Slashdot Mirror
Howard Berman Talks About P2P Piracy Prevention Act
An anonymous reader writes "I know Rep. Berman is not held in high regard on Slashdot, but he has posted an article on Findlaw where he discusses his self- help for P2P piracy bill. He has not convinced me that this is about preventing theft, rather than preserving old business models, but the bill does appear to have a lot of safeguards built-in." I'm confused about what measures Berman believes would be acceptable, after reading the many disclaimers here.
Ah, is this the new justification for stealing? I'm starting to see this phrase more and more. "You see, your honor, I didn't actually steal this stereo. It was that Circuit City has an outdated business model!"
How about this: if you like the product and think it's worth the money, pay for it. If you don't, then don't buy it. Maybe I'm just old fashioned and "out of touch" to think that people should be paid for their work.
Yeah, that must be it.
> Most of the 150 million or more P2P software downloaders believe they will never be hauled into court, and they are right.
"...and I'm eternally grateful that so few of them bother to vote."
I do not care how many safeguards are built into this law, it is still nothing more than legalized vigilantism. The right to determine guilt and mete out punishment belongs in the hands of our justice system, and not in the pockets of billionaire movie producers.
This is wrong, wrong, wrong. Sugar coating poison might improve taste, but it will still kill you.
The bill specifically states that the safe harbor does not allow a copyright owner to delete or alter any file or data on the computer of a file trader. Thus, a copyright owner can't send a virus to a P2P pirate. Nor can it remove any files on the pirate's computer. Nor can it even remove files that include the pirated works. All it can do is impair the illegal distribution or reproduction of those works through a public P2P network.
While it may help to stop people from destroying your local computer's files it will NOT stop them from DoS attacking you?
They need to be held accountable for ANY and ALL financial damage that they do to the computer that was being attacked AND the computers around the original that were also being hindered by their attack.
While I agree that P2P have little use outside of illegal activities (outside of FurthurNET and the like) I don't think that these laws are the way to put a stop to it.
Nor do I believe that infesting the P2P networks w/poor files does it either.
I know that ATTBI was disabling users that were leaving movies in their shared folders (yes, ATTBI users be careful). I believe that going through the ISP may be the only method. If the ISP doesn't cooperate, uhh, sorry.
No matter what you do, no matter what measures you take, you can't constraint what you do or not do with computers.
/. stories. Please make the voices stop.
...
It all started in a garage, as a hobby. If necessary, it will start again in a garage.
Those who love computers and the community created because (and with the help) of them can not stop to do their thing, irrelevant if it's moral or immoral, legal or illegal.
Computers are tools. No more, no less than your common screwdriver. "Clever" tools, yes, but what you do with them is *use* them.
I'm sick and tired of all these p2p-related
now where is that asbestos suit
Looking for people to chat about multicopters, coding, music. skype: gtsiros
How about some legislation to make music subscription services possible? The record companies have driven musicbank, myplay and napster out of business by making it impossible to get reasonable licensing terms. Legal distribution technology was built before napster ever appeared but the music business saw this as too much of a threat to do business with.
There should be legislation for a compulsory on-demand music license, a flat fee for one off streams and higher fees for downloads. Oh then they should fix up that silly CARP royalty rate so that we can have small stations again....
RIAA Sues Radio Stations For Giving Away Free Music
ARE YOU A PHP DEVELOPER? WORK WITH ME ANE MAKE MILLIONS!
Web Developer II
MARIJUANA, SHROOMS, X: ONLINE?! - E
Assuming everything in the article is to be believed (and that I understood what he was trying to say correctly), copyright holders can only take technical measures to stop the distribution of a file if it doesn't interfere with the distribution of the other files and doesn't cause any (much?) harm to the computer and doesn't affect the stability of the network or the ISP. To be quite honest, I'm not even sure this is technologicly feasable. If they aren't allowed to root my box, how are they supposed to stop me from sharing a single file?
The only explination I can come up with is that either Berman thinks that it is feasable for the RIAA et al to do this, or he doesn't think its feasable but feels obligated to pass useless legislation for people who I assume are compaign donors.
