I have one word for you all, “freedom”. What will happen if they take away our right to exist, this is just another step toward this inevitable conclusion of humanity, even if we have no right to the object we use. FROM DISTURBEDBLISS

"It allows people to efficiently and effectively connect to each other via the usage of various software based on Transfer Control and Internet Protocols."

Now then, once connected, people can talk, search and transfer files. Obviously local law is applicable on any of the users actions. If in any case the developers of the P2P software endorse illicite activities by the promotion of downloading copyrighted material for free then that person (or persons) should not be exempt from the law. Major corporations may or may not be affected by the "users'" actions in regard to filesharing. The Internet in general is a great device for filesharing but we can't ban that. So we moderate it.

Who can fairly say that a programmer responsible for P2P Software that allows users to connect to another user, search that users computer, then download files from that computer is any more responsible than MSN Messenger's Filesharing featre? You, in that the only difference from asking a person on MSN Messenger for a file and searching a P2P Network for a file is that "users" have already configured their computer to respond automaticly and transfer the requested file. "Both" methods require the user to have some "intent" to share a file. Neither explicity endorse such acts.

In my opinion well respected companies such as Microsoft, Yahoo, Google (and many others) should stop providing services alike P2P networks before any law can be passed against P2P; for the sake of government credibility (or arrogance).

What's that movie? The joke was.

'What do you call a thousand lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?'

.... Good News!

That about sums it up for me. All we have now is garbage movies, garbage music and slick-suits making all the money.

Here's a bad joke:
"People sueing P2P Networks because individuals that are commiting these offenses don't want to take the responsibility for their own actions."
Why not ban cars? People are always breaking the law with those. Perhaps the manufacturers are at fault. *Obviously not, but that's how offensive I find it when open technology is threatened by "commercialism" all to make a quick buck*

If you want to sell a digital product then make sure you distribute it on a secure medium. Not doing so takes away your right of 'not' appearing arrogant when attempting to limit the functions of the selected medium by sueing everyone else who uses such a medium.

Okay, let me clarify my position: File sharing of copyrighted works is illegal; hence those who help in it should understand that they are committing acts that could directly lead to a lawsuit and even prison time.
That being said, think about what you are trying to fight: the largest network on the Earth. This network grows at the speed that these sue-happy RIAA/MPAA organizations would love to be able to. P2P networks are driven by people with a determination for self-gratification, plenty of bandwidth (most of the time), and plenty of resources/time.
Yeah, the RIAA/MPAA will keep fighting... Even if they win in court, do you really think that P2P is going to die off? That would be as naive as thinking Kerry would actually win against Bush.

"File sharing of copyrighted works is illegal; hence those who help in it should understand that they are committing acts that could directly lead to a lawsuit and even prison time."

Does this mean that everyone that worked for Xerox should be in jail for making photocopiers? You know that everyone at Xerox knows that the photocopiers will be used for illegal copying.

IMHO.... I wish people would grow up.... stop being whiny bi@#hes.... and be responsible for THEIR actions.

Yeah.... I know.... a pipe dream..... but I can dream... until that is taken away by some dumba** judge.

If you can't fight it with arrest and seizure and guns and violence, then outlaw "the wheel" itself! Remember, this is the same SC that put Bush in office, so they're all idiots and americans get what they deserve.

"this is the same SC that put Bush in office, so they're all idiots"

Quite obviously you're a dangerous malfactor and would benefit from an indefinite detention at Gitmo. A little 'intensive interrogation techniques' and ~no~ Due Process Rights might adjust your attitude.

The Computer Rodent

Does that mean that when the cops go after a murderer and can't catch him, they should put the murder weapon on trial instead?
Or that when they can't catch the people in the getaway car, they should instead send the car to jail?
Get a clue...

Bah what else is new

But for them to get a clue they must remove all the collective heads from the collected ass. Sorry to say this will not go away till all the little idiots gets thrown in court and the legal system says enough is enough on all this stupid lawsuits you are wasting valuable time and reources with that could be used for something more constructive. MPAA and RIAA spend more money on silly lawsuits and lame a** commercials than they the movie and record industry makes up in profit in most cases.

If they are really so worried about profit, then they should listen to the consumer who spends that money to create that profit. It is not a difficult concept to grasp as long as you are not a greedy group of corporations who doesn't give a rats a** about anyone, anybody, or anything unless it is the wallet they sit on with the money they can spend......

I am so tired of seeing this crap it is like waiting to see what dumb lawsuit will some idiot in California will come up with today......

"Does that mean that when the cops go after a murderer and can't catch him, they should put the murder weapon on trial instead?"

A more accurate analogy would be the police putting the file-sharer, er, murderer in prison for life, ~and~ arresting all his accomplices !

