P2P Filesharing vs. The Web 222
The Importance of writes "The recent RIAA lawsuits have raised many questions and issues, but the focus has been on P2P filesharing. Before there was P2P, though, there was filesharing via webservers. There doesn't seem to be much complaint about the RIAA shutting down people who upload MP3s to their homepage. Why do many people seem to treat http filesharing different than P2P filesharing? LawMeme has one answer."
People dont share much anymore (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:People dont share much anymore (Score:5, Insightful)
As a prior post mentioned, prosecution is another problem. The RIAA is attempting to quench the problem at the source, which is definitely the easier way to go.
I'm not a big fan of neo-modus/direct connect, mainly because of DC++. It's made the sharing requirements for Direct Connect irrelevant. People get on as many networks as they want, and share 2-3 slots with about 15KB of upload between them all between about 10 different networks, making them effectively just leeches.
Plus the requirements for DC servers have gotten so bloated that they basically require some amount of spoofing to even get on. I haven't used DC in more than a year, and the last time I did, most servers were requiring you to share 30-50 gigs of media, bigger than many casual file sharers actual hard drive.
Re:People dont share much anymore (Score:2)
For example, the hub that was running on my campus last year only had a 550 MB requirement, and the anime/VG music hub i'm using right now only requires one full OST to be shared. Might take some searching, but there's still decent people out there.
Re:People dont share much anymore (Score:3, Informative)
I have a 3 GB per month download cap.
My ISP has a no "Servers" rule. Large uploads gets you banned.
I can't be a good server with my ISP Ts & Cs.
Getting onto a better ISP for me is well... problematic...
Regards...
Re:People dont share much anymore (Score:5, Insightful)
Right. Where would the RIAA come up with over 50 gigs of media content? It's not like they own all the music in the world right?
Re:People dont share much anymore (Score:2)
Last time I was on Kazaa (like two weeks ago) there were thousands of gigabytes being shared.
"Thats why if I use networks like direct connect that force people to share. People still try and get around that though.. its kinda sad. "
Normally I'd agree with you except for the RIAA's legal tactics. If I share anything, it's going to be Chumba Wumba's 'Pass it Along' song. Listen to it, you'll see what I mean.
Re:People dont share much anymore (Score:5, Interesting)
Most major universities (mine is in that crowd) turn a blind eye to P2P traffic... until they get a C&D complaint. The policy here: the networking people immediately cut off the connection. They will not turn it back on until a student says the offending file has been removed (honor code is involved - very serious honor code). And, if it really was the student's fault - that is, the student can't prove the letter was a mistake - it's a $80 reconnect fee.
The university I'm at has ~15,000 students. They get several C&D letters a week - many are repeat offenders. Just about everyone I know (or rather, who understands how) cuts off their upload and leeches in order to avoid C&D-type problems.
Get a single C&D letter, be out $80... whoops, there went the month's beer money. College students ain't stupid, not when it comes to getting that beer...
Re:People dont share much anymore (Score:5, Insightful)
it's more than that: people, once they understand the whole client/server model, get really slaved to that idea. they use their p2p app as a client used to retreive stuff from servers.
this is why there hasn't been much outrage over the whole ftp/web sharing prosecution. joe average looks at the servers as being different, more dedicated. the servers as the "pushers and pimps" the clients are just "casual users and johns".
at least that's how they see it.
Maybe. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Maybe. (Score:2)
Now, it's the "The Industry launched a multi-zillion suit against a baby" headline... when really it's all the same thing.
Homebound HTTP (Score:2)
Lots of people use my app Andromeda [turnstyle.com] on home-bound servers so that they can play their collection from work. Also handy is dynamic-IP to pseudo domamin service like DynDNS [dyndns.org].
But generally because of bandwidth considerations, most want to keep their sites private anyway.
Re:Homebound HTTP (Score:2)
OTOH, it's great for hosting a Mindterm [mindbright.se] java SSH client for me to connect in from the crippled-to-web-only check-your-mail computers at work to get my email and chat online with my friends via Tinyfugue.
Re:Homebound HTTP (Score:2)
A lot of people seem to like Speakeasy [speakeasy.net] (they're geek friendly) and it looks like their low-end residential DSL service starts with 256k upstream for about $50/mo. (not bad!)
Are you kidding? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Are you kidding? (Score:5, Interesting)
from robots.txt [robotstxt.org]:
User-agent: NPBot
Disallow: /
Re:Are you kidding? (Score:2)
I'm not sure this is a great defence if you're publically sharing mp3's.
