Limewire shut down

[Panik]

No; but it will stop many users from doing so -- due to the lack of people knowing how to use torrents of find what they want via DLL (direct Download Link) and Warez they are unable to gain said files.

 

[Justin]

There is more than one way to download a torrent. I'm talking LEGAL torrent here.

 

[Fullmoon]

Nooooo!!!!! Now I'm going to have to pay for my music... 🙁

Or just go to alternative sources.. Like blogs 😉

I never like Limewire, Used to get loads of viruses from that thing.

 

[Panik]

There is more than one way to download a torrent. I'm talking LEGAL torrent here.

You mean downloading legal torrents of songs and such released for free?
I do use legal torrents such as to download Linux and such -- I'm on about the use of illegal downloading of copy written products.

 

[Gimgak]

OK, I agree that the damages are n-where near the correct amount projected but you should know there is some form of damage. No matter how little it is as each track downloaded or even album has caused some form of damage. You may or may not pay for that album but if you really enjoy a aid band or artist would you or would you not pay for that album/track if there was no free version of it to illegally download?

How does it cause any damage though? Copying a file doesn't cause money to randomly disappear from the record labels.

I'll say this; If I like an artist and I know they'll receive the money, I'll buy something from them. Jim Morrison won't receive money in his grave, neither will bradley nowell or his surviving band members so I see no reason to pay for their music.

 

[Panik]

It causes damage by the copied file being sent to other users which possibly would have purchased the file in the first place. Look at it this way. One person obtains the file and uploads it, that file is then downloaded 6 million times -- out of that six million at least one person would have ended up purchasing that file if it was not found free in the first place; this causes "damage" and if this is done many times and many people would have purchased the file then there becomes a growing amount of damage and could mean a drop in quality or even cuts such as a job being lost or a lack of income to hire more people. This is what people call damaging the economy.

I can see your point of the artist not gaining the money but the copyright, as I understand it, will be passed to a person of his choice which he would have wanted it to go to. This means that the person he wanted the money to go to is no longer gaining that money.

I have a mass amount of music due to me DJ'ing a fair amount and I have around £3,000 ($4,813) worth of vinyl's alone and I still manage to pay for music which I remix with via my laptop.

To me, obtaining things for free which was meant to be paid for is theft. I do like the idea of free music and sharing and I personally would release my music for free if I ever produced; but you must see the other side of things and how it possibly bad.

 

[CyberFreak]

One thing to also consider Panik is out of the 6 million downloads that example illegal file got, how many would have paid for it if they had to? In other words how many people didn't overly like the song but downloaded it as it was free. If they had to pay for it, they wouldn't have had. By that user downloading for when he wouldn't have paid for it, he may have listened to it a bit more now and like it, like the group and now want to buy tickets to see them performing live.

Now if this user didn't download it for free, he might have not liked that song and therefore not liked the group as much. Therefore wouldn't have brought tickets to see them live with any merchandise and they may even be willing to pay for any future tracks.

BTW i don't support illegal file sharing however it is not all bad and does have some positives.

 

[Panik]

One thing to also consider Panik is out of the 6 million downloads that example illegal file got, how many would have paid for it if they had to? In other words how many people didn't overly like the song but downloaded it as it was free. If they had to pay for it, they wouldn't have had. By that user downloading for when he wouldn't have paid for it, he may have listened to it a bit more now and like it, like the group and now want to buy tickets to see them performing live.

Now if this user didn't download it for free, he might have not liked that song and therefore not liked the group as much. Therefore wouldn't have brought tickets to see them live with any merchandise and they may even be willing to pay for any future tracks.

BTW i don't support illegal file sharing however it is not all bad and does have some positives.

Nice to see an admin get in on the debate with me. I've seen this point come up so many times it's not even funny and to be honest; am really bored of this only point. Yes, it is true that some people may download the song randomly and carelessly and turn out to like it but is that not what You-Tube, promotional material, demo songs, radio, TV, films, remixes and friends listening to music does?
Out of all of the forms of promotion I have found for many of the people I know, illegally downloading the song is at the bottom of the list. I'm not sure if it is the same globally but it is around with me and many pleases near me. Is it also not true that the artist would also release free material if they felt the need to promote themselves more?
Even if that user may end up purchasing the music and purchasing tickets the fact is it is still theft and can cause a fair deal of damage.

