Talk:LimeWire/Archive 4

It doesn't work any more

I have installed LimeWire before and it has worked. But I have installed it recently and it won't download anything. Can someone help me??? WikiWorm202 (talk) 16:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiWorm202 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

This is not a forum. You should visit a Limewire support site if you need help, not an encyclopedia. -- ExNihilo (talk) 17:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Limewire Store?

Maybe someone should write a little about that...? I would but i do not know any info on it since it just came out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Halo123spartan (talk • contribs) 00:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Search Results

Can anyone write more in detail about search results in LimeWire, specifically why there is so much "trash content" on the network? Searching for a string usually returns various permutations of the string with porn ads tacked on the end. I was wondering if this indicates flaws in the program, because no matter what I search there is always my result + "teen masturbation now!" tacked on the end. Jewpiterjones (talk) 21:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

This is due to various spammer and malicious peers. There are block lists and known spam results which can be ignored by other peers at least. I am quite sure that LimeWire distributes a black list (machines known to send garbage results). Bpringlemeir (talk) 22:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Does LimeWire come with Spyware, malware, virus', etc?

It's been some years since I’ve last used LimeWire. From what I remember malicious content was downloaded on my computer, which I had to restart.

Question, is LimeWire itself "safe"? If downloading the actual program is fine, would one have to only watch out what is being downloaded from the program (corrupted music files, video files, etc)?

-G

Yeah, the client itself is safe. There are however malicious programs available for download on the network. 98.135.57.227 (talk) 02:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Did some research and according to Limewire "LimeWire has absolutely no spyware or adware. Zero. None. We do not bundle any other software with LimeWire. "

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 17:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss using the program or downloading files

Please take such commentary elsewhere. I've just archived a whole load of this, which is generous when it should have been deleted. If you have questions about using Limewire (or indeed any other questions which don't relate directly to improving the article) please go to a discussion forum. Thanks. Chris Cunningham 15:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know it's archived, off the how-tos I go! Trevor GH5 23:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE keep this talk page on-topic. Random spyware speculation is not useful to editing the article. For what it's worth I believe the current official installer is spyware-free and I trust my own research more than random anecdotal evidence from unnamed sources. Chris Cunningham 10:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

viruses

Has anyone downloaded executable (exe) files before and not get a virus? There are several files I want to download but I am scared of getting a virus on my computer. Good friend100 22:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Any files (regardless of file type) that are significantly smaller than they "should be" should be assumed to be malicious. Always assume that your download IS infected until proven otherwise. JimH443 10:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Go to a forum. This is not a support site. But, yes, im downloading exe sometimes, only some have/are viruses. How do i know? i check with antivirus software. Seems pretty commonsense, but then, limewire users dont have much of that, eh? --Echosmoke 22:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Reason for Lock?

Why has this page been blocked from editing?

Cheers

Because people vandalize it, as it says in the box. Bpringlemeir 17:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it should be semi protected again. This page seem to attact a lot of ip vandalism, but seldom noticable edits. :Leuk he 13:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

NO, ANYWAYS IF YOU HAVE ANTI - VIRUS, IT WILL PROTECT NONE OF THE VIRUSSES ON LIMEWIRE ARE SERIOUS BECAUSE I HAVE RESEARCHED THEM MY-SELF. IF YOU DOWNLOAD 'ZIP' FILES, NOT 'EXE'S, YOU WILL NOT GET VIRUSES —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.170.10.80 (talk) 07:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Never trust someone with caps-lock disease. What you claim is nonsense. Most ZIP files you'll find do, in fact, contain malware including adware and viruses. Most "user-friendly" archive tools like WinZip etc. will automatically execute the included Setup.exe or suggest to start it. Thus, you gain no protection at all. The difference is at best a single click. However, if people actually click on an .exe file - which can be assumed as they don't execute themselves and LimeWire does not start them either - they'll just as well execute a packed Setup.exe or Video.exe. You said one true fact though: anti-virus software will not protect users. They reduce the risk but frequently fail to identify malware, thus provide only a limited degree of protection. A sufficient amount of common sense can do miracles though: Don't ever use anything "executable" from a file-sharing network. --217.87.117.236 19:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Please stop putting recent discussion in archives

All three of the archives are very small. At most, this Talk page should have been archived once. Maybe it should all still be here.

