Why not require real mail servers to comply with DNS to have an MX record for the domain or IP,
Because there is no rule that says any destination must have an MX record associated with it. RFC 5321 lists how to determine the host a server connects to, and "no MX" is an allowed case.
and to then have SMTP servers for a given network or internet service provider throttle the number of e-mail per unit of time and to limit the number of recipients to human real-world numbers?
What is a "human real-world number"? How do you deal with mailing lists that have hundreds of recipients? One email to the list results in hundreds of emails all at the same time.
That would prevent a non-MX mail server from being able to send mail since other mail servers would reject it based on DNS,
I'm sorry, but I don't think you understand the purpose of an MX record. The MX record isn't for the SENDING server, it is so the sending server can find a defined host to which email FOR a domain is sent. In fact, if an MUA uses SMTP to send mail, then it is highly unlikely that the sending host (the user's computer) will be the address pointed to by the MX record for any domain.
Yes, it would require some more programming in the SMTP daemon, but it shouldn't jack with the protocol.
As long as you don't consider "not being able to send email at all" a problem, no, your idea won't "jack with the protocol".
The more correct means of dealing with the problem is two-fold. SPF (sender permitted|policy framework) is how a recipient server looks up the authorized hosts that might be sending it email from a domain. Greylisting is how a server typically dispatches botnet senders, since the botnet is usually not going to try resending an email after getting a 500-level error.
Another way of looking at it... thousands of jobs have been destroyed
Thousands of criminal jobs...
so that the uber-rich NFL owners can snatch even more money from the commoners.
Those commoners are going to spend the money. Getting rid of the fake websites doesn't mean more people will spend more money, it only changes who they spend it with. Do you think it is better that they wind up with something that has no value should they ever try to resell it? You hate the rich so much that you'll throw your fellow citizen to the wolves who are making fake goods and selling them at real prices?
... 42,692 items of phony Super Bowl-related memorabilia along with other counterfeit items..."
It's hard to calculate an average value when you don't have the denominator. But yes, $100 on average sounds reasonable. You don't realize how much money sports nuts will drop on stuff, especially the Stupor Bowel.
How odd it is that today it seems odd to let people have the freedom to make a decision for themselves,
Being able to make a decision requires an ability to understand the facts behind it. Most people today can't understand how to make change without the cash register telling them, much less understand the hazards of introducing blood extracts into various other parts of the body.
- then it seems that morally, I have the right to take risk -- even deadly risk -- of doing something, if I choose to do so.
The difference is that you don't have a licensed expert telling you that you ought to do those things, and when you go to a doctor you do. You don't have a parachuting instructor telling you that you'll die if you don't go up and jump out of a plane. You also have a bit more intuitive insight into the dangers of gravity and being hit by another car than you do over what might happen if some odd bits of cells are injected into various parts of your body. Now, maybe you are a biology major and do understand it, but most people aren't and don't.
You want an example? Most people think that antibiotics are the best solution to whatever ails them. Any antibiotic. Give me something, doctor, for this cold. Cipro is good! Try explaining the concept of adaptation and resistance, and then explain that some antibiotics don't work at all on some infections because the bug you have has never been susceptible to that antibiotic because it doesn't have the metabolic pathway that the antibiotic interferes with to begin with.
It's simple. People say "I hurt. You are the doctor, fix it." They should be able to trust that someone somewhere has determined that what the doctor tells you to do will actually do something other than convert your money into his pocket.
If you have a choice of sourcing the article, a less incendiary source would be a wiser choice.
How about using one that doesn't immediately pop up a large white box with a demand that you subscribe to their newsletter, and try opening up a couple of other popup windows at the same time? How about just avoiding sites like that?
abuse@theblaze.com will probably enjoy the subscription I gave him.
I thought the distinction between quackery and medicine was sound experimental techniques, solid statistics, reproducible results and peer review. Not a sign-off by a three-letter-acronym government agency. Oh well, silly me.
That sign-off being based on all the former stuff. Anyone can say they've done all the science and prove whatever they want. Kevin Treudau does it all the time. Makes a bundle selling books about it. Rubbing beets on your butt eliminates cellulite. Drinking frog piss relieves constipation. That kind of stuff.
Now, you'll have to explain how these folks did that research when there is a ban on stem cell research in the US, which includes Colorado. Oh, sorry, that's a ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research using other than the existing lines. Sounds much worse the way I put it first. And everyone knows that embryonic stem cells are the only usable ones, so these guys in Colorado who are using adult stem cells must be quacks, based on the stem cell authorities themselves.
