(Side note: this is only in the Pit b/c it’s where we discuss such things. I’m annoyed, but not angry.)
Why is it that you locked this thread? AFAIK, nothing illegal was even mentioned. In fact, no one even knew ANYTHING about it. In fact, it seems like it had the word “download” in it, so you put your moderator hat (I still want a hat. You guys should really sell those.) on over your eyes or something.
Huh? The subject of the thread, the web service in question, is almost certainly illegal.
Huh? No, it is not. It’s only illegal if copywriteable materials are being traded. When did download services become “illegal”? They only become illegal if files that shouldn’t be traded are.
Sam
The service is sleazy, but I’m guessing not technically illegal.
A while ago I was doing some research on these “download Microsoft Office or Adobe Photoshop for $100!” sites. I read their fine print, and they always try to skirt around the illegality by saying that they are selling “back up” copies (which are not illegal—you can make a back up of your legally obtained software). I decided to call Adobe directly to see what they had to say, and the person I talked to said that no, of course they don’t sell their software in a downloadable version. They went on to say that buying a backup copy of something is not illegal, it’s getting getting license (serial number) that is illegal.
Someone can pay to download copies of Photoshop all day long. As long as they are not sold the serial number, I guess that Adobe can’t do anything. Adobe seems well aware of what these services are doing and I’m sure if there was a way to (legally) stop them, they (Adobe) would. From what I was told, some of these services sneak a serial number to their “customers” later on. Other times the customer is just screwed—they paid a lot for software that they can’t use because they didn’t pay for the license, just for the (wink wink) “backup.” Of course they are led to believe that they bought legal software and when the software doesn’t work, they will call up Adobe, all confused. All Adobe can do is tell them, “Tough luck, man.”
There ain’t no “free lunch.”
Not that this is authoratative, but a link to Google Groups(usenet).
When I used to go to New York every December, for a great coin show, I could always count on seeing a guy selling Rolexes for $20 at 7th and 53rd, every Fri/Sat. night.
Why I didn’t buy a handful and take them home and resell them, I’ll never know. :rolleyes:
The board is consistent. They don’t even allow discussion of certain peer to peer sites which, technically, can be used for the legal sharing of files, but is used mostly for illegal copying.
The board doesn’t need a legal opinion from a lawyer or judge to document an activity as illegal. If it comes close to being illegal, if it’s a grey area, or if it has the appearance of illegality, they lock it down.
That’s the way it’s been here for a long time.
Peace.
What she said. 
I used to get whooshed at the mention of P2P in the beginning. I couldn’t figure out why the threads kept getting locked down. I thought P2P had something to do with drugs. :smack:
Ignorance beaten again…keep up the fight.
Go to the music browse link of that site, and you’ll see links to currently popular albums that I’m sure they don’t have distribution rights to. There are even “download” buttons for these popular albums.
If clicking those buttons as a member actually results in a download of that album, then almost certainly it is an illegal download service. Even if the link simply throws a search term to a P2P program, and the album comes from other p2p users and not the site, that’s also illegal. I know of several sites that been shut down for doing exactly that.
No, I don’t know for a fact they didn’t purchase the distribution rights to those works. But if they did, I’d be very surprised.
It is not illegal to make a backup for yourself, but it is most certainly illegal to SELL that backup. They aren’t skirting around the law, they are directly and blatantly violating it.
Not to mention movies that aren’t even available on DVD yet. Hard to argue that that’s a “backup copy”. They’re not even using official-looking promo stuff - the sample posters are crap scans of last year’s teaser posters.
Seriously, people: $29.95 for a year’s unlimited games, music, movies, apps, TV, etc.? I’d like it to be true as much as the next man, but there is simply no way that that site is even remotely legitimate.
Correct. In fact, the board (read: CHICAGO READER) doesn’t want to have to spend mony for legal opinions from lawyers or judges to determine the legality of any particular activity. So, it’s not a question of not needing a legal opinion, it’s not wanting a legal opinion – in the sense that, anything that appears to us to be a grey area, we’re gonna take action as though it were illegal.
If that leads to an injustice in some particular case or set of circumstances, our usual response is to offer a handkerchief. On rare occasions, we have reconsidered and reversed on a particular thread or cite, when the poster involved presented us with the legal opinion – that way, he/she foots the bill, not the READER.
I did not say that this specific service wasn’t illegal. I was responding to your blanket statement that P2P was illegal. It may very well be illegal due to certain products/intellectual property traded on the service. I dislike that simply the discussion of P2P on its face is likely to get a thread locked down poste haste on the SDMB as well.
Sam
I made no such statement. When I said “the web service in question”, I meant that specific service, not p2p in general.
I’m usually the first in line here to defend p2p, it’s a fantastic and perfectly legal way to distribute files, that should be discussed openly here and anywhere else. In fact, IMO the thread in question shouldn’t have been closed, because it was simply asking about the legality of that particular service, not how to use it.
My only objection was the OP stating that “nothing illegal was mentioned”. That particular service was mentioned, and it is most likely illegal.
Actually, Lance Henricksen may be interested in this p2p you mention…
Perhaps—I don’t know anything about the law in this matter. But the Adobe representative I talked to specifically said that it was not illegal for them to sell backups—it was illegal to sell or give away serial numbers.
Of course this person at Adobe could be wrong, but if she was wrong, I find it curious that Adobe is fully aware of these companies and yet seems to do nothing to stop them. (The Adobe representative I talked to didn’t seem interested in the URL of the latest illicit company I’d encountered, or anything, and these companies seem as bold as brass about advertising their wares on mainstream sites and through mainstream ad programs.)
That’s very bizarre. I’m no expert on the law either, but it seems very odd to me that they wouldn’t simply define the legal backup “clause” (or whatever) to specifically be only legal for one’s own personal use, so it cannot be sold, with or without a serial.
I’m honored that I was able to distill the board’s policy so accurately. Only, I’m left wondering, why (and even, how) did you introduce a misspelling into my quote? Surely you know how to use the ‘reply’ button? 
Gender had not been definitively identified. Like to keep the pitters off balance.
Peace.
May I suggest that if you don’t like the policy of the SDMB, then maybe you should look elsewhere for a message devotes itself tirelessly to finding legal uses for P2P networks.