What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
144 Comments
- Ceeman, on 03/21/2008, -3/+34I guess you could take 5 seconds to show all 1,000,000 legit uses of p2p.
- DarkerMaster, on 03/21/2008, -5/+25We are *****!!!
- bwdd, on 03/21/2008, -3/+21If these politicians had a grip on reality, they'd be on our side.
- harmonik, on 03/21/2008, -2/+15We need politicians with technological sense. I'm sick of these idiots applying old-world rule to a new concept.
Doesn't it seem absurd that they could regulate the way a couple computers communicate with each other? - samfishercell, on 03/21/2008, -2/+15Australia.... that's the one that decided they don't want you to play Grand Theft Auto, right? Young and free hmm?
- inactive, on 03/21/2008, -1/+11SSH FTW
- BenPresland, on 03/21/2008, -1/+10For now
- shawnanigans, on 03/21/2008, -2/+11Let's not fool ourselves though. It's mostly used for illegal acts. Even though it has an extraordinary ability to make media distribution simple and easy for anybody, well all know that the majority of users don't use it for the legal acts. I still believe in NN. Still waiting on the telcos to improve the speed and quality of the networks, or a $2 billion rebate check for failing to do so.
- BlackJacket, on 03/21/2008, -0/+8Maybe bwdd's traffic is legit.
- d00msay3r3, on 03/21/2008, -1/+9As the old saying goes... "Money talks and ***** walks". I see Comcast lining the pockets of an FCC Member. You don't think they have enough money to 'buy' their way out of this? Obviously this is why they had no fear about the FCC having any power over them. Money IS power!!
- ncairns, on 03/21/2008, -1/+8Sorry to break it to you, but the Internet is controlled in chief by American corporations. If net neutrality fails in the States, it will follow suit here in Australia without much delay.
- rendereduseless, on 03/21/2008, -1/+8Or they just don't want to comment.
- enronias, on 03/21/2008, -1/+81) who gets to decide what is illegal
2) who gets to decide what use or bittorrent is illegal
3)is there anyway this can be done without the grubby fingers of lobbiests
4) WE ARE ALL ***** - Serume, on 03/21/2008, -0/+6God am i getting sick of the fact that people with very little knowledge of a particular topic get to determine the laws on such issues, just because someone has held a position in congress for the last oh say thirty years doesn't mean they know two things about what really effects people like us, they just know what effects their pocketbook, and what get them their third Mercedes
- ripple123, on 03/21/2008, -0/+6Damnit man, Ill with all the content I damn well want to! Ill with it all the way to the withing well if I so desire! Ha!.
- subxero37, on 03/21/2008, -0/+6Tunneling, I'm assuming. But BitTorrent can use its own form of encryption, and combined with randomized ports (and UPnP to tell your router/gateway that it's okay) SSH seems to be a little over the top for this.
- subxero37, on 03/21/2008, -0/+6For the record, I just used BitTorrent to download the betas of Ubuntu 8.04, both the i386 version and the AMD64 version. I also used it to get FreeBSD recently, as well as BackTrack, all of which are free. BitTorrent allows the very heavy load normally placed on servers to be levied elsewhere, which means the companies and organizations spend less money, and the user gets a better download speed.
The last time I downloaded an illegal torrent was, honestly, a few months ago. It was Windows 98 (I'm not kidding) so I could use an old PC I had laying around to play a few games that just plain wouldn't run under XP. I'm pretty sure that doesn't hurt Microsoft at all. - marklittle, on 03/21/2008, -1/+6I smell a ruling in Comcasts favor due to torrents being illegal...never mind legal torrent trackers like http://www.wortharchiving.com
- ryanadc, on 03/21/2008, -0/+5Well I expected bad news when I clicked the article, but this Pruitt fellow doesn't sound like a complete idiot.
However, I fear the slippery slope... - yodaj007, on 03/21/2008, -1/+6The EFF always loses? I think you should look a little more into reality.
http://www.eff.org/victories - smurfsahoy, on 03/21/2008, -0/+5Why would any commercial service go out of its way to do that? The people providing p2p are on the side of their customers, not the FCC... If your traffic is encrypted or whatever, your provider will just let you be. If the government asks them to turn over information, they just turn over a bunch of encrypted stuff and still leave you on as a customer until proven it is illegal, because they want you to keep paying them.
