On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 01:27:20PM -0400, David Schwanke wrote:
[snip]
> I went through 20 or 30 files on each list and didn't find a single file
> that wasn't someone stealing someone elses intellectually property.
> Music, movies, software, even porn.
>
> Roughly speaking, I view using bittorent with your site as having to
> wade through a crack house district to get to that really nice book shop
> that for whatever reason feels its best location is right next door to a
> crack house.
I've always found this perspective on peer-to-peer technology
fascinating. You clearly have no such misgivings using the web or
email, both of which are used *extensively* to infringe copyright or
transmit porn. Why should an application which uses peer-to-peer be
different? For that matter, how do you justify using a computer at all?
The fact is, bittorrent is a tool. It happens to be a very useful and
effective tool. The fact that it can be used to distribute illegal
copies of software or porn does not diminish its usefulness as a
distribution tool. Similarly, the fact that a personal computer can be
used to digitally copy a DVD and make it available to millions of people
around the globe does not diminish its usefulness as a word processor.
As David pointed out earlier, the technology in bittorrent is exciting
stuff. It may be that one day soon, your browser will make use of the
same technology, because it is an *efficient way to deliver content*.
> >From a personal perspective you may try to argue how this analogy is not
> accurate because they would really be 'copying' the stero or tv and that
> for them to get a copy of your files you have to put them up yourself.
I would argue that the analogy is not accurate because the tool,
bittorrent, has *substantial* non-infringing use. Remember the 1980s,
when Hollywood was wailing and moaning about the VCR, and how it would
destroy the movie industry?
"the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as
the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone."
-- Jack Valenti, 1982 testimony to the House of Representatives on
why the VCR should be illegal.
Fortunately for everyone, the Supreme Court determined that VCRs were
legal, because they had substantial non-infringing use. Ironically, the
VCR had exactly the opposite effect on the movie industry that Valenti
feared.
I won't comment on your intellectual property arguments, because I don't
think they apply. It's not about whether intellectual property is
important, it's about using the right tool for the job.
Jason
(going back to lurk mode)
--
Jason Day jasonday at
http://jasonday.home.att.net worldnet dot att dot net
"Of course I'm paranoid, everyone is trying to kill me."
-- Weyoun-6, Star Trek: Deep Space 9
_______________________________________________
plucker-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.rubberchicken.org/mailman/listinfo/plucker-list
