Peer 2 Peer sharing

Recently the supreme court ruled that a company that makes software can be held accountable if it is shown that the intention of the software was for illegal use. Many other tech savvy sites equate this ruling to gun makers being responsible for gun related murders and armed robbery. I do see the similarities but I think gun violence is a far more serious crime then copyright piracy. And yet we have millions of dollars being spent to create legal boundaries on who is responsible when little Johnny downloads a song. If companies can be held accountable for creating programs like Grokster, Kazza, and Limewire then what about the companies that create FTP server and client software? What about the companies that create the old telnet bulletin board systems? Each of these are methods of transmitting software and each have been used in some form or another to pirate copyrighted material. I think this is all a waste of time because the simple truth is that if you take away the companies that create P2P software all that will be left are underground groups of individuals that will continue the work.Then who takes the responsibility when the entity that created the application is unknown or unseen. Worse yet the advancement of simple technologies to transmit data will be stifled. It is a trend I see more of lately. Companies and organizations fighting the wrong fight. The companies instead need to realize that the people they are targeting both as a friend and an enemy are un-willing to pay for a piece of media that is way over priced and in the case of music may only have one or two good songs not on the single. Some have been creative enough to take advantage of the P2P technology and are offering inexpensive downloads for music and movies, but even that is at a limit because the piece of music or the movie you just bought was really just leased. Currently if you buy a DVD or CD or even a game, for your favorite console system or PC, you own that software and it is difficult to remove it from your ownership. With current digital methods of delivery songs in your playlist have the potential to be removed, movies and games can be made un viewable. With current physical forms of media delivery you can take it anywhere and use it anywhere without any restriction. I do like the idea of being able to download my favorite songs, movies, and games but I would like to own the download. Copyrights have slowly but steadily been increased with time so something like a cartoon mouse will not see public domain longer then say a cheesy cult science fiction movie made around the same decade. Large corporations are fighting to hold copyrights to increase or maintain revenue but I don't think it can help the industries as much as it can hurt them. Just think of the possibility of great ideas silenced because it infringes copyright. It's a scary road to look down for sure but with the help of the consumers like you and me we can voice change by not using a service. In essence boycotting. That's my two cents on the whole thing anyway. Let me know what you think. Link to EFF's site on the decision

VoIP and a problem

In Michael Robertson blog, Legal Battles In VOIP: Vonage and e911 a few weeks back. He talked about disagreeing that "e911" should be mandatory by companies offering VoIP service. His argument is that it would be near impossible to pin point where an e911 call is originating and that the cost of getting this created would slow or even stop some businesses from continuing. I disagree with this statement because I think it would be fairly easy to create a system of software that would either register the device to an area and/or acquire the location of the net call from the ISP. It currently is done with trace routing software and that same technique could be used to generate a general origin and have either the user, VoIP vender, or ISP fill in the details of the address. I do see that Wi-Fi connections could be more difficult to manage. Especially when you get into a situation like WiMax or wireless anywhere connections because the triangulation would be difficult but even then a solution could be created. Currently several companies are established that will locate stolen laptops and have been successful enough to offer a $1000.00 guarantee payment when a stolen system is not recovered within 60 days. Michael says in his blog that "There is a growing number of phone providers, including cable companies and Internet companies. If 911 is important enough to customers, then those companies will be motivated to offer that service." I firmly believe that an open standard is a better way because then the smaller companies have an even market and then it makes it harder for monopolies to emerge. I'm eager to hear what you think.