p2pnet - rss feed: P2p: still on the US hit list
p2pnet.net News- Yesterday, the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation had a hearing, the supposed purpose being to examine options following the US Supreme Court’s Grokster / StreamCast v MGM ruling.
But, “Anyone who thought the Supreme Court’s Grokster decision would get Congress off the peer-to-peer industry’s back might want to think again,” says Wired News.
In June, the court ruled that p2p companies can be held liable users of their software infringe copyrights and now, “At issue is whether to let the marketplace breathe in the aftermath of the Grokster decision or to codify the high court’s reasoning into law,” says the story.
Let the marketplace breathe? Not likely. In fact, “lawmakers warned P2P industry leaders to do more about piracy on their networks or face potential legislation that could restrict P2P usage,” says the story
If creating legislation to restrict p2p usage won’t do anyone any good, least of all the record label cartel, what should congress be doing?
‘Real opportunities’
p2pnet asked StreamCast ceo Mike Weiss who told us:
“It should be looking at ways of compensating creators, not hand-tying technology. The Internet was built to resist control and no legislation or court rulings could change its basic decentralized architecture. According to Forbes, ‘more than 70% of consumers said they used file-sharing networks to sample music prior to purchase’.”
P2p users are in fact the strongest customers and, “We want to provide users with real opportunities to purchase authorized content through Morpheus so content creators and copyright holders get paid,” states Weiss. “We have the ability today to leverage users’ participation on p2p into transactions. Why doesn’t the entertainment industry want the same?
The RIAA, MPAA and other vested interest groups and their adherents claim repeatedly that Morpheus and similar p2p apps are responsible for the spread of porn and piracy.
‘I hope you’re listening’
In an outburst at the close of a hearing Thursday, Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) said many senators are urging him to move against file-sharing firms, despite a recent Supreme Court decision that parties on all sides of the issue said eliminated the need for congressional action anytime soon,” says the Washington Post.
” ‘I hope you’re listening,” he said loudly to Adam M. Eisgrau, executive director of P2P United, a file-sharing trade group. ‘We can hardly accuse people abroad of stealing our property if we can’t protect it at home.’
“Stevens was joined by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who told Eisgrau, “If you don’t move to protect copyright, if you don’t move to protect our children, it’s not going to sit well.”
In the 2004 corporate contributions round, Boxer was handsomely supported by various components of the entertainment industry, according to Open Secrets, to wit:
- Time Warner - $60,100
- Viacom Inc - $43,000
- Vivendi Universal - $23,249
- Sony Corp of America - $23,000
- Walt Disney Co - $20,250
And she’s not doing badly for the 2006 round either. So far, she’s scoring like this:
- Time Warner - $47,850
- Viacom Inc - $34,250
- Vivendi Universal - $19,250
- Walt Disney Co – $18,250
- Sony Corp of America - $18,000
‘Child pornography problem is universal’
But, “We don’t encourage piracy and certainly don’t condone child pornography,” says Weiss, going on:
“First, the entertainment industry tries to deceive congress that p2p is responsible for their poor business performance and, what’s even more ludicrous, is trying to portray us as being responsible for pornography on the Internet.
“Morpheus and the other members of P2P United have been active participants in working with government agencies toward finding solutions to stop child pornographers from endangering children.”
The child pornography problem is universal, going well beyond the small amount of child porn available via p2p, observes Weiss.
‘Central Server’
“Web sites found through the large commercial search engines are the dominant source of Internet porn and email and instant messaging are the weapons of choice for pedophiles preying on kids, and these have nothing to do with p2p,” he says.
Proposed legislation to regulate p2p by requiring filtering out of unauthorized copyrighted content would amount to a technology ban by would-be Internet police, says the StreamCast ceo, adding:
“Any such filtering, whose long-term effectiveness is highly questionable, requires all files to travel through a central server and be checked against a massive database.
“Does the American Public want Orwellian laws passed where every file on the internet is fingerprinted, every user tagged, every search monitored and every result filtered just to protect the entertainment industry’s archaic business model?
