It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Microsoft P2P to replace Bit Torrent? Enter the Avalanch

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 04:36 AM
link   
How do you make the distinction though? Laws like these are ripe for abuse, would it be constitional for the law to come into my house to say what I can and cannot tape off the radio or TV? It's basically the same thing and comparing piracy to child pornography is a strawman approach
Anyway's the Courts will decide and every court decision lately has been in the ISP's and MP3 player manufactueres favour as they are the ones who stand to get hurt by such laws.

Filtering technology on the Web sounds like something the ChiComs would do.

I'll wager that these laws will come into existance and I'll also wager that A. They will be challenged in Court and B. Ways around them will be figured out within a week of their implementation. It's always been that way and I highly doubt its gonna change anytime soon.

For instance how do you regulate a network of WiMax access points provided by your regular techie down the street for free?




posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 12:32 AM
link   
i'm with sardion with this one. I think P2P sharing will still be going on a decade from now, Ever since Sony introduced the betamax a couple decades ago(1984), it still goes on...and will continue so...the court still favors the original Betamax decision over 20 years ago.

If the courts overturn there 20 years old ruling...analysis say that it will have a huge impact on the economy, the sales of electronics will dive...mp3 players sales will plummet, dvd burners, cd burners, tivo, other DVR devices, windows Media Center PC's, There is a lot on the table.

LongBow - Have you ever used any P2P file sharing programs?

Various peoples thoughts:


William Raduchel, the company's chairman and CEO, described the difficulty of competing with free file-sharing services and the need to change the public's attitude about copyright infringement.

"That there is a generation of kids who believe that intellectual property should be stolen at will and that it is not a problem is a problem, and it leads to a lot of other things down the road," Raduchel told United Press International. "(Colleges) have a moral obligation to do something about it. Congress, just a month ago, made it a new federal crime punishable by three years in prison to post for download an unpublished copyrighted work that is going to be published. Effect on behavior, as far as I can tell: zero."

Tess Taylor, president of the National Association of Record Industry Professionals, agreed that consumer attitudes needed to be modified.

"Something that I promote heavily is the education that is so necessary to get away from what is otherwise an honest and lawful citizen being seduced by self-interest into thinking that theft is OK," Taylor told the conference audience.

Shapiro argued that the kind of education proposed by those in favor of increased copyright protection would be one-sided.

"The content industry has been clever, flexible, and absolutely ruthless in defining the debate to meet their content policy objectives," he said. "The content (industry) has taken control of language and painted technology enthusiasts as thieves out to plunder our profits and shipwreck the entire music industry."

Content representatives admitted the industry needs to find better ways of effectively utilizing peer-to-peer technology for legitimate use -- although they emphasized the industry embraces the technology.

"One of the things that the motion-picture industry needs to do is to get more product out there on services like CinemaNow and other Internet services," Attaway said, adding it is essential for the movie studios to provide alternatives to stealing.

"Without a doubt, legal (peer-to-peer) networks will be the largest market for all intellectual property," said Russ Reeder, CEO of Rightsline, a company in Beverly Hills, Calif., that provides online business rights management.

Reeder told the conference audience that in order to use legitimate P2P technology effectively, a system of copyright tracking must be developed to pay copyright owners for use of their content, and digital-rights management should be enabled to prevent unauthorized copying after a legitimate download.

Edit, forgot to add the source:
file sharing ruling

[edit on 22-6-2005 by Murcielago]



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by klain
torrent will definatly take over from P2P if it has'nt already hackers will invent new tech which they have already done to avoid being caught like making each seeder/downloader a tracker

its a little unfortunate that people are bringing down a few torrent sites like suprnova.org but more sites and tech crop up to stop this power to the seeders!!!


BitTorrent has nothing to do with hackers, nor do any other P2P networks ...

The people that created the protocols and apps are programmers just looking to make apps to have efficient internet data distribution over a large number of peers.



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by longbow

Originally posted by sardion2000



It can be controled quite easily.


How? They have not succeeded yet so I don't think it's quite so easy as you think it is


Through internet service providers. Ever heard about the server based content filtering? Just issue a few laws to force the ISP to let's say "fully cooperate with RIAA". Of course not all traffic can be controlled that way, but the access to the large(publicly known) sources could be disabled within hours.


Ya, that's it, make the ISP do it. I swear it's almost a weekly basis I see a new bit that someone says it should be the ISP's responsablility (last week it was the porn filter, Utah I believe).

Praytell, why should the ISP's be LEGALLY bound to the friggen RIAA?

I think the ISP should be legally responsible to scratch my asss because I waste so much valuable time online.

ISP = Internet Service Provider
........NOT
ISP = Internet Service Parent

Misfit


[edit on 22-6-2005 by Misfit]



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 09:46 AM
link   
People forget some very basic things about reality when speaking about the Internet.

Child porn possession, sale, and distribution is ALREADY illegal.
Copying (legally protected) movies for free or for profit is ALREADY illegal.
Copying (legally protected) music for free or for profit is ALREADY illegal.
Copying (legally protected) software for free or for profit is ALREADY illegal.

Forcing ISPs to accept liability for users' actions? Hah! Do you honestly think that this is a new concept? ISPs are under no obligation to take any extraordinary measures to police their users.

We don't need more laws, guys. We don't need any changes. Our current laws are just dandy.

For those who believe that forced torrenting of web pages and whatnot is a great idea, well, participating in torrenting is OPTIONAL. If a user doesn't want to use his upload bandwidth to speed other users' downloads, he does not have to.

Zip

[edit on 6/22/2005 by Zipdot]



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Misfit

Originally posted by longbow

Originally posted by sardion2000



It can be controled quite easily.


How? They have not succeeded yet so I don't think it's quite so easy as you think it is


Through internet service providers. Ever heard about the server based content filtering? Just issue a few laws to force the ISP to let's say "fully cooperate with RIAA". Of course not all traffic can be controlled that way, but the access to the large(publicly known) sources could be disabled within hours.


Ya, that's it, make the ISP do it. I swear it's almost a weekly basis I see a new bit that someone says it should be the ISP's responsablility (last week it was the porn filter, Utah I believe).

Praytell, why should the ISP's be LEGALLY bound to the friggen RIAA?

I think the ISP should be legally responsible to scratch my asss because I waste so much valuable time online.

ISP = Internet Service Provider
........NOT
ISP = Internet Service Parent


I never said I want them to do it... I use torrent and P2P too... I just think it is highly possible that in 10 years it will be solved exactly that way. Simply if the P2P newtworks and internet piracy will start to seriously threaten the music, movie and game companies profits (yet not the case) you can bet that such laws will be imposed. And it would be really quite simple - let's the FBI cooperating with various groups like RIAA) will provide the ISPs with adreses that cannot be acessed, the ISPs will be forced to ban such adreses (otherewise they will be taken out of buisness). Such internet locations would be banned almost immediately after discovering them. This is just for the people who think the intenet and P2P cannot/will not be censored. Just because internet is now "lawless country" doesn't mean it will be always so...
It will start in USA, but soon you there will be similar laws in Canada, EU, Australia, Japan etc.



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zipdot
For those who believe that forced torrenting of web pages and whatnot is a great idea, well, participating in torrenting is OPTIONAL. If a user doesn't want to use his upload bandwidth to speed other users' downloads, he does not have to.


Of course he would be able to "uncheck" the "torrent/avalanche box" - but he will have slower access to the page than other users. I still think the torrent based browser would be a good idea...




top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join