Re:Are you kidding? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Are you kidding? (Score:2)
After Bittorrent (do some googling) came a lot of webpages with direct links have popped up faster than RIAA manages to squash them.
suprnova.org is the biggest of them IIRC. Strange that RIAA haven't taken them down. Probably because they are hosted on xx number of computers.
Disclaimer: This post is provided as "as is". I don't have any connection to the above mentioned site.
hmmm (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:hmmm (Score:2)
Re:hmmm (Score:2)
Re:hmmm (Score:2)
Old Fight (Score:5, Insightful)
We need to use P2P (Score:5, Interesting)
We need to use P2P as the official file distribution system for Linux. I think we should replace the whole ftp web based style with a clicknrun gui style P2P system for file distribution.
Re:We need to use P2P (Score:2)
Re:We need to use P2P (Score:3, Informative)
But like another poster said, P2P isn't great for low-demand things like most software. Right after release, it works well (and we've already got that covered with Bittorrent), but I can't see it being useful after that first window.
Re:We need to use P2P (Score:3, Informative)
Um (Score:2, Interesting)
Simple. It's easier. (Score:5, Insightful)
As far as the person getting them. some may not even know how to get it to "stop playing in the browser" and actually save it to the desktop using right click (option+click if 1 button)
Not to mention the fact that when you type in "Britney Spears MP3's" in google you get anything BUT Britney MP3's... let's be reasonable here.
Even the most basic user can figure out how to install a program (in windows everything is "I agree" - "Next" - "Finish" - "Done") and type in a song name and grab it or share it.
Re:Simple. It's easier. (Score:3, Insightful)
2nd: I really really really don't understand why people don't use USENET (newsgroups) more often. I mean it is simple, clean, quite a good deal more anonymous that anything else (if you are using private accounts). It is fast and loaded with good stuff. I use it ALL THE TIME and couldn't be
Re:Simple. It's easier. (Score:4, Insightful)
Well.. a) actually it is. but because of b) you pretty much have to pay for it to actually get anything more complex downloaded. At the current volume it is pretty much impossible for anyone to capture the whole feed without substantial investments and that costs money. There are lots of free servers and even as close as 5-6 years ago most of them were carrying the binary groups too but it just doesn't make sense anymore.
Re:Simple. It's easier. (Score:2)
One click url, no problems no worries!
If you are using internet explorer, it offers full ftp one feature that seems to be absent in mozilla. It's not very pretty, but so long as the user can copy and paste files between folders under windows would have NO difficulity.
Re:Simple. It's easier. (Score:2)
True. The other day I was moving files around between my Mac and Windows machines, and it was only after about ten minutes of dragging and dropping in Explorer that I realised I was using an FTP connection to the Mac rather than a network share (SAMBA). I don't find many reaso
Re:Simple. It's easier. (Score:3, Informative)
Additionaly, this fuctionality is built into microsoft office 2k [can't remember if it was in office 97]. You can easily save file to ftp://blablabla.com. This feature when I started using it didn't seem to be in another other "save as" dialog box.
Peop
Re:Simple. It's easier. (Score:2)
Yes of course, I should have thought of that :-) As these machines are only on my local network, I wasn't really thinking much of security when I first made the connection.
Re:Simple. It's easier. (Score:2)
Re:Simple. It's easier. (Score:5, Funny)
Windows: "We have the right to stick it to you anytime we feel like it. You will, in fact, take this lying down."
User: "I agree"
Windows: "By continuing this install routine, you agree to forefit all rights to your computer, worldly assets, and your wife."
User: "Next"
Windows: "Remember, Thou Shalt Not Worship Any OS But I. Are you still trying to fight this, or are you finished?"
User: "Finish"
Windows: "Thank you for installing. Your computer now has 5 new pieces of spyware. Your privacy is....
User: "Done".
