http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122367645363324303.html

Fuck the DMCA, it treats the accused as guilty until proven innocent.
YouTube credulously follows dubious DMCA take down notices and doesn't do anything much against those who submit bogus ones. It's a copyright witch-hunt. Alleged copyright holders should have to get a court order first. Youtube should not be liable unless they refuse to comply with a court order. Copyright terms should be reduced to 20 years. Adopt the entire platform of the Swedish Pirate Party. Copyright paranoia impedes productivity and public discourse. Copyright protection should require registration with the Library of Congress for archival purposes, as it did before the mid 20th century, and at the expiration of the term of the copyright the copyrighted material should become publicly available for download from the archives. Any 2 minute clip from a TV show is FAIR USE. If it's legal to let your friend borrow a copyrighted book, it should be legal to send your friend some copyrighted music or whatever electronic files. Copyright cannot be enforced without inappropriate surveillance of private communications, so just let it go. There are better business models than suing everyone who tries to make derivative works or post little clips on YouTube. Fuck having to pay for something before you can even see whether it's really worth anything, or just to maintain interoperability within a framework of planned obsolescence. Any musician who's popular on P2P could also make a lot of money on concerts. Fuck movie theaters, get netflix. Microsoft still makes huge profits despite how easy it is to pirate their software.

"Unfortunately, the real benefits of this package risk being undermined by alarmist scaremongering that it will cause certain websites to be blocked, and consumers prosecuted for copyright abuse."

In order to address public interest issues with respect to the use of communications services, and to encourage protection of the rights and freedoms of others, the relevant national authorities should be able to produce and have disseminated, with the aid of providers, information related to the use of communications services. This information should include warnings regarding copyright infringement, other unlawful uses and dissemination of harmful content(...)

Management of networks in order to, for example, address congestion and capacity constraints and to enable new services should not per se be considered an example of a restriction requiring intervention, and due account should be taken of the right of network and service operators to diversify their offerings in a competitive market, including through the imposition of reasonable usage restrictions, price differentiation and other legitimate competitive practices.

I feel very bad for the British, that there is really nothing I can do to help.

It wont take long for something like this to happen in the US, keep your eyes open and don't let the man sneak a Trojan in.

BTW doesn't p2p net like the blizzard downloader count as file sharing? The fools this will only drive piracy deeper underground, and will only hurt their constituents. Besides, doing this will create underground Internet Providers. The internet is like a leak that cant be stopped, its like sand that gets into every thing, you cant stop it. Nor can you stop its followers from finding a way to get to its glorious heaps of information.

Its actually 1024 bytes to a megabyte, and 1024 mb to a gb, and 1024 gb to a tb...etc...

Makes a big difference if you have a download limit

Hes not quite right about bandwidth allocation with P2P / Torrent apps, while true some trackers do keep an allocation diet based off of share ratio, not all do.

I can totally shut off my upload bandwidth on quite a lot of trackers (if you know the right networks), and if there is enough available bandwidth in the swarm (that is, enough people uploading the file I want without saturation), I can max out my download speeds.

And to comment on insufficient network performance, your ISP can only garuntee a set speed on their network. If you are attempting to download data from a network outside of your ISP's control (eg. a file hosted internationally), and you are going shit slow...its not your ISP's fault. The internet is comprised of quite a lot of ISP's, which autonomously administer their own small portion of the greater collective. Any time you cross those boundaries, you are subject to the traffic shaping policies of the owner of the network you transit.

Oh shit! I remember watching this in Windows 3.1! I used this video to show off my new CD-Rom. This was the first CD-Rom game I ever played. In fact, I think this came bundled (OMG bundled software) with our CD-Rom. Not long after I think we purchased Tex Murphy's Under a Killing Moon.

This is part of computer, video clip, and gaming history. I was sharing this video before the acronym P2P existed.

Back then audio quality degraded on subsequent copies and generally over time, not to mention proliferation was immensely stymied without the internet. Nowadays it's a different ballgame, but the issue is the same. P2P is unlikely to dissapear, and if it is eventually stifled out in some manner, a new method of electronic copyright infringement will appear. If the regulators and record companies weren't so stuck in their archaic, preordained conceptions then they would have long ago utilized P2P to the full extent in letting people know about and sample the works of their artists without fear of incrimination, and focused on providing a plethora of incentives for buying hard copies or electronic versions of the singles/albums such as vinyl editions, complementary booklets among other collectors items and features I'm sure they could brainstorm, using some of that moolah they're currently burning to sue their own fans.