(I'm assuming encryption or something similar from *****'s comment) - MentalHazard, on 03/21/2008, -0/+4I think you're taking this a step too far. You shouldn't punish everybody for what only some people are doing.
- dsmx, on 03/21/2008, -1/+5It's only mostly illegal acts because most companies refuse to even consider the benefits of using bit torrent.
- BlackJacket, on 03/21/2008, -2/+6Ok, if I go into a store and take a CD off the shelf and leave, thats theft. If I go to McDonalds and order a cheeseburger and run away when its brought up to me, thats theft. However... HOWEVER... If I had a "magically machine" that, when I put a BigMac inside, the machine duplicated the BigMac and spit out a copy of the BigMac, would that be illegal?
- SealandRes1, on 03/21/2008, -0/+4If you make better *****, people will buy it, it's as simple as that. Now shut up and make better *****.
- chilledcynicism, on 03/21/2008, -0/+4My head hurts now.
- genome895, on 03/21/2008, -0/+4"Illegal activities?" Lawmakers were not so concerned with isp's policing their networks for "illegal activities" like child pornography before. Why haven't they made image formats or ftp servers illegal? I would imagine that is a far more important crime to push legislation against. This stinks of money and special interests. If such a law existed the RIAA and MPAA would finally have someone with big bucks to sue instead of single moms with a mortgage as the isp's would then be responsible for what traffic crossed their networks. Our nation is far enough behind other countries with access to broadband. We don't need these bloodsuckers pulling money away from building up our electronic infrastructure.
- Scheissen, on 03/21/2008, -2/+6How many millions of dollars did your government spend to make an website censor? By the way, that is a really bad national anthem.
- smurfsahoy, on 03/21/2008, -0/+3Um, even if the constitution does imply that we own all media (I can see your point there, and it's a decent one), it also says that we HAVE to immediately give up that ownership (for all intents and purposes) for some period of time for the progress of science and arts.
The same constitution that implies this ownership is also telling you that you are obligated to pay the media producers for it until the time limit is over. All of your rantings about them being "thieves" and "terrorists" are just examples of selective hearing - you want to read the constitution only up to the point where it says you own the material, but then you want to stop reading it before it says you HAVE TO give up that ownership temporarily so that the authors can make a profit.
Can't have it both ways. Make up your mind.
It's also not a recession according to any official source. You just made that up. - CoolWind, on 03/21/2008, -0/+3now that's something to be proud of.....
- SOS84, on 03/21/2008, -0/+3When is the FCC going to realize that putting corporate interests (RIAA, MPAA) ahead of the interests of the American public is anti-American? Yeah, piracy is a problem (but not as much of one as it is made out to be), we all know it, but there is no reason at all for over-reacting to it and letting these groups decide what is legal and what is not legal. That is what the judicial branch is for.
- csupra, on 03/21/2008, -0/+3This is what i am predicting they will do , FCC will rule that ISP's can't block torrents and p2p traffic, and they will give the authority to the ISP's to block web pages and ip address of illegal torrents sites and trackers.
- Kurlumbenus, on 03/21/2008, -0/+3I agree. If the music industry cannot compete without government intervention - and refuses to change - let it crash and burn. A new industry will rise from its ashes, one that understands modern technology enough to capitalize from it.
- fkr3, on 03/21/2008, -0/+3".... to distribute their stuff to us for nothing".
It's only legal if they consent to their stuff being given away for free. - Corrosionx, on 03/21/2008, -0/+3Let the free market handle it. For real.
- SealandRes1, on 03/21/2008, -0/+3You're assuming people pay for the stuff you accused them of stealing. What makes you think people would actually pay for all the intellectual property they have? Furthermore, would people be considered exploiting intellectual property holders if they never had the intention to purchase the products they stole? Did the holders stood gain anything in the first place? People always have a choice, they can turn to alternatives (ie.) free open source projects), what makes you think people won't turn to these alternatives instead? Sometimes, things are not so black and white.
- BlackJacket, on 03/21/2008, -0/+3I'm burying you too, bro. Its fun isn't it? Honestly, quit acting like you don't download music or movies. Everyone does. MPAA, RIAA, and even the legislation lost a long time ago. Lets just have a little fun with it now and point and laugh at them. You know you want to!