Re:Simple. It's easier. (Score:3, Interesting)
But more important, I've got 10M of disk quota from my ISP for a website. I've got an old computer with a 20G hard drive running a P2P program. Which one you think is going to work better for sharing files? I suppose I could set up my own web server, b
Re:Simple. It's easier. (Score:3, Insightful)
Its easier (Score:4, Insightful)
Also Webpage sharing is also harder to do say anonymously or at least with that feeling. Given you need a credit card and least some sort of contact info it appears to many that Kazaa is safer.
and The final reason is
OT- Does anyone know of a good Open Source Windows 32 Platform Firwall?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Err... (Score:2)
I agree with some of your points, but not these two. If you have broadband and know what you're doing, why not install apache, open up port 80, and start sharing? The only problem is your dynamic IP address, but that's nota bug, that's a feature, because it will change before the authorities will figure it out. You and all your sharing buddies can agree to post your new IP addresses at a designated place on Geocities or something.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Err... (Score:2)
No, that's why I prefaced my comment with "if you know what you are doing". Let the masses have their Kazaa.
Re:Err... (Score:2)
Let the masses have their Kazaa.
Amen.
The only reason I don't want the RIAA shutting down P2P is because then the masses will discover the real methods.
Re:Err... (Score:2)
Because most broadband providers in the US (Time Warner, for example) specifically prohibt residental-class customers from running web servers, and get royally pissed if you start sucking down huge amounts of bandwidth.
The only problem is your dynamic IP address, but that's nota bug, that's a feature, because it will change before the authoriti
Re:Err... (Score:2)
I agree, but if the law is looking at Kazaa, and not at httpd, why not go with httpd? Security through obscurity is not always a bad idea.
Presumably, if you were doing this, you would have a niche ISP that allowed you to use port 80. And Kazaa won't save you from huge bandwidth usage or th
Re:Err... (Score:2)
Often, though, the choice is between the mega-big national ISP or the no-name niche ISP with horrible service.
Re:Err... (Score:2)
Actually, I've run ssh on a RoadRunner connection for years. If knowing what you're doing is a requirement then that is even better. The only people using it are a very small circle of technically inclined friends.
Re:Err... (Score:2, Interesting)
Because most broadband providers in the US (Time Warner, for example) specifically prohibt residental-class customers from running web servers, and get royally pissed if you start sucking down huge amounts of bandwidth.
I've wondered about this though... I mean, yeah, you're not supposed to run a web server, but if you've got a p2p program running 24/7 with all your slots full all the time, what's the difference? It's almost certainly more bandwith than running your own little web page that will never g
Re:Err... (Score:2)
Yeah, that is a bit odd, now that I think about it a bit more. I'm on Time Warner Roadrunner myself, and about a week ago I downloaded around 2-3 gigs
Re:Err... (Score:3, Insightful)
So there is basically a progression from instant messaging to P2P. In instant messaging, you basically "know" everyone you're connected to. In P2P, you don't really know anyone you're connected to. But in both you c
No-one really defends the sharers (Score:4, Interesting)
If all the leeches were using websites to grab their music then there would be an outcry, but they don't - they use P2P so that is where the focus is.
Re:No-one really defends the sharers (Score:2)
First I'll comment on this: Before there was P2P, though, there was filesharing via webservers.
The difference between someone sharing via their website and sharing via p2p is, for one no one had the balls to throw on 1000's of mp3's and software (for those who do so illegally). Not only that but back then, it was the norm to be on something like a dialup unless you were lucky... Remember p2p as most know it began (not to say it did but became popular) with Napster... On a dialup no one would really want t
http (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course running your own server has its advantages. However, most of the folks with their own servers are not the people that use the PTP services. The folks relying on PTP are often fairly unsophisticated computer users who are looking for the latest song for free and are unknowingly relying on a infrastructure to find their songs. They don't know how it works, they just click and the song comes through for free. Hosting your own server requires a little more work which the vast majority of people are not capable of performing. (Although Apple is lowering the requirements for hosting your own Apache server significantly. One click and you are live.)
Shades of grey... (Score:2, Interesting)
With a p2p network its much more shades of gray. Some people offer the latest Britney, some offer all stuff from IUMA, but most are in between.
Two reasons (Score:4, Insightful)
1. Easier to find files- download one app and do a search as opposed to having to hunt down different webpages for different files and all of the hassles included with that approach (dead links, 401s, etc).
2. More files available on filesharing (generally speaking).
Riaa doesn;t need to shut down webservers... (Score:5, Interesting)
On a side not, I still get occasional mails from people that find a google listing and ask for access to a certain song. I can deal with that.
Re:Riaa doesn;t need to shut down webservers... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Riaa doesn;t need to shut down webservers... (Score:2)
Strange what a little experience can teach us!
Re:Riaa doesn;t need to shut down webservers... (Score:2)
Re:Riaa doesn;t need to shut down webservers... (Score:2)
Uh, yeah. (Score:2)
hmmm... I wonder... (Score:2, Funny)
I think I got it!
