Slashdot Mirror

Intel did a crap job of organizing the working group. Instead of a decentralized, standards-based organizatiion Intel tried to make it an old-line "scratch our back" hierarchy. P2P developers rejected it.
--
DigitalContent PAC

The main problem is sharing just one upload stream on a 56k connection makes things unusable. On a DSL/Cable connection the load is practically unnoticeable, and I think sharing becomes a lot easier.
--
DigitalContent PAC

http://sourceforge.net/projects/hum anc asting

Humancasting is an open source attempt to tap into the processing power of desktops to enable individual broadcasting to a large audience, please take a look.
--
DigitalContent PAC

Buggy or not, did you come up with the Napster concept? No. But all the geeks who are jealous like to knock him down for its simplicity. This guy's "buggy" invention has caused the very concept of intellectual property to be challenged, what have you done today?
--
DigitalContent PAC

Do you feel that current implementation of copyright law is tipped too much in favor of corporations vs. individuals?
--
DigitalContent PAC

Filter out the 56k/128 users. 9/10 downloads work fine for me on a Cable modem...
--
DigitalContent PAC

Tipping isn't the answer. It cannot support an industry. Advertising/sponsorship is the wave to surf on...
--
DigitalContent PAC

Whether you like BillG or not, he was personally involved in creating IE and IIS - regardless of what you thin of those products, he was more than a figurehead in relation to their development
--
DigitalContent PAC

DigitalContent PAC

Serious about your frustration with the RIAA and corporatism in general? Try Civil Disobedience. No, really. Be willing to get arrested for possessing the tools we take for granted. I am. But read on...

First, a summary, since this is long and will get chopped:

• We can't win if we look like the bad guys. Therefore, we must clean up our act, both public and private, and be willing to address the real, underlying concerns of our fellow artists and consumers.
• Corporations don't trust individuals; individuals don't trust corporations. Therefore, we must gather all of the individuals together on our side, artists and consumers alike, instead of allowing the corporations to divide us.
• The future is change; everyone is scared. The industry is afraid, but also opportunistic. It believes it can secure a future for itself built by legally forcing nature to behave itself. It attacks the fears of consumers to create this legal impetus.
• The "Tragedy of the Commons" is worrisome. Individual artists are afraid that if they open themselves up to a meritocracy, they'll be raped. We have counterexamples, and we also need to set expectations.

Before you don your DeCSS Shirt, it's important that we get our act together and learn the very powerful art of spin . Don't sneer and say that's beneath us. Right now, the RIAA and MPAA are mobilizing a very powerful political engine. They are engaging in a classic tactic, painting our community's members as pirates and criminals in the public's eye. It's our job to spin right back at them, to recast the debate in terms that make us clearly the good guys, and them clearly the corporate Goliath, out to trample the rights of individual artists and consumers. Here's how...

Start giving props to artists. Start decrying the fact that there's no widely available, secure, trustable infrastructure for "tipping". Start pitting the labels against the individual artists, whom you would compensate directly, if there were a reliable means to do so. Blame the corporate hegemony for this situation. Traditional corporations exist for one reason alone: profit ; profit to the exclusion of all else, including the rights of artists, and the rights of individual consumers. Start pitting the labels against consumers, by using inflammatory phrases like "abrogation of our rights" and "corporate hegemony" (please understand what they mean and be able to defend them calmly, though). As soon as we can swing the focus of our fellow consumers' mistrust and cynicism to the industry, as soon as we can paint ourselves the David in this battle, we will begin changing things.

The reasons for this are simple:

• People root for the underdog. Right now, the RIAA and MPAA are painting themselves and the artists as the underdog against the massive, unstoppable tide of digital piracy and mayhem. As it happens, they may be right, but I'll get to that in a minute.
• People fear for their own property. People want to be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects". The RIAA and MPAA are casting this debate squarely in terms of theft of property because they know that will strike a chord with the public. They want you, the consumer, to believe that, if you don't side with them to stop Napster and DeCSS, you'll lose out just as much as if someone broke into your house and stole all of your CDs.

My freshman year in college, someone stole 250 CDs from my dorm room. 250 CDs that I had worked very hard to afford, and had worked very hard to acquire (many rare imports, anime, etc.). I felt hurt, violated, confused, angry, and all of that. The RIAA and MPAA are trying to connect with those feelings in the consumer public.

We need to be going for the same connection, while also making the connection between individual freedom and liberty. We need to make it clear that we're all for just compensation, and that we don't need Goliath's hand to ensure that compensation. We need to show our fellow consumers that the industry is just in the game for the sake of revenue, and that they don't give a damn about consumer rights, nor do they trust consumers in the least. Yet they ask for our trust that they will justly compensate artists, that they will respect our rights to fair use, that they will treat us as equals (IANAL, but a corporation is legally considered a person.)

The RIAA and MPAA would have you believe that every artist and "legitimate consumer" out there is on their side, and that everyone else is a pirate. We know that's wrong, but what do we do about it?

Get all the individuals on the same side. Artists are individuals. Consumers are individuals. Everything in between the two is corporate infrastructure. The internet makes that corporatism irrelevant to the kind of relationships we could be building with our fellow individuals.

