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...

<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!"

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.

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.

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. :)

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...

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.

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.