I have a better analogy than the article suggests. P2P networks are like people hanging out that do not know each other, but would like to share what they have with others that are around them as well. Now, if I gather people around and tell them to bring things they like, let’s say their music. Then, we all play the music we like only in this little arranged meeting. However, we are sharing music with others. Is the only real difference between the analogy and P2P technology the ability to copy fast and easily the songs we like? There seems to be an underlying scheme passed off as a simple legislative fight against media sharing. Could there be such a plan to control media at the hardware and software level and give much more access to corporations the use of our PC’s if we go online? Could our firewalls be rigged to allow such communications by corporation payoffs? It’s a simple rant, groundless, but still we all have to think several steps ahead. Who is the one to profit here or lose the most?:B Also: Tipper Gore did some nasty things while she had power, like raise our taxes to “protect our children” because most of our parents are lazy and cannot adequately educate children. I said most, not all. There are lots of parents that are great, but I have to be realistic from experiences.
[edited by jasaiyajin on 26.06.2004 17:09]