Tech: Bearshare

Subject: Tech: Bearshare - what is it and is it legal?
From: Hamish
Date: 04 Mar 05 - 04:08 PM

My daughter's been using Bearshare - a "service" for sharing files, widely used to share music files - and I had my misgivings, but it would seem - see The Register - that it's one of the file sharing media that the copyright police have had in their sights. She'd always said it's legal, but I'm guessing that it's legal in the same way as any writeable CD is legal i.e. it's only when you copy a copyrighted piece of music onto the CD that the offence is committed. Am I correct? Does any Mudcatter know for sure what the position really is?

btw, it's a package to be avoided at all costs unless you like to load up your PC with spyware, adware, Trojans, hi-jacking programs and such like. Which my daughter seems to think is a small price to pay. But even she admits that risking a £2000 fine is extreme.

Anyway, I've decreed it strictly out of bounds.

btw (2) and she only used it on her "own" PC, not this one!

Subject: RE: Tech: Bearshare
From: GUEST,Ed
Date: 04 Mar 05 - 04:20 PM

It's illegal to share copyrighted music, period.

Whether it is moral or not is a matter of opinion.

Hope that answers your question.

Subject: RE: Tech: Bearshare
From: Hamish
Date: 04 Mar 05 - 04:56 PM

Sorry, Ed, I must not have phrased the question clearly. I meant to ask "do you know what Bearshare is?" I mean is it a "legal" service used for peddling illegal goods? The rest of my question above is my supposition.

I'm quite clear that copying copyright material is illegal.

Subject: RE: Tech: Bearshare
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 04 Mar 05 - 06:12 PM

The issue of whether the sevice that enables the sharing of files is itself illegal is still moot, both in the USA and the UK, so far (I think). I prefer the Sony Betamax case as precedent in the USA, and the Amstrad double-header case in the UK, both of which hold that the means is not illegal so long as it may be used legally. The main question of the present litigation is, if the overwhelming use of a means is illegal, is the provider of the means liable for the infringemnts of others?

But if the RIAA or BPI sues you, the cost is a drop in the ocean for them but possibly a fortune for you.

In the UK the principal enforcers of the (rarer) criminal sanctions in respect of copyright enforcement are the local Trading Standards, and getting them interested is hard.

Kazaa Lite and Soulseek involve a lot less malware, if your daughter cannot be reformed, at least let her sin with prophylaxis.

Bearshare is, I think, P2P, not hub based.

Subject: RE: Tech: Bearshare
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Mar 05 - 07:33 PM

There is non-copywrited material available as well, so technically the sharing service is not violating any laws, merely enabling you to be able to. Providing roads and stop signs doesn't keep you from using the roads at illegal speeds and running the signs.

I used Kazaa for a while and found it loaded with malware. I have been using limewire for over a year and am very happy with it.

There is a lot of valid legitimate music out there to be downloaded. Some of it is even good.
check out oddiooverplay and comfortstand. They have a lot of stuff and links for more stuff. basichip is offering out of date children's albums for download, one new one a week for all year.

Subject: RE: Tech: Bearshare
From: Shanghaiceltic
Date: 04 Mar 05 - 09:23 PM

This just appeared in the online Telegraph, a British newspaper:

Parents of net music thieves to be fined £4000
By David Derbyshire and Matt Born
(Filed: 05/03/2005)

Parents whose children illegally swap music over the internet could be fined at least £4,000 following a landmark legal settlement announced yesterday.

British record labels said 23 people who shared thousands of tracks unlawfully were forced to pay compensation totalling £50,000.

   
Kazaa is a peer-to-peer network that offers free sharing of files
The "online thieves" included a councillor, an IT director and parents of children who had used peer-to-peer music sharing websites. Some had put 9,000 songs on the internet for others to share.

In at least two cases, the parents had no idea that their children were using the family computer to swap thousands of songs with strangers.

The British Phonographic Industry, which is leading the battle against music pirates, said only the most prolific file sharers were being tracked down and fined.

