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

Strange that all these media executives

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Strange that all these media executives

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

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...

Re:Strange that all these media executives

[djlowe]

Basically NSFC would be anything a fair and balanced Christian wouldn't show to their 10 year old.

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

Re:Strange that all these media executives

[crucini]

I agree that it resembles the Reformation; I disagree that "It was all good".

The Catholic church has declined greatly in power since that time. Likewise, if the entertainment industry loses this war, it will be reduced to a shadow of its former self. Of course, the power and scope of the individual citizen will expand in proportion.

But...

[graveyardduckx]

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?

The Meeting Already Happened!

[illuminata]

Load up your favorite P2P program and do a search for this file!

US SEN NORM COLEMAN P2P DISCUSSION -- SAYS P2P IS GOOD -- MUST READ.txt.exe

Re:The Meeting Already Happened!

[Suomalaanen hjy]

I can't read your document in Linux because it's in exe-format you insensitive clod!

<skeptic>

[CaptainAlbert]

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!

</skeptic>

Pedantic grammar comment

[David Kennedy]

I think you mean "Hear, hear!", not "Here, here!"

Re:Pedantic grammar comment

[1u3hr]

Hear hear:
Meaning A shout of support or agreement.
Origin Originated in the British parliament in the 18th century as a contraction of 'hear him, hear him'. It is still often heard there although sometimes used ironically these days.

Phrase Dictionary

It's understandable for people to mix this up, but not someone who is paid to be an "editor".

Here, here?

[SlashDread]

Where?

"/Dread"

Good idea...

[tuxette]

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...

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:Good idea...

[R.Caley]

The most positive point of the whole article is that the word piracy is not mentioned. Not once. That's a good start. It doesn't mention theft or stealing either. So there is a lot to be happy about!

So the fact that he avoids mentioning the major reason there is a problem is a good thing?

If P2P systems were not such wonderful tools for piracy and theft, there would be no (legitiomate) complaint and so people who used them for arguably justifiable activity (finding out about new stuff, access to no longer available material, distributing things they produce etc. etc.) would have a clear argument to make for changes to the relevent laws. It is the piracy and theft which provides the big record labels with the stick they use to beat everyone.

If piracy and theft is not eplicitly mentioned it is because the assumption is that everyone using a P2P system is using it for piracy and theft, and so it would be redundant to mention it.

Re:Good idea...

[swb]

Finally, someone who is on the right track, thinking rationally.

A recent Minneapolis Star Tribune article showed Coleman voting nearly in lockstep with what the White House wanted. Given the Bush administration's generally pro-corporate stances on most issues, it's hard to see Norm Coleman taking a stance on this issue too far out of sync with what corporate leaders typically want (DRM, limited choice, maximimal pricing).

What I find unusual about Norm's initiatives is that Minnesota isn't the constituency of either the media empire (although his erstwhile wife, Laurie, is "pursuing an acting career in Hollywood" -- at least that's what we're told about her living in Hollywood instead of with Norm..), or the consumer electronics companies who on the surface seem to work against the traditional media interests. So it's hard to know what motivates Norm in this regard.

But I personally have a hard time seeing any particularly revolutionary ideas come out of Coleman, at least not any that might anger corporate interests aligned with Bush.

More laws

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:This won't really amount to much

[Disevidence]

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?

Hmmm

[LordK3nn3th]

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. :)

Oh yes..

[LordK3nn3th]

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.

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...

Perceived problems with P2P

[G4from128k]

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?

Re:Perceived problems with P2P

[Eivind]

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...

An improvement???

[kiwioddBall]

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.

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.

Re:Who uses P2P legally?

[radionotme]

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.

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:the users

[Zocalo]

Is there a p2p user interest organization in existence?

Not a specific one that I am aware of, but having someone there to represent the users would be a good idea. There are several more general bodies that could fill the role; the EFF has touched on this area in the past for example. Two other groups with a vested interest that spring to mind are the artists themselves, from both sides of the P2P debate obviously. Also having representatives of those using P2P for 100% legitimate reasons like distros that release their ISOs via BitTorrent to provide the counterpoint to the "P2P is synonymous with copyright infringement" argument you *know* the media corporations are going to use.

Re:Who uses P2P legally?

[MrRTFM]

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.

Rather shortsighted of slashdot posters....

[Puls4r]

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?

Powerful uses of P2P: VoIP and IM

[G4from128k]

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.

Re:Copyright theft is a concern that many...

[ichimunki]

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.

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.

Re:true.

[Simonetta]

...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

It's the economy, stupid!

[bankman]

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)

Re:Who uses P2P legally?

[lwsimon]

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

You do not want to solve this problem

[kris]

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

Keep in mind

[ParadoxicalPostulate]

Basically NSFC would be anything a fair and balanced Christian wouldn't show to their 10 year old.

Last time I looked America was not listed as a Christian state. Instituting federal policy based upon solely Christian values is impractical in the current atmosphere.

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.

Re:Keep in mind

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Who uses P2P legally?

[Strenoth]

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!)