how-to block ads
|
Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
| reply to Lumberjack
Re: Feel bad?
said by Lumberjack  :P2P was created not to share linux distributions, WoW patches or whatever else... it was created to share mp3s ripped from CDs. Actually, the protocols they're going after (ie. BitTorrent) were created simply as a cheap means to distribute large files over the web - no specific purpose/reason was made or given. It was the pirates that jumped on this, feeling they were "untraceable" at the time, that made the protocol seem so closely tied with the technology.
Is piracy a greater volume of P2P traffic than legit users? Yes.
Does this mean that P2P = piracy? Absolutely not.
As I've said before, get the criminals off legit and legal protocol channels, not just criminalize the entire sect of the technology. | |
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
 ·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to Lumberjack
said by Lumberjack :So I'm not good with analogies... my point is, trying to defend P2P as a viable protocol for non-pirated content is somewhat pointless (even though you're correct). P2P was created not to share linux distributions, WoW patches or whatever else... it was created to share mp3s ripped from CDs. That may be true for Napster, and its ilk, but that isn't the same as BitTorrent (AFAIK).
Oddly, I have only downloaded 46 mp3s that can be considered pirated, and I did not use any P2P for those, just HTTP. Pirated in the sense that the distributors were not authorized, that I know of. However, I know that the source albums are out of print, and I searched long and hard for used copies. I drew a blank. They are imports, and I'd probably have to haunt the used CD stores in Akihabara in hopes of finding them.
Technically though I still think it's a spammy protocol...
Not by any accurate definition of "spammy". Of course, we always play fast and loose with words in English, and many words have taken on meanings far from the original. "Hacker", "Pro Life", "Saturday Night Special", and "Assault Weapon" come to mind. They currently have an evil aura, and are used as catch words for ideologically charged arguments.
...and direct transfers or even mirror'd transfers are better. One connection, one stream is less "messy" for a network than hundreds of connections. Hell, that's probably more of an issue to providers than bandwidth... a lot harder for the feds to spy on that  .
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
Lumberjack
Premium
join:2003-01-18
Newport News, VA
| reply to Thaler
Hardly any protocol is single usage. But I'd have to say it's almost fair to say that P2P is 1:1 with Piracy for most people that use P2P knowing it's actually P2P. And more than likely if you ask the general populous for a description of P2P they'd probably say "that's how I download my music and Heros episodes".
So I'm not good with analogies... my point is, trying to defend P2P as a viable protocol for non-pirated content is somewhat pointless (even though you're correct). P2P was created not to share linux distributions, WoW patches or whatever else... it was created to share mp3s ripped from CDs. And even if it's now used for legitimate things it still has and will always have that label.
Technically though I still think it's a spammy protocol and direct transfers or even mirror'd transfers are better. One connection, one stream is less "messy" for a network than hundreds of connections. Hell, that's probably more of an issue to providers than bandwidth... a lot harder for the feds to spy on that .
--
»www.fairtax.org | |
|