But the short answer is yes, a doctor who takes saliva and uses it for a medical procedure would be regulated. Otherwise he'll not get insurance companies to pay out for the procedure, and doctors don't do spit without getting paid these days. Heck, insurance companies won't pay for FDA-approved drugs if they aren't used for FDA-approved purposes, despite any useful "side-effects" that are in the literature.
If they did, they would see people like me leaving empty handed and make changes.
How do they know what to change? Unless they've tracked you through the store to see where you go, see you shaking your head in dissappointment while standing in front of a shelf of wrong-sized items, and then done some biometrics to determine which size it is that they are missing that would make you happy, they have no idea why you left empty-handed. Maybe you realized you left your wallet in the car. Maybe you are just comparison shopping today and will come back tomorrow to buy a dozen of the things they had on the shelves, but they changed because you didn't buy them.
As for "empty shelves" showing they don't care, no, it shows they don't have tight inventory control. Empty shelves in any store are a waste of space and cost them money. Even if they don't care at all about you, they want to keep shelves stocked.
Information was always considered free. Specific reproductions were not, because of the extreme cost in making them.
Actually, not. The reason copyright came about was not because of the costs of duplicating something. It was based on the costs of creating the "informatiom" that you claim has always been free.
That song you call "information" that you think should be free cost someone something to produce. Even if they just sit around in their free time writing songs, it has cost them time, and that time could have been used working for someone else and making money. I doubt that all you want is the song lyrics, however. That means it cost someone studio time and performer time to convert the chicken scratch on paper information into an audio version.
So yes, the extreme costs of making COPIES of existing informaion have dropped considerably (although still not free), creating that information has not.
It's funny you should mention "romantic," because the idea that artists have some sort of claim to control their works was an idea of the Romantics. It had not existed previously at any point I am aware of in history.
In large part, because the artists were paid by patrons who then owned the works. Artists who weren't, I'm sure, would not have been very happy if someone had started making copies of their work contemporaneously and flooded the market for the real ones so the real one couldn't manage to sell anything at all.
I just wish people would realize they were wrong and stop repeating the meme simply because it benefits a modern industry to do so.
I've seen this "copyright exists because of modern industry" meme a couple of times in this discussion. Please tell me, exactly which modern industry was operating in the thirteen colonies at the time the Constitution was written to grant copyright? MPAA? RIAA? Sony? UMG? UA? Comcast? I'm curious.
It's a legal DDoS. They still have to fly a body into every court and pay labor for them to stand there.
No, they don't. All they have to do is... nothing. If nobody shows up for their side, it's a default. If they feel generous the day you get the judgement to them, they'll pay it. If not, well, you can try to collect somehow.
In my comment, I gave UMG the benefit of the doubt, ass-uming it had licensed the sample from ATS,
And from what I read in TFA, it appears that Yelawolf used the music and presented it to their label as their own work. I don't know if UMG had the responsibility to verify that claim or not. I'd think it would be rather hard to do that, considering that the music was from an unsigned indie artist who, it appears, hadn't published it yet anywhere.
It looks, to me, like Yelawolf is the bad guy here, not UMG. I should be able to leave it unsaid that the fact that I think UMG isn't the bad guy in this case doesn't say anything about any other actions.
So UMG saw their artist play a song then someone else play the song (the true author) and so uploaded the song as a violation...
No, actually, UMG listed the song after someone had leaked a ripped copy of the Yelawolf version so that nobody could upload the Yelawolf version to YouTube again. They were protecting the product that they believed they had clear copyright to, but didn't know at the time it contained music from a different author.
Whuzi wasn't the target of the takedowns, ripped copies of Yelawolf were. It's just that the detection system caught the fact that Yelawolf had used the Whuzi music, and now the issue is did he do it with or without permission. Whuzi isn't clear on that, and didn't answer that explicit question when asked.
Still wrong. What matters is how much you change in the objective measure that is then sorted into a ranking. Someone else used a marathon as an example, go find and read it.
However, it's insanely depressing that so many people would continue to watch a "news" channel that had to fight that battle.
What's insanely depressing is that anyone would think that any "news channel" would have to fight that battle, or that not "fighting that battle" by a channel proves anything.
...that the US would plummet on World Press Freedom rankings given that Fox News literally won the right in court to lie to its viewers.
