Found this today for files.
Yousendit's now has 50MB limitation.
These guys allow you 300MB
http://www.sendspace.com/
Cheers
Printable View
Found this today for files.
Yousendit's now has 50MB limitation.
These guys allow you 300MB
http://www.sendspace.com/
Cheers
Take note that it asks if ya have read the terms of agreement!!!
Not intending to be a killjoy, but reading between the lines on the computer-less family being sued by the RIAA makes me wonder if those sort of sharing sites aren't going to be their next targets:
RIAA Sues Family Without A Computer
By Newsferatu, Writer
Sunday, April 23, 2006 @ 8:38 PM
From the Rockmart Journal:
A Rockmart, GA family is being sued for illegal music file sharing, despite the fact that they don?t even own a computer.
A federal lawsuit filed this week in Rome by the Recording Industry Association of America alleges that Carma Walls, of 117 Morgan St., Rockmart, has infringed on copyrights for recorded music by sharing files over the Internet. The lawsuit seeks an injunction and requests unspecified monetary damages.
The lawsuit states, ?Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Defendant, without the permission or consent of Plaintiffs, has used, and continues to use, an online media distribution system to download the copyrighted recordings, to distribute the copyrighted recordings to the public, and/or to make the copyrighted recordings available for distribution to others.?
This came as shocking news to the Walls family, who were notified of the lawsuit Friday afternoon by a newspaper reporter. James Walls, speaking on behalf of his wife and family, said they have not been served with legal papers and were unaware of the lawsuit.
After being shown a copy of the court filing, Walls said he found the whole thing bewildering.
?I don?t understand this,? Walls said. ?How can they sue us when we don?t even have a computer??
Walls also noted that his family has only resided at their current address ?for less than a year.? He wondered if a prior tenant of the home had Internet access, then moved, leaving his family to be targeted instead.
However, the RIAA?s lawsuit maintains that Carma Walls, through the use of a file-sharing program, has infringed on the copyrights for the following songs: ?Who Will Save Your Soul,? Jewel; ?Far Behind,? Candlebox; ?Still the Same,? Bob Seger; ?I Won?t Forget You,? Poison; ?Open Arms,? Journey; ?Unpretty,? TLC; No Scrubs,? TLC; and ?Saving All My Love for You,? Whitney Houston.
The lawsuit follows similar wording as in some 3,500 other lawsuits filed by the RIAA in the United States since June 2003.
Typically, the lawsuits have targeted users of Kazaa, Grokster and other peer-to-peer Internet services ? most of which have since been shut down by RIAA lawsuits. With these services, users typically have an open folder on the computer that allows other users of the service access to any songs that have been saved in a digital format, such as MP3 files.
The RIAA lawsuits have come under fire, with critics calling the effort a ?scare tactic? meant to intimidate the public from file sharing activities.
However, in a public statement defending the litigation, the RIAA says its efforts have been effective in dissuading illegal activity.
?The industry?s anti-piracy efforts have deterred a sizeable number of would-be illegal downloaders,? the RIAA statement reads. ?Although a significant online problem undoubtedly persists, particularly with hard-core, frequent peer-to-peer users, absent action by the industry, the illegal down-loading world would be exponentially worse.?
?2006 KNAC.COM. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.knac.com/article.asp?ArticleID=4548
<font size="4" face="Arial">Yousendit has a similar TOA as wellQuote:
Originally posted by ******Drooper The Gutter Cat******:
Take note that it asks if ya have read the terms of agreement!!!
http://beta.yousendit.com/static.php?key=tos
Move to Canada or Sweden and you won't have to live with the draconian measures of RIAA.
I believe point of origin of the sites matter more than origin of the users. When they went after the first sharing site, the one that Lars Ulrich went after to such criticism, it affected everyone who used that site, no matter where they lived.
In short, even if RIAA can't get someone in Canada or Sweden, the site can still be shut down using the sharing in said countries as evidence.
Speaking of Canada, I recall so many vinyl records that were realeased in Canada but not USA, or the Canadian releases were ten times better. Examples: Runaways"Live In Japan", never released in USA. First several Riot lps, released in Canada on Attic, never in USA. Riot was a NYC band.
