I'll identify the legal live music tracker at Etree for ya. Sure, some of the bands (a little over 800 of 'em) have their music available at The Internet Archive, but the Archive requires explicit permission from the bands to host their material there. A lot of bands that allow taping/trading haven't (for whatever reason) opted in to the Archive. So the Etree site has tons of taper-friendly bands like They Might Be Giants, Primus/Les Claypool, Parliament/Funkadelic, Los Lobos, and GWAR, who aren't on the Archive, but who still allow (some of) their music to be traded.
I don't know why you say, "free software doesn't count." That seems pretty silly. Free software most certainly does count. Aside from updates to my Debian machines, I get most of my free software by BT. But there's probably more legal music trading going on on the Etree site every day than there is BT traffic in free software on the entire Internet in a month. So the argument is moot.
The point of BT is not to give you the fastest possible download. Its primary benefits are for the people offering files, who can offer those files to a lot more people than they would be able to if they had to use ftp/http. Those fast ftp/http sites you like? They're not fast because they use ftp/http. They're fast because they pay huge amounts of money for huge, fast pipes. I guarantee, if the guy offering the torrent that you're getting at 200kbps were using ftp or http, you'd be seeing speeds more like 2kbps.
But hey, if you don't like it, don't use it. Nobody's twisting your arm.
The part that you're citing is in the preamble. The preamble is not controlling - that is to say, it's not actually part of the license. The actual license starts after it says, "The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and modification follow."
The only part of the GPL itself that mentions patents is section 7 (note that if you can't cite a section number, what you're quoting is not part of the license itself). Section 7 merely tells you that if a patent license or court judgement makes it impossible to distribute under the terms of the GPL, then you cannot distribute at all. This covers the case of the IBM patent grant just fine - code using those patents can be distributed under the terms of the GPL, and thus you can continue to distribute the entire work under the terms of the GPL, so you're fine.
Well, as long as we're tossing out anecdotal evidence, I've been using Linux off-and-on since the 0.12 release, and using it full-time since 1998, and none of my machines has ever had a kernel panic. On the other hand, I helped a friend set up a dual-boot machine, and that one got kernel panics frequently. However, Windows worked even worse on that machine, crashing constantly, and, within a couple of weeks, Windows had stopped working at all, while Linux kept limping along for several months, until we jetissoned the box.
But I think the important thing to keep in mind here is that anecdotal evidence is pretty much useless. Until you (or someone) does a serious study, all we can really say is that your one machine doesn't seem to get along with Linux, while my several (over half-a-dozen) various machines do.
No, Linux isn't perfect. If I wanted real, super stability, I'd probably switch to BSD. Unfortunately, I hate BSD userspace. When the Debian project finishes their GNU/BSD system, I might switch to that.
Gee, I thought the smiley would be a pretty clear indication that I was teasing, and it was intended as a joke. Ok, it was a fairly dumb joke I admit, but seriously, dude, don't be so bloody offended at a stupid joke just because it's stupid. Laugh or not, and move on. Life's too short.
No, I've never looked at an OOo document in notepad; that would require installing a system that runs notepad, finding a copy of notepad, and installing it. That's an awful lot of work to go through to get a crappy plain-text editor that's nowhere near as good as the ones I already have installed.:)
I have looked at OOo documents in Emacs - many times - and it all looks pretty straightforward to me. With a bit of practice, I bet I could write OOo documents in Emacs. I'd hardly call that a nightmare.
I'd think that you were just unaware that OOo files are zipped, except that your second sentence implies that you did find text in the document, which seems like it would have been hard if you hadn't unzipped it. So I have to assume that you're just ignorant of XML. No, it's not a "freaking nightmare", it's a simple, pretty straightforward format.
And, just to complete the trifecta of you being wrong, I'd like to point out that.doc files DO have text you can decipher. I routinely use the UNIX strings command to extract the readable text from.doc files. Before OOo/Abi/etc. had usable MSFT filters, that was the only way I could read.doc files. And it actually works fairly well, if you're only interested in the content, and unconcerned about the format. Which is why I still often use strings to read.doc files. (The strings command loads a lot faster than OOo or even Abiword.)
Everyone who paid Microsoft a dime did so voluntarily [...]