“It’s time for all stakeholders to work together to find business solutions for the digital age rather than try to rely on passing new laws that are difficult to keep pace with technological advances.”
Marketing is the key
But New Media Age’s Michael Nutley has an interesting take.
In a TechNewsWorld post, he points out the Supreme Court ruled anyone who distributes a device to promote its use to infringe copyright, “as shown by the clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties”.
And this is the crux of last month’s ruling, Nutley goes on. What matters isn’t what the technology can be used for, “but how it has been marketed. If you don’t tell people they can use your technology for illegal purposes, it seems you’re in the clear.
“So while the Supreme Court feels Grokster may have a case to answer, and other file-sharing services will soon be having their marketing and promotions scrutinized by the entertainment industry’s lawyers, the next generation of file-sharing software developers is unlikely to be caught in the same trap.
Fighting a Losing Battle
If the the record and film companies [not to mention the software giants] can, “prove Grokster and its peers induced people to illegally share copyright material, they’ll be able to claw back some of the money they claim to have lost to file sharing,” Nutley states, adding:
“But even if they were to close down all the P2P networks currently in existence, a new, more distributed group would emerge. The culture surrounding music has simply changed too much for the genie to be put back in the bottle, especially among the young.
“I spoke last year at a sixth-form college and asked the students about file sharing. ‘We can’t afford to buy records,’ one told me. The fact is that teenagers have many more things to spend their money on, and you can’t pirate a mobile phone. Hence the record labels’ enthusiasm for real-music ringtones. But both these and this week’s court victory are likely to prove of only short-term value.
“The only thing to guarantee the survival of the entertainment business is an entirely new approach to content distribution.”
[Revised July 30, 2005]
Something you think we should know? tips[at]p2pnet.net
See:-
Wired News - Senators Grill P2P Providers, July 28, 2005
Washington Post - Senator Threatens Crackdown on File-Sharing Industry, July 30, 2005
TechNewsWorld - Supreme Court’s P2P Ruling May Not Stop the Change, July 29, 2005
July 30th, 2005 at 12:15 am
quote
“Any such filtering, whose long-term effectiveness is highly questionable, requires all files to travel through a central server and be checked against a massive database.”
Isn’t this central server idea the very thing that sank Napster and AudioGalaxy? Correct me if I am wrong. The idea that they had the infringing files open to everyone with control over a central server which could by that reason be able to control the passage of infringing files I believe was the very point that closed them down. P2p followed the law by the most part and decentralized to where in that aspect they met the requirements of the new law. So is it now the idea that a centralized server is the ideal place now to control this? Well the p2p people don’t think so as they did indeed move to decentralization.
As for the red herring of the porn, you seen any of those music vids that are put out? How about some of the rap? If the rap isn’t verbal porn, lightly wrapped in music, what the heck is? The subject matter is of sex, violence, and how nice a crib has been obtained. The Christian Coalition should be having elephants over the rap alone. Instead we find them deep in bed with the RIAA, go figure…
July 30th, 2005 at 1:49 am
that my friend was a great post!
July 30th, 2005 at 6:30 am
The Internet was built to resist control and no legislation or court rulings could change its basic decentralized architecture.
I loved to hear this. This at least gives us more confidence as we see our rights trying to be taken away from us.
The RIAA, MPAA and other vested interest groups and their adherents claim repeatedly that Morpheus and similar p2p apps are responsible for the spread of porn and piracy.
But, “We don’t encourage piracy and certainly don’t condone child pornography,” says Weiss, going on:
The first post says porn and piracy and Weiss first though is Child pornography. I guess that they don’t mind the 18+ year old’s. Perhapse Weiss uses p2p to obtain porn since he left out reg porn and replaced it with child porn
July 30th, 2005 at 1:09 pm
Why are P2P networks being picked on to police what their users do with technology? Why not ISPs, or Microsoft, or PC manufacturers, or router manufacturers, or FTP software? All these people are transmitting copywrite infringing material with their products in exactly the same way.
