arstechnica.com — The Committee on Science and Technology is losing its patience with file sharing on US college campuses, but witnesses at a hearing warned against entering into a technology arms race with students and the purveyors of piracy tools.
Jun 7, 2007 View in Crawl 4
bshockJun 8, 2007
I applaud the RIAA and Congress for encouraging the development of P2P systems that can outwit the RIAA and Congress.
nukem996Jun 8, 2007
They'll never be able to succeed. I do research and do administration(in the CS department not the university network) at my university and I use bittorrent all the time to download things legally. Some things I can only get through bittorrent while others its very slow. I will complain non stop about how its hindering my research and keeping me from doing my work. Others will do what ever it takes to get around it and be completely anonymous about it. They'll be using over the country anti P2P software against hundreds of CS majors from freshmen to PHDs. There is no way they'll ever win.
blacklilyninjaJun 8, 2007
is that a good or bad comparison? god being omniscient knew she would. So in that system there was no real free will. By default he created a system that would fail and blamed Eve. So what does god do? He changes the system. Eve was technically god's patsy.Is the RIAA and MPAA using the consumer as the proverbial patsy for their own shortcomings?
enginbeeringJun 8, 2007
I'm kinda sick of the way all my fellow diggers practically worship Kevin Rose too...but seriously your comment is completely ineffective, pointless, and out of place.
levilprivateerJun 8, 2007
"Since when is copyright a constitutional right? Or are you linking this back to freedom of speech?"Since protections for inventors and authors were written into the Constitution. That has, over time, also established the right to transfer copyright to an individual or a collective of individuals."But you can compete by offering a better product. P2P takes time and energy to find and then clean files found there. If you can offer a high quality product at a price-point that is lower than the perceived cost (in time and effort) of pirated goods, you will make a profit."I agree; the current price model makes CDs an unattractive purchase. There is no logical leap from a product being beyond the cost of what a consumer wants to pay, however, and justification for violating someone else's rights in the name of convenience. I don't even necessarily CARE if someone pirates their booty of choice. I'm just over the tired old lie of "I'm doing it for JUSTICE!""Read Article I, Section 8, Line 7 of the US Constitution."I have read and comprehended. Have you? You seem to misunderstand it. If the RIAA or the MPAA are acting on behalf of artists or those who the artist has ceded copyright to, then the RIAA and the MPAA are simply defending the Constitutional rights of the individuals involved. I might not LIKE the MPAA or the RIAA, I might not LIKE how they do business, I might DISAGREE with their tactics, I might think that some of thier tactics are, in fact, ILLEGAL... but the essence of the issue... that of copyright violation... stands. When you download something that does not belong to you, you've violated someone's rights. "There is no constitutional protection for slimy middle men who rip off the artist and inventor,"You mean the same artist and inventor who sold those rights for money, or is using the MPAA / RIAA to assist in his or her copyright defense? "Copy"right" was granted to allow everyone in this nation the chance to become well informed by creating a motivation to inform them."No, copyright was established to protect the works of authors and inventors, while ensuring that those works passed into the public domain after a reasonable period. The vast majority of piracy, however, involves items that have not even passed the relatively short period of copyright protection originally agreed upon. It is exceedingly hard to defend a position of piracy on the grounds of unfairness when the vast majority of the material being pirated is brand new."The RIAA is "protecting" their product, has violated our right to free speech by preventing us from using words with out paying for the rights to use them. They have violated our right to privacy by illegal wire tapping."You cannot copyright a word, but you can copyright works of artistic value. You may be confusing copyright with trademarking. "If a P2P connection is PEER to PEER, than it is like a telephone call. You don't get to monitor a telephone call just because it goes through the phone network."On the peer-to-peer filesharing issue... I think you misunderstand the core concept of peer-to-peer. Were the RIAA and MPAA actually tapping your connection, you'd have a point. With peer to peer, however, you're broadcasting to the entire network that "hey dudes, I have this wicked cool chunk of file! Want some?" Calling their connection and downloading of that chunk of file wiretapping makes about as much sense as complaining because someone listened to you screaming into a megaphone."This is NOT ONLY "a crusade against a bad guy", but a battle for the very protections and freedoms that make this country."Bulls**t. You don't even understand the subject matter, so how can you be partaking in a battle?
