Slashdot Mirror
P2P Manifesto:Peer To Peer Study/Project
Marco Montemagno writes "
P2P Manifesto
is a P2P study that I've done and also a project, released under CC license.
This study (30 pages, available on a dedicated blog, in pdf format or in .torrent/blogtorrent) explain why:
- P2P is unstoppable
- P2P is positive for Companies
- P2P is positive for the market
- P2P is good for users
All the readers can create their own P2P Manifesto, free to edit this original P2P manifesto.
The idea is to then collect on the blog all the different P2P Manifesto's releases, to create a good knowledge base point about P2P issues."
That childish crap is totally useless to their cause.
No sane person denies that P2P is useful for certain purposes. The problem is about the bad side of P2P which is that it is unrestricted playground for IPR violations.
They would be better off by
a) creating PR campaign against P2P abuse (quite useless as well, but still...)
b) working with interested parties to include anti-piracy code in P2P clients (of course, they don't want to do that)
So, the effect of their action will be naught - those who use P2P will continue using it, those who don't will not use it.
Additionally, he should have someone proof-read the essay before he posts it to the world. I gave up half way through point 1 after getting fet up with all the comma splices, missing words, redundant words... Just... ugh...
...it is a crazy man's ramblings.
500GB of disk, 5TB of transfer, $5.95/mo
I agree. This whole paper seems like the unprofessional, semi-insane ramblings of a 14 year old kid. My only comfort is that he accurately titled it a Manifesto, although referring to it as a "study" at any point is disingenuous at best.
This paper is full of errors, uses language that only someone with no concept of business communication would use, and, if widely propagated, could do more damage to the PR side of P2P than anything the RIAA or MPAA could hope to accomplish.
The tern "Manifesto" has negative connotations, primarily in the United States of America and, to a lesser extent, the countries which share its spere of influence. This is due to the Communist Manifesto, penned by Karl Marx. Interestingly enough, Communist has devolved into a derogatory term in the same areas. In the areas where Communist is not a swear word, Manifesto also does not infer the incoherent ramblings of a lunatic, placed in print to corrupt the world
Do you see a correlation?
with P2P app as small as 15 line of code and broadband in more than 50% of Amerian houses File sharing is here to stay
How about simply telling people not to copy what they didn't pay for? Nope, it won't be effective, but the alternative, working with interested parties to include anti-piracy code in P2P clients, makes it sound like it's the software author's fault.
What sort of "anti-piracy code" sdo you think will work?
Filters? Nope, there have been past stories here about the borkups caused by content owners not checking the results filters gave them.
Tie the software into a big content comparison DB? Let's see that one scale.
A back-door pass to control which files can or can't be traded? Hell no.
No simple solution. Best thing is to keep doing that the RIAA is doing... sue the infringing users. Of course, I wish they'd actually make sure that the folks they sue actually have been infringing.
Of course centralization is more efficient on several points. Decentralization was the fool's answer to legal attacks. Now the lawyer's are busy chasing down this individual or that individual. Decentralization offers no legal safety, no political safety. They should have been working on anonymity.
No one can sue you, if they can't figure out who you are.
They should also have been working on deniability. Freenet may offer anonymity, but when freenet is outlawed, it will be pretty obvious what IP addresses are participating in freenet. If the only software you run seems to be legitimate, and if everyone doesn't have to use the same software as everyone else to participate...
Ideas, images, movies and writings are not property.
Property has physical existence as its primary characteristic. A book may be physical property. But the stream of words and images within are is not.
Secondary characteristic: if you take a property away from the owner, the owner no longer has access to it. Take a book away from me, and you have stolen my property. Take an image of the book, and I still have the book; nothing has been stolen.
No memetic hijacking of the words "property" and "stealing", please.
Your point about "communism"? Jefferson and his allies wanted no copyrights in the constitution. Damned commie. Also, the U.S., until the 20th century, recognized no country's copyright laws save its own. The entire population and government of the U.S. were communistic thieves for over 125 years. We only cared about international copyright when we wanted to make more money.
While such language is common on Creative Commons-licensed stuff, in this case it's almost like the author is saying "Here is my first cut of a document I'd like to see produced, everyone else please edit it, fill in the ( huge ) gaps, give it some actual content and substance. Thanks."
It's the literary equivalent of setting up an open source software project with a not-really-functional 'prototype' codebase and hoping someone makes it actually work.
I know the topic of P2P ( and more generally, 'file sharing' ) has been studied by tons of smart folks at universities and corporations alike, what about some links to some of those? Oddly enough, the 'study' just has links to ( mostly ) opinion pieces and blogs ( including, of all things, a slashdot article ).
To speak to the parent posts' points of
well, that's an interesting topic all by itself.Frankly, copyright-protected files are the most common files found on P2P networks. Rather than hiding from reality, we should seek to understand what reality means. In this case, I think reality means that copyright is a generally unenforcable law - like many other laws on the books, it's an example of bad law which in the long run wastes taxpayer money for the ( dubious ) benefit of a small segment of the population.
Copyright infringment is an old, old problem, vastly pre-dating the internet. Even without filesharing, there'd be lots of "piracy", as it's now labeled. As long as there is copyright protection for easily copied items, there will be piracy. It's a law which is extremely difficult to enforce- at best.
If I "steal" cable (which is a quite common phrase), am I depriving the cable company of their "property"? No, I'm not. Does that make it alright? No, it really doesn't. Playing semantics on the words "steal" and "property" is no excuse for doing something you know is wrong.
Only if you try to sell information for more than their perceived worth.
Linux is not Windows
You're joking right? Give him a break because he's "pretty". This is /. not the young and the bloody restless. Its not just the translation that's poor. His grasp of the concepts is poor, and he's claiming to be an expert in technology. He's an arts professor! As far as I'm concerned he's a conman with a winning smile, and you're falling for it!
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
I'm not sure what you did in high school, but this sounds more like 6th grade writing. Even the ninth graders at my school would laugh at this.