Slashdot Mirror
File Trading Law Would Include 'Willing' Traders
mgessner writes "From InfoWorld comes a story on the U.S. House's approval of a new, tough law against trading files online. 'The bill expands the definition of file traders eligible for criminal penalties from individuals who 'willingly' distribute copyright files to those who 'knowingly' do so, an escalation that could result in jail time for file swappers.'" (The bill has yet to go through the Senate.)
I guess Granny won't be coming to Christmas this year.
:(
with boxes checked by default, and programs scanning ur hd's for stuff to share, how do they determine just where the thin line of knowingly and willingly is???
The GPL is a copyright so does this make it illegal to download opensource software?
Index
Summary
Text of legislation
Let's have:
people who illegally photocopy books go to jail
people who illegally perform plays and musical pieces go to jail
people who plagiarize or don't cite references go to jail
Hell let's just have anyone who says anything in a non-free speech zone go to jail.
If I "knowingly" share files, aren't I "willingly" sharing them as well.
Does this apply to people who KNOW that they share files, but don't WANT to???
I'm confused!!!
That being said, I feel it's important to note that what needs evaluating isn't the violation of copyright, rather, the purpose and effect of copyright itself.
We'll build large complexes to house all the file traders. Force them to attend some kind of "knowledge" classes, make them pay restitution, keep them up til all hours of the night studying how good societies act, how responsible citizens should act.
We'll ban all contraband and make sure we run them through a series of tests before letting them out.
Oh wait, I've done my time, it was called University!
Yo Grark
Canadian Bred with American Buttering
Screw what the lawyers thing, we have technology to fight them. Try Freenet. It's mathematically impossible to determine what you're sharing! Try going to jail for sharing random bytes :-)
My other car is first.
In abone head move Congress outlaws file trading amoung willing participants.. ..hmm they seem to have flunked intrnet 101 as your borwser reads afile/shares a fiel with the server to give you that nice graphical page..
Sonny Bono must be hitting that tree again and again and again
Don't Tread on OpenSource
From the article:
Detractors of the legislation claim that the measure would not stop the trading of copyright files and will not help the entertainment industry find a way to ensure artists get paid for the distribution of their works.
Well, what law has ever stopped a crime. Laws (theoretically) just reduce crime (but, obviously not in all cases).
Also, from the article:
"Putting downloaders behind bars, or decimating their college funds with civil lawsuits, won't put the genie of peer-to-peer technology back in the bottle or put real money in the pockets of real artists," P2P United's Eisgrau said in an e-mail interview with IDG News Service earlier this week.
This is the smartest thing I've read about file sharing in general to date.
P.S.: What is the difference between knowingly and willingly?
When people start abusing this law and the public gets fed up with it congress will be left with all the blame.
Regardless of who becomes president for the next four years, we are still going to see more stupid laws like these in the future.
I have to be totally honest in asking WTF is going on with all this emphesis on file trading? Seriously, America has the single largest murder numbers in the western world (Larger then Canada's and Europes combined - excluding ww2) I think that there are far bigger issues that the US could do with addressing then kids getting some singles on the cheep (free)..
That said, how long until Europe decides to follow suit, well, if not Europe, England (who have their own version of the DMCA, have tried very hard to keep their copyright laws in step with the US etc etc)?
regards, the_leander
why I am glad that I do not live in America...
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
I suspect that those software engineers will set sail east across "the pond" in search of a land were they can have rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Rights that many in our government are trying to take away [if you aren't "with them"]. We tried it over here, it worked for about 224 years and at last the western empire is starting to crumble.
"Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a fat white guy who is threatened by change."
Actually, it almost certainly will happen, since it will be on the taxpayer's dime rather than the RIAAs. There is no disincentive to the RIAA asking for and eating up millions in taxpayer funds chasing down those using p2p networks.
In my opinion, laws like this should be to defend those without the resources from those with the resources. This is the other way around (using rich government resources to support an already rich organization against common individuals). There is no reason for the government to pass new laws (since trading copyrighted files is already illegal) when the RIAA already has the ability to defend itself using existing law and resources.