Overly frequent archiving means, old decisions are lost, the same questions recur, discussions that take place over long periods become disjointed and hard to follow, and questions left go unanswered if not answered quickly (or answers go unseen). Thanks for consideration of this. Gronky 14:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. There is a lot of crap here. Bpringlemeir (talk) 22:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Does it run on free software?

I know that Limewire itself is free software, but does anyone know if it depends on non-free software?

It depends on a JVM, but there are free Java implementations, such as Kaffe and GCJ, and there are non-free Java implementations, such as Sun's.

Can the free software JVMs be used to run Limewire? I would like to mention this in the article. Gronky 00:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC) (retrieved from archive and reposted because it's still waiting for an answer)

I don't think this is reasonable. The JVM could run on Windows, so the OS is not free software. Perhaps also, it must run upon free hardware (aka open source VHDL or Verilog). Certain parts of Limewire use native methods, this means you can not use it on every possible OS. It seems rediculous to label such things. Stating it is Java is enough, especially as the user can follow the link and read up on Java and find free Java implementations. Bpringlemeir 20:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure we're talking about the same question. My question is: Is it possible to use LimeWire without installing non-free software? So, can I install Debian or gNewSense (or any GNU+Linux distro that doesn't include non-free software) and use LimeWire? If someone objects to installing software that is not free software, can they still use LimeWire, or not? Gronky 13:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

So no free software can run on Windows? That doesn't seem like a good definition of free software. I think you are talking about a "free system". And there are many free JVMs that can run on Debian. So, I don't think anything should be added. btw, Sun is also in the process or has made it's JVM "free". Bpringlemeir 17:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

LimeWire indeed is free software, and I don't think anyone disagrees. My question is whether or not it depends on any non-free software. I know that there are many free JVMs, but none of them are complete, so I'm asking if LimeWire can be used with the free software JVMs that exist - or does it only work with non-free JVMs.

Sun's move to liberate Java certainly does make my question less important today than it was last year, but I'm asking the question in terms of before Sun's Java is/was liberated. So I would like to make the first sentence of the "Features" section more accurate. It currently says "LimeWire runs on any computer with Java Virtual Machine installed", but it should really say which JVMs it can run on - all? Just Sun's? which? Gronky 19:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Theoretically, the answer is "all." Technically, Kaffe's VM and gij are *not* JVM environments, as they won't pass the JVM test harnesses, and cannot be called "Java." They run the same bytecode, but the environments are not complete (See java.awt.* or javax.swing.* in the compatibility tests). IF the VM in question supports all the specifications of the Java environment, THEN it can be considered "Java." Thus, the answer is, "It works on any JVM, but the only JVM that works properly are those derived from Sun's Java source." (e.g. Sun, Blackdown, and JRockit) jdstroy (talk) 21:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed 'Risk' section

I removed the following content, it was the first section after the intro

"Downloading Limewire could put your computer at risk of receiving viruses like a Trojan horse. Numerous people have needed to repair their whole computer because of Limewire."

The risk is common among any file sharing on the internet, it's not unique to Limewire or Gnutella. The phrase 'repair their whole computer because of Limewire' really doesn't sound encyclopaedic, and is not actually true - they have to repair damage caused by files downloaded, not because of Limewire itself. --Darksun 13:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

U hardly ever repair computers - u exchange hardware or reinstall software. So i guess we can live without that experts statement ;) --Echosmoke 22:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Pictures showing piracy

