Fuck, check this quote from one of the makers (i guess?)
"I think it is morally ok for P2PP to exist as it does now. As for legalities, I think it is legal as well -- but it is an open debate (the lawyers I've talked to have said 'no one can know yet' because there are no laws covering this kind of stuff).
It is my personal belief that people have the right to filter and refine data to suit their needs and wants.
Blind people browse the web using Lynxs or IE with images disabled and a screen-reader.
Other people chose to browse the web with features of hahahahahahahahahaha disabled.
Tools like
http://www.guidescope.com or junkbuster proxy server allow individuals to take strong control over parsing HTML to make sure nothing dubious is sent to their machine.
I think all these are appropriate and legal uses of HTML and the other standards the World Wide Web is built on.
I also believe that data publishers have rights as well. If they do not wish their media to be programmatically scanned, they can use robots.txt or META tags to disallow bots from crawling their site. They can use passwords or proprietary data formats to protect their data. Today, they have far more options on their side than 'regular people' have on their side.
I don't understand why there aren't _more_ products like this that allow filtering of content to meet the needs of 'regular people.'
I do not think a data publisher has the right to bludgeon me over the head with popup ads, browser hijack scripts, disguised attempts to install gator or 900-dialer software, access browser exploits, or to put tracking cookies on my machine.
I think 'regular people' have a right to protect themselves against such things.
I think P2PP helps 'regular people' in a lawful manner working within the standards of the World Wide Web. "
What an asshole...