P2P Is Only Worthwhile For mp3
 

I have seen a few arguements in this forum that P2P has value for the public beyond sharing mp3's and software (both of which infringe on copyrights). To that I say, nope sorry not for the general public. Beyond that, there really is not anything we want to share that we cannot do in far more efficient ways. If the RIAA suceeds in its assult on the swappers, it is pretty much over for P2P programs. I think it absolutely stinks that the RIAA is being allowed to grab names of file sharers from ISPs and prosecute them for sharing music. I guess eminem's next porshe is a lot more imprtant than your right to privacy or to share what belongs to you. More correctly, I guess the CEO's of the record labels must have their "right" to multi million dollar salaries protected. Whatever I think about all of it, though I do know one thing; I am done with file sharing. I know the odds of actually being caught are very small, but I am not willing to open myself to legal problems for a few lousy files.

katgirl

Would You Support Non-Infringing use of P2P?
 

Although I must reluctantly agree with those in the industry on the fact that peer to peer technology is primarily used by music, movie and software pirates. I must however, disagree with them on the fact that

a) "They" cannot speak for what others may want to use peer to peer technology for.

b) With the Internet being as big as it is and growing everyday it's very difficult to reach people without paying a pay-per-search search engine to list your offerings for consumption by the masses

c) We have distributed over 3.7 million non-infringing files on various file sharing
networks. So there is some interest in non-infringing content. We push out about nine gigabytes of data per day to the Gnutella community. This is all non-infringing content.

d) Novice users have a difficult time finding free content on the network. How many times have you seen sites that promote the idea of "free downloads" for software that is really shareware which means limited use.

Personally, I've argued that the record, movie and software companies have a legal right to do what they are doing and if you're sharing content which infringes on someone's copyright you should not expect a peer to peer service to provide protection for you. (see:http://www.gnutellaforums.com/showth...gal+Aspects+of) In addition to this being virtually impossible, if anyone was able to achieve it that is a) A user base that reaches critical mass and b) some way of providing security and privacy to the user's that service would be in danger of being shut down due to the fact they (the creators of such system ) would probably have the ability to monitor or control what happens within the network.

The reason the public at large does not use peer to peer technology probably has more to due with the fact that basically the technology has receive such negative coverage in the media. Another thing that leads to this gross misconception is the idea that the concept of file sharing in and of itself is illegal, which has been ruled in a court of law to not be true. I personally got involved with the filesharing community when this it was the prevailing strategy.

The record companies have finally come to their senses and started doing what they should have done in the first place and that is, go after the individual users who are infringing on the copyrights of others. this will have two primary effects on the file sharing community at large and they are:

a) a serious reduction in the amount of infringing content- this will unfortunately lead to a decrease in user population because those who use the service to pirate software and music will not be able to do so any more.

b) cleared the way for content publishers to use the networks as they were intended to be used and that is as a distribution platform for non-infringing media.

So the question is to the average P2P user is would you support non-infringing use?

If so, how? If not why?

I'm interested in all opinions.

Re: P2P Is Only Worthwhile For mp3
 

Excuse me, this point is, for me, unclear: which are these other more efficent ways?

Thanks,

Carlo

Re: P2P Is Only Worthwhile For mp3
 

Here's an interesting discussion related to that:
http://ask.slashdot.org/askslashdot/...tid=185&tid=95

Re: Would You Support Non-Infringing use of P2P?
 

I don't know. Maybe. What do you have that is non-infringing that I might be interested in? :D


P2P may be a great way to distribute some non-infringing content like the latest Linux kernal or public domain literature to China, but it seems to me that in general non-infringing content like the latest Linux kernal or public domain literature draws a smaller audience than full blown copyright violations like Britney Spears mp3's or Brad Pitt jpg's.

Doesn't the issue become, "Is there enough interest in non-infringing content (or is there enough non-infringing content for that matter) to drive development of a non-infringing file sharing tool?"

My guess is the answer is there is not enough interest (i.e. traffic upon which you can sell advertising ) to make a viable, profitable, commercial venture. Which has implications for devlopment, obviously.

Search for any website that has had to limit the downloads of files in some manner, be it by making available small set of their content at once, a username/password scheme or limited number of files/IP/day. They're not hard to find, spend five minutes googling to see for yourself.

These are all people with content they want to give away, but for whom the 'publisher pays' configuration of the Web isn't working. No better solution exists today than for them to put their file on the gnet and magnet links of the web site.

Re: Re: Would You Support Non-Infringing use of P2P?
 

Please see the following thread

http://www.gnutellaforums.com/showth...tent+Community

non-infringing content
 

First of all I think that there is a lot of non-infringing content that I think people would be interested in. Unfortunately as I've said before the people who either a) most desire the content is not aware that it exist or b) is not sure how to go about acquiring it. P2P solves this problem. But, it has to overcome the problem of shifting content horizons. It should return to a napster style like architecture with a central content index. Although Gnutella in its current form can function in this way the problem is that the ultrapeers are not stable and can cause shifts in content horizons

Good reading. Since most references are to "Gnutella/Kazaa", looks like the folks there assume Gnutella is here to stay as one of the key p2p players.

Nobody points out, that I could see, that anyone here or on the gnutella net, is sitting in front of 1000's of dollars of technology (with $1000's more less used stereo and TV equipment elsewhere), probably paying 100's of dollars a year in connection fees, to do WHAT? Get free stuff? Looks to me it's not about being "cheap" and more about the freedom to see and hear what others in this community think is good enough to share. Hell, we're even paying for others to use the bandwidth and the technology.

Every ISP and server should be attacking anyone who wants to hinder us paying for the privilege of a new internet technology.

Katgirl--you'll be back--and forth. Gnutella offers more than cheap music. You can get that on the radio or in a bar.

And as topbanana says--give us the power to make magnets work easily so we can securely email our stuff to each other and form whatever communities we want with gnutella.

Actually, I've been looking and have found web sites offering gnutella magnet links already. Nice example at http://www.rftc.com/media.php