Of course, if it is possible to stop the sharing of a single file, remotely, without taking drastic measures, then I want to know how...
The problem is that I just can't believe it, because (perhaps due to stupidity) I cannot imagine any way for the counter-attacks to be so narrowly limited, and yet still be at all effective.
This leads me to believe that this law, the way Berman is describing it is absolutely useless and no one will ever have any opportunity to use it for any purpose. But then why is it being purchased? Probably because there's some backdoor or technicality, so that someone will be able to use it beyond the scope that Berman is talking about. I'm getting a whiff of that "too good to be true" stench, and think that in a few years Berman will be saying something like "I had no idea it would be abused in that manner."
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
My first reaction is that this notification clause means that if you ask the person you are trading with whether they are knowlingly giving you a bogus file, then they are obligated by this bill to disclose that. Can that be right? Wouldn't that just mean that you could send a Kazaa IM saying "is this file legit", and if you get back an negative answer go ahead and download. That might be an interesting balance - if you had to do this by hand, it might move file trading back to a level difficulty similar to copying tapes (i.e., not that hard for one, but mass distribution's not worth it for the average consumer), which I think was a good balance.
Also interesting is the requirement of listing tactics with the AG's office. Is this information available under FOIA? What exactly do the record companies have to disclose?
Maybe I should peruse the text of the bill before coming up with more theories.
This bill is written in such a very diabolically clever way. It sounds so reasonable and safe, but as they say, the devil is in the details. Berman points to all the safeguards and asks how a reasonable person could possibly be against such a harmless little self-help measure. But there are so many exceptions and limits that those safeguards have no teeth. The most telling thing to me is that the RIAA wouldn't say what they would do if this law was passed that they cannot already do legally. The two examples of actions they would take, (1. seeding P2P with fake files and 2. finding shared files and intiating multiple slow-throughput connections to the host so it accepts no other users) are already legal.
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
One must remember that if a copyright owner _were_ accused of damaging someone's computer, it would still be up to the plaintiff to prove that the copyright owner violated one of the safeguards in the Berman bill. Considering that most copyright owners who will use this bill are corporations with millions invested in lawyers, any individual who wishes to sue them under one of the bill's safeguards will find himself fighting an uphill legal battle against some of the country's best lawyers.
As we've seen in the past, simply the threat of legal difficulties is enough to make people settle a case they might have every reason to win. If this bill passes, we may see the media companies using their vast legal strength to strongarm people away from valid lawsuits.
From the TV/Movies/Music industry.
..
Yeah baby, our boy has sucked on the Entertainment tit for
Ready for this?
$1 9 4 , 6 4 1
He is going to lie at every chance possible because like ALL politicians, Republican or Democrat, he walks whatever line pays him money.
There are no exceptions, Berman is quite literally full of shit and acting only in the best interest of his masters.
If a copyright owner can find a way to only impair the piracy of her copyrighted work on a P2P network, she will have no liability. A copyright owner who does more will still be liable.
/.ers out there, but I certainly can't afford my own in-house counsel. If I get my files wiped out, I'll curse, I'll scream, I'll rant on this website (for damned sure), but I won't be able to afford a suit.
If you think about it, this shifts the burden entirely on the P2P user.
The Congressman is correct when he states that there is no way that Record Companies can drag 150 million downloaders into court. What this legislation does is allow the record companies to take matters into their own hands and then see who has the stones to come back and sue the record company if they go too far.
Think about it: If a company sends a virus to your computer that wipes out all mp3 files, whether legitimate or not, are you going to sue the record companies? I don't know about any other
I think the record companies are betting on this. Much like the way they do business in general, they'll just sit back and make everything and everyone come to them.
Brilliant. I think barring a class action suit or a really rich person who gets a vital business document wiped out, the companies are pretty safe from anybody watchdogging excessive vigilantism.
Although....how ironic would it be if Shawn Fanning came back to sue the very companies that killed Naptser? Almost makes me want to take up a pre-emptive collection.
-FC
Naturally, they want to end free music on the radio, The RIAA wants Pay-for-Play radio. Let's hope lawsuits and trying to buy legislation both fail.
