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."
are finding themselves in favor of more regulations. Whatever happened to letting the market decide?
Yes...and...
"I believe we need the technology experts, the computer industry, the peer-to-peer industry, the software industry, the entertainment industry, the privacy experts and the business experts to come together and discuss positive and meaningful solutions to this challenge facing a major segment of our economy," said Coleman.
Finally, someone who is on the right track, thinking rationally. It is important to have matter-of-fact, and hopefully civilized discussion with all the parties involved in this manner. My belief is the only way you'll find the answers to protecting copyrighted material is to involve everyone from the techies to the entertainment industry to privacy experts and everyone in between. You are not going to find answers by writing one-sided laws and suing 6th graders and pensioners.
I'm not sure what's going to come out of a meeting like this. My pessimistic side is afraid it's going to end up being more for show than anything. Lip service galore. But we'll see...
People say I'm crazy, I got diamonds on the soles of my shoes...
Not that we care nor memorise them all.
All they do is keep lawyers in jobs.
We need less laws not more.
Whats wrong with just getting on with youre lives.
The day they treat companies as a living entity is the day it all went wrong. Its not a living entitiy, never will be. Its a company. Not life.
I'd say your closer to the money. What will happen is you'll really have special interests lobbying the politicians at this summit, they can make a feel-good statement and look like their doing something, and in actual effect, nothing at all really happens.
Yes its a cynical view, but can you blame me?
Think nothing is impossible? Try slamming a revolving door.
It's very interesting how this might turn out. Will they be anti-P2P, or anti-RIAA (not saying the two are exclusive or anything)?
:)
As we all pretty much accept here on Echodot, computer copyright law is really out of wack with other copyright law. Computers, being relatively new and increasing in use fast, have been treated differently than earlier, normal copyright laws, for example, you can lend someone a book, but you (as many EULAs say) you cannot have a game installed on two computers, even if the game requires a CD to play. If such a book came with an User Agreement, would courts allow it?
In any case, something must be done. We haven't seen anything really like computers before. There has been nothing so flexible that allows you to share information so easily. I think the laws should change, NOT computers.
Of course, this begs the question on HOW the laws will change. One obvious answer is to do away with the whole copyrighted works system, but is that really what we want (and need)?
In summary, the current copyright laws (not the DMCA, it is argued it conflicts with "fair use", I'm inclined to agree) just weren't designed for anything like computers and the internet.
Heh, or else I have no idea what I'm talking about and just whoring for karma.
---
Never criticize religion on Slashdot. You will be modded down for "Troll" no matter how factual it is.
From the article, it would seem that Congress sees two problems with P2P:
1. "Illegal" distribution of copyrighted material
2. Exposure of children to pornographic materials
At this point it would behoove the P2P community to do soemthing to forestall Draconian legislation that destroys P2P. I see four options, but only 2 effective options:
1. Argue that these two "problems" don't happen (not going to work)
2. Argue that these two "problems" aren't wrong (not going to work)
3. Fix these problems themselves (probably what Congress wants)
4. Articulating the benefits of P2P (may help delay regulation while working on option 3)
Any other ideas out there?
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
BitTorrent's rise in popularity is at least partly due to the way it has been accepted by many download sites as a way of easing pressure on their bandwidth. I've downloaded quite a few patches and trailers using BitTorrent legally.
I think alot of the posters here are being short sighted. Let's try to translate or summarize the major point of the article.
Legislation hasn't worked and we need a better avenue.
That is the CRUX of the matter.
The point is that they still believe file sharing is WRONG and are looking for ways beyond legislation to stop it.
What exactly do you think they'll come up with? Magical pellicans that fly down and scoop up your computer if you happen to break the law? Um... no...
What will eventually come from this gathering of experts is mandated and likely uniform DRM architecture / standards that ALL new hardware must incorporate, much like the broadcasting bit you've seen with the digital TV sets.
Why are you rejoicing again?
Those who disregard intellectual property force losses for everyone.
Bull.
Finally we have the last step, facilitating future development.