I mentioned before the issues I had with Verizon wireless on MG's rant-blog about his similar woes-2 broadband card accounts, purchased a month apart, (same billing account) one under an unlimited use plan for downloads, and the other, changed a month later by VZ, limited to 5Gb per billing cycle-

The operatives at Verizon (highly skilled and knowledgeable specialists), assured me that it would be next to impossible to go over 5GB a month(.49 cents per MB....MB mind you, over the alloted 5GB, this under the new plan). I had them run the numbers on the first account, my usage during but 17 days of the billing cycle-......27GB's and counting!!!

do the math-under the new plan, I would be charged for .49 X 22528 = $11038.72.....if I'da got that bill I would have been looking to kill the P.T. Barnum motherfucker that came up with that charge plan.

They see the writing on the wall....someone needs to address the gobble-problem. I say we place children who are addicted to P2P in work camps, and wives???...Beat senseless your husbands and children who watch porn or any lame video content.....

@dag
..so what do you think of this
http://geek.videosift.com/talk/TV-distribution-system-based-on-P2Psocial-interaction
p2p project?

The problem is not "piracy" the problem is that copyright is broken.

Copyright is a privilege extended for the specific purpose of increasing creative output, it no longer does that, everybody knows it, and we don't respect it any more.I don't know if copyright can be recovered at this point, the public no longer values the institution because it has been used to damage culture instead of nurturing it.

If copyright is to be saved it will have to take into account that copyright/patent periods should be shrinking, not growing. Moore's law should be applied to these systems. Their potential to assist creativity is proportional to the amount of time it takes to disseminate the information through the most efficient channel available. The faster information can be monetized, the less time creators should be given monopoly privilege to monetize it.

Anybody who is hating on P2P should remember that their is no evidence that sharing music/movies results in any reduction in unit sales, and the statistical analysis of P2P data shows a supporting correlation on sales, largely beneficial to lesser known films/musicians. The MP/RIAA hates P2P because it does the only thing their clients do, advertise, far better and at far lower cost, it does not lose them money, it simply makes them obsolete.

The conflation of property and copy-monopoly is both absurd and intellectually dishonest. this vid points that out, though it does not address the nub of the problem. Remember everything made before 1980 should be public domain by the original meaning of the term.

if you're over 20, you're history.

oh, and you say you sample stuff for free and then maybe buy... well... in the old system, you couldn't sample stuff for free so easily. Radioplay generates revenue. P2P does not. The ideal future would be a system where everyone can share as much as they like and somehow some kind of tagging sends a tiny fraction of a dollar (or preferably euro!) back to the artist every time an ISP detects the transfer. But i don't think they have quite worked this out yet, and i don't know how to track iPod to iPod transfers, and the lawyers will keep arguing about 100 year old laws as long as they are paid $500 an hour for their hot air.

Holy cow, what a friggin short-sighted dufus (with an obvious helping of jealousy thrown in for measure). Quick, someone e-bookify and P2P his worthless scribblings (even though no one will want to read it) just to wash away any earning potential.

who would dare to charge websites to be on the internet? ERrrrr... my web hosts really want me to pay, even if i show them this video.

Well, obviously, he means PAY, as in: only warner brothers and AOL can afford to put stuff up, or start saving for licensing fees, taxes, ISP's to not block your site, etc.

Besides, there are still lots of free ways to communicate(even if webhosting costs money) such as this comment, Youtube, myspace etc. and usually you get your homepage space at your ISP etc. and there is also p2p. A regulated internet is what he is talking about: someone who controls, blocks, approves etc.

I just started getting into torrents, after a while of failed attempts. It's so damn technical, and my ISP and router discourage P2P traffic.

And I hardly comment on other's downvotes, but just because there are other ways of going about this doesn't mean this is necessarily bad. It sure as hell doesn't qualify it for a downvote.

*save

I am..hadn't tried/played with it, but just installed it. It's....good. Yeah, if anyone's gonna IP TV, seems like these guys.

Embed? How's that jive with the P2P angle; are they implementing p2p, or just selling ads?

A talk by Mark Pesce in Australia on the future of television, or more precisely the lack of a TV (via free distribution). Unfortunately, this logically concludes into more pervasive advertising - via a lack of the classic 'ad break' as well. It's an interesting presentation on the recent explosion of P2P use plus the lack of understanding by the current media, and also a fitting subject for me as I get internet TV next week.