As it became clear that some of the "prolific" downloaders were sharing only a few hundred songs, the BPI said it was bringing legal action against a further 31 suspects.

The announcement will alarm parents who suspect children spend hours a night downloading music.

Geoff Taylor, the BPI's general counsel, said: "We have no desire to drag people through the courts, so we have attempted to reach fair settlements where we can.

"We hope people will now begin to get the message that the best way to avoid the risk of legal action and paying substantial compensation is to stop illegal file sharing and to buy music online, safely and legally, instead."

The war against online music piracy was declared last year when the BPI announced plans to sue 28 prolific file sharers.

All had been using websites such as Kazaa, Grokster and BearShare which offer free access to music tracks.

Most using these websites are interested only in downloading songs for free. But an active minority of "uploaders" offer their own music collections.

Because this group is easier to trace, these were the people challenged by the BPI.

It said 23 people had agreed settlements averaging £2,000, while two were paying more than £4,000 each to settle their cases.

Three people were still in negotiations while two others on the original list had appeared twice, under different identities.

The settlements have been agreed by 17 men and six women, aged between 22 and 58 from all over Britain. All signed High Court undertakings admitting that they lifted tracks illegally and promising not to do it again.

Fifteen had used the Kazaa peer-to-peer network, four used Imesh, two used Grokster, one used WinMx and one used BearShare. The compensation will cover the industry's legal costs.

At least five computers identified in the BPI investigation were in households with children.

"Looking at the type of music, it was a mixture that would tend to suggest that it was not just the parents who were at it," a spokesman for the BPI said. "Parents were shocked to find what was on their computer."

The British music industry claims illegal downloading is damaging sales.

Sales of singles have slumped by more than 50 per cent since 1999, when the practice became popular.

While CD sales are at unprecedented levels, the BPI believes the figures would be much higher if it were not for online sharing.

Research commissioned by the music industry found that an illegal downloader spends a third less on albums and 59 per cent less on singles than other music fans.

Record labels are concerned that album sales will plunge with the growth of broadband, the fast internet connection that speeds up download times.

The legal download market has boomed since the launch of sites such as iTunes and Napster. In the final week of 2004 legally downloaded tracks outsold physical singles for the first time.

The BPI says the legal action is intended as a deterrent. It follows thousands of lawsuits against music pirates in America.

According to the industry, the campaign against pirates has been a success and has "contained" illegal downloading. The most popular file-sharing network saw a 45 per cent fall in use since its peak in April 2003.

Critics say that for record companies to sue young customers is a public relations disaster. In one case in America, Brianna LaHara, 12, was told to pay £1,175 after being accused of illegally swapping songs.

Some industry figures say sharing is a useful way to promote music and does not damage sales. Bands such as Blur and Franz Ferdinand, have spoken in favour.

Others in the independent music sector believe the BPI has been heavy handed.

One executive said leading labels and download sites were partly to blame for the proliferation of sharing because they were charging too much for legally downloaded songs.

"We have to make music better value so the incentive isn't there," he said.

"Many people feel it is not that bad, like making a home tape recording. It could be damaging if the industry is seen to be suing its own customers."

Subject: RE: Tech: Bearshare
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 04 Mar 05 - 10:17 PM

Readers should be careful to distinguish (as, it seems, the Telegraph is not) between a fine, which is a criminal penalty payable to the state, and damages, which are a civil remedy payable to a plaintiff or claimant whose civil rights have been infringed.

A settlement (in context) is a resolution in a civil claim, agreed between the parties, and it does NOT set a precedent. Only court decisions set precedents.

Subject: RE: Tech: Bearshare
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 05 Mar 05 - 12:31 AM

Well, not legal precedents, but as McDonalds were hoping to do in the famous McLibel case, they may set a psychological precedent... sometimes....

Subject: RE: Tech: Bearshare
From: Hamish
Date: 05 Mar 05 - 02:55 AM

Thanks for all that: I think it confirms what I'd suspected about the medium and the message being the two different things. It also seems to have a parallel with ISPs and porn: the ISP is providing a legitimate service: but it also has a duty to prevent its being used as a channel for porn (and terrorism, and, and...)

