4 ms·

The reality is more and more services will switch to the 'client-side-encrypted' model and then you're left trying to stomp out easily replicated and anonymousl

The reality is more and more services will switch to the 'client-side-encrypted' model and then you're left trying to stomp out easily replicated and anonymously sharable lists of pointers to legally stored encrypted blobs. Good luck with that. From an ideological point it seems hard to rationalize. We pretty much have an obligation to fix copyright law, build a digital Alexandria, and give it to the world. For Free. All art, movies, music, books, educational materials, everything. Free. We can figure out another way to reward creators without creating artificial marketplaces that demand most go without so the few left have reason to spend. If we're going to fuck up the climate for later generations - I think we can manage to at least figure this out. It's pretty low hanging fruit from a technical perspective.

wmf 12y ago
Once you have the pointer (which includes the decryption key), can't you then send a normal DMCA takedown?
- siliconc0w 12y ago
  The theoretical service uses distributed RAID6 -it detects the downed file - builds it back from distributed parity - and bans your client by hardware UUID. Your last known coordinates gathered from bluetooth/wifi/gps are broadcasted to local library users so they can ask you what's up.
  - wmf 12y ago
    Oh, I thought you were talking about Mega, not science fiction.
    - siliconc0w 12y ago
      Auto repairing distributed storage, client link tracking, and banning devices by hardware ID are actually all pretty common. The bit about the users is a bit hyperbolic but could also easily be done. They could get rewarded with virtual avatar gear to protest on your lawn for messing with their library.
    - jMyles 12y ago
      There's nothing scifi about this solution. It's as mundane as tor or even, in some ways, bittorrent.
- nightcracker 12y ago
  No, that would be arguing that someone's home is public space just because you found the key on the street.
jval 12y ago
I agree with this, but I think it is still an extremely difficult problem to solve. Most of the political problems we have are low hanging fruit from a technical perspective, the thing that renders them almost impossible is the fact that they run contrary to vested interests. Part of the reason that Uber and Airbnb have succeeded where other content-based startups have failed is the fact that they are dealing with city-based, rather than federal regulations. As copyright is regulated federally, the only way to fix it is by first fixing the broken system of electoral funding that encourages politicians in DC to follow the money that flows out of the RIAA and similar cashed up lobbying bodies.
- pantaril 12y ago
  >As copyright is regulated federally It's even worse, copyright is regulated by international treaties[1]. Every time someone comes up with an idea to reform copyright, shorten the terms etc. it's immediately shot down by the argument that we are bound by those agreegments and cannot change anything ourselves. [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_international_copyright_treaties http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_internationa...
  - narag 12y ago
    I don't see it as a real problem. Copyright internationalization is mostly pushed by the USA. If USA itself decides to reform copyright, everybody else will jump on the bandwagon. Of course, it's the money. It would be interesting seeing copyright rents by country. Marijuana legalization is the very same story. Other countries wouldn't do it, fearing the wrath of USA. But now USA states are opening that mellon.
  - GFK_of_xmaspast 12y ago
    Since when does the US care about treaty obligations?
- seanp2k2 12y ago
  They won't have cash forever if no one is still buying their media.
rbobby 12y ago
> We can figure out another way to reward creators without creating artificial marketplaces If you do that first, then folks who's IP is to be given away free would more likely be on board with the idea.
- jMyles 12y ago
  With rare (but large enough to be notable) exception, they already are. As a musician, few things anger me more than when a politician claims to be clamping down on speech to defend my "property."
  - repsilat 12y ago
    That's admirable, but I'm not sure your viewpoint is so widespread. At least among authors, many view their work as property and would be outraged if anyone tried to "take it away from them". I think most people now (artists or not) view one's copyrights as real property, and their eventual expiration as an antiquated idea.
nemothekid 12y ago
>We can figure out another way to reward creators without creating artificial marketplaces that demand most go without so the few left have reason to spend. I'd argue that we have already. Creating media is expensive, and if you take away the ability for people to monetize media you get rid of a segment who create media for the sake of media. The only people left are those wealthy enough to do so, and are no doubt looking to protect/expand their own profit centers. The extreme view of this is that now Tarantino can only make his movies as long as he reminds everyone that "he gets the good stuff, Folgers® Brand Coffee, the best part of waking up."
- pantaril 12y ago
  >and if you take away the ability for people to monetize media He is talking about figuring out another way for creators to monetize their media without artificial restrictions on sharing/copying. He doesn't want to take away money from creators, just the copyright. And i couldn't agree more with this idea.
  - nemothekid 12y ago
    I worded my initial post incorrectly, but I'm not at odds with whats hes saying. What I'm trying to point out is that in many cases media has already begun to shift to this model. The model where there aren't any restrictions on sharing/copying is quickly becoming ad-sponsered content. And while it hasn't begun to effect music yet, its definitely in video (no one pays a cent to watch YouTube) and print (with advertisers astroturfing as legitimate articles on websites). If its the case you agree with the idea, does that come at the cost where you open up a newspaper and 75% of the articles are actually written by corporations pretending to be journalists?
    - e12e 12y ago
      On the other hand -- I'd be happy to pay to avoid ads on youtube. It's one of the few streaming services I'd consider paying for (if I could) -- precisely because it's mostly user-curated.
- 12y ago
repsilat 12y ago
> figure out another way to reward creators It should be noted that the current system is working pretty damn well. More content is being created in just about every medium than ever before, and more people are consuming it. Maybe the rewards don't go as much to the artists as they should, but the money flows towards the sorts of media that people actually want to consume, which is something that other systems would find difficult to emulate well. > most go without so the few left have reason to spend. I'm not sure this is true. Market segmentation is very successful -- if you don't see a movie in the theatre, you might see it on DVD or Netflix, and if you can't afford that then you can see it on TV later on (and pay for it by watching advertisements.) Ditto music with albums, itunes/spotify/whatever and the radio. > educational materials The market hasn't done very well here in the past, I'll grant, but this one is definitely sorting itself out, too. Free textbooks are not popular yet, nor are sites like Coursera, EdX and Udacity, but they're growing.
- tomp 12y ago
  > It should be noted that the current system is working pretty damn well. More content is being created in just about every medium than ever before, and more people are consuming it. I don't think that either of these (more content created, and more content consumed) is because the system is working well, but despite the system being horrible. The Internet and digital media enabled many more producers, many more consumers, and it stole power from the intermediaries/distributors . Before the Internet, the distributors of media, you know, actually distributed the content. Nowadays, they only act as gatekeepers and (copyright-enabled) rent-seekers.