The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
To hear him tell it, the bill doesn't allow anything that is currently illegal. The bill also obviously doesn't say what it DOES allow. To hear his description of this very vague law, it would seem to be completely unnecessary. Therefore, the fact that it's out there implies that it actually does something. Therefore, he must be lying.
WARNING: there is a trojan on your
I know for a fact that this simply not true. I am currently a memeber of an industrial band. The only place people have heard my music is from downloading it off of P2P networks. I do have a siteon mp3.com (Mendeleev's Machine). However, very few people have visited it. I have gotten more exposure on P2P networks by sending messages to people (on KaZaA) or by chatting to people (DirectConnect). I am able to tell them about my band and they download it and give it a try.
P2P has given me a free method of distributing my music. And I currently don't care much if others download my music. I would not be receiving any money anyways. I am making music because I like it and I want to let others listen to my creations. P2P gives me an easy method to do so.
neurostarThey set the prices (they have settled and been fined a minimal amount) and we have to pay them. There's no real other option for music lovers.
If you can't afford Britney Spears, switch to another band on another label. In addition to the Universal label, Vivendi also offers the mp3.com label, which has mostly new bands, and a CD usually costs less than $10.
Will I retire or break 10K?
How hard is it to run a line out to your sound card?
How hard is it for Congress to close the analog hole and criminalize the possession of high-end audio equipment without an audio engineering license?
Will I retire or break 10K?
In order to prevent the massive graft and fraud perpitrated by our elected officials, today the "Sane Legislation Protection Act" was proposed in the House, it allows voters who participated in the last election to take a baseball bat to the body of their elected officials, when and if they vote in a manner inconsistant with the platform on which they ran.
In order to ensure that this does not lead to massive abuse, citizen voters will need to file notice with their municipality prior to any thrashing. No evidence is required as it is assumed that a full confession will be produced as a matter of course. Additionally, any damage to property not directly on the body of the elected official, under a $250 threshold, is specifically protected as part of the cost of ensuring freedom to the citizens of this great land.
Without a corporate sponser it is assumed this legislation is dead on arrival.
The music distribution industry is killing itself.
Running a business means one thing that they miss:
Find a customer need/desire
-then-
Fill the customer need/desire in a way that satisfies the customer while making a profit.
They don't have their eye on the ball any more. The customer doesn't want what they have to sell in the format they want to sell it in. Therefore, the customers are looking elsewhere.
Because the customer does not want what they have to sell, they will either go out of business (however long that takes) or learn to fill the customers needs/wants. Either way the "modern" music consumer will win in the end.
If this law passes or not, music consumers will find a way to get their wants/needs filled. The horse is out of the barn. The consumer will work around the RIAA roadblocks in order to fill their need/want of a certain style of music listening.
-Pete
Soccer Goal Plans
Okay, the RIAA is more than welcome to launch all of the attacks on my system they wish to. I reserve the right to viciously retaliate with whatever is handy. If I have a CCW and some person takes a shot at me with a gun, so I pull mine and fire back... it doesn't matter that the person was an off duty cop, they didn't tell me, and they tried to kill me, self defense.
I suggest we all just prepare to have very fun "self defense" tools ready.
This chucklehead is my congresscritter.
And my senators are Boxer (0wn3d by MPAA/RIAA) and Feinstein. (0wn3d by MPAA/RIAA)
The guy who's challenging Berman for the 28th District on the Republican side would rather be Mayor of the San Fernando Valley, and is (not) campaigning accordingly. There's a Libertarian, but as a third-party candidate he has two chances: slim and none.
Representative government? Ha! What a fsckn joke.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
By and large, what Rep. Berman says is irrelevant. What matters is what is in the bill.
He can clarify until he's blue in the face, but until he changes the contents of the bill, he's talking out his hat. Everything anyone has said about the bill, every criticism, is still in full force. This does very little to negate any of it.
The exception is that some courts can consider the "intent of Congress" if they want, but depending on that to clearly define the purpose of the bill is awfully cavalier, at best.
You are far, far too cynical.
Berman isn't acting only in the best interest of his masters.
He's acting in his own best interests. They only happen to coincide with RIAA's, insomuch that his interest is in getting big bucks from RIAA.
