BitTorrent + INDUCE Act + Linspire 5.0

[Frank Wiles]

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 11:29:58 -0500
Jonathan Hutchins <hutchins at tarcanfel.org> wrote:

> On Monday 11 October 2004 11:17 am, Frank Wiles wrote:
> 
> > > > > That would include P2P software like ftp, scp, cp, dd, tar,
> > > > > copy, etc.?
> 
> >   I don't doubt they all fall under the INDUCE act, but that wasn't
> >   what I was saying.  P2P means 'peer to peer'.  ftp and scp are S2P
> >   and all of the others are just plain local.
> 
> What's your definition of "local"?  I rarely use ftp within my home
> network, usually it's to get something from a remote, public server. 
> I use scp a lot to transfer files between sites.  I use cp to transfer
> files between servers over mapped network drives.
> 
> The only difference between these programs and bittorrent is that
> bittorrent uses multiple sources to copy files to multiple locations. 
> 
> You can not make a moral judgement on a method of transferring files. 
> It just doesn't make sense.

  I'm not sure why you think I'm talking about the morality of
  transferring files.  I'm not. 

  What I'm saying is that while Bittorrent is by definition P2P, the
  others you listed are not.  Yes, they are used to transfer files.
  Yes, they can be used to transfer files without DRM. However, FTP and
  SCP are server to client not peer to peer.

  My definition of local is "not leaving the same server". I forgot
  about the possibility of using cp, tar, etc on a mapped drive, NFS, 
  etc.  But this still does not make them P2P, it makes them a method
  of transferring files over a networked drive. 

  All I ask is that you use the terminology correctly.  Much like we
  don't call trucks, buses, and subways "cars" despite the fact they are
  all methods of transportation.  
 
 ---------------------------------
   Frank Wiles <frank at wiles.org>
   http://www.wiles.org
 ---------------------------------