[Smaug] Zero tolerance for P2P?

Isaac Sparrow isaac.sparrow at visicomp.com
Sun, 12 May 2002 02:49:30 -0700


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


I think the main message here is that UCSC should be concerned about the 
sharing of any copyrighted material on their network(s) no matter what the 
protocol - SMB, P2P, or otherwise. 

Bandwidth is probably not the primary cause for the email message from the 
Director. If it was then he would have throttled bandwidth and limited http 
and ftp services. Not to mention SMBs constant network blast of announcements 
"Hey! I'm on the network." "Hey! I have a printer you can share!"

The following line says to me that bandwidth is not the main concern here:

"Additionally, P2P servers consume large amounts of bandwidth..."
 ^^^^^^^^^^

Below is the cause for concern (note the word "servers"):

"Recently we have had a number of instances of P2P software servers being
installed on SoE supported, unsupported and lab networks."

"These applications are commonly used to share copyrighted material and as
such are clearly in violation of UC and UCSC policies:"

Because these apps are "commonly used" to share copyrighted material put them 
in violation of UCSC policies. This is weak. The http and ftp protocols are 
clearly in violation of UCSC policies according to the Directors above 
statement. If protocols are to much of a stretch then Apache, M$ IIS, 
Netscape, Mozilla, Internet Explorer and friends are in violation.

You can't tell me that gigs of copyrighted material are not "shared" via http 
+ ftp.

And for the love of Pete! M$ software is the biggest culprit when it comes to 
viruses being spread. Viruses hog bandwidth and can bring networks to their 
knees. Are M$ products banned from UCSC? No my friend. Bandwidth is not the 
reason for the Director's email message.

You don't really have a crack pipe do you Phil?  ;-)
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
This message is Copyright(c) 2002 Isaac Sparrow
All rights reserved.

This message may not be redistributed in any form, (whole or in part) 
electronic or in "hardcopy" form, without first obtaining written permission 
from the author.

**Looks like email servers and the Internet at large are commonly used to 
share copyrighted material.    :-P
- -- 
Fight the Power!
- -------------------------------------------------------------------
Isaac Sparrow
Staff Engineer
VisiComp, Inc.
http://www.visicomp.com

GnuPG Key Fingerprint:
1060 5A07 F6EC B2B3 9AAA 3EA5 7B79 EFE1 6397 4F47
Get my public key at:
http://www.concentric.net/~issparow

The only difference in the game of love over the last few thousand years
is that they've changed trumps from clubs to diamonds.
		-- The Indianapolis Star




On Sunday 12 May 2002 01:47 am, CERisE...mass consumer of bazooka gum wrote:
> On Sat, 11 May 2002, Josh Neal wrote:
> > Phil -
> >
> > Put down the crack pipe, and open a window to disperse the fumes.
>
>    I don't know, Josh.  Someone attempting to claim that a protocol
> obviously involving a definite server and a definite client as
> peer-to-peer sounds more bongworthy to me.  It sounds like his feeble
> attempt at a defense eliminates the term server-client because a client
> can also be a server.  I can't think of any exchanges where the client is
> forced into never being a server, can you?
>    Let's calm down our conspiracy theories and superfluous doses of Rick's
> hot air on the topic.
>    Obviously, the point of the letter is that UCSC feels its bandwidth is
> in scarcity.  For all we know, it may well be the case.  They have the
> right to administer their network as they see fit.
>    Attacking it by claiming freedom of speech issues about P2P software
> being used for piracy is tangential.  Attacking it on the grounds of
> freedom of use is a different story.
>    Simply put, if there's a lot of bandwidth being used, they should be
> happy.  That means they're getting the most for their money.  You
> shouldn't take heavy load to imply that a few people are hogging the
> network for everyone (even if you were, it should imply that you ought to
> apply some sort of bandwidth throttle), rather you should take heavy load
> to imply heavy usage and a need to add more resources.
>    Either way, I'm in utter disbelief that someone could state that a well
> defined server-client exchange is a peer to peer protocol.  That's the
> worst blunder I've heard since Gerald Ford said that Poland is *not* under
> Soviet dominion.
>
> -Phil/CERisE
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Smaug mailing list
> Smaug@lists.svlug.org
> http://lists.svlug.org/lists/listinfo/smaug
> Smaug home page: http://www.scruz.org/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: NSA bad. Encryption good.

iD8DBQE83jque3nv4WOXT0cRAjoPAJ9E1AdWygpOtfswcJY2J4XDWdHbQgCgqByA
2UqI7/DqBjxkgJJneaTaYjg=
=y4rF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----