Dru Blood - I believe in the inherent goodness of all beings: liveblogging Darknets

DruBlood

Home
Dramatis Personae
Archives
Contact

Feed the Bleed

Full Bleed Fundraiser

Amazon wish list
Cole’s birthday - 10/24
Monk’s birthday - 12/2
Dru’s birthday - 1/5

Search

Syndicate this site (XML)

Special thanks

adam host
julie template queen
kd general lusciousness
pea guru

Powered byMovable Type 1.5

« And since I already missed my bus... | Main | A comfy chair. »

liveblogging Darknets

March 13, 2006

I can't see the names, so I'm just going to call everyone dude. Darknets sounds like a mysterious topic. This will not be an accurate blow-by-blow because I'm feeling chatty and giggly and silly.

What is a darknet?

Any social network - online or offline - that lets people share information or digital files.

You are missing out on a great presentation.

What are darknets used for?

Tradiing Hollywood share
community
Activists in Asia
communication
Whistle blowing
Asserting digital rights
Creative freedom (like sharing the mashup of blackeyed peas and Ac/Dc - "You humped me all night long")

Another mashup is played with ernie and bert as Brokeback mountain dudes.

"A lot of us use darknets to skirt dumb copyright laws"

"Big Media. The Darknet's best friend"

darknet.com

Great presentation!

So, the idea is that entertainment companies are missing out by opposing this culture.

Some dude from the MPAA is up there. Wow. That's freaking brave! Geez - and a guy from ATSP.

They are watching you. Basically. Is what he is saying.

3.5 - 5 million unique copyright infringments a day (was I the only one who had to supress a "HELL YEAH!")

Dude, intellectual property is neither.

"There are 60 million file traders out there, and you can only sue so many of them."
-If we identify you as being the 1st person to make the content available, and we sue them 100% of the time.

Evidently, I'm not the only one who is having to supress my disgust. The dudes in back of me are grumbling. This guy is going to get beat up after the panel.

A question is asked - "Are you equating file trading with drug trafficking?" because the guy made a comparison, um, equating file trading with drug trafficking.

The moderator wants to make sure we don't only talk about legal issues, but direct the conversation towards ways that darknets work to expand communication.

Clarke from freenet says the goal of freenet is to allow people to share information freely. They focus on people in countries where information is censored. The downfal is When you run a freenet node, people don't know what you are doing, but they know you are part of the network. He's talking about ways to create a peer to peer network that allows for more selective protocols. "A scalable Darknet."

Human relationships exhibit the Small World property - you can get from one person to another through a relatively small number of steps. And freenet found a way to exploit this property to create a global darknet in which each participant is only connected to someone they know.

Champ from flickr says they received a large "take down" notice that she felt wasn't valid. 80% public and 20% private. There is a darknet within flickr...several of them. Flickr faces challenges of defining copyright.

MPAA PR Lady is next. She's saying a lot of words, but I'm not getting anything out of it. which, I guess, makes her a good PR person. The goal is to limit the impact of piracy to the creative world. Intellectual property, again. They want to "get" (she really said get!) the people who are "abusing" new technologies. The approach is 3-fold. They are working with law enforcement and governments all over the world to take down small and large distribution networks. They have an education department to help educate people about copyright. And thirdly, their companies are working to harness technology to distribute content in a way people want to receive it.

Toole with outthink works to create a community where people can share content without being constrained. As an artist, he recognizes intellectual property, but he likes to participate with media. We need to figure out a way to make it easier to do that and still satisfy the needs of all of the entities involved. We want to play with content, and have the right to do that.

Dude, I'm 36, and sticking it to the man still rocks!

At least they have a good sense of humor about being berated. The one dude said the audience member should buy another Tivo. I don't even have one Tivo...and anyway, isn't there some degree of objection to Tivo also?

Audience member says "it seems there's an entire potential industry for mash-ups." - why can't we pay a little extra for rights to do mashups?

Response from Toole is that derivative content can add value
Response from Clarke is wondering about royalties and revenue
response from mediator dude is that we need to drag the big media folks kicking and screaming into the present

Audience member who has experience in the film industry asks/says the very basis of representation has to change, and that artists' rights are not necessarily being protected within the current paradigm. Right now the money and rights are NOT going to the artists much of the time. She asks how the reality can be more honestly and understandably be presented to the artists?

Another audience member says the system is broken and wants to know what "you guys" intend to do about it except for simply suing people.

MPAA woman says things are evolving and she already addressed their THREE PRONGED approach, including EDUCATION! (Which is basically a restatement of her first prong.) Basically, she's saying, we need to sue people for piracy, we need to educate them about all the ways we will sue them for piracy, and we need to, at some point in the distant future...change the way content is presented to meet consumer needs. Of course, she's not at liberty to divulge this information.

The crowd wants more specific solutions. The audience member says we are paying for content multiple times.

An announcement has been made that Amazon is going to allow people to download movies and copy them to DVD.

Another audience member says there's a film called _this Film is not yet rated_ that was pirated by the MPAA. Everyone applauds. MPAA lady says she's SHOCKED that he asked the question - she sat next to him on the plane.

And educator in the audience mentions documentary filmmakers do not know their rights regarding fair use.

An audience member says that the war on piracy is a war that can't be won. And imposing artificial constraints will only make things worse.

Clarke says DRM is not only an invasion of intellectual rights, it's an invasion of physical property rights. He says Sony did us all a favor by proving this point by overstepping their rights. "we could lose the right to use our computers as our tools." He mentions to Ishikawa that "not everyone reads the 15 page user's guide." "If I own a piece of hardware, if I've paid for this hardware. It should do what I want it to do."

Ishikawa says "If you go to the store and buy a dvd, you should know there are rules"

Clarke interrupts and says "You mean that I can't play it in the UK?"

Ishikawa says "So, you just copy it and share it with 10, 000 of your friends?" Which wasn't the point at all.

Clarke says DRM imposes a lot of rules, none of which prevent you from copying the material.

Fights break out all over the room, and the point is reinforced that copying material does not COST anyone money. Because someone copies something, it doesn't mean they would have spent money on it if copies weren't available.

Posted at March 13, 2006 11:34 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://mt.riceweevil.com/tb/6402