Slashdot Mirror
Senator Plans P2P Summit
ClickTheVote writes "Last fall Senator Norm Coleman held hearings on the RIAA subpoena process, now he is going to convene a P2P Summit. At CES last week he said, 'With the advent of technology such as peer-to-peer networking, law, technology and ethics are now not in synch. We need to find other ways to solve the problems rather than issuing lawsuits and lobbying Congress to pass tougher laws.' Here, here."
Where ethics, law, and technology ever in synch to begin with? I always see people using technology unethically to break the law. I see the law using technology unethically. I see ethics and laws going right out the window with spam technology. Paper, Rock, Scissors?
Unfortunately, those sharing file by P2P are now considered criminals as bad as virus writers and terrorist. I can't imagine any government (especially in America) coming to any useful conclusion.
It's also important to note that, if a solution is made through this (if one comes around), who will it benefit? Corporations? Everyone equally? Take a WILD guess which one I'm betting on.
---
Never criticize religion on Slashdot. You will be modded down for "Troll" no matter how factual it is.
I wasn't aware there was anything wrong with P2P networks. They aren't illegal and it's an efficient data distribution system that takes loads off of servers.
I think the true intent of "synching law, technology, and ethics" is to gain control. They will be able to monitor you more easily and control what is served.
My oh my! We may not have found intelligent life on the moon, but maybe there's a sign of it on earth...
*--BigMan--- Time flies like an arrow.. but personally I prefer a nice glass of wine!
Before DRM, it was a fuzzy matter. Once, having an MP3 on your computer and giving it to a friend. But as P2P rose in popularity, and CD writers got cheaper, it has spread. Now with DRM, in some cases you have to actively circumvent the copyright protection to make the MP3. This makes it seem more criminal. I think the introduction of DRM will not help the P2P case in any official discussions. Perhaps one day we will see a world where music loses it's copyright after 6months - 1 year, and can be freely distributed. They can't be making much out of the bargain value CDs the companies like Amazon, HMV and Virgin sell after the CD has been out a while.
I'm not sure if this is good or not. Whilst the gentleman is correct (and his heart is in the right place) in believing that draconian laws won't stop the real offenders, the only other solutions are moral measures which hasn't worked in the past either (with the notable exclusion of the music stores) or technological restrictions.
There are only two results I can see out of this :
- ISP's will be asked to prevent the transmission of copyrighted material or
- The consumer internet can easily be replaced with a new set of protocols that monitors the transmission of such material. ISP's will be legislated to implement these new protocols for all consumers. Actually not as hard to do as it may sound.
I think I would stick with the draconian laws.
The only thing that'll come out of this is a stronger Gov't stance for DRM, believe me. And when you or I complain that the DRM features of the new media are keeping us from excersizing our rights, guess who's going to stand up for the corporations and not the citizens?
Ok, mabey a little parinoid, but that's how I read this. You'll notice that the only group of people he didn't mention were the p2p users themselves.
stuff
Most people are wrong in when they hear P2P, they think filesharing. A lot of games use P2P techniques to reduce latency - Counterstrike, Starcraft, Quake3, you name it. If you shoot down P2P, you also shoot down online gaming (or at least make life more difficult for them).
... to setup the game.
Yes, many games use a client-server approach
If every packet has to go through the server, you double the latency.
On the other hand: is Linux legal anyway ! No say SCO so maybe I've just shot down my own answer.
Of course, people have always been breaching copyright. P2P just makes it a lot easier.
For example, have you ever kept something taped from TV for longer than is strictly neccesary? copied a tape for a friend? Used an illigitmate piece of software? Not everyone has, but many people have. Most people don't even see anything wrong with this. And it's always been tolerated to an extent. However P2P allows a lot more copies to be made, and allows a single copy to spread a lot further than it could when it was only friend copying from each other.
Now, the solution is not to try to terrorise the people who use P2P. All they want to do is share what they have. They can do it, and will do it. It is going to be impossible to convince them that this is wrong. What we need to do is reach some sort of compromise. Right now we're nowhere near. The media cartels wnat absolute control over all aspects of all aspects of distribution. The public want to be able to get everything they can without paying for it. Neither of these options are viable, so we need some middle ground. Some way of tolerating a certain amount of copyright infringement that is acceptable to most people.
Any suggestions?
I did notice this and I was going to mention it but decided not to. I was afraid I was going to be asked what I'm about to ask you. How will you do it? Who are you going to pick as the p2p users representatives? What will be the criteria? Or will any p2p user be allowed to attend, as long as there are enough seats?
Is there a p2p user interest organization in existence?
People say I'm crazy, I got diamonds on the soles of my shoes...
The fact that there is a lot of illegal content on it, does not make all users of the medium illegal downloaders (which is what was implied).