<font size="4" face="Arial">Jay, Napster was a US company therefore it was subject to US laws and essentially shutdown at the time of the Lars campaign. For example Piratebay.org has been running for 3 years and is located in Sweden. They've had every major company try to come after them for copyright infringement to no avail. As proof on their hilarious legal threats page, where they mock the lawyers.Quote:
Originally posted by JayForSure:
I believe point of origin of the sites matter more than origin of the users. When they went after the first sharing site, the one that Lars Ulrich went after to such criticism, it affected everyone who used that site, no matter where they lived.
In short, even if RIAA can't get someone in Canada or Sweden, the site can still be shut down using the sharing in said countries as evidence.
Speaking of Canada, I recall so many vinyl records that were realeased in Canada but not USA, or the Canadian releases were ten times better. Examples: Runaways"Live In Japan", never released in USA. First several Riot lps, released in Canada on Attic, never in USA. Riot was a NYC band.
http://thepiratebay.org/legal.php. Other sites such as mininova.org and torrentspy.com and the Canadian site isohunt.com are still going strong.
Remember the Canadian offshoot Polygram label "Banzai" they put out some great stuff back in the 80's
Jay, you may find this interesting as well, taken from ISOHUNT. Canadian Artist Rebellion:
As reported here and here, Canadian artists such as Barenaked Ladies, Avril Lavigne, Sarah McLachlan, Chantal Kreviazuk, Sum 41, Stars, Raine Maida (Our Lady Peace), Dave Bidini (Rheostatics), Billy Talent, John K. Samson (Weakerthans), Broken Social Scene, Sloan, Andrew Cash and Bob Wiseman, have formed a new Canadian Music Creators Coalition (CMCC). They are speaking out against the same entertainment industry associations such as the RIAA and CRIA, who claims to represent artist rights. Stop the piracy! Feed the artists! Apparently that's not the case according to the CRIA's own study. Talk about irony.
I'm also a fan of Sarah Mclachlan. In moments like this, I'm proud to be a Canadian. Laughing
The CMCC outlines 3 interesting points in their stance:
Canadian Music Creators Coalition wrote:
1. Suing Our Fans is Destructive and Hypocritical
Artists do not want to sue music fans. The labels have been suing our fans against our will, and laws enabling these suits cannot be justified in our names. We oppose any copyright reforms that would make it easier for record companies to do this. The government should repeal provisions of the Copyright Act that allow labels to unfairly punish fans who share music for non-commercial purposes with statutory damages of $500 to $20,000 per song.
2. Digital Locks are Risky and Counterproductive
Artists do not support using digital locks to increase the labels? control over the distribution, use and enjoyment of music or laws that prohibit circumvention of such technological measures. The government should not blindly implement decade-old treaties designed to give control to major labels and take choices away from artists and consumers. Laws should protect artists and consumers, not restrictive technologies. Consumers should be able to transfer the music they buy to other formats under a right of fair use, without having to pay twice.
3. Cultural Policy Should Support Actual Canadian Artists
The vast majority of new Canadian music is not promoted by major labels, which focus mostly on foreign artists. The government should use other policy tools to support actual Canadian artists and a thriving musical and cultural scene. The government should make a long-term commitment to grow support mechanisms like the Canada Music Fund and FACTOR, invest in music training and education, create limited tax shelters for copyright royalties, protect artists from inequalities in bargaining power and make collecting societies more transparent.
In france, non-commercial uploading and downloading on P2P networks are ruled to be legal. And Band sells 120,000 copies of album thanks to online downloading, consistent with the CRIA's study showing no link of P2P as the cause for dwindling music sales.
However, to be fair, the internet and P2P networks does present a new kind of sharing on a global scale, that was never possible before between friends on restriction of geography. But DRM is clearly not the answer, as locks do not stop real theives, it only inconvenience casual internet users like you, who would pay directly to support artists if it's convenient and the price is fair. So I see a middle ground, to remove this last "mass piracy" argument: watermarks. And my question for you is this:
If you are paying, at a fair price, for downloaded digital media in support of musicians and other content producers, would you allow watermarks that can trace back to you, should the file you purchased be traded openly on P2P networks? Such watermarked files would be completely DRM-free, with freedom to be played on any device and traded to friends, in a number within reason. If you are an artist, is this even a concern for you, that your works are traded on global P2P networks that would not directly support you financially? If you are a consumer and a fan, do you care?