I’m sorry everyone, but what exactly is p2p?
and why is it so bad again?? or will i get banned for asking?
P2p is peer to peer. Software like Kazaa (or Napster before it died). Discussing it is frowned upon because it’s biggest use is to swap copywrited material. The morality of it is debatable but the legality of it currently isn’t and the Chicago Reader (who host the SDMB) want to stay clear of anything approaching lawsuit material.
Peer to peer file trading. (Think MP3 swapping) Discussing it in general terms is fine. Cinsidering how often many p2p networks/programs are used for illegal file trading, the subject is one that needs to discussed very carefully, if at all.
That is: The legality and ethics of such programs are open for discussion, but debating the merits of specific p2p programs, or linking to the websites themselves, is pretty much verboten.
If I’m not too much mistaken, this is covered explicitly in one version or another of the FAQ.
Heh. I won.
p2p is short for peer-to-peer file sharing.
I understand it is a way to illegally distribute recorded music without paying proper royalties to the owners of the music.
If the injured parties get the idea that people are coming to the SDMB to learn how to do it, the owners of the message board (the Chicago Reader) could be held liable for enabling them to do it.
A court could well find no merit to any such charges, but that would only be after the Chicago Reader spent a lot of money on lawyers to persuade a court to do so.
The Chicago Reader, despite being an alternative newspaper catering to [sarcasm alert]hippies/commies/queers[/sarcasm alert], is in business to make money for its owners, rather than to spend their money.
Therefore, p2p is a subject that the owners of the SDMB (the Chicago Reader) would prefer be discussed as little as possible, so as to not open various cans of woms in the first place.
I do hope you understand now. I’m getting a little uncomfortable, myself.
In order:
- p2p = peer to peer
- Because it facilitates the illegal/immoral distribution of copywritten materials. And the Reader frowns on that kind of thing.
- We’ll have to see, now won’t we?
Mental note: Refresh before replying…
Damn, I MUST be gettin’ old! P2P use to be a term associated with methamphetamines!
I’d better watch what I say 'round here I guess, if I fuck up like that somewhere, man cut me some slack, cause…
“I don’t know nothin bout no stinkin file sharin”
and Fenris you are truly a cunning linguist…
Damn. Well, I got the silver anyway.
[sub]I’d have gotten away with it, too, if it hadn’t been for… err, I mean, if I hadn’t tried finding the relevant bit in the FAQ.[/sub]
Umm…not entirely accurate.
P2P is merely a way to exchange files over the Internet, directly from one person’s computer to another. That’s it. And it doesn’t have to be music.
However, it IS true that most P2P sharing involves copyrighted material, hence the controversy. But you can just as easily distribute stuff in the public domain, stuff you own the copyright for (or have gained permission for), etc. etc.
Think of it light marijuana. It has other uses (medicine, rope, hats, etc.) besides getting you high, despite the fact that that’s what most people use it for.
KGS has it. P2P is, in itself, a neutral term describing a communications model in which “each party has the same capabilities and either party can initiate a communication session.” IBM sell corporate P2P products; it’s just unfortunate, although unsurprising, that the predominant use of P2P is less legitimate.
Conceded.
No defense to the charge of providing insufficient information to precisely define the term.
kaylasdad99 – sorry, I didn’t mean to sound snappy or superior (if it came across that way); just clarifying, rather than responding to any particular post.
If we have Peer-to-peer sharing, we should have Overlord-to-underling sharing! “Send me that song, minion!”
I hope the Ents don’t Flood the ether(al)-net plain…