And nobody on any of the other "news" channels does. Ok. Most people would realize that it doesn't take a court ruling to allow a news channel to lie, so I'm wondering why you think it is significant that Fox News might have one (and "citation needed").
What's most fascinating is that people are buying the "statistic" that no other country has dropped more than 100% of its ranking. What kind of goofy stat is that? Moving from 1 to 3 would be dropping 200%, but nobody would consider that really that bad. It's meaningless to use that as a stat, but it sounds really really bad, doesn't it?
Of course police will be able to pull over autonomous vehicles. They have to be able to. Vehicles must yield the right of way to emergency vehicles displaying the appropriate lights. As in, it's a fucking ambulance, pull over and stop moron.
And what should the police do if a defective vehicle is creating a hazard to others? Let it go because it's autonomous? Like the Washington state police couldn't PIT a woman going the wrong way down the interstate for 60 miles, sometimes as slowly as 30 MPH?
Why on earth would anyone committing the crimes of (off the top of my head) jury tampering, intimidation and obstruction of justice do so in a medium that is both public and preserved for posterity by the web server?
Because the other people using the social media site aren't necessarily committing a crime when they mention "I heard on the news that the judge ruled that the 18 previous convictions this guy has can't be presented in evidence" or "32 people have come forward claiming this guy raped them, too" or things like that.
There are rules about what can and can't be evidence, none of which the users of social media are bound by but a juror is. Since jurors aren't supposed to be using social media, it would be a hard case to make that someone who posted excluded information was actually trying to tamper with the jury, but the end result would be the same.
Imagine the frustration of being handicapped and having to park a block away when some douche is taking up the limited handicapped spaces.
Imagine the frustration of there being NO parking spaces except the empty handicapped spots, and the handicapped spots are empty because the Uni has given handicapped people privately reserved spaces carved out of nearby normal spaces.
Since you signed up for a shared service. While you might be the only user of the cable coming into your house, it isn't very far down the line before it hooks up with a lot of other people and you all get to share the same line.
What you're basically arguing for is prioritizing one set of customers over another.
No, I'm arguing that prioritizing one KIND of traffic from ANY user is ok. That has nothing to do with who the customer is or what "set" they belong to.
but why the fuck should I have to pay the same rate as they do if I'm not going to receive the same service?
Because you are receiving the same service, just using it a different way.
Gimme gimme gimme. I'm the only important person on the planet. Ok.
You seem to ignore that the same process that slows you down a bit today might slow someone else down tomorrow when YOUR network traffic needs a bit of priority. It's called "sharing". Part of being a grownup mean knowing how to do that.
Beside, who knows if my P2P application isn't time-dependent?
If you are using a P2P application for time-critical information, then YOU are at fault, not the person who is actually using a time-critical service. You just made it your problem.
My ISP do not throttle anything and I can make VoIP calls just fine.
Thank goodness all ISPs are the same as yours and don't need to do anything different than the one you have.
I'm pretty sure that if you can't get packets through for 30 seconds on a p2p connection you are going to time out...
So fix P2P so it doesn't time out when it faces delays. It's broken if it does.
You are basically saying that your phone call is more important than someone else's download.
I'm basically saying that getting the packets through for a phone call in a timely manner is more important than getting the packets through immediately for a file sharing connection, yes. Nobody is preventing the file sharing from happening, it's just not as fast as it would be if there were no other users. Gosh, the entire net works that way, at times. Packets for a P2P can be delayed and nothing is hurt. Packets for VoIP being delayed make the protocol unusable.
You are basically saying that because you need to go to work and the roads are congested, I should stay home and not go to the store so you can have a pleasant drive to work.
I said no such thing, and you know it. If you want an automotive analogy, I'm saying that you need to pull over and lose a few seconds of your life when a more critical user needs the road. See those flashing red lights on that ambulance behind you? The person in that ambulance might not die if you don't pull over, but it is still important for him to get where he's going, and that means you get slowed down. Live with it.
Slashdot Mirror
Why not require real mail servers to comply with DNS to have an MX record for the domain or IP,
Because there is no rule that says any destination must have an MX record associated with it. RFC 5321 lists how to determine the host a server connects to, and "no MX" is an allowed case.
and to then have SMTP servers for a given network or internet service provider throttle the number of e-mail per unit of time and to limit the number of recipients to human real-world numbers?