Offer him $194,642 and you'll find that his interests suddenly happen to coincide with yours!
You gotta love politicians, 'cause it's illegal to shoot 'em...
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
What you are suggesting, on the other hand, is that it is morally justifiable to steal from someone simply because you think their asking price is too high. This position is indefensible.
I am not a file trader and I cannot stand people that distribute others hard work. However I don't think anyone should be given this type of vigilante authority. I will guarantee that anyone attacking my machine for any reason will be immediately sought out and destroyed. Oh hell pass the bill we need some incentive to create reverse attack p2p firewalls.
Got Code?
Sunnyvale ....yea riiiiiiggghhhtttt
Got Code?
Legal notice: the following statements represent my opinion, and is not to be taken as a statment of fact. Now, with that libel safe harbor in place :-)
Your a f***ing liar Berman! Plain and simple. That article is almost entirely bullshit. I can't believe an elected representative would stand up and put their name on bald faced lies which are easily discovered. Where to start:
If a copyright owner can find a way to only impair the piracy of her copyrighted work on a P2P network, she will have no liability. A copyright owner who does more will still be liable. For instance, if her actions have some other effect - such as knocking a corporate network offline, or wiping out files - she will remain liable under whatever previous theory was available.
This is a lie. The law provides a clear exemption for copyright owners who disrupt the distribution of other files on a p2p network. From the bills list of things which cause a copyright owner to lose the protection of the bill:
"(A) impairs the availability within a publicly accessible peer-to-peer file trading network of a computer file or data that does not contain a work, or portion thereof, in which the copyright owner has an exclusive right granted under section 106, except as may be reasonably necessary to impair the distribution, display, performance, or reproduction of such a work, or portion thereof, in violation of any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner under section 106;" (emphasis added)
You could drive a truck thru that loophole, which Berman doesn't mention. If fact, his statment A copyright owner who does more will still be liable. is simply a lie.
Moving on in his article, we find this little gem:
The bill specifically states that the safe harbor does not allow a copyright owner to delete or alter any file or data on the computer of a file trader. Thus, a copyright owner can't send a virus to a P2P pirate. Nor can it remove any files on the pirate's computer. Nor can it even remove files that include the pirated works.
This qualification is no where in the bill. The entire list of actions which constitute a copyright holder overstepping their bounds is listed on page three. And There are only three of them. The first is (A) listed above. The second is (B)causes economic loss to any person other than affected file traders
But the third is the real killer.
(C) causes economic loss of more than $50.00 per impairment to the property of the affected file trader, other than economic loss involving computer files or data made available through a publicly accessible peer-to-peer file trading network that contain works in which the owner has an exclusive right granted under section 106; or (emphasis added)
So if they can't delete the infringing files, why are the infriging files exempted for the amount of the "economic loss"? How could those files possibly involve any economic loss if the copyright owner can't "delete or alter" the files? Jesus, I can't believe a lie that blanant.
Another non-existant protection:
The safe harbor is also lost if the anti-piracy action causes more than de minimis loss to the property of the P2P pirate. This limitation represents a recognition that even pirates should not be seriously harmed by copyright owners.
Once again, this is nowhere in the list of actions which cause a copyright owner to lose their "safe harbor". Nowhere. To claim otherwise is quite simply a lie. Once again.
Finally, the safe harbor is lost if the copyright owner fails to notify the Attorney General of the anti-piracy technologies she plans to use, or if she fails to identify herself to an inquiring file-trader. These notification provisions ensure that copyright owners who choose to employ self-help measures will operate in the light of day.
Fails to identify themselves to an inquiring file-trader? The requirements in the bill force the affected party to determine the copyright owner who took the action thru their own means and contact them. After the fact. So when I get up in the morning and a bunch of files are missing, how am I supposed to know what happened to them? Or why they're gone? Or who did it? Write a letter to every single RIAA member asking if they did it? Oh yeah, that's really the "light of day". More bullshit if you ask me.
An aggrieved party - perhaps a P2P user or an ISP - can sue the copyright owner for any remedy available under current law. For instance, the aggrieved party might be able to bring a civil action under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act or a state denial of service statute.
