have you heard about limewires shut down?

[Nicholas]

ATTENTION
LimeWire is under a court order dated October 26, 2010 to stop distributing the LimeWire software. A copy of the injunction can be found here. LimeWire LLC, its directors and officers, are taking all steps to comply with the injunction. We have very recently become aware of unauthorized applications on the internet purporting to use the LimeWire name. We demand that all persons using the LimeWire software, name, or trademark in order to upload or download copyrighted works in any manner cease and desist from doing so. We further remind you that the unauthorized uploading and downloading of copyrighted works is illegal. If you have downloaded LimeWire software in the past, files on your personal computers containing private or sensitive information may have been inadvertently shared and you should use your best efforts to remove the software from your computers
i find it hard to beleive that anyone could rightly shut down the shareing of anything they have already purchased i mean that was the purpose of the purchase to be able to gain ownership of the item purchased to be able to legaly give that item to whoem ever i chose even if i had a billian freinds
and the ability to copy a billian tapes or disk so i dont quite beleive that the court has any viable right to order any cease and desist because the case is actualy very flimsily unsuported by the social comunity of sharers and if they are trying to say people are not authorized to copy anything they or a freind or family purchased then the court is actualy stepping upon the ownership rights and the human right and interfering with social progress and making society seem poorly unable to freeily gain the abundance of human goods as if saying its against the law to take any good of the world and produce more goods i mean thats crazey right your hungry and cant pick a fruit cuz you dont got a peice of paper?thats slavery to a painted leaf when in trueth god gave humanity the authority to take what he freeily gave to all humanity to live a richer fuller life and not a restricted of limit world making you struggle and crawl and unable to produce good with anything good so the cease and desist actualy does not have any viable right legal grounds to remain treated as greater than the right authority and the erroros order is obviously overidable by the right true human laws such as ownership of the puchased items and the freedom of speech to be able to speek on anything and everything you choice which also means the freedom of copying anything that you are able to copy even if somebody does not like that you are able to copy a good thing so i see no right authority for anyone to suggest that society must live less abundant and less freindily so in good judgement i belieive i would solve the case with such right senseble words to allow people to be able to share with me the good items and to do likewise with others for everybody to live more abundantly able to progress greater than the painted leaf couyld ever afford or ever match
do you agree

 

[bcnu]

You ARE allowed to share a physical copy with others, but what Limewire and KaZaa and others allow you do to is MAKE another copy and share that (i.e., give it to others), which is in violation of the copyright laws of most countries. The whole point of copyright is that the copyright owners have the EXCLUSIVE right to make copies, publish and distribute them, perform or display them in public, adapt or modify them, and (in the case of music) digitally transmit a copy for the purpose of listening to it elsewhere. 17 USC § 106, subject to various limitations. This has been the law for quite some time, so it should not come as any surprise. Ask Mrs Thomas, a Minnesota housewife, caught allowing others to "share" 24 songs from her computer (which she had "shared" from others), resulting in a federal lawsuit and a jury award of $80,000 for violation of the copyright of each song. Her latest appeal was denied a couple of months ago. Capitol Records v. Thomas (8th Cir).

On the other hand, there are actually people attempting to "test" the theory that you can legally, under the existing laws, "sell" an authorized digital copy of a music file to a broker who then makes sure you no longer have a copy on your hard drive, and then resells "the copy", under 17 USC § 109, the "First Sale Doctrine". One trying it is "ReDigi", which was promptly sued by Capitol records. In other words, they're claiming (like you are) that the person who PURCHASED a digital copy and downloaded it has the same rights to "dispose" of their copy by selling it as they would if they had purchased a physical copy, e.g., on a CD.

It is debatable whether they will win their federal case, primarily because the vast majority of music downloads are not "selling" you a copy; they are licensing you to listen to it, then delete it when you're done, meaning there is no "first sale" and thus not legal right to sell what you never actually owned. Part of the case is whether an iTunes license gives the purchaser ANY rights other than for their own personal listening.

The ReDigi case went to oral argument in October 2012, but I have yet to hear the result.