BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Radio & Music >

Audiogalaxy: dead

  
  

Page: (1)23

 
 
Matthew Fluxington
21:44 / 17.06.02
Well, if you haven't noticed already, nearly everything on Audiogalaxy save for tracks specifically hosted by the site have 'x''s next to them, thanks to the fucking RIAA.

Thanks a lot, RIAA. Now I'm a miserable guy til I can find a suitable alternative.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
21:48 / 17.06.02
This is what the RIAA have to say:

click

RIAA, NMPA Reach Settlement With Audiogalaxy.com


Recording Industry Association of America, National Music Publishers’ Association Reach Settlement with Audiogalaxy.com

New York, NY, June 17, 2002 – The recording industry, music publishers and songwriters announced today that they have reached an out-of-court settlement with Audiogalaxy.com, the Napster-like clone, which requires Audiogalaxy to stop the infringement of copyrighted works on their peer-to-peer network.

The agreement follows a lawsuit filed in late May accusing Audiogalaxy of facilitating and encouraging widespread copyright infringement – a last resort step after repeated efforts to warn the firm of their liability were ignored or resulted in ineffective attempts to fix the problem. The suit was brought by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), on behalf of its member labels, and the National Music Publishers’ Association (NMPA), on behalf of the music publisher principals of its licensing affiliate, The Harry Fox Agency, Inc.

The settlement reached would allow Audiogalaxy to operate a "filter-in" system, which requires that for any music available, the songwriter, music publisher, and/or recording company must first consent to the use and sharing of the work. The other key provision of the agreement is for Audiogalaxy to pay the music publishers and recording industry a substantial sum based on Audiogalaxy's assets and interest in resolving this case quickly.

"We are pleased to settle this case quickly. This is a victory for everyone who cares about protecting the value of music," said Hilary Rosen, Chairman and CEO of the RIAA. "This should serve as a wake-up call to the other networks that facilitate unauthorized copying. The responsibility for implementing systems that allow for the authorized use of copyrighted works rests squarely on the shoulders of the peer-to-peer network."

"The message is clear – there is no place on the Internet for services that exploit creators' work without fair compensation," added Edward P. Murphy, President and CEO, NMPA. "Such services hurt creators and hurt the legitimate Internet businesses that wish to comply with the law and compensate the creators. The swift resolution of this matter is thus a double victory that creators and legitimate Internet businesses should join in hailing." (more)

Audiogalaxy.com, based in Austin, Texas, was one of the more heavily trafficked file-sharing websites.

The Recording Industry Association of America is the trade group that represents the U.S. recording industry. Its mission is to foster a business and legal climate that supports and promotes our members' creative and financial vitality. Its members are the record companies that comprise the most vibrant national music industry in the world. RIAA® members create, manufacture and/or distribute approximately 90% of all legitimate sound recordings produced and sold in the United States.

In support of this mission, the RIAA works to protect intellectual property rights worldwide and the First Amendment rights of artists; conduct consumer industry and technical research; and monitor and review - - state and federal laws, regulations and policies. The RIAA® also certifies Gold®, Platinum®, Multi-Platinum™, and Diamond sales awards, Los Premios De Oro y Platino™, an award celebrating Latin music sales.

The National Music Publishers’ Association, Inc., founded in 1917, works to protect and advance the interests of the music publishing industry. With over 900 members, the NMPA represents the most important and influential music publishing firms throughout the United States.

The Harry Fox Agency, Inc. provides an information source, clearing house and monitoring service for licensing musical copyrights, and acts as licensing agent for more than 27,000 music publisher principals, who in turn represent the interests of more than 160,000 songwriters. Besides the core business functions of licensing, collections and distribution of royalties, HFA conducts periodic record company and other user audits on behalf of its principals. HFA is the licensing affiliate of the National Music Publishers’ Association.
 
 
Jack The Bodiless
22:02 / 17.06.02
Ok... I wasn't party to the big Napster debate you lot had back in the day, mostly because I had no PC of my own at the time and it didn't really matter to me.

Sooooo... anyone want to briefly fill me in on why the above legal shenanigans by the RIAA are not justified? Ethically, morally, legally, personal opinion, whatever... but it all sounds perfectly fair enough to me.
 
 
videodrome
22:22 / 17.06.02
"The message is clear – there is no place on the Internet for services that exploit creators' work without fair compensation," added Edward P. Murphy, President and CEO, NMPA.

