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."

Comments

Okay...

[AstrumPreliator]

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.

Oh, why doesn't anyone think of the children???

[Bigman]

Other bills are aimed at protecting minors who use P2P software to inadvertently download pornographic material, especially child pornography.

Inadvertently? Hmm, I'm sorry this isn't a tech issue, it's a social one. If you want to control what your kids do and see online then you have to supervise them. There's no law or crappy bit of software that can do it that won't be circumvented within days. You wouldn't let a kid roam around alone in a city 'till they where old enough to look out for themselves? So why in cyberspace? The internet is not a TV you can park your kids in front of to keep them quiet, it's a communication tool and you need to know who they're talking to! The internet is not a library, it is a seedy city with all the glitter and vice that entails. That's why it's so facinating, that's why we bother with it, and that's why we need to be responsible when exposing our kids to it.

We need to find other ways to solve the problems rather than issuing lawsuits and lobbying Congress to pass tougher laws

My oh my! We may not have found intelligent life on the moon, but maybe there's a sign of it on earth...

Re:Good idea...

[krymsin01]

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.

Re:Who uses P2P legally? Bittorrent

[openmtl]

Bittorrent is a p2p system. Many (err like me) use this legitimately for Linux distro downloads.

On the other hand: is Linux legal anyway ! No say SCO so maybe I've just shot down my own answer.

So, what's the solution

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

the users

[tuxette]

You'll notice that the only group of people he didn't mention were the p2p users themselves.

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?

Re:Strange that all these media executives

[Paul.Org]

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...

true.

[twitter]

Yes, a Summit will work! Already through the power of talking-about-things we have eliminated AIDS, poverty and global polution! Now we must turn this formidable weapon to bear on copyright theft!

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.