How can BearShare be legal?

Remove all ads!

BearShare claims it's legal to use and all the music is legal. But you can download files from other users. So it's as legal as the source from which those people have files. So how the **** can they claim it's 100% legal when you basically get to download ripped borrowed pirated CDs and whatnot that people share? It says 100% legal p2p. But p2p is not legal anyway. So what's the ****ing deal?

 

Correct if wrong.

P2P is infact legal. Sure lots of the shared data isn't but the p2p technique isn't illegal.
And since it isn't regulated anyway, they can't be held responsible what the users of that particular program users are sharing.
Just like ftp isn't illegal eventhough you can use it to distribute illegimate data.

 

You're correct WiZinc, there is nothing illegal about p2p. Sharing copyrighted material is illegal. It makes sense that the software itself isn't illegal; what the users do with is a completely different matter. However, I don't know if the creators can be held accountable.

I think what BearShare means in their FAQ with legal music is that the copyrighted music they offer for you to download is legal, because you pay 99 cents per song for it. 99 cents seems the going rate these days, so this actually seems legit. From the quick glance I took, I think they offer legal downloads and a p2p service.

 

Well, of course, P2P itself is legal and sharing files is legal, programs are, networks are etc, but the files are not. However, BearShare claims that all the music you can get there is legal. I wonder how come it's a registered company, writing in the FAQ about the green icons standing for "unlicensed files from other users" and still not getting pulled by the RIAA (the original BearShare got closed for that and transferred to someone else in settlement).

So, if RIAA gets paid for the premium 99 cents files, and therefore it must be in contact with the owners of BearShare, how come the p2p service isn't pulled?

 

Ah, my apologies chevalier, it seems I didn't quite read your text with enough thought nor understanding in what the BearShare meant with their statement, which imho is somewhat misleading, purposefully or not.

 

I don't wanna defend BearShare or anything, since I don't know the program at all. P2P interests me from a computer science perspective, but I think it is used for all the wrong reasons... yes, that was a disclaimer.

Chev, you study law right?
Read this:

Well, I don't study law, but I've watched a few episodes of Shark, so I would like to claim I know a bit about the law. They say music they distribute is legal, which would be the music you have to pay for. Couldn't it be argued that they don't distribute the files other users offer for free, so their claim would be true? It is extremely, uhmm, an appropriate English word escapes me, how's your Dutch? It is misleading for a lack of a better word, but people don't mind if it's legal or not, if it was that easy to steal bread many people would give it a shot.

And the RIAA doesn't give a crap about such a small service. They are only interested in the big guns that will make the news when they're pulled, so people will fear the awesome might of the RIAA.

And that Shark thing was a joke...

 

Of course, I've noticed that they craftily refer to the music that they distribute and abuse the fact that the P2P tech itself is not illegal. Sure. But it makes me wonder, because they originated from a settlement with RIAA and they must surely transfer some cash for the music they say to the RIAA. Makes me wonder why the RIAA doesn't actually do anything about it.

 

Don't you have to pay a monthly fee to even use it?

EDIT: Oh, I looked at the wrong version (Google Bearshare and click on the first few links...), which is a pay version.