Slashdot Mirror
States Threaten P2P Companies
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."
So I guess they think it's worse to do something illegal with P2P software than with a gun!?
Geez, I can't even start thinking about how stupid this sort of thing is.
home
...as charging gun manufacturers with murder when a gun is used to kill someone. Just because vehicles are used as "get-away cars" in bank robberies should we outlaw automobiles? How something is USED, and what something IS, are two completely different things. Guns can be used for good or evil, cars can be used for good or evil, p2p can be used for good or evil.
bittorrent ?
from the article...
Marty Lafferty, chief executive of the Distributed Computing Industry Association, another peer-to-peer group, said he has seen what appeared to be a draft of the current letter and that it contained substantial mischaracterizations of the technology and the file-swapping networks.
I don't think BT is company anyway but surely they can see that p2p apps do have some legitimate uses ?.
If this quote from the letter doesn't tell you state reps are being manipulated by the entertainment industry, nothing will:
"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."
So we, the citizens, are the attorney general's office's "consumers" now?? Either it's a revealing slip of the tongue from the AGs, or more likely the letter was originally drafted by the RIAA/MPAA...
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
At what point did state governments start to unabashedly refer to its citizens as consumers? (Don't answer that.)
--
Power to the Peaceful
'At present, ___________ 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.'
Fill in the blank with something else than 'P2P Software'. Try 'firearms,' 'painkillers,' 'penises.'
Points up the difference between what a tool is designed for vs. what it's used for. That's a key element in whether you make it illegal.
This letter is ridiculous. They talk about things like: the way P2P allows people to raid your files when your computer is off.. It would be really funny if it wasn't coming from one of the higher US legal forces.... which makes it kind of scary.
I am especially amused by this whole tone of 'you P2P companies need to educate your users' while displaying only the most tenuous grasp of the Internet within the letter itself. They list P2P as an Internet 'alternative;. Riiiight.
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
Replace the words 'P2P software' with any of the following (feel free to add your own) to see how ridiculous that statement is:
Let's be honest, there are a ton of illegal goings on on the various P2P clients/networks. That doesn't mean that P2P doesn't have its legitimate uses.
It's the people they should be going after, not the service.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
{word} suggestions:
- Alcohol - get people drunk to make them do stupid things
- Drugs - the abuse of things designed to help you
- Planes, Trains, Automobiles - can kill people as a result of items 1 and 2 or terrorism
- Microsoft OS - used to trojan peopls machines to send SPAM to everyone
- Islam - bastard terrorists who pervert this religion
- Christianity - priests and children
You could go on and on. You could put any word in there and come up with soemthing that fits that statement. The method of making the producer of a product responsible for a user's action with that product is assinine.Bullets kill people. Guns only mediate.
I work for MetaMachine, authors of eDonkey. I find it rather funny that we don't have a copy of this letter...
paul reinheimer
After all, it isn't like you have to intentionally download P2P software, or anything, to get it, right?
I read the letter (and Corante's a little-too-flip play-by-play), and one thing is clear: any sort of threat was removed in order that they could get the signatures of as many state AGs as possible. Some of their statements are downright silly, given that Apache could be considered P2P software. OTOH, some of the P2P behaviors they reference are clearly sleezy (stealth spyware installations, default sharing of all files), and should be stopped.
The fact that child porn is available on the P2P networks (as the AGs claim) is unfortunate, but we have existing laws to go after those creeps-- and that's what the AGs should be doing. However, none of that is a good reason to ban any of this software. The P2P companies would probably be smart to engage in some customer education, if only to cover their butts. Using a strict opt-in policy for sharing files would be nice, as would the ability to easily turn off file sharing (such as when "quitting" the program).
Let's not kid ourselves: some of these P2P software makers are scum. But that doesn't mean the AGs should be able to go after guys producing great software like Limewire. My advice to the AGs: back off the rhetoric, find the creeps sharing child porn (which is flat-out illegal), and go after the P2P companies who actively try to deceive customers.
