Speaking of BitTorrent, I don't know if you read Michael's Minutes:
http://www.linspire.com/lindows_michaelsminutes.php
[Michael Robertson, the [in]famous CEO of MP3.com and current CEO of Linspire]
This week's Michael's Minutes talked about how Linspire 5.0 might be illegal because it incorporates BitTorrent/P2P. The INDUCE Act is trying to make all P2P software illegal, but it could have a lot broader effect than just a bunch of copyrighted music.
No matter what you think of Linspire or whatever, I think it's cool that they are giving new technology a shot. Not to mention that their CEO writes (sometimes he just edits) a column addressing the crowd. I find it... Linspiring?
*ducks and runs*
Jeremy
Oh please. Are matches illegal beccause of arson?
This week's Michael's Minutes talked about how Linspire 5.0 might be illegal because it incorporates BitTorrent/P2P. The INDUCE Act is trying to make all P2P software illegal, but it could have a lot broader effect than just a bunch of copyrighted music.
On Friday 08 October 2004 02:17 pm, Jeremy Turner wrote:
This week's Michael's Minutes talked about how Linspire 5.0 might be illegal because it incorporates BitTorrent/P2P. The INDUCE Act is trying to make all P2P software illegal, but it could have a lot broader effect than just a bunch of copyrighted music.
That would include P2P software like ftp, scp, cp, dd, tar, copy, etc.?
On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 17:34:20 -0500 Jonathan Hutchins [email protected] wrote:
On Friday 08 October 2004 02:17 pm, Jeremy Turner wrote:
This week's Michael's Minutes talked about how Linspire 5.0 might be illegal because it incorporates BitTorrent/P2P. The INDUCE Act is trying to make all P2P software illegal, but it could have a lot broader effect than just a bunch of copyrighted music.
That would include P2P software like ftp, scp, cp, dd, tar, copy, etc.?
FYI ftp, scp, cp, dd, tar, and copy aren't P2P programs.
--------------------------------- Frank Wiles [email protected] http://www.wiles.org ---------------------------------
On Monday 11 October 2004 08:41 am, Frank Wiles wrote:
On Friday 08 October 2004 02:17 pm, Jeremy Turner wrote:
The INDUCE Act is trying to make all P2P software illegal...
Jonathan Hutchins [email protected] wrote:
That would include P2P software like ftp, scp, cp, dd, tar, copy, etc.?
FYI ftp, scp, cp, dd, tar, and copy aren't P2P programs.
They are to the same extent that bittorrent is: they allow you to copy a file to a new location without reference to the content or "ownership" of the original file. Programs like scp have _exactly_ the same result as bittorrent, they just do it a little differently.
Pretending that there is some moral component to a distributed file transfer system that doesn't exist in a simply "copy" command is pure fantasy.
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 10:51:50 -0500 Jonathan Hutchins [email protected] wrote:
On Monday 11 October 2004 08:41 am, Frank Wiles wrote:
On Friday 08 October 2004 02:17 pm, Jeremy Turner wrote:
The INDUCE Act is trying to make all P2P software illegal...
Jonathan Hutchins [email protected] wrote:
That would include P2P software like ftp, scp, cp, dd, tar, copy, etc.?
FYI ftp, scp, cp, dd, tar, and copy aren't P2P programs.
They are to the same extent that bittorrent is: they allow you to copy a file to a new location without reference to the content or "ownership" of the original file. Programs like scp have _exactly_ the same result as bittorrent, they just do it a little differently.
Pretending that there is some moral component to a distributed file transfer system that doesn't exist in a simply "copy" command is pure fantasy.
I don't doubt they all fall under the INDUCE act, but that wasn't what I was saying. P2P means 'peer to peer'. ftp and scp are S2P and all of the others are just plain local.
That was my point.
--------------------------------- Frank Wiles [email protected] http://www.wiles.org ---------------------------------
On Monday 11 October 2004 11:17 am, Frank Wiles wrote:
That would include P2P software like ftp, scp, cp, dd, tar, copy, etc.?
I don't doubt they all fall under the INDUCE act, but that wasn't what I was saying. P2P means 'peer to peer'. ftp and scp are S2P and all of the others are just plain local.
What's your definition of "local"? I rarely use ftp within my home network, usually it's to get something from a remote, public server. I use scp a lot to transfer files between sites. I use cp to transfer files between servers over mapped network drives.
I use the Konqueror browser's ability to represent an ftp session as a click-and-drag file copy to move <gasp> visual media from one location to another - when I'm publishing photograps for a client.
The only difference between these programs and bittorrent is that bittorrent uses multiple sources to copy files to multiple locations.
You can not make a moral judgement on a method of transferring files. It just doesn't make sense.
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 11:29:58 -0500 Jonathan Hutchins [email protected] wrote:
On Monday 11 October 2004 11:17 am, Frank Wiles wrote:
That would include P2P software like ftp, scp, cp, dd, tar, copy, etc.?
I don't doubt they all fall under the INDUCE act, but that wasn't what I was saying. P2P means 'peer to peer'. ftp and scp are S2P and all of the others are just plain local.
What's your definition of "local"? I rarely use ftp within my home network, usually it's to get something from a remote, public server. I use scp a lot to transfer files between sites. I use cp to transfer files between servers over mapped network drives.