This is all you need to read. Or, better, read this and add "...except for the recording industry itself." Don't buy Rosen's shit that the RIAA is doing this of the artists - she's worried about putting gas in her Lexus, not Bruce Springsteen's. The recording industry does more to exploit musicians than Napster or Audiogalaxy could ever dream of.

Go ahead and read Courtney's speech or Albini's article.
 
 
The Sinister Haiku Bureau
00:39 / 18.06.02
Sooooo... anyone want to briefly fill me in on why the above legal shenanigans by the RIAA are not justified? Ethically, morally, legally, personal opinion, whatever... but it all sounds perfectly fair enough to me.

In four words? People like public libraries.
 
 
Turk
04:46 / 18.06.02
"The recording industry does more to exploit musicians than Napster or Audiogalaxy could ever dream of."

Thereby rendering the copyright infringement via Audioglaxaxy any more or less illegal?
This is an awful topic for a lot of otherwise smart reasonable people. Whatever the true intentions of RIAA, the people who download copyrighted music from the internet for free and without the correct permission never have had or will have a leg to stand on. Like I said it's a shame, reasonable people blinded and somehow unable to see Naspter/Audiogalaxy for the free lunches nobody ever had a right to.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
04:55 / 18.06.02
I think the fundamental difference in opinion in this matter comes from how a person views music. If you view music as a commodity, as something that intrinsically involves dollar signs, then you take the RIAA's side in this matter. If you think of music as being important cultural information, something from which knowledge is gained, then you will agree that having valuable online libraries of this shared information is in the best interests of the people. This isn't even an argument against people selling records, or artists making money from their work. It is an argument in favor of libraries.

As far as I'm concerned, what the RIAA has done to Napster, Audiogalaxy, and whoever is next on their hitlist is about the same as the major book publishers of the world getting together and burning down every public library that they can find.
 
 
Turk
05:17 / 18.06.02
"As far as I'm concerned, what the RIAA has done to Napster, Audiogalaxy, and whoever is next on their hitlist is about the same as the major book publishers of the world getting together and burning down every public library that they can find."

If people with complete disregard to the wishes of publishers and authors duplicated library books at home and then shared it with the rest of the world who then in turn duplicated it themselves and shared it again, you would have made a fair comparison. Generally people don't do that. It would be a rotten thing to do.
 
 
The Sinister Haiku Bureau
05:43 / 18.06.02
Sorry D, but that 'physical copy' argument makes no sense, despite, or possibly because, it's part the copyright legislation. A couple of thought experiments: What if it were possible to read a book so quickly that you could loan it to anybody who wanted it so frequently that there was no difference between everybody having their own copy? Or what if the library in question had a million copies of a really popular book, and didn't care about overdue fees? Or what if you happen to have a photographic memory? Would you then be forced, under copyright law, to have a lobotomy ("to destroy the infringing material and the means to makes illegal copies" I think is how that chunk of the law is phrased, I could be wrong)?
Absurd examples, yes, but that's what happens when you try to treat information, which can, and should be allowed to replicate itself as much as possible,effectively for free, with material goods, which have an intrinsicly non-replicatable nature.
And isn't it worse to remove books from a library without the permission of the authors?
Of course, I could use this as a launching point for a sub-marxist critique of the music industry's attempts to skim off the excess value of a musicians work and the nature of the commodity, or an sub-anarcho-capitalist critique of how laws are used to prevent fair competition. But I won't.
 
 
Jackie Susann
05:47 / 18.06.02
surely at some point the RIAA will have to work out that the money it costs them to prosecute an endless series of online music libraries is more than the money they lose by having those service exist? did that sentence make sense?
 
 
Grey Area
07:53 / 18.06.02
The RIAA has more money than you can shake a fucking big stick at, and more than enough lawyers to hunt down and persecute file-sharing services until the cows come home. Their strategy is simply to make life so miserable for the existing file-sharing utilities that no-one will want to start up new services. It's only a matter of time and money.
 
 
nikon driver
08:11 / 18.06.02
so downloading music is infringement of copyright. so what. it opened up my world to so many artist's that i would probably never have heard otherwise - many of which are small bands that i go and see live because that's the way this whole thing works for me. the money i save buying cd's i put back into the artists/industry through going to live shows. i'd like to think that's the same for a lot of people. i mean is this something the RIAA have even considered?
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
09:12 / 18.06.02
I know that legally they are right, but;
"This is a victory for everyone who cares about protecting the value of music," said Hilary Rosen, Chairman and CEO of the RIAA.