To me, "knowingly" implies that a file is being shared with the user's knowledge. Whereas "willingly" implies the user made a conscious choice to share the file.
What's the difference, legally speaking?
Said person supposedly operating in ignorance could be given the benefit of the doubt with exactly _ONE_ warning, and given a finite interval (perhaps 2 weeks) in which to rectify the situation. Failure to comply within that interval would leave them without any excuse for not knowing they were distributing.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
That's interesting because everybody accepts cops setting up speed traps and using radar guns to catch speeders. And investigating murders and fraud in order to capture criminals. Yet we don't like the idea of an organization that would police the internet in order to stop the theft of music and movies. Without considering the state of the music and video industry, downloading mp3s and ripped movies without paying for them is illegal. Whether the laws need to be adjusted to allow copyrights to expire or prices to come down is beside the point. Right now these things are illegal, but no one advocates that policing the internet is a means to making it safer or more enriching.
-- i am jack's amusing sig file
My google-fu must be on the fritz today; I can't find a website telling me how representatives voted on this bill. Can anyone else do better?
possesion
with intent to distribute
and any other bogus charge that will get you sent to jail to do hard time for something that really doesn't harm anyone.
Think of all those people who are doing hard time for just having one joint!
If you have an infected machine that has an open exploit, you may be prosecuted since you willingly run a machine that is on the internet. That you didn't make sure that there was no open shares, ftp servers, or virus that might allow others to use your machine for sharing files.
Fight Spammers!
-
Because we all know that passing laws to make, say, speeding in cars, murder, fraud etc. illegal has put an end to all those activities.
And regular lawsuits against multiple people trading files online, including 12yo girls and grandparents who didn't even know that their grandkids had installed the software have worked too. But yep, a law will do the trick, heaven knows people won't break a law but are happy to risk financial ruin.What do we expect though? It seems that one business or another owns every member of Congress, "We the people" is now "We the corporations" as far as representation in Congress goes. *sigh*
Clearly this law is incompatible with American society.. tens of millions of people cannot be wrong.
A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
is known to make party line stance on virtually all of the issues ever to encounter, that its hard to envisage this guy has ever in his life, thought for himself, used his god given intelligence to seperate himself (or others) from the party line rhetoric, or to atleast understand the laws he is responsible for passing in the house.
A few of his noted yes/no votes can shed a lot of light on where he stands on the issues:
(1)Voted YES on allowing school prayer during the War on Terror - Yes praying as a collective does help in cleansing terrorism.
(2)Voted YES on giving federal aid only to schools allowing voluntary prayer
(3)Voted NO on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels - Wants to rely on Oil and dont want the Automobile industry to answer to better environmental standards.
(4)Voted NO on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR. - Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, enough said!
(5)Voted YES on speeding up approval of forest thinning projects - Apparently want the rest of the US start looking like Texas (no offense).
(6)Voted YES on Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China - Yes, Cuba - BAD, China - GOOD!!
(7)Voted NO on $156M to IMF for 3rd-world debt reduction - Handouts are good when its to your automobile industry cronies and to big corporations, bad idea when its to third world countries.
(8)Voted NO on campaign finance reform banning soft-money contributions - No Finance Reform!! Period!
(9)Voted YES on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1 - By God! Yes, we all know how excruciatingly painful it is to wait 3 days for appropriate checks to be made..
(10)Voted NO on allowing reimportation of prescription drugs - We really believe you should pay 20$ for that tylenol pill instead of 30 cents if you were importing it from Canada.
What pisses me off is that even if Kerry wins this November, the senate and the house under Republican control will end up making him an acting president and not a real one. Not that I think a Democrat controlled house and senate is any better. I just want politicians to really understand the bills they sign and talk to people who these laws ultimately affect.
Rapid Nirvana
Murder victims have little effect on corporate contributions.
Isn't that what they're doing now, going after those breaking the law. You can still file share legal stuff all you want.
