That is a direct quote from a Freshman in college that I helped with her computer today. She purchased it just three days ago and already has Lime Wire installed. For those not familiar with Lime Wire, it is a service that many people use (especially college aged kids) to download free music, movies and more. In addition to be legally questionable (or downright illegal by some accounts), downloading free music is the single best way to completely screw-up a normally functioning computer.
Over the years, when we got calls from listeners with “slow computers”, our first question was “do you have any teenagers in the house?”. The reason we asked was that most unrestrained teenagers with Internet access will eventually install programs like Lime Wire and start downloading the free stuff.
The problem is that when a computer user downloads these “free” songs and movies, some nifty little software that hoses your computer comes along with them. These programs are known as spyware and adware. What these little gems do is install other programs on your computer that cause pop-ups, send spam out from your computer among other things that all slow down and muck up your computer.
Even if you keep all the latest security software updates and scans going on a computer, these behaviors contribute to computer going to the dogs. Those “free” downloads can rapidly turn 99 cents into hundreds of dollars in repair work, and lots of spilled tears over lost data if backups weren’t done.
Related articles:
- 5 Simple Rules to avoid SCD (Slow Computer Disease)
- Fight Spy and Adware
- I’m not going to tell your kids what to do but…
- Shareware and Freeware – March 2006
- What kind of computer do 3 teenagers use?
Tags: adware, backup, download, Internet, music, Security, spam, spyware, update
Loading ...
HelpMeRick.com started as a monthly tip site for beginners in 1996, and now supports our popular call-in computer show, and hosts thousands of useful computer tips and links.
free is not free..99 for a song is good .will the college kid work for free or like there work stolen .
“Free” simply means whatever you’re talking about was created by someone else’s labor other than your own.
Hopefully, if the college kid will know that the word “there” is spelled “their” in the context you used it.
The subject is a complicated one:
1) The various music publishing companies have tried for years to deceive people into paying what the U.S. Supreme Court called “multiple tribute,” and declared that no one is entitled to “multiple tribute.”
The bottom line of copyright law, in both letter and intent, is that you are prohibited from making money off of another person’s work (e.g. manufacturing and selling pirated CDs and DVDs).
I have a LEGAL “fair use” right to make a copy of a record, CD, or DVD, play the copy “for free” (not charge admission) in the privacy of my own home, and archive the original I legitimately purchased so as to prolong its life.
Also, if I want to send a file of a song I am impressed with to a friend, to see if s/he likes it so s/he can go out and buy a copy of their own at a retail store, I have a constitutional privacy right to do that. It’s none of your business.
There used to be a code of honor among pc users that they would “share” a software so as to test drive it to see if they liked it. If they did, they were morally obligated to buy it. It seems many modern music sharers may be lacking that code of honor.
What you have is technology and privacy rights at odds with each other in the overly simplistic way you put it.
Your type of contribution doesn’t particularly facilitate an understanding of the issues unless it prompts a contribution like this one. If push comes to lobby-corrupted-government shove, I would choose privacy and individual freedom over Big Brother police-state tyranny any day. You, I suspect, might choose the opposite. Hopefully you are either in a minority, or open to new thoughts and information.
Hopefully technology will find a solution to the conflict of interests so a free marketplace can function as it should.
What people like you tend to forget is that the work of most artists isn’t worth stealing anyway. Those whose work has actual objective merit will not starve in a free marketplace, and frankly, perhaps starving artists who complain that their intellectual property is being stolen might do better by considering another line of work.:-)
Music publishing companies are dinosaurs, and are basically on their way out, as increasing numbers of artists become tech-savvy. Lots of artists are discovering the potential for selling their stuff at low prices on the Internet that lies in letting their fans copy their songs “for free”.
In another, and younger, life, as a dancer, I always prefer to buy my own tapes and CDs, than use illegally pirated copyies made by dance instructors. The quality and convenience are far superior. As some artists are discovering, lots of CDs are legitimately sold because some dancer choreographed a dance routine to a song that nobody has cared about, or bought, for fifty years.
Thanks to technology, savvy artists no longer need a middleman between them and their fans. They can now market directly.
If the price of potatoes (one style of music) goes too low, start growing grapes (another style of music). Most humans aren’t stupid. Just like the animals, we have no problem finding the shade on a hot day. Rather than feel uptight and ignorant about market forces, take pleasure in observing the forces that steer the free markets by informing individuals as to what direction and extent their labor will be best rewarded.
