Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Music Media The Internet United States Your Rights Online

Senator Plans P2P Summit 266

Posted by CowboyNeal from the open-discussion dept.
ClickTheVote writes "Last fall Senator Norm Coleman held hearings on the RIAA subpoena process, now he is going to convene a P2P Summit. At CES last week he said, 'With the advent of technology such as peer-to-peer networking, law, technology and ethics are now not in synch. We need to find other ways to solve the problems rather than issuing lawsuits and lobbying Congress to pass tougher laws.' Here, here."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Senator Plans P2P Summit More

Senator Plans P2P Summit

Comments Filter:

  • Strange that all these media executives (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 16, 2004 @07:30AM (#7996628)
    are finding themselves in favor of more regulations. Whatever happened to letting the market decide?

    • Re:Strange that all these media executives (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 16, 2004 @07:44AM (#7996697)
      The marked decided that they didn't want media executives. Hence people who once thrived in a capitalistic society go running for protectionist programs once the money starts going down.

      Ironic, isnt it?

      • Re:Strange that all these media executives (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Paul.Org ( 728041 ) on Friday January 16, 2004 @08:49AM (#7996948)
        The constant P2P/Corporate blow-ups strike me as very similar to the Catholic Church's initial reaction to the printing press... It ate into a Church Monopoly (ie the reproduction of text) and also offered a far wider audience for critics of the Church (ie Protestants)... Once the Church worked out that: a) It couldn't stop the critics BUT b) It could flood the world with cheap bibles & hence get more members It was all good... Ok maybe an oversimplified analogy but wars were fought over this so the P2P/Corporate thing will be resolved with far less deaths... Well that's my hope anyway...
        • I agree that it resembles the Reformation; I disagree that "It was all good".

          The Catholic church has declined greatly in power since that time. Likewise, if the entertainment industry loses this war, it will be reduced to a shadow of its former self. Of course, the power and scope of the individual citizen will expand in proportion.

  • But... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by graveyardduckx ( 735761 )
    Where ethics, law, and technology ever in synch to begin with? I always see people using technology unethically to break the law. I see the law using technology unethically. I see ethics and laws going right out the window with spam technology. Paper, Rock, Scissors?

  • The Meeting Already Happened! (Score:4, Funny)

    by illuminata ( 668963 ) on Friday January 16, 2004 @07:35AM (#7996650) Journal
    Load up your favorite P2P program and do a search for this file!

    US SEN NORM COLEMAN P2P DISCUSSION -- SAYS P2P IS GOOD -- MUST READ.txt.exe

  • <skeptic> (Score:5, Funny)

    by CaptainAlbert ( 162776 ) on Friday January 16, 2004 @07:37AM (#7996654) Homepage
    Yes, a Summit will work! Already through the power of talking-about-things we have eliminated AIDS, poverty and global polution! Now we must turn this formidable weapon to bear on copyright theft!

    </skeptic>

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by panurge ( 573432 )
      I wonder who modded this flamebait? It's surely a valid point, if sarcastically expressed. Summits do not achieve anything unless powerful external interests are pushing the participants. If a "summit" is set up merely out of a perceived need, or because somebody wishes to become an agonist to enhance their own position, it is unlikely to achieve anything.

      If the RIAA section of the recording industry was really being forced into a corner and there was a clear enemy rather than a disparate group of separate

    • quod licet Jovi, non licet bovi
      Amit szabad Jupiternek, nem szabad a kisokornek.

    • true. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by twitter ( 104583 ) on Friday January 16, 2004 @09:06AM (#7997010) Homepage Journal
      Yes, a Summit will work! Already through the power of talking-about-things we have eliminated AIDS, poverty and global polution! Now we must turn this formidable weapon to bear on copyright theft!

      Yes it's true, the only way to enforce copyright law is through propaganda. Copyright, unlike all of those other things, depends on individual self restraint and respect for authors and publishers. It would be wonderful indeed if we could simply convince people not to be poor or die of AIDS and convince the air to be clean. Hell, propaganda could bring world peeace if only words could multiply the resources that people fight over. The dependence of copyright law on propaganda is even greater as the ease of publication grows in the digital age. People must be convinced that copyright laws are just in order for copyright to work.

      The US is one place that should know this is true. Ben Franklin and many other Americans thought English copyright laws were unreasonable and violated them wholsale. For a hundred and fifty years after US judges and citezens scoffed at paying tribute to forgien governments and authors for ideas, songs and other inspiration.

