This CNET story from yesterday covers the "Protecting Children from Peer-to-Peer Pornography (P4) Act" put forth by Rep. Joe Pitts, R-Pa. that would require P2P providers to get parental consent before allowing minors to use their services. A quick search in THOMAS.loc.gov (Link or PDF copy here, ) reveals that the title now reads "To prohibit the distribution of peer-to-peer file trading software in interstate commerce." Prohibition was a real success in the early 20th century — one can only imagine what wonders the sequel will bring.
Laptop DJ and BoingBoing pal John von Seggern asks, "Can peer-to-peer software be defined legally in such a way that the
definition does not include the entire Internet? Aren't browsers and
servers sharing files all the time? How is Google different than Kazaa
in a larger sense?" And anonymous suggests a grassroots online campaign to counter the congressman's "P4 Act," to be titled "P5: Protecting People from Pitts' Preposterous Proposals."
Discuss (via pho / thanks, Kevin, and thanks Fred von Lohmann for the PDF)
