how-to block ads
|
tsu9
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL
| reply to NOVA_Guy
Re: amazing
"The customer is always right"
Except when the customer is walking out of the store without paying for, or in possession of, illicit goods. Majority of p2p traffic is indeed such, so I think that blows your argument out of the water.
Legitimate uses? Sure. Realistic daily use? Theft (tantamount, at least.)
While I don't agree that things like this should technically be happening, I do agree that the ISP can and rightfully should limit traffic on their network if such applications consume the large majority of the service. Making the argument that they should 'upgrade/buy more bandwidth' is moot--they're just aiding and abetting at that point.
Fact of the matter is that we're using THEIR networks. Yes, we pay them, but yes, we also agree (when we sign up/use) to follow their rules. Make no mistake, they can and do change rules in their AUP, but running upload streams via those clients is exactly as running a server which is strictly against TOS in most broadband connections.
Justifying it with the 'everyone does it' argument makes it no less wrong.
Now, the ISPs that quietly advertise these clients have admittedly less to say against their use, but they still own the links. Like it or not, they can take their ball and go home if you don't play by their rules.
I really would love to see the statistics of legitimate p2p usage that everyone touts. Loving made-up statistics as much as the next person, I'd say that is likely less than 1% of the actual traffic conducted over them.
Looks, acts, quacks; duck. | |
dnoyeB
Ferrous Phallus
join:2000-10-09
Southfield, MI
| ...And nike should not let X people wear their gym shoes since they might committ a crime while wearing them. And its nike's responsibility to ensure that no crimes are committed by anyone wearing their shoes.
...And Ford should not let X people drive their cars since they might committ a crime while driving one. And its Ford's responsibility to ensure that no crimes are committed by anyone driving their cars.
...And Smith & Wesson...No wait, that actually went to court and lost. Precident?
Your legitimate usage arguement holds no water. WiFi came out of milirary applications. How many other technologoes in US came out of the military. P2P is developing. Just because people use it for illegal things now does not mean thats all its good for, nor does it mean that is all it will ever be used for.
[text was edited by author 2002-11-07 12:30:22] | |
NOVA_Guy
ObamaCare Kills Americans
Premium
join:2002-03-05
 ·Comcast
 ·VOIPo
| reply to tsu9
said by tsu9  :
While I don't agree that things like this should technically be happening, I do agree that the ISP can and rightfully should limit traffic on their network if such applications consume the large majority of the service. Making the argument that they should 'upgrade/buy more bandwidth' is moot--they're just aiding and abetting at that point.
If all of the traffic on P2P networks was pirated software and copyrighted music, I would agree that an ISP upgrading their connection just for P2P would be aiding and abetting. However, no ISP has gone so far as to prove this, and I would argue that none reasonably could without substantial privacy violations.
quote:
Fact of the matter is that we're using THEIR networks. Yes, we pay them, but yes, we also agree (when we sign up/use) to follow their rules.
And I'm using Verizon's network when I make a cellular telephone call. Does that give them the right to dictate that I may not make calls ("upload") using their network, or that I may not discuss certain things while talking on the phone? No. It's the same thing here-- an ISP provides the service, and has no business dictating the content or activity that takes place as a result of such service.
I really have to wonder how far the enforcement of AUPs could really go in some certain circumstances-- given the lack of due consideration to the user in exchange for being governed by such restrictive documents.
The user has already given money in exchange for the connection-- due consideration exists there. IMHO, the ISP should not be allowed to get away with tacking an AUP onto their service and enforcing it without giving further "consideration" to the customer.
As some of you may know, contracts are unenforcable without due consideration being given from each party. In other words, a "contract" in which the customer "agrees" to abide by an AUP is, IMHO, unenforcable without the ISP giving something to the customer in exchange. The connection/service should not be thought of as "due consideration" at this point, because a transaction has already taken place which gave the user the connection already (when the user gave the ISP money for it). Perhaps if courts and others would start looking at the agreement and enforcement of AUPs as a matter separate from the exchange of money for a service, ISPs wouldn't be able to get away with as much as they can. But we're getting a little off-topic here.
quote:
Justifying it with the 'everyone does it' argument makes it no less wrong.
I agree. The fact that everybody uses P2P apps doesn't make trading copyrighted files over them any lesser of a violation of the law. I, however, would still like to restate that not all P2P users are pirating copyrighted material. There are legitimate uses of P2P applications, and I would venture to guess that the amount of legitimate use is much greater than 1%. (what can be asserted without fact can be argued against without fact equally well)
The RIAA likes to make a big deal out of the illegal use, and I don't blame them. It is, after all, money out of their big, greedy pockets. Of course, the RIAA will never tell you that there are some artists who are using P2P networks in an attempt to make a name for themselves by freely distributing their own music over them. The RIAA doesn't want people to hear about this. Ultimately, IMHO, the main reason the RIAA is opposed to P2P networks is not because their music is distributed without profit over them. It is because they cannot control the P2P networks. They do not have total control over the distribution channel, and because of that P2P networks present a viable threat and substantial competition to them. The RIAA, not liking these things, has chosen to attack P2P networks by ignoring the truth in many cases.
