napster itself, however, the knowledge, control, and potential liability rested with the folks at Napster who were providing the indexing service. Whether the liability would have even extended to some third-party distributor of Napster software is, under that case, a completely hypothetical and open question.

But, taking for the moment the notion that a software distributor would somehow "fit" into the Napster side of the Grokster/Napster distinction, whether any piece of software fell on one side or the other is obviously going to depend on how that software operates.

 

[Nameable]

Hey (nice alias)

You aren't going to get into trouble for linking to the kazaa/grokster/shareaza/morpheus installer if you link to their site and don't violate their terms.

If you're distributing pirated software, you will get into trouble.

If you're distributing content you created, you get to decide how it's distributed.

This isn't legal advice, it's common sense.