new r3 missions

[Incognito]

says, in which measurement can take rather than gene delivery on its own. There and interrelated manners. Important fac
mutation in the Gsprotein. This syn- branes of dead cells lack the fluidity of the tations can undoubtedly be considered
the carrier. Antibodies are produced by B- p53 and p21Cip can proceed by both Ub- charge-to-radius ratio for the first five
is not physiological under euglycemic or One of the few examples of a generalized As the structure factor amplitudesFP

[Storm]

I disagree entirely with your arguments Incognito.

There is one major flaw present-that P2P is illegal. If it is not illegal-it is not unethical! You say that people put games, movies etc. on P2P networks for downloads-although this doe indeed happen, this is not the work of the manufacturers of P2P, but rather the users of P2P. I myself use Kazaa Lite K++ and it is perfectly legitimate software! In its End-User License Agreement, users tick the box saying 'I agree' to their terms of conditions. It mentions how, Kazaa is meant as a free file-sharing program.

People can create their own pictures and upload it on the net for free-to share their artwork with other people. Is this unethical? Of course not!

Storm.

[Incognito]

Looks like we're on at the same time Storm-you sure reacted quickly to my post!

Your arguments have more holes than a Swiss Cheese. You say that P2P programs like Kazaa are not illegal- yet even though it may not wholly be illegal, that it has the potential to be illegal is more than enough. Let us take an example of someone who creates a computer virus software, saying that it is legal, because he is only using it as a test of National Banking security. Is he correct? Of course not because his software has the POTENTIAL to be illegal, just as Kazaa has the potential to be illegal!

How many people go and only put created pictures on the Internet? The answer? No-one!

[Aaron]

Speaking personally... (this isn't legal advice, I am not a lawyer)
Don't confuse P2P with copyright infringement with stealing.

Peer to Peer is just a networking architecture that allows people to communicate with each other directly. Would a P2P instant messaging network be evil? What about using BitTorrent to download Linux (Free and Open Source)? I've seen this confusion made before, and I believe it's actually being done intentionally be some, and accidentally by others.

Copyright infringement is making a copy of a "work" when the government has granted an exclusive monopoly to someone else, and you haven't been authorized to make a copy. In nature, the concept of copyright doesn't exist. Governments have found that by granting these exclusive rights to make copies of work, they can encourage people to create new works. There's a lot of debate about how long the monopoly should last (some say forever, some say 75 years after the author dies, some say 14 years, some say 5 years, etc...). Obviously the test should be: what term would encourage people to make new work the most? Take 14 years for example: how many movies would still get made if the copyright term was lowered to 14 years? how many books? how many software apps? My personal feeling is that just as many would be made as are being made today. After all, most profit on copyrighted works is made within the first few years anyway. I'd also say that any copyright term that is longer than it really needs to be actually discourages people from making new works. Would Disney keep remaking the same stuff over and over if they didn't still have a monopoly on their old work? There's also some copying that is allowed by copyright law that's called Fare Use (at least in the US). In general, if you're not damaging the owner or making a profit on it or if you're using the work for educational purposes, you're allowed to make copies for free. Copyright is actually a fuzzy idea that was implemented to try to increase production.

Stealing is taking someone else's property without their permission. Just as you wouldn't call trespassing on someone's land to take a shortcut stealing, infringing on copyright isn't stealing either. Actually, to steal someone's copyrighted work, you would actually have to steal the government's grant of monopoly to the rights to make copies (an impossibility).

The argument that infringing on copyright is cheating seems fine. Whether it's ethical to cheat on a cheater (the music industry has been convicted of price fixing), is another question. P2P networks do facilitate cheating, but that certainly doesn't make them unethical. Bars facilitate drunk driving, should we remove all bars? What about roads? If you want to bad P2P, maybe we should ban the Internet all together, it's a P2P network after all.

[Incognito]

A valid argument, however, when I referred to 'P2P', I did not mean general P2P usage, such as instant messaging-but rather P2P file sharing programs such as Kazaa and Shareraza.

With this in mind, banning wide usage networks such as the Internet would still be seen by some as a good idea- however, although the internet can undoubtedly be used in an illegal manner, it has a wide range of benefits. It links the World together on a single network. Although it can be used detrimentally, does this make it unethical, even though the majority of people use it as it should be used? It is thereas a global medium-but can the same be said about P2P file-sharing software?

[sportscastmedia]

Though I do not advocate the use of stealing or "pirating" software using P2p software, there is a little part of me that chuckles because I am tired of being ripped off by the music and movie industry. I cannot see spending 9 dollars to go to see a movie, plus another 10 dollars for food/beverage per pserson. The you get ripped off from the music industry for singles and full cds.

As far as software goes, there is a little more control, since developers of applications using pirated or stolen software run an extremely high risk if they do use non-license software.

