Slashdot Mirror
UC Irvine Cracks Down on P2P
grendel20 writes "After years of dialup, one thing I was looking forward to the most about college was the fast ethernet connection. Upon arriving at UCI though, I found my kazaa speeds to be way below subpar. Apparently, UCI has limited access for all P2P programs with this fine piece of hardware. Now what do I do?" Whether you agree with what UC Irvine is doing or not, I do applaud them for publicizing and being straightforward about it. Upstream entities can implement these sorts of controls without telling users, and it's tempting to do so because it will reduce the number of user complaints.
Therefore, of the 60 mbs total bandwidth, 5 - 10 mbs is set aside for P2P.
Sounds perilously close to contributory copyright infringement to me.
Hey, asswipe:
If you're a freshman at Harvard, your parents are rich enough that you don't need to steal. Just ask your daddy for another $1k/week and buy all the CDs & DVD's you want.
And while you're at it, please Fuck Off And Die. THanks.
whether you pay straight out of your tuition or a seperate "technology fee" you are PAYING for the fucking service.
IMHO you have the RIGHT to use whatever software you wish. There is a point to using P2P software other than piracy (I don't care if you argue that 99.999+% of students aren't using it that way).
When ethernet connections come FREE with your tuition (and I do mean FREE) then they can dictate to you how you should use it. Until that point, fuck you and your rules.
If Time Warner came up to me tomo and said, "you know what? You can't use P2P software on our network anymore period." I would find someone else.
Problem with most Universities is that you CANNOT get another broadband provider in the residence halls. How is it fair to allow them to shut off or reduce the rates of speed on your service when YOU are paying for it?
Now, if this doesn't apply to this particular school (if ethernet connections come FREE, which they most likely don't) then applying it to this instance is moot but others will apply.
Isn't it ironic that the people that the people that complain about 90% of the world's wealth being held by 5% of the population (making a broad generalization of the Slashdot audience, based on the witnessed number of posts advocating anti-capitalism viewpoints, so that while the original poster may not follow that view, there's a better than 50% chance that s/he does) complain just as loudly when the situation is reversed? If 2% of the residents use 90% of the bandwidth (and the assumption is that the poster would be in that 2%), then how is that different from 5% of the world population holding 90% of the world wealth?
Personally, I'm the opposite. I don't care about the parity of wealth issue, and I think the university did the right thing limiting the P2P bandwidth.
Now what do I do?
Stop breaking the law, asshole!!
Founder, Americans Allied Against Alliteration
I think it should be up to the taxpayers funding the University if they want to pay for the 5mb pipe dedicated almost entirely to P2P.
Fine, but then those taxpayers are making a moral decision to support piracy.
Apparently no one seems to get my point about the spam hoster. By turning their back on the obvious piracy, they are making a moral decision to support pirates. Now personally I don't find piracy to be immoral, so I support what they're doing, but they are making a moral judgement.
Further, you can argue that they don't have proof of the piracy, but likewise spam-friendly ISPs don't have proof of the spam. You can't prove that the receiver didn't opt-in.
I should point out that I don't necessarily consider infringing copyright to be an intrinsic "wrong" -- more of a "technical wrong".
I don't think it's "wrong" at all, but still, supporting those who commit copyright infringement is making a moral judgement.