Pretty much anything online is copyrighted these days. No sharing of URLs with anyone anymore, about interesting articles?
Saheed, it is the Democrats who have the vast majority of the uber-rich on their side, and the corporations as well. The GOP has become the party of the middle-class. Things have changed in the last 60 years. If you've been following this, you will also know that plenty of pro-Constitution, anti-State-totalist people - right-wingers in your definition - have been fighting this sort of legislation.
But then, your post might just be work of Al Queda, as their goal is destablizing western civilization (what's left of it) in order to subject the dar al harb to the sword.
This is a great example of the ways in which big business can manipulate government to its advantage.
It's perfectly within reason that copyright holders can sue, , in civil suits, to stop the unauthorized distribution of their works. Copyright violation is a matter between two parties: the copyright holder and the violator.
But with a law like this, the onus to police copyright matters falls on the government, and not the copyright holder.
What we're seeing is a push by big business, through legislation, to reduce their attorney fees. When copyright matters are criminal cases, not civil actions, the violators are punished-- justly or not-- at the expense of government, rather than at the expense of the corporation.
Hmm at this rate we'll soon have to put murderers, drug dealers, rapists, and terrorists out on the street to make room for all of the file swappers we're putting in jail! I know I'll feel a lot safer that way, and Britney will be able to sleep at night safe and secure in the knowledge that record company profits are secure!
To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started
Different laws (criminal and civil) punish actors differently based on not just the act itself, but also the actor's state of mind.
Generally, commiting the same act intentionally as opposed to recklessly or negligently will bring on a harsher penalty. Intentionally aiming a rifle at someone and shooting is punished more harshly than if the gun goes off accidentally and kills them. The victim is just as dead in both cases, but the first actor will probably be punished more severely than the second.
In this case, the House seems to have lowered the bar to include both intentional and willful conduct (there is probably a subtle difference between the two) but not negligent or reckless conduct. All of these terms are (or will be) defined elsewhere in the Act or in the U.S. Code. Without knowing what the devil Congress means by these qualifiers, it's hard to say what exactly has been passed. Odds are though, it's not good.
My guess is that if one is found to be sharing more than X number of files (or transferring X amount of copyrighted data) the law will provide that the requisite level of intent has been met.
Bush Lies On the Record.
This bill came up as a Suspension Bill in the House. Suspension bills are usually only lightly debated (if at all), are unable to be amended, and must pass by a 2/3'rds majority.
/.'er may know more than the average American, I doubt any of us know a ton about what it specifically does.
The most common use of a Suspension bill? To rename a Post Office.
I honestly don't know much about this bill, and while the average
It is shameful that this bill was put up and passed without any serious debate or review (outside of committee, if even there) by the actual Members of Congress.
Oh well, it happens all the time.
While I agree with you in that the punishment absolutely does not fit the crime, I believe it's a little narrow-minded to say that it's only "Right Wing Assholes" who are resposible for the entertainment industry's current stance on file trading, even if this one particular bill was sponsored by a Texas Democrat. Most of Hollywood and the various eMpTV voice pieces are overwhelming liberal (I'd say the term "Left Wing Assholes") applies. And BTW, does the name Fritz Hollings ring any bells?
What Slashbots say they want and what they actually want are often very different, and often contradictory.
They insist that the GPL is a valid lisense and (rightfully) insist that it be respected and enforced. However they sing a very different tune (no pun intended) when it comes to copyrighted music.
The average Slashbot just doesn't want to pay for music, and will make any (other) argument to justify violating copyright law.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
Any copyright enforcement bill needs the exception for Senators that use unlicensed software:
, 00 .html
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,59305
Note that there are other crimes where no mens rea is required: Statutory Rape is one of them, serving alcohol to minors is another. Personally I disagree with having no requirement for a mens rea component in those crimes. But, in the eyes of the law mens rea is not absolutely required.
:)
I am not a lawyer, I'm a computer engineering student taking a law class
isomerica.net | Foonetic IRC
This sort of fascinated and horrified me when I finally realized it was true, but then upon reflection, one sees that the U.S. was essentially born out of a property rights dispute with the English crown(taxation without representation), and in the Civil War, nearly tore itself apart over a property rights issue, that being human slavery.