The way the web is going with more and more intrusive adverts, scams and crap - P2P may end up being the primary source of file download from the shareware sites.
You can't expect to wield supreme executive power, just because some watery tart threw a sword at you
Most people are wrong in when they hear P2P, they think filesharing. A lot of games use P2P techniques to reduce latency. ......
If every packet has to go through the server, you double the latency.
Although I usually do not respond to AC posts, this one is very good. There are other insanely useful applications of P2P. IM and VoIP are both obvious potential users of P2P technologies. Skype was even created by Kazaa. If P2P supporters can argue that outlawing P2P is like outlawing the telephone, then maybe Congress will back off or at least craft very narrow legislation that permits many non-problematic uses of P2P.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
The constant P2P/Corporate blow-ups strike me as very similar to the Catholic Church's initial reaction to the printing press... It ate into a Church Monopoly (ie the reproduction of text) and also offered a far wider audience for critics of the Church (ie Protestants)... Once the Church worked out that: a) It couldn't stop the critics BUT b) It could flood the world with cheap bibles & hence get more members It was all good... Ok maybe an oversimplified analogy but wars were fought over this so the P2P/Corporate thing will be resolved with far less deaths... Well that's my hope anyway...
5: Argue that tools that can, and are infact, be used for both lawful and unlawful purposes should not themselves be illegal.
Good point. But such tools usually have some redeeming quality to them. What can p2p do besides share music files and porn?
That's a question equivalent to "What can guns do besides kill people?" But the reason guns aren't going to go away isn't that they're useful for hunting, defence, and recreation. It isn't even that the second amendment appears to establish a right to bear them. It's that there's a very, very rich lobby that depends on them for profit.
Arguments and tactics won't work. Like you go on to say, we need a strong lobby. But a march of a milion nobodies won't change anything. We need celebrity file sharers, we need huge corporations bankrolling us. Reckon that's likely? I wish I did.
Yes it's true, the only way to enforce copyright law is through propaganda. Copyright, unlike all of those other things, depends on individual self restraint and respect for authors and publishers. It would be wonderful indeed if we could simply convince people not to be poor or die of AIDS and convince the air to be clean. Hell, propaganda could bring world peeace if only words could multiply the resources that people fight over. The dependence of copyright law on propaganda is even greater as the ease of publication grows in the digital age. People must be convinced that copyright laws are just in order for copyright to work.
The US is one place that should know this is true. Ben Franklin and many other Americans thought English copyright laws were unreasonable and violated them wholsale. For a hundred and fifty years after US judges and citezens scoffed at paying tribute to forgien governments and authors for ideas, songs and other inspiration.
Today it is US copyright laws that are out of wack. The imbalance is not in the technology, it's in 100 year copyrights that are essentially perpetual and the power of big publishers to prevail on US public opinion. The word's five big music publishers, three big broadcasters and one big press organization are losing their governemnt granted control of mass media to the internet. While they can buy biger and dumber copyright laws and have restrained broadband adoption, they are having a hard time convincing people they are right about things. I'm afraid this Summit will recomend more stupid limits on technology and attempt to justify them with people's failure to be convinced that copyright laws are ethical, just or reasonable.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Well, I think you're a troll, as the above statement is an oxymoron at best, not to mention discriminatory in nature.
And, your post is *not* insightful to the topic at hand - it is Offtopic: What does a rating system for movies based upon "fair and balanced Christian" views have to do with a P2P summit? Nothing.
In an attempt to return my post to some semblance of relevance: I think that this is a good idea - at least someone in Congress appears to have a clue. Technology *has* outpaced the law in general, and most especially perhaps with regards to copyright infringement and P2P. All attempts to date to address the discrepancy have been horribly inadequate and have done nothing to address the problem, although they have given unprecedented power to commercial organizations such as the RIAA.
However, I doubt that Congress will end up doing anything useful. There's too much money at stake, and some of it finds its way into their re-election campaign accounts.
Regards,
dj
What if I'm not Christian? What if my religion mandates stricter control over the movie scenes? What if my religion is accepting and unshameful of explicit sexual content? What if my philosophy towards life is to show my children an uncensored view of the world? What if I consider the slaughtering of cows more offensive than a pornography video? I think you begin to see the problem.
So, as you can see, establishing a blanket policy on "SFC" and "NSFC" is a very prickly process. Enforcing it as you would suggest is -- if I may say so -- unconstitutional.
I don't mean to be overly critical of you, after all I do agree with you on some points. I am a Muslim so my religious values are probably just as firm or more so than yours, but I am merely stating the facts. Although I would admit that the U.S. is not truly a non-religious country, it still claims to be one in federal and state law. And unless we change our philosophy there we can't really effect anything as strict as what you would suggest.
Besides, have you seen the stuff they show on cable TV? It's not like they'd miss out on anything.