On 23/03/10 11:33, Phil Thompson wrote: > in this context it refers to peer to peer P2P file distribution systems > whose primary use on the contemporary internet is distribution of > copyrighted material without the rights holders consent ie Pirate 2 Pirate. >
The problem is that there are legitimate uses, and it tends to be "free" (as in speech) content that has no revenue to pay for bandwidth commercially and therefore benefits most from P2P. If I want to create an operating system and distribute it, P2P is a damn good way to do it. The problem is that the way these debates are framed is to ignore any possibility that someone might just (legitimately) distribute something "for free". People get stabbed by knives, but we all understand that knives have their legitimate uses and we haven't banned them. It's the lack of understanding that there are legitimate uses for P2P that causes me the greatest concern. It would suit the major software houses and music/video distributors to have everyone believe that distributing software or media for free is illegitimate and illegal; I'm sure MS wouldn't be too upset if the distribution of Linux over the Internet accidentally became illegal, and I don't see the necessary awareness in government to stop something silly happening that way. We all know that fair use copying of DVDs for backup purposes has been made incredibly difficult in a failed effort to prevent illegitimate distribution. It's the legitimate users who have paid for (a licence to use in very limited ways) the media or software that suffer with all of these measures. I don't see anything in the new bill that will achieve anything positive in the long term. -- Mark Rogers // More Solutions Ltd (Peterborough Office) // 0844 251 1450 Registered in England (0456 0902) @ 13 Clarke Rd, Milton Keynes, MK1 1LG _______________________________________________ Peterboro mailing list Peterboro@mailman.lug.org.uk https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/peterboro