I guess we take them seriously here.
In other news - SCO files a suit against any Freenet node holding the consecutuve bytes 0C 0F FF FA because that code sequence comes from one of their SCO UNIX binaries.
AT&ROFLMAO
Murder rates (even in the US!) are down since the introduction of the court system. The period of introduction is different in different parts of the world, but were-ever it's been introduced, it seems to have played a large part in stopping people from killing each other (vengeance belongs to the judge)
Fraud is, and has always been a huge problem. It seems that we find fraud less abhorrent to murder. For example, if you were talking to a guy in a bar, and he told you he'd got out of jail for [murder|fraud] would you re-act, at a basic level, more negatively to murder? I think many people would.
As for speeding... since the introduction of laws, a campaign by the police, both in the media and on the roads, both speed and road injuries due to speeding have decreased dramatically in Australia.
The real change came when speed cameras were introduced... everyone slowed down since there was no chance you wouldn't get caught if you speed habitually. Now everyone just drives at the speed limit and it's not a problem.
In brief, my point is that laws _can_ and _do_ help. My point is not that we need more laws, or that this particular law is a good idea.
A democracy introducing a law that makes most of it's citizens into criminals for the benefit of a few seems a little... ironic?
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
Yep, Here in the US, We have the best politians that money can buy. This is just another example.
In Change the Law I point out that while the Constitution allows for Congress to enact copyright laws, it doesn't actually require it to do so. Copyright could be repealed tomorrow if we could get enough votes in Congress to do so.
If you don't think this could happen, consider that there are more Americans sharing files via peer-to-peer networks than voted for George Bush in 2000.
In my article I detail a number of steps you can take to bring about much needed copyright reform. My suggestions are that you:
-
Speak Out
-
Vote
-
Write to Your Elected Representatives
-
Donate Money to Political Campaigns
-
Support Campaign Finance Reform
-
Join the Electronic Frontier Foundation
-
Practice Civil Disobedience
If you feel as I do that more people need to read my article, you can help by linking to it from your website, weblog, or from other message boards.If you're a US citizen and 18 years of age or over, you can vote in November. But to do that, you must be registered to vote in your state. The voter registration deadline for most states is just a few days away, October 2nd for most states. So register today! Rock the Vote can help you with registration.
If you're a US citizen residing in a foreign country like me (I live in Canada), you can register to vote with the form you can obtain from the Federal Voting Assistance Program. You can register to vote in the last state you resided in in the US. But again, your registration must be received by your state by the deadline, so either express your application, or fax it, if a fax number is available.
(If you've never lived in the US, but one of your parents was a US citizen, then you're a US citizen too and you can register in the last state your parent resided in.)
If you want to make a campaign donation, a good choice would be Representative Rick Boucher. Rick Boucher has worked tirelessly for copyright reform, as you can see from his article Time to rewrite the DMCA.
Request your free CD of my piano music.
Only public property is considered a free-speech zone really...and even then it only applies to the government...not individuals (which is beside the point you are making). If you are in my house and use language I don't approve of I can have you removed because I own the property (actually I would ask you to leave first...then have you removed if you didn't comply).
Real (as opposed to personal...i.e. land ownership) property rights are what should trump everything else.
Unfortunatly these rights are being eroded as well. Thst is why "...life, liberty, and the pursuit of happyiness" used to be "life, liberty, and property".
Vote the peeps out of office that erode these rights already!
Let me slightly re-edit and repeat something I previously posted to /.
Concerning Freenet, countless times I've read that once you've been online for a while you will find that you achieve downloads more quickly, and you will have a better experience. However, after a couple of weeks of continuous use, my Freenet experience is no better than at the beginning - awful. It's slow. It's impossible to browse around at random to get the feel of the place. It's extremely difficult to find anything. Unless I'm missing something major, it's nigh onto unuseable.
