A friend of mine told me to try out this service, which is similar to Napster. When I downloaded it, I was supposed to be connected to numerous other computers in order to share files, but I have been unable to connect to any other hosts.
I have already tried downloading other versions of Gnutella, and my friend says that his works fine. Can anyone help?
Sorry, never heard of it.
You just need to jump start it by giving it an initial host or two. Here are a couple that I used.
Check out today’s news stories on www.cnn.com
There are a couple of very interesting stories about Gnutella and Napster. Apparently, if you were able to get Gnutella downloaded before the site was shut down, you were very fortunate.
I tried those hosts, and it shows that it is trying to connect, but never does, and then eventually gives up.
gnutilla works just fine for me…and you can find it up on other websites, so you aren’t out of luck if you don’t have it yet. i never had any problem with it yet.
holy crap. i just started it, and man o man, has it really picked up in the past few weeks.
another program called imesh, you might consider. it’s much the same. as is cuteMX, by the makers of cuteFTP, etc.
you might want to d/l another copy of gnutilla. i don’t remember where you can get it, but i know i saw it as recently as 2 days ago.
Remember: if you use gnutella – or any other MP3 trading software – you are a thief the moment you download without the permission of the musicians.
“What we have here is failure to communicate.” – Strother Martin, anticipating the Internet.
I wish they did something like this for fonts. It’s a bugger finding fonts by name or description without something handy like that…
Um, okay. Try these then, I’m connected to them now:
199.74.92.138:6346
161.184.161.91:6346
And GuanoLad, Gnutella allows searches for general files, not only mp3s. But someone out there has to have them shared.
not to make a debate about this, as it’s been debated in the MP3 threads…but… It depends. If you own the music on CD, record, tape, or other format, you can have it on MP3. And many bands will give blanket permission for anyone to download their live MP3s, like Phish i believe. and many up and coming artists don’t care what you do with their songs, because they like exposure. you can download MP3s pretty much anywhere…i’ve gotten some popular classic rock songs and popular songs from rolling stone.
just be careful. just using gnutilla doesn’t make you a thief.
Nope. Copyright law allows only the copyright holder to make or authorize copies. Anyone else who does so is violating copyright.
Here are the relevant paragraphs (from the copyright law at http://www.loc.gov/copyright):
[quote}§ 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works
Subject to sections 107 through 120, the owner of copyright under this title has the
exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;[/quote]
The law does not provide for any archive copies by any individual (libraries can).
This particular urban legend has been passed around all over the Internet, but has no basis in fact (can you quote a relevant law to support it?). I suspect it’s because software licenses usually specifically granted you the right to archive – but they were granting it because otherwise you could not legally put the software on your hard drive (I believe the law has been changed in this respect). The MP3 pushers keep spreading this rumor even though it has no basis in fact.
That’s fine, but unless the band has given this permission, you are violating their copyright. Have you really checked to see that all the MP3s you have are in compliance? Or, like most people, do you just download the files you like without bothering?
“What we have here is failure to communicate.” – Strother Martin, anticipating the Internet.
ok, i can’t find a specific case that says making MP3s from music you own on another format is legal, this page from the RIAA ( http://www.riaa.com/tech/tech_ht.htm ) talks about the Audio Home Taping Act, which says you can make analog and digital copies of music that you own, with recorders covered by the act, including DAT, CD-R, and MD, but according to this, MP3s are not included. however, i’m sure i read somewhere reputable that it’s ok (though i don’t have a source).
if there’s a song i want, i’ll buy the CD if i can find it. the only MP3s i have are bootlegs (of artists that i have all the albums of anyway), obscure, out of print songs that’d i’d buy the album of if it were available, and MP3s from MP3.com and Rolling stone.
the RIAA is suing MP3.com because of their new program mymp3.com or something like that. basically, MP3.com went out and bought a whole bunch of CDs, digitized them, and put them online. if a consumer purchased the cd, they can send in their receipt or proof of purchase and listen to the MP3s on line of the albums they had purchased. MP3.com says this is ok, RIAA says no. i guess the outcome of the court case will decided which one of us is right :).
Yes. That audio taping act allows you to make a copy on an “approved media.” In order for the media to be approved, a fee must be paid to the artists. On tapes, this is part of the purchase price of blank cassetts.
The law does not preclude MP3, but does require that some method of payment be worked out in order for them to be approved. (Writeable CDs, for instance, are not currently approved, but easily could be by adding the rights fee to the price of them. I’d guess the main reason that’s not happening is not the RIAA, but the software companies.)
Note, too, that the Audio Home Taping Act does not grant you the right to make any copies. It says that you have amnesty if you make the copies on approved media. Making the copies are still against copyright law, but you can’t be taken to court for it. (A complicated, but quite clever compromise.)