      Today it is US copyright laws that are out of wack. The imbalance is not in the technology, it's in 100 year copyrights that are essentially perpetual and the power of big publishers to prevail on US public opinion. The word's five big music publishers, three big broadcasters and one big press organization are losing their governemnt granted control of mass media to the internet. While they can buy biger and dumber copyright laws and have restrained broadband adoption, they are having a hard time convincing people they are right about things. I'm afraid this Summit will recomend more stupid limits on technology and attempt to justify them with people's failure to be convinced that copyright laws are ethical, just or reasonable.

      • Re:true. (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Simonetta ( 207550 )
        ...the technology experts, the computer industry, the peer-to-peer industry, the software industry, the entertainment industry, the privacy experts and the business experts to come together and discuss positive and meaningful solutions to this challenge...

        Uhh, senator, aren't you forgetting someone here? Mainly the tens of millions of people who actually are downloading and consuming the music?
        All of the parties that you have listed are those that stand to gain from instituting a stiff DRM regime on

  • Pedantic grammar comment (Score:5, Informative)

    by David Kennedy ( 128669 ) on Friday January 16, 2004 @07:37AM (#7996657) Homepage
    I think you mean "Hear, hear!", not "Here, here!"
    • " I think you mean "Hear, hear!", not "Here, here!""

      He was calling attention to his post. :)

      (imagine him pointing down at the page while exclaiming, "Here, here!") ...furthermore, I think you have too much time on your hands, which, unfortunately, doesn't look good for me since I not only know about your post, but am replying to it.
    • Yeah, I was a bit confused. I mean, I've heard "there, there", like when comforting someone, but I don't think that's the case here :-)
    • Hear hear:
      Meaning A shout of support or agreement.
      Origin Originated in the British parliament in the 18th century as a contraction of 'hear him, hear him'. It is still often heard there although sometimes used ironically these days.

      Phrase Dictionary [shu.ac.uk]

      It's understandable for people to mix this up, but not someone who is paid to be an "editor".

  • Here, here? (Score:3, Funny)

    by SlashDread ( 38969 ) on Friday January 16, 2004 @07:37AM (#7996658)
    Where?

    "/Dread"

  • Good idea... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by tuxette ( 731067 ) * <tuxette.gmail@com> on Friday January 16, 2004 @07:38AM (#7996663) Homepage Journal
    The Minnesota Republican said the answers to protecting copyrighted material are more likely to be found through technological innovation rather than passage of more laws.

    Yes...and...

    "I believe we need the technology experts, the computer industry, the peer-to-peer industry, the software industry, the entertainment industry, the privacy experts and the business experts to come together and discuss positive and meaningful solutions to this challenge facing a major segment of our economy," said Coleman.

    Finally, someone who is on the right track, thinking rationally. It is important to have matter-of-fact, and hopefully civilized discussion with all the parties involved in this manner. My belief is the only way you'll find the answers to protecting copyrighted material is to involve everyone from the techies to the entertainment industry to privacy experts and everyone in between. You are not going to find answers by writing one-sided laws and suing 6th graders and pensioners.

    I'm not sure what's going to come out of a meeting like this. My pessimistic side is afraid it's going to end up being more for show than anything. Lip service galore. But we'll see...

    • Yes indeed! After so much hypocritical posturing and PR disasters and other bulls**t, it's nice to finally see someone in power who has a moderate viewpoint on the issue and is willing to calmly and rationally discuss ways to satisfy everyone.

      Bravo to this guy! I hope he succeeds.

    • Shame you're so pessimistic about it, but I think you're right to be. The "industries" involved have their own vested interests, although most popular P2P applications could not be considered an "industry" except for those like Kazaa or Napster 2 which always intended to make money out of their tools.

      The most positive point of the whole article is that the word piracy

      is not mentioned. Not once. That's a good start. It doesn't mention theft or stealing either. So there is a lot to be happy about!

      • Re:Good idea... (Score:3, Interesting)

        by R.Caley ( 126968 )
        The most positive point of the whole article is that the word piracy is not mentioned. Not once. That's a good start. It doesn't mention theft or stealing either. So there is a lot to be happy about!

        So the fact that he avoids mentioning the major reason there is a problem is a good thing?

