Should P2P Be Stopped?

[Jimster]

Do you think that P2P is killing music? or do you think that P2P is not killing it but making it better to find good music? i personaly think that P2P is one of the best things the internet has to offer. yet i knoe people out there hate P2P. let us know if you are one of them in the poll and tell us why you think this.

 

thanks

 

-Jim

[Dyers eve]

P2P?

Person 2 Person?

 

True I dunno much...

 

 

Happy Hntings!

 

:lyta:

[Jimster]

file sharing, like kazza

[Dyers eve]

Owww

 

I thinks its kinda killing the music...

But its a very interesting alternative.

I life in Holland, a normal music cd (1 cd) costs over €20,-

I mean if they would make cd's a bit cheaper, I would buy them cause I just love having the original of something. But I am not paying €20 just for that.

 

 

Happy Huntings!

 

:lyta:

[KnightPhyre]

I can understand the reasoning behind wanting to ban P2P, but what's the point? People are going to figure out a way to do it anyway.

 

It's the way it's always been. Pirating is the one constant there is, from the Black Market to Napster to Kazaa. The authorities keep trying and the public keeps evading.

 

FCC :fart:

 

 

'nuff sed'

[Yupa]

you guys are confusing things just like the record companies (or at least they're not going to admit more)

 

P2P is not piracy

 

P2P is just a way to transfer files, a very hip way

 

when companies are allowed to sue and shut down things like Napster and Kazaa, they are allowed to destroy the liberty our country has

 

oppose piracy if you like, but understand that if you help the record companies stop P2P, you will be working against the freedoms we are supposedly guaranteed

[Jimster]

P2P is mainly used for music as wel all know. that will never change. if you find music you like on kazza, you go out and buy the real thing. at least thats what i do

[Yupa]

people that make the money of the music are VERY rich, not just a bit - it's a large concentration of wealth in one person (or a few)

 

Metallica puts pressure on and things happen, they have millions of dollars of their own to get things done with

 

when people pirate Adobe Photoshop (hundreds of dollars even with student discount) not much happens, because while the software is very expensive, the wealth is not concentrated

 

that's all immaterial, though

 

the ends do not justify the means when you allow something perfectly legal to be shut down just to stop something illegal

[Jimster]

that is a very valid point

[Yupa]

I might think differently after I actually start paying for all of my software

 

but I doubt it

[Jimster]

lol, exactly the same here

[Darkflare]

dont confuse us by having the subject "should p2p be stopped" and have the poll question "is p2p a good thing"....the answers to those two are different so if you dont read the poll question you would anser wrong

[Jimster]

then read the question

 

sorry my bad

[Spray 'n Prey]

Oh..p2p...i thought it was pay 2 play...not the kaaza kind..i clicked on no..rofl,mistake..

[Wax]

Do I like it? Yes. Do i think its right? No. Do i want it to be stopped? No.

[Ladd]

no

[Yupa]

think this poll is bollixed :/

[Jimster]

yer aggree with you akia, i did it while i was serving a customer at work. so it is kinda analy invaded.

[Bargeld]

basically what it comes down to is that the method of transfer (P2P software) is not illegal on its own, the transfer of copyrighted material may not even be illegal for a lot of software. The part that is illegal is when an unauthorized user actually installs and/or runs the software in question. That is the point at which a crime is commited.

It's more the responsibility of the creators of the copyrighted material to keep track of how their software is used, kinda like patents and trade secrets. Once the software companies and the RIAA enlist the help of the equipment manufacturers, thats when P2P becomes useless.

 

I remember a number of months back, when Windows Media Player 9 was due for release, there was a lot of talk about licensing the media and pay per play through it. They tried this with the original hardware DIVX players, sold through Circuit City (which flopped horribly.) And there have been suggestions that CDs and DVDs would only sell for a fraction of their current cost (maybe $1) but you would pay a "licensing fee" any time you wished to view or listen to the media. This also solves the problem the RIAA has with customers creating mixed CD's and distributing them to their friends, because each song would cost a royalty fee, paid at the time the CD is played rather than at the initial purpose.

 

Basically what it comes down to is that the manufacturers need to get smarter and more protective about their products and at the same time they will need to work hand in hand with major manufacturers such as Sony, Samsung, Philips etc. And they have been trying and slowly succeeding for a while now.

 

Just to add some fuel for thought... this is the reason why these manufacturers are pushing mobile products with network access so hard. Things like PDAs and Cell Phones, as well as Subscription services like satellite radio. They can control , limit, regulate, and most importantly charge for the media and software used in all of these products with different network accesses. This is the way of the future. Sucks doesn't it 8(

[Bueshtak]

 

 

:twisted:

[Kadith]

that sound ikky

[Hoch]

You cannot stop what has already started...

 

 

-Hoch

[Jimster]

You cannot stop what has already started...

 

 

-Hoch

 

true, they are trying hard to.

 

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/030815/152/e69qk.html

[★ SOS]

P2P is great! The best way to get stuff

I don't care about music though

[hawkaloogie]

Anyone here remember Freenet?

Apparently the deposed Chinese government and its rebellious insurgents in the People's Republic of China use it for newsletters and the like.

 

http://freenet.sourceforge.net

 

Small excerpt from "The Freenet Project - philosophy"

(bold formatting added by me)

 

Of course much of Freenet's publicity has centered around the issue of copyright, and thus I will speak to it briefly. The core problem with copyright is that enforcement of it requires monitoring of communications, and you cannot be guaranteed free speech if someone is monitoring everything you say. This is important, most people fail to see or address this point when debating the issue of copyright, so let me make it clear:

 

You cannot guarantee freedom of speech and enforce copyright law

 

It is for this reason that Freenet, a system designed to protect Freedom of Speech, must prevent enforcement of copyright.