Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

States Threaten P2P Companies

Posted by michael on from the they-do-it-for-the-children dept.

The Importance of writes "C|Net News reports that 46 state attorneys general are warning P2P companies of dire, unnamed consequences for continuing to exist, 'At present, P2P software has too many times been hijacked by those who use it for illegal purposes to which the vast majority of our consumers do not wish to be exposed.' Read the letter here (pdf) [PDF], or the annotated text version."

7 of 690 comments (clear)

  1. eDonkey by PktLoss · · Score: 5, Informative

    I work for MetaMachine, authors of eDonkey. I find it rather funny that we don't have a copy of this letter...

    --
    paul reinheimer
  2. Re:Ridiculous statement by TrollBridge · · Score: 2, Informative

    Let's be honest. Most of music/movies/software available on P2P networks are neither in the public domain nor there with the permission of the copyright holder. pIt's amazing what people will say to convince themselves that copyright infringement via P2P is the exception rather than the rule.

    --
    There's a Mercedes gap too. I want one and can't afford one, but it's not government's job to do anything about it.
  3. Re:Corporate puppets by enforcer999 · · Score: 3, Informative

    FYI- All of the states Attorneys General have a "Consumer Protection Unit." They are charged with protecting consumers from fraudulent activity. That is why you as citizens are considered consumers in the letter.

  4. Classic ignorance... by gillbates · · Score: 3, Informative

    From the article:

    Furthermore, P2P file-sharing technology can allow its users to access the files of other users, even when the computer is "off" if the computer itself is connected to the Internet via broadband.

    Because, as everyone knows, a broadband connection is so powerful, it can steal bits from a stopped hard drive!? I'm sorry, but this is sheer ignorance:

    • In the first place, a PC has to be on to serve files, and cannot be remotely turned on, except for:
    • Those rare cases in which computer users are sophisticated enough to enable wake-on-LAN in their bios and remember to put the machine into sleep mode, rather than powering it down with the switch. Even then, it's still anyone's guess as to whether an incoming P2P request would wake the machine.
    • The likelihood that the above users would be sharing files without their knowledge is between slim and none. I'd posit that the overwhelming majority of "I didn't know I was sharing my whole hard drive..." types believe that a firewall sits adjacent the fireplace and AOL is "the Internet".
    --
    The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
  5. Re:This makes as much sense... by DAldredge · · Score: 2, Informative

    Doctors kill at least 10 times the number of people each year that guns kill.

  6. "Consumers" by mrscott · · Score: 4, Informative

    It was interesting to find this letter on Slashdot since I worked for the National Association of Attorneys General up until April of this year as the IT Director.

    As for your concern about the word "consumer", you are correct in your assumption that the AGs consider you their consumer. However, the word consumer in this sense is defined as "citizens that are under our jurisdiction", not as "our customer".

  7. Re:(censored) idiots... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Uh, rtfa. The article only states that P2P software should inform useres that downloading certain things could be illegal, warn users about sharing files, not include spyware with there software, and to make better (user-controlled) porno filters. How is this bad? The last line reads: 'It is only by taking such steps that P2P networks will be able to realize their innovative potential as a 21st century virtual collaboration and project management tool for regional or nationwide academic, business, home, and governmental activities'. yeah, sounds very anti-P2P to me, who would want that type of system.