What about using anonymous P2P?

[miscs]

Originally Posted by ipernorris

Following your example, even if you use the car to travel to work, the car has some safety devices such as air bags, abs and such... so you look for ways to reduce the risks caused by an action which don't consist in not doing that action. The same stands for p2p: if you can reduce (eliminate would be a more proper word) the risks why not using it? I mean anonymous p2p clients don't take particular efforts on the users' part, other than learning some very basic notions which takes ten minutes at most.
The speed is the only relevant problem, but the anonymous p2p of today are much better than the programs of the past. In I2P, for example, I can reach 20 KBps with the bittorrent, and that's something very noticeable in such a nanoscopic network. If the peers would be, let's say, 300 thousands insteand of 1500, things would be totally different, most users wouldn't even notice the difference with the normal Internet and it would be even more anonymous. The more the better!

You bring up an interesting point, but its application can fit both arguments. Lets stick to the car scenario. Large SUV vehicles have statistically been proven to be safer than smaller intermediate vehicles. Lets pretend the cost in acquiring ether of such vehicles is negligible. Both vehicles would perform the same function; the function being commuting to and from work. Both vehicles come with the same basic safety features, Abs, air bags etc. The drive to work isn't particularity risky and the area doesn't suffer from serious adverse weather conditions. The SUV would further reduce, the already low, risk of injury caused by an accident. However the SUV has slow acceleration, a low top speed and guzzles gas. The intermediate vehicles is not as safe as the SUV, but it has a quicker acceleration, a higher top speed and is cheaper to run. Both vehicles have the same purpose, but one is better. The intermediate vehicle presents a greater risk, but for far greater rewards. These rewards greatly outweigh the risks.

Now, lets translate the metaphor.

1. The cost is negligible in the acquisition of the vehicle, as it is in the acquisition of both anonymous and normal P2P programs. There is no cost, therefore it is negligible.

2. The basic safety features of the cars are the equivalent to the basic features of the P2P software. The ability to reduce upload/download speed, assign a port for connections and the capability for connection control. These features are essentials, not additions.

3. The drive to work is a metaphor meaning both programs (vehicles) will be used in the same way. Both programs will serve the same purpose. Weather conditions were simply included for arguments sake.

4. An anonymous P2P program (SUV) minimises a risk which in reality is already very small. The extra protection it provides is far outweighed by the disadvantages it brings with it. But we will discuss them later.

5. A standard P2P program (intermediate car) doesn't provide the additional safety of the SUV, but comes with it own set of advantages. These will also be discussed later.

.....Later has arrived

You argue that speed is the only problem, but I beg to differ. The slower speed causes a domino effect, which creates further problems. The slow speed increases the time required to complete a download. Time is a precious resource, not one which should be wasted unnecessarily. As humans are only mortal we are limited in the amount of time we have to spare. The increased time requirement also means that your computer must remain switched on longer. Electricity costs money, so the longer your computer is on, the more expensive the download becomes. The increased electricity bill will leave you with less disposable income, which will have a detrimental effect on your hobbies. Less money for anime, manga, or figures

Another potential problem I can see, based of the estimated data you provided, is the limited number of files you can share. The network is so small I doubt I would have access to the files I actually want to download. This proves very problematic to anyone who is interested in switching to such a network.

I agree, being anonymous is a good thing, but its currently not worth making the jump. The risk involved in using normal P2P are minuscule, the networks and number of files shared are larger and the download speeds are significantly higher.

Originally Posted by ipernorris

Well these new companies could be born only if the legal framework would allow them to do so: with the HADOPI law, for example, it would be impossible for ANY company to be p2p friendly. Otherwise it would be shut down in a way or in the other by the authorities. If there is no possibility for clients to run to p2p friendly ISPs then the existing ones would consider the possibility of disconnecting users or filtering them much more seriously.
This could really cripple the economy of a family: if one or both the parents work through the net, then if it is shut down because the son downloaded too many mp3s would mean that family will have serious financial problems.

Currently the legal framework allows for such a business venture to occur. The HADOPI law is having trouble in the very country which it was created. Wikipedia quote (The source you provided earlier)

"On June 10, the French constitutional council declared the main part of the bill unconstitutional, therefore making it useless. The council found that the law violated the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, and in particular the presumption of innocence, separation of powers and freedom of speech."

The bill has been rejected on so many occasions its laughable.

Politicians really don't know how to properly legislate and enforce online piracy laws without invading civil rights. This is because it's close to impossible to do so.

The idea of P2P friendly ISP's is very much alive and kicking. As long as these companies don't openly support piracy they have a very bright future. It won't succeed using that USP alone, but it will provide excellent market penetration.

Originally Posted by ipernorris

There is not only the suing danger. Users may be filtered or disconnected by their own ISPs, without passing though a court: this is much faster and effective.