Sure, but there's just one hoop to jump thru. You have to get permission from the Attorney General first! And if the AG doesn't like your claim, too bad. Game over. No process for appealing such a decision is granted. Since when am I required to obtain the AG's permission to file a civil lawsuit? The only reason for such a clause is to provide a way to reduce the number of lawsuits RIAA members would be subjected to under this bill. After all, why let the courts decide civil suits when a political appointee like the AG can do it!
Gah, I'm so mad I could spit. You're a liar Berman. Liar liar, pants on fire. Anybody who votes for this guy next fall is a moron in my opinion.
There should be legislation for a compulsory on-demand music license
There already exists a compulsory mechanical license for an underlying musical work that has already been recorded and published, which means you can have your cover band[1] re-perform the work and then sell phonorecords[2] of that. Though this license does not grant access to the original recording, some covers go on to be more popular than the original recording, especially when performed in an original arrangement (which is permitted to a limited extent in the compulsory license law).
[1] cover band n. (Popular music) A musician or team of musicians that primarily performs covers[3].
[2] phonorecord n. (Copyright law) A copy of a sound recording, such as a vinyl record, a tape, a CD, a downloaded compressed audio file, or any other medium on which a sound can be fixed.
[3] cover n. (Popular music) A sound recording of a musical work that had been made popular through another recording. The artist performing a cover generally pays a songwriter's publisher the statutory royalty rate (about eight cents per copy) for the right under copyright law to record and distribute phonorecords of a musical work.
Will I retire or break 10K?
To an extent, both of the currently lawful attacks you pose are easy to hold off.
seeding P2P with fake files
The nature of P2P file sharing systems that use multi-source downloading is that files with a lot of sources will tend to get downloaded more often, and crappy files won't have a lot of sources because they're either deleted before they're shared, or renamed to "* (Promo).mp3" as happened with the first copies of "Barenaked Ladies - Pinch Me.mp3" that went on the P2P systems.
finding shared files and intiating multiple slow-throughput connections to the host so it accepts no other users
My P2P software already detects this. If less than 67% of the nominal outgoing bandwidth (set in the Throttle box) is used over a 60-second window, it starts another queued upload.
Will I retire or break 10K?
The fact of the matter is that the **AA, the copyright cartels, have not proved that their incomes, or the artists which they rip o.. er, represent, have been damaged by Kazaa et al.
Their shrieks and cries of doom, and destruction, on the contrary, echo their histrionic historical wailings, about every new media development under the sun, decimating their livelihoods.
None of that has come to pass.
Let a few truly independent investigations be run, on the claim that the copyright cartels have suffered loss that warrants such draconian laws, and then maybe, we can talk to them, and treat them as deserving of our "concern" (for want of a better term.)
At the moment, all we have is a bunch melodramatic control freaks, in a behaviour-loop, with no proven basis for their "concerns."
As such, people who know their track record (no pun intended) choose to treat them with the contempt they deserve, and will continue to deserve, until they stop lying, distorting, dissembling and duping, and come up with some independently verified, hard facts that merit that anything is done.
In my humble opinion.
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
if MP3's could have only only achieve a maximum bit rate of 56kbps, do you really think Napster would have been such a big threat?
Easy. Recordings would be pirated as two files, one containing the low frequencies and the other containing the highs. A similar technique (low bitrate MP3 on the low frequencies and something else on the highs) is used by PlusV and mp3PRO.
Actually, mono at 56 kbps, with suitable pre-processing, doesn't sound too bad. Not exactly CD quality, but not AM radio either. It sounds more than good enough to put on a pocket music player.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Though I'm not sure that he accurately represented his bill, as I haven't read his bill. I believe one lowers one's intelligence and writing level by reading legal documents; they're all poorly written, and I don't want to subjugate myself to that. However, after posting this message, for the befit of /. [I'm sure all of you want my words of wisdom (;-)], I'll read the bill. I'll post a commentary on the bill later.
Firstly, I don't support this type of bill. Let it be known off the bat and out front that I support file-sharing services, no matter what files are being shared. I believe in the freedom of information. However, I would accept some limitations, were copyrighted music to be limited to only 10 years.