        If P2P systems were not such wonderful tools for piracy and theft, there would be no (legitiomate) complaint and so people who used them for arguably justifiable activity (finding out about new stuff, access to no longe

        • If P2P systems were not such wonderful tools for piracy and theft, there would be no (legitiomate) complaint

          As concerned about copyright violation as corporations and the government are, I believe there is even more to their objections to P2P: it provides a way to share information in general, without being subject to a hierarchical scheme of servers. This worries them because it means they can no longer control information by imposing licensing schemes on servers.

          For respondents who would claim other

      • "The most positive point of the whole article is that the word piracy is not mentioned."

        Sweet lord help us if this winds up as yet another word-play argument. I mean, jeez, were we all given a limited and fixed set of words and meanings, never to change?

        In any case, the fact reamains that "the unauthorized duplication of copyrighted material" remains illegal.

        All the dreamy talk of solutions takes great care to avoid dealing with the very ugly practical problems...

        1) Will artists have a choice about

        • In any case, the fact reamains (sic) that "the unauthorized duplication of copyrighted material" remains illegal.

          Of course. I'm not talking about it being illegal or not. I'm talking about the fact that "theft" is what it most certainly is not. In law this is very important. That's why we have different degrees of murder, manslaughter, involuntary homicide, etc etc. The punishment should fit the crime, but so should the vocabulary.

          Piracy - whilst part of the problem - is a word I'd prefer not to see, si

          • Gimme a break!

            Are the guys that run vast commercial CD duplication operations "pirates"?

            No, they're not "pirates" either.

            The semantic game is just smoke screen hiding the real issues...

            • Pirate [reference.com]

              3. One who infringes the law of copyright, or publishes the work of an author without permission.

              It's an accepted dictionary definition and one that I am happy with. Theft is the word I'm really against, but pirate I can sort of let it get by. However the article wasn't about that anyway and I'm glad it wasn't mentioned, for reasons other than those for which I'm glad that theft was not mentioned. I hope this is clear now.

              • "It's an accepted dictionary definition and one that I am happy with. Theft is the word I'm really against, but pirate I can sort of let it get by."

                But how do you think "one who infringes the law of copyright" came to be an accepted dictionary definition for "pirate"? There was a time when "one who infringes the law of copyright" was not listed among the dictionary definitions of the word "pirate" -- was it wrong and bad to use the term "pirate" back then?

                Again, this is just a wasted effort -- why not

                • OK you've backtracked to your original post and I'm going to dedicate a bit more time to this. I just clicked through to your website, looked at Andromeda and some of the other stuff and I'm seeing where you're coming from.

                  I'm not saying that filesharing should be made legal. I think, however, that people would pay for music if the distribution could be managed fairly. Most people who think they are doing nothing wrong are vindicated because buying individual songs is nigh impossible, even with iTunes and

      • The most positive point of the whole article is that the word piracy is not mentioned. Not once.

        "U.S. Sen. Norm Coleman plans to convene a peer-to-peer (P2P) summit within the next two months in hopes of avoiding a federally mandated response to online piracy."

        However, it doesn't appear to be in his press release [senate.gov].

    • > more likely to be found through technological innovation rather than passage of more laws.

      Yes...and...

      Not everyone thinks it's that obvious, though. Particularly people who believe that copyright theft is morally equivalent to actual theft. (Yes, they do exist, just not around here :)).

      I'm not sure what's going to come out of a meeting like this.

      My concern is rather that whatever comes out in the end will not be listened to, even if it would solve all the world's copyright problems.

      What

    • Re:Good idea... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by krymsin01 ( 700838 ) on Friday January 16, 2004 @07:52AM (#7996731) Homepage Journal
      The only thing that'll come out of this is a stronger Gov't stance for DRM, believe me. And when you or I complain that the DRM features of the new media are keeping us from excersizing our rights, guess who's going to stand up for the corporations and not the citizens?

      Ok, mabey a little parinoid, but that's how I read this. You'll notice that the only group of people he didn't mention were the p2p users themselves.

      • the users (Score:4, Insightful)

        by tuxette ( 731067 ) * <tuxette.gmail@com> on Friday January 16, 2004 @08:05AM (#7996789) Homepage Journal
        You'll notice that the only group of people he didn't mention were the p2p users themselves.

        I did notice this and I was going to mention it but decided not to. I was afraid I was going to be asked what I'm about to ask you. How will you do it? Who are you going to pick as the p2p users representatives? What will be the criteria? Or will any p2p user be allowed to attend, as long as there are enough seats?

