Remember Grey Tuesday?
p2pnet news view Freedom | P2P:- “Imagine the world if Michaelangelo could have copyrighted the vision of an angel,” – suggested p2pnet tech editor surfer earlier today.
Said Crosbie Fitch »»»
This dichotomy between sharing being facilitated by openness yet protected by closedness reminds me of something I’m looking forward to see one day: the “I’m Spartacus!” or ‘3 Musketeers’ solidarity assurance scheme.
It would work like this. A community of file-sharers overtly asserts their identities, i.e. their real identities, not their virtual identities or pseudonyms.
In this way the community is assured that if any prosecution or litigation for infringement occurs that all are liable for it, and all are readily subject to subpoena. Indeed, all agree that if any are prosecuted all must share any costs.
When the community starts numbering in the thousands then their flagrant ‘civil disobedience’ of file-sharing can’t be addressed by randomly suing a handful. “Sue us all, or sue none” in the vein of “All for one and one for all”.
surfer »»»
The ingrained behaviour of the ‘underground’ is anonymity. We typically don’t link IRL (In Real Life) information to our online persona’s. I have had the privilege of meeting several ‘pirates’ face-to-face in my years online, but that is atypical. I have other members that I have known online for over 10 years, and have no clue who they are IRL, yet I call them friend. We have even supported one another with equipment and money and still retained our obscurity between each other. I understand that you think outside the box Crosbie, and will think about your idea.
Linking my IRL to my moniker at first thought is internet suicide. I have meticulously filtered information that can be gathered about myself from the internet specifically to inhibit asshats like the MAFIAA from identifying me. To say I am a vicarious file sharer is an understatement. And I could easily calculate that there are thousands of ‘me’(s) doing the same thing.
The circles I frequent are incredibly organized, the average intelligence of server admin(s) is very high, and most of us are IT gurus in one form or another. This is primarily the reason the RIAA is suing users on KaZaa and BitTorrent, because they are low hanging fruit.
If they had ANY idea of the complexity of organized file sharing they would have a coronary. Within that organization is 10 foot thick impediments against the MAFIAA intrusive meddling, therefore our IRL is sacred, even among ourselves.
I, myself am a well educated individual, and I use that ability to help others that are not so internet savvy by hosting a very secure file sharing system.
Hence the signature, Share The Wealth. Yes, by definition we put value on the content we share, just not the same value the content cartels do.
I do hope that your investigation in commerce DOES in fact result in a scenario that I don’t have to obscure my identity, if only for the self centered sake of recognition, but also for others to enjoy content as it should be: as far and as wide as technologically possible.
stw [Share the Wealth]
Crosbie »»»
Yes, surfer, don’t get me wrong. I’m not proposing file-sharers become unilateral lone martyrs. I’m suggesting that they could become contingently multilateral martyrs or civilly disobedient crowds. For example, one could create an online system dedicated to a single file where people could openly submit their real world identities with the prospect of sharing that file in the open, however, no sharing actually takes place until the number of participants reaches a pre-agreed number. As soon as it does, the file is shared in the open, and copious evidence is made available to demonstrate each participant’s involvement in that sharing, e.g. “I, Fred Smith, hereby infringe the copyright of John Lennon’s single Imagine by sharing it with the world”.
Remember Grey Tuesday?
I’m thinking of something like a flashmob (a bunch of people doing something that no individual would otherwise do in public), but for file-sharing.
It’s just the seed of an idea, but the sharing of mankind’s art and knowledge is something that should happen in public by people proud to do it, not in secret as if it’s shameful.
It’s a tragedy that so many think it is.
surfer »»»
Well, that ideology was brainwashed into the sheeple by incessant demonization of file sharing by the cartels FUD machine and army of lawyers inflicting as much sorrow and bankruptcy has inhumanly possible.
I have said before, the content cartels are the single most effective recruiting system ever envisioned, As Mike Masnick on Techdirt constantly points out, every effort to suppress information on the internet has the opposite effect. For every single lawsuit the RIAA files, literally thousands of sheeple open their eyes and realize they can get content from alternate sources.
There is an ongoing movement supporting file sharing, in many forms.
And yes, I do remember Grey Tuesday, I wish there were more of them occurring without the onus of being sued off the planet. Honestly, at some point there will be a rebellion, and I don’t mean like Grey Tuesday, at some point this whole scenario is going to blow up in the RIAA’s face with disastrous results, potentially lethal in nature.
If Jammie and Joel can finally win, I can only hope this will be the death knell to the content criminals. Then I can wear the moniker of pirate with pride.