If I play your song, and I like it, I'll give you a tip. If I play it all the damned time, I'll give you big tips, frequently. If Metallica pulled their heads out, they'd understand that they'd make a lot more from me letting me tip them than they are right now, since I won't buy anything new of theirs (even though I really want to).

Things we've taken for granted, as a society, as individuals, and as corporations, are all in the process of changing dramatically and radically. Specifically, traditional notions of property become more meaningless with each passing day. We know how to treat tangible items as property (you're stealing it if you deprive me of it without my consent), but we don't know how to treat intangibles as property; after all, if you copy it from me, how are you depriving me of it?

And if you think that distinction is cut-and-dried, and that it just means we need two classes of property, intellectual and tangible, think again. What's going to happen in a decade or three when nano-technology makes tangible property available to anyone with a handful of garbage, a replicator, and a design?

Now, it's understandable that corporations might be afraid. After all, they might disappear. Or have to reinvent themselves radically. I think they're pretty well aware of that fact. The issue, ultimately, is one of control. The industry wants to control its destiny, but it doesn't have that kind of power. It seeks to create that power, artificially, by lobbying to create laws like the DMCA, that curtail individual rights that are far more powerful than they were when they were granted, 225 years ago, before there was an Internet.

I don't know about you, but I don't want to be controlled by a corporation. I want the freedom to interact with my fellow individuals, to share and communicate and transact by our own rules. I want to write code and trust that you'll compensate me for it justly. And I do. Literally. I have a 100% GPL clause for the work I do. And I trust the community and individuals to be faithful to one another, and to support one another. I don't need a law or a corporation to enforce what ought to be human decency.

The idea that some people will steal all the goodies is worrisome. They can't. Unlike the commons about which "The Tragedy of the Commons" was written, you can't trample up the grass around an artist. You can't turn a director into mud by copiously copying her work.

You can refrain from contributing to their livelihood. You can enjoy their work and simply not tip them, even though you can afford to tip them. Fine. We already have a really good term for that in place: cheap asshole. Perhaps we could get it made into a legal term?

Anyway, there are natural responses to the problem of the cheap asshole. The first is the pillory, metaphorically speaking. A good tipping infrastructure will allow you to leave your tips either anonymously or with credit. An advogato-like trust metric will allow folks to rate your generosity in comparison to your means. A well-deployed micro-accounting infrastructure will make artists, producers, technicians, and so forth, accountable for how they spend the tips in pursuit of their art. All of that means that assholes will be highlighted in red, and the object of public scorn.

This is as it should be, and there is a long tradition of such treatment. Read A Christmas Carol if you doubt me. Everyone hated Scrooge because he was... well, you know. A c.a.

The second is based on what I call "laws of information physics". The two fundamental laws of information physics are:

1. Bandwidth between any two points at any given time is a finite resource.
2. Information flows freely as long as there is available bandwidth.

These laws can be exploited to prevent the c.a.'s from propagating:

• First of all, imagine if you had to pay for bandwidth by your usage. Hey, if we're not relying on king corporation any more, someone's got to foot the bill for your 128Kbps chunk of the OC48 to gratefuldead.com. Thus, when you download directly from them, there's a mandatory tip of $.05/MB ($3.00 for a 60MB album). You'd still want to tip on top of that if you liked it; that was just to cover their connectivity. Of course, they may be popular enough, and get tipped enough as it is, to not charge that connectivity fee.
• Imagine if free file-sharing networks allowed you to hook into the aforementioned trust-metric, and determine based on that whether or not you would allow your server to send files to a c.a. Through literal peer-pressure, people would find themselves either tipping liberally, or cut off from the goods.

Such infrastructure can be exploited in a lot of other ways that bring back our ability to trust one another, and to build community even in the massive scale of the Internet and a global economy. People who've had hard times could "get a break." Or if you're a real hard-liner about people overcoming circumstance, you could set your own metrics to shun anyone who claimed hard times, or anyone who was rich without working for it, and not generous with their wealth. "The possibilities," as they say, "are limitless."

I'd recap, but you can scroll to the top for that. The bottom line is that we need to pay attention to the fears and concerns of our fellow individuals, and address those, and not just go spouting off about how we're going to do whatever we please and the industry can't stop us. We all believe the industry can't stop us, because ultimately, we can hide. But who wants to hide? And who wants a world in which sharing is a criminal act? So don't feed their fire. Help your fellow artists, consumers, individuals understand how we can build a better future together, without corporate hegemony.

And be prepared to get arrested in the meantime. But when you do, make sure you come off sane, rational, and reasonable. Make it clear that the man is putting you down. If you're not calm, careful, and likable, your fellow consumers and artists are going to see exactly what the RIAA and MPAA want them to see. And away goes your freedom and their freedom.

P.S. I'd have crossposted this to advogato, but I'm not certified by anyone as having done anything special. So if you're of a mind to, and have a decent cert there, please certify me if you think I can add value to the discussions there. Thanks.

We're working on embedding meta-data into digital content files which will allow for easy voluntary payments and will encourage free distribution. We're using crypto in an attempt to assure consumers that the person they're paying is actually the originator of the content, not an imposter with their hand in the artist's tip jar. The discussion is just getting rolling and we could use some input:

http://tipster.weblogs.com