I think it might have something to do with p2p being about 500 times more widespread as a way for mainstream folks to download music.
I'm a genius I know.
I don't think many non-geeks use anything but kaaza and the like.
The personal touch (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:The personal touch (Score:2, Funny)
more users (Score:2, Interesting)
Not practical unless you run the webserver (Score:2, Insightful)
With a P2P application you make your entire library of files available to the network with practially no setup.
This makes HTTP sharing pretty useless to anyone who can't/won't run their own webserver (which, I imagine, covers a large proportion of current P2P users).
Hitting the target (Score:2, Insightful)
Not the same attck at all. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm kind of amazed that the article's author missed this if he did any background research at all.
Re:Not the same attck at all. (Score:3, Informative)
You may not remember that FTP, Usenet and IRC were rife with all kinds of pirate material up before Napster came along. Most were only a Webcrawler [webcrawler.com] search away (and it looks like they still are [webcrawler.com]). Warezing music helped lead to the popularity of MP3 in my opinion and experience. Napster was merely a new architecture and interface.
And dude, don't insult just because you disagree. It just mak
Re:Not the same attck at all. (Score:2)
To be honest, I have no idea how the RIAA will react to this. I wonder if this will be their IBM-SCO-like 800lb gorilla. I wonder what MS will eventually charge for membership on the service eventually and how muc
Cat and mouse (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Cat and mouse (Score:2)
Re:Cat and mouse (Score:2)
Watch out for legislation (Score:3, Insightful)
After all, there's really very little functional difference between P2P and HTTP - it's a negotiation between two machines to provide data to each other. P2P is really just a client/server pair per machine.
My Mac is running both Apache and Safari - what would distinguish it functionally from a P2P client?
Re:Watch out for legislation (Score:2)
But the term "P2P" has evolved to include identity-hiding features because afterall Napster got killed becuase it ran a central server, and if a "P2P" client did identify its users in any easily tracable way there'd be a mass-mailing of subpeonas. That is what seperates HTTP from "P2P" right now in most people's minds, and why it's so easy to run a P2P share than compared to a web
P2P & HTTP Replaced By B2P? (Score:4, Interesting)
Now they are taking the overused advice of "adopt a new business model", which seems to be services such as Apple's iTunes Music Store [apple.com] (Soon for Windows) [macrumors.com], BuyMusic.com [buymusic.com], Rhapsody [listen.com], and soon Roxio Napster 2.0 [napster.com].
The new RIAA attack plan is to offer B2P services. The problem? DRM. If I buy a CD from iTMS, for example, it may be $9.99. I would buy the same CD in store for $14.99. No, I'm NOT paying five bucks for the album art, professionally burned CD, etc. I'm paying for the right to do with it what I want. There's something about having "SOMETHING" in your hands. They can't take that away from you, like they can with digital music.
P2P for me is a way of sampling music before buying the CD. This will never be replaced by a $0.99 deal, since I like to download it, and listen to the song throughout the day. At work I listen to different music than at home. At night, different music from the day. Walking music is different from sittin' or driving music. Rhapsody fails here, so does iTMS... you can only sample certain portions, while in front of your computer. It's not the same.
Why P2P is better than HTTP? It's easier. More people use it, than HTTP was used for MP3 trading. Does it matter? No, B2P will overtake them both. There IS a large number of people who ONLY want digital music, that's why they turn to P2P. These people will turn to B2P once it becomes "mainstream."
For the most part the RIAA doesn't have to do legal battles any more (though it is a nice source of income), they can attack it by offering new online services, just as EVERYONE has been saying for years. Me, I'll stick to brick and mortar, and P2P though.
Re:P2P & HTTP Replaced By B2P? (Score:2)
I get this error:
Thank you for visiting BuyMusic.com.
In order to take full advantage of BuyMusic.com's offerings you must be on a Windows Operating System using Internet Explorer version 5.0 or higher.
I'm on a windows operation system (as it is late at night and I font fire up my PowerBook G4) and I'm using Opera 6.1 which is a complete replacement for IE 5.0
Funny, that side would refuse to be rendered in Safari and in IE 6.0 on my Mac as well
Where are those websites with illegal MP3? (Score:2, Insightful)
Where are those websites? I find a lot of site with MIDI clip. But I hardly come across any with illegal MP3 download. If they exist they must be in such small number or is really obscure. Seems like the author is commenting on something of false premises.