All in all, the use of P2P can be extremely great if used in the right manner.


Though this is all just my opinion

God Bless

[Aaron]

To Incognito's question asking if P2P ties the world together, I would argue 'yes'. First of all, I still think it's crazy to even begin to try to call a network architecture ethical or unethical. If you want to talk about specific applications that employ P2P, then we should talk about those one at a time. One of my favorite P2P apps is BitTorrent. I use it probably at least once a week to download demos of video games from 3D Gamers.com. I've also used it to download ISOs of Linux distributions (several times). This is perfectly legal, and in my book, ethical.

I don't know much about Kazaa, but I wouldn't be shocked to find out that a lot of unauthorized music trading goes on there. Of course, at the same time there is a lot of perfectly legal and ethical trading going on too. Actually, from what I understand... the creators of Kazaa are trying to encourage people to use the network for legal trading.

I seriously doubt that there is anything unethical in Kazaa or Shareraza themselves (though, I don't use them so I can be sure). If these apps install ad/spy ware against the user's wishes, then I would see that as being unethical, but I don't think that's what you're talking about. As far as I know, neither of these apps force you to do anything illegal or unethical.

I hope nobody here is falling into the trap of equating legal and ethical. for years (in some parts of the US) it was legal to sell people, beat them, rape them, whatever, and illegal to teach them to read. I don't think any of you would argue that during that time it was ethical to sell someone and unethical to teach them. Ethics is the study of morality, not legality.

If we really want to have an interesting debate about ethics of sharing files, then I think we should leave network architecture, specific pieces of software, and the law out of it (at least where possible). For history's sake, let's look at Article 1, section 8 of the US Constitution

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

See how the goal is to promote creativity? I'd say that is a worthy goal and an ethical one. So, the interesting question is does sharing files promote creativity? I'd say "sometimes."

Gone with the Wind has already been created, and the creators were already encouraged. Nothing we do today can change that. Same goes for Hamlet. Will anyone say that the best way to promote creativity is by keeping the created works locked up in copyright for ever and ever? I hope not.

Ok, let's get a little trickier... how many musicians wouldn't be creative and productive unless they were going to get filthy rich doing it? I haven't heard a single writer, author, actor, musician, film maker, etc... say that they are doing it to get rich. Instead, they do it because the love to. Of course, if they can't make any money then they'd have to do something else to make money, and wouldn't be able to produce creative works, so there is an obvious advantage in paying people to create new things.

Going another step... let's say some kid downloads Photoshop on Kazaa. The kid isn't rich and there isn't a chance in hell of him/her buying the full version for $500 or whatever it is. The reality of the situation is that Adobe could make $0 and the kid wouldn't have Photoshop, or Adobe could make $0 and the kid would have Photoshop. So, which situation promotes creativity more? It's hard to say, but probably the one where the kid gets the software for free. I'd say that for someone to copy something for free that they would not pay for otherwise (even if it meant not having it), is ethical.

I'm sure we can all come up with situations where copying a work would demote creativity, so I don't think I need to give examples here (think struggling author not being able to sell books). We should all keep in mind that the ethical test with regard to copying should be: does this action promote or demote creativity? In other words: does it tend to add something of value to our society and culture or not?

[brandonjb]

Aaron,

Your previous statement was both profound, and made a lot of really good points. Specifically: the part about the kid downloading adobe. I would like to point out that your software is very well priced. Perhaps big software companies have something to learn from Conversive. Is it better to sell a few copies of a work for big dollars, or sell lots of copies for a small amount? If you analyze it using your logic they are demoting the growth of creativity, and this makes them unethical.

[Skyye]

Ok, let's get a little trickier... how many musicians wouldn't be creative and productive unless they were going to get filthy rich doing it? I haven't heard a single writer, author, actor, musician, film maker, etc... say that they are doing it to get rich. Instead, they do it because the love to. Of course, if they can't make any money then they'd have to do something else to make money, and wouldn't be able to produce creative works, so there is an obvious advantage in paying people to create new things.

Well put Aaron. I guess that there is always going to be that balance of both in this world. Although most musicians ( I assume) would love what they do, there's always that percentage who do not . I guess it all comes down to that question of morality and individual people themselves and the choices that they choose to make. Some folk will stay within the legal moral boundaries and some sadly will not.

For me personally, I can say that I'm a musician who loves what I do. I'd work happily in my field whether I was paid or not because its a part of my essence and something I was born with and adore doing. Saying that, fortunately, I am one of the luckier ones who does happen to earn a clean and honest living from their work but it hasn't come without the hard work, focus and sheer determination that comes with it. Basically it comes down to people making their respective choices in life but remembering also that those choices do warrant a consequence meaning having to face up to/living with those consequences in the long run, whatever they may be...

I understand totally what you're saying Aaron and I feel you've raised some excellent points, well worth reflecting upon and for many of us to consider..