I've noticed a couple of the images show obviously pirated files, maybe it's just me, but I think they should be shown with legal files. (I know thats not what Limewire is realistically used for, but it seems unprofessional to show piracy. --ElijahX 21:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The user may own copies of the album and not wish to convert them to MP3s themselves. Just because the files are copyrighted, doesn't necessarily mean that people are breaking copyright laws in their country. Searches other than MP3s might provide more balance to the article. You are certainly free to update them and show searches for free content. Bpringlemeir 12:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

In many European countries (and Canada, I think), downloading files is probably legal under the home copying exception; uploading isn't. So, as long as you join the 70% of users who doesn't share a bit (pun not intended), you're safe. Disclaimer: this may not apply to your particular country, because the EUCD hasn't been implemented the same way everywhere. YLMV. (Your Laws May Vary) Brother Laz 18:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe it is legal to upload in Canada. The courts ruled that this was akin to photo-copying in a library. It is up to the downloader to have rights to the work. For instance, if two people own an album and one has converted to MP3's, it is legal for the second person to download it [for there own personal library of mp3's]. It is illegal to start duplicating and distributing these, either for profit or not. See for instance RIAA's list of the number of people sued in each country. Canada is not listed. IANAL (I am not a lawyer). Bpringlemeir 01:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

LimeWire Pro

I'm not sure if this would be worth a mention, but you can actually do a search for LimeWire pro on LimeWire free and download it for free. It's a bit of a loophole that they haven't thought through yet.

Eugenespeed 23:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

This pearl of wisdom was recently removed from the intro. It turns out that file sharing apps can be used for illegal purposes. Who knew. Chris Cunningham 23:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not illegal to download Limewire Pro. The program is open source, so paying any money for it is voluntary. Nizamarain 11:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it ['not illegal'] isn't. It is illegal to download LimeWire Pro; as LimeWire LLC holds the software and rights, they are allowed to distribute it under whatever conditions that they please. They chose a F/OSS license for LimeWire, but they chose a commercial license for non-F/OSS LimeWire Pro. Take a look at MySQL AB's flagship product, and their way of business. Likewise, LimeWire "dual-licenses" their product; one is FOSS, the other is not. If you know how to modify the sources, it is possible to make a fork of LimeWire, with the fork implementing all the features of LimeWire Pro. Essentially, one can remove the hard limits, and even go beyond what LimeWire Pro offers. jdstroy (talk) 21:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It's worth to mention that it's infinitely stupid to download any kind of software whether free, open or green from anything but the official website or an official mirror (without having an official checksum at least). Many if not most of the software shared on P2P networks is infected with worms and viruses. No virus scanner can reliably detect this. They will only detect it sometimes. Now, if you had a cryptographically signature signature... but that's too difficult for Joe Avg. --217.87.114.140 06:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it is worth mentioning. In fact, the reason I looked at the discussion page was to see if anyone else had noticed you could do that.--72.88.123.139 (talk) 03:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be put back into the article. It's true that you can download it using limewire, and also it's a commical irony that I believe people would enjoy reading. I know when i read it originally when it was on, it made me laugh. DSantomauro (talk) 06:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's also WP:OR, and can't be included. Rurik (talk) 17:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Update "Controversy and legal issues" to only use year and month.

I would like to update the following, "Neither of these events occurred, and as of July 18, 2007, it is still possible to download LimeWire and share copyrighted files" to read only "Neither of these events occurred, and as of July 2007, it is still possible to download LimeWire and share copyrighted files". It seems a little ridiculous that this is updated every day. If someone finds a contrary fact, I am sure it would be noted expediently. Bpringlemeir 17:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

This has been done. Please consider this for archive. Bpringlemeir 00:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

latest Version?

Hi, I noticed the latest version being listed as 4.12.15, with a 4.13 preview version, both released recently. On the official website, it has 4.14.0 for download. Is this not a later version? If so, I will change it.

Also, there is a reference to a version 4.2 released in November of 2004, but 4.2 comes after 4.1, does it not? so how is this possible? 76.226.20.105 02:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course, the version info will always lag real life. You can just click on the +/- in the info box and change the version and release date there. Bpringlemeir 14:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Child Pornography?

recently, in the UK, there has been a trial of a guy accused of downloading indecent images of children on the internet. apparently he used limewire for some of them, should this be included in the article?