wmf 12y ago

Once you have the pointer (which includes the decryption key), can't you then send a normal DMCA takedown?

siliconc0w 12y ago
The theoretical service uses distributed RAID6 -it detects the downed file - builds it back from distributed parity - and bans your client by hardware UUID. Your last known coordinates gathered from bluetooth/wifi/gps are broadcasted to local library users so they can ask you what's up.
- wmf 12y ago
  Oh, I thought you were talking about Mega, not science fiction.
  - siliconc0w 12y ago
    Auto repairing distributed storage, client link tracking, and banning devices by hardware ID are actually all pretty common. The bit about the users is a bit hyperbolic but could also easily be done. They could get rewarded with virtual avatar gear to protest on your lawn for messing with their library.
  - jMyles 12y ago
    There's nothing scifi about this solution. It's as mundane as tor or even, in some ways, bittorrent.
nightcracker 12y ago
No, that would be arguing that someone's home is public space just because you found the key on the street.

jval 12y ago

I agree with this, but I think it is still an extremely difficult problem to solve. Most of the political problems we have are low hanging fruit from a technical perspective, the thing that renders them almost impossible is the fact that they run contrary to vested interests. Part of the reason that Uber and Airbnb have succeeded where other content-based startups have failed is the fact that they are dealing with city-based, rather than federal regulations. As copyright is regulated federally, the only way to fix it is by first fixing the broken system of electoral funding that encourages politicians in DC to follow the money that flows out of the RIAA and similar cashed up lobbying bodies.