Lawmeme article is just plain wrong. (Score:2)
How many friends do you have? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How many friends do you have? (Score:2)
That person better watch out as the stranger might give him/her a punch in the junk instead for listening to such unadulterated shite.
Obscure works (Score:5, Informative)
The media seems to be focusing on, and the RIAA seems to be only going after those who share the mass-market crap like Britney, Eminem, etc. I for one, am more interested in Asian pop, anime, classical recordings, game soundtracks, indie stuff, (indie) Christian music, etc. that are simply unavailable for sale in the US, whether you want to pay for it or not.
The Internet provides a unique medium to distribute works such as the aforementioned categories, whose owners can't/don't want to bother marketing in the US because the demand is so small in absolute numbers. In the absence of official marketing, it allows a building of a fan following for non mass-market type works, possibly paving the way in several years for more organized marketing efforts. Witness the growth of anime from underground fansubs to small marketers in the US, to recent feature theatrical releases (eg, Spirited Away). Without the initial underground sharing, you wouldn't have the word-of-mouth hype.
It's International Talk Like a Pirate Day (Score:5, Interesting)
We download, we vet the downloads. We upload songs to private FTP servers with the bandwidth we're not using when we're at work.
We have a trust based, friend based, non peer to peer, but distributed, quality controlled file sharing experience.
It's great. It doesn't get flooded with crap, it doesn't get flooded with music we don't like. Anyone with an account on the machines is known to everyone else.
Gosh it sounds just like some warez servers back when I used to have an interest in warez, or hacker BBS's when I had an interest in that.
The web? That's all a bit new fangled for us..
short answers: (Score:3, Insightful)
2) filesharing via webservers is slower (limited bandwidth).
3) filesharing via webservers is easy to spot. Either they make the site public and you can find it easy or they don't tell anybody and it doesn't really matter (if nobody knows where to download the files who cares?).
4) setting up a webserver takes some effort
P2P allows any idiot to share anything on their hard-drive. They can look at all the files all the other idiots are sharing. Bandwidth can be shared. Once a file is shared it is almost imposible to stop (you can bust 100 idiots but 100,000 more are still sharing the file).
Difference? (Score:2)
Positive feedback cycle in file sharing (Score:2, Insightful)
Whichever medium for file sharing (p2p, ftp, http, etc) has the most people sharing on it, will draw the most attention and user base. Likewise, the more attention a medium gets, the more people will use that medium. Snowball effect. If somehow p2p specific programs were outlawed and everyone started using http again, we would see that
I don't remember using HTTP to download MP3'S (Score:3, Informative)
Remember the MP3 search engines? Before Napster, college students and dotcommers were filesharing by putting MP3s on their webpages for download through good ol' http.
I remember back in the day, late '98 and early '99, when I was a college freshman, before Napster and it's P2P bretheren were invented. I didn't get my pirated music from HTTP websites. I got it from 2 sources. The first was a site called Scour.net, which searched in an HTTP page, but downloaded from FTP sites and Windows shares, mostly windows shares. It had a little application, the Scour dowloader or something, that helped you download stuff linked from the page. The other way I obtained illegal music was FTP sites. In fact, I ran one off of my college dorm connection, and the funny thing is back then nobody at the school really cared.
Reasons I don't think http will be big (Score:2, Insightful)
- PR... Which ISP wish to get known for hosting users' mp3 files?
You'd probably need to get your own web server. But the bandwidth problem would remain even then. Decentralized networks are much easier to spread files on since there aren't thousands of users trying to access your web site.
Web servers seems much less efficient to me and more like a last desperate way to distribute copyright infringing mp3
At least in my crowd p2p is more popular because: (Score:2)
Oh yeah, the beer is also better.
While the throughput is a bit slow at any given moment if your peers are more likely to have Tom Waits, Miles Davis and The Strawbs than Ms. Spears the signal to noise ratio is fantastic and you can get anything you want. . . at Alice's Restaraunt (excepting Alice). You can get anything you want. .
Oh, sorry. Flashback to yesterday's post. It's
Web pages are not legally equivalent to P2P (Score:2)
Since when is P2P the target (Score:2)
P2P was never a target of the RIAA. It was the distribution of copyrighted material.
IIRC they sued several large ISP's a few years back over music being shared on websites. IIRC the MPAA also did the same.
