Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Senator Plans P2P Summit

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the open-discussion dept.

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."

9 of 266 comments (clear)

  1. Strange that all these media executives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    are finding themselves in favor of more regulations. Whatever happened to letting the market decide?

    1. Re:Strange that all these media executives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The marked decided that they didn't want media executives. Hence people who once thrived in a capitalistic society go running for protectionist programs once the money starts going down.

      Ironic, isnt it?

  2. Good idea... by tuxette · · Score: 4, Interesting
    The Minnesota Republican said the answers to protecting copyrighted material are more likely to be found through technological innovation rather than passage of more laws.

    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...
  3. More laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  4. Re:This won't really amount to much by Disevidence · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.
  5. Hmmm by LordK3nn3th · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
  6. Perceived problems with P2P by G4from128k · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:Perceived problems with P2P by Eivind · · Score: 5, Interesting
      5: Argue that tools that can, and are infact, be used for both lawful and unlawful purposes should not themselves be illegal.

      6: Argue that general purpose computers is a tool much to useful to society to consider giving them up, or locking them away with the keys in the hands of a elite few, over an issue as trivial as some downloaded music-files.

      7: Continue to press the point that copyrigth-law is supposed to serve a *purpose*, the creation of science and the useful arts. If it ain't serving this purpose, it's unconstitutional and harmful. Retroactively extending copyrigths for works where the author is 50 years dead does nothing to stimulate science or the useful acts.

      8: Continue to point out that the music-cartel is in trouble because they're providing a service noone really needs or wants anymore. Sure, that's putting it a bit on the point, but fact is, neither I as a producer of music, nor I as a consumer have any interest in supporting those things 90% of the cash goes to when I purchase a CD.

      9: Try to get politicians to understand that not everything which is *disliked* should be *illegal*. The rigth solution to the "problem" of kids looking for porn in p-2-p space and finding it is *gasp* parents who actually give a fuck. (How is p2p worse for youngsters than thehun.net by the way ? Should we shut down the www too ?)

      10: Get an actually democratic system in the US. It used to be every man one vote, these days it's more like every dollar one vote. There's more p2p users in the USA than there are people who voted for Bush....

      For a start...

  7. Rather shortsighted of slashdot posters.... by Puls4r · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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?