|
|
Posted by name on 12/30/05 17:46
Dave D wrote:
> "Sarge" <not@home.com> wrote in message
> news:6JZsf.6739$oW.486@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
> > "Dave D" <dave_d@dave_d.com> wrote in
> > news:doGdnScszpFHyizenZ2dnUVZ8t2dnZ2d@pipex.net:
> >
> >>
> >> A levy on P2P use is the only fair solution AFAICS. An internet tax is
> >> too general.
> >>
> >
> > Dave,
> >
> > You have all valid, intelligent points backup up with great examples and
> > analogies. I agree that a P2P tax is a fair solution. But how is it
> > possible for an ISP to prevent the non-P2P accounts from file sharing?
> >
> > You said something about blocking/allowing certain ports, etc. Can't P2P
> > applications and file sharing communities use whatever port(s) they want?
> >
>
> Good point.
>
> There's currently no perfect way for an ISP to easily assess whether a
> subscriber is using P2P or not. However, there are ways to do it, and ISPs
> have managed in the past. They look for activity outside the usual ports, ie
> port 80, news and mail ports etc, and monitor upload patterns. Heavy or
> persistant uploading can be investigated, and action taken if necessary.
You talk about p2p sharing as if p2p sharing amounts to copyright
infringement. It does not. Just because many people use p2p programs to
infringe copyrights, that doesn't mean that anyone using p2p programs
is necessarily infringing copyrights.
An ISP should be concerned with copyright infringement and not p2p
sharing.
>
> All that is needed is legislation to be put in place to enforce stiff
> penalties for 'dishonest' users who try and get away with P2P use on the
> cheaper tariff, and intelligent monitoring of usage patterns. I think the
> vast majority of P2P'ers will opt to do it legally *provided* the higher
> tariff is fair and not extortionate. There will be a few 'hardcore' types
> who try their luck and fiddle the system, but they should be easy to spot.
>
> It might sound an impossible task to spot P2P users, but ask any ISP network
> techie and they'll tell you P2P usage patterns stand out from 'normal' web
> use. Intelligent, automated systems could make it easier- they could flag
> heavy/distinct usage patterns for further human investigation.
>
> Dave
P2p sharing is not the issue. Copyright infringement is. Copyright
infringement is not
limited to p2p sharing and p2p sharing does not amount to copyright
infringement.
There should be a levy imposed on copyright infringement and not on p2p
sharing,
blank media or internet use in general.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|