These are easier cases, since you signup for hosting with a credit card. It's one person, and one ISP to deal with... it's pretty much an open shut case.
P2P has the twist of offshore servers, IP masking through proxy servers (and some speculate viruses will be used to proxy
To Defeat the Undefeatable Foe (Score:3, Insightful)
As for the speculation about why the sturm and drang over p2p and not so much noise about http, I would note that, as LawMeme states, http sites are easier to take down. And so, let me propose that the point is to go after the unsolvable problem, p2p. After all, they can claim "we killed Napster, we subponeaed isp's, we even sued the 12 year olds and millions are still 'stealing' from us -- we cannot kill the beast. So, Congress, let's just tax hard drives, blank cd's, isp accounts, etc., and let the government, as proxy for the thieves, reimburse us for our losses." Because revenues from taxes are really pure profit. And would they split the reimbursements with their artists? Well, of course, I can't imagine why I would even ask the question!
Please note, the above analysis in no way endorses the RIAA viewpoint that the primary cause of their troubles is from filesharing. In fact, didn't we see that filesharing has decreased and, looking at their album sales, they are still selling fewer units.
Why we see http sharing as wrong, but p2p as okay (Score:3, Insightful)
There is a difference between sharing a song and downloading a song. People want to download songs. We directly benefit from being able to listen to a song. It's a selfish desire, although we can justify it in many ways (convience, cost, evilness of RIAA).
I don't think that ANYONE wants to share songs. We don't get any benefit from giving our songs to strangers, and we put ourselves at risk for lawsuits. On top of this is the effort that it takes to host a website and the cost. The only upside I can see is the possible ego boost or the chance that other people will allow you to download their songs.
So most of us feel no incentive to host mp3s on a website, and when people are prosecuted for it we feel no sympathy, after all we wouldn't have done it.
But p2p wouldn't work without people sharing songs, and so sharing your music directory is turned on by default in most p2p clients. How many Kazaa users do you think change the defaults? I'd be willing to bet that a good portion of people don't know that they are sharing their own songs, and wouldn't know how to prevent it. Other people who do know feel guilty if they download songs without sharing their own. Back in the Napster days I remember people would cut off a connection if you weren't sharing any songs.
When a p2p sharer is sued, we can sympathize, and we're afraid that it could be us next. But it's our desire to download and not our desire to share that causes our sympathy. P2P seems okay because we only see our end - we get to listen to a song that we wouldn't have bought anyway - no one gets hurt. We don't even think about the other half - that we are distributing all the songs that we paid good money for to any shmo with an internet connection.
The best way to share is netnews (Score:3, Interesting)
By comparison, the P2P "sharing" networks are horrendously inefficient. It's embarassing how crappy the technology is.
I've been thinking about a whole new approach, where what's passed around are random bitstreams. You have to get several bitstreams from different sources and XOR them together to get content. Different combinations of different bitstreams produce different content. No single bitstream contains copyrighted content, and every bitstream can be XORed with something which will provide legitimate content. The bitstreams are passed around via netnews. But I'm not going to implement this; it's not something I'm really interested in.
It already happened... (Score:5, Informative)
The article on Lawmeme conveniently forgets the fact that the last [slashdot.org] round [slashdot.org] of lawsuits [slashdot.org] effectively [taipeitimes.com] stopped [taipeitimes.com] web based file trading.
While this is only a number of articles on a couple of incidents, there is no question that web based file trading was effectively crushed by record industry litigation just a few years ago. With P2P, people thought they were anonymous.
However, the RIAA has consistently misrepresented the "safe harbour" clause. The intent of the "safe harbour" clause was to prevent ISPs from hosting copyrighted material on the ISPs' own servers. The identity part also had to with information hosted on the ISPs' own servers, but it appears that most judges are buying the RIAA's BS.
Welcome back to the Dark Ages.
Re:Text of Article in case it gets overloaded :P (Score:2)
Great post...
There *are* many advantages to using HTTP/webserver model for filesharing (and not just for *copyrighted* filesharing, BTW -- filesharing isn't just for piracy!).
But systems such as YouServ [ibm.com] are blurring the line by merging the best of P2P and webserving models.
RE: the REAL question? (Score:3, Informative)
Still, there will *always* be a steady flow of music swapping/copying - because most people realize that intangible items being copied never really equate with stealing tangibles.
Bottom l
Re:Is this news?? And if you must do opinion, then (Score:4, Informative)