But, assuming we go with this law, I have some serious concerns with it. All of his safegaurds will prove irrelevant if we have to PROVE that the copyright owners stepped outside of the protected bounds. The bill should state that copyright owners have to PROVE that they were within the protected bounds.
I am also concerned about an escalation of counter-efforts between P2P developers and the Intellectual Property industry. Invariably, P2P developers will win, as we develop under either OSS or FS models, which allow for problems to be rapidly fixed. However, its still a problem. More and more layers of code will be added as P2P developers code to counter the IP-industry's attacks. This will contribute towards hyper-bloatation of software code, and lots of wasted effort in which will amount to a futile cycle.
I'm also concerned about the minimal amount of damage that IP owners can be held liable for, something like $200 dollars worth. I may not have $200 dollars worth of software on my computer, since I've downloaded it for free from Debian.org, and you couldn't put an $200 dollar market price on the data-files I own (things I've written, pictures, icons, etc). But to ME, its worth a lot. To me, the information I have on my computer is worth more than my car.
Aside from that, even if this bill implements the protections I suggest to punish all transgressions by IP interests, more users would still be harmed (many) by the attacks of IP interests than are today (nearly none, as no IP interest dares launch such an attack).
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Did the industry give the politician money, and then they voted they way they want, or does industry just give money to people who have the same attitudes to them
With all the absurd crap Congress has been pushing lately, the former seems much more likely.
I pledge allegiance to the flag...
of the Corporate States of America...
One of the issues not addressed by Berman in the article or the bill itself is this: the mere presence of an item on a p2p network does not prove infringement. How are the copyright holders supposed to prove that someone is infringing on their copyright?
Most of the time, determination that a violation of law has taken place is done by the court system. Berman's bill has no provision for determining whether a given copyright is actually being infringed, nor does it specify a process that a copyright holder would go through to determine that a copyright is being infringed.
This and this alone should be enough to cause problems. By allowing private entities to determine and prosecute violations of law, the bill essentially places police power in the hands of private entities.
Write your congressman to complain! Most of them are lawyers, so should understand reasonable arguments. One plus is the bill is relatively short, so should be easy to comprehend.
Only you can prevent Bad Law!
once we are all required to have a fritz chip and MSFT palladium software (and yes this bill is out there and being pushed thanks to the right good gentleman from NC) this will all be irrelevant. it will happen automatically. all your files will be compared to a central DB to determine if you own them. by Gen 2, your own microprocessor will do this. no new software will run unless it does. if you don't own the rights, it will be deleted by your own system. any software, anywhere can be instantly revoked in this manner if your PC is on a network. give this some thought. now imagine a new breed of virus. picture the whole US getting a format c:. then go vote.
mudweasel "and i wudda gotten away with it too if it hadn'ta been for you meddling kids."
Forgot to log in! (damn)
Other post with same subject can either be ignored, or read, your choice. It is reproduced below.
I do not fit this mold.
I actually *want* to pay to download music. The labels made a big mistake when they rejected the Napster proposal.
Downloading software I don't own used to be a big deal, but only because I wanted to learn about it before wasting my money. I have never made a dime off of software I did not own. Today, getting demo copies of things is a lot easier. This also makes OSS tools attractive to me because I don'e have to worry so much about the license.
I want unencumbered computers because:
I believe I have the right to do what I wish with the hardware I own. Same for media. This has been true my whole life and people made lots of money, why can't this continue?
I want Peer to Peer because it is a great technology that we have not yet fully explored. It has a lot of potential for those who want to explore distribution methods that are *not* beholden to the corporations. I pay for hardware, in some cases software, and bandwidth, why is it wrong to use the two to benefit me?
As for old business models, yep, they are old. I was taught that in this society, you either adapt or die. If you are not improving your business process, then be sure your competetors are. The media industries are not adapting, they are litigating...
So, I agree that something needs to be done because, in the case of music right now, things are clearly wrong, but I am not greedy, just wary of losing my rights.
Rights are funny things in that they are very hard to obtain, but very easy to give away.
Remember, not everyone here believes everything said.