EDIT:
I am also not saying that it is all bad, I can see the good points to it and how it can help but I still find it to be theft.

 

[CyberFreak]

I understand what you are saying but what i was trying to show is that just because there was 6 million downloads of that file that the record company haven't lost the revenue of 6 million downloads. If all those 6 million users had to pay, maybe only 3 million would have actually liked it enough to pay to download it. That means that actually the record company is then only taking in the revenue of 3 million downloads while missing out on the users not so keen on the song that may spend big if they become to like that artist but maybe might not or might take them longer to be a fan due to that person having to get to like the band/artist using other methods. Those 3 million lost downloads may cost the record company more then the fee they would have gained from the download of those 3 million downloads.

I agree that there are more bad points (in my opinion) and that it is theft just like stealing a cd from a shop. I am just adding a bit of balance to the debate and showing the other side a bit more that the record companies tend to hover over. It is something that is impossible to prove. You can't ever get a solid number of people that would pay for a song or wouldn't if they were forced to. You will never know for sure one way or another if record companies are better or worse off due to illegal file sharing.

 

[Panik]

I understand what you are saying but what i was trying to show is that just because there was 6 million downloads of that file that the record company haven't lost the revenue of 6 million downloads. If all those 6 million users had to pay, maybe only 3 million would have actually liked it enough to pay to download it. That means that actually the record company is then only taking in the revenue of 3 million downloads while missing out on the users not so keen on the song that may spend big if they become to like that artist but maybe might not or might take them longer to be a fan due to that person having to get to like the band/artist using other methods. Those 3 million lost downloads may cost the record company more then the fee they would have gained from the download of those 3 million downloads.

I believe I did state that very fact that there will not be 6 million and I believe that I even toned it down to even thank you supplied. I myself am a really big fan of such artists like sub focus, Spor, Pendulum and Prodigy but have never actually seen them live. The statement of users liking them that much and then paying to see them live really can't be accounted for as they did in fact pirate it in the first place -- not that they won't, just supplying my idea.

I agree that there are more bad points (in my opinion) and that it is theft just like stealing a cd from a shop. I am just adding a bit of balance to the debate and showing the other side a bit more that the record companies tend to hover over. It is something that is impossible to prove. You can't ever get a solid number of people that would pay for a song or wouldn't if they were forced to. You will never know for sure one way or another if record companies are better or worse off due to illegal file sharing.

I do know the other side and do know that it is no-where near as bad as the record companies make out to be. I've written many reports and such for college about the effect of piracy and the possible good points and forms of income from piracy as well as interviews with the owner of the katz network and the owners of many warez and torrent sites.
I know it is impossible to prove but the simple fact is that there is some form of damage via this, there may be the odd few occasions where it will be beneficial but still.

 

[Watch Me Sink]

Panik, I can see what you're saying, but I highly disagree.
Free downloading is possibly the BEST way to promote a band. I know of a few bands that have the majority or all of their discography for download for free. While none of these bands have "hit it big," they have a great underground following.
I'll be the first to admit it, I don't pay for the majority of my music. But there are many reasons why:
*Musicians get almost none of the money
*I don't support the RIAA or big labels. I refuse to.
*(Why I don't buy off iTunes) I'm not going to pay $10 for lossy mp3's. I'll pay $10 for lossless HQ music.
*If I listen to small bands from Finland, Switzerland, Austrailia, or Germany, how am I supposed to pay for music? The record stores near me don't have anything underground, and shipping to the US would cost more than the CD.
*Again, OOP CDs and tapes. How am I supposed to pay for that music?
*I can discover more music, and support those bands. I'll give you a recent example. I went to a The Acacia Strain concert this weekend. While I was there, I bought a $15 tee shirt made by a local screen printer in addition to the cost of the ticket. Thus, I supported the economy, supported the band, and moshed & got my ears shot in one night. How did this happen? I learned that a bassist for another band I listen to did some fill ins for The Acacia Strain, and downloaded a single, "Skynet." Now if I never downloaded this song, would I have ever gone to the show and supported the economy/band? No.

 

[Panik]

Panik, I can see what you're saying, but I highly disagree.
Free downloading is possibly the BEST way to promote a band. I know of a few bands that have the majority or all of their discography for download for free. While none of these bands have "hit it big," they have a great underground following.