pantaril 12y ago
>As copyright is regulated federally It's even worse, copyright is regulated by international treaties[1]. Every time someone comes up with an idea to reform copyright, shorten the terms etc. it's immediately shot down by the argument that we are bound by those agreegments and cannot change anything ourselves. [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_international_copyright_treaties http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_internationa...
- narag 12y ago
  I don't see it as a real problem. Copyright internationalization is mostly pushed by the USA. If USA itself decides to reform copyright, everybody else will jump on the bandwagon. Of course, it's the money. It would be interesting seeing copyright rents by country. Marijuana legalization is the very same story. Other countries wouldn't do it, fearing the wrath of USA. But now USA states are opening that mellon.
- GFK_of_xmaspast 12y ago
  Since when does the US care about treaty obligations?
seanp2k2 12y ago
They won't have cash forever if no one is still buying their media.

rbobby 12y ago

> We can figure out another way to reward creators without creating artificial marketplaces If you do that first, then folks who's IP is to be given away free would more likely be on board with the idea.

jMyles 12y ago
With rare (but large enough to be notable) exception, they already are. As a musician, few things anger me more than when a politician claims to be clamping down on speech to defend my "property."
- repsilat 12y ago
  That's admirable, but I'm not sure your viewpoint is so widespread. At least among authors, many view their work as property and would be outraged if anyone tried to "take it away from them". I think most people now (artists or not) view one's copyrights as real property, and their eventual expiration as an antiquated idea.

nemothekid 12y ago

>We can figure out another way to reward creators without creating artificial marketplaces that demand most go without so the few left have reason to spend. I'd argue that we have already. Creating media is expensive, and if you take away the ability for people to monetize media you get rid of a segment who create media for the sake of media. The only people left are those wealthy enough to do so, and are no doubt looking to protect/expand their own profit centers. The extreme view of this is that now Tarantino can only make his movies as long as he reminds everyone that "he gets the good stuff, Folgers® Brand Coffee, the best part of waking up."

pantaril 12y ago
>and if you take away the ability for people to monetize media He is talking about figuring out another way for creators to monetize their media without artificial restrictions on sharing/copying. He doesn't want to take away money from creators, just the copyright. And i couldn't agree more with this idea.
- nemothekid 12y ago
  I worded my initial post incorrectly, but I'm not at odds with whats hes saying. What I'm trying to point out is that in many cases media has already begun to shift to this model. The model where there aren't any restrictions on sharing/copying is quickly becoming ad-sponsered content. And while it hasn't begun to effect music yet, its definitely in video (no one pays a cent to watch YouTube) and print (with advertisers astroturfing as legitimate articles on websites). If its the case you agree with the idea, does that come at the cost where you open up a newspaper and 75% of the articles are actually written by corporations pretending to be journalists?
  - e12e 12y ago
    On the other hand -- I'd be happy to pay to avoid ads on youtube. It's one of the few streaming services I'd consider paying for (if I could) -- precisely because it's mostly user-curated.
12y ago

repsilat 12y ago

> figure out another way to reward creators It should be noted that the current system is working pretty damn well. More content is being created in just about every medium than ever before, and more people are consuming it. Maybe the rewards don't go as much to the artists as they should, but the money flows towards the sorts of media that people actually want to consume, which is something that other systems would find difficult to emulate well. > most go without so the few left have reason to spend. I'm not sure this is true. Market segmentation is very successful -- if you don't see a movie in the theatre, you might see it on DVD or Netflix, and if you can't afford that then you can see it on TV later on (and pay for it by watching advertisements.) Ditto music with albums, itunes/spotify/whatever and the radio. > educational materials The market hasn't done very well here in the past, I'll grant, but this one is definitely sorting itself out, too. Free textbooks are not popular yet, nor are sites like Coursera, EdX and Udacity, but they're growing.

tomp 12y ago
> It should be noted that the current system is working pretty damn well. More content is being created in just about every medium than ever before, and more people are consuming it. I don't think that either of these (more content created, and more content consumed) is because the system is working well, but despite the system being horrible. The Internet and digital media enabled many more producers, many more consumers, and it stole power from the intermediaries/distributors . Before the Internet, the distributors of media, you know, actually distributed the content. Nowadays, they only act as gatekeepers and (copyright-enabled) rent-seekers.