The last thing ISP's want to do is filter/ban users who use P2P illegally. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_sharing A recent study by Tiscali UK shows that 60% of Internet users questioned used/use P2P software to illegally download music. For a company to ban 60% of it's customer is simply crazy. Such a move would likely make a company go bankrupt. Filtering/banning customers who illegally share files would only cater to the needs of the copyright associations, not to the ISP.

Originally Posted by ipernorris

Majority and opposition are both generously financed by the copyright associaions...
Anyway I don't think these many voters will switch party: reading some posts here on the line "if you don't have something to hide you don't need privacy" says it all.

I have not heard of any instances where parties have been financed by copyright associations, Individuals perhaps, but not parties. Voters quite often protest vote for the opposition when they disagree with a policy. It entirely possible for the opposition to take power because of such a protest.

Originally Posted by ipernorris

Piracy won't be stopped, of course: unstoppable tools are already out there and they're becoming more and more efficient, by evrey day. I2P, Freenet, Stealthnet, Share, Perfect Dark are only some of them...
The copyright infringment witch hunt is funny somewhat: it's like put in the same race a turtle and an atletic champion... the outcome is already known before the beginning!

Indeed piracy cannot be stopped. The copyright associations will never truly stop piracy. Perhaps anonymous P2P will be a more viable option in the future, as currently its not worth the time.

.......lol now I'm tired. Thanks for the detailed replies, I will leave good rep in the morning, but now I sleep

Oh yeah! Sorry if my post in some parts seems aggressive. When I'm on a roll with a good point it's difficult for me to stop lol

[ipernorris]

Originally Posted by miscs

The intermediate vehicles is not as safe as the SUV, but it has a quicker acceleration, a higher top speed and is cheaper to run. Both vehicles have the same purpose, but one is better. The intermediate vehicle presents a greater risk, but for far greater rewards. These rewards greatly outweigh the risks.

I understood your metaphor, but you make an assumption: the road you travel to go to your work is very safe, or at least it has a costant percentage of risk. This is false: the risks are getting higher and higher and more subtle.
Don't assume the ISP and the major would remain ignorant about Internet forever: they're much smarter than people think. The HADOPI is a proof of that: the copyright associations saw that suing people wasn't very effective, so they are pressing the ISP very hardly, but not with imposition, but with cooperation. Making the ISP media sellers, with the relative revenue, would make them automatically interested in suppressing p2p. To complete the new strategy, they make mandatory for ISP to reveal the identity of people behind an ip and disconnect them if they repeat the copyright infringment offense three times. It's MUCH faster than suing people, going to court and such.

2. The basic safety features of the cars are the equivalent to the basic features of the P2P software. The ability to reduce upload/download speed, assign a port for connections and the capability for connection control. These features are essentials, not additions.

To tell the truth second generation p2p, the serverless one, don't have any kind of safety features for protecting privacy: a node ip is visible to evreyone in a particular network.

3. The drive to work is a metaphor meaning both programs (vehicles) will be used in the same way. Both programs will serve the same purpose. Weather conditions were simply included for arguments sake.

Not quite: some anonymous p2p, like Freenet or I2P, are used for mail, web surfing, instant messanging and all of the usual things besides the file sharing.
That's the reason why they're a bit more complex than second generation p2p, but there are three generation p2p software as simple as the second generation one.

4. An anonymous P2P program (SUV) minimises a risk which in reality is already very small. The extra protection it provides is far outweighed by the disadvantages it brings with it. But we will discuss them later.

That's not true really: it's like a torrent file. If it has only few peers it will be far slowers than an http download from RapidShare or MegaUpload, but it it has hundreds or thousands of peer the speed will easily reach one's max bandwidth.
The same concept applies to I2P and Freenet: the more the better!

5. A standard P2P program (intermediate car) doesn't provide the additional safety of the SUV, but comes with it own set of advantages. These will also be discussed later.

The only advantage is speed, but this depends on how many peers (=users) switch to anonymous p2p software. In terms usability and reliability anonymous p2p software is already ready now, and it's as easy to use as ordinary p2p software.

You argue that speed is the only problem, but I beg to differ. The slower speed causes a domino effect, which creates further problems. The slow speed increases the time required to complete a download. Time is a precious resource, not one which should be wasted unnecessarily.

While I agree with you on the fact that time is a precious resource, the most precious of all I add, I think we have to differentiate the uses. There are basically two great groups of uses which need Internet: real-time ones and not real-time ones. A videoconference is a real-time use: for this kind of uses anonymous p2p is not acceptable, not only for the low bandwidth, but for the high latency. Uses like email or p2p don't have real-time costraints: they can be done at a very slow pace, without incurring in any particular problem.
Anyway there is instant messaging software even for Freenet or I2P, so don't get the wrong idea: slow bandwidth doesn't mean a message will take hours to arrive... but only a bit more seconds usually, and a bit more minutes in the worst case scenario!

