Mgm Vs. Grokster (legal Uses)

[TheBlackMan]

Okay, I'm sure all of you have heard of the case of MGM vs. Grokster in the U.S. Supreme Court at the moment. MGM representatives have said, "Copyright infringement is the only commercially significant use of file sharing." I for one don't agree with this statement at all. There are so many legal uses for P2P! So, I just wanted to see how many legal uses we could come up with for the use of P2P in a commercial environment.

[D22]

p2p applications are great for picking up live linux distro's, quite a few of the older dos based games that were released to abandonia are completly free and no EULA anymore so those can be picked up on p2p, also who said non illicit pictures infringe on copyrights? (dunno if i'm catchin the right drift from your post ) there are still plenty of people on dialup that can not stay connected long enough to pull a 600Mb linux distro off the net without losing it half or a quarter way through, in fact when i was still on dialup i used a p2p program to get my knoppix cd since i couldnt stay connected longer then 1 hour at a time before i dropped, and for office use p2p programs work great to save bandwidth and distribute tommorows speech to everyone (that one would only apply on a ISP that charged insane rates for going over bandwidth limits) dunno if my post contains what your looking for though.

~D~

[TheBlackMan]

Good post! I thought this topic was just going to die, but you've brought it back to life. I can also see recording companies use p2p to distribute songs from bands. Most bands post a song or two on their website for free download, but if you want to reach a mass audience use p2p and have the bands song come up in a similiar artists search. Also, when a mail server is down I tend to use p2p to allow people to get an attachment I am sending, whether it be a text file, non-illicit pictures , or song that I have written. That's more of on a personal use, but oh well it's a use for p2p.

[SiMoNsAyS]

i can't understand the illegal p2p argue

specially b/c what it is shared by p2p can be shared using ftps or https, p2p makes only 1 difference: multiple points make the download faster

[D22]

i can't understand the illegal p2p argue

specially b/c what it is shared by p2p can be shared using ftps or https, p2p makes only 1 difference: multiple points make the download faster

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

True, but the arguement about p2p programs is it takes the MPAA or w/e the people that rally against the usage a little longer to find the source and it costs them more money since there are multiple sources with p2p if they nip the source at the bud with less of they're (tax payer's) money spent they are happy, a http or ftp is run by a single server usually and much easier to track where the upload came from in the begining, and also by slowing the connection you'll recieve to the server it gives your ISP time needed to track such activities and keep logs of your ip and the sources' ip to report to proper authorities if needed, certain ISP's are even being pushed into sending e-mails they're users warning them if they notice suspiscious activities and or downloads, and HTTPS secure servers would be even better because users are usually required to log on which requires the server to place a cookie in the purpotrator's (<---spelling??) machine which further allows preventive action to be taken if the evidence is brought to court. basically they want to shut all p2p programs down to save(themselves) money in the long run for many reasons, i think they figure that if it is legal then it shouldnt be distributed with p2p programs, but my first post in this thread states that there are a few good reasons to keep p2p programs,.. lol i know i've probably made myself sound like a hyprocrite but that isnt true i myself still use p2p programs but i only pull stuff with them that i can get legally off the net with no strings .

now this is my own assumption here but i have to slightly lean towards it,.. 38% of the people that used p2p programs when they first came out and at least 50% of people that used kazaa or morpheus did not use them for legal material that didnt have a EULA i mean back in '99 before i learned about all this and found out how damaging it is to the music/movie and application econmy to download something you didnt purchase i broadend my horizons with music and lots of it but also if you think about it isnt that same econmy damaged by the very internet radio some of us listen to with winamp or what not? and the fact that there are certain busineses that rent out games,..what person is going to buy a game they rented enough times to beat and then found out they didnt like the ending or whatever even though depending on the cost of renting and the ammount of times rented it might be cheaper to buy it but i mean if you heard (for example) Complicated by Avril Lavigne (dont bash me, its the first thing i could think of) over and over on the radio, be it internet or not and you got sick of the song,...would you go out and buy the cd? i think not. or played too much of GTAIII i for one heard too much of 50Cent's song Candy Shop on my local radio station here that i don't even want to bother buying the cd just cause i liked the song at the time, and i played GTA III so much that it has lost it's interest and am wishing i had just rented it enough times to beat it instead of purchasing it.. hmm i've apparently rambled on too long so i'll cut this short, no matter what the MPAA/RIAA and software company's do the econmy is already damaged by many other factors. Whew! long post

~D~