I've got a stack of unused Win CDs here that calls you a liar. No, the difference is that some of the money I spend in taxes has provided me with benefits (better roads, police services, etc., etc.), while none of the money I've been forced to send to Redmond since the early nineties (the last time I actually used an MS OS) has done me any damn good at all.
The BSDs can't use these patents either. The license terms for these patents are not compatible with the license for the BSD kernel and userspace. Not to mention the compiler used to build the BSD kernel and userspace, which, last I checked, was GPL'd.:)
Of course, the BSD folks can easily relicense their core, and could, if they wanted, relicense under Sun's license. But I think if you go propose that on the BSD mailing lists, you'll find that the core BSD folks are, in their own way, every bit as fanatical (or sensible, depending on how you look at it) as the FSF folks.
This supposed donation of Sun's benefits basically nobody.
First of all, the FSF is quite happy to acknowledge the freeness of free-but-GPL-incompatible licenses. They recommend against using such licenses for obvious reasons - they're still trying to build a fully GPL system, and their recommendations really only apply to people working on GNU. But they have no problem recognizing the freeness of, say, the Apache license or the MPL.
Second of all, the BSD folks are going to be just as locked-out as the GNU folks. Maybe even more so. This new license of Sun's is not compatible with ANY other licenses. Not with the BSD license, not with the X/MIT license, not with the Apache license, not with the Mozilla license, not with the SSLeay license, not with ANYTHING but the wonky new Sun license, which isn't used on any meaningful real-world software as of yet.
Hmm, yes, that is what I thought/think. "[O]nly allow outbound email through our mail servers" to me implies that port 25 outbound is blocked, past the DMZ where the mail servers reside. Which is, I believe, actually a fairly common setup these days.
But you're right, if they only block port 25 inbound (and I can see why you thought/think that), then it won't do a damn bit of good. I wonder what the real story is?:)
Music. See here for example: 100% legal, redistributable music from bands that have chosen to allow (some of) their music to be shared. Since the Etree BT server was set up a little over a year ago, it has seen several petabytes of legal data fly by. There are, at this point, several thousand bands that have followed the Grateful Dead's lead in allowing taping/trading of their concerts.
In fact, I would have to say that music is the probably the first and foremost legal use for bittorrent, with Linux distributions being a very distant second at best.
Uh, that's exactly what it helps with! Most of the people with hacked computers don't need to/want to run a mail server, so blocking port 25 connections will eliminate these zombie machines as sources of spam. For those few who actually want to run direct mail services, the ISP allows it (which is very nice), but they make you ask for it specially, and they monitor for open relays. Which is really (IMO) the only sensible way to deal with it.
All in all, one of the most clueful ISPs I've heard of.
The Dead's license for their concert recordings specifically forbids using it to attract ad revenue.
From http://www.dead.net/hotline_info/NEW_DOCUMENTS/mp3.html
STATEMENT TO MP3 SITE OPERATORS The Grateful Dead and our managing organizations have long encouraged the purely non-commercial exchange of music taped at our concerts and those of our individual members. That a new medium of distribution has arisen - digital audio files being traded over the Internet - does not change our policy in this regard. Our stipulations regarding digital distribution are merely extensions of those long-standing principles and they are as follow:
No commercial gain may be sought by websites offering digital files of our music, whether through advertising, exploiting databases compiled from their traffic, or any other means.
All participants in such digital exchange acknowledge and respect the copyrights of the performers, writers and publishers of the music.
This notice should be clearly posted on all sites engaged in this activity.
We reserve the ability to withdraw our sanction of non-commercial digital music should circumstances arise that compromise our ability to protect and steward the integrity of our work.
(Emphasis mine.) This license has been adopted/adapted by many other bands as well. And the fact that it refers to "websites" is the reason that I emphasised the parts about how this is all part of their longstanding policy. The fact that a new form of digital distribution (peer-to-peer, rather than on a fixed website) has arisen does not change their policy neither.
The Grateful Dead and a couple of thousand other bands (including, as of a couple of years ago, the estate of Jimi Hendrix) allow non-commercial distribution of their concert recordings. Non-commercial! But by making this an ad-driven product, the bozos behind eXeem have ensured that it can't even be used to legally distribute most music that can ordinarily be legally traded on the Internet. Thanks but no thanks. I'll stick with ordinary bittorrent, which at least has some measurable legal uses.:)
Ogg is already popular enough that many handhelds do include it. The round-up of handhelds posted to Slashdot just before Xmas listed a large number of devices with built-in Ogg support. It's not just the geeks that want Ogg (as someone else in the thread suggested) -- Ogg has growing recognition and support in the audiophile community as well. And the recent release of several ogg-on-a-chip decoders can only help.
