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