Slashdot Mirror
House IP Leader Endorses P2P Blocking
Technical Writing Geek points out an Ars Technica report on comments from Representative Howard Coble (R-NC), who sits on the House Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property. In a recent editorial, Coble attempts to discourage P2P file sharing among young people, and praises Ohio University for its ban on P2P applications last year. Coble also suggests that identity theft is a great danger from file sharing. Public Knowledge is running a similar analysis, which argues against the main points from the editorial.
How is using bit torrent to obtain data that you would otherwise have to pay for any different from gathering up a thousand people, walking into Best Buy and walking out with all the music and software on the shelves?
This is not a rhetorical question.
I occasionally use bit torrent to download software and music. The way I rationalize it because:
1) I would not actually pay for that data if it were not available by any other means. I actually do purchase software that I would pay for.
2) I have already purchased that data at one point in the past and either lost it or am too lazy to rip all my CDs.
I don't believe either is a legitimate excuse for theft, but I do it anyway now and then. I've also ended up purchasing data that I have obtained through bit torrent.
Wouldn't banning P2P being roughly the online equivalent of banning the right to assembly?
If they ban P2P, they might try to claim they are implementing marshal law -- no assemblies (networks) of computers of more than 2 people -- except for licensed/official "service providers".
That could help return to the old paradigm of consumers being passive receptacles into which merchants insert their wares.. We have to control who is allowed to be "inserting" wares, ya know. Can't have the consumers producing content with equal access...all of US society will fall!
US society and culture is all about freedom of speech. However, before the internet, it was easy for the government and corporations to prevent your "freedom of speech" from being heard by all but the people around you. This seems to be one of the major friction points -- people are taking their "freedom of speech" that the are used to having in "small groups", and now using it on the internet where it can reach millions. The government and media corporations no longer have exclusive control.
The media corps whine the loudest -- claiming "consumers" can't be allowed to talk directly -- they'll use their direct (P2P) talking to transfer illegal goods. But meanwhile, the real hurt is being put on the mainstream media as newspapers and television are both suffering in numbers due to the internet. The media companies can' complain directly about that -- as it is competition, but they can use their entertainment arms (video, music, etc) to press for P2P controls and blocking.
I wonder how much of the media complaints are based in the fact that the internet is eroding nearly all of the classical media (news, music, entertainment, movies...) -- not because of illegal activity (though there may be some of that), but because people are spending time, on-line and that detracts from time spent watching TV, reading newspapers, magazines -- even listening to music -- except music that blends well into the background while one is online...
So what media firm(s) does this "house ip leader" represent...? Doesn't sound like he is representing the people...*sigh*