Blogging because I can...
Right now the Illegal activities are the killer app, there is no doubt about that.
Does this mean that P2P has little use? No! We are all caught up with the illegal use, that good uses are getting the short end of things right now.
P2P can and will prove to be a good distribution model for those smart enough to use it. Given the right business model, the word of mouth nature of P2P can be a good thing.
Some companies are starting to get the picture about P2P and what it can mean to business. Consider PTC. Long time big software company selling high-end tools. They see P2P as the next killer app for engineers using their products. What do they do instead of litigation? They provide P2P to their users as a nice value add. Built the technology right in where users can make good effective use of it. This helps them keep the price of their product within a range that supports their business while enabling their users to get more use out of the software they use.
Soon everyone of their users will be able to host their own conference server and invite anyone they choose to share their data in an interactive and secure way. This whole thing is likely to save a lot of time and travel costs. This clearly is a good use of P2P.
Right now this model demonstrates how P2P can add considerable value to a pay software model. Lets add a little more thinking the P2P way. Lets say that a loyal user of the software wants to collaborate with another user. What's to say that they can't just get the software from them on a trial basis? Have any idea how hard it is to get people to look at your MCAD software? Damn tough these days. Why not let your users work for you a little? Let the software run while connected to the paying user and not others. Maybe prevent the paying users from sharing with others while someone is license sharing.
Soon the paying user will grow tired of sharing, and the other user having had a good experience just might be interested in a quote. This would save a *lot* in paid sales people who tend to travel a lot, ask for margins and eat a lot of lunches.... Just a P2P thought.
It is funny to me to see smart, creative business people using P2P ideas, instant messaging and other cool internet technologies to get their work done faster. These same smart people use the internet to lower the cost of distributing their product saving their users time and effort in the process. Not exactly in the way I described above though.
Meanwhile, on the other side of things, I laugh as I also watch the media companies work harder and harder at sticking their heads farther up their ass hoping they can just litigate the whole thing away.
I say that P2P will always be here. Some say that it needs to be stopped. They also say that the only realistic way to do that is to hobble all of our machines so that we can't actually do it.
Given that P2P could very easily be out-marketed, shifting the burden to the entire IT industry and its users is nothing more than a crime. --Just as plain and simple as Jack would put it himself.
Please explain to me how stealing our right to create with machines we are supposed to own is any less of a theft than P2P downloading is today. Consider in your answer the fact that P2P is shown to help sales. Also consider the cost the theft of our rights will have on future generations who find themselves beholden to a select few who make all their technology decisions for them. Who exactly will those decisions benefit
One more thing about the marketing. Nobody is better at it than the media companies right now. Why they don't just bend that marketing engine toward sales via the net is beyond me. With the right investment and a little thought, using Kazaa could be old hat in as little as a year. Why fight what you can easily marginalize?
My own kids have made pretty good use of Kazaa yet they still buy CD media. Why do they do this? Its because of that powerful marketing engine. They are tuned to it and want to be a part of it. Burning a CD of content that you got from your friend does not do that today. Maybe burning a CD with custom content that comes with your paid download would, shouldn't they at least try before trashing all of our rights?
The bottom line here really is about the business model and there really is no hiding that fact. The media companies want to continue to be in control of all distribution when it is becoming increasingly clear that they don't have to be. They don't want to compete and never will and they are fools for it.
The amount of money spent on the lobbying efforts, lawyers and other foolish ventures that will generate little return unless they are a complete succcess could be spent on efforts that will generate real returns in as little as a year.
How? Hire me.
I am not kidding, if it is money that they think they need, then we should help them get it, but preserve our rights for the longer term in the process...
Blogging because I can...
SO... They don't have to prove that I'm trading illegal files before they can act against me, but I need to prove that they damaged me before I can act against them??
Does anyone else notice the scales of justice tipping precariously close to one horizon??
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
That =should= have been "P2P Privacy Prevention Act".
(Well, that's how I originally misread the headline.. tho I'm not so sure it isn't more accurate.)
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
I'm confused about what measures Berman believes would be acceptable, after reading the many disclaimers here.
This bill makes more sense when combined with the trend of media consolidation.