The only difference between these programs and bittorrent is that bittorrent uses multiple sources to copy files to multiple locations.
You can not make a moral judgement on a method of transferring files. It just doesn't make sense.
I'm not sure why you think I'm talking about the morality of transferring files. I'm not.
What I'm saying is that while Bittorrent is by definition P2P, the others you listed are not. Yes, they are used to transfer files. Yes, they can be used to transfer files without DRM. However, FTP and SCP are server to client not peer to peer.
My definition of local is "not leaving the same server". I forgot about the possibility of using cp, tar, etc on a mapped drive, NFS, etc. But this still does not make them P2P, it makes them a method of transferring files over a networked drive.
All I ask is that you use the terminology correctly. Much like we don't call trucks, buses, and subways "cars" despite the fact they are all methods of transportation.
--------------------------------- Frank Wiles [email protected] http://www.wiles.org ---------------------------------
On Monday 11 October 2004 11:45 am, Frank Wiles wrote:
What I'm saying is that while Bittorrent is by definition P2P, the others you listed are not.
How do you define P2P? It means Peer to peer, implies transferring files from one system to a similarly used system, usually Personal Computer to Personal Computer. All of the methods we've discussed here can be used for that.
The only special things about bittorrent are that it's been optimized to transfer files that seem to be particularly large compared to the current capacity of the systems involved. Having seen software and file sizes evolve from primitive systems where 64 Kilobytes was a lot of space and 54 baud was fast, I can assure you that bittorrent is only an incremental step up from something like zmodem, which also treated a "large" file transfer as individual packets in order to optimize the stream.
It's not that I don't "get" the distinction that places systems like bittorrent or napster into a special, new category of file sharing, it's that I think the distinction is entirely bogus.
FIDOnet saw some similar accusations in it's day - mainly that it was used for distributing pirated software. Sure, it was one method of distribution, but that was not it's purpose, and there was nothing particular about FIDOnet itself that caused people to pirate software.
Legislating against innovations in software is one of the stupidest things you can do. It's not going to solve anybody's problems, and it's not going to prevent anything except casual use by the techonoligically naieve.
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jonathan Hutchins Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 4:45 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: BitTorrent + INDUCE Act + Linspire 5.0
[snip]
FIDOnet saw some similar accusations in it's day
I, for one, am curious to know where the name FIDOnet came from. I'm assuming it was named for someone's dog - the only real question is whether it was Eva Braun's dog, or perhaps that of her lover. Either way, I'm sure that poor pup grew up in hell.
Anyone? Anyone? Bueler?
Dustin
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 16:44:38 -0500 Jonathan Hutchins [email protected] wrote:
On Monday 11 October 2004 11:45 am, Frank Wiles wrote:
What I'm saying is that while Bittorrent is by definition P2P, the others you listed are not.
How do you define P2P? It means Peer to peer, implies transferring files from one system to a similarly used system, usually Personal Computer to Personal Computer. All of the methods we've discussed here can be used for that.
Peer to peer is a type of file transfer network where each node ( aka peer ) has equivalent capabilities and responsibilities. In a P2P network a client can retrieve a file from a central location ( i.e. Bittorrent when only a single seed exists ) or from another client.
This differs from a client-server model in that the software used to be a "server" is vastly different from that of a "client". Much like scp is different from sshd, ncftp is different from ProFTPD, a web browser is different from a web server, etc.
The other big difference is the distribution of the data is done in the "client" space and not on the server side with mirrors, network attached storage, etc. It is also automatic distribution where a new "mirror" doesn't need to be registered with the server admin to start sharing the load.
I have no idea why I'm still taking the time to talk about this...
--------------------------------- Frank Wiles [email protected] http://www.wiles.org ---------------------------------
"Jonathan Hutchins" [email protected] wrote:
The only difference between these programs and bittorrent is that
bittorrent
uses multiple sources to copy files to multiple locations.
You can not make a moral judgement on a method of transferring files. It
just
doesn't make sense.
Hoplophobia doesn't make sense to me either. But there are people who believe that tools can be inherently bad, and therefore must be banned. I think they're quite irrational about it, but somehow they've managed to get their psychological disorder enshrined into law. And once you buy the logic that says that certain guns are evil because only criminals use them, or payphones and pagers are just for drug dealers, the next logical step is that certain file transfer programs are just for copyright infringement.
We understand that the core of computer networking is copying data from one place to another. Hell, just USING a computer is about copying bits from HD to RAM so it can be executed. What we face is a well-financed campaign to end the general-purpose computer, and replace it with 'trusted' computers (that is to say 'trusted by copyright holders') that are locked down to prevent copying bits to the 'wrong' place. It'll mean the end of Linux if they get away with it.
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 07:45:56 -0500, Monty J. Harder [email protected] wrote:
Hoplophobia doesn't make sense to me either. But there are people who believe that tools can be inherently bad
Today's Greek root is "Hopl+ which means "tool." One of those Greek tragedies in Volker park, one year, the soldiers in it were called "Hoplites" I guess the palace guards are the prince's tools.
-
David Nicol -
Dustin Decker -
Frank Wiles -
Jeremy Turner -
Jonathan Hutchins -
Monty J. Harder