What is a "human real-world number"? How do you deal with mailing lists that have hundreds of recipients? One email to the list results in hundreds of emails all at the same time.
That would prevent a non-MX mail server from being able to send mail since other mail servers would reject it based on DNS,
I'm sorry, but I don't think you understand the purpose of an MX record. The MX record isn't for the SENDING server, it is so the sending server can find a defined host to which email FOR a domain is sent. In fact, if an MUA uses SMTP to send mail, then it is highly unlikely that the sending host (the user's computer) will be the address pointed to by the MX record for any domain.
Yes, it would require some more programming in the SMTP daemon, but it shouldn't jack with the protocol.
As long as you don't consider "not being able to send email at all" a problem, no, your idea won't "jack with the protocol".
The more correct means of dealing with the problem is two-fold. SPF (sender permitted|policy framework) is how a recipient server looks up the authorized hosts that might be sending it email from a domain. Greylisting is how a server typically dispatches botnet senders, since the botnet is usually not going to try resending an email after getting a 500-level error.
Another way of looking at it... thousands of jobs have been destroyed
Thousands of criminal jobs...
so that the uber-rich NFL owners can snatch even more money from the commoners.
Those commoners are going to spend the money. Getting rid of the fake websites doesn't mean more people will spend more money, it only changes who they spend it with. Do you think it is better that they wind up with something that has no value should they ever try to resell it? You hate the rich so much that you'll throw your fellow citizen to the wolves who are making fake goods and selling them at real prices?
... 42,692 items of phony Super Bowl-related memorabilia along with other counterfeit items..."
It's hard to calculate an average value when you don't have the denominator. But yes, $100 on average sounds reasonable. You don't realize how much money sports nuts will drop on stuff, especially the Stupor Bowel.
How odd it is that today it seems odd to let people have the freedom to make a decision for themselves,
Being able to make a decision requires an ability to understand the facts behind it. Most people today can't understand how to make change without the cash register telling them, much less understand the hazards of introducing blood extracts into various other parts of the body.
- then it seems that morally, I have the right to take risk -- even deadly risk -- of doing something, if I choose to do so.
The difference is that you don't have a licensed expert telling you that you ought to do those things, and when you go to a doctor you do. You don't have a parachuting instructor telling you that you'll die if you don't go up and jump out of a plane. You also have a bit more intuitive insight into the dangers of gravity and being hit by another car than you do over what might happen if some odd bits of cells are injected into various parts of your body. Now, maybe you are a biology major and do understand it, but most people aren't and don't.
You want an example? Most people think that antibiotics are the best solution to whatever ails them. Any antibiotic. Give me something, doctor, for this cold. Cipro is good! Try explaining the concept of adaptation and resistance, and then explain that some antibiotics don't work at all on some infections because the bug you have has never been susceptible to that antibiotic because it doesn't have the metabolic pathway that the antibiotic interferes with to begin with.
It's simple. People say "I hurt. You are the doctor, fix it." They should be able to trust that someone somewhere has determined that what the doctor tells you to do will actually do something other than convert your money into his pocket.
If you have a choice of sourcing the article, a less incendiary source would be a wiser choice.
How about using one that doesn't immediately pop up a large white box with a demand that you subscribe to their newsletter, and try opening up a couple of other popup windows at the same time? How about just avoiding sites like that?
abuse@theblaze.com will probably enjoy the subscription I gave him.
I thought the distinction between quackery and medicine was sound experimental techniques, solid statistics, reproducible results and peer review. Not a sign-off by a three-letter-acronym government agency. Oh well, silly me.
That sign-off being based on all the former stuff. Anyone can say they've done all the science and prove whatever they want. Kevin Treudau does it all the time. Makes a bundle selling books about it. Rubbing beets on your butt eliminates cellulite. Drinking frog piss relieves constipation. That kind of stuff.
Now, you'll have to explain how these folks did that research when there is a ban on stem cell research in the US, which includes Colorado. Oh, sorry, that's a ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research using other than the existing lines. Sounds much worse the way I put it first. And everyone knows that embryonic stem cells are the only usable ones, so these guys in Colorado who are using adult stem cells must be quacks, based on the stem cell authorities themselves.
But the short answer is yes, a doctor who takes saliva and uses it for a medical procedure would be regulated. Otherwise he'll not get insurance companies to pay out for the procedure, and doctors don't do spit without getting paid these days. Heck, insurance companies won't pay for FDA-approved drugs if they aren't used for FDA-approved purposes, despite any useful "side-effects" that are in the literature.