Only from the point of view of those who think such value is expressed purely in momentary terms.
 
 
bio k9
09:46 / 18.06.02
Somehow I feel its my fault...I just got Audiogalaxy a couple of days ago. Damn.

Everyones flipping out and acting like TK+1 on the message boards over there instead of deciding where they're going to take their shared files. Too bad. Someone let me know if they find another good file share service (please?).
 
 
The Sinister Haiku Bureau
10:25 / 18.06.02
I'll probably go back to Limewire unless I find anything better. It might actually improve in terms of amount-of-stuff-there-is-out-there (on gnutella) now Audiogalaxy's down.
 
 
bio k9
12:23 / 18.06.02
Try XoloX. I get a little better results with it than I do with Limewire.
 
 
Jack The Bodiless
14:20 / 18.06.02
See, the impression I had is that people have the capability to download said files free and for their own use - as an addendum to buying the files, not as an alternative.

I think ephemerat told me a while back that the quality of the music in terms of the format available from Napster/Audiogalaxy was not as good as that which you could buy through legitimate means - hence it wasn't a valid argument to say that such pirating would replace the record industry's use of such files as commodities... people would use it as a jumping on point to purchase music they were interested in, rather than as a replacement, much as people use the radio (in principle, anyway).

So - assuming it hasn't happened already, I'm certainly no expert on file sharing and the technology therein - what happens when technology and progress in this regard does allow such high quality unofficial reproductions to exist and to be passed around for free? Will people still use it as an addendum to their record buying, or as an alternative? If you can lift Coldwater Suplex's new slamming choons straight onto your PC without paying, and thence onto something slim, sexy and portable, are you still going to rush out and buy it?

Eminem's latest was available in its entirety weeks before its official release. Someone tried to sell Noel Gallagher a copy of his own album prior to release recently. Once more people can get online cheaply, and download times, compression rates, whatever the terminology for this newfangled hocus pocus actually is, get better, bigger, faster and more, no artist will be able to get paid for making music. Doesn't that mean they'll stop?

Finally, I recognise that many artists have wholeheartedly supported such file sharing entities as Napster and Audiogalaxy. Equally, many have not. Shouldn't there therefore be some kind of safeguard in place to ensure that if you don't appreciate your music being shared free of charge, you can prevent it? It's one thing to share something freely donated, but quite another to take without consent and then to justify this by saying that music should not be a commodity. It's a very easy justification to make when you're continuing to get something valuable to you absolutely free. One might say that if you value an item, and value retaining said item, and would be annoyed should you be unable to retain said item - or if someone took it from you - then you also are in the process of viewing said item as a commodity. Just a thought...

Not being disingenuous, not trying to exaggerate the issue - just trying to get a clearer picture of the objections, because right now it seems that there are a lot of people getting good shit without paying that don't want to stop... I can certainly understand that (who would want to stop if that's the case!) - I'm just a little ambivalent about said people then appearing to appropriate a moral high ground on the issue.
 
 
Jack The Bodiless
14:29 / 18.06.02
D: "If people with complete disregard to the wishes of publishers and authors duplicated library books at home and then shared it with the rest of the world who then in turn duplicated it themselves and shared it again, you would have made a fair comparison. Generally people don't do that. It would be a rotten thing to do."

I think so too - but then, I'm a writer. I would like to be able to quit my day job and make a living writing novels and short stories. I understand that there are, however, people who, on a small scale, do a similar file-sharing deal as Audiogalaxy with certain of their favourite authors. I also understand that they have also been litigated against, or at least that the process is underway, because certain of the authors, who have never been especially well off, did not appreciate such an action being undertaken without their consent.
 
 
Cherry Bomb
14:32 / 18.06.02
No.





No.


No.



NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!

But...... Audiogalaxy made me so happy.
 