But STOP trying to use Big Brother government as the perceived solution to all your problems. The so called “state” IS the problem! Only losers (make that MAJOR LOSERS) see it otherwise.
I need to read this site every day and send it to all my friends!!!
I tell everybody I know about this site. It is truly a newbie’s (and intermediate pc user’s also) delight. It’s got tons of information even the advanced user will find useful from time to time.
I also go to both Rick’s and Adam’s classes regularly here in Grand Junction.
The two best kept secrets in the world are 1) Grand Mesa, and, 2) this web site. The first, I hope, remains a secret (camping, fishing, hiking, biking, x-ctry skiing, snowmobiling, etc). The second, I hope the whole world discovers so Rick and Adam can reap the free-market rewards of their EXTENSIVE labor and sweat.
I believe in fair use; where you can make copies of what you paid for *personal* use or preservation.
Constitutional privacy right to share? I disagree. I don’t think that applies when you are doing something illegal. That’s why judges will allow wiretaps when they think there is some illegal activity going on.
You can invite your friend to listen to a playback of your music to make a decision about whether to buy it; but, to give him a copy(share) of the *whole* song or CD for him to playback at his leisure is currently illegal; whether he ‘promises’ to buy his own copy and destroy your copy later or not. Realisticly, because of human nature, do you see your friend even doing that?
Radio stations and DJs at parties are suppose to pay per usage copyright fees before playing their copies of the music for the enjoyment of others, since somehow as a result, they profit from doing so.
Maybe you don’t profit by sharing, but your friend does, because he didn’t pay for it and you do, if he shares his music with you.
Russ
Clarkston, MI
Ya gotta quote chapter and verse if you want to quote the law to me!
Under the scenario I described, 1) the communication is a PRIVATE one between my friend and I. 2) No money is being made by anyone.
Now, should my friend decide to share the file with the whole world, I would have an ethical problem with that. But as a PRIVATE communication (remember the good old days of the 4th Amendment?) between me an my friend, it is nobody’s business but our own.
As a writer and wannabe dancer, I have researched copyright extensively and discovered that lawyers LOVE to mislead people. A while back, the music publishing companies tried to get cloggers to believe we all had to buy what I derisively termed “clogging licenses” just to clog for free to a copyrighted tune being played on a boombox. They did this by trying to make people think that the words “compensation for performance” were identical in meaning to “reimbursement for expenses.”
So I offered to set up an idea case for clarification and go into federal court for a declaratory judgment. The head legal counsel for BMI admitted that I was correct, but that they were concerned about all the “commercial” cloggers using their music to make money.
Since you sound suspiciously like a lawyer (74% of the public justifiably despise them), please be so kind as to cite the specific U.S. Supreme Court decision/s which makes illegal my PURELY hypothetical scenario. If such exist, it shouldn’t be too hard to get to the precise nub of the legal issue/s, instead of deceptively phrasing it as a “constitutional privacy right to share.”
The speciousness of your argument lies here: if I give my friend a copy of a CD I legitimately purchased retail, he also would not have to buy his own CD, and, according to you, that would hypothetically be illegal.
Greed being what it is, if musicians had their way, we would have to pay a fee (multiple tribute) every time we listened to one of their songs. This is self-evidently erroneous (lawyers love the word “erroneous”) and wrong-headed. So, per Voltaire’s admonition, you need to define your terms (cite your cases) if you want to argue with me.
Because you speak suspiciously like a Big Brother control freak, and I don’t want to spend time away from my own intellectual-property related projects, I choose to remain relatively anonymous ? for now.
For people who want to know what the law on copying is, Google 17 U.S.C. 110, titled, ?Limitations on exclusive rights: Exemption of certain performances and displays.? In my own research, at the time, I read every published case involving 17 U.S.C. 110 (4), which involved the language ?compensation for performance? that various music publishing companies were trying to pretend meant ?reimbursement for expenses.?
Regarding the so-called ?fair use? exemption, in their decision in the case of Sony Corp v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 US 417, the U.S. Supreme Court said, ?Thus, although every commercial use of copyrighted material is presumptively ? unfair ? noncommercial uses are a different matter ? if the intended use is for commercial gain that likelihood (of future damage to adversely affect potential markets ? your humble poster) may be presumed. But if it is for a noncommercial purpose, the likelihood must be demonstrated.?