How many dead authors will be facilitating new works while rotting in their graves? Considering that copyright lasts decades after the author's death, you seem to be asserting that this is what will happen. BTW, if that was "finally" why did you continue to make points after that?
who would like to enter the free market
Free market?!? Copyright and patent are interfering with the free market! In a free market there would be no artificially constructed monopolies that prevent any producer from producing any good that said producer can figure out how to produce. As it stands this interference in the free market means that there is no incentive to patent owners to learn make their products more efficiently and pass those savings along to consumers.
The distinction.... thinking."
I've read this sentence three times and I still don't understand one word of it. It is as muddled as your understanding of copyright and patent.
Now ask your self, did you benefit by the change?
Did I? How would I know that? If I were able to perform a scientific study of life quality using patent/non-patent as a controlled variable, then I might be able to answer your question. Using less empirical methods, I conclude that no amount of patents or copyrights have made my life better. Most of the copyrightable works that I've produced have been produced as an employee of a company, so I don't even hold the copyright to my own work. Most of the important things in my life are not affected by copyright or patent at all-- although soon it may be nearly impossible to buy FOOD that isn't patented. But that brings up a good point regarding the "objective morality" of patents. If a biotech firm make a disease resistant, drought resistant tomato and I buy one and plant the seeds, I am infringing their patent (as I understand it I would be using patented "technology" without a license). I'm sorry, but I refuse to accept the validity of any moral or legal code that would prevent me from growing my own food in a manner that humans have practiced for thousands and thousands of years.
I do not have a signature
Or rather economics. Nowhere in the article is a very important, but often overlooked issue to be found: Economics.
;-)
Our whole economic system is based on one simple assumption: The scarcity of goods. As long as a good is scarce, ie. not abundant, it has a value for which the market creates a price. Clean air is (still) abundant so we don't have to pay for it. Cars are scarce (hmmm...) and so a price can derived from the mechanics of demand and supply.
Music, films, software, basically everything digital lacks scarcity, because as soon as a medium, a product or information enters the digital realm it is accessible through digital technology, mostly without loss of quality and/or features. It becomes abundant in the digital world and we will have trouble fixing a price for a good that is as available as breathable air (still is).
How do you fix this? You can't. You could create artificial scarcity through DRM features, which would not work because DRM-less alternatives will most probably be readily available. And even if they weren't, people will have a problem accepting a price that they view as too high, given the fact that they once had the good for free with more features (copyable, modifiable, transportable, usable etc.).
How do artist make money if their goods are so easily accessible? Create scarcity again, but avoiding DRM: The distributable good (a CD, DVD, what have you) would still be offered to the market at low or no price at all, becoming a teaser for the real product: live events. These are not so easily reproduceable without loss of quality (I consider bootleg recordings not to be of the same quality and if you have listened to one, you will probably agree that, while being interesting, it is not the Real Thing) and will most likely be different from venue to venue (one of the reasons many fans travelled with Frank Zappa or the Grateful Dead when they were on tour).
There are catches though: Bands and artists would have to be able to perform life on stage and no one would need the RIAA. So we should all expect more of the same. Round tables and talks will not yield any useful outcomes, the best they can achieve is more public awareness of the problem and maybe speed up the downfall of an industry destined to die (as long as they don't come up with a new and decent business model), albeit slowly and still with enough turnover and profit to make our lives and Slashdot discussions interesting.
Just my 2 Cents (and that's all they'll get)
I feel so sig.
Well, Hello.... My name is Lyndsy.... You have now someone who has used P2P legally.
;)
I downloaded Wolfenstein:Enemy Territoy via KLite earlier this morning, because FilePlanet's servers were busy. And before you scream "PIRATE" - ET is a freely released game, that was never finished, and only the multiplayer works - which is the only part i would have played anyhow
This of course, is not to say i've never used P2P illegally(sp?). Bt using this argument is that same as saying "Well, i say you broke the speed limit in your car before, and i can't guarantee that you won't do it again, therefore i'm taking away your car". If you agree with this way of thinking, perhaps you should apply for a job at the Ministry or Truth
Learn about Photography Basics.
P2P started as a centrally managed network, Napster.
Companies attacked the central network management, P2P mutated into something that works decentrally, Gnutella.