        Is there a p2p user interest organization in existence?

        • Or will any p2p user be allowed to attend, as long as there are enough seats?

          Oh yes, they forgot to mention. Everyone who uses P2P networks is encouraged to turn up - the more, the merrier! They'll have their own special entrance, and everything! There is a special, erm, all-you-can-eat buffet organised, just for you. Yes, that's it. Oh, and P.S. bring your own handcuffs.

          Hey... it could happen...

        • Re:the users (Score:3, Informative)

          by Zocalo ( 252965 )
          Is there a p2p user interest organization in existence?

          Not a specific one that I am aware of, but having someone there to represent the users would be a good idea. There are several more general bodies that could fill the role; the EFF has touched on this area in the past for example. Two other groups with a vested interest that spring to mind are the artists themselves, from both sides of the P2P debate obviously. Also having representatives of those using P2P for 100% legitimate reasons like distros

        • I have a feeling that the only p2p user input in the whole system will be focus groups, conducted by the marketers of the new (if any at all) wave of "legal" p2p networks.

          Theoreticaly, the senator (or senators, if it ever came to a vote) is the representation of the p2p users (at least those who reside in the USA). How well do you think he's going to stick up for your opinions?
      • I would mod you up if I had points.

        All we can hope for to avoid the careful thinking descending into a barrage of "We must enforce to protect our rights" by the **AA and other content providers alike, is some real techie experts to disspell the myth that DRM might actually a) work and b) be acceptable to users.
    • "I believe we need the technology experts, the computer industry, the peer-to-peer industry, the software industry, the entertainment industry, the privacy experts and the business experts to come together"

      I like how "customers" doesn't appear in this list.
      • I like how "customers" doesn't appear in this list.


        "The People of the United States" doesn't appear either. I find it funny that they are going to decide something without us as we have all the real power in this country*.


        * Well, we're supposed to anyways.

    • Its pretty clear the only conclusion this "summit" will come to is that computers need to be regulated, the same way we regulate cars.

      Only moreso!

      Microsoft will point out Palladium will solve these problems, and that if the government would mandate Palladium, then these problems would all but disappear.

      And no, I don't think I'm being too cynical at all. In fact, I think my scenario is likely.

    • Re:Good idea... (Score:3, Informative)

      by swb ( 14022 )
      Finally, someone who is on the right track, thinking rationally.

      A recent Minneapolis Star Tribune article showed Coleman voting nearly in lockstep with what the White House wanted. Given the Bush administration's generally pro-corporate stances on most issues, it's hard to see Norm Coleman taking a stance on this issue too far out of sync with what corporate leaders typically want (DRM, limited choice, maximimal pricing).

      What I find unusual about Norm's initiatives is that Minnesota isn't the consti
    • Well one thing you have is a Senator saying no more laws for you. Which is a positive, time to come to the table and work out the issues instead of threats... It is a positive and it reflects real world...

  • More laws (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 16, 2004 @07:39AM (#7996670)
    Not that we care nor memorise them all.

    All they do is keep lawyers in jobs.

    We need less laws not more.

    Whats wrong with just getting on with youre lives.

    The day they treat companies as a living entity is the day it all went wrong. Its not a living entitiy, never will be. Its a company. Not life.

  • Hmmm (Score:5, Interesting)

    by LordK3nn3th ( 715352 ) on Friday January 16, 2004 @07:41AM (#7996683)
    It's very interesting how this might turn out. Will they be anti-P2P, or anti-RIAA (not saying the two are exclusive or anything)?

    As we all pretty much accept here on Echodot, computer copyright law is really out of wack with other copyright law. Computers, being relatively new and increasing in use fast, have been treated differently than earlier, normal copyright laws, for example, you can lend someone a book, but you (as many EULAs say) you cannot have a game installed on two computers, even if the game requires a CD to play. If such a book came with an User Agreement, would courts allow it?

    In any case, something must be done. We haven't seen anything really like computers before. There has been nothing so flexible that allows you to share information so easily. I think the laws should change, NOT computers.

    Of course, this begs the question on HOW the laws will change. One obvious answer is to do away with the whole copyrighted works system, but is that really what we want (and need)?

    In summary, the current copyright laws (not the DMCA, it is argued it conflicts with "fair use", I'm inclined to agree) just weren't designed for anything like computers and the internet.