It shouldn't in my opinion because it's just a tool like a Hammer, Car or Photoshop. A hammer would never commit a murder, a car would never rob a bank and Photoshop would never attach some celebs head to a porn picture on its own. It's the people who operate them. Speaking on a very abstract level, child pornography is just information and every technology that is capable of transferring information can be used to commit this type of crime.

folks, get some perspective! this here is one client of one filesharing-protocol - if at all such stuff belongs to the article filesharing or similar, not here. U are really annoying! --Echosmoke 21:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Telling people they are annoying when they are asking a simple honest question, is really messed up Echo. Try to chill. Tayquan^holla_{My work} 09:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I Agree/Disagree

While agree with the whole "it's the user, not the tool" theory, I don't think this should stop an ENCYCLOPEDIA from containing, what I feel, is perfectly valid information. (apparently by Jackbergin 00:17, 20 August 2007, please sign your posts.)

It certainly should not. However, please provide references and maintain a neutral point of view. Specifically, I don't believe that this "child porn" argument applies to Gnutella. Private FTP sites, Usenet binaries, IRC (plus other chat protocols) and HTTP won't have sections that mention this (neither will the wiki article on paper and photocopiers). I am sure that there have been content studies done of the gnutella network. This would be a relevant fact to quote. There are really people who don't know how to convert a CD to MP3s. They may have the right to do so in their country. Perhaps this would better be added to the Gnutella entry. The key point may be "what I feel". Please just state facts in a neutral way. It is very good that we have so many people with polar opposite views. That should help keep things balanced. Bpringlemeir 00:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Another frequently given argument is that the established distribution systems have a great advantage in providing content. So for instance, direct from artist distribution models haven't been given any chance to mature. Large media companies have a vested interest in keeping the system like it is. Many large transport truck are roving the earth distributing plastic CDs. Some artist (Joe Strummer from the Clash, etc) felt guilty about the plastics in CDs. What is really more efficient for humanity? Unfortunately lawyers and monopolies (as well as discounting non-quantifiable things like clean air) can prevent the free market from functioning properly. Can someone give me a magnet link to a pdf scan of a clash concert ticket and a tour t-shirt? Oh, maybe that wouldn't be useful. Bpringlemeir 01:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

This is certainly off-topic, however, plastic is not bad per se. For example, paper bags are far worse than modern plastic bags because producing the latter consumes less energy and resources. The kind of plastic is also not the everlasting sort but one that will naturally dissolve similar to a banana peel and it's not toxic. No trees have to die for it. I don't know much about the plastic used for CDs but I know that it can be recycled. Also if people keep their PCs running almost 24/7 due to file-sharing, this has a very measurable effect on power consumption, especially as newer PCs consume more and more energy. Even if they're not running it all day, the infrastructure and energy consumption might very well be less efficient. Why bother at all? It's more comfortable of course. Further you don't really have to produce CDs in one place and then transport them around the world. Masters can be and are send to local press plants. A single truck has really plenty of space for CDs. Thus, this concern as sympathetic as it may be, strikes me as being somewhat naive. --217.87.121.39 18:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It is both CDs and vinyl records. The aluminum in CDs can be recycled. Many things can be theoretically recycled. I don't know of any practical way to recycle CDs in my area. People usually try to reuse them, by making art out of them. You don't have to run file sharing software 24/7. Many file sharing hubs/ultrapeers are already running 24/7 for other reasons, such as web and mail services. Further, there aren't cd presses through out the country. They must be delivered (and warehoused) to get to the local customers. It certainly would be interesting to have an in depth analysis of it. I would be quite sure that currently a major portion of disposed CDs hit land fills and not recycling centers. My only point is that it would be easy for some on to right someone to write some demonized article on file sharing. This certainly wouldn't be a NPOV and I was giving counter arguments to why file sharing might not be evil. Bpringlemeir 00:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge Acquisition (software), Cabos and MP3Rocket