I'm not trying to convert, I am just supplying my ideas and reasons behind it. I never said free music was bad. I listen to a lot of my music from non known artists which they release their music for free. I have remixed many of their songs and people have asked me who they are and what tracks they are as they are better than most commercial music that I remix with.
I agree 100% with artists releasing free music, I am just not a supporter of illegally downloading music.

I'll be the first to admit it, I don't pay for the majority of my music. But there are many reasons why:
*Musicians get almost none of the money
*I don't support the RIAA or big labels. I refuse to.
*(Why I don't buy off iTunes) I'm not going to pay $10 for lossy mp3's. I'll pay $10 for lossless HQ music.
*If I listen to small bands from Finland, Switzerland, Austrailia, or Germany, how am I supposed to pay for music? The record stores near me don't have anything underground, and shipping to the US would cost more than the CD.
*Again, OOP CDs and tapes. How am I supposed to pay for that music?

Actually, you'd be supprised on how much money the artist gets from downloading the music. Due to artists not being able to pay for the mass copying of CD's for release and demand they use a label and fair enough; but if you purchase the MP3 from their website or such the artist gains a lot more of the money (around 90%).
I myself do not like the RIAA and such who think that they are able to do anything but I find a lot of DnB I listen to are not with RIAA or such.
I also agree with your statement about iTunes, I never purchase music off of iTunes as I really do not like the quality -- also not a lover of apple but that's besides the point -- I much rather download the highest quality from the main artists website or store.
You do not have to purchase the CD, you are able to purchase the music online. I am sure they have an online store or something to purchase the music from.

*I can discover more music, and support those bands. I'll give you a recent example. I went to a The Acacia Strain concert this weekend. While I was there, I bought a $15 tee shirt made by a local screen printer in addition to the cost of the ticket. Thus, I supported the economy, supported the band, and moshed & got my ears shot in one night. How did this happen? I learned that a bassist for another band I listen to did some fill ins for The Acacia Strain, and downloaded a single, "Skynet." Now if I never downloaded this song, would I have ever gone to the show and supported the economy/band? No.

OK, I'll give you another example... You managed to illegally download music and liked it, say you spent around a total of $50 for everything... Now the illegal downloaded music has gained the band $50 -- that means there must be less than 10 people that would have purchased the CD/music to have made a positive effect on the band otherwise thy would have made a loss in revenue.
As far as your look on the economy, that is wrong due to the government placing "preventions" and paying lots of money to prevent and reasurch methods to prevent this as well as people to enforce these laws and such, this comes into the millions compared to your $50.

 

[Watch Me Sink]

Actually, you'd be supprised on how much money the artist gets from downloading the music. Due to artists not being able to pay for the mass copying of CD's for release and demand they use a label and fair enough; but if you purchase the MP3 from their website or such the artist gains a lot more of the money (around 90%).

But how many actually sell music directly? I have only seen one such band. As for iTunes, artists only get $0.11 or so per song, depending on the contract. I stand by my position that buying music, online or on CD, does not support an artist. The best way to support a band is to buy concert tickets-or even better-merch.

 

[Gimgak]

I agree that there are more bad points (in my opinion) and that it is theft just like stealing a cd from a shop.

I disagree with this, reason being when you steal a CD from a shop you take a physical copy from them. Downloading is no different than buying a CD, copying it onto your PC, and returning it IMO.

 

[Watch Me Sink]

Stores in the US don't accept open media for returns, unless it's an exchange for the same item.

Also, as I've said may times before MOST of the music on torrent sites are low quality lossy copies of music, rarely do you see CD quality stuff on torrents and warez.

 

[Gimgak]

Stores in the US don't accept open media for returns, unless it's an exchange for the same item.

Its just an example, and is actually worse since stores would loose on it 😉

 

[_outlawed_]

Finally. I've been waiting for this for the longest time. P2P software like this (KaZaa, Limewire, etc) is absolute garbage and should be rid of.

Torrents are the present and the future.

 

[Andraž Rihtar]

Haven't used Limewire for a while so not really down to hear this and for the past months I've been using GrooveShark for my free music, which is way better than Limewire 🙂

 

[katy perry is hot]

Good.

If you can't afford to buy music, don't buy an MP3 player. Stream music online. It's free and legal!

Listen to the radio...

QFT

 

[Gimgak]

Streaming music isn't legal, like I said "streaming" = downloading, there is no difference.