Would somebody please tell me how Freenet is supposed to work? I must be missing something because what I'm seeing surely isn't what was intended unless the designers just happen to like dishing out pain...
A good read for those interested.
How the music biz can live forever, get even richer, and be loved
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. -- Harlan Ellison
For the longest time it has irritated me that "the other side" doesn't get it when talking about file sharing and peer-to-peer. There's always a sense that the only thing these technologies are good for is infringing copyright.
Now I'm beginning to see our side talk about it that way.
This will not do. Leaving aside any discussion about whether sharing copyrighted files (against the will of the copyright owner) should or should not be illegal, we have to face the fact that it is.
But we must also never forget that sharing files (even copyrighted ones) within the will of the copyright owner is legal. If we forget that, then we surely will lose this war.
The effect of making it illegal, or even more illegal to infringe using p2p will simply clear the way for a culture where those copyrighted works which allow sharing replace those works which don't; a victory for those who create.
The effect of making it illegal, or even more illegal to use p2p at all hands the victory to those who own other peoples creations and exploit them for profit. RIAA, MPAA and crew.
I just can't understand why young people today are willing to forgo their only chance to create a culture for themselves in exchange for a chance to buy (or obtain illegally) a piece of somebody else's culture.
Come on, now. Boy George just wasn't that good.
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.
In Bush's America, Laws Break You!
[/would be funny if it weren't true]
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
I watched with horror as this bill came to the floor on CSPAN yesterday. It only highlighted how poorly our government is run.
For half an hour, the proposing legislator used the work "piracy" as many times as he could, which by itself shows that they cannot distinguish piracy from infringement, and therefore shouldn't be allowed to write copyright legislation, much less comment on it. These scare tactics are unacceptable.
Furthermore, there were maybe 5 or 10 representatives listening. What exactly are they paid to do if not sit there, read the bills, and vote on them? Very eye opening!
And finally, as the representative said, "for the efficiency of time," this house resolution also includes a proposition that the oak tree be the national tree. Wow, copyright, and trees. I see the relation.
Ugh.
The right analogy would be "But officer, I didn't know I was selling heroin to second graders. The wholesaler told me that this white powder was sugar and I believed him."
That's interesting because everybody accepts cops setting up speed traps and using radar guns to catch speeders.
Well, you don't do time when you are caught speeding. Which is even more psychotic because driving dangerously can actually get people killed whereas pirating music could potentially lose someone a tiny amount of money.
It looks like, if you really look at it with a sense of "the big picture", that the U.S. Govt. doesn't like the internet. Just like it's easy for citizens and average computer users to be "infringing" without knowing or realizing it, it's easy for the legislators to be disliking the internet without realizing it. So the end result is, is some ways, not unlike China - although on the surface it simply appears that the legislators want to pick and choose those parts of cyberspace that will please the campaign contributions for the incumbents. But they are rapidly becoming enemies of the internet and free speech, without even realizing it.
But it's also time to move on. It's not the responsiblity of the content distributors to enforce copyright laws. So in that sense, this bill makes some sense - if there are laws to enforce, it's the government that should be enforcing them.
The problem is that it's way to easy to get in trouble without even realizing what you are doing - sort of like driving a car that has no speedometer - better yet, driving a car that has no windshield so you can't see who you are running over. Anonymous p2p is going to solve this problem in the future. It is going to 1) further free speech, freedom of expression, and create a forum where artists and fans can share and learn and experience new things; 2) protect unwitting, inexperienced computer users from breaking harsh laws unknowningly. It may also protect parents from their kid's evil friends, and roommates from each other.
Furthermore, I don't see how you can pass a bill that places the enforcement of a three-year or greater felony in the hands of minimum-wage movie theater employees. Someone is bound to get hurt.