I would like to merge information from Acquisition, Cabos, and MP3Rocket wikis to the LimeWire page. The articles by themselves are not very significant. I think the section would be titled Forks and clones and include FrostWire as well. FrostWire is possibly notable enough to have an article by itself. Anyways, a section on Forks and clones doesn't require that the alternate pages are deleted or redirected. However, thoughts on that are appreciated. Bpringlemeir 22:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Can we establish notability for any of those? jdstroy (talk) 21:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I have put merge templates on all pages but FrostWire. If someone feels FrostWire could be merged, then that would be appropriate as well. Currently the FrostWire article lacks anything put primary sources, like all the other proposed merges. If you oppose any of the merges, I think you need to find good references to put on these pages. Ie, was the individual software used in an academic study or reviewed in a magazine or book? Bpringlemeir 22:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

There already is a versions section in the LimeWire wiki. This is more neutral than my suggestion. There is also LemonWire and MP3Torpedo, which don't have wikis already. Bpringlemeir 00:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean article? A wikipedia article is not a "wiki". --217.87.62.223 22:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. Bpringlemeir 13:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Another knock off, DexterWire. I wonder if some of these are trojans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpringlemeir (talk • contribs) 23:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

missing references is not a reason for a merge. unsourced information is to be deleted, not merged. Too small articles and redundance are reason for merge. Anyway, i guess most of the info given can be confirmed by checking the corresponding sites. I think acqusition, frostwire should stay separate, not sure on cabos, fire away on mp3rocket(crap anyway) --Echosmoke 22:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, missing references are not a reason for a merge. However, some references in one article are valid in the others (but they are not there). All of the articles are comparatively short. All will duplicate the features, limitations, etc. of the LimeWire base. They all tweak the features of the LimeWire base, but almost all networking code remains the same. Why would acquisition and frostwire not be candidates, but cabos and mp3rocket are? Bpringlemeir 04:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Also information from the sight itself is a primary source. It does not fulfill the WP:NPOV and these are really not good references. Articles should have some third party articles on the software. In most cases, these software repacks of LimeWire have none. Bpringlemeir 04:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

360 Share

Can someone do some studying on 360 Share. Frostwire uses the same template as Limewire. 360 Share does to. Is it owned by Limewire. Is Frostwire owned by Limewire? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cptimes (talk • contribs) 19:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

See 360Share. It is driven by the same people who make eTomi. It is a simple copy of LimeWire. FrostWire has developers who have at least shared some code with LimeWire (and they offer the software for free). The 360 share people are leaches who ask for money, but provide nothing. Many of the companies in the heading above are the same.

Besides this, most of the pages aren't really worth a separate article (they are just duplicating LimeWire info) and do not have good references. Bpringlemeir (talk) 00:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Should it be stated...

Should it be stated on the page how to stop LimeWire from going into your files and putting everything it finds in the program without authorization from the user? There should also be a help section of sorts that helps users stop the program from sharing their files. "It will randomly work out" (talk) 18:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

No, that should belong on Wikihowto or Wikibooks. See the header in How-to. jdstroy (talk) 21:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Possible Vandalism

The makers of the LimeWire software have now installed a security device that can track most viruses in files. This system was also made to allow FireWall and SpyWare to work on the computer.

Is there any verification of this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.137.13.220 (talk) 15:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Legality of downloading?

The section on the court case and Limewire ignoring it has been removed from the article it seems. Shame I thought that was useful. SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 14:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

illegal

being a free software, is it illegal? because normally you'd have to pay to download music in websites- SCB '92 (talk) 19:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

This is controversial. One of the ways I have herd it to be legal is if you already had rights to the song, such as if you owned it on a cassette. As far as I know, it is still not illegal to transfer your cassette songs into MP3 format, so by downloading a file that you are allowed to have might not be considered illegal.

