Re: [rumori] Re: Burned?

From: Don Joyce (
Date: Wed May 01 2002 - 04:06:58 PDT

Thanks, Jim,
I love the level of think-through on this, you're way ahead of me. Anyone
else have any further thoughts on why a Federal tax on Internet access is
more or less difficult or more or less inevitable than the privately
untouchable solutions we are headed for to pay for content made
untransferrable on line?

By the way, everyone seems to be assuming the major music corps, so often
in collusion with Government on stuff like this, represents some kind of
force that will object to this and fight it by twisting the law being made
into some less generalized, more self-serving solution. But within about 10
years, I think broadband will probably be universally available and we'll
have absolute CD quality music in very rapid downloads everywhere. It is
inevitable, at any rate. But I do not believe that corporate music will
have eliminated P2P free file transferrance inside the Net by that time,
and may even realize they never can. At that point, when Net music
downloading really WILL replace the viability of selling music as hardgoods
in stores, and all these companies have not been able to stop free music
on-line, they will actually be in a real and unavoidable fix so far only
hinted at, and at that point, given that they have not succeeded in
eliminating free music on line, THEY may be perfectly willing to encourage
the government to do exactly as I say (Ah, the POWER!) as THEIR last, best,
and only solution to save their music property income in any form at all.
Their collusion with Government will only assist a process which,
nevertheless, is also the best solution for the public (allowing all Net
content to be free, but paying a little more to get in and do whatever you
want there.)

Yes, there will be big and corrupted fights in Washington about how much
you, me, and they get per file transferrance, but that's another story, and
one that has happened many times before, and I think it will be a deal no
one can be happy with but everyone will finally accept, as usual. But don't
forget, IF such a culture compensation technology could be made to read
virtually EVERY transferrance, it is estimated there are now many billions
going on per year, and everyone could end up making much more out of this
thoroughness than they ever will by controling payment only on isolated
little toll island sites in the Internet's otherwise free ocean - the
present corporate plan of controling payment. They will surely benefit MORE
through a public plan, catching payment for their property EVERY time it's
transferred NET-WIDE, regardless of their resistance to socialism, and this
may become obvious to them before too long. This may be the only way to
SAVE the corporate music industry, thank you!

The trackable payment ID attached to content problem (not just music, by
the way, but any form of digitized content) is beyond my pea brain, or is
it pee brain, but it sounds sticky. But isn't also all the copy protection,
non transferrable technologies being so far uselessly developed by private
interests just as comparatively complicated to implement and track? And
don't they threaten to eliminate universal compatibility for almost
So we did go to the moon, ya know... At least payment IDs can be totally
passive code, purely for being read, doing or preventing nothing in
themselves. (It does have to resist manipulations to redirect payments,
however. But the aspect of whether or not the payment code would actually
be user SEPARABLE from the content is almost a moot point as I see no
reason to put in any such effort since the work would already be free to
the user. You could harrass an artist you don't like by removing his
payment codes and sending it back out I suppose, but other coded versions
of the same material will proliferate, and is that a bigger problem than
nobody getting paid for anything?) Then it's just a (gradual, I'm sure)
process of installing the technology that reads and passes on these payment
codes for collection whenever payment coded content passes an appropriately
inevitable point in its Net travel (servers?)
The total Net access tax is then delegated accordingly. We'll need a 4
story mainframe for this, but that's also not impossible.

The only thing the LAW will have to concern itself with is mandating the
payment code reading and duplicating technology in the appropriate hardware
(including burners, anything that copies/transfers digital content on or
off line, so that any coded content remains coded wherever it goes) and
provide the appropriate payment codes to content creators and copyright
owners, sort of like getting your own PVC code on all your products so
store scanners can read it. Look how fast that became universal - because
there is no benefit in not participating. All new work and all rereleases
would start including their own payment code, and there would be a
transition period when some things had it and some don't but so what? The
whole scheme, once in operation, ONLY invites universal participation as
soon as possible.

Copyright enforcement/infringement on-line becomes a moot point because all
copyright holders are automaticaly compensated whenever they get used
there, every time they get used there, yet all content copying is allowed
to be "free" for the taking there (and it isn't forced to be either, you
could still charge per download on top of this if you dare) so look how
much we'ld save in court clog and costs... None of that old world would
even be applicable on-line anymore.
The future is flat, as in fee.


>I think steev's concern is based on what would have to happen in
>order for your scheme to be implemented. In order to "count" the
>number of times a given digital object has been transferred, a couple
>of basic changes would have to made in the way the internet works.
>have you read Lessig's "Code"? If so you are familiar with the
>concept of 'intelligence at the edges' - ie. the network itself is
>'stupid' - it only knows about the addressing information attached to
>each packet, and nothing about what's inside it, or what it's for -
>it *fundamentally* doesn't care if it's a bit of an email, a baby
>picture, an mp3, or a bootleg video of michael eisner in drag. In
>order to 'meter' this traffic in any way other than as an
>undifferentiated mass, two things have to happen. 1. there would need
>to be some kind of (presumably central) registry for identifying
>'countable' objects, along with a scheme of 'unique identifiers' -
>which would have to be associated with *every packet* which belongs
>to a particular object. 2. every router would have to be capable of
>reading this information and reporting to the central agency - in
>other words, we would need to introduce 'intelligence' where there
>currently is none. in order to avoid spoofing or cloaking of packets
>(ie. faking the address and/or UID info), routers would have to be
>capable of looking inside each packet and making a 'best guess' as to
>what they contain. Needless to say encrypted packets would have to be
>discouraged or banned outright.
>Note: Lessig's argument is that the 'stupidity' of the network is
>exactly what makes it a level and open field for innovation - the
>original designers had the modesty and wisdom to understand that they
>had no idea what the network would be used for. Steev's point is that
>corporations/governments have been maneuvering for this level of
>control for some time now, which would, with minor changes, give them
>the ability to know absolutely and precisely every detail of
>information interchange that takes place - who sends what to whom,
>how often, where potentially troublesome ideas originate and how they
>spread. Identifying the source and destination of packets is the easy
>part - that's the network we already have. But there is currently no
>standardised or widely deployed system for 'packet sniffing' on the
>scale that would be required - for one thing it would add enormously
>to the cost of routing traffic, which means ISPs will only go for it
>if they are forced to by law.
>Recall the way that the RIAA/MPAA always justify their greed on
>behalf of 'helping creators'. Your scheme would necessarily give an
>enormous amount of control over the public internet to agencies that
>are salivating over precisely this type of control. And once we
>give it to them we can never go back...
>-Jim C.
>>Sure Steev, good ideas are sometimes dangerous, but they're also better
>>bets than bad ideas which are also dangerous. Nothing is going to stop
>>these very same fears of yours (and mine) from being implemented in the
>>present Internet