Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

internetworkers - Re: [internetworkers] p2p fighter

internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Thomas <thomas AT tbeckett.com>
  • To: "Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/" <internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [internetworkers] p2p fighter
  • Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 08:57:48 -0400

Don Rua wrote:
Since Internetworkers includes those ready to defend the individual, the
masses, and networks, I'd be interested in your thoughts on ICARUS.

Since the University of Florida is a state institution, its activities are subject to the First Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights. The U.S. Court of Appeals has ruled that file-sharing software does not /per se/ violate copyright law (along the same lines that your VCR does not). From the article it appears that ICARUS detects (and automatically punishes) use of specific software. The University follows up with formal punishment.

The University is stifling students' communication and expression with this type of software, which invokes the First Amendment. File-sharing can be used for legitimate purposes. Ask any company that uses Lotus Notes or other groupware. In a University setting especially, file-sharing software can be used to facilitate students' work on team projects and research and other legitimate activities.

As we all know, the First Amendment does not grant absolute rights (you can't yell "theatre!" in a crowded fire, for instance). The courts have allowed state actors to impose reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on expression and communication, as long as those restrictions are narrowly tailored to impose the least possible constraint in order to advance a legitimate public concern. (I'll set aside for now the question of whether file-sharing is a public concern or simply a matter affecting a very small number of large corporations.)

Is ICARUS designed to specifically detect the transmission of copyrighted material? Or does it impose a blanket ban on communication through p2p software? If the latter, then the University is definitely violating the First Amendment.

An easy work-around for the students is to use "darknet" p2p software such as WASTE (referenced in my initial kneejerk response to Don's question). WASTE in particular seems to be designed to compromise these competing concerns. It protects privacy through encrypted messaging, yet there is an internal limit of 25 nodes on any WASTE network. The latter limits its value for pooling collections of illegally-ripped MP3s.

That's my two bits worth. (It used to be two cents, but what with overhead and the rising energy costs, I had to change my rates.) (It's what you call an inflated opinion.)

TaB




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page