Crosbie »»»
Here’s another idea as to how it could work. Think of BitTorrent but in slow motion. 10,000 bloggers create a blog article with an embargo date some point in the future, say 4th July. This blog article contains a 100 byte fragment of the 1 megabyte mp3 file to be shared (suitably marked up in XML) and any peer information (links to other participating bloggers) – with redundant fragments. In advance of publication a GPL client program is made available that can download and assemble all these fragments into a single file – via HTTP!
Now, is the copyright holder going to sue all 10,000 bloggers for publishing a fragment (with a fair-use defense possible, although unlikely to withstand your typical judge’s lack of humour), or will they sue a random selection, say of 100?
To address the latter possibility (which might not be viable anyway) what you could do is encrypt all the fragments such that only the download program can decrypt them once it has them all. No individual fragment can be related to any fragment of the original file (even with the key). What this means is that should it go to court it will be clear that each participant was one of at least 10,000, i.e. all 10,000 will necessarily be culpable and the prosecution can’t pretend they could only locate 100, because all their identities are publicly known (listed in the download program say).
The law can’t actually elect only to punish a few members of a conspiracy if it knows all of them and they are all equally culpable.
The other bonus is that the download program and downloaders are all perfectly legal. The unauthorised copy has already been manufactured, to be simultaneously published (copied again) by each blogger.
Stay tuned. And thanks, surfer and Crosbie …
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi
July, 2009
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
July 10th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
‘look ma, im on TV!’
July 12th, 2009 at 10:50 pm
I gotta jump in on this one:
Why do I put my name out there?
Easy:
(And please nobody take this the wrong way)
1. “Underground” scenes are absolutely no threat to whatever the Status Quo happens to be.
“Speakeasies” were no threat to Prohibition, for example. Hell, the Status Quo LOVES the existence of “undergrounds”, because they serve to justify the draconian bullshit against which they’re supposedly “rebelling”. Add to that, the fact that they tend to deteriorate into pathetic little status-trips. (Look at the status-seeking, cliquishness etc. involved in the so-called “release scene”, Private trackers, etc. Status trips are evil, because when it’s about status and “rep”, it’s no longer about principle — which is pretty much why I take an interest in the p2p debate.
That’s also why I didn’t waste the time joining your “underground”, Surfer.
Sure it might give me access to a digital treasure-trove, but ultimately, it completely and utterly fails to challenge the RIAA, MPAA, corporate “personhood”, or gas-bag vermin like “Sam I Am”, and their misinformation campaign. Nope, not gonna happen.
So yeah, I’m more than willing to have the balls to let people know my stand on p2p, copy”right”, corporate personhood, or any of it.
And Y’know what? Ultimately, as we’ve seen with the RIAA’s sue-em-all campaign, you don’t even have to DO anything to be targeted. (Dead people and printers getting served is just a bad sign.) The only way to take the existing system on, is by taking it on — using permissive licenses, agitating for copy”right” term reductions, deliberately doing things that push the boundaries of “fair-use”, etc. etc.
Sorry if anybody finds this offensive, but I figure your run-of-the-mill remix/mashup creator is doing more for the p2p/”free culture” principles than any “underground” could ever hope to, no matter how organized or technically knowledgeable.
Besides, it’s not even ABOUT what the RIAA/MPAA wants to believe, for me.
I love music blogs (especially the one over at http://www.wfmu.org) because they give you access to something besides Clear-channels idiotic pablum, and I think music bloggers are just about the ballsiest and most “subversive” people out there right now, because they’re actually making stuff accessible on a grand scale, and — as some guy on WFMU blog expressed it — helping the Internet to “massacre obscurity”.
To my way of thinking, THAT’S where it’s at — not some kind of digital “fortress of solitude” where the name of the game is hiding from “the Man”. Bad laws need to be changed, and the first step to achieving that is having the balls to openly — and proudly — challenge them.
So yeah, TPB’s refusal to go along with takedown notices/tendency to sneer at the DMCA was really cool, because it faced the issues head-on. “Scene” folks bragging about their “Zero-day” warez and releases are pathetic, no matter the quality of their products.
Do I think “undergrounds” have a use? Sorta. If you’re so tech-savvy and clued in on the issues and stuff, the “above-ground” side of the thing could use people like that. Why not do something to educate those you dismiss as “average” users? And above all, instead of merely hiding from bad laws, DO SOMETHING.
“Anonymous” strikes me as infinitely more ballsy than any “underground” could every be.
Just my 2 cents, no offense meant to Surfer or anybody.
July 13th, 2009 at 1:10 am
IN case you wondered, that’s why I find you to be cool, Surfer — you may be into the whole “underground” thing, but you also step up and (at least pseudonymously) speak out for what’s right.
Pardon me if I seem really edgy lately, folks….personal stuff going on lately.