What we're dealing with in law is called "inchoate offenses" ...crimes of preparation and facilitation.

If someone can be charged with Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor, then certainly a corporation can be prosecuted for Contributing to the Delinquency of Some Air-Head Punk File Sharer ! Right ?

It's time we crack down on these little twerps and also get really tough with the P2P criminal facilitators.

The Computer Rodent

Hah, what I want to know is how the open source P2P clients will fit into all of this, its not really owned by anyone. Are they really going to go as far as suing the developers of these great technologies?

I bet they would, if they could... jail the dude/dudes/dudettes that concepted the whole decentralised network architechture. ****ERS STEALING OUR DOLLARS!!!

*sniff sniff*
you HAD to bring up car jails...
old betsy gets out in another 2 years.. her only crime? she was out one night with the girls and had a little too much fun....
That pedestrian should have never jumped in front of her like he did
*snicker*

you tell them! lets ban all ways file sharers use... make p2p illegal.. and ftp, and irc, and email, and the world wide web too! while we are at it lets ban snail mail in case someone mails a cd burned with copyrighted material on it... and ban cars too so they cant be used to transport the illegally burned stuff... O, and ban computers because without them people couldnt burn the media, and ban people too because they are the ones burning the stuff....

hehehe

"lets ban all ways file sharers use... make p2p illegal.. and ftp, and irc"

According to Pew, 90% of Grokster and StreamCast traffic are illegal files.

But if 90% of what's done on ~your~ computer is illegal, then they ought to confiscate your PC at the same time they cart you off for a lengthy term in prison !

And, yes, Bro. Rat agrees with you that those who use ftp, irc, etc. for criminal purposes SHOULD be denied Internet access.

The Computer Rodent

"It's time we crack down on these little twerps and also get really tough with the P2P criminal facilitators."

You wouldn't happen to be employed by the MPAA or RIAA would ya? The amount of revenue lost from P2P is insignificant (if you take into account the amount of money they spend on lawyers for frivolous lawsuits), and I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the recording industries get tax breaks from it.
Any guesses on how many liberals there are at MPAA headquarters? :rollseyes:

There are quite a few liberals (most of senior management if you go by their contributions to the Kerry campaign), but they know that the reason for the suit in the first place is that performers, writers, and other artists quite often survive in their later years only because of the royalties produced by their work. The product of my mind is mine. It does not belong to anyone else. My work is mine to do with as I please. It is the product of my mind that allows me to pay my bills; it is not public property!

There are just too many methods to share files, money would be better spent in securing the source of the files instead of wasting it on years in court.

edit: Want to sue the person who came up with ftp? or how about irc? http? Where to stop? This is stupid.

I never said those that use those protocols should be put in jail, I said that they should ban those protocols for contributing to the problem. ban the internet because without the internet there wouldnt be any file sharing ,, no, wait, there ware warez bbs's long before the net went bigtime, so I think we should ban computers because without computers, there wouldnt be any warez, and no file sharing. ya! Computers are contributing to the delinquency of file sharers, so go after the computer manufacturers.

see how totally moronic the whole "delinquency of" arguement is?

thats about it hehe :)
what came first the radar gun or the radar detecter?
in nthis case the detecter lol,,,

The sad truth is that the RIAA/MPAA is, instead of embracing the technology, placing their own monetary interests ahead of the public's right to the benefit of developing technology. They could solve the problem by undertaking the responsibility to protect their property in this new digital age through encryption, or providing the consumers with that which they are taking at a reasonable price, or pursuing those who infringe. But instead, they are trying to place the onus on the courts to eliminate the laws that have fostered the technological revolution as we know it today and place their revenue above all else. They are hanging on to their successful but outdated business model instead of adapting. They took the same position with sony and the VCR. When they lost that case they embraced the technology and have made more than one could imagine. They should be ashamed. This technology is capable of transmitting more than copyrighted content. Simply put, what goes in on one side comes out on the other. If they were diligent and protected their content, an encrypted file would come out on the other side. But they may say "poor me, people are breaking our encryption." While this may be true, I say sue those responsible with the ample tools granted under the DMCA. We have witnessed the P2P technology rapidly develop and who knows where it will take us. To the MPAA/RIAA, sue the one infringing or satisfy their needs at a reasonable price so that they can, and I believe that most are honest, purchase your product at the convenience they demand (these are market forces). They may say, no one will buy it if they could get it for free. But people do it every day with bottled water. KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT AND DO THE HARD WORK YOURSELF.

I've commented on the "shooting self in foot" re: RIAA vs. Napster before.

Another thought: Anyone who'd pay for an mp3 deserves what they get.

But, if the RIAA wants to make money, allow file sharing so you can get back to "highest sales in history"...my original comment.