Crime is exponential in nature. America's population is as much as 5 times larger then some of the places you listed (or places you may have implied), the exact rate of increase I don't know, but I do know that means that America's murder rate should be significantly higher then 5 times what ever country you sampled. The following data was pulled from here. Now unfortunately the data is slightly old, but for everything I'm citing, its all less then a decade, which is reasonable. As stated earlier, the United States' population is approx. 5 times that of England's, because of the exponential increase in crime, our numbers should be at least (if not much higher) then 5 times England's. However, the United State's total homicide numbers are only 4.04 times larger. It seems we are doing something right. Our homicides by firearms are significantly larger, but all that this proves is that if you take away someone's gun, there are still plenty of ways to kill someone, and the folks from England seem to do just fine in finding alternatives. Germany seems to be doing pretty good as far as first world countries go, and interestingly enough, they fall just in range of a reasonable exponential increase when comparing them to the US. It seems that despite all of the hype that England gets for its gun laws, something is still lacking. Keep in mind, that Germany and America both have a significantly higher number of households with guns then England does. So although our numbers are large, they are no worse then is expected and better then Englands when you take into account other factors. My point being that humans will kill regardless of what you give them (or take away). Most murders, as far as the US goes, and I'd assume the rest of the world in general, is crime on crime anyway. Some would argue that we should just let the criminals keep killing eachother, whether you find that a sane oppinion is a personal preference. ( I personally would change that statement around a bit,as crime on crime murders still do affect normal law abiding citizens) I hope this helps in getting a better oppinion or at least a more clear picture from a different point of view.
Regards,
Steve
Illegally "sharing" files wasn't a crime. It used to be a civil matter that could be dealt with by lawsuit in civil court. That is what the big recording companies are trying to change. They want to put the burden of prosecuting file sharing on the government so they can reduce their lawyer fees.
Just what we need. More stupid fucking laws keeping more Americans in jail per capita than any other country in the world.
"Land of the Free" is the biggest bullshit line I've ever heard/read.
How can you trust anything they say? Let alone a statistic that they're spouting off to make themselves feel important?
Do you remember the news article of how a couple people were arrested for running a "monstrous CD pirate factory"? It was written that they had about 50 CD Burners running non-stop. Turns out it was only 6 CD burners, but they multiplied it by a factor of X, because cd burners are X times faster than they used to be.
So the movie industry is trying to tell Congress how important they are. They try to credit themselves for 5% of the U.S. GDP. I agree that sounds impressive. But the US GDP is about 10 Trillion dollars. 5% of that is 500 Billion dollars. Obviously, the movie industry is only a fraction of that. What makes up the other 90% of that 5%? Music, TV, books, games, software... Anything relating to copyright.
The movie industry is in competition with other entertainment markets. For me, namely computer games, since they're the highest rising related market. Yet when it comes to looking 'bigger', they'll gladly include themselves in the bigger group. When they fight for laws, it's laws to protect the movie industry.
It is now a felony to video record inside a movie theator. Movie sales are 2 billion dollars a year, so that is 0.02% of the GDP.
What I would like to see stats for is what percentage of "all this money" they have goes to the actual workers vs. executives. I'm sure the Music Industry would find themselves at the bottom of that chart, so you dont' see them bragging about that.
I'm all for fair laws. But when shoplifting 100 CD's carries less fines & jail time than potentially sharing 900 songs, I think there's something wrong. Selling drugs inside a movie theator gets you less than the felony that the video taper will now get.
Want fair laws? Let's fine each of the music executives 500% of their annual salary each time they're caught price fixing! We will "let" them settle out of court if they pay 30% of their annual salary.
If a student has to fork over $4,500 dollars they don't own (or face $300,000 if they lose) then I think it's only fair. Why are millions of americans "crooks", when it's the music executives themselves who have been busted at least twice for price fixing. Not to mention sued thousands of times by artists for breach of contract, and a million other things that don't make headline news.
Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?
There needs to be a Slashdot story done on the following application that is breaking new ground on almost a daily basis .Soon there will be Jabber support for this application via Jeti Java Messenger http://jeti.jabberstudio.org/ .
Ants P2P Website
http://www.myjavaserver.com.nyud.net:8090/~gwren/h ome.jsp?page=custom&xmlName=ants
Ants P2P Sourceforge Page
http://sourceforge.net/projects/antsp2p/
Ants P2P Features
* Open Source Java implementation (GNU-GPL license).
