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. <skeptic> by CaptainAlbert · · Score: 5, Funny

    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
  2. 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.

  3. 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.
  4. Okay... by AstrumPreliator · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. 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?

  6. Oh, why doesn't anyone think of the children??? by Bigman · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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...
    --
    *--BigMan--- Time flies like an arrow.. but personally I prefer a nice glass of wine!
  7. 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...

  8. Re:Strange that all these media executives by Paul.Org · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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...