Should peer-to-peer (P2P) computer technologies be banned?

Question

The idea of sharing information was the idea of the peer-to-peer (P2P) technology, however, in today context, P2P tehnologies was more toward in copyright infringement activity.

Answer 1

No.

Should women be banned just because some are prostitutes?

Should religion be banned just because some whackos use it as an excuse to kill?

Should cars be banned just because some drivers drive them drunk?

Should politicians be banned just because some are pedophile perverts?

Answer 2

Peer-to-peer computer technology shouldn't be banned. If you say, the content of P2P computer technology is more toward to copyright infringement activities, then P2P Computer Technology should check the content of the sharing information and make sure that its not doing these activities but not ban the whole Peer-to-Peer (P2P) Computer Technology. Sharing information is a good idea, which most of the users of computer uses it. If this technology be banned, it would be a disaster because P2P technologies make us share files more easily. Futhermore, if those people wanted to continue these activities, they would create a new program to do it and banning the P2P technology will be useless. So i don't think this computer technology should be banned.

Answer 3

everyone one thinks p2p is the problem but there is even better technology that shares deep underground on the internet not p2p crap so if they banned it. It wouldn't hurt cause they would use that. Someone would come up with another technology that would allow SHARING awell.

Answer 4

Of course not, any more than TV recording devices should be banned. There are plenty of legitimate uses for the technology; simply because it's POSSIBLE to use it for questionable purposes in no way implies that ALL uses should be banned.

The Recording Industry A$$ociation of America is seeking to limit the rights of their consumers, simply because their business model is being rendered obsolete. They need to change to accommodate new realities.

Answer 5

No it shouldnt be banned but it should be definately regularised, and there should some body who should check the content posted, and if there is some copyright issue it should be addressed immediately. Also, people who are using should also be more responsible for what they are doing.

Answer 6

in a word NO. they provide the consumer your IP handle and open a port for them to hook up with, the two a sort of are invites for hackers. the excellent protection is a competent firewall, "hiding" in the back of a router, and as much as this point antivirus utility (utilising somethign different than domicile windows is powerful too, Linux or OSx are lots safer). all of them artwork a similar way so there is probably no longer a "maximum secure" one, yet i in my view stay far flung from the extremely public ones like Mozilla reason they have greater hackers.

Answer 7

No. But they should find away for people to stop sending viruses when they use the p2p

Answer 8

Problems Posed by P2P Technology

¶ 4 File transfer technology over the Internet may be roughly divided into three categories: client/server communications, hybrid P2P computing, and pure P2P computing.8 The client/server model exists under the most traditional network technology. Individual computers communicate with central servers that control, coordinate and manage client requests.9 In such cases, communication between individual computers is indirect and the server operates as a central conduit for information transfers.10

¶ 5 Hybrid P2P computing is an initial movement away from the client/server model towards decentralization.11 Under hybrid technology, a central server may perform some but not all of the functions required under the client/server model.12 The most notable example of hybrid P2P computing is Napster.13 Under the technology employed in Napster, a person seeking a particular song would have to initially operate through a centralized Napster server where a directory of all the available files was stored.14 As soon as the file was located in the directory, the individual computers could initiate a file transfer without additional server assistance.15 Thus, some functions that were originally performed by the centralized server could now be performed by the individual "peer" computers.

¶ 6 Pure P2P computing is at the farthest end of the spectrum of decentralized communications. In this model, each computer functions independent of a centralized server.16 The information transfers are autonomous and exercise substantial control over the services they utilize.17 Pure P2P computing is currently in limited use and is most notably associated with the Freenet Project, a transfer system first proposed in a research paper developed by Ian Clarke at the University of Edinburgh.18 The Freenet system is designed to permit efficient use of bandwidth, free personal Internet publishing, and most notably, uncensorable dissemination of controversial information.19

¶ 7 The practical effects of decentralized P2P file swapping are easy to foresee. A legal attack on one computer is but an attack on one of millions of peer computers. Thus, while the recording industry had a newsworthy victory in enjoining the centralized music giant Napster, filing suit against the millions of users of decentralized P2P technology is entirely impracticable. In a demonstration of free-market entry that would raise a toothy grin from Milton Friedman himself, shortly after Napster's timely demise, the new Morpheus system which further decentralized P2P systems came to popularity on alternative file swapping networks.20 Morpheus features a "supernode" that automatically moves any index on any server interrupted or disabled, for example, by court injunction, to another location on the web.21 Therefore, as P2P technology is refined, it has the capability to render copyright owners legally helpless.

¶ 8 To the extent current decentralization technology falls short in preserving the free distribution of copyrighted materials, by nature the Internet has other means with which to frustrate copyright holders and their traditional enforcement mechanisms. For example, though the Federal Wire Act22 prohibits the operation of Internet sportsbook sites,23 entering an elusive domain name like www.gambling.com will raise the homepage of the Online Gambling Directory and Casino Guide, providing Americans with links to hundreds of sportsbook sites run offshore from unregulated Caribbean retreats.24 Information once restricted from public access by statute has also been moved offshore. For instance, at www.publicdata.com.ai, based in Anguilla, you can purchase select voter rolls and criminal files otherwise subject to strict confidentiality limitations.25

¶ 9 Regulatory arbitrage, the movement between jurisdictions to take advantage of favorable regulatory systems, is rather troubling and very real in the Internet age, with some traditional systems of regulation being undermined entirely by the free flow of data across national boundaries.26 However, lawmakers remain unconvinced of the need to upgrade traditional concepts of jurisdiction to rein in the web, rather choosing to resign their dilemmas to imperfections in the resolution of conflict of laws, a greater need for private ordering and other problems that will be mitigated by time and experience with Internet technologies.27 However, wealthy campaign donors in Congressman Berman's district like the membership of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) are not so willing to stand idle while their revenues stream untapped through their own cable modems.28 Since they can no longer enforce their copyrights in America's courtrooms, they have lobbied intensely for the right to take to the streets to reclaim their intangibles.

Answer 9

Considering most are used to share illegal files and music, I'd say yes to have them all banned.

Answer 10

nah, i think it's good for us if they don't banne this