Picking out P2P software in particular is just the usual spin - it’s really the senators bought by big movie and music money who are doing what they are told - protecting the money streams of the fat cats.
July 31st, 2005 at 12:35 am
July 31st, 2005 at 2:39 am
I think you mean “copyright” not “copy” “right”.
As for common thieves, no. We’re just employing a new distribution channel outside the control of established interests who are naturally attempting to remain viable. The fact that our new distribution channel is cheaper and more efficient than the existing channels means they should simply adapt or die.
They probably are adapting in the background, while distracting potential competitors with this “sue em all” disinformation campaign. The fact that it also happens to bring in some revenue probably allowing it to break even is a bonus for them.
Perfectly normal business behaviors. Then again perfectly normal companies behave in ways that would get an individual arrested and sent to an asylum for immediate treatment of their mental disorders. Funny that.
July 31st, 2005 at 8:19 am
Please don’t feed the trolls. Their fat enough as it is.
July 31st, 2005 at 1:17 pm
LOL! It’s like this.
“I see trolls…
…they’re everywhere…
…they post in msg boards like everyone else…
…they don’t even know they’re trolls…
…And some of them…
…They post here!”
July 31st, 2005 at 11:51 pm
August 1st, 2005 at 12:00 am
August 1st, 2005 at 12:05 am
August 1st, 2005 at 12:14 am
House Burgular explains to court “we are just pioneering a new distribution system your honour, those home owning cartel people have got what we want!”.
August 1st, 2005 at 12:16 am
Why “filesharing of course”
August 1st, 2005 at 5:38 am
I find it difficult to imagine how someone would steal an entire house but anyway, in response to your comment.
1. We’re not breaking and entering. Ppl who share files are giving us permission to grab a copy. Which brings me to point 2 below.
2. We’re not taking things off ppl, we’re creating perfect (or almost perfect) copies of them. The “problem” is that we’re not paying the maker of the original item for our own copy. By “problem” i mean the makers see it as a problem, nobody else does.
Making copies is not theft. If it was, Xerox would be in big BIG trouble. There’d be no difference if someone looked at an original car, and out of his own materials made a perfect copy of it. How could the maker of the original car say he stole the car by building a copy of it? The car owner still has the original car they bought off the car maker!
As long as the copier didn’t try to pass it off as being built by the car maker there’s jack all the makers could do about it.
August 1st, 2005 at 9:07 am
Your explanation Tone, negates mention of a little itty bitty (HUGE) issue of Intellectual Property which is cast in concrete of the Law of the land in all modern contries.
August 1st, 2005 at 2:28 pm
True, and therein lies the root of the problem. It needs a major overhaul in all modern countries, without any “input” from the vested interests. But as long as govts pander to the big corps it aint gonna happen.
It’ll probly get to the point where noone will be able to actually make anything new because they might violate 30billion existing patents. Oh yeah, that’s right, that’s already happened. I can see a whole lot of research and development going outside the US to countries with slightly more sane patent laws.
I just look at all the new cars that all look exactly the same as each other (except for the little model and maker badges i guess) and wonder why the car makers are not suing the pants off each other. It must be a conspiracy
August 1st, 2005 at 3:10 pm
I have written the Christian Coalition a couple time to ask them to explain their stance. I never have gotten a reply. I finally asked them why they support an industry that is primarily responsible for the spread of porn on TV and cable. Still, no reply.
I am a Messianic Jew, and am not one that likes to bash other religions. I would, however, like to ask the leaders of the Christian Coalition to look in their Bibles start practicing the teachings contained therein. I would also like to point out that filesharing IS NOT STEALING. Givng away a lamb born to a sheep that you buy from a livestock auction is not stealing either. Neither would it be stealing if the sheep was given to you.
They should read Mattenyahu 10:8 (I think it is Matthew 10:8 in KJV).
They should also take in account the grapevine analogy. (You can take a cutting of a grape vine and give it to friends to grow, and most people do not consider it stealing.) These Christians should also read Daniel 7:25 about the changing of the times and laws. Debarim (Deuteronomy) 16:19-20 admonishes those in power not to take a bribe.
