Just so nobody gets the wrong idea about some of the things I have said, I uphold the right of a PRIVATE entity to control its' network any way it sees fit (that is part of the essence of the word private, after all). Having said that, I TOTALLY SUPPORT the existence and use of personal P2P software. It has legitimate uses within the law. To penalize lawful users, by banning it on the pretext that it is commonly used for unlawful purposes is abhorrent to any freedom loving person.
I would even go further, I support the posting of installation keys, and iso images of copyrighted software. Having these is very useful when PC vendors supply neither media nor license keys. Even as a Microsoft Open License user, I find it hard to get the keys I AM ENTITLED TO. The so called "pirate" community assists in dealing with these issues. I DO NOT MISUSE SOFTWARE but I find these channels useful in lawful pursuits and oppose any attempt to ban or censor them based on convenience for law enforcement. The Pirate Bay case is a perfect example of this, and of course the demise of the real Napster is a sad milestone along the road of increasing judicial repression in this area of law. It is important to note however, that when I avail myself of these products, I pay for the privilege and utilize access methods that do not adversely impact the experience of other users. I do not have the right, absent appropriate licensing, in a shared environment to unreasonably create an adverse impact on third parties. That is why I would uphold a PRIVATE institution arbitrarily restricting software. If you don't like it, vote with your feet. Dan Sichel