Compounds in saliva promote healing and immune response. Are those drugs? Will they soon be regulating the practice of licking wounds?
If a doctor takes your saliva, extracts certain parts, and uses it as a medical treatment, I sure hope so. Quackery is not a Good Thing in medicine.
No, we impeach them for obstruction of justice and lying under oath. What they lied about isn't relevant.
Precedents don't have the same value in other legal systems, or rather they don't have to. You can't apply American law to European courts :)
And yet we have SCOTUS occupants who want to apply European law to US courts.
If they did, they would see people like me leaving empty handed and make changes.
How do they know what to change? Unless they've tracked you through the store to see where you go, see you shaking your head in dissappointment while standing in front of a shelf of wrong-sized items, and then done some biometrics to determine which size it is that they are missing that would make you happy, they have no idea why you left empty-handed. Maybe you realized you left your wallet in the car. Maybe you are just comparison shopping today and will come back tomorrow to buy a dozen of the things they had on the shelves, but they changed because you didn't buy them.
As for "empty shelves" showing they don't care, no, it shows they don't have tight inventory control. Empty shelves in any store are a waste of space and cost them money. Even if they don't care at all about you, they want to keep shelves stocked.
Can it run my programs I have on this cassette tape right here!?
If it is a cassette tape made out of Lego and the cassette player is also Lego. And the wire connecting the cassette to the computer is Lego.
Information was always considered free. Specific reproductions were not, because of the extreme cost in making them.
Actually, not. The reason copyright came about was not because of the costs of duplicating something. It was based on the costs of creating the "informatiom" that you claim has always been free.
That song you call "information" that you think should be free cost someone something to produce. Even if they just sit around in their free time writing songs, it has cost them time, and that time could have been used working for someone else and making money. I doubt that all you want is the song lyrics, however. That means it cost someone studio time and performer time to convert the chicken scratch on paper information into an audio version.
So yes, the extreme costs of making COPIES of existing informaion have dropped considerably (although still not free), creating that information has not.
It's funny you should mention "romantic," because the idea that artists have some sort of claim to control their works was an idea of the Romantics. It had not existed previously at any point I am aware of in history.
In large part, because the artists were paid by patrons who then owned the works. Artists who weren't, I'm sure, would not have been very happy if someone had started making copies of their work contemporaneously and flooded the market for the real ones so the real one couldn't manage to sell anything at all.
I just wish people would realize they were wrong and stop repeating the meme simply because it benefits a modern industry to do so.
I've seen this "copyright exists because of modern industry" meme a couple of times in this discussion. Please tell me, exactly which modern industry was operating in the thirteen colonies at the time the Constitution was written to grant copyright? MPAA? RIAA? Sony? UMG? UA? Comcast? I'm curious.
It's a legal DDoS. They still have to fly a body into every court and pay labor for them to stand there.
No, they don't. All they have to do is ... nothing. If nobody shows up for their side, it's a default. If they feel generous the day you get the judgement to them, they'll pay it. If not, well, you can try to collect somehow.
In my comment, I gave UMG the benefit of the doubt, ass-uming it had licensed the sample from ATS,
And from what I read in TFA, it appears that Yelawolf used the music and presented it to their label as their own work. I don't know if UMG had the responsibility to verify that claim or not. I'd think it would be rather hard to do that, considering that the music was from an unsigned indie artist who, it appears, hadn't published it yet anywhere.
It looks, to me, like Yelawolf is the bad guy here, not UMG. I should be able to leave it unsaid that the fact that I think UMG isn't the bad guy in this case doesn't say anything about any other actions.
So UMG saw their artist play a song then someone else play the song (the true author) and so uploaded the song as a violation...
No, actually, UMG listed the song after someone had leaked a ripped copy of the Yelawolf version so that nobody could upload the Yelawolf version to YouTube again. They were protecting the product that they believed they had clear copyright to, but didn't know at the time it contained music from a different author.
Whuzi wasn't the target of the takedowns, ripped copies of Yelawolf were. It's just that the detection system caught the fact that Yelawolf had used the Whuzi music, and now the issue is did he do it with or without permission. Whuzi isn't clear on that, and didn't answer that explicit question when asked.
Hint: A lawyer.
Real answer: nobody. They'd default.