The case of LaSalle Music Publishers, Inc. v. Highfill, 622 FS 168, is the classic example of how easy it is for lawyers to use legalese to misrepresent a quote to deceive someone into believing an incorrect ?point? of law. ?Instead of a ?for profit? requirement being included in a copyright holder?s bundle of legal rights, a ?not-for-profit? exemption is not transferred to [recodified as 17 USC 110(4)].? All that means is that a copyright holder is no longer obliged to present the ?for profit? issue as part of his complaint. Since the law was changed, it is now the defendant?s obligation to raise the ?not-for-profit? issue as an affirmative defense. But the subject of profit or nonprofit, in and of itself, is just as germane as it ever was to the legality or illegality of any allegedly copyright-violative behavior.
Other courts have said, ?The drafters of this exemption probably had in mind that school children, church choirs, and small vocal groups banded together as societies, should not be subject to civil and criminal penalties for possible copyright violations; that the benefits of copyrighted works should be available to them for educational and religious purposes; and that it was highly unlikely that their performances of such works would seriously diminish attendance at professional productions of the same works.? The ?predecessor section (to 17 USC 110[4] ? your humble poster) amounts to protection in favor of those persons who do not perform publicly for profit musical compositions, as in the case of street parades, school, educational, or similar public occasions and exhibition.?
For any person interested in the subject of copyright law, the article titled, ?The Progress of Science and Useful Arts: Why Copyright Today Threatens Intellectual Freedom? (www.fepproject.org/policyreports/copyright2d.pdf), by the Free Expression Policy Project, a think tank on artistic and intellectual freedom (http://fepproject.org), is must reading. The FEPP has very clearly stated the reason/s why the public should be involved in the debate about so-called ?file sharing.?
Russ?s post completely ignores the so-called ?first sale? rule, ?the concept that copyright holders only control the first sale of their works, after which purchasers may give them away, sell them, or otherwise pass them along to friends, colleagues, second hand stores, libraries, schools, Salvation Army outlets, flea markets, auctions, or any other place where the public can re-use them.? (See FEPP article.) The article continues, ?The first sale rule aids immensely in the spread of knowledge, entertainment, inspiration, and ideas. It is also a pragmatic recognition of the limits of copyright enforcement. For few of us would want to live in a world where corporations or government agents monitor and control what we do with every book, computer program, or CD that we buy. Yet through encryption, mandatory clickwrap agreements, and other ?DRM? techniques, the copyright industry has been able to undermine the rights of the public under the first sale rule.?
Want to argue the law and ethics, Russ? Per Voltaire?s admonition, I have very specifically defined my terms and issues. How?s about you doing the same, and we let the readers make up their own minds?
USEFUL AXIOM: most people who pretend to know something about the law, in reality don?t know diddley squat. Therefore, do not be remotely influenced by posters like Russ. Common sense didn?t get its name for nothing. Read. Go find out the truth for yourself. That?s what REAL education is all about.
I suspect the cat may have gotten Russ?s tongue. I don?t see him giving us any specific U.S. Supreme Court cites as to how attaching a file to a self-evidently confidential PRIVATE NONCOMMERCIAL email to a personal friend, in and of itself, constitutes AS A MATTER OF LAW ?future damage to adversely affect potential markets.? No, the real constitutional crime would be for Russ (or people like him) to stick his nose into my private, confidential, PERFECTLY LEGAL communications in the first place.
You’re right, no money is being made by anyone. The *artist* et al. are not receiving any more money because you offered the file to your friend for free. As I said earlier, your friend ‘profitted’ by not having to pay for the music and you ‘profit’ when he shares files with you that you normally would pay for. (That’s your substitute for legal tender.) That’s what is illegal under the ‘intent’ of the copyright law and why it was written. Until it becomes part of the public domain, it is not suppose to be given away freely.
I’m not sure why you think the privacy laws cover all sins; if you were conspiring with your friend to kill someone, that conversation would be admissable in court because conspiring to kill someone is illegal. Sharing copyrightted material is supposedly illegal, from my understanding and common sense of the intent. The Chinese have less restrictive copyright laws, contributing partly to all the bootlegged material or low quality toys and auto parts.