- Tanktunker, on 03/21/2008, -1/+3Child porn is always illegal.
- ekspiulo, on 03/21/2008, -0/+2The question here has never been "Why is it illegal to copy music with out paying for it?" Whether or not that makes sense is not the current issue. The issue on the table is "Why is the government giving law enforcement powers to private interests, and why are they allowing these private interests to pervert the concept of justice by assuming we are guilty until proven innocent?"
The questions is why are we all assumed to be criminals? Blocking bit torrent traffic is like pulling over everyone driving a car because bank robbers drive cars.
No matter how many criminals there are, the freedom of one honest man is more important than the conviction of a guilty man. The government has to strike a balance between law enforcement and liberty. Prosecuting sites that distribute music illegally is a legitimate use of government time and money. The outsourcing of law enforcement to corporate interests and claiming that it is Justice is nothing short of Treason. - emmeron, on 03/21/2008, -0/+2I dream of such a day!
- Kurlumbenus, on 03/21/2008, -0/+2And drunk by noon.
- Ratteler, on 03/21/2008, -1/+3To that, you need a FREE market. Something you can't get while your elected officials and the Gov't agencies responsible for monitoring and administrating that free market are being bribed to manipulate.
- inactive, on 03/24/2008, -0/+2Dumbass.
How ***** stupid are you?
Yah, be a ***** and come down on the EFF.
Who the ***** do you think fights this stuff? YOU?
That's like saying "***** the police" while they arrest the burglar who robbed you.
Say something dumber, I dare you. - forgiste, on 03/21/2008, -0/+2I'm sorry, but I kinda agree. The internet is a public place and you've just gotta realize that and deal with it. That being said, I still don't want the corporations to control it. I had some bad habits in the past that I've grown out of, yet I still agree that illegal activities are illegal activities.
- motafett, on 03/21/2008, -0/+2Why do we still have the FCC? Parental controls and the v-chip pretty much have made them obsolete. The only thing the do now is take e-mail complaints from the religious right and try to censor artists. Couldn't the money we spend on the FCC be better spent on well, anything?
- smurfsahoy, on 03/21/2008, -0/+2And no, signing with the RIAA has NEVER been mandatory. So printing cds used to be really expensive. Okay...? If you don't like it, you can go sing in bars and concert halls, or not market your music at all. Or play on the radio. That's what artists did before cds and vinyl records came out, and it worked just fine.
Just because an artist wants to get as much profit as possible doesn't mean he is entitled to doing so in whatever way he wants while still calling all of the shots. The wide distribution and convenience that CDs etc. provide IS A PRIVILEGE, not a right. All the artist is guaranteed by the law and the constitution as a RIGHT is that it is up to him who to sell his music to. The business decisions he makes regarding modern technology are his problem, and are not protected in any way, beyond general contract law.
If you don't sign with the RIAA, you won't be as famous, and you won't be as rich. That's all. Nobody is putting a gun to your head and making you do it. And the constitution DOES NOT protect your right to be famous and rich. - smurfsahoy, on 03/21/2008, -0/+2Okay I couldn't follow any of that after the first few lines, so I will respond to the part that you said I still am getting wrong: us paying the RIAA for music instead of the artist.
This is a pretty simple notion. We the people temporarily (as it so happens, this means 99 years, etc.) give exclusive rights to intellectual property to the artist after creation of the art. WHat they do with those rights is entirely up to them, and we have no say in the matter. If the artist wants to not sell the art at all, good for him. If he wants to sell each album for 50,000 dollars, that's his call. If he wants to voluntarily sell the rights, in turn, to the RIAA, that's ALSO HIS CALL. That's what "Exclusive" rights mean. They can do whatever they want with the control of the music, including selling the rights themselves. The fact that most artists choose to do this does not make it unconstitutional in any way. - SealandRes1, on 03/21/2008, -0/+2What difference would it make then if the holders have no potential profit to be realized?
- smurfsahoy, on 03/21/2008, -0/+2If your pre-1990 music is still illegal to obtain, then obviously the time period is not 17 years. I was just guessing that. Hence the question mark. I don't know what the actual time period is.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 145 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is