p2p with widest selection of music

[dc5]

bit torrent doesnt have that much music some im woundering which p2p program does.

 

[Schadenfroh]

check the following out:

Text

Walmart 88 cents a song
Apple 99 cents a song

walmart and apple are legal and ethical

 

[So]

This thread can't last long here. You know damn well which file sharing client is most popular. :roll:

 

[DaveSimmons]

Napster 2.0 is lgal and works pretty well. $10 a month for all you can listen, no stealing needed.

 

[dc5]

indeed it is illega, but i see people postint torrent links for sp2 and not being told. (same concept)

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: dc5
indeed it is illega, but i see people postint torrent links for sp2 and not being told. (same concept)

Not the same concept. Downloading SP2 is legal. Downloading music off bit torrent is NOT. See the difference?

 

[crazycarl]

www.slyck.com
read and learn

 

[Lonyo]

I don't use DirectConnect
And as said, SP2 is legal, and it's just a source for something which is free from Microsoft anyway. The full release is fine to post links to, even betas probably are (they are on the MSN beta network I believe).
Same as Top Gear is a free to view (on UK TV) show, and is not supported by advertising revenue, so posting links to Top Gear is OK.

 

[Narse]

Boy are you asking for it!

 

[TheVrolok]

Napster 2.0 is a nice alternative to illegal P2P .. pretty cheap for what you get .. luckily I get it subsidised by my school so I don't have to pay to use it, but I rather enjoy it.. (Although, a caveat ... there are certain artists that you just can't DL from Napster .. Zeppelin comes to mind .. good thing I already have all their albums tho.)

 

[ShawnD1]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
Napster 2.0 is lgal and works pretty well. $10 a month for all you can listen, no stealing needed.

Dude, Napster is based on the Gnutella network. Downloading from Gnutella is definitely illegal.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: ShawnD1

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
Napster 2.0 is lgal and works pretty well. $10 a month for all you can listen, no stealing needed.

Dude, Napster is based on the Gnutella network. Downloading from Gnutella is definitely illegal.

Text

Read it up.

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: dc5
indeed it is illega, but i see people postint torrent links for sp2 and not being told. (same concept)

Not the same concept. Downloading SP2 is legal. Downloading music off bit torrent is NOT. See the difference?

Re-distributing SP2 is illegal, and therefore so is putting it on or downloading it from bittorrent. Bad example.

To actually answer the OP for once, I download all my music on soulseek anymore and I like it a lot. It's mainly used for music and there is plenty of not-so-popular stuff on there.

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Originally posted by: ShawnD1
Dude, Napster is based on the Gnutella network.

Wrong, sorry.

Downloading from Gnutella is definitely illegal.

Also wrong. Downloading copyrighted material is indeed copyright infringement, but the simple act of downloading files from gnutella is most definitely not illegal.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: dc5
indeed it is illega, but i see people postint torrent links for sp2 and not being told. (same concept)

Not the same concept. Downloading SP2 is legal. Downloading music off bit torrent is NOT. See the difference?

Re-distributing SP2 is illegal, and therefore so is putting it on or downloading it from bittorrent. Bad example.

I dont understand.... all the people are doing is saving microsoft the bandwidth.

 

[ArmchairAthlete]

Yuck, those pay downloads don't even have music I want. No thanks!

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: dc5
indeed it is illega, but i see people postint torrent links for sp2 and not being told. (same concept)

Not the same concept. Downloading SP2 is legal. Downloading music off bit torrent is NOT. See the difference?

Re-distributing SP2 is illegal, and therefore so is putting it on or downloading it from bittorrent. Bad example.

I dont understand.... all the people are doing is saving microsoft the bandwidth.

And violating the EULA.

 

[WannaFly]

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: dc5
indeed it is illega, but i see people postint torrent links for sp2 and not being told. (same concept)

Not the same concept. Downloading SP2 is legal. Downloading music off bit torrent is NOT. See the difference?

Re-distributing SP2 is illegal, and therefore so is putting it on or downloading it from bittorrent. Bad example.

I dont understand.... all the people are doing is saving microsoft the bandwidth.

And violating the EULA.

You'd have to be stupid to download an MS patch from bittorrent - you'd never know what you actually got!

 

[timswim78]

Originally posted by: WannaFly

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: dc5
indeed it is illega, but i see people postint torrent links for sp2 and not being told. (same concept)

Not the same concept. Downloading SP2 is legal. Downloading music off bit torrent is NOT. See the difference?