According to the Xiph Wiki, "[t]here are currently more than 40 different companies offering a total of more than a hundred [hardware] products that support decoding Ogg Vorbis." I'd say that's a sign of an already-popular format. Maybe not mp3-level popular, but popular nonetheless.
Now I admit, I have my doubts whether Sony, in particular, will be foresighted enough to include Ogg support. I suspect it depends on whether or not they want to use "flexibility" and "versatility" as marketing slogans. But if any of their new devices support more than three formats (a pretty big "if", I admit), I'll betcha that Ogg is one.
Jimi Hendrix is a bad example. As of 2002, Jimi's estate has agreed to allow any as-yet-unreleased recordings of Jimi's music to be freely traded (well, non-commercially, which the FSF would call "semi-free", but good enough for most people).
Of course, you might be able to run Windows under bochs, but then, my Sparc is old enough and slow enough that I really haven't been tempted to make the experiment.
You can remove IE - you just have to remove a few other components with it - like the rest of the OS.:)
For statistics, the w3schools browser statistics page is interesting. It's listings are month-by-month, not week-by-week, but still interesting. It's a technically-oriented, but otherwise non-partisan site.
Actually, with most (if not all) open source projects, the vast, overwhelming majority of the work is done by the people at the top of the project. "Outside" contributions usually account for single-digit percentages of the total code.
Furthermore, you're assuming that value can only be measured in dollars. Software has implicit value, and most "outside" contributers contribute in order to get software that better fits their needs. In other words, they get paid in software!
Anyway, let me leave you with a syllogism to ponder:
1. Open Source developers are communist. 2. IBM is an Open Source developer. 3. Therefore, IBM is communist.
If that doesn't lead you to conclude that there's a flaw in your logic somewhere, then I think you might want to check out a local community college that offers Logic 1A.:)
1. Bob never really disappeared. It was simply strip-mined for parts, and still exists as components of other MS products, most notably "Clippy".
2. MS and their stooges keep yammering about "innovation". Many of us have looked carefully, and have been unable to find any examples of this purported "innovation", except for Bob. Therefore, it is, in a sense, MS themselves who keep bringing the topic up.
The legal test established in the Betamax case is not: what do the majority of users do? It is: are there substantial legitimate uses? And I think the answer for Bittorrent is clearly: yes. Or, rather, YES! It's not just Linux distros. The tracker at http://bt.etree.org sees TERABYTES of data flow past on a DAILY basis, all of it 100% legal music from taper-friendly bands. I'd say that's pre-e-e-etty substantial. And that's just one site! (Although it probably is the largest completely-legit BT site in the world. But they're also competing with Furthurnet, which is a more traditional P2P system, but also 100% legal music (but it requires java, so I don't use it - my motto about java is: "write once, run anywhere-but-here").)
The ambiguity of the word "free" has been an issue for decades. And my problem with the term "open source" is that "open" has been an industry synonym for "badly marketed, loser technology" for decades. (OpenVMS anyone?)
I first saw the term "libre" proposed on the gnu.misc.discuss ML back in the eighties (note: I haven't read that list since the eighties, but that's neither here nor there). I liked the term then, and I still like it now. Of course, it's never achieved the popularity of "free" or "open source", but it still gets a fair amount of use. You mostly see it as "free/libre/open source", but that's better than not seeing it at all, IMO.
Let's face it, there are a lot of people out there who are using FTP to illegally acquire and distribute copywrited [sic] materials.
FTP is being threatened, not only by corporate executives and ignorant congresscritters, but by people who abuse the technology. FTP could be outlawed outright unless the legitimate users of the FTP protocol start policing their own. Couldn't it?
(In case it's not obvious, the above is sarcasm. Neither FTP nor P2P is in any danger of being outlawed. Which kinda blows a big hole in TrollBridge's thesis.)
Slashdot Mirror
I'll identify the legal live music tracker at Etree for ya. Sure, some of the bands (a little over 800 of 'em) have their music available at The Internet Archive, but the Archive requires explicit permission from the bands to host their material there. A lot of bands that allow taping/trading haven't (for whatever reason) opted in to the Archive. So the Etree site has tons of taper-friendly bands like They Might Be Giants, Primus/Les Claypool, Parliament/Funkadelic, Los Lobos, and GWAR, who aren't on the Archive, but who still allow (some of) their music to be traded.
I don't know why you say, "free software doesn't count." That seems pretty silly. Free software most certainly does count. Aside from updates to my Debian machines, I get most of my free software by BT. But there's probably more legal music trading going on on the Etree site every day than there is BT traffic in free software on the entire Internet in a month. So the argument is moot.
The point of BT is not to give you the fastest possible download. Its primary benefits are for the people offering files, who can offer those files to a lot more people than they would be able to if they had to use ftp/http. Those fast ftp/http sites you like? They're not fast because they use ftp/http. They're fast because they pay huge amounts of money for huge, fast pipes. I guarantee, if the guy offering the torrent that you're getting at 200kbps were using ftp or http, you'd be seeing speeds more like 2kbps.
But hey, if you don't like it, don't use it. Nobody's twisting your arm.
The part that you're citing is in the preamble. The preamble is not controlling - that is to say, it's not actually part of the license. The actual license starts after it says, "The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and modification follow."
The only part of the GPL itself that mentions patents is section 7 (note that if you can't cite a section number, what you're quoting is not part of the license itself). Section 7 merely tells you that if a patent license or court judgement makes it impossible to distribute under the terms of the GPL, then you cannot distribute at all. This covers the case of the IBM patent grant just fine - code using those patents can be distributed under the terms of the GPL, and thus you can continue to distribute the entire work under the terms of the GPL, so you're fine.
Well, as long as we're tossing out anecdotal evidence, I've been using Linux off-and-on since the 0.12 release, and using it full-time since 1998, and none of my machines has ever had a kernel panic. On the other hand, I helped a friend set up a dual-boot machine, and that one got kernel panics frequently. However, Windows worked even worse on that machine, crashing constantly, and, within a couple of weeks, Windows had stopped working at all, while Linux kept limping along for several months, until we jetissoned the box.
But I think the important thing to keep in mind here is that anecdotal evidence is pretty much useless. Until you (or someone) does a serious study, all we can really say is that your one machine doesn't seem to get along with Linux, while my several (over half-a-dozen) various machines do.
No, Linux isn't perfect. If I wanted real, super stability, I'd probably switch to BSD. Unfortunately, I hate BSD userspace. When the Debian project finishes their GNU/BSD system, I might switch to that.
Gee, I thought the smiley would be a pretty clear indication that I was teasing, and it was intended as a joke. Ok, it was a fairly dumb joke I admit, but seriously, dude, don't be so bloody offended at a stupid joke just because it's stupid. Laugh or not, and move on. Life's too short.
No, I've never looked at an OOo document in notepad; that would require installing a system that runs notepad, finding a copy of notepad, and installing it. That's an awful lot of work to go through to get a crappy plain-text editor that's nowhere near as good as the ones I already have installed. :)
.doc files DO have text you can decipher. I routinely use the UNIX strings command to extract the readable text from .doc files. Before OOo/Abi/etc. had usable MSFT filters, that was the only way I could read .doc files. And it actually works fairly well, if you're only interested in the content, and unconcerned about the format. Which is why I still often use strings to read .doc files. (The strings command loads a lot faster than OOo or even Abiword.)
I have looked at OOo documents in Emacs - many times - and it all looks pretty straightforward to me. With a bit of practice, I bet I could write OOo documents in Emacs. I'd hardly call that a nightmare.
I'd think that you were just unaware that OOo files are zipped, except that your second sentence implies that you did find text in the document, which seems like it would have been hard if you hadn't unzipped it. So I have to assume that you're just ignorant of XML. No, it's not a "freaking nightmare", it's a simple, pretty straightforward format.
And, just to complete the trifecta of you being wrong, I'd like to point out that
Everyone who paid Microsoft a dime did so voluntarily [...]
I've got a stack of unused Win CDs here that calls you a liar. No, the difference is that some of the money I spend in taxes has provided me with benefits (better roads, police services, etc., etc.), while none of the money I've been forced to send to Redmond since the early nineties (the last time I actually used an MS OS) has done me any damn good at all.
Since pi is infinite and irrational, I'm pretty sure that the data on every CD I own appears somewhere in pi. So, can I distribute these too? :)
The BSDs can't use these patents either. The license terms for these patents are not compatible with the license for the BSD kernel and userspace. Not to mention the compiler used to build the BSD kernel and userspace, which, last I checked, was GPL'd. :)
Of course, the BSD folks can easily relicense their core, and could, if they wanted, relicense under Sun's license. But I think if you go propose that on the BSD mailing lists, you'll find that the core BSD folks are, in their own way, every bit as fanatical (or sensible, depending on how you look at it) as the FSF folks.
This supposed donation of Sun's benefits basically nobody.
First of all, the FSF is quite happy to acknowledge the freeness of free-but-GPL-incompatible licenses. They recommend against using such licenses for obvious reasons - they're still trying to build a fully GPL system, and their recommendations really only apply to people working on GNU. But they have no problem recognizing the freeness of, say, the Apache license or the MPL.
Second of all, the BSD folks are going to be just as locked-out as the GNU folks. Maybe even more so. This new license of Sun's is not compatible with ANY other licenses. Not with the BSD license, not with the X/MIT license, not with the Apache license, not with the Mozilla license, not with the SSLeay license, not with ANYTHING but the wonky new Sun license, which isn't used on any meaningful real-world software as of yet.
Hmm, yes, that is what I thought/think. "[O]nly allow outbound email through our mail servers" to me implies that port 25 outbound is blocked, past the DMZ where the mail servers reside. Which is, I believe, actually a fairly common setup these days.
:)
But you're right, if they only block port 25 inbound (and I can see why you thought/think that), then it won't do a damn bit of good. I wonder what the real story is?
cheers
Music. See here for example: 100% legal, redistributable music from bands that have chosen to allow (some of) their music to be shared. Since the Etree BT server was set up a little over a year ago, it has seen several petabytes of legal data fly by. There are, at this point, several thousand bands that have followed the Grateful Dead's lead in allowing taping/trading of their concerts.
In fact, I would have to say that music is the probably the first and foremost legal use for bittorrent, with Linux distributions being a very distant second at best.
Uh, that's exactly what it helps with! Most of the people with hacked computers don't need to/want to run a mail server, so blocking port 25 connections will eliminate these zombie machines as sources of spam. For those few who actually want to run direct mail services, the ISP allows it (which is very nice), but they make you ask for it specially, and they monitor for open relays. Which is really (IMO) the only sensible way to deal with it.
All in all, one of the most clueful ISPs I've heard of.
From http://www.dead.net/hotline_info/NEW_DOCUMENTS/mp
STATEMENT TO MP3 SITE OPERATORS
The Grateful Dead and our managing organizations have long encouraged the purely non-commercial exchange of music taped at our concerts and those of our individual members. That a new medium of distribution has arisen - digital audio files being traded over the Internet - does not change our policy in this regard. Our stipulations regarding digital distribution are merely extensions of those long-standing principles and they are as follow:
(Emphasis mine.) This license has been adopted/adapted by many other bands as well. And the fact that it refers to "websites" is the reason that I emphasised the parts about how this is all part of their longstanding policy. The fact that a new form of digital distribution (peer-to-peer, rather than on a fixed website) has arisen does not change their policy neither.
The Grateful Dead and a couple of thousand other bands (including, as of a couple of years ago, the estate of Jimi Hendrix) allow non-commercial distribution of their concert recordings. Non-commercial! But by making this an ad-driven product, the bozos behind eXeem have ensured that it can't even be used to legally distribute most music that can ordinarily be legally traded on the Internet. Thanks but no thanks. I'll stick with ordinary bittorrent, which at least has some measurable legal uses. :)
Ogg is already popular enough that many handhelds do include it. The round-up of handhelds posted to Slashdot just before Xmas listed a large number of devices with built-in Ogg support. It's not just the geeks that want Ogg (as someone else in the thread suggested) -- Ogg has growing recognition and support in the audiophile community as well. And the recent release of several ogg-on-a-chip decoders can only help.
According to the Xiph Wiki, "[t]here are currently more than 40 different companies offering a total of more than a hundred [hardware] products that support decoding Ogg Vorbis." I'd say that's a sign of an already-popular format. Maybe not mp3-level popular, but popular nonetheless.
Now I admit, I have my doubts whether Sony, in particular, will be foresighted enough to include Ogg support. I suspect it depends on whether or not they want to use "flexibility" and "versatility" as marketing slogans. But if any of their new devices support more than three formats (a pretty big "if", I admit), I'll betcha that Ogg is one.
> It's not "Fishers fish".
It's not?
From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) [web1913]:
Fisher \Fish"er\, n. [AS. fiscere.]
1. One who fishes.
[...]
From WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]:
fisher
n 1: someone whose occupation is catching fish [syn: {fisherman}]
[...]
From M-W online:
Main Entry: fisher
Pronunciation: 'fi-sh&r
Function: noun
1 : one that fishes
[...]
Anyway, what about fisherwomen, you insensitive, sexist clod? And did you know that the word "gullible" doesn't appear in any dictionary?
Jimi Hendrix is a bad example. As of 2002, Jimi's estate has agreed to allow any as-yet-unreleased recordings of Jimi's music to be freely traded (well, non-commercially, which the FSF would call "semi-free", but good enough for most people).
The Furthurnet Permission Email.
Subject says it all. :)
Of course, you might be able to run Windows under bochs, but then, my Sparc is old enough and slow enough that I really haven't been tempted to make the experiment.
You can remove IE - you just have to remove a few other components with it - like the rest of the OS. :)
For statistics, the w3schools browser statistics page is interesting. It's listings are month-by-month, not week-by-week, but still interesting. It's a technically-oriented, but otherwise non-partisan site.
Actually, with most (if not all) open source projects, the vast, overwhelming majority of the work is done by the people at the top of the project. "Outside" contributions usually account for single-digit percentages of the total code.
:)
Furthermore, you're assuming that value can only be measured in dollars. Software has implicit value, and most "outside" contributers contribute in order to get software that better fits their needs. In other words, they get paid in software!
Anyway, let me leave you with a syllogism to ponder:
1. Open Source developers are communist.
2. IBM is an Open Source developer.
3. Therefore, IBM is communist.
If that doesn't lead you to conclude that there's a flaw in your logic somewhere, then I think you might want to check out a local community college that offers Logic 1A.
A couple of points:
1. Bob never really disappeared. It was simply strip-mined for parts, and still exists as components of other MS products, most notably "Clippy".
2. MS and their stooges keep yammering about "innovation". Many of us have looked carefully, and have been unable to find any examples of this purported "innovation", except for Bob. Therefore, it is, in a sense, MS themselves who keep bringing the topic up.
The legal test established in the Betamax case is not: what do the majority of users do? It is: are there substantial legitimate uses? And I think the answer for Bittorrent is clearly: yes. Or, rather, YES! It's not just Linux distros. The tracker at http://bt.etree.org sees TERABYTES of data flow past on a DAILY basis, all of it 100% legal music from taper-friendly bands. I'd say that's pre-e-e-etty substantial. And that's just one site! (Although it probably is the largest completely-legit BT site in the world. But they're also competing with Furthurnet, which is a more traditional P2P system, but also 100% legal music (but it requires java, so I don't use it - my motto about java is: "write once, run anywhere-but-here").)
Just a year's head start? You sure are optimistic about the Longhorn release schedule, aren't you? :)
The ambiguity of the word "free" has been an issue for decades. And my problem with the term "open source" is that "open" has been an industry synonym for "badly marketed, loser technology" for decades. (OpenVMS anyone?)
:)
I first saw the term "libre" proposed on the gnu.misc.discuss ML back in the eighties (note: I haven't read that list since the eighties, but that's neither here nor there). I liked the term then, and I still like it now. Of course, it's never achieved the popularity of "free" or "open source", but it still gets a fair amount of use. You mostly see it as "free/libre/open source", but that's better than not seeing it at all, IMO.
Anyway, fuggit, a rose by any other name....
What are YOU doing to protect FTP?
Let's face it, there are a lot of people out there who are using FTP to illegally acquire and distribute copywrited [sic] materials.
FTP is being threatened, not only by corporate executives and ignorant congresscritters, but by people who abuse the technology. FTP could be outlawed outright unless the legitimate users of the FTP protocol start policing their own. Couldn't it?
(In case it's not obvious, the above is sarcasm. Neither FTP nor P2P is in any danger of being outlawed. Which kinda blows a big hole in TrollBridge's thesis.)