Anyway, my daughter's pretty sensible and now she knows it's illegal, she has voluntarily deleted the program. (I haven't yet asked about the few dozen songs she had already downloaded...)

It also seems that the BPI are distinguishing between those who upload (i.e. provide files for sharing) and those who download (those who partake.)

btw what's the difference between peer-to-peer and hub based?

Hamish

Subject: RE: Tech: Bearshare
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 05 Mar 05 - 04:19 AM

Hub based = a central server point where the fies are stored where all comers can get them, and deposit them.

Peer to Peer = point to point - User B can only get a file from user A, or anyone else who each have a copy of the file.

Subject: RE: Tech: Bearshare
From: Hamish
Date: 05 Mar 05 - 04:33 AM

So presumably since Bearshare is peer-to-peer then they can further distance themselves from accusations of abuse, because they're not themselves storing any of the offending copyright-breaking files themselves: only joining up other people's data stores?

Subject: RE: Tech: Bearshare
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 05 Mar 05 - 07:34 AM

That's the basic idea - but there is a new thing called Bit-torrent (?) where most people are simultaneously up & down loading bits of files - at least one site must have a full copy of any particular so that everybody knows how to put the bits together - it is thus mainly peer to peer, but in all these peer to peer systems file sharing systems they usually need some sort of overall coordinating system. That point about the level of coordination is where the lawyers disagree.

Subject: RE: Tech: Bearshare
From: mack/misophist
Date: 05 Mar 05 - 11:18 AM

Note: A number of software download sites use BitTorrent to speed downloads. So, if the software is on your machine, you can claim a legal reason for it.

Subject: RE: Tech: Bearshare
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 05 Mar 05 - 07:46 PM

Of course BitTorrent is really intended for Broadband - it just strangles a dialup....

Subject: RE: Tech: Bearshare
From: robomatic
Date: 05 Mar 05 - 08:38 PM

In the long ago days of the original file sharing service - Napster, I worked at a student radio station which freely downloaded and aired mp3's. I was aware of copywrite issues, but I was told that downloading for purposes of radio use and research was legal because the university paid a fee for it.

Now I'm curious if that was really happening.

It was sure fun to be able to type in a subject and draw down all different genres of music and then start to put together a show. I discovered the Austin Lounge Lizards on Napster and went out and purchased all their albums.

I was also able to find stuff that is not available anywhere else.

So Shawn Fanning, the creator of Napster, is a hero of mine.

Subject: RE: Tech: Bearshare
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Mar 05 - 08:47 AM

As it now stands , it is almost impossible to charge people for illegal downloading....here is why...Parents could (and should) challenge any law that hold them responsible for the crimes of others, including their own children. These charges would probably be seen as scare tactics rather than as possible legal recourse on the part of record companies. Secondly, in order to charge a downloader someone would have to know exactly what was downloaded as many things that do not fall under current copyright laws may be legally downloaded.

    This entire issue is very complex and the blustering of record companies may have some effect but it cannot subjucate the law nor can it make the law do it's bidding. However, this does not imply that one can infringe copyright with impunity. We must treat the work of others with respect.

Subject: RE: Tech: Bearshare
From: mack/misophist
Date: 08 Mar 05 - 12:03 PM

Re GUEST at 08:47

A fair amount of money has been collected by the pigopolists, as they are sometimes called. It's usually cheaper to pay up than to try to defend ones self in court. The last time I saw a number, they were bringing about 100 new cases a month.

Subject: RE: Tech: Bearshare
From: GUEST,A Wife
Date: 21 Mar 06 - 03:16 PM

My husband told me that it is legal to download movies and music from bearshare. So is it really legal, or what?

Subject: RE: Tech: Bearshare
From: MMario
Date: 21 Mar 06 - 03:22 PM

probably not, unless what you are downloading is already in the public domain, which excludes just about anything post 1923