a) If the content is already identified they can just transfer it.

b) If it is new content, not previously identified, they have to attach a valid identifier before it enters the system. No one is authorizing this. (In an extreme case, if no Rights Office will grant them an ID, they can just set up their own Rights Office to do it.)

“Like in real life, only way to restrict it is to associate people’s behaviour with physically existence and have corresponding penalty and award.” This is what the Rights Office system does accept now the physical existence is the ‘identifier’ not a ‘physical copy’. The identifier binds real life with Internet life.

(Apologies for the delay in replying.)

P2P is an efficient way for internet data transfer and technically there is no room for content censoring module.

RW> Such a system would be fine for certain collectives of rights-holders. But such a program would be crippled compared to current programs, and would not likely have public appeal.

The Rights Office (RO) system would be useful for collectives or collecting societies and would only enhance their operations not cripple them in my view.

RW> What about content that chooses not to use your scheme?

True, content not using the RO scheme would potentially be left out in the cold or rather in the position it is now. However, if there were no cost to applying the ID’s to free and public domain material and privacy / anonymity was ensured for legal content would this not attract a lot of content into the scheme where P2P can be used to maximum advantage?

RW> Many people who choose to publish anything would agree that it should never be a requirement that content be ‘properly identifiable’ before it can be published, because it is undemocratic, and reduces the author’s control.

I agree that it should not be a requirement that the author be identified. People could still produce anonymous content as they do now it just couldn’t enter the RO-P2P system that way. The RO system does offer two possibilities in this area though;

1) Someone else could enter the content into the system – say a journalist reporting politically sensitive material.
2) The ID’s in the RO system are opaque as far as identifying the author is concerned therefore if the Rights Office involved in issuing the ID can be trusted many users could publish legal content anonymously. I see this as a step forward.

RW> Especially so for controversial or arguably illegal stuff.

The system can’t handle illegal stuff. If it is illegal it is illegal. The idea here is to try and find a compromise where much more stuff will become legal to share to a certain extent.

RW> Under your scheme, the licensing authority could easily be co-opted to protect rights holders to a far greater degree than is legally necessary or just.

The ‘licensing authority’, the Rights Office in this scheme, is acting for the right holder but only to the degree supported by copyright law. The big advantage of this scheme is that there a many other Rights Offices acting for all the other users of the content right down to the consumer and all the rights are clearly defined. In fact I am proposing that consumers are granted actual rights and not just relying on limitations (fair use, first sale) to the right holder’s rights.

Nicholas Bentley

The result is that once again there will be a forced evolution of more distributed, encrypted networks that will be impossible to trace, or track, with no identifiable developer to deal with or prosecute.

The industry cartels may see a short term victory, but in reality they are creating a problem that will kill them in the not-too-distant future.

if the Industries get off their butts and show that litigation isn’t the only word and lifestyle they know, people would probably listen. But as typical of that Industry, it will continue the road it goes and thus, so will P2P untilt he day comes when P2P becomes virtually impossible to trace, litigate or what have you. And it is already happening. Good luck to the Industry. They had it easy to prosecute thus far. From here on out, things will get much worse for them and I shed no tears for a business more concerned with it’s profits than it’s so-called valued consumers. DOWN WITH THE RIAA/MPAA/BSA.

What about content that chooses not to use your scheme?

Many people who choose to publish anything would agree that it should never be a requirement that content be ‘properly identifiable’ before it can be published, because it is undemocratic, and reduces the author’s control. Especially so for controversial or arguably illegal stuff. This also runs into the problem of settling arguments. How would you settle disputes where one author wishes to deny another the opportunity to use your scheme? Right now, the first author publishes, and the complainant may sue: which is how things should be done. Under your scheme, the licensing authority could easily be co-opted to protect rights holders to a far greater degree than is legally necessary or just.

Are there any P2P providers who would like to discuss this?

Nicholas Bentley
http://www.commonrights.com

[1] http://p2pnet.net/story/6358

Will they never learn??

Viva Emule, Azureus, Shareaza, DC++, live long and prosper

I can’t beleive so many are giving in… we need something to boost filesharring moral… some new, big, untouchable, untracable, filesharring program… v.v