For instance, Time/Warner/AOL is a single company that controls both a large number of copyrights, and also a large portion of the internet infrastructure. Under this bill, TWAOL could develop and deploy router filters that would watch for packets that match the signature of P2P transfers of Time/Warner copyrighted works, and drop the packets.
In other words, it is a model for a censored internet -- placing big media in the position of a gatekeeper -- determine what data is allowed to cross the wires, and what data may not be transmitted.
Assume everything Berman says about limits to the law is true, just to avoid bogging down in the details. Let's look at what this law is really about. Let's apply Berman's P2P "piracy protection" theory to laws about slander/libel: I have the right that only the truth should be told about me - anyone spreading lies can be sued for the damages it causes me. Therefore, I should have the right to block content on the internet to anything anyone says that I feel is slanderous. Further, I should be immune from prosecution if I do so. I promise I won't trash their hard drive - but I will shut them up and unilaterally deny them their free speech rights so long as I have good faith in doing so. I don't need the courts to validate that I'm right and the other person is wrong - no need to bother with law enforcement, probable cause, any of that. If I say it's libel, then I can enforce the law myself without the help (or hindrance) of the courts. Anybody else see anything wrong with this theory?
Pavlov wouldn't be so famous if he'd used a can opener instead of a bell.
When scarcity goes away, you have an infinite commons. In domains that have infinite commons, you don't need an economic system at all. (But bits are not food, so you still need an economic system in the overall domain until you invent nanotechnology and an infinite source of free energy.)
Let's say that Berman's description of the bill is accurate. (Not that we believe this for a second--we _can_ read, afterall.) If so, what kind of "self-help" (i.e. "attacks") does he seem to think are permitted? With all his disclaimers, it's pretty hard to tell.
Answer: (1) They scan a P2P server for infringing works. (2) Then, they just download the infringing work. Alot. (3) Optional: Meanwhile, they create honeypots to flood the P2P nets with false files of their copyrighted works.
The effect of this is to cripple the pirate server and blow its bandwidth pipe. The elegance of this is that the attack ends immediately when the server owner removes the infringing file. Meanwhile, every download is a separate act of infringement by the server owner. As a bonus, the pirate's ISP will probably go apeshit over the traffic volume, causing the pirate additional grief without the **AA having to do any additional work.
This is a good plan for the **AA because it is mostly non-invasive (no more so than other downloading guests), deletes no files, requires no viruses, and probably doesn't fry any hardware (though it may every once in a while).
BUT if that's all the **AA had in mind (and that by itself would be bad enough), why is the bill so vague? Why is there a threshhold damages amount of $250? No, the **AA want to go further, and they're paying Berman to get them there.
(There is, of course, at least one problem with the above scenario. If attackers are required to ID themselves to a target server as "I am a **AA goon", as Berman suggests, then the target servers will learn to ignore them. Such a plan only works with anonymous, IP-shifting attackers.)
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
To make silly laws moot, we simply need a nice generic library that:
1) uses simple xml to define protocols, and therefore allows mimicing of known, popular protocols like ftp, http, pop, etc. Stuff that never will be blocked.
2) routes (and spreads around) p2p packets.
3) resistant to attacks. (perhaps some nodes that perform the "white blood cell" role.
4) can preserve anonymity.
5) uses strong encryption, including the use of key servers and have nodes rotate keys every week or so.
6) The ability to 'tunnel' other applications through it, much like ssh.
If that existed, they can legislate 'till the cows come home.
Cheers,
-b
Prices for copies go to zero, but the actual act of creation continues to be worth money. If you want something, do it; if you want something done, pay for it; and in either case, everyone gets the final benefit. In practice, this probably means that large groups of users would have to get together to pay for the software they want to be written and fixed. The compensation for this is that software never goes away: instead of having to start from scratch because you're not the company that "owns" the program, you can build on an existing program that's almost perfect.
The distinction is clear; theft deprives the 'owner' of the use of something, whereas infringement alone does not, but only uses something without permission to do so.
With all this talk of obsolete business models and such, has it ever occured to you that you may be using an obsolete definition of stealing?
-a
How to rationalize theft.