kd6cae
P2p Shouldn't Be A Crime
join:2001-08-27
Lancaster, CA
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·DSL EXTREME
| OK since there are those that would like to think that
the act of sending a file from one computer to another over a network, in this case the internet, is stealing, then let me ask, just what is being stolen? If someone came in my house and took my computer, then clearly my computer was stolen as it would no longer be in my posession.
However if I allow someone to upload a song via p2p or any other method for that matter such as IRC or the dreaded FTP, just what exactly is being stolen there?
Let's see, a file was uploaded from me, and amazingly I still have the original file that was uploaded? If someone uploads the same exact file from the person that got the file from me, is that stealing? Let's see both them and I still have the same file, my god that's a strange deffinition of stealing if I've ever heard one! The act of sending data from one computer or device to another where both the recipiant and the original file uploader have the file exactly, constitutes stealing! OK yeah right! Isn't file transfer one of the more basic tasks done on a computer network? So does this mean that all methods of file transfer should be outlawed, and authors of everything from FTP servers to web servers to p2p apps to even instant messengers should be sued just because the ability exists to send a file to another computer from your own? This in my view is rediculous! All that's being done on a p2p network is the sending of a file from one computer to another. I find it interesting that many major ISP's particularly Cox residential will block common p2p uploads, yet I was fully able to run my FTP server with no problems? what makes p2p any different from FTP, since they're both methods of stealing apparently? And what do you get with the "legal alternatives?" Let's see you get a file download that can magically only be played on the computer that downloaded the file, and you can't simply copy it across the network to your other computer. should you have a system crash and have to redo the system, even if you have the file backed up, guess what, it won't play now will it! So as it stands now you can get for free a version of your favorite song that can be played on any device or computer of your choosing, and the file can be backed up,or you can pay to get a more crippled file that cannot be backed up or transfered to any device of your choosing. I know which option I prefer. My point here is simply that the solution to all this is simple, yet the RIAA and related organizations, aren't even willing to attempt to resolve the issue, and my question is why? Of course there will always be those that won't care and download just because they can, but for those that truly want content, what would you rather do, download from a p2p network and wait in queues and have slow downloads, or have a lightning fast download direct from industry servers that would max out your 15mbit fiber connection? Yeah I know I'm dreaming, but I for one would not mind paying for services not unlike Napster or Itunes but without this DRM crap that no consumer wants to put up with! Why is the industry so unwilling to even realize this and actually try giving the consumer what they want, fast downloads of NonDRM'd content that can be put on any device the consumer chooses! That's all the industry needs to do to help resolve all this. Now how do we get them to listen to our wishes, or can we? I'm doubting it. |
