<a href='http://news.com.com/Senator+wants+to+ban+P2P+networks/2100-1027_3-5280384.html' target='_blank'>http://news.com.com/Senator+wants+to+ban+P..._3-5280384.html</a>
That's right folks. If an ISP allows you access to a P2P networks... whether your intention good or bad... you and the ISP is liable. Hosting servers and companies who support P2P networks... whether intention good or bad... are liable.
It goes one step further. ALL P2P NETWORKS SHOULD BE ILLEGAL, REGARDLESS OF CONTENT. This means current P2P networks to assist in getting by censorship bans in China etc are illegal. This means IRC is illegal. This means networks that serve government / legal assistance files in a P2P fashion are illegal. This means BitTorrent networks to help with the distribution of Linux are illegal.
Proof that two party system that is raping this country so bad can be literally bought if your coffers (*cough* RIAA *cough*) are deep enough.
i'm asking my aunt what she thinks of the Induce Act. She's the president of Interscope records.
flyingswoosh Wrote:i'm asking my aunt what she thinks of the Induce Act. She's the president of Interscope records.
I will not hesitate in blasting her if he supports that garbage. :D
Technically there is a statute that protects the ISP if the provide whatever subscriber information they can to the authorities upon a court ordered warrant.
So the person doing the P2P'ing is really the one getting screwed. The ISP has a way out of getting into trouble.
rocketfootball Wrote:Technically there is a statute that protects the ISP if the provide whatever subscriber information they can to the authorities upon a court ordered warrant.
So the person doing the P2P'ing is really the one getting screwed. The ISP has a way out of getting into trouble.
Exactly.
Over 24 ISP's, led by Verizon, have voiced STRONG concern and disdain for that piece of crap legislation.
she's all for the Induce Act.
flyingswoosh Wrote:she's all for the Induce Act.
Then she's all for the immediate termination of internet freedom and liberties.
She can take her greed driven agenda, powered by an industry that screws over the artists that keep it running, and her payed off Congressmen invading civil liberties, and shove them straight up the *** of that industry driven by screwing over the fan and artist. The RIAA lives in a paradigm that died with Napster. They refuse to have a modern vision -- opting instead to buy Congress and sue anybody and everybody (often in WILD breech of privacy and erroneously accusing hundreds).
They've gone way over the line now. :mad:
New networking features of Windows XP SP 2...
Quote:Windows Peer-to-Peer Networking
Peer-to-peer networking is the utilization of the relatively powerful personal computers (PCs) that exist at the edge of the Internet for more than just client-based computing tasks. The modern PC has a very fast processor, vast memory, and a large hard disk, none of which are being fully utilized when performing common client/server computing tasks such as e-mail and Web browsing. The modern PC can easily act as both a client and server (a peer) for many types of applications.
Peer-to-peer networking has the following advantages over client/server networking:
•
Content and resources can be shared from both the center and the edge of the network.
•
A network of peers is easily scaled and more reliable than a single server.
•
A network of peers can share its processor, consolidating computing resources for distributed computing tasks.
•
Shared resources of peer computers can be directly accessed.
•
Allows for efficient multipoint communication with having to rely on IP multicast infrastructure.
•
Peer-to-peer networking enables or enhances real-time communications (RTC), collaboration, content distribution, and distributed processing.
To address the need for platform-based peer-to-peer networking capabilities, Microsoft now includes Windows Peer-to-Peer Networking as the Peer-to-Peer networking component, installed from the Networking Services category of Add/Remove Windows Programs.
Prior to Windows XP SP2, Windows Peer-to-Peer Networking was installed with the Advanced Networking Pack for Windows XP, a free download that you install on Windows XP with Service Pack 1 (SP1). The Peer-to-Peer networking component is not installed by default.
Windows Peer-to-Peer Networking uses the Microsoft TCP/IP version 6 protocol as its network transport.
You can develop peer-to-peer applications using a set of Win32 functions for grouping, graphing, identity management, and more. For more information, see Windows XP Peer-to-Peer API Documentation. To develop Windows Peer-to-Peer Networking applications, you must install the Microsoft Windows XP Peer-to-Peer Software Development Kit (SDK).
For an example of a Windows Peer-to-Peer Networking application, you can download threedegrees (3°), a free application that uses the Windows Peer-to-Peer Networking platform to listen to a shared play list, send digital photos, and initiate group chats with MSN® Messenger.
For more information about the architecture of Windows Peer-to-Peer Networking, see Windows Peer-to-Peer Networking, the November 2003 The Cable Guy article.
Does this make part of the Windows OS Illegal??
