[ NNSquad ] Re: Net Neutrality vs. Illegal Acts

[Edward Almasy <ealmasy@scout.wisc.edu>]

On Mar 22, 2008, at 11:49 AM, Brett Glass wrote:
> At 09:30 PM 3/21/2008, Bob Frankston wrote:
> > C'mon -- what does P2P's legality matter then? Why do you mention  
> > it at all?
>
> Because it emphasizes the fact that P2P IS NOT NECESSARY. It's not  
> necessary
> for free speech. It's not necessary to give users access to ANY  
> service or
> content. It is only SOMEWHAT useful to thieves who want to cover  
> their tracks
> (and if they knew better, they'd know that they can still be found).  
> In short,
> it is not necessary for ANY legal purpose; blocking it or  
> prohibiting it would
> only thwart illegal activities. And for that reason, it is not only  
> perfectly
> reasonable but a good idea to block and prohibit it.

This is just plain not true.  P2P is necessary for distributing open  
source software of any significant size (e.g. Linux distributions),  
and will become increasingly necessary as more "end users" create  
their own video and audio and the tools available for generating high- 
quality media content come down in cost.  P2P is necessary in any  
situation where it's economically unfeasible for the people producing  
and distributing the content to pay for a single (non-P2P)  
distribution point.

I know, Brett, that your response has been something along the lines  
of that all P2P is doing in this case is transferring the cost of  
distribution from the software or media creators to the ISP, but as  
others have pointed out in turn, that's only true if the ISP decides  
to make it so by undercharging their customers.  If the ISP is  
accurately charging customers, then the cost is actually born by those  
same customers, which is as it should be since they're the ones who  
decide to take part in P2P, to obtain the software or content and/or  
support others in obtaining that material.

P2P is necessary because it's an integral part of the new economic and  
cultural world brought to us by the Internet, removing the middlemen  
and empowering consumers to also become producers on a level never  
previously imagined, and, correspondingly, allowing everyone else to  
benefit from the fruits of their labor.  If you take P2P out of the  
equation, you're stuck with the old broadcast model, which is great  
for those controlling and profiting from the broadcast points, but  
decidedly less desirable for the rest of us, who now know that  
something better is possible.

This is of course all complicated by the effects of bandwidth pricing  
models and issues with individual P2P implementations, and may be  
obfuscated by throwing in various other (effectively broadcast)  
methods of covering costs, but none of that changes the significance  
of dispersing and decentralizing distribution.  The cost of bandwidth  
is (or at least should be, if it weren't for anti-competitive  
arrangements) continuously dropping, and P2P implementations will  
steadily improve both in efficiency and behavior (assuming the costs  
are born by the aforementioned producers and consumers, who make the  
decisions on what P2P mechanisms to use).  P2P has changed the game  
for many legitimate applications, and is here to stay.

Ed