Slashdot Mirror
Internet2 Plus P2P Equals...
Bill, I'm lost in cyberspace... writes "News.com has an article up about a Direct Connected P2P network set up at universities which are on Internet2. This is majorly cool! More direct information is available at i2hub.com for those lucky enough to be located at a University with Internet2 access."
You know why "Internet2" is faster than the "commodity Internet" on college campuses? People weren't typically using "Internet2" for downloading movies and music. Just because the "Internet2" connections are less expensive, because they are funded through research grants, does not mean that students should be blowing large amounts of pointless traffic through it. The funding can get shut off just as "easily" as it came in.
Officials at the central Internet2 project said they had no theoretical objection to the students' action, at least from the strictly technological side. The network was developed to spur innovation wherever it arises, much as users of the original academic networks developed e-mail and chat features, a representative for the project said.
Yes, I think that P2P programs can be considered research and should even be developed on fast networks like this. I just don't think that students should take advantage of the *currently* open nature of the network just because they can.
Don't ruin it for everyone else like *we* did back in the late 1990s just because you want free music. Instead of fighting with the RIAA by downloading their music shut them off by not listening to it at all. Please support bands that allow the free taping and distribution of their music (see link in my signature below).
Clearly the development of this application falls under the purview and purpose of Internet2 - whereas the use of it probably does not.
No matter how you want to dress it up with rhetoric, the wide-spread broadcast of other peoples' material without permission is -- under current statute -- unlawful, and leaves one liable to civil and possible criminal prosecution.
What never ceases to amaze me is how many students think they can poke at the bears with impunity, and then come crying when they get a claw across the face.
How does the Slashdot Effect happen given that no slashdotters ever RTFA?
Dumbasses...
Let's just put a big ass "X" on our computers now why won't we...
At my old school, Lehigh University, all terminals have access to Internet1+2. This means all the little freshman can share like mad on both pipes.
If one of your P2P buddies happens to be on Inet2 as well, you are going to get a pleasant speed surprise.
Or just a proof that given time, bandwidth usage will fill to whatever pipe it's given no matter how fat a pipe you supply. Afterall, as our hard drives got bigger, so did the programs we were given to store on them...
It was the over commercialization of the Internet that has 'ruined' things for us.
Not that some people are sharing music and video.
But then again, sounded like you have an agenda to push.. so nevermind.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I, but probably others, realised not long ago that it's rapidly approaching the point at which the characteristics of "Internet V2 (post WWW)" can be ascertained, and certainly apart from high speed, one of them as the death of unidirectional WWW.
The problem with HTTP is (as you see with the slashdot effect) that there is no inherent mass-distribution/replication in it. What will be the next big technology will be some sort of fluid merge between HTTP, P2P (BT, etc), FTP, to bring a real massively distributed content layer. Built into this protocol would be multicast as well (in a way, P2P is inherently multicast).
This means that when you browse the web, your browsers transport layer is really acting as real-time P2P, and your network ISP would install seamless "content caching" (e.g. akamani style) as part of the network. Effectively, there needs to be a replacement of HTTP/TCP as a new "DTP" (distributed transport protocol).
Damn serious paster copyier
Here one line you left out.
Mine.
As a musician - who sees little if any fincial value in learning music - so I keep my day job.
I believe record companies have gutted the industry of music by reducing the fare to prerecorded offering of a few.
Every CD is a "free" version of a thing that previously had value - namely live music.
As such I believe they deserve to be comodified into irrelevancy - not at all because i like free downloads - i listen to radio because its fresh - but because they have eliminated a cultural experience from the face of the earth - or so reduced it as to render the making of music a rare and unappreciated talent.
AIK
And, yet again, you offer no proof of this: All we have is your say-so that people who complain about GPL violations are, at the same time, the same people who are 'chapioning piracy' (which is bogus terminology, but the people in power get to make the rules, I guess). BTW, according to your lights it's OK for corporations to break the law but not ordinary people. I'd say that makes you a hypocrite. Apparently. Never mind that Hollywood's foundations rested on it back when it was convenient for them. But let's not speak so loudly about that, shall we?
If you can get something for free you would otherewise have to pay for, it's natural to want it for free.
I've heard this from so many recording label apologists, and its stupid.
Your assumption about what is "natural" is totally unfounded. I, for one, can download any game I want, but if I'm not doing more than checking it out and making sure it works on the computer, I buy it. I bought Unreal 2k4 the day it was released, as well as Warcraft 3 and Civilization 2,3 both on release day. These are the only games I play. Why do I buy them? So that I get to see Civ4, War4, and Unreal2k4. But you deride this kind of "sampling" and then you make an assumption about what the "natural" instincts of majority of the samplees are? Thats fiddle-faddle in anyone's books.
Yes, there are costs involved with making music, and I understand that in order to have "musicians", they have to be able to make a living playing music. Lets look at some of those musiciains: Lets take a cross section of them by using, say, Australia. An Australian musician averages about 24k per year. (http://www.mca.org.au/m15240.htm)Thats not a lot. That number hasnt really changed in the last 20-30 years. You are trying to tell me that these people, who are making a meager but liveable income and are doing what they love to do, these people are in it for the money, and they need to maximize profits by eliminating file sharing. They only want people that have paid money to hear their gifts. WRONG. How would you even know what they want anyways?
At some point in the evolution of music from the orchestra to the turntable, a huge discrepancy became apparent between the costs and the revenues. Music companys to this day make tremendous amounts of money, and very little of it ends up in the artists pocket.
When did the role of law and morality become to ensure LARGE, if not ENOURMOUS profits for people who DISTRIBUTE music media? And for those few musicians that "make it big" (which for some may be to their detriment!), same question : when did law and morality's role turn into rewarding people who slap bandaids on their faces with huge cocaine addictions?
Is the point of the law to protect the musicians? to protect the music? Read the rest of this and then tell me : what, exactly, is the point of the law?
Fact is, musicians have been short circuiting the whole system. You know that musicians barely see any of the money made by their labels, but heres something you might not have thought of : they make the big bucks by taking sponsers.
Listened to any rap tunes lately? How about Nelly's "Air Force Ones", which Nike payed him millions upon millions of dollars to sing. Do you think Nike or even Nelly cares if that song gets passed around? Not in the least, in fact, without a doubt, Nike would welcome the infringement. Based on this, some might say the future of music look very grim, and neither file sharing nor record labels are helping the situation. All we can do is depend on the already existing large majority of musicians that dont do it for the money and do it for the music. Oh wait, maybe this wont be so bad...
I prefer "criminals," because legally and morally, that's what pirates are.
Or not...
Criminals. ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND?
You cant even be prosecuted in a criminal court for pirating music.
You have to be sued.
This just went from stupid to idiotic.
By the way : Are you aware that you just labelled over 50% of the population criminals? Should we all be thrown in jail? We'll keep the spillover at your place.
Can we get this straight, whatever way you slice it or dice it, whatever way angle you approach it from, the campaign to brand copyright infringment as "THEFT" so that people like you would confuse it with criminal acts was a PROPAGANDA CAMPAIGN. Hey you bigwigs over at the RIAA : look! It worked!
Prediction : Your appeal to the morality of filesharing, on which your argument is based, will not go very far. *Your* interpre
-- "Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains." Jean Jacques Rousseau