Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Protecting Clients: Legal Impact of Filesharing Network Design

Posted by michael on from the when-lawyers-attack dept.

Cryogenes writes "InfoAnarchy has posted an excellent piece on legal issues faced by participants in a P2P network. The article is written by Fred von Lohmann who was previously noted on /. for the white paper IAAL*: Peer-to-Peer File Sharing and Copyright Law after Napster (which you can find on the EFF site here)."

3 of 123 comments (clear)

  1. Freenet has no legitimate purpose. by Giant+Hairy+Spider · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Any legitimate use is a by-product of its illegitimate purpose, just like on Napster: if you're there to copy a dozen commercial songs, and you find one you think you might like which happens to be legally copyable, it only makes sense to grab it while you're there; that doesn't mean you'd sign on for that reason. With Freenet, it's more about porn and warez, but the same principle applies.

    Freenet is inconvenient and, frankly, silly compared to the web. It's sole advantage is that it makes it hard to pin down copyright violators for legal action, because they pop up and disappear in a matter of hours.

    --

    ---
    You'd be surprised at the broadband connection available to things crawling around in your hair.
  2. If you really want to slow down new laws... by case_igl · · Score: 2, Flamebait
    ...go buy a CD, DVD, and a new piece of software once a month!

    Really, some people here are so out of it...The reason that the companies are so irritated is that they have it in their heads that they are losing big money because of illegal replication of their products. You know what? They ARE!

    I'll be the first one to say that CDs are overpriced, but companies only understand one thing and that is being profitable.

    Corporations, as well as the legal system, are organized and used to things taking years to play out. The community at large is not. I don't think for a second that designing new ways to share files is going to "win" against a corporation that knows they are losing sales.

    At best, more people share files illegally and get the media companies more upset. End result is they further increase prices for the majority of people worldwide who don't know how to download Metallica and burn it onto a CD for their Linux enabled car.

    It's not your right to steal someone else's product, regardless of what you think of the price. If you don't want to pay, don't buy it.

    People will be pretty upset in a few years when we lose more personal liberties because a small percentage of people insist they can pirate the latest Britney Spears type groups (which by the way the media companies you love to hate engineered from the ground up to be popular, yet you MUST have it!?)

    Case

  3. Typical attorney ambiguity by serutan · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    When you read the whole conversation, von Lohman essentially says, "I don't know if it's legal or not," which is how almost any lawyer answers almost any really interesting question. At some point he even says, "You should consult an attorney...before proceeding." Well then what's that guy gonna say? Instead of figuring out more ways to weasel around copyright law, how about if we figure out how to change it, so we can quit having these discussions? See an earlier /. story (The essay link is now broken, but the comments are worth reading.)