P2P is a mass collaboration— a collaboration that is ever ready and everywhere— The fundamental facility of P2P technology is to add resources to an ever growing, never ending, and vast network of information. This vast network of information includes everything from research material to independent films—Information not readily available to a grand majority of the American peoples. To implement a governing legislation in favor of corporate conglomerates over cash-in-hand consumers would be detrimental to the very corporate powerhouses the P2P Piracy Prevention Act would be trying to protect. Giving corporations the means to gain voyeuristic control over personal consumer property, the ability to with hold information, files, public domains, the power to detect, manipulate personal consumer property would cause to a great extent a conflict of interest and would raise countless questions of consumer security and rights to privacy. Interdiction, spoofing, redirection of P2P applications to a public or private domain, PC, server or network is hacking. The very definition of a hacker is: breaking into computer systems whether it be a PC, a server, a network, or a website— and this is what the P2P Piracy Prevention Act would allow Corporations to do with in “strict bounds”. With the resent strides in protecting consumers and corporations alike from hacking— this legislation would defeat the purpose of any and all previous ground breaking laws of protection against cyber-terrorism. It would open a flood gate to “Legal hacking” and would compromise the privacy of not just the consumer, but to any one who stores any information on a PC, a server, a network, or a website. If the P2P Piracy Prevention act goes into action—it will provoke a full-scale cyber-war, and no one—not even the corporations would be safe. In essence, the P2P Piracy Prevention act is not solely based respectively on copyright issues, but in fact an issue of revenue.
No comments yet.join the discussion
Aaron Johnson, United States1 year ago State: -
Christopher Melvin, United States3 years ago State: North Carolina
Country: United States
Comments: I am outraged that the corporations and the right-wing tyrants that feed on their handouts believe that they have the right to rape our rights to privacy, and protection against unlawful search and seizure, which is precisely what this proposal is! I will not stand for it and I urge my fellow Americans not to either.
ben m, United States10 years ago State: NY
Comments: If I couldn't buy it, I sure wouldn't fucking buy it
There are no highlights yet.