 
Jack The Bodiless
14:44 / 18.06.02
I should add - because the above post didn't make it clear - that most of the above is DA stuff, except maybe the ambivalence about a lot of the attitudes I'm seeing... just asking questions, you know? The comparison with writers isn't a perfect fit, because writers having their stuff scanned and kept is a) easier and quicker, as far as I know, with less technological investment to make it a reality, and b) more debilitating for the writer, in the sense that the only monies they really make from their stuff is through distribution of said stuff. You can't put a Harlan Ellison short story on as the soundtrack to a Gap advertisement, or do a book signing/reading tour expecting to pay your mortgage that way... bands/artists can, so it doesn't exactly work perfectly as an analogy... still, it's close.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
14:55 / 18.06.02
no artist will be able to get paid for making music. Doesn't that mean they'll stop?

Only the hacks will stop if there's no money in it, or more accurately, less money than they would have in the old distribution model. Thousands of people make music without making money from it. A lack of compensation has NEVER stopped people before, and it won't stop people in the future.

The industry is trying to stop the future - a future in which information and culture can spread freely, a future in which people can potentially have access to music as easily as they have access to the contents of their public library - easier even, since they would not have to deal with waiting for what they want to access to be in stock. Ultimately, I side with the people in this matter - I strongly believe that people should have a right to access to information and culture regardless of their income.

It is shameful that the RIAA is blaming the record industry's steady loss of sales on the file sharing of relative minority of people rather than on the fact that the industry is pricing records out of the hands of ordinary people. Even those who have a lot of money to burn will buy fewer records if the price is too high - it's just simple logic! If records were priced reasonably (somewhere in the $6-11 range), sales would inevitably increase, and file sharing would be viewed no differently than the public libraries that they are.

The analogy to the book business in the other thread is accurate - people still buy books, and people will still buy records. This isn't going to change, it's just going to diminish. There's no sense in fighting this, the RIAA will be made to look foolish when future generations look back on what they tried to do. Hilary Rosen will just look like Joe McCarthy and Fredric Wertham...

Personally, I've been using Audiogalaxy as something of a research tool for the past several months. I'm certain that I'm not the only one...I hate the fact that I can't read something and then decide to sample what I've read about via Audiogalaxy. It's horrible that myself and others can't use AG as a tool for expanding knowledge. (It's almost as horrible as the fact that all available alternatives to AG are poorly structured and anti-intuitive.)
 
 
Grey Area
15:02 / 18.06.02
Word on the use of Audiogalaxy as a research tool. Of the five CD's I have bought in the past two months, three were the result of me downloading two or three tracks from Audiogalaxy and deciding that the overall sound was good enough to merit buying the album. Now that Audiogalaxy's down, I loose that facility, and will probably tone down on my CD-buying (which is good news for my bank account). Plus add to this that my university blocks almost all of the download protocols out there, Audiogalaxy being one of the few that was reliable and worked without huge security issues.

I'll miss a lot of music. *sniff*
 
 
nikon driver
15:18 / 18.06.02
so what is the best alternative to audiogalaxy at the moment anyway?
i've currently got 3 p2p programs on my system: kazaalite, freewire and win mx. of these 3 i recommend kazaalite(available at kazaalite.com - however i think the site is down at the moment). kazaalite is identical to kazaa in every way except it has been stripped of the spyware which dogs the original. i have to admit that it's hardly audiogalaxy when it comes to downloading music, but it's the best thing i've tried so far. what about everybody else? what do people recommend?
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
15:41 / 18.06.02
Well, I've been trying out a few different p2p services, testing them out - Kaaza, Limewire, QTrax - every last one of them has been pathetic. I've been running the same tests on all of them. First, I check to see what comes up when I put in seaches for artists that I know very well - Pavement, Sonic Youth, Sleater-Kinney, and The Neptunes. Invariably, the results are a fucking mess, there's no rhyme or reason to the order of results. I hate that.

Second, I've been putting through searches for the more obscure interests that I have, and 90% of the time, there are no results. The databases on these services are of no help to me, not for the things that I most valued Audiogalaxy for.

Until someone makes something that functions in the clean, organized way that AG ran, or at very least the harddrives that made up that database are reunited, I'm totally fucked when it comes to seeking out obscure music.
 
 
Murray Hamhandler
16:00 / 18.06.02
From what I've heard, artists on major labels make a pittance from their CD's (most of their money, then, apparently comes from touring, merch, hustling ass to the ad industry, etc.). If this is the case, then the existence of sites like Audiogalaxy and Napster probably has very little effect on those artists themselves but might potentially pop a hole in the pockets of the execs, as someone said earlier. So this is pretty much all about them, it seems.

