House Of Representatives Bans Spotify Because P2P Tech Must Be Evil!!
from the clueless-congress dept
Hey look, here's a story on which we at Techdirt actually agree with the RIAA. Shocking, I know. It appears that, for reasons that are unclear to just about everyone, the IT folks in the House of Representatives have banned the use of the perfectly legal and authorized music service Spotify because it's P2P technology. According to a report at Politico:"To help protect House data, our IT policy generally prohibits the use of peer-to-peer (P2P) technologies while operating within the secure network," a spokesman for the Office of the Chief Administrative Officer told POLITICO this week. "While Spotify is currently not authorized, the CAO has and will continue to work with outside vendors to enable the popular services that improve member communication capabilities."Not surprisingly, this has led to complaints from Spotify, but also from the RIAA, which finds the whole thing preposterous:
RIAA CEO Cary Sherman wrote to the Hill Tuesday to explain why Spotify shouldn't violate the House's IT policy and to lend a hand in getting the decision reversed: "These services are safe and secure, and assuring access to them not only respects the contractual relationship users may have with these services, but also achieves an important public policy goal of promoting legal, safe digital providers," Sherman wrote.That's nice and all... though it's entirely possible the reason that there's a ban on P2P technology in the House is... due to the RIAA's own efforts in years past. You may recall that, the RIAA, MPAA and other copyright maximalists have pushed for Congressional hearings on just how evil P2P technology is, and why there need to be more laws about it. Ali Sternburg, at the DiscCo Project has the details:
It may be symptomatic of Congress being susceptible to lobbyists' generally oversimplifying and misunderstanding complex technology. As EFF's Parker Higgins tweeted in response: "The years of indiscriminately vilifying p2p technology are now coming back to haunt the content industry." In particular, the policy may be a consequence of three hearings on filesharing in the House from 2007 to 2009, which received testimony criticizing filesharing: "Inadvertent File Sharing over Peer-to-Peer Networks" on July 24, 2007, before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform; "H.R. 2221, the Data Accountability and Protection Act and H.R. 1319, the Informed P2P User Act" on May 5, 2009, before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection; and "Inadvertent File Sharing over Peer-to-Peer Networks: How It Endangers Citizens and Jeopardizes National Security" on July 29, 2009, before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. This context suggests that maybe those hearings caused technophobic Congressmen to panic, leading to a regulation that is now mindlessly enforced as a part of House IT policy.She admits this is not definitely why it's banned, but it does seem notable. Perhaps, next time, rather than vilifying broadly usable technology, the RIAA and others might recognize that it can actually be the solution to their challenges as well. Nah... that'll never happen.
![Hide This Hide this](https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/topclose.png)
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: bans, congress, house of representatives, p2p technology
Companies: riaa, spotify
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Ain't we lucky that these lobby groups run the country?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Threw the baby out the window already...
Although that's hardly surprising either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Threw the baby out the window already...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey, waitaminute!
Seriously. I don't see a down side.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hey, waitaminute!
'We have to pass legislation to protect our vital infrastructure from internet-based attack!' ringing any bells?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hey, waitaminute!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hey, waitaminute!
Seriously. I don't see a down side."
I'd be all for Congressmen being prohibited by law from drafting, backing, proposing, or voting on a bill unless they can individually demonstrate a clear and thorough understanding of all subjects and topics that the bill touches on.
I realize this would bring Congress to a complete standstill, but I still can't see a down side.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And...?
The P2P justification is stupid, but that doesn't mean Spotify should be on House computers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And...?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And...?
I have no doubt that the entire Congressional network is running on high quality, blazing fast fiber-optic cable... right into some massive choke point that loads Google at the rate of molasses and goes down every other week.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: And...?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And...?
Agreed. Even if any P2P should be available in such network, it'll need to be extra precaution measures in such networks, which means more work for admin, and cos we're talking about gov agencies, more tax payer money spent on it.
Anyone for subsidizing gov employees to use spotify at work, please raise your hands...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And...?
Why do we even care about how the IT people decide to secure their workplace network? I don't see any difference between the government building and any business network, except that the government people may be trying to secure store and transfer classified documents...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And...?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And...?
I can hear Nelson saying Haaha
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And...?
Claiming that it's all something to do with a rejection of P2P and was implemented because they don't understand the technology seems to be far from the truth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I Agree
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I Agree
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I Agree
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How many realize CNN uses P2P?
"Peer-to-peer (P2P) streaming technology has quietly gained acceptance from Turner Broadcasting�s CNN.com, which is using technology provider Octoshape Aps for some implementations of its online live feed."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How many realize CNN uses P2P?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How many realize CNN uses P2P?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How many realize MS WINDOWS uses P2P?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I believe P2P is good, necessary and essential to culture and freedom. But I'm OK with keeping it off sensitive U.S Government networks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
However that hidden "web helper" tracking process should be ditched, pronto. The House is indeed correct on that point: it ain't secure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
First is completely oprn just likr your home environment.
Third is completely secure. Only military sites and equipment.
Second is a combination of One and Three. Open to secure non government facilities such as major suppliers but not open to the public.
Which level of security is being discussed here?
Because if it is Two or Three there is no way that P2P will ever be allowed. If it is level One then there is some technical problem we are not aware of.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh crap hold me, I think its a sign the apocalypse can't be that far off now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Spotify
There is no reason to allow such an application on the government networks. There are plenty of other services that are easier on the network and safer to use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Spotify
If your boss bans it, just set up your own private VPN server at home, make a VPN connection to your home broadband connection, then connect to Spotify, from there, and the boss will never know what you are up to because the connection will be encrypted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No Spotify
If a person wants to listen to an on-demand service at work, I usually recommend Rdio because it can be played without installing software and doesn't use P2P. If they just want radio, there are dozens of options out there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: No Spotify
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No Spotify
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No Spotify
We're talking about CONGRESS here. When was the last time they actually did their job (note, helping lobbyists isn't their job)? They aren't getting their job done, so...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: No Spotify
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: No Spotify
But, on the other hand, if you define your job as that which you get paid to do, helping lobbyists is their job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The amusing part, and indeed the point, is the RIAA (p2p enemy number one) saying the following about a p2p system:
"These services are safe and secure, and assuring access to them not only respects the contractual relationship users may have with these services, but also achieves an important public policy goal of promoting legal, safe digital providers,"
This makes it kind of problematic to continue claiming that p2p is the end of the world and the devil incarnate. It just doesn't add up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The RIAA loves to spend our tax dollars. Woe unto those that block the revenue flow!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
keep going riaa/mpaa
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Umm, I think you're missing the point...
Many of you seem to be operating under the illusion that you can trust your computer. You can't. It won't always behave the way you expect, especially when it can communicate with a public network. Network communications is never "safe", at best it's "mostly safe."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
a)they didn't think of
b)didn't think of using early enough
c)makes others money because they could see potential
d)were more concerned with adapting to changing markets than fighting like hell to obstruct them
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]