I am a UAW skill trades member and not a lawyer or related to that occupation.
Russ
Clarkston, MI
I’ll repeat myself. For any person interested in the subject of copyright law, the article titled, ?The Progress of Science and Useful Arts: Why Copyright Today Threatens Intellectual Freedom? (www.fepproject.org/policyreports/copyright2d.pdf), by the Free Expression Policy Project, a think tank on artistic and intellectual freedom (http://fepproject.org), is MUST reading. The FEPP has very clearly stated the reason/s why the public should be involved in the debate about so-called ?file sharing.?
You insist on remaining unspecific with your opinions. The FEPP’s policy study is only 66 pages long, 46 pages minus endnotes and index. If you read it, you might have some idea of what you’re talking about instead of wasting everybody’s time (your own included) with inane non-sequiturian comparisons between privileged private conversations about the objective merit of a certain piece of music and conspiracy to commit murder.
It really is quite impossible to carry on a meaningful conversation with an agenda-driven sophist who refuses to 1) read enough to educate himself on the subject he is talking about, and/or 2) be specific in the precise legal and policy points he is trying to address.
In my opinion, for the reasons stated in the FEPP’s scholarly policy statement, I agree with the FEPP that the copyright industry has gone so far that they now constitute an active ongoing threat to the intellectual freedom and free flow of information upon which the general overall intellectual progress of humankind (aka “the public”) depends.
You say you are a union member. Fine. Decades ago, I used to be an executive board member of the meat cutters union in Colorado, and I can tell you first hand that unions are basically a microcosm of corrupt government. If unions, which were arguably a good idea at their inception, were doing the job they could have, and should have, done, labor would have its own banks, mortgage companies, hospitals, and universities. That this has not happened because of the same stupid political corruption that exists in governments, speaks to a problem that all too few union members care to educate themselves about. Most of them show up only at contract time. That being the case, and the universe being a cause-and-effect place, the sheeple have EXACTLY the kind of unions and government they deserve.
The old axiom is, if you’re not “liberal” when you’re 20, you have no heart, and if you’re not “conservative” when you’re 50, you have no brain. I’m 63 and self-employed, so I’m no longer stupid enough to believe in the naive socialistic talking points of my ignorant youth.
Precisely because of my radical demeanor, I was on the wage-bargaining committee which got meatcutters what I believe was probably the single largest 3-year wage increase percentage ($3.30-ish/hr to $5.50-ish/hr) in our local union’s history. Just try for a 3-year percentage increase like that today! I used to be so ignorant in economics that I thought all of labor’s problems could be solved with wage and benefit increases. That is simply not true. Nor, as you so disingenuously suggest, do I simplistically think “privacy laws cover all sins”. I do, however, for the SCHOLARLY (in stark contrast with your own) reasons they have set forth, agree with the FEPP’s assessment of the danger presented by the corporate copyright industry to intellectual freedom, and, subsequently, the full potential and welfare of the human species.
I have no problem with the basic concept of disagreement ? there will always be disagreement in the free marketplace of ideas. People used to think the world was flat. I just don’t like overly simplistic, euphemistic, sloganistic ad hominem manipulation (e.g. “conspiracy to commit murder”) trying to function as a covert hyper-emotional substitute for knowledge, facts, and logic.
Just try do enough reading so you have some reasonable idea about what you are speaking of.
Read the article ? PLEASE! Then, if you still disagree, try to state the specific points in the article with which you disagree.
I’11 waste my time, at least one more time.
To reiterate, basically all I said was, I thought is that it is currently illegal to freely share copyrighted material with friends, whether the deed was done publicly at Grand Central Station or privately attached via email; and that I do believe in *personal* fair use (copies that preserve my investment or allow *me* to playback on various media for my listening/watching pleasure).
I don’t like DRM [digital 'restriction' management
] because it is bound to interfere with the aforementioned fair use of my media.
I would be interested on what you think is the right way to compensate artists or inventors. How would you replace the current copyright and patent laws?
By the way, we are close in age. I was in the U.S. Air Force for four years during the Vietnam War and afterwards have 35 years seniority with GM.
Russ
Clarkston, MI
My previous message should have been at the end the message thread.
Russ
Clarkston, MI