* Multiple sources download.
* Torrent download from partial files.
* Automatic resume and sources research over the net.
* Search by hash, string and structured query.
* Embedded support for etherogeneus data types (not only arrays of bytes...).
* Completely Object-Oriented routing protocol.
* Point to Point secured comunication: DH(512)-AES(128)
* EndPoint to EndPoint secured comunication: DH(512)-AES(128)
* Automatic serverless peer dicovery procedure.
* IRC based peer discovery system.
* IRC embeded chat system.
* Full text search of indexed documents (pdf, html, txt, doc etc) -> QUERY REFERENCE.
* Distributed/Decentralized Search engine
* HTTP tunneling.
The programers answers to all those damn FAQ's
1) ANts supports point to point encription (AES 128 - DH 512)
2) ANts supports endpoint encryption ( " " )
3) ANts supports multipath routing for packets
4) ANts supports preferential connections (to create a fast backbone and
to let everyone going faster)
5) ANts supports PARTIAL DOWNLOADS and it has a unique and very
innovative system to do this (in theory it could be better than
bittorrent inspite of routing overhead and speedes reached on LAN showed
this!)
6) ANts supports AUTOSEARCH SOURCES function for active and interrupted
donwloads, if your donwload pass in the interrupted box this DOES NOT
MEAN that you have lost it... it is just paused and it will restart as
soon as possible!
7) ANts can find partial files through normal queries or queries by hash
since version 0.4.1 beta!
8) ANts supports FULL TEXT indexing and do searches over full file
content and FULL FILE PATH LOCATION.
9) ANts will (perhaps) support instant messaging integration
10) ANts IS NOT a simple IRC client
11) ANts relies on ad-hoc network theory as well as MUTE
12) ANts is strongly beta... this means it is not intended to be dummies
probed!
13) ANts releases ARE NOT backward compatible, so if you can't find
peers you probably has an old version! Use Java Web Start to be sure to
have te newest one.
14) ANts exploits IRC CTCP commands for initial ip exchange!
15) ANts supports internal ip exchage during and after your first
connection.
16) ANts queries are cripted in an asymmetric way. This means YOU are
the ONLY who can read you queries results. Everyone can read the query
string but this approach reduces drastically the potential power of a
node in trasit queries analisys.
17) ANts uses TWO consecutive ports (Like HTTP does) default are 4567 &
4568 but you can change the lower getting automatically changed the
highest. If you are NATTED you don't need two non consecutive ports,
cause these ports are used ONLY for incoming requests. Your own requests
are made on any free port, so you don't have to care, it can take a
little bit more to obtain your first connection if you are natted, but
ANts can work with natted peers as well as with unnatted ones without
ANY difference
17) Internal protocol is not harmed by nats and firewall... so once you
get a connection it doesn't make sense saying "I'm natted my queries are
not working!".
1
Fact. If you illegally share copyrighted materials online you are in the wrong.
I never contended that what they did was legal, only that the lawsuits have NOT stopped the downloading. Of the two examples I gave one was a 12yo girl who reportedly had only a few songs, she'd downloaded the theme song from her favorite show. In any other context everyone would be claiming she was too young to know better, but now you feel she not only should have known better it was justifiable for the RIAA to not only sue her but refuse to drop the case when the facts surfaced? What if it'd been your kid, I'm quite sure your reaction would be different.
Of the other example the grandfather was not aware his computer was sharing songs. His grandkids had installed the software when visiting without his permission or knowledge. They downloaded some music, and left it running, set to start on startup. So the real violaters were his grandkids, he was an innocent bystander. Yet again your reaction is he got what he deserved.