Now, what I really want to see is the letter(s) the RIAA and MPAA sent to the AGs to prompt this action.
Where's the Kaboom?
There's supposed to be an Earth-shattering Kaboom.
It seems we are getting closer and closer to the point where the pivotal beta case will likely be overturned.
Wasn't it the beta ruling that included language about not preventing technology that could be used for illegal purposes if there were clear legal purposes it could be used for? That the mere ability for something to be used illegally is not reason enough to ban it or prevent its manufacture, sale, and use?
P2P does have other uses besides piracy. How many ISOs of legally distributable linux operating systems are distributed using systems like bittorrent? Unfortunately, the piracy makes all the headlines, and the piracy is what people hear about. Never mind the legal uses that P2P networks may be used for.
Isn't the Tor system a type of P2P system that is being developed with backing from the Navy?
Next, cars will be banned, because they can be used as getaway vehicles for bank robberies.
. 62,400 repetitions make one truth -- Brave New World, Aldous Huxley
There was a time where I wanted everyone to understand computers and how they could use them to make their lives better. I wanted people to understand what technology can do for them; the vast possibilities of it.
Every time I read something like this letter I die a little more when I realize how far from any hope of having a clue the vast majority of people are. The fact that all of AG's had a meeting and what they came up with was that uninformed piece is very, very sad. It shows a blatant lack of care about the real issues at hand.
100% Crunchier
One of the foot notes in the letter (which I can now read via PDF) states that the big issue is that by default file sharing programs share the entire hard drive of the user.
I am not aware of any P2P United client doing that, eDonkey in particular shares only files you have downloaded from the network by default.
paul reinheimer
'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.'
1) p2p has not been "hijacked," its being used to share things that are popular.
2) We are not "your consumers," we are "citizens." I had hoped that at least state attourny generals would get this. I guess I was wrong.
3) We are not being unwillingly exposed to anything. You have to voulentarily search for things.
4) The reason p2p is so popular is not because the people dont wish to be exposed to it, but because THE PEOPLE LIKE IT. Why wont they just ADMIT IT?!
5) Copyright infringement is a civil crime, not a criminal one. The gvt has no case in trying someone under criminal law for copyright infringement.
I am both angered and annoyed.
Remember, these are people that think free access to every bit of music ever made in human history to every single person is a BAD THING. Grar. Maybe I wouldnt be so annoyed if the public domain still existed. Well, since they decided to eliminate it, the people found another way to FORCE it to exist.
no
All 50 States' AG Warn Automakers: Your products are too dangerous!
We are writing to encourage your companies to take concrete and meaningful steps to address the serious risks posed to the consumers of our States by your company's personal transportation products("PtP"). By addressing such problems today as the use of these PtPs as getaway vehicles for bank robberies, perform drive-by shootings, not to mention the 40,000+ fatalities, hundreds of thousands of crippling injuries, and untold billions in lost wages and productivity, PtPs may one day realize their potential as a means for facilitating a wide range of transportation, recreation, sporting, and educational activities. At present, PtPs have 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.
If you can't or won't fix your products voluntarily, we will.
"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."
Well, supposedly the majority of P2P is used for "illegal" purposes. It's then easy to extrapolate from there to say that the vast majority does wish to be exposed to "illegal" offerings.
Although there is little evidence that child pornography or other criminal activities unrelated to copyright issues are any more prevalent on peer-to-peer networks than elsewhere on the Internet, entertainment companies and some policymakers have increasingly pointed to these issues as reason to impose new regulations on the networks and technology.
Yes, that is called FUD. What they fail to mention is that this is a vicious attack. The "we need to protect our children" bullshit. It apparently works for FoxNews why not laws?
In Washington, Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, is sponsoring a bill that would hold file-sharing companies liable for the illegal actions of their users, a measure that could push the existing commercial networks out of business.
I want to hold Orrin responsible for wasting Utah's tax dollars on fucking horseshit. There are much more important evils in Utah to deal with than P2P disrupting the conservative way of life out there.
