| |||||||||||
Senate bill bans P2P networks (News.com)Senate bill bans P2P networks (News.com)Posted Jun 24, 2004 21:50 UTC (Thu) by ccchips (guest, #3222)In reply to: Senate bill bans P2P networks (News.com) by blayne Parent article: Senate bill bans P2P networks (News.com) I also want to point this out, in case it's not clear: I don't agree with this bill, and I plan to fight it. Nonetheless, I see how it came about, and I'm not impressed---not in the least. This is the same abuse of technology (and the rights of others,) as spam. I don't much like the limitations that spam and spyware laws may impose, but until people learn to behave themselves (and it's all our responsibilities to try to get them to,) these kinds of political abuses are going to become more and more common.
(Log in to post comments)
Senate bill bans P2P networks (News.com) Posted Jun 25, 2004 17:43 UTC (Fri) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link] Yes, fine. But do you agree this is like making email clients illegalbecause some people use them to send spam?
Senate bill bans P2P networks (News.com) Posted Jun 25, 2004 19:06 UTC (Fri) by ccchips (guest, #3222) [Link] Under no circumstances do I view tools as people. The tools do not perform the acts in question here, people do.I can use a crowbar to break into a house, but that's absolutely no reason to outlaw crobars. But what if I were a very unscrupulous real-estate company, and wanted to break up a neighborhood. So, I arrange to make sure lots of criminals have crowbars, lock-picks, and all other manner of breaking-and-entering aids (which, themselves, should be legal of course,) to help make the neighborhood less appealing? Wouldn't you think that if the rest of the community found out about it, the guy might be put out of business?
|
|||||||||||