Buying the CD is certainly legal. Downloading from MP3.com or Rolling Stone is also (since you have permission). However, bootlegs were never legal, and the fact that the album is out of print is no excuse.
Think of this: suppose Kak, an obscure band from the late 60s, wants to rerelease its album. They talk to a record company. The record company is interested, but checks the Internet. They find thousands of MP3 of “Electric Sailor” and “Disbelieving” floating around on the Internet. Since these are the two best songs on the album, they decide (not unreasonably) that the people who have them on MP3 won’t bother to buy the CD. They pass. Kak loses their opportunity to make some money. You get your songs, but the people who created them lose out big time.
RealityChuck: You’re right. Now shut up.
Your preaching is off topic, and none of your target audience wants to hear it.
Your Quadell
RealityChuck, you’re an idiot. Sorry, but I can’t put it any nicer than that. You’ve been corrected MANY times, yet you continue to make the same stupid mistakes, it’s like you can’t read.
You claim that copyright violations are theft. This is incorrect. I’d assume you were just mistaken, except that you have been shown otherwise many times, so I’ll assume you’re either stupid or lying, nothing else explains it.
Theft is taking of property with the intent to deprive the owner of that property.
You can’t steal intellectual property because of the nature of it. If someone copies it, the owner still has it. Thus is CAN NOT be theft.
Clue in. Until you do, you’re just a freaking nuisance, no better than a newbie trying to win a debate on religion by telling people that it must be so, because the bible says so. Change your tune or shut the hell up.
Here are references to where I have explain your errors in more detail. Read them.
http://boards.straightdope.com/ubb/Forum3/HTML/006603.html - The 31st post, about 3/4s of the way down. Search for “Theft: the act” to find the message.
http://boards.straightdope.com/ubb/Forum7/HTML/001494.html - the last post on the first page.
White Night,
You’re quite adamant, but you’re wrong. Intellectual property can be stolen by being copied. Courts have backed this up many times. If you don’t care whether it’s theft or not, why not just say so?
So, anybody have anything on topic about gnutella?
Your Quadell
WhiteNight, you’re the idiot.
If stealing intellectual propery isn’t theft, why is it illegal? The copyright holder is allowed to take the infringer to court, get an injunction preventing him from making copies, and sue for damages. It that’s not theft, what is it? If the law makes it illegal, how is it legal?
You’re the clueless one here. Tell you what. Try making and distributing copies of the video THE LION KING without asking Disney. See what happens to you.
It doesn’t matter if the owner still has a copy. By making copies, you are reducing the value of the original (that’s basic economics 101). By reducing the value, you are hurting the copyright holder financially. You are stealing from him, pure and simple. That’s the law, and that’s the reality. Sorry if the facts don’t confirm your ignorance.
If you argued that it was vandalism instead of theft, you might have a case, but you can’t just take whatever you want just because the person has an extra.
“What we have here is failure to communicate.” – Strother Martin, anticipating the Internet.
I’ll opine on the merits of this argument when I have some free time. For now, though, we do not refer to each other as “idiot” in GQ.. Feel free to attack ideas, but not people. Both of you knock it off or take it to the Pit.
NYC IRL III
is on April 15th. Do you have what it takes?
RealityChuck, how do you explain the following (both your statements):
>The law does not provide for any archive copies by any individual.
>It says that you have amnesty if you make the copies on approved media.
To me, provide and amnesty have very similar meanings in this case. And your first stement was wrong- What if it is a non-copyrighted work?
That may be, but this idiot is smart enough to use a word that means what he wants to say.
If you mean copyright violation, then say copyright violation. If you mean copyright violation don’t say theft. The word does not mean what you think it does.
Ok, you try insulting a Hell’s Angel who’s high on PCP. See what happens.
Both will cause tons of trouble, but in neither case is theft involved. There are many other trouble-causing actions that don’t relate to theft.
Argh. You just don’t get it.
I don’t have to show that there’s a law that says copyright doesn’t apply. I’m not saying that copyright law doesn’t apply. I’m telling you that the term you use is not the correct one.
I do not disagree that most Napster/Gnutella users are commiting copyright violation. What I disagree with is your insistance that it’s theft.
You use theft because it’s emotionally charged. I feel strongly about murder.
Shall I say that someone commits murder when they violate copyright law? I mean, accuracy certainly isn’t a concern of yours, so that should be okay, right?
Words have definitions so that we all know what they mean. People who want to be understood should use those definitions. If someone knows the proper definition and doesn’t use it, because it doesn’t support their views, then that person is lying. You are a liar.
You might as well say that trees are planets, it’ll be as inaccurate as everything else you’re saying.