    Heh, or else I have no idea what I'm talking about and just whoring for karma. :)

  • Oh yes.. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by LordK3nn3th ( 715352 )
    It's also important to note that, if a solution is made through this (if one comes around), who will it benefit? Corporations? Everyone equally? Take a WILD guess which one I'm betting on.

  • Okay... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AstrumPreliator ( 708436 ) on Friday January 16, 2004 @07:44AM (#7996695)
    I wasn't aware there was anything wrong with P2P networks. They aren't illegal and it's an efficient data distribution system that takes loads off of servers.
    I think the true intent of "synching law, technology, and ethics" is to gain control. They will be able to monitor you more easily and control what is served.
    • I think the true intent of "synching law, technology, and ethics" is to gain control. They will be able to monitor you more easily and control what is served.

      Ok, in your scenario, I see law and technology, but I don't see ethics. Why do ISPs routinely fight subpeonas from the RIAA and others? Ethics. There's no law saying they have to protect their users, and there's certainly the technical means to comply with it, but the ethical thing to do is to side with your customers over some trade association.

  • Oh, why doesn't anyone think of the children??? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Bigman ( 12384 ) on Friday January 16, 2004 @07:46AM (#7996704) Homepage Journal
    Other bills are aimed at protecting minors who use P2P software to inadvertently download pornographic material, especially child pornography.
    Inadvertently? Hmm, I'm sorry this isn't a tech issue, it's a social one. If you want to control what your kids do and see online then you have to supervise them. There's no law or crappy bit of software that can do it that won't be circumvented within days. You wouldn't let a kid roam around alone in a city 'till they where old enough to look out for themselves? So why in cyberspace? The internet is not a TV you can park your kids in front of to keep them quiet, it's a communication tool and you need to know who they're talking to! The internet is not a library, it is a seedy city with all the glitter and vice that entails. That's why it's so facinating, that's why we bother with it, and that's why we need to be responsible when exposing our kids to it.
    We need to find other ways to solve the problems rather than issuing lawsuits and lobbying Congress to pass tougher laws
    My oh my! We may not have found intelligent life on the moon, but maybe there's a sign of it on earth...

  • Perceived problems with P2P (Score:5, Interesting)

    by G4from128k ( 686170 ) on Friday January 16, 2004 @07:47AM (#7996710)
    From the article, it would seem that Congress sees two problems with P2P:
    1. "Illegal" distribution of copyrighted material
    2. Exposure of children to pornographic materials

    At this point it would behoove the P2P community to do soemthing to forestall Draconian legislation that destroys P2P. I see four options, but only 2 effective options:
    1. Argue that these two "problems" don't happen (not going to work)
    2. Argue that these two "problems" aren't wrong (not going to work)
    3. Fix these problems themselves (probably what Congress wants)
    4. Articulating the benefits of P2P (may help delay regulation while working on option 3)


    Any other ideas out there?

    • Re:Perceived problems with P2P (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Eivind ( 15695 ) <eivindorama@gmail.com> on Friday January 16, 2004 @08:00AM (#7996762) Homepage
      5: Argue that tools that can, and are infact, be used for both lawful and unlawful purposes should not themselves be illegal.

      6: Argue that general purpose computers is a tool much to useful to society to consider giving them up, or locking them away with the keys in the hands of a elite few, over an issue as trivial as some downloaded music-files.

      7: Continue to press the point that copyrigth-law is supposed to serve a *purpose*, the creation of science and the useful arts. If it ain't serving this purpose, it's unconstitutional and harmful. Retroactively extending copyrigths for works where the author is 50 years dead does nothing to stimulate science or the useful acts.

      8: Continue to point out that the music-cartel is in trouble because they're providing a service noone really needs or wants anymore. Sure, that's putting it a bit on the point, but fact is, neither I as a producer of music, nor I as a consumer have any interest in supporting those things 90% of the cash goes to when I purchase a CD.

      9: Try to get politicians to understand that not everything which is *disliked* should be *illegal*. The rigth solution to the "problem" of kids looking for porn in p-2-p space and finding it is *gasp* parents who actually give a fuck. (How is p2p worse for youngsters than thehun.net by the way ? Should we shut down the www too ?)

      10: Get an actually democratic system in the US. It used to be every man one vote, these days it's more like every dollar one vote. There's more p2p users in the USA than there are people who voted for Bush....

      For a start...

      • You raise some very good points, Eivind, the question is, will Congress buy them?

        If I play devils-advocate (== Congress' advocate), this is how I would respond to your points, were I a legislative control freak (which I am not).

