Sure, you can make obscure copyrighted things popular, but that's the same argument everyone's used for Kazaa, Morpheus, Gnutella, ad nauseum. It's a weak argument IMO.
The brilliance of Bittorrent is that you can use it to distribute massive things without the correlating massive bandwidth (i.e. linux distros, original video). Why not tout the fact that the cost of bringing large content to market is the real business benefit?
From what I can gather, the objecting post to this story are one of the following:
1. Cynical that it will work 2. Believe that the guilt caused by pr0n is wrong 3. Think this could be very bad if forced on someone via peer pressure or possibly some big-brother enforced government regulation.
To the people that object based on reasoning #1, I say, that's fine, but something that's got 10,000 people signing up for 4 bucks a month must do SOMETHING for them. The very fact that so many people in the/. community seem to think it's a good idea also gives credence to it working for at least some people.
To the people that object to the guilt brought on by pr0n, that's a matter of opinion. Vegetarians obviously are going feel guilty for eating meat. Conservative Christians are going to feel the same way about pr0n. Whatever your view is, you must allow each person the freedom to be conditioned to have that response if it is their choice.
Personally, I think the third category of objections is most legitimate. Is it possible that people will use this as a way to force something on others? Probably. But just because it can be used in an evil manner does not mean that it is evil in of itself. One computer may be used to make a virus, another to solve a traffic problem. The problem isn't the computer, it's the person who uses it. I think it's the same case here.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, you can make obscure copyrighted things popular, but that's the same argument everyone's used for Kazaa, Morpheus, Gnutella, ad nauseum. It's a weak argument IMO.
The brilliance of Bittorrent is that you can use it to distribute massive things without the correlating massive bandwidth (i.e. linux distros, original video). Why not tout the fact that the cost of bringing large content to market is the real business benefit?
From what I can gather, the objecting post to this story are one of the following:
/. community seem to think it's a good idea also gives credence to it working for at least some people.
1. Cynical that it will work
2. Believe that the guilt caused by pr0n is wrong
3. Think this could be very bad if forced on someone via peer pressure or possibly some big-brother enforced government regulation.
To the people that object based on reasoning #1, I say, that's fine, but something that's got 10,000 people signing up for 4 bucks a month must do SOMETHING for them. The very fact that so many people in the
To the people that object to the guilt brought on by pr0n, that's a matter of opinion. Vegetarians obviously are going feel guilty for eating meat. Conservative Christians are going to feel the same way about pr0n. Whatever your view is, you must allow each person the freedom to be conditioned to have that response if it is their choice.
Personally, I think the third category of objections is most legitimate. Is it possible that people will use this as a way to force something on others? Probably. But just because it can be used in an evil manner does not mean that it is evil in of itself. One computer may be used to make a virus, another to solve a traffic problem. The problem isn't the computer, it's the person who uses it. I think it's the same case here.