Companies tried to poison P2P networks with damaged or crippled content. P2P mutated into something that managed checksums on files, and parts of files, inventing swarm loading on the way. Enter eDonkey and Bittorrent.
Companies are trying to identify uploaders by IP, and are trying to force the ISP to keep tabs on the content that customers are downloading or uploading. P2P will mutate into encrypting and MIXing anonymizing service, completly masking uploaders and downloaders, and completely distributing file storage (files will be stored in encrypted chunks of equal size on many servers, so that it will not be possible to tell which content is stored on which server even if you seize the servers hdd).
In such a scenario, in order to control P2P distribution of files, you'd have to completely prohibit peer to peer (mediatorless) communications. "Two nodes in the network may not communicate with each other at any time unless a trusted transaction supervisor listens in into the unencrypted communication between these two nodes checking them for the absence of copyright violations and inappropriate content violations."
Incidentally, this is exactly the type of application that is enabled with NGSCB (That is, NGSCB is necessary in order to write such an application. I don't claim that NGSCB is such an application).
Kristian
It ain't hedonists coming up with the movie ratings. Me thinks your parent was a little liberal with the meandering for the sardonic nature of post to take.
Politicians love out religiousing each other. It's funny too, because even though a minister wrote the pledge of allegiance, he didn't put the "under God" in it. Nor was it the clergy that moved to stamp the "In God We Trust" on the coins. In fact the US had be a proper nation for nearly 100 years before anyone thought of whoring out their God, we ok, actually whored out their God. You'd think people would hold their faith in higher esteem.
Look what politicizing has done for islam? The last thing I'd want to happen to anything dear to me would be to have it involved in politics, second to last would be fall in a sewer, but I repeat myself.
While I find the cost great, even exhorbitantly prohibitive, many Christians disagree with my estimations. There are churches meddeling in school boards. They elect most of the minor government officials in many communities because so few people vote. They try to politicize courtrooms. In so doing I think they make a bargain with the devil. Small and insignificant at first, and maybe ultimately if only it stopped there. I'm sure searching google for "intelligent design" +textbooks would turn up plenty of links.
...the technology experts, the computer industry, the peer-to-peer industry, the software industry, the entertainment industry, the privacy experts and the business experts to come together and discuss positive and meaningful solutions to this challenge...
Uhh, senator, aren't you forgetting someone here? Mainly the tens of millions of people who actually are downloading and consuming the music?
All of the parties that you have listed are those that stand to gain from instituting a stiff DRM regime on what is de-facto public property, i.e. the cultural product of the last eighty years.
The media industry should realize that DRM, like any powerful weapon, can be used against their interests almost as easily as for their interests. The industry needs to remember that their product doesn't just appear out of thin air, it is rather the collective effort of millions of people absorbing cultural trends through mass media over long periods of time. Using DRM to choke off access to this media stream to the general public will within about ten years seriously reduce the number of people coming to them with new product for them to sell.
Record companies don't generate music; people bring them music mostly already finished for their marketing. Most of this music that is offered to them is a subtle variation of the product that has already been circulating for years. Musical trends are sequence of small steps in the basic format of the product.
Wrapping everything in DRM will interrupt this delicate ecology. Cut off from the global trends in music, musicians will start either creating new musical styles or cut-and-paste previously released product with new forms of samplers. But this new product won't be cycled towards the music corporations because they will have taken themselves out of the cultural feedback loop.
Like the old fairy tale, DRM is 'killing the goose that laid golden eggs, to get all the gold at once.' Only to end up with nothing but goose guts and no more golden eggs.
'Ramble On' --- Led Zeppelin
Yes, I am using it legally right now to download Anime Music Videos.
While AMVs do often contain copyrighed works (music + anime), they are a dirivetive art form and are protected as such because they are not done for profit, nor are they piracy.
Of course I'm still waiting for AMV creators to get sued anyway, but at least we know the Japanese companies are smart enough to realise that dirivitive art forms enhance sales of the original (which is why they allow cheap rip-off manga using new stories based off the original work to be publicly sold.. it increases the fan base!)
"It takes a very long time to count to 2 in binary." ~'Fourlegged'