The letter specifically asks that file-sharing companies stop encrypting network transmissions in ways that make it difficult for law enforcement to investigate and enforce the law.
Fuck them. I ask specifically that they keep their snooping eyes out of my business. Are they going to start asking that SSH tunnels be regulated because it may harbor criminals? We should all be required to run plaintext everything so that our information is out there for all eyes to see.
The EFF needs to write a letter back that simply says, "In the best interests of our children we have to say, 'No.'" It might be too simple for them to understand without all that legal mumbo-jumbo but it would certainly be easier than fighting with them over what is obviously a bunch of uneducated nonsense.
Okay, how about this. Since file sharing companies would be liable for their users actions under Sen. Hatch's proposed law, how about extending that to other markets.
Roads come to mind. I want the owners of the roads held liable everytime they are used for criminal purposes. If someone drives drugs from Miami up I-95, I think the owners of I-95 should be liable! The same goes for roads used during robbery get-a-ways and the like.
Networks are INFRASTRUCTURE, like the road system. They are not enclosed locations like retail stores or private businesses or buildings.
Where's a cluebat when you need one.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
What's next, FTP?
"Our research people have also discovered that large numbers of pirated files are being transferred over something called 'FTP.' Our lawyers have advised us that we should immediately sue everyone who uses FTP software."
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:
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
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.
Nice to know these are some of the watchdogs keeping us safe from Microsoft's excesses. It's amazing 46 AGs read this and actually signed it. Yes, ladies and gentlement, even when your kid's computer is off it is being used to traffic porn.
Apparently the demonic forces in Doom3 are also possessing the computers of a lot of silly lawyers.
Do not spread "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" over the internet, thank you.
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.'
Of course 'the vast majority of our consumers' agree with them - the consumers he is talking about are their consumers, ie those who use state attorney general services.
Read it again. Why talk about consumers? Why doesn't he instead mention the public interest? Because he's not conerned about the public interest (which he is supposed to protect). He's concerned about the interests of those who consume his services - in this case copyright holders.
Also notice how they are carefully going against service providers. They are simply going to settle with the ability to tap or access any information they want or need on these services without writing new laws or having to get court orders.
That's fine. I don't use these services anyway, and I'd use a non-centralized service long before I use a commercial or centralized service.
But let's not be blind. There are those who use these networks for terrorist activities and other activities which many (if not most) on this board would disagree with. It is worthwhile spending time to weed out the bad uses of these technologies so that we can still use the technology for good uses, instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Wet and soapy flying babies are very hard to catch in midair.
-Adam
Wow
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
From the article:
We view with equal alarm reports that at least some P2P file-sharing services are adding encryption features to those services.... Encryption only reinforces the perception that P2P technology is being used primarily for illegal ends. Accordingly, we would ask you to refrain from making design changes to your software that prevent law enforcement in our States from investigating and enforcing the law.
I find the notion that encryption implies criminal activity particularly troublesome, especially considering:
The problem with the "only criminals use encryption..." mantra is that it just isn't true. Encryption is used far more often for legal, productive activities than illegal ones.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
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".
How something is USED, and what something IS, are two completely different things.
:-) You should know that logic is irrelevant here when it comes to politicians trying to justify something. They use rhetoric for effect, not to conveny logical reasoning. (And AG's are politicians, possibly the most dangerous kind owing to their long-term power and elevated status.)
You're using logic.
When you're a politician, you're in the power game, the power to regulate and to dictate what others do. You're a coercer, in every bone in your body.
Now consider P2P networks. They bypass every possible point of control, totally undermining the ability of coercers to impose their will. The idea that P2P can be allowed to exist is utter anathema to them. And they can see that it could get much worse, with P2P traffic becoming practically invisible in addition to being effectively anonymous. This is beyond the pale. They have not worked their way up the tree of political power for 30-40 years only to be undermined like this.
If you can imagine a bunch of people totally freaking out, you've got the right picture. Don't expect logic.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra