Or did you mean that most people are too poor or too cheap to pay to have their content distributed? That may be true. But if that's the case, then they certainly don't need their content distributed, do they?
That's an amazing statement. Do you really believe the only people that should be able to distribute information widely are those that can afford to pay for high end services?
Arranging an ftp mirroring system is not scalable or accessible to any significant number of people.
Why do you keep trying to distort the argument? If a tool is used primarily for illegal purposes, that tool shouldn't be around.
I'll repeat, the law does not agree with you with respect to prior restraint of speech for which there is possible noninfringing uses.
The introduction of every new technology which can copy has seen cries to strangle it, photocopiers, VCRs, even the printing press. This is no distortion.
It's not like your files will get automatically mirrored on somebody else's system. Somebody has to do it deliberately, just like an FTP mirror.
Most p2p systems by default share what has been downloaded. Its reasonable to think that a significant number of people will share what they have downloaded whether its pirated or not. There are networks that have the idea of karma which lets you download in proportion to how much you share.
If you used an FTP server instead, you'd have a convenient little "read me" describing the copyright status of your content, granting explicit permission to download and mirror your content.
This is possible using digital signatures and catalogs like Bitzi and technologies for expressing licenses like the Creative Commons.
There's one simple way to change my opinion on this subject. Get the college kids and whomever to stop using P2P for widespread, large-scale piracy.
This is a matter for law enforcement. It is known that the copyright industry tracks IP addresses of those sharing on p2p networks and what is being shared, they can get court orders to make the ISP cooperate to go after end users. They are obviously biding their time, probably because its bad for business to sue your customers. But in Denmark end users have been pursued, so it is probably just a matter of time.
>This is a very distasteful way of expressing yourself.
So is ignoring the plague of lawlessness and piracy that Napster and its successors brought about. Turns my stomach, it does.
First I have not ignored "the plague of lawlessness", I very clearly stated that copyright laws should be enforced.
Second, I thought we were engaging in a civil discussion. You flamed ("full of shit") rather than address the ideas, I called you on it civilly while not returning your flames and continuing to engage your ideas. From this and your cracks about taking over the world I can see I was mistaken to do so.
Because neither of the options you suggest, pay Akamai or setup an FTP mirroring system, are available to most people.
You're assuming that those people will, in turn, share their copies on the P2P network
Given that at any one time on Kazaa alone there are 3.5 million people sharing 4 petabytes of information I feel comfortable with making that assumption.
And-- this is the most important thing-- if it turns out that you're breaking the law by offering the files, then you, personally, can be tracked down and stopped. That way we don't have to have an argument about whether FTP is a legitimate technology, see?
Actually the US's legal tradition disagrees with you that that is the most important thing. Prior restraint of speech for which there are noninfringing uses is a no no. You are suggesting that a useful method of distribution for noninfringing information be scrapped altogether because it can also be used for infringing uses. Should we get rid of photocopiers, telephones, etc?
It is illegal to make copyrighted material available on a p2p network w/o permission. The copyright industry has successfully lobbied for stronger laws and is using them to pursue those that do so. The laws should be enforced rather than a whole medium of communication banned.
Basically the argument that P2P is legitimate because it can be used for distributed distribution (heh) is full of shit.
This is a very distasteful way of expressing yourself.
If it were true, you'd be downloading software updates from Kazaa instead of from an FTP mirror or an Akamai content server.
I think its more likely the case that its because p2p is new on a large scale and the technology is new and very much in flux. I have downloaded Linux ISOs off of edonkey when I became frustrated with trying mirror site after mirror site and I provided some examples of current projects that are making use of p2p networks. There is every indication that we will see more projects maing use of them.
There are noninfringing uses that take place on p2p networks. All the Red Hat mirrors slammed for a week after the newest release? Try Edonkey.
In general our legal system takes a dim view of prior restraint on speech when there are noninfringing uses.
Lawerence Lessig tells a story about this, he shared some of his talks as mp3s from his Stanford campus office w/ a p2p app. The campus netops went into his office and shut it down and wrote him a note similar to the one OO sent, we're trying to protect you bla bla.
Perhaps I'm not understanding how you are defining your terms but I didn't see anything in your post that addressed how the legitimate uses of p2p networks I gave could be better accomplished.
Let's say I've got a CD's worth of (legitimate) information that's pretty popular, and I can only pay for a small amount of bandwidth. Why would I not want to use a p2p network?
P2P networks have no legitimate uses at all that cannot be (better!) carried out with another tool.
How's that? The Internet Archive has terabytes of information that they want people to download for free. They have a big bandwidth bill so they want to use p2p networks to help scale. Is this not a legitimate use or is there a better way to do this?
This would apply to any number of uses, from Debian ISOs to public access television shows.
Even commercial enterprises could realize benefits, Transmission Films is funding development of Overnet so that they can distribute high quality DRM'd movies. 'member the Victoria's Secret webcast? Or the BMW car commercials? Not everyone can afford to pay Akamai.
The article displays one of the primary attributes of blogging that I dislike, the fact that its strongly a mutual admiration society. The description of the bloggers meeting in meatspace clearly displays this, they are sitting around brimming with self importance. Quote Gulker "Instead of barricades and demonstrations, we have Weblogs and P2P... we're the same people who did the actual work that resulted in the greatest legal creation of wealth in history. And we have our eye on next year...
If blogging is to live up to the hype its being built up to be it will need to get over itself and create institutions for critical peer review. Its pretty clear that the current ones like/., k5, metafilter are not up to the task.
I can think of two notable exceptions to the mantra that they only use being made of p2p is for pirating. Furthurnet is a p2p network which grew out of the tape trading community which takes copyright and the artists wishes very seriously.
The other example Transmission Films is distributing high quality movies protected by DRM via Overnet.
The Internet Archive has terabytes of share friendly information, they are evalutating several p2p platforms for helping to keep their bandwidth bills down. I've downloaded Redhat ISO's from edonkey, when they first come out the primary distro point and mirrors are swamped for at least a week.
Everytime there's a story about 802.11b I wind up posting this link which provides a lucid explanation of the FCC rules in order to correct wrong information.
Use vlans then to make unathenticated stuff go to a web form, the web server then talks to your network management software to put the MAC on the whitelist.
I don't think you've made a case for why the idea is inherently flawed. Certainly what we have now would not scale. But the cable co's seemed to have made a shared medium work. Scalability problems can be addressed by policy makers freeing up spectrum for more nonoverlapping channels.
The RIAA press release says "The raid, executed by a team of several Secret Service agents and RIAA investigators...". IANAL but warrants do not entitle anyone but law enforcement to enter private property and certainly do not allow private persons to take part in a law enforcement action.
Please don't spread FUD, you make it sound like pretty much any antenna is illegal. 802.11 (Part 15) Devices and the Rules and Regulations interprets the FCC rules pretty clearly. You get 1 watt without an antenna. With an antenna the rules are crafted to encourage the use of directionals.
As for WiFi's radio range (due to power and antenna limits), you can easily get >10 miles in a point-to-point link by using a directional antenna at one or both ends.
This is not STRICTLY legal, because the directional antenna concentrates the power in a tight beam, which is thus more intense, and one of the limits is on the intensity (rather than the overall power).
Here's a recent market share report. The top 4 (or 5 if you count hp/compaq seperately) have 41% of the market. That's probably not specific enough to tell whether or not the really smalls play a specific role but it does say that the really bigs don't overly dominate.
I love it how the commie talk comes out whenever anyone mentions that companies should take responsibility for the externalities they create. In this case, that externality is toxic waste in landfills from a large, high volume, virtually disposable product. We'll wind up paying for our computer waste later if we don't deal with it today.
Hopefully the law will be crafted so as to provide incentive for companies to produce less waste, more easily recycled parts, and less toxic components.
I took it to mean the opposite. The recycling centers that I'm familar w/ in CA try get as many working computers together as possible from what comes in and donate/sell them. Only things that can't be repaired or are truly obsolete are stripped down to their components and disposed of.
That's audio geekspeak, not the computer geekspeak we're used to. Imagine if he had been describing a gaming system and said "I've got an 4 way xeon each w/ 4MB of full speed cache with a kernel patched to bind them to each to one of 4 of the Wildcat video cards genlocked together and each in turn connected to a 5000 lux projector which back display on my 8' cubed CAVE."
I'm not an audiophile myself but find their utterances interesting.
Maybe a better question is if anyone knows of any consultants that can implement an open-ish solution to meet your requirements or perhaps any similar projects to what you would like to do. As you can see from the discussion so far, there are lots of tools but no turnkey solutions, the real rub is in getting stuff to work together.
Wasn't the rub of Eldred v Ashcroft that the copyright term extension was being applied retroactively? I thought that Eldred had to remove works from his site that had been public domain but were not after the Bono Act.
Slashdot Mirror
If that would bring down your ISP, get a new ISP.
Or did you mean that most people are too poor or too cheap to pay to have their content distributed? That may be true. But if that's the case, then they certainly don't need their content distributed, do they?
That's an amazing statement. Do you really believe the only people that should be able to distribute information widely are those that can afford to pay for high end services?
Arranging an ftp mirroring system is not scalable or accessible to any significant number of people.
Why do you keep trying to distort the argument? If a tool is used primarily for illegal purposes, that tool shouldn't be around.
I'll repeat, the law does not agree with you with respect to prior restraint of speech for which there is possible noninfringing uses.
The introduction of every new technology which can copy has seen cries to strangle it, photocopiers, VCRs, even the printing press. This is no distortion.
It's not like your files will get automatically mirrored on somebody else's system. Somebody has to do it deliberately, just like an FTP mirror.
Most p2p systems by default share what has been downloaded. Its reasonable to think that a significant number of people will share what they have downloaded whether its pirated or not. There are networks that have the idea of karma which lets you download in proportion to how much you share.
If you used an FTP server instead, you'd have a convenient little "read me" describing the copyright status of your content, granting explicit permission to download and mirror your content.
This is possible using digital signatures and catalogs like Bitzi and technologies for expressing licenses like the Creative Commons.
There's one simple way to change my opinion on this subject. Get the college kids and whomever to stop using P2P for widespread, large-scale piracy.
This is a matter for law enforcement. It is known that the copyright industry tracks IP addresses of those sharing on p2p networks and what is being shared, they can get court orders to make the ISP cooperate to go after end users. They are obviously biding their time, probably because its bad for business to sue your customers. But in Denmark end users have been pursued, so it is probably just a matter of time.
>This is a very distasteful way of expressing yourself.
So is ignoring the plague of lawlessness and piracy that Napster and its successors brought about. Turns my stomach, it does.
First I have not ignored "the plague of lawlessness", I very clearly stated that copyright laws should be enforced.
Second, I thought we were engaging in a civil discussion. You flamed ("full of shit") rather than address the ideas, I called you on it civilly while not returning your flames and continuing to engage your ideas. From this and your cracks about taking over the world I can see I was mistaken to do so.
The question is, why would you want to use P2P?
Because neither of the options you suggest, pay Akamai or setup an FTP mirroring system, are available to most people.
You're assuming that those people will, in turn, share their copies on the P2P network
Given that at any one time on Kazaa alone there are 3.5 million people sharing 4 petabytes of information I feel comfortable with making that assumption.
And-- this is the most important thing-- if it turns out that you're breaking the law by offering the files, then you, personally, can be tracked down and stopped. That way we don't have to have an argument about whether FTP is a legitimate technology, see?
Actually the US's legal tradition disagrees with you that that is the most important thing. Prior restraint of speech for which there are noninfringing uses is a no no. You are suggesting that a useful method of distribution for noninfringing information be scrapped altogether because it can also be used for infringing uses. Should we get rid of photocopiers, telephones, etc?
It is illegal to make copyrighted material available on a p2p network w/o permission. The copyright industry has successfully lobbied for stronger laws and is using them to pursue those that do so. The laws should be enforced rather than a whole medium of communication banned.
Basically the argument that P2P is legitimate because it can be used for distributed distribution (heh) is full of shit.
This is a very distasteful way of expressing yourself.
If it were true, you'd be downloading software updates from Kazaa instead of from an FTP mirror or an Akamai content server.
I think its more likely the case that its because p2p is new on a large scale and the technology is new and very much in flux. I have downloaded Linux ISOs off of edonkey when I became frustrated with trying mirror site after mirror site and I provided some examples of current projects that are making use of p2p networks. There is every indication that we will see more projects maing use of them.
There are noninfringing uses that take place on p2p networks. All the Red Hat mirrors slammed for a week after the newest release? Try Edonkey.
In general our legal system takes a dim view of prior restraint on speech when there are noninfringing uses.
Lawerence Lessig tells a story about this, he shared some of his talks as mp3s from his Stanford campus office w/ a p2p app. The campus netops went into his office and shut it down and wrote him a note similar to the one OO sent, we're trying to protect you bla bla.
Perhaps I'm not understanding how you are defining your terms but I didn't see anything in your post that addressed how the legitimate uses of p2p networks I gave could be better accomplished.
Let's say I've got a CD's worth of (legitimate) information that's pretty popular, and I can only pay for a small amount of bandwidth. Why would I not want to use a p2p network?
P2P networks have no legitimate uses at all that cannot be (better!) carried out with another tool.
How's that? The Internet Archive has terabytes of information that they want people to download for free. They have a big bandwidth bill so they want to use p2p networks to help scale. Is this not a legitimate use or is there a better way to do this?
This would apply to any number of uses, from Debian ISOs to public access television shows.
Even commercial enterprises could realize benefits, Transmission Films is funding development of Overnet so that they can distribute high quality DRM'd movies. 'member the Victoria's Secret webcast? Or the BMW car commercials? Not everyone can afford to pay Akamai.
The article displays one of the primary attributes of blogging that I dislike, the fact that its strongly a mutual admiration society. The description of the bloggers meeting in meatspace clearly displays this, they are sitting around brimming with self importance. Quote Gulker "Instead of barricades and demonstrations, we have Weblogs and P2P ... we're the same people who did the actual work that resulted in the greatest legal creation of wealth in history. And we have our eye on next year...
/., k5, metafilter are not up to the task.
If blogging is to live up to the hype its being built up to be it will need to get over itself and create institutions for critical peer review. Its pretty clear that the current ones like
I can think of two notable exceptions to the mantra that they only use being made of p2p is for pirating. Furthurnet is a p2p network which grew out of the tape trading community which takes copyright and the artists wishes very seriously.
The other example Transmission Films is distributing high quality movies protected by DRM via Overnet.
The Internet Archive has terabytes of share friendly information, they are evalutating several p2p platforms for helping to keep their bandwidth bills down. I've downloaded Redhat ISO's from edonkey, when they first come out the primary distro point and mirrors are swamped for at least a week.
DSL faster than 1.5Mbps is available in the US.
Everytime there's a story about 802.11b I wind up posting this link which provides a lucid explanation of the FCC rules in order to correct wrong information.
Use vlans then to make unathenticated stuff go to a web form, the web server then talks to your network management software to put the MAC on the whitelist.
Municipalities are allowed to collect up to 5% of cable co's gross revenue, with around 20% of that typically allocated to public access stations.
Everything is great until its not great, but what's your point? Oversubscription doesn't have much to do with the antenna technology.
I don't think you've made a case for why the idea is inherently flawed. Certainly what we have now would not scale. But the cable co's seemed to have made a shared medium work. Scalability problems can be addressed by policy makers freeing up spectrum for more nonoverlapping channels.
The RIAA press release says "The raid, executed by a team of several Secret Service agents and RIAA investigators ...". IANAL but warrants do not entitle anyone but law enforcement to enter private property and certainly do not allow private persons to take part in a law enforcement action.
Please don't spread FUD, you make it sound like pretty much any antenna is illegal. 802.11 (Part 15) Devices and the Rules and Regulations interprets the FCC rules pretty clearly. You get 1 watt without an antenna. With an antenna the rules are crafted to encourage the use of directionals.
As for WiFi's radio range (due to power and antenna limits), you can easily get >10 miles in a point-to-point link by using a directional antenna at one or both ends.
This is not STRICTLY legal, because the directional antenna concentrates the power in a tight beam, which is thus more intense, and one of the limits is on the intensity (rather than the overall power).
You should take a look at 802.11 (Part 15) Devices and the Rules and Regulations. It interprets the FCC rules in an easier to read presentation. Directional antennas are allowed and even encouraged by the rules.
Here's a recent market share report. The top 4 (or 5 if you count hp/compaq seperately) have 41% of the market. That's probably not specific enough to tell whether or not the really smalls play a specific role but it does say that the really bigs don't overly dominate.
I love it how the commie talk comes out whenever anyone mentions that companies should take responsibility for the externalities they create. In this case, that externality is toxic waste in landfills from a large, high volume, virtually disposable product. We'll wind up paying for our computer waste later if we don't deal with it today.
Hopefully the law will be crafted so as to provide incentive for companies to produce less waste, more easily recycled parts, and less toxic components.
I took it to mean the opposite. The recycling centers that I'm familar w/ in CA try get as many working computers together as possible from what comes in and donate/sell them. Only things that can't be repaired or are truly obsolete are stripped down to their components and disposed of.
That's audio geekspeak, not the computer geekspeak we're used to. Imagine if he had been describing a gaming system and said "I've got an 4 way xeon each w/ 4MB of full speed cache with a kernel patched to bind them to each to one of 4 of the Wildcat video cards genlocked together and each in turn connected to a 5000 lux projector which back display on my 8' cubed CAVE."
I'm not an audiophile myself but find their utterances interesting.
Maybe a better question is if anyone knows of any consultants that can implement an open-ish solution to meet your requirements or perhaps any similar projects to what you would like to do. As you can see from the discussion so far, there are lots of tools but no turnkey solutions, the real rub is in getting stuff to work together.
Would a government use qualify under the mpeg4 noncomercial waiver?
If one uses mpeg4ip in concert with DSS one has an end to end free solution.
Wasn't the rub of Eldred v Ashcroft that the copyright term extension was being applied retroactively? I thought that Eldred had to remove works from his site that had been public domain but were not after the Bono Act.