        5: Argue that tools that can, and are infact, be used for both lawful and unlawful purposes should not themselves be illegal.

        Good point. But such tools usually have some redeeming quality to them. What can p2p do besides share music files and porn?

        6: Argue that general p

        • 5: Argue that tools that can, and are infact, be used for both lawful and unlawful purposes should not themselves be illegal.

          Good point. But such tools usually have some redeeming quality to them. What can p2p do besides share music files and porn?

          I would have to argue that P2P software architechtures offer the possibility of being able to truly realize the promise of the internet, when when one part or piece goes down (due to war, natural calamity, political repression, mechanical failure, etc.) the sl

        • >5: Argue that tools that can, and are infact, be used for both lawful and unlawful purposes should not themselves be illegal.

          Good point. But such tools usually have some redeeming quality to them. What can p2p do besides share music files and porn?

          How about sharing legal music files and legal porn?

          Yeah, there's all sorts of other good uses, but that answer has a wonderful point to it. Those legal uses are just as valid as any other legal use, no matter how much the RIAA may dispise the existance of

      • How is p2p worse for youngsters than thehun.net by the way ?

        Odd you should mention that. I have a friend whose 15 year old son was addicted to porn to the extent he was stealing her credit card numbers in order to get to pay sites. It was a serious problem for her, both financially and morally. She has the kid in counseling and they're treating his need for the porn. But like a nicotine addict who needs a patch to taper off, she and the counselor needed some way for him to get an occasional fix withou

  • An improvement??? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by kiwioddBall ( 646813 )
    I'm not sure if this is good or not. Whilst the gentleman is correct (and his heart is in the right place) in believing that draconian laws won't stop the real offenders, the only other solutions are moral measures which hasn't worked in the past either (with the notable exclusion of the music stores) or technological restrictions.

    There are only two results I can see out of this :
    - ISP's will be asked to prevent the transmission of copyrighted material or
    - The consumer internet can easily be replaced
    • And how do you keep people in other countries in line? Tell their governments to work with us or we invade (er, "Liberate their people")?

      Maybe we should talk to china about licensing their firewall technology. After all, it seems to be working well for them.

      Historically, law rarely represents the ethics of the proletariat. And so long as we foster a society that regards pure information (vs. information services) as a tradeable commodity there is no reconciling.

    • How can a us-congress decision inflict wordlwide changes of the internet?

      Just asking... I sort of lived in a dreamworld where the world was (alot) more than merely the US...

  • So, what's the solution (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 16, 2004 @08:05AM (#7996788)
    Of course, people have always been breaching copyright. P2P just makes it a lot easier.

    For example, have you ever kept something taped from TV for longer than is strictly neccesary? copied a tape for a friend? Used an illigitmate piece of software? Not everyone has, but many people have. Most people don't even see anything wrong with this. And it's always been tolerated to an extent. However P2P allows a lot more copies to be made, and allows a single copy to spread a lot further than it could when it was only friend copying from each other.

    Now, the solution is not to try to terrorise the people who use P2P. All they want to do is share what they have. They can do it, and will do it. It is going to be impossible to convince them that this is wrong. What we need to do is reach some sort of compromise. Right now we're nowhere near. The media cartels wnat absolute control over all aspects of all aspects of distribution. The public want to be able to get everything they can without paying for it. Neither of these options are viable, so we need some middle ground. Some way of tolerating a certain amount of copyright infringement that is acceptable to most people.

    Any suggestions?

  • Rather shortsighted of slashdot posters.... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Puls4r ( 724907 ) on Friday January 16, 2004 @08:29AM (#7996868)
    I think alot of the posters here are being short sighted. Let's try to translate or summarize the major point of the article.

    Legislation hasn't worked and we need a better avenue.

    That is the CRUX of the matter.

    The point is that they still believe file sharing is WRONG and are looking for ways beyond legislation to stop it.

    What exactly do you think they'll come up with? Magical pellicans that fly down and scoop up your computer if you happen to break the law? Um... no...

    What will eventually come from this gathering of experts is mandated and likely uniform DRM architecture / standards that ALL new hardware must incorporate, much like the broadcasting bit you've seen with the digital TV sets.

    Why are you rejoicing again?

  • It's the economy, stupid! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by bankman ( 136859 ) on Friday January 16, 2004 @09:13AM (#7997039) Homepage
    Or rather economics. Nowhere in the article is a very important, but often overlooked issue to be found: Economics.