...of how many total places there are
Still wrong. What matters is how much you change in the objective measure that is then sorted into a ranking. Someone else used a marathon as an example, go find and read it.
However, it's insanely depressing that so many people would continue to watch a "news" channel that had to fight that battle.
What's insanely depressing is that anyone would think that any "news channel" would have to fight that battle, or that not "fighting that battle" by a channel proves anything.
...that the US would plummet on World Press Freedom rankings given that Fox News literally won the right in court to lie to its viewers.
And nobody on any of the other "news" channels does. Ok. Most people would realize that it doesn't take a court ruling to allow a news channel to lie, so I'm wondering why you think it is significant that Fox News might have one (and "citation needed").
What's most fascinating is that people are buying the "statistic" that no other country has dropped more than 100% of its ranking. What kind of goofy stat is that? Moving from 1 to 3 would be dropping 200%, but nobody would consider that really that bad. It's meaningless to use that as a stat, but it sounds really really bad, doesn't it?
Of course police will be able to pull over autonomous vehicles. They have to be able to. Vehicles must yield the right of way to emergency vehicles displaying the appropriate lights. As in, it's a fucking ambulance, pull over and stop moron.
And what should the police do if a defective vehicle is creating a hazard to others? Let it go because it's autonomous? Like the Washington state police couldn't PIT a woman going the wrong way down the interstate for 60 miles, sometimes as slowly as 30 MPH?
Why on earth would anyone committing the crimes of (off the top of my head) jury tampering, intimidation and obstruction of justice do so in a medium that is both public and preserved for posterity by the web server?
Because the other people using the social media site aren't necessarily committing a crime when they mention "I heard on the news that the judge ruled that the 18 previous convictions this guy has can't be presented in evidence" or "32 people have come forward claiming this guy raped them, too" or things like that.
There are rules about what can and can't be evidence, none of which the users of social media are bound by but a juror is. Since jurors aren't supposed to be using social media, it would be a hard case to make that someone who posted excluded information was actually trying to tamper with the jury, but the end result would be the same.
Imagine the frustration of being handicapped and having to park a block away when some douche is taking up the limited handicapped spaces.
Imagine the frustration of there being NO parking spaces except the empty handicapped spots, and the handicapped spots are empty because the Uni has given handicapped people privately reserved spaces carved out of nearby normal spaces.
Since when is that my problem?
Since you signed up for a shared service. While you might be the only user of the cable coming into your house, it isn't very far down the line before it hooks up with a lot of other people and you all get to share the same line.
What you're basically arguing for is prioritizing one set of customers over another.
No, I'm arguing that prioritizing one KIND of traffic from ANY user is ok. That has nothing to do with who the customer is or what "set" they belong to.
but why the fuck should I have to pay the same rate as they do if I'm not going to receive the same service?
Because you are receiving the same service, just using it a different way.
Not my problem.
Gimme gimme gimme. I'm the only important person on the planet. Ok.
You seem to ignore that the same process that slows you down a bit today might slow someone else down tomorrow when YOUR network traffic needs a bit of priority. It's called "sharing". Part of being a grownup mean knowing how to do that.
Beside, who knows if my P2P application isn't time-dependent?
If you are using a P2P application for time-critical information, then YOU are at fault, not the person who is actually using a time-critical service. You just made it your problem.
My ISP do not throttle anything and I can make VoIP calls just fine.
Thank goodness all ISPs are the same as yours and don't need to do anything different than the one you have.
I'm pretty sure that if you can't get packets through for 30 seconds on a p2p connection you are going to time out...
So fix P2P so it doesn't time out when it faces delays. It's broken if it does.
You are basically saying that your phone call is more important than someone else's download.
I'm basically saying that getting the packets through for a phone call in a timely manner is more important than getting the packets through immediately for a file sharing connection, yes. Nobody is preventing the file sharing from happening, it's just not as fast as it would be if there were no other users. Gosh, the entire net works that way, at times. Packets for a P2P can be delayed and nothing is hurt. Packets for VoIP being delayed make the protocol unusable.
You are basically saying that because you need to go to work and the roads are congested, I should stay home and not go to the store so you can have a pleasant drive to work.
I said no such thing, and you know it. If you want an automotive analogy, I'm saying that you need to pull over and lose a few seconds of your life when a more critical user needs the road. See those flashing red lights on that ambulance behind you? The person in that ambulance might not die if you don't pull over, but it is still important for him to get where he's going, and that means you get slowed down. Live with it.