12.13.2004  Who Hates Child Porn More?  Numerous law enforcement stings here in the U.S. and abroad have demonstrated that P2P has dramatically increased traffic in child pornography -- hiding behind an anonymous screen name removes many of the risks associated with the U.S. Postal Service. P2P providers continue to insist they can't fully filter such filth from their networks, but they've launched a PR campaign to demonstrate they're opposed to it. To the industry's credit, its web site -- www.p2ppatrol.com -- is beneficial. As a Tech Daily article today points out (subscription required), if a P2P user inadvertently downloads such pornography (the industry acknowledges files often are given misleading names such as "Britney Spears") they could violate the law if they maintain or forward the content, even if it's sent on to law enforcement. The site advises P2P users how to handle these situations. As a parent, I'm repulsed by the very thought of these files. But I'm also not surprised that those trafficking in child pornography use P2P. Nor am I surprised that the P2P trade group Distributed Computing Industry Association (DCIA) would promote the site mere days before the FTC holds a 2-day meeting on P2P and its risks. Not too long ago, just before a congressional hearing on P2P and child pornography, DCIA persuaded Jonathan Krim of The Washington Post to write a glowing article in which he absolutely fawned over how the P2P do-gooders were working with law enforcement to catch child pornographers. These P2P lobbyists understand the merits of a PR preemptive strike. P2P providers as paragons of virtue? I don't see it. But when combatants on both sides of the P2P debate fight over who hates child pornography more, it seems to me it detracts from one divide that is crystal clear -- the protection of intellectual property. Many of us believe in the value of such protection. P2P providers make a living based on the absence of that protection. Let's all agree we wish every child pornographer was in jail, and focus on the real issue at hand. First stop, the U.S. Supreme Court, as Jim DeLong points out here and here. posted by Patrick Ross : 12/13/2004 05:35:24 PM   IPcentral WebLog Blog Main Recent Posts   Phishing, the Internet, & Property Rights Grokster Timing Grokster Seminar Certiorari Granted in Grokster Gillmor, Revolutionary Eolas v. Microsoft Sharman Trial Tech Standards Grokster Public Choice at Work Archives by Month   December 2003 January 2004 February 2004 March 2004 April 2004 May 2004 June 2004 July 2004 August 2004 September 2004 October 2004 November 2004 December 2004 Links   PFF Blog

	12.13.2004  Who Hates Child Porn More?  Numerous law enforcement stings here in the U.S. and abroad have demonstrated that P2P has dramatically increased traffic in child pornography -- hiding behind an anonymous screen name removes many of the risks associated with the U.S. Postal Service. P2P providers continue to insist they can't fully filter such filth from their networks, but they've launched a PR campaign to demonstrate they're opposed to it. To the industry's credit, its web site -- www.p2ppatrol.com -- is beneficial. As a Tech Daily article today points out (subscription required), if a P2P user inadvertently downloads such pornography (the industry acknowledges files often are given misleading names such as "Britney Spears") they could violate the law if they maintain or forward the content, even if it's sent on to law enforcement. The site advises P2P users how to handle these situations. As a parent, I'm repulsed by the very thought of these files. But I'm also not surprised that those trafficking in child pornography use P2P. Nor am I surprised that the P2P trade group Distributed Computing Industry Association (DCIA) would promote the site mere days before the FTC holds a 2-day meeting on P2P and its risks. Not too long ago, just before a congressional hearing on P2P and child pornography, DCIA persuaded Jonathan Krim of The Washington Post to write a glowing article in which he absolutely fawned over how the P2P do-gooders were working with law enforcement to catch child pornographers. These P2P lobbyists understand the merits of a PR preemptive strike. P2P providers as paragons of virtue? I don't see it. But when combatants on both sides of the P2P debate fight over who hates child pornography more, it seems to me it detracts from one divide that is crystal clear -- the protection of intellectual property. Many of us believe in the value of such protection. P2P providers make a living based on the absence of that protection. Let's all agree we wish every child pornographer was in jail, and focus on the real issue at hand. First stop, the U.S. Supreme Court, as Jim DeLong points out here and here. posted by Patrick Ross : 12/13/2004 05:35:24 PM   IPcentral WebLog Blog Main Recent Posts   Phishing, the Internet, & Property Rights Grokster Timing Grokster Seminar Certiorari Granted in Grokster Gillmor, Revolutionary Eolas v. Microsoft Sharman Trial Tech Standards Grokster Public Choice at Work Archives by Month   December 2003 January 2004 February 2004 March 2004 April 2004 May 2004 June 2004 July 2004 August 2004 September 2004 October 2004 November 2004 December 2004 Links   PFF Blog