We've joked in the past that judges and politicians should be required to pass some sort of "class" on certain basic technology issues before they'll allowed to rule on lawsuits or create regulations having to do with technology. All too often we find that many of the problems created in the courts and legislatures are due to politicians simply not understanding technology. It looks like that's true around the world as well. Over in France, where politicians are pushing hard for a three strikes law, a reporter went and asked some politicians some basic questions to gauge their understanding of the technology in question -- and found that most had absolutely no clue. Combined with the fact that approximately 90% of people in a recent survey were against the law, and that the European Parliament has said any such law would be a violation of a user's civil rights, you have to wonder how politicians can possibly justify such a draconian law.

Nearly four years ago, it was reported that a contractor in Japan who had plans for a nuclear powerstation leaked them via a file sharing app on his personal computer. It was never clearly explained why he had those classified work-related materials on his personal computer, but it led to quite a mess, with the government begging people to delete the nuclear secrets, if they found them. You would hope that with that as a guide, other government and military contractors around the world would be more careful. No such luck. Lots of folks have been sending in the news that the details on Marine One, President Obama's helicopter were recently leaked via file sharing software found on the computer of a (you guessed it) government contractor. Apparently no one takes things like basic computer security seriously anymore.

CNN got a lot of attention on inauguration day as being the online site of choice for people to watch the streaming video of the events. However, as reader Jim Wood alerts us, many people are probably unaware that they agreed to do so by sharing their bandwidth via a P2P application. Now, first off, I actually think this is a good general use of P2P and have wondered in the past why more streaming apps don't make use of bandwidth sharing P2P in a similar manner. However, it does appear that there are many, many issues with how this was implemented. CNN told people they had to install Octoshape Grid Delivery to watch the video -- and it turns out that wasn't true. You only had to install it if you wanted to make use of the more efficient bandwidth sharing. Also, it doesn't appear that it was clearly explained to users at all what they were agreeing to. This is especially problematic at a time when more and more ISPs are using broadband caps that often include upstream traffic. Users might not realize at all that they were giving up a significant amount of their bandwidth.

Separately, the EULA for the software contains some totally ridiculous clauses, including: "You may not collect any information about communication in the network of computers that are operating the Software or about the other users of the Software by monitoring, interdicting or intercepting any process of the Software." Yes, if you install the software, you can no longer monitor your own traffic usage, at least according to those terms.

There are also serious concerns about potential security problems associated with the software, since the software can automatically be activated by visiting any "Octoshape-enabled" website. That seems like a zombie-scammer's dream setup: a secretive P2P network that people don't even know they have that can use up a ton of bandwidth, can't be sniffed (legally) and uses an unexpected port.

Again, there are definite useful ways to make use of P2P to spread out the bandwidth, but it needs to be done in a much more transparent, reasonable and safe manner. Unfortunately, this implementation doesn't seem to have done that -- and millions of trusting CNN users may now run into problems because of that.

While there are still some concern about what the UK gov't is planning concerning ISPs in relation to the recording industry, reports are coming out that kicking file sharers off the internet with a "3 strikes" policy is off the table -- at least according to David Lammy, the Intellectual Property Minister in the UK. That's a good sign, and fits with what the EU Parliament has said. The full government report is expected later this week, though no one has yet explained to us why the government is stepping in to what is effectively a business model issue, and trying to force a different industry (ISPs) to help deal with a problem created by an industry (the recording industry) that has spent a decade trying to hold back new business models that would solve any "problem" it faces.

Meanwhile, of course, Lammy's comments have (not surprisingly) upset the recording industry. Folks at BPI are particularly pissed off that Lammy compared file sharing to swiping a bar of soap in a hotel room you rented (i.e., a minor issue, not something to arrest someone over). BPI's representative claims he's "appalled" that the IP minister would say such a thing, and even says it shows a lack of understanding about intellectual property. Generally, if you're pissing off the established recording industry folks, you're probably doing something right these days.

One of the big discussion points at MidemNet, this year, was the idea that ISPs might start offering "legalized" file sharing offerings, where for a certain fee, you would be able to file share without worry of a lawsuit. Depending how this is implemented it could be quite problematic, but structured in a voluntary way, it would at least be an interesting experiment to watch. And, in fact, at MidemNet, folks like Feargal Sharkey suggested that it would only be a matter of weeks until we heard about such offerings in the UK. That may not be the case. The Register is reporting that UK broadband provider Virgin has killed off plans for just such a service that it was just about set to announce... due to ridiculous demands from at least two of the record labels involved. Despite the fact that the plan was to create a "legal" P2P offering that would track file sharing using deep packet inspection (ick), Sony Music and Universal Music supposedly demanded that Virgin agree to block file uploads and downloads from users' PCs.

That really doesn't make much sense -- as the whole point of P2P (legal or not) is that it involves people uploading and downloading from their computers. Still, this also explains part of why Virgin was so willing to jump on the recording industry's bandwagon for sending warning notices to customers and threatening to kick them offline. It was apparently step one in a negotiation to see about working out a deal for a "legalized" P2P solution. While I still don't believe such a solution is the best way to do things, it at least seems like a step in a more reasonable direction... so, of course, the big record labels were quick to kill it off.

While those who like to claim that the US broadband market is more competitive than it really is like to point to the rise of 3G wireless networks as proof, they almost always ignore the fact that those 3G networks come with insanely restrictive terms of service, that allow the providers to cut users off for almost any activity outside of email or web browsing. For example, using such a service for video and music has been prohibited in some terms of service. Sprint was the most open with their 3G wireless until recently.