Re-distributing SP2 is illegal, and therefore so is putting it on or downloading it from bittorrent. Bad example.

I dont understand.... all the people are doing is saving microsoft the bandwidth.

And violating the EULA.

You'd have to be stupid to download an MS patch from bittorrent - you'd never know what you actually got!

Exactly, my guess is that MS does not support torrents of their Service Packs because they have no control over what the end user is getting. I guess that they could include some type of verification that lets one know that he/she downloaded an authentic SP.

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: timswim78

Originally posted by: WannaFly

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: dc5
indeed it is illega, but i see people postint torrent links for sp2 and not being told. (same concept)

Not the same concept. Downloading SP2 is legal. Downloading music off bit torrent is NOT. See the difference?

Re-distributing SP2 is illegal, and therefore so is putting it on or downloading it from bittorrent. Bad example.

I dont understand.... all the people are doing is saving microsoft the bandwidth.

And violating the EULA.

You'd have to be stupid to download an MS patch from bittorrent - you'd never know what you actually got!

Exactly, my guess is that MS does not support torrents of their Service Packs because they have no control over what the end user is getting. I guess that they could include some type of verification that lets one know that he/she downloaded an authentic SP.

Uhh, that is what an MD5 hash is for. If you download it from WHEREVER, you can be assured it is the exact same file MS will have up for download just by verifying the hash.

Re-distributing SP2 is illegal, and therefore so is putting it on or downloading it from bittorrent. Bad example.

Not a bad example. SP2 is FREE, therefore it can't be considered stealing. It may or may not break the EULA, but it definitely isn't stealing. Downloading music is.

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: WannaFly

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: dc5
indeed it is illega, but i see people postint torrent links for sp2 and not being told. (same concept)

Not the same concept. Downloading SP2 is legal. Downloading music off bit torrent is NOT. See the difference?

Re-distributing SP2 is illegal, and therefore so is putting it on or downloading it from bittorrent. Bad example.

I dont understand.... all the people are doing is saving microsoft the bandwidth.

And violating the EULA.

You'd have to be stupid to download an MS patch from bittorrent - you'd never know what you actually got!

You've got to be stupid to not know how to verify a file.

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Originally posted by: JackBurton
Not a bad example. SP2 is FREE, therefore it can't be considered stealing. It may or may not break the EULA, but it definitely isn't stealing.

It's not stealing, it's copyright infringment. MS has a copyright on the software and allows you to use it under certain conditions outlined in the EULA. If you violate the EULA, you're infringing on their copyright. However, copyright infringment is not the same as stealing, according to the law (as I know it).

edit: and regardless of what MS charges for any piece of software, copyright infringment is illegal regardless of money. It doesn't matter that they let you download SP2 for free; redistributing it is still copyright infringement.

Downloading music is.

No it's not, it's copyright infringment.

 

[JackBurton]

No it's not, it's copyright infringment.

Seriously dude, you know it is simply not copyright infringement. There is a difference between downloading SP2 and downloading Windows XP. Do you view both "copyright infringments" the same way?

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Originally posted by: JackBurton

No it's not, it's copyright infringment.

Seriously dude, you know it is simply not copyright infringement. There is a difference between downloading SP2 and downloading Windows XP. Do you view both "copyright infringments" the same way?

What are we arguing about? I thought we were talking about the law. If we're talking about your own set of morals and ethics, then it's a pretty worthless argument. You'd be crazy to expect everyone else to agree with your own morals and ethics.

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey

Originally posted by: JackBurton

No it's not, it's copyright infringment.

Seriously dude, you know it is simply not copyright infringement. There is a difference between downloading SP2 and downloading Windows XP. Do you view both "copyright infringments" the same way?

What are we arguing about? I thought we were talking about the law. If we're talking about your own set of morals and ethics, then it's a pretty worthless argument. You'd be crazy to expect everyone else to agree with your own morals and ethics.

Don't give me this "you're own morals and ethics" bullsh!t. It's clear cut, one is free the other is not. Yes both may be illegal but there is a difference. Just like getting a speeding ticket and murdering someone. Both are illegal, but at completely different levels. It has nothing to do with "personal morals and ethics." I don't care what "morals and ethics" you have, EVERYONE can see a difference between downloading SP2 and downloading Windows XP. If you can't, then I need to stop this discussion right here because I'm not going to waste my time with someone that can't make that basic distinction.