Radio and MTV are dinosaurs dropping big, stinking musical turds. File-sharing music sites provide the exposure so desperately needed by indie artists (or simply those that fall outside of current pop tastes) if they want to get their stuff heard on a large scale. Exposure through a couple of MP3's can make a huge difference for a small band that's barely scraping by. Becoming popular and well-liked through these avenues is much more egalitarian than the industry-steered direction of pop music today. Artists have the chance to gain recognition due to the quality of their work. The industry is, naturally, afraid of the people deciding for themselves what they're supposed to like, and it's also afraid that the public might see just how much the current popular standards pale in comparison to what is actually good.

I should note that, since I don't have access to any terribly decent computers, my use of Napster and Audiogalaxy has been pretty much nil, but I would have loved to have had more access to them while they were up. As it is, I discover music the old fashioned way. Namely, by taking lots of chances and spending hundreds of dollars a month on CD's (as inadvisable a course of action as that may be at times).
 
 
Murray Hamhandler
16:02 / 18.06.02
Another file-sharing program that I'm vaguely aware of is Morpheus. I can't vouch for its quality, but people I know have found some decent stuff on there.
 
 
Cherry Bomb
16:13 / 18.06.02
Personally I've had nothing but trouble with Morpheus programs. The versions I use crash constantly, load slowly, etc. Still, that's me, and I've heard other people have had good results.

The music industry is really shooting itself in the foot with this kind of crap. The vast majority of people who use services like Napster and Audiogalaxy are people who really love music and regularly buy albums. I can't believe they don't see that they're alienating their own customers.
 
 
cusm
16:15 / 18.06.02
SoulSeek also comes with good reviews. It has smart organization and communication between users. You can slso browse a user's directory listings, which is really helpful. Especially as it lets you download directory trees at a time.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
16:42 / 18.06.02
Thanks for the tip off for SoulSeek. It is certainly the best alternative to Audiogalaxy that I've used thus far, and I'm going to stick with it for a little while, I think. The contents of my mp3 library are available on there, so if you at least want what I have (like, say, things I've pimped), that's where to find them.
 
 
videodrome
17:16 / 18.06.02
I was just about to post thanks for the tip on Soulseek, but Flux beat me to the punch.

As for the morality of downloading, for me it's simple. If people make good music, having the ability to download it only increases the chance that I'll buy a record. I've bought so many discs that would never have made it as a blind purchase, and all because of Audiogalaxy/Napster. If some of the big-label fake-rock acts have top watch their sales slump because they've been exposed as musical frauds, well, they get what they deserve.

Oh, and by the way, Hilary? That whole slumping sales thing? You probably haven't noticed, but the US is in a fucking RECESSION. That $18 Mudvayne disc at Sam Goody doesn't look so good compared to food.
 
 
Ria
18:21 / 18.06.02
err... much frustration. I never did find a mac version of audiogalaxy which Stuffit Expander could open. any Mac alternatives or successors to LimeWire (annoying, slow, hardly any good stuff) or MacTella (so slow I didn't bother to use it). thanx in advance.
 
 
Turk
18:27 / 18.06.02
"Sorry D, but that 'physical copy' argument makes no sense, despite, or possibly because, it's part the copyright legislation."
Indeed, it doesn't matter what medium you duplicate copyrighted material into. So what?

"Or what if you happen to have a photographic memory? Would you then be forced, under copyright law, to have a lobotomy ("to destroy the infringing material and the means to makes illegal copies" I think is how that chunk of the law is phrased, I could be wrong)?
Absurd examples, yes"
Yes, absurd enough to ignore. What isn't absurd is to say Audiogalaxy strongly encourages widespread duplication of copyrighted material and closing it down is not similar to forced dramatic brain surgery.

", but that's what happens when you try to treat information, which can, and should be allowed to replicate itself as much as possible,effectively for free, with material goods, which have an intrinsicly non-replicatable nature."
The information argument, it's shameful. In that world no musician should get payed for anything they produce, it's only information and that belongs to all mankind. If they want money, they should stop prostituting the human mind and learn to make furniture or something, right?
Maybe we could say the same for accountants, columnists or basically anybody who only handles information for job. The leaching scum, making money for themselves using... information, it belongs to ME dammit!

