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?
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
Until Slashdot fixes the funny modifier, use insightful or interesting. The poster knows your intentions.
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>
These sigs are more interesting tha
I think you mean "Hear, hear!", not "Here, here!"
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.
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!
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.
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...
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?
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.