As humans are only mortal we are limited in the amount of time we have to spare. The increased time requirement also means that your computer must remain switched on longer. Electricity costs money, so the longer your computer is on, the more expensive the download becomes. The increased electricity bill will leave you with less disposable income, which will have a detrimental effect on your hobbies. Less money for anime, manga, or figures

I see where you're coming from with your reasonment, but please note that "transictional phases" always carry uncertainity and sacrifices for people. These are necessary if humanity wants to evolve, otherwise why use engines when there are already horses?
BTW the more time needed by the anonymous p2p would be a temporary problem: when there will be tens or hundreds of peers all around the world, the speeds won't be different than ones that can be reached with Emule or Bittorrent. Tons of files on both these network have a few peers already and they're slow as hell, and this in the regular Internet. This is proof that's just a matter of missing critical mass (peers), not a problem of the various anonymous p2p software in themselves.

Another potential problem I can see, based of the estimated data you provided, is the limited number of files you can share. The network is so small I doubt I would have access to the files I actually want to download. This proves very problematic to anyone who is interested in switching to such a network.

Yeah that's true: the content avaiable is limited. But can you except the same speed from a car with its relatively small engine and a F22 Raptor?
Of course engine = peer in this metaphor.

I agree, being anonymous is a good thing, but its currently not worth making the jump. The risk involved in using normal P2P are minuscule, the networks and number of files shared are larger and the download speeds are significantly higher.

It's like a dog who tries to bite its tail: without peers there won't be high speed, without speed there won't be much peers.
I think the transitional phase will be very long, but it will happen: the risks are getting higher and higher because the copyright associations are finishing to design their legal and economical framework to disconnect pirates very easily.

Currently the legal framework allows for such a business venture to occur. The HADOPI law is having trouble in the very country which it was created. Wikipedia quote (The source you provided earlier)

"On Jun e 10, the French constitutional council declared the main part of the bill unconstitutional, therefore making it useless. The council found that the law violated the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, and in particular the presumption of innocence, separation of powers and freedom of speech."

The bill has been rejected on so many occasions its laughable.

Yeah too bad it was presented again with the modifications suggested by the constituional coucil in record time, and it's on its way to be approved. For September France will have its nice HADOPI, that's for sure. Like it's sure many countries in the world will make a nice copy pasta from that law...

Politicians really don't know how to properly legislate and enforce online piracy laws without invading civil rights. This is because it's close to impossible to do so.

Oh but the laws aren't written by policians, but by copyright associantions and politicians only approve them.

The idea of P2P friendly ISP's is very much alive and kicking. As long as these companies don't openly support piracy they have a very bright future. It won't succeed using that USP alone, but it will provide excellent market penetration.

As I said above and in my previous posts you're greatly mistaken here: the copyright associations aren't dumb and they learnt their lesson about how much useless is suing tens of thousands of people. They adapted to this state of facts and changed strategy, involving the ISP directly on the economic level and on the legal level. The ISP can use the chance and making money from digital delivery of media, and they must collaborate anyway because the law says so (or will say very soon so).

The last thing ISP's want to do is filter/ban users who use P2P illegally. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_sharing A recent study by Tiscali UK shows that 60% of Internet users questioned used/use P2P software to illegally download music. For a company to ban 60% of it's customer is simply crazy. Such a move would likely make a company go bankrupt. Filtering/banning customers who illegally share files would only cater to the needs of the copyright associations, not to the ISP.

Uhm I think that many deeper considerations must be made behind that percentage: I think it's real, but I think a great part of it are shared adsl lines. The typical case is a family where the parents use Internet for work and kids for fun, but even parents could use p2p as well. Why? Because they simply don't care... because the risk of being sued is low, as you noticed. Well if there was a much more concrete risk of being disconnected I think the family behaviour towards p2p would change radically. There are tons of automatic tools which allow to store as much evidence as you need that a certain ip has been sharing illegally copyrighted files. It's a piece of cake on the normal p2p, while it's impossible on anonymous p2p.

I have not heard of any instances where parties have been financed by copyright associations, Individuals perhaps, but not parties. Voters quite often protest vote for the opposition when they disagree with a policy. It entirely possible for the opposition to take power because of such a protest.

Do you really think a critical mass of voters would change its vote just because of p2p? Most people don't even know what p2p means...

Indeed piracy cannot be stopped. The copyright associations will never truly stop piracy. Perhaps anonymous P2P will be a more viable option in the future, as currently its not worth the time.

Things will change fastly and radically on Internet: mark my words for the time when a local adaptation of the HADOPI will be approved in your country too!

Oh yeah! Sorry if my post in some parts seems aggressive. When I'm on a roll with a good point it's difficult for me to stop lol

Don't worry, your posts have been stimulating, not aggressive. Different POVs give birth to interesting dscussions!