Just another guy trying to be a Chemical Engineer, Nanobiotechnologist, and Mathematician (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is legal. Period. No, it is not normal to pay for downloading music. There are at least as many sites that offer free music legally as there are commercial sites charging for downloads. --217.87.80.149 (talk) 13:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe that's debatable. One, using Limewire in and of itself is NOT illegal. Second, the illegality of downloading songs is a complex issue, one that is very rarely prosecuted (usually litigation is used). Third, there are no free an legal sites for downloading all the stuff that itunes has. If you want most popular music legally, you just have to pay.Sds556 (talk) 18:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Cite the supreme court case?

In the introduction paragraph it says that the supreme court ruled 5-4 in 2008 that limewire is legal, even if the music is copywrited. Should this case be cited, and perhaps elaborated upon? Ptm718 (talk) 05:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The claim is complete BS. I just removed it; there's no point in {{fact}}ing stuff like that. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 15:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

"Trojan viruses can be deadly to a computer"

Really? What is this, "Independence day"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.250.105.215 (talk) 09:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The entire section was absurd and patently false, I've removed it. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 14:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

wording in intro

As of May 31, 2008, Limewire for Windows total downloads reached 147,396,768

when first i read this i thought "what ? people must have downloaded much more stuff than that on limewire?" - took me a couple of seconds to realise it meant the software itself, not files on the network. the "for windows" makes this a bit clearer, but i think this sentence needs rewording. maybe just me.... thoughts ? Machete97 (talk) 21:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

BitTorrent client ?

LimeWire is described here as being a bittorrent client. is this true ? i dont use it any more - i switched to BitTorrent itself years ago before settling on µTorrent, but i never knew limewire did torrents - or did it come as a feature in a new version ? Machete97 (talk) 21:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's true. But for future reference, this isn't a forum. — ^FatalError 01:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It is time

I feel the need to somehow mention how Limewire is illegal. I will, i think.--Master of Pies (talk) 14:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Except for the fact that it's not... — ^FatalError 01:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Who Here Still Thinks That LimeWire Isn't Illegal?

Of course Limewire is illegal. Although BitTorrent is not. The reason why BitTorrent is not illegal is due to the fact that, when two or more parties are transferring or sharing files, BitTorrent does not make a copy of the file(s) for itself, whereas LimeWire does. It is true though that any material that is not copyrighted may be shared freely and legally, but LimeWire will still make a copy for itself, which violates the users rights. If LimeWire were to state that any non-copyrighted material will be replicated and copied, it would not be illegal, although I bet that anyone who uses LimeWire and sees that notice would then prefer to go for something else, namely BitTorrent.

-Peace Out!-

mÆniac ^Ask! 22:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but...what's your point? — ^FatalError 06:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Your presumptions are completely, and utterly wrong. LimeWire does not make a copy anywhere of anything, neither does a any other P2P client. What exactly are you trying to achieve by this phrase, to get more people to use BitTorrent instead of LimeWire? A transmission protocol cannot be legal or illegal, only the traffic that flows across it can be deemed such. Rurik (talk) 00:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. But I believe what I learned. Sorry if that's not quite how you think it works, but hey, if I did offend you in any way possible, I'm sorry. Again, sorry!

-Peace Out!-

mÆniac ^Ask! 19:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I came across short. I am well versed in P2P delivery protocols from the packet level. It's just that what you said is completely off the wall. LimeWire and BitTorrent are just basically match-making services. With LimeWire, if I share a file, and you choose to download it, your client makes a direct HTTP connection to my computer to transfer it. The file transfers directly between the two clients with nothing going to the service. This is the same as BitTorrent, which matches multiple peers up into swarms for them to send data directly between each other using its own Peer Wire protocol. Virtually all P2P services work this way. Rurik (talk) 23:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh rite (oooops)! Cheers for the info then!!!! Sorry if I seemed like a bit of a dick back then. Just a bit angry with my parents, and I took it out on the wrong person, which happened to be you. Very sorry for that.

-Peace Out!-

mÆniac ^Ask! 20:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)