Remember what I said about the grapevine? Well, apparently, the cartels would like to take away evan that right of reproduction. The Beast power wants EVERYTHING that each individual produces. The Beast power consists of both the cartels and the government officials in their pocket. These are only a few of the Scripture that the Christian Coalition should read. But of course, the Christian Coalition is acting as if it is part of the False Prophet. The Christian Coalition should quit supporting the industry that they even in their own words are saying is destroying American culture.
August 1st, 2005 at 3:15 pm
Is the Troll present here actually a hireling for the **AA cartel? Is he or she being paid to ruin this discussion board so that we will go away? I hope it doesn’t work.
August 1st, 2005 at 3:34 pm
The Constitution made provisions for but did not mandate copyright law.
The copyright laws were originally indeded to allow the creator of works *****BENEFICIAL TO SOCIETY***** a TEMPORARY privilege to make money (and give permission to allow others to make money) from the created work in order for him or her to recoup costs and have a chance to make a profit.
Much of what is copyrighted today is NOT BENEFICIAL to society, so the question should be, “Why is the material copyrighted in the first place?” The so called laws extend copyrights in many cases beyond the lifetime of the creator. This situation is in effect a permanent monnopoly which is in direct conflict of the spirit of copyright. The copyright laws were intended to prevent others from duplicating a work and then SELLING it and keeping the money for themmselves. This is NOT what filesharers do. Most any filesharer or release groups have great distain for those who sell created works without authorization from the copyright holder.
For a true copyright violation to occur, one must sell a work that is benefical to society within the LIMITED time period granted to the copyright holder. The cartels are in the wrong because they are putting out trash that is DETRIMENTAL not beneficial to society, they bribed lawmakers to put an effectively unlimited time on copyright, and the ones who they are persecuting are not (usually) selling the work reproduced. So, this should explain the issue of intellectual property.
August 2nd, 2005 at 12:58 pm
filesharing IS NOT ILLEGAL!
August 2nd, 2005 at 1:41 pm
they probably are - or just some stupid kids playing games.
either way, it seems their posts have been deleted. i don’t see them and i never did get a chance to see them.
August 2nd, 2005 at 9:34 pm
You didn’t miss anything catflap, I assure you. Wasn’t an intellegent troll to begin with. Most likely a bored kid with nothing to do. Funny how those come out the woodwork.
If it wasn’t a bored kid then the industry is worried that maybe, just maybe Jon has too good a thing going here. Lord, can’t have that!
August 2nd, 2005 at 10:07 pm
yeah you’re right. i wasn’t complaining that i hadn’t seen them
.
but i would have expected that all the messages to/about the trolls would also have been deleted so the comments section could concentrate on the article.
August 2nd, 2005 at 10:10 pm
“Is he or she being paid to ruin this discussion board so that we will go away?”
******************************
the only person earning money is the owner, jon - from adspace revenue. and i can assure you he does not receive any compensation or favours from the cartels - or anyone else.
August 3rd, 2005 at 4:33 am
I would answer that, but I don’t feel like being an abuse case for the patriot act.
August 3rd, 2005 at 6:33 am
Get back under your bridge, troll.
Come back and post something when you have at least half a brain…
Moronic Idiot.
August 3rd, 2005 at 6:04 pm
Yes thats right, the cartels or i should say “corporations” copyright too. These stories are hidden in the backpages of a newspaper if they are even brought to light.
the reason for this is that the “corporations” hire huge and powerful lawyers and pay off the judges to rule in their favor. What about the little guy? The cartels steal most of the ideas from people who cant hire lawyers. look at what microsoft did, they didnt create the idea of Vista but they surely will start taking the credit for it, and if any opposes them they will crush em.
so why not make a group that will fight off these corporations, make a group against violations of corporations and have people to donate and then sue?
i will make this simpler: why not take the same thing the cartels use and turn it against them?