:eek:
:roflol:
downloading music is copyright infringement. and it should be illegal. It's not a civil liberty to take someone else's work, without paying, unless they give it away. just because a lot of you guys are computer nerds, you think everything online should be legal. But you're wrong. i'm not saying that record companies didn't deserve something bad (all those years of power made them soft, and the crooks will now always be one step ahead of them), but taking the music that is copyrighted, should be illegal. You can complain that the record companies have ripped off the artists, but the fact is that these artists would be nowhere without these compaines.
flyingswoosh Wrote:downloading music is copyright infringement. and it should be illegal. It's not a civil liberty to take someone else's work, without paying, unless they give it away. just because a lot of you guys are computer nerds, you think everything online should be legal. But you're wrong. i'm not saying that record companies didn't deserve something bad (all those years of power made them soft, and the crooks will now always be one step ahead of them), but taking the music that is copyrighted, should be illegal. You can complain that the record companies have ripped off the artists, but the fact is that these artists would be nowhere without these compaines.
Downloading music is
NOT necessarily copyright infringement. Bands such as Limp Bizkit and Smashing Pumpkins have put their works on P2P networks before they were released, encouraging the share of their music. There is also public domain music on P2P networks, as well as concert style recordings, which are supported and promoted by artists such as The Greatful Dead. Not to mention the fact that music copyright in general is a joke and needs serious revision. A work should reach public domain status in about a decade unless it has become timeless... a la The Beatles. For you to say downloading music should be illegal is just as big a blind fumble in the digital dark as the clueless RIAA is guilty of. The RIAA, afterall, is such a good source of legal doctrine, especially after being nailed by federal antitrust and price fixing laws THREE SEPERATE TIMES. iTunes yeah great woohoo... but the overwhelming majority is music is
NOT available on iTunes. If the RIAA really cared about the artist, they wouldn't be raping them themselves, or they'd allow ALL music to go to digital download service, AND they'd do more to stop $0.99 rip off (digital copy) albums sold by the thousands in Asia. Regarding the artists would be nowhere... yea right. Take a look at the successful INDEPENDENT (Indy) artists... does "Jet" ring a bell? I wonder if "Cold, Hard B****" was about the RIAA...
Here is the text transcript from the Korn music video "Ya'll Want a Single" -- which was put out by Korn and encouraged to be bootlegged because the RIAA busted their *** to repress the video on every major music TV channel.
- The music "industry" releases 100 songs per week.
- Only 4 songs are added to the average radio station's "playlist" each week.
- Songs in the Top 40 are repeated over 100 times per week. Is that all you want to hear?
- Why is a song worth $0.99?
- Do you download songs?
- STEAL THIS VIDEO.
- This is a single.
- Two radio conglomerates control 42% of listeners.
- The record company wanted us to change this video. We didn't.
- 90% of all singles get to "The Hook" within 20 seconds.
- 98% of all #1 singles are less than 3 mins, 30 seconds long.
- Does this seem like a FORMULA to you?
- We love making music.
- Is this the music "buisness"?
- Is that.. OK?
- Thank you for 3 minutes of your time.
- Music monopoly?
- Love, Korn.
The entire video is set to the destruction of a CD music store by Korn and about 2 dozen people. I'll be more than happy to send this video to anybody who wants it.
flyingswoosh Wrote:all those years of power made them soft,
I'm guessing by that the years they were guilty of price fixing and in breech of federal antitrust laws... raising the price of CD's as high as $18.99 to $25.00
ok ill show my age. its no different than me recording my records(big black disk that came out before cd's, cassettes,8 track cassettes etc)on to blank tapes and giving it to a friend.
for example:
most of my friends first copy of "The Joshua Tree" by U2 was a tape i recorded off the record i bought at wal-mart in1987. they later went and bought the tape(which i bought when i got a car) & later the cd(which i also bought when i got a cd player in 1991). U2 lost no profits,island records lost no profits & warner bros(original distributers) lost no profits. trading music over the net is no different, just a litlle more wide spread.
The Grateful Dead took a long time to officially allow audience recordings at their shows, but when they did they actually created a cordoned-off area for tapers. They have no problem with sharing these recordings, as long as:
-you do not profit from the sale of such recordings
-you do not share or distribute illegally obtained soundboard recordings (done by their sound people)
Now, this doesn't even touch their official "album" releases. But they have been very specific about what they're letting you do and what you should not do, including going so far as to say that soundboard copies of shows that somehow ended up in the trading community should cease to be traded (they've begun releasing remastered versions of several shows, some of which may already be in heavy bootleg trading circulation.) Now, they've never gotten militant and sued for said cessation, but they do have a policy. They have begun now occasionally releasing a show or songs for free on the web site, but most file sharing is among legal tapers of audience recordings.