Ah well, you guys who defend Audiogalaxy use some really strange comparisons and arguments sometimes. Those websites which 'defend the freedoms of the internet' whilst in some cases quite worthy must also employ some kind of hypnotic background graphics. Some kind of mind-control is at hand here. Either sense has gone out of the window, or possibly philosophy students are on the warpath.
 
 
nikon driver
18:38 / 18.06.02
result!!!

soulseek is cool. way better alternative than kazaa etc. kinda napster-ish, but it has the ability to continue downloads. and while i was using it, i got chatting to some guy who said most audiogalaxy users have actually started using something called 'filetopia'. i tried downloading it and it looks okay, but it wouldn't work on my system as it isn't windows XP compatible.

but someone should check it out. go on flux, you know you want to.
 
 
videodrome
19:13 / 18.06.02
D, let's not generalize everyone who defend Audiogalaxy and the like into 'you guys', alright? Some of us have made no arguments like the one you relate.

First:
Maybe we could say the same for accountants, columnists or basically anybody who only handles information for job. The leaching scum, making money for themselves using... information, it belongs to ME dammit!

See, the background here is that this is exactly what's being said, and you've nailed who's saying it. Hilary Rosen does not represent artists. She represents an industry that treats artists like indentured servants. If you've not read the summaries of a typical record contract that I linked above, I strongly suggest you do so.

So.

Some above have tried to make comparisons between the music industry and situations such as publishing. I think that many of those comparisons, regarding copying and whatnot, are off base. But the inarguable fact is this: you can read part of a book in a bookshop. You can rent a movie. Most forms of entertainment have some sort of try before you buy mechanic. The record industry thinks it does, by way of singles and radio, as well as MTV. But what if you're outside the reach of those demographics, as I am? I haven't watched MTV in years. If I know there's a video I want to see, I go to Usenet and download it. That's promotional material, so apparently there's no argument with that. I don't listen to commerical radio. Ever. Even if I could take the DJs and the commericals, they'd be playing very little I want to hear. Occasionally I check out indie radio, but not very often. So what's left? Fact is that there's very little way for anyone who likes music outside a defined set of genres to try new records, other than shelling out for them. Most of us can't do that all the time, regardless of sticker price. Peer-to-peer sharing is the mechanic that fits perfectly. I download full CDs, but I don't burn them. If I find myself listening to something more than a few times, I buy it. If not, I delete it. Simple. I know not everyone does the same, but I feel absolutely no guilt or shame about my use of the service.

But even if the example is a person who likes mainstream music and listens to commercial radio, what then? In the US, the single format is gone. Very few are released and at the asking price for singles, the higher price for a disc with many more songs on it seems alright. But it's not. Affordable singles would go a long way towards treating the hemmorhage of consumers flowing out of the record shops. I know that the highly touted disc by X that has a couple great single is going to be, largely, shite. Experience has taught me this. Do I pay $8-10 for a single, $18 for the disc, or download? Easy choice. Would I pay a couple bucks for a download of the single? Perhaps, with a probability that rises very high if I knew the musician would get the cash. Which they won't.

Simple fact is that the industry is broken, and peer to peer downloading is a symptom, not the cause. I want to give artists my money. You may not believe this, but it's true. I will accept a fee-based service that puts money in the hands of the people who wrote and performed the music I like. I will not pay for a system that relies on a proprietary format or one with built-in expiration dates on files. I will not go out of my way to put money in the pockets of record company executives and lawyers. Its that simple. The RIAA can fight, but as demonstrated very aptly in the referrals above, another service (or 3) will take Audiogalaxy's place. And we'll continue, until a way is found to make the money go to the right people. Until then, Hilary and the RIAA can continue to fuck off.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
19:16 / 18.06.02
Okay - I've been playing around with Filetopia, and I think it's pretty good. I think I'm going to use both Filetopia and SoulSeek for the moment - it's a little too early for me to suss out which is better. I think Filetopia is a bit more organized and easier to use, but I really like the function in SoulSeek that allows you to go through people's personal libraries. It seems like Filetopia has a slighty better cumulative library, but I could be wrong.
 
  

Page: (1)23

 
  
Add Your Reply