    Our whole economic system is based on one simple assumption: The scarcity of goods. As long as a good is scarce, ie. not abundant, it has a value for which the market creates a price. Clean air is (still) abundant so we don't have to pay for it. Cars are scarce (hmmm...) and so a price can derived from the mechanics of demand and supply.

    Music, films, software, basically everything digital lacks scarcity, because as soon as a medium, a product or information enters the digital realm it is accessible through digital technology, mostly without loss of quality and/or features. It becomes abundant in the digital world and we will have trouble fixing a price for a good that is as available as breathable air (still is).

    How do you fix this? You can't. You could create artificial scarcity through DRM features, which would not work because DRM-less alternatives will most probably be readily available. And even if they weren't, people will have a problem accepting a price that they view as too high, given the fact that they once had the good for free with more features (copyable, modifiable, transportable, usable etc.).

    How do artist make money if their goods are so easily accessible? Create scarcity again, but avoiding DRM: The distributable good (a CD, DVD, what have you) would still be offered to the market at low or no price at all, becoming a teaser for the real product: live events. These are not so easily reproduceable without loss of quality (I consider bootleg recordings not to be of the same quality and if you have listened to one, you will probably agree that, while being interesting, it is not the Real Thing) and will most likely be different from venue to venue (one of the reasons many fans travelled with Frank Zappa or the Grateful Dead when they were on tour).

    There are catches though: Bands and artists would have to be able to perform life on stage and no one would need the RIAA. So we should all expect more of the same. Round tables and talks will not yield any useful outcomes, the best they can achieve is more public awareness of the problem and maybe speed up the downfall of an industry destined to die (as long as they don't come up with a new and decent business model), albeit slowly and still with enough turnover and profit to make our lives and Slashdot discussions interesting. ;-)

    Just my 2 Cents (and that's all they'll get)

  • I have said it before, but it bears repeating... if you build better P2P software a lot of the problems will go away. Not all, but a lot.

    Right now it is hard to classify information well in a P2P network, so most of what is shared is that sort of information that is most easily described. That is to say, "Hot chix doin nasty stuff" or "Latest bubblegum pop song". It's a bit harder to share something that people are going to look for using more obscure criteria. What we really need is a few ways to insert c

  • it's "hear, hear"... NOT "here, here"...

    • there you go, from phrasefinder ... " Meaning A shout of support or agreement. Origin Originated in the British parliament in the 18th century as a contraction of 'hear him, hear him'. It is still often heard there although sometimes used ironically these days."

  • You do not want to solve this problem (Score:3, Interesting)

    by kris ( 824 ) <kris-slashdot@koehntopp.de> on Friday January 16, 2004 @11:35AM (#7998078) Homepage
    P2P started as a centrally managed network, Napster.

    Companies attacked the central network management, P2P mutated into something that works decentrally, Gnutella.

    Companies tried to poison P2P networks with damaged or crippled content. P2P mutated into something that managed checksums on files, and parts of files, inventing swarm loading on the way. Enter eDonkey and Bittorrent.

    Companies are trying to identify uploaders by IP, and are trying to force the ISP to keep tabs on the content that customers are downloading or uploading. P2P will mutate into encrypting and MIXing anonymizing service, completly masking uploaders and downloaders, and completely distributing file storage (files will be stored in encrypted chunks of equal size on many servers, so that it will not be possible to tell which content is stored on which server even if you seize the servers hdd).

    In such a scenario, in order to control P2P distribution of files, you'd have to completely prohibit peer to peer (mediatorless) communications. "Two nodes in the network may not communicate with each other at any time unless a trusted transaction supervisor listens in into the unencrypted communication between these two nodes checking them for the absence of copyright violations and inappropriate content violations."

    Incidentally, this is exactly the type of application that is enabled with NGSCB (That is, NGSCB is necessary in order to write such an application. I don't claim that NGSCB is such an application).

    Kristian
    • You are right - what they don't understand, is that such a system would fundamentally break the internet as we know it. The internet was always designed to be "dumb in the middle, smart on the fringe". It is what has allowed it to become what it is today. Indeed, all successful networks seem to exhibit this behavior. Other topologies suffer from fatal flaws that cause them in the end to either die, or stop growing. To place a different such topology on the already large growth internet would probably kill i

Slashdot Top Deals

Scientists will study your brain to learn more about your distant cousin, Man.

Close