Now AT&T is admitting that if it discovers users of its wireless broadband 3G service are making use of P2P apps, it will cut them off completely, and claims that it makes this clear in the terms of service. It hasn't happened yet, but this bit of data will supposedly be used by a dissenting FCC commissioner this week to show that Comcast's traffic shaping is pretty tame compared to other "rules" out there on network usage (ignoring the very different nature of the networks in question, of course).

This raises a number of questions: If AT&T's biggest concern about P2P file sharing apps is clogging its 3G wireless network, why does it allow streaming apps to run on the iPhone? For example, one of the most popular apps on the iPhone is Pandora, whose customized streaming radio offering is super popular (and appears to work quite well). So is AT&T going to cut off users of one of the most popular apps on the iPhone? And how will AT&T respond when someone (inevitably, if they haven't already done so) develops an iPhone app for P2P file sharing as well? This really just seems like AT&T slipping an excuse into the terms of service to cut off anyone they don't like -- but in the long run it may backfire as people get pissed off at AT&T for limiting what new devices like the iPhone can do.

Viacom seems to have a bit of a multiple personality when it comes to online video. It's famously suing YouTube for $1 billion because some clips of TV shows have shown up on the site, but at the same time, it's been aggressively putting its own shows on a variety of sites. Yet, for the most part, it's focused on having full control -- that is, making them streaming versions only, on specific sites, often complete with advertising. However, it looks like the company is finally realizing that a little uncontrolled distribution isn't such a bad thing. Viacom-owned Spike TV is trying to promote a new TV show by distributing a commercial-free, DRM-free download of the show through a variety of sources including P2P system Limewire. The company admits that it's just trying to entice viewers to watch the series on TV when it debuts later this summer, but it makes you wonder how the company can stand up in court complaining about YouTube, when its out there telling people to do whatever they want to help promote this other show. In fact, the folks behind this offering admit that DRM would have defeated the purpose, which is to get the show seen by as many people as possible: "We're trying for a bit of a ubiquity here, to go where the people are." Wonder if this story will make its way into the Viacom-YouTube lawsuit.

Broadband Reports points us to a rather unique attempt by Missouri University of Science & Technology to deal with the fact that the RIAA/MPAA are upset with students at the university for using file sharing apps. It's using traffic shaping apps to block access to P2P systems... but, it will give students timed access if they first successfully complete a quiz about copyright issues. You need to get a perfect score (or no BitTorrent for you!) and you get six hours, which they hope you're now using for legal file sharing (though, they don't check). If you want more time, you need to ace the quiz again (the questions change). You can get up to 8 "passes" per month.

It's definitely different... but hardly likely to be very effective. I'd imagine that students who really want unauthorized material will find ways around the block, using VPNs or proxies or something. Also, as Broadband Reports notes in its writeup, students who do get in can download unauthorized material and then share it internally across the network using different systems. But, most importantly, this is (yet again) based on the idea that everyone is being treated as a criminal first. There may be legitimate academic reasons for using P2P systems, but the Missouri University of Science and Technology won't be participating in many, because it's put up a barrier to usage.

Just a few weeks ago, Comcast announced a plan to offer up a P2P Bill of Rights as a way to get federal regulators off its back. Of course, as we pointed out at the time, the company never really explained why such a Bill of Rights was actually needed. Instead, it just seemed like something of a PR stunt to show the FCC that it was doing something. Having received the necessary press coverage, Comcast has now abandoned the plan, but says instead that it will join the Distributed Computing Industry Association, which is a newly formed group designed to create best practices around this area. This certainly makes a lot more sense than developing a separate and totally unnecessary "Bill of Rights" on its own, but the DCIA has its own problems. For example, the group says that it wants consumer interest groups to play a role in the group, but not until later. If consumer rights are so important, why not include them from the beginning?

I came close to totally ignoring the news that Comcast has teamed with Pando and announced that it wants to create a P2P "Bill of Rights that would create "a set of rules that would clarify how a user can use P2P applications and how an ISP can manage file-sharing programs running on their networks." This, of course, is all a part of Comcast's suddenly very public efforts to deal with the fallout from the company's rather secretive traffic shaping efforts (and, it hopes, to avoid the wrath of Kevin Martin and the FCC. Of course, this process started with the relationship with BitTorrent -- which was woefully short on details.

This "Bill of Rights" plan is, in some ways, even worse. It's funny how whenever we see companies suddenly declaring a plan for a "Bill of Rights" (which should be about addressing consumer rights), it's really always about figuring out a way for a company to do the same stuff it had been doing all along without getting in trouble for it. It's basically a way for a company to tell the government "hey look, we're self-regulating!" even if that self-regulating is letting them do whatever they want. While it's nice that Comcast tied this to a relationship with Pando (the same company that's trying to help telcos deal with file sharing network issues), it doesn't change that the fact that this is a lot of talk with little action.

While the usual suspects have decried this plan for the press release vaporware that it is (while pointing to Comcasts' questionable activities when its traffic shaping was first discovered), a much bigger question is why we should even want a "P2P Bill of Rights" in the first place. One of the very reasons why internet access is so valuable (and why Comcast got into the business) is the open nature of the internet that allowed all sorts of new, interesting, unexpected and useful services to spring forth. When you start putting rules on it, concerning how an application can run and what a user can do, you're effectively shutting down that ability. You're saying that we have enough innovation, and any new innovation needs to be incremental on top of what we already have and within these well-defined limits. That's not a recipe for innovation. It's a recipe for keeping the status quo, while other places, that don't have unnecessary restrictions, continue to innovate and grow.