| Comment Number: | OL-100022 |
| Received: | 11/15/2004 1:11:00 PM |
| Organization: | |
| Commenter: | Stephen Doody |
| State: | NJ |
| Agency: | Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: | Notice Announcing Public Workshop and Requesting Public Comment and Participation |
| Docket ID: | Not yet available |
| No Attachments |
Comments:
P2P File-Sharing Workshop – Comment: Members of the commission. I am an Information Technology professional, with 20 years experience in creating and deploying information systems. I have been following the debate surrounding P2P filesharing and other new network technologies which may impact current businesses, from an era of less effective methods. It is my perception, that the adaptation intent of the existing commercial sector is to throw barriers into the path of these nascent technologies. To achieve this goal, they intend to influence the decisions of government agencies, in what I believe is a way that is harmful to the best interests of the public and our key and common liberties. I furtehr believe, that this reaction has been, and is, a consistent pattern by entrenched industries in the USA, and has led to the USA consistently falling behind the rest of the world, in many significant electronics and network technologies. The subtlety, and expenditures with which they spin this attack on our liberties to adopt new methods, should not be understimated, or dismissed. I do not know how they were selected, but I noted with concern that many of the questions asked, seem to inherently lead the debate towards the assumption that P2P filesharing is inherently harmful, and must be controlled, a suggestion I would dispute. There is no inherent need to protect the public, except perhaps from those interests that would deny the public access to these useful methods. I suggest that any specific method of sharing files cannot be at fault, rather, it is the business models and methods of those which would prevent efficient information commerce, which are at fault. Peer to Peer communication is a reasonable solution and acceptable in the design of secure communcation systems. The fact that this is becoming a common standard method, accessible to the public for exchanging information, ideas and documents should in no way be restricted by any legacy industries which this supposedly impacts. The public has no intrinsic liability or responsibility to preserve in any way the past monopolies or anti-competitive barriers industry may have created. The interests of the public, and common and direct P2P exchange of free information, should be paramount, and supersede those who wish to continue selling the equivalent of electronic buggy whips. The world of technology is one of rapid change, all industries affected be it the music, movie, or any other, must also change, or adapt, or perish, as market efficiencies and competition dictates. I respectfully request and propose that the commission recommend P2P remain an unhindered, open, available, and legally protected method for public use in exchanging any form of information, despite any potential or real impact on existing commercial interests. Yours respectfully. Stephen J Doody. Monday, November 15, 2004