http://www.oldversion.com/program.php?n=scour

It was a search engine for open Windows shared folders (SMB).

Very popular back in the days when residential connections did not often have firewalls or NAT acting as a filter.

It was especially popular for college dorms, which often had true wide-open IP addresses.

Wasn’t Scour legally shut down, even though they had nothing to do with the actual files? They merely provided a service by allowing them to be searched and indexed, and never did host the actual content. I wonder how these new services will avoid becoming another Scour.

http://www.invention-protectio.....ement.html

I do not live in the US anymore so I could care less about the breaking US law and removing DRM for personal use.

DRM no DRM…. I just want to be able to play my media on any platform that I choose. DRM is like going into your local stereo shop and having to purchase a DVD player for each movie studio.

So now I found a great decission - MelodyCan converter (http://www.convert-any-media.com/index.php) which helps me to resolve drm-protection problem.

They have an MP3 search engine and playlisting. Their widgets are pretty slick (coverflow-style).

There’s a twist with Soundflavor. They have a good recommendation engine that suggests songs that sound like the music you search for. Kind of a Pandora repackaged as music search.

Worth checking out.

bottom line - google has illegal mp3’s in their engine, videos, and tons of other illegal content and are they in jail? NO. They did it the right way, just like these sites are doing. Check googles stock now vs 5yrs ago and get a clue, please, everyone. If you post it on the net for free, it is free - hell if you post it for $17 you can still get it free and what is preventing google from indexing that particular link? If you index an outside source how are you liable for distributing it? You are not - case in point - google. The internet is the citizens of the world’s ammunition to LEARN AND REAP it’s benefits.

Reminds me of Metallicas stance on Napster - how come they didn’t go after Gnutella? Ahh the speculations…

I actually am contributing where I can. And yes, I feel strongly enough about this issue that I didn’t want to muddy it with self-promotion (as most people do here because of access to this vast audience). If you’re really interested in my efforts, you can see the legit sites that I’ve created to promote indie artists at freemusicgroup.com, and you can read my further thoughts about the logical fallacies to which I object so strongly here: chuckbrown.com/music-file-sharing/index.html (I’m leaving the links unclickable, because this isn’t about me)

I don’t have a better plan than what currently exists (although I have make specific proposals about dropping DRM and increasing MP3 quality levels in exchange for a small increase in price). But the answer to a bad system is not STEALING.

Pick up signs and go protest. Stop buying music through established channels in hopes that the industry will shrivel up and die. I support those efforts wholeheartedly. But that’s not what’s going on when someone like Michael pimps for the idea of “free music”. That just appeals to an already sucking ethical posture that’s so pervasive in this society that just tells people to “steal whatever you can”. What the hell? There’s no logic in that, and I don’t think anyone who makes that argument can have thought it through for real. I have thought it through, and I challenge others making downright stupid statements to do the same…and consider where this kind of thing is leading us as a society…especially our youth.

I don’t have the power to solve this problem myself. Michael doesn’t either. But just stoking these piracy fires is not a legitimate way to address a problem. Michael has a much better handle on the nature of business than I’ll ever have. What I’m saying is that he has access to tons of creative people and he’s better connected than most of us will ever be. Why not use that power for good in this particular case? Why not build a new platform so appealing in its reach that it would tempt major-label artists to just walk away from their established deals, and top indie artists to align with it? Why not find a way to let all the involved parties profit…AND to use the opportunity to evangelize for a better option, instead of encouraging theft and telling people that the walls are falling and we’ll soon have free music?

As far as your last comment: “Please don’t blame TechCrunch for giving us information on sites that aren’t doing anything illegal.”…this is not a standalone post. I am also referring back to past posts about free music on TC. And, yes…I am blaming TC for leading horses to water where there is only one real option: “Look, there it is. Go ahead and drink. Everyone else does. You might as well. Besides…music will all be free soon anyway!” Yes, I think that’s wrong and deserves to be challenged on ethical grounds.

http://fakesteveballmer.blogspot.com

Every song (mp3) on Seeqpod refers to http://4.71.164.199/ — just check it out.

http://www.last100.com/2007/09.....esnt-dare/

This is important to realize, the shape of music distribution has changed and been handed over to the search engines. It’s now up to them to come up with a model that benefits artists. This could happen as Google was able to come up with a revenue model, AdSense, that has benefited content publishers.

-inurl:(htm|html|php) intitle:”index of” +”last modified” +”parent directory” +description +size +(wma|mp3) “Nirvana”

Sure, it’s more technical/advanced than a normal Google search, but is that a defense against copyright infringement? No, search engines are simply not liable for infringement simply for linking to something. Even when Google removes sites from their index due to a DMCA notice, they link to the DMCA request which contains, you guessed it, the original links.

If seeqpod is liable, then so is Google/Yahoo/Microsoft.