Funny that there was no accusation in my post. Wow, I point out that the lawsuits aren't working and that if folks aren't willing to stop downloading music when facing the prospect of financial ruin a law isn't going to help and you're angry about that? I suggest taking Yoga, it's supposed to do wonders for anger management. Whether you like it or not the facts support my post. There are already laws against downloading and sharing music, there are already lawsuits being tossed about galore, there are already numerous victims (yes victims, victims of an industry unwilling to change) financially ruined yet the public overwhelmingly continues to download and share music online. No law is going to stop that, it's a cultural phenomenon now. You might find it distasteful, but you know what? The sheet music printers found piano rolls to be very distasteful and illegal (which they were at the time) yet they didn't succeed in stopping them.
What fucking victims? The artists are victims, but not of the downloaders, they got ripped off when they signed their contracts with the record companies. Those who recorded/produced/pressed/distributed the CDs are going to be your next group right? Sorry but while CD sales are down there is no proof it's being caused solely by downloading online. How soon we forget the studies that have shown that active downloaders buy more music. The music industry can claim it's because of downloading all day, and I, and many others, can claim it's because of shitty content, overpriced CDs and a bloated, immoral, antiquated industry. I suspect that it's a bit of both. But a "serious crime"? Oh come on, are you serious? We're not talking rape, murder or assault here. We're talking copyright infringment. On the list of serious crimes it's pretty damned low. I'm far more concerned about things like that being prevented that Congress wasting time and money to pass yet more laws to go after music downloaders. The way they're expanding things is frankly disturbing too. Knowingly instead of willingly? Well what's knowingly? If someone trojans your machine and starts sharing files off of it, then you find out 3 weeks later and spend 2 weeks trying to get it stopped weren't you "knowingly" sharing for those 2 weeks, even though you were trying to stop it? Yes you were, and you too could wind up in jail thanks to this law.
And frankly your smart-ass example isn't far fromt he truth. If everyone's getting a drink during commercials and it'
The combination of both, makes it pretty easy to setup 'zombie P2P' machines..
Hard to prove it wasnt intended.. ( ie: 'willing' )
And before you say ' people should know better and be responsible for their actions' , most average people cant figure out how to put files on a floppy.. you cant expect them to secure their 'network'..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Somebody needs to organize a campaing to ruthlessly enforce these laws on the close friends and family of the Representatives which passed this legislation.
:\
Maybe, just maybe, if the gun they were bribed for started shooting people they cared about, they would think twice about 'doing a favor' for corporate lobbyists?
But then again, maybe not....
The U.S. government pays me to do research on reactive chemistry. I am required to move very large files across networks. I am afraid that this movement of files might be misconstrued as illegal file sharing by corporations that can put me in jail. Is it important for me to continue doing research for the government that also may allow corporations to accuse me of file sharing based solely on large amounts of local area network traffic?
The answer is that I should probably quit using a computer in order to preserve my status as a non-felon.
Does this mean that my brother in Georgia (I live in Texas) can't send me digital photos that he has taken. The photographs are copyrighted and he is using AIM for file sharing, so this fits the criteria for the law. Furthermore would AOL be fined if people used AIM to file share. It would be shccking for the government to bring charges on the largest ISP in America for sponsoring a service that supports file sharring. I'm probably wrong but oh well...
Can you imagine how boring sports would be if there were only two teams? They'd each tailor their offense against the one other team's defense. There would be only slight innovation as each reacted to counter the other.
Now look at the two party system. What gets argued about? Big vs. really big government, higher vs. much higher taxes, barely distinguishable environmental policies, ad nauseum. They keep the voters focused on issues that polarize them but aren't much acted upon in the end (or are very similar in position).
If you're in a swing state, by all means vote Kerry rather than your preferred candidate, as I absolutely agree that while Kerry is bad, Bush is far, far worse and vastly more dangerous.
However, if you're not in a swing state, vote however you want, for more than the presidency is determined by your vote. Votes for third parties increase their campaign funding, ballot access and perceived credibility.
Freedom to fear. Freedom from thought. Freedom to kill.
I guess the War on Terror really is about freedom!
Make sure you're using the unstable build and network. The stable build/network sucks. Pump up your data store size. A LOT. Read the freenet mailing list archives, this issue is discussed periodically