For an ISP to buy in to the "P2P networks are for pirates" mantra that the RIAA has been chanting is a disappointment and a shame. We would all be much better off if they did the reasonable thing and just told the RIAA where to stuff it.
--
Live in Northern Virginia? Take a stand and fight for good service-- don't be a Cox Sucker! | |
tsu9
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL
| reply to dnoyeB
Interesting analogies, but they aren't particularly sound. If the percentage of the users who commit crimes in Nikes was anywhere near what users perform on p2p networks (read: virtual majority of the upstream traffic in home computers), then yes, Nike could dictate things like they did with guns--background checks, for example! Gun makers aren't the ones performing the checks, but rather the sellers. Likewise, Backbone providers aren't responsible for the traffic--the ISPs are (to an extent, at least).
I also believe that it is REQUIRED of people to have insurance on cars. You know, just in case something happens while they're at the wheel (purposeful or not; reckless vehicular manslaughter, perhaps?) Again, it isn't the manufacturer, but rather the pass-through that requires insurance.
Your last two examples have fail-safes (which aren't terribly fail-SAFE, but still.) to prevent wanton abuse of the system. Your first is just silly! =)
I asked for legitimate usage of p2p statistics because, quite frankly, I do not feel that there is much 'legitimate' file swapping going on.
I never said they should deign that p2p applications are 99% or 100% illegal traffic. I merely assert the blatantly obvious that currently, without checks & balances, that IS what they are primarily used for.
Good intentions or not, but if a device is primarily used for illegal transactions, more than likely there will be regulation to minimize said transactions and emphasize the legitimate use of the device. That is what I suggest =) | |
tsu9
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL
| reply to NOVA_Guy
I don't know how to quote, so I will address your rebuttal in order which your response was dictated.
"If all of the traffic on P2P networks was pirated software and copyrighted music, I would agree that an ISP upgrading their connection just for P2P would be aiding and abetting. "
I suggest you look at Morpheus et al for examples in which a (p2p) application has been (rightfully) deemed primarily used for illicit transactions. Now add in common filetypes such as .zip, .rar, .iso, .mpg, .avi, and .bin, and you have plenty more to look at. I suggest you view those filetypes in any popular (or unpopular) p2p application for the sheer volume of information being swapped which, in all likelyhood (yes, there are legitimate files of those types--rare that they are) to see how many queues, sends, heaping mounds of information is being swapped. I offer that as base evidence. I suggest that legitimate files are swapped in far less quantities, statistically.
"Does that give them the right to dictate that I may not make calls ("upload") using their network..."
Yes. I beleive they can also charge you for the usage, too. Upload, in this case, is dissimilar to the data stream upload, unless you are using WiFi or such. Voice data is generally not copywritten =) Though, there is something to be said for being able to convict soeone on evidence of wiretaps. So yes.
"IMHO, the ISP should not be allowed to get away with tacking an AUP onto their service and enforcing it without giving further "consideration" to the customer."
Well, techinically we all lease our data streams. The Lessor can, and will change the contract from time to time. The Lessee (us), can dispute this by cancellig their service in favor of another. Can't dispute things in a leased situation too effectively when the contract dictates that it can be rewritten at any time. Questionable usage? Sure, but it happens.
"...IMHO, unenforcable without the ISP giving something to the customer in exchange..."
They give the customer their data stream and reasonable privacy. What more do you technically need?
I do agree that the courts should examine AUP/TOS and EULA law more closely; but as it stands, it really is as good as a contractually binding situation when you use the service. You, in effect, agree, each time you use the service, that you will abide by the rules and regulations placed thereupon by the carrier. Not to say they're 100% fair, however =)
"There are legitimate uses of P2P applications, and I would venture to guess that the amount of legitimate use is much greater than 1%. (what can be asserted without fact can be argued against without fact equally well)"
Indeed. It also depends on the parameters, such as volume by bytes, type, or number. However, just looking at one facet, mp3s, would certainly show that illegitimate use far outpaces legitimate artists hocking their wares. (do not confuse with warez  ) I do not, as you state, have evidence to this effect, but it really is plainly obvious. Conversely, neither you do have assertions to back up your legitimate usage. I'll simply state that illegitimate use would appear to be greater than legitimate statistics at first glance. It would, of course, warrant a more in-depth study, but with p2p applications, nothing is static =)
"For an ISP to buy in to the "P2P networks are for pirates" mantra that the RIAA has been chanting is a disappointment and a shame."
Well, technically as they stand, p2p applications are primarily used for such things the RIAA is campaigning against. Not to say that there is no legitimate use, but the unfortunate outlook as of this moment is that illegitimate use outpaces the legit.
I don't like the RIAA as much as the next person, but hey, they do TECHNICALLY have a valid point. Two wrongs do not a right make. =) | |
npyoung
join:2002-09-23
Jacksonville, OR
| reply to NOVA_Guy
I'm a wireless ISP, faced with my first client running P2P. So far, this guy has been pretty cool, keeping his stream low enough that I don't freak. I support P2P in general, dispise the RIAA and all that would enforce an outdated and dangerous one-to-many media distribution concept in a many-to-many world. However, that said, if just a few of my customers started doing this...it would be the end of my network. The entire backbone would be saturated, leaving no bandwidth for my other non-P2P customers. So, what have I done? I've gone out and installed a router/bandwidth shaper to deal with this problem. I won't shut it down, but I sure as heck will put a fence around it so it can't tear the place up anytime it feels like it. | |
borborpa
Slipping Slowly Into Oblivion
Premium
join:2002-02-20
New Cumberland, PA
clubs:
 ·Speakeasy
| reply to tsu9
If you want a precedent, look at "Cigarette Rolling Papers". I would venture to guess at least 75% of the papers purchased are for illegal activity. Joker (one of the largest paper manufacturers) just came out with "Hemp" rolling papers. Really, how many of those people are rolling tobacco in their hemp papers...?
Just as they are not responsible for what someone does with their product, neither should an ISP. They merely provide a service. If someone is doing illegal activity on it, they are not responsible for that.
I do however, believe that if there is sufficient evidence of illegal activity happening, the ISP should be required to turn over the customer's information TO A LEGAL POLICING ORGANIZATION. That would exclude the RIAA and those folks. If they get a warrant, then I approve...
--
"Life is pain, Highness. Anyone who says differently is selling something." - Princess Bride [AIM - BoyBandsMakeUGay] | |
Astaroth30
join:2001-09-15
Allentown, PA
| said by borborpa :
Just as they are not responsible for what someone does with their product, neither should an ISP. They merely provide a service. If someone is doing illegal activity on it, they are not responsible for that.
Yet I have personally seen many bars/bartenders being sued by people that used their services and then wrapped their vehicles around poles or other people on the drive home. Not something I agree with, but it is a case of the service provider being responsible (almost ultimately) for their customers.
Again, the action currently taken by PTD is to inform their customers so as to not have to take measures which ends-up disabling an aspect of their service. They did not just come out and say "Thats it! You're cut off" without any warning. | |
Mr Perfect
@rr.com | reply to tsu9
Yes, because p2p goes into my local music store, pockets a cd, and walks out.
Get real please. | |
8ball___
@attbi.com
| reply to tsu9
Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the DOJ find the music industry guilty of Price fixing on CD prices? Why is it legal for the Industry to gouge the consumer, but when something comes along that allows the consumer some power, it must be quashed? You need to understand that the consumer is in charge here...just like the entertainment industry needs to understand this concept. And, it is not THEIR network... My tax dollars paid for the infrastructure that THEY operate on. THEY got tax breaks to come into my community, and when THEY lose their franchise, the infrastructure will remain. So, whose network is it, really? | |
bagojunk
join:2002-01-05
West Palm Beach, FL
·Comcast
| reply to tsu9
You missed the point. The only point is that in america, we can make or break companies based on how they treat us (us-the customer-their reason for doing business)
Sure file-sharing is wrong, but stay away from what I pay for each and every month:
1472k/down and 256k/up
How I use it is not only up to me, but should it be found illegal, I would suffer, not this silly company, right?
corporate america | |
youre wrong
@verizon.ne
| reply to npyoung
um, 1 person going apeshit on kazaa doesnt hit anywhere close to the bandwidth used by big companies that also host their site on their server.
Your hypothetical company would go bankrupt because you made stupid decisions, which is why you are at home on a computer and not running a succesful isp, or anything for that matter, you see, your parents did a horrible job in raising you and I think your dog educated you. | |
yesyesyes
@verizon.ne | reply to 8ball___
i dont agree on the consumer part, i dont buy cds, never did, tapes are just way too cheap. but anywho, the internet is ours, you are right our taxes paid for its design and implementation, kudos to you, excellent point (albeit moot in this thread) | |
|