rattelerJun 9, 2007
"Read Article I, Section 8, Line 7 of the US Constitution.""If the RIAA or the MPAA are acting on behalf of artists or those who the artist has ceded copyright to, then the RIAA and the MPAA are simply defending the Constitutional rights of the individuals involved."You're forgetting about our constitutional right to face our accuser. If the copy"right" holder wants to accuse me of something, THEY should be required to do so. I sure as hell can't send an independent agent to accuse some one of crime and never file charges or face them in court.They assign the RIAA the right to do so. This is why the RIAA has never dared go to court when some one stands up to the,"When you download something that does not belong to you, you've violated someone's rights."It DOES belong to me. I am the last heir, as is every other citizen of this country and as such, we are entitled to our public domain rights of owners ship. If you don't think we have any right to this intellectual property, trying creating any piece of art without language, society, and economy. It is because the culture we are all apart of allows the opportunity to create art, that all works of art end up in the public domain in recognition of OUR contribution to that art work."There is no constitutional protection for slimy middle men who rip off the artist and inventor,""You mean the same artist and inventor who sold those rights for money, or is using the MPAA / RIAA to assist in his or her copyright defense?"No one "uses" the RIAA. The RIAA is company of companies that rip off the artists. You obviously have no clue how the record industry works, or are in the record industry and spreading this bulls**t lie to justify your terror campaign on the people of this country."Copy"right" was granted to allow everyone in this nation the chance to become well informed by creating a motivation to inform them.""No, copyright was established to protect the works of authors and inventors, while ensuring that those works passed into the public domain after a reasonable period."No. You need to go back and read the writings of our founding fathers. Protection of authors works was only of a concern because SOME ONE had to actually pay for the material cost distribution. In fact, if they could have envisioned the Internet 225 years ago there would probably have been NO copy"right". Of course the concept of constitutional intent is lost on some whose mission in life to twist the law to their own purpose."The vast majority of piracy, however, involves items that have not even passed the relatively short period of copyright protection originally agreed upon. It is exceedingly hard to defend a position of piracy on the grounds of unfairness when the vast majority of the material being pirated is brand new."But since copyright has been extended beyond the average persons lifetime from the original 13 years that was allowed, we have been effectively robbed of our public domain right. The LIMITED protection for copyright made sure that by the time it was public domain it still had value to society. This would includes the right to create derivative works, as well as other forms of sharing.This is what has been stolen from our society. Since our societal inheritance has been looted, why should any one respect the word of law in this matter.Because of the criminal abuse of copyright law, we have lost any right to derivative work of our own popular culture permanently. So in reparations we claim our right to redistribution before the limited time period is up."The RIAA in "protecting" their product, has violated our right to free speech by preventing us from using words with out paying for the rights to use them. They have violated our right to privacy by illegal wire tapping.""You cannot copyright a word, but you can copyright works of artistic value. You may be confusing copyright with trademarking."No. There are a finite number of words. Given the rules of grammar and syntax, there are a finite number of ways ideas can be expressed with those finite number of words. This means at some point in human history we MUST reuse certain combinations of those words.Since there is no calculation to determine exactly how many words may be reused in what order, and due to copyrights restriction of sharing the information for profit, we cannot possibly verify that any given combination of words has never been copyrighted. There is an infinite number of chances that a group of words has been used, but only a finite number of words. Therefore, at some point, every possible combination of words must be copyrighted by some one. It's the simple math."On the peer-to-peer filesharing issue... I think you misunderstand the core concept of peer-to-peer. Were the RIAA and MPAA actually tapping your connection, you'd have a point. With peer to peer, however, you're broadcasting to the entire network that "hey dudes, I have this wicked cool chunk of file! Want some?" Calling their connection and downloading of that chunk of file wiretapping makes about as much sense as complaining because someone listened to you screaming into a megaphone."No... I understand the concept perfectly. It is a string of packets addressed between 2 individuals. The very name "PEER to PEER" describes the connection. This is not "Broadcast" at all. That would be called PEER to GROUP, or... as you already said BROAD CAST. But a P2P connection requires the consent of both parties. To monitor my IP address, they have to agree to share the content and communicate with me on a 1 to 1 basis.In such a case, any evidence of wrong doing is nullified because it violates that private communication. In another twist I would love to see in a court room, if the RIAA/MPAA have joined something like a torrent they have passively given permission to download the file by sharing it as copyright holder. So there IS no copyright violation.This is why the RIAA / MPAA have never DARED take a case like this into an actual court. They would loose and set a legal precedent that would end their little reign of terror."This is NOT ONLY "a crusade against a bad guy", but a battle for the very protections and freedoms that make this country.""Bulls**t. You don't even understand the subject matter, so how can you be partaking in a battle?"I understand the subject matter all too well, as well as your blatant lies and misrepresentations that you hope will scare people back into letting you and your corporate terror cells have your way.When you abuse the law, you end it's value. Then there is NO LAW.
nukem996Jun 9, 2007
Gonarat: You raise a good point. The vast majority of file sharing (illegal and legal) is done through people just bringing over USB hard drives/mp3 players or DVDs. Its faster and easier for most people. Personally I don't get why the government feels that because a few people do some illegal/stupid they make it illegal for everyone to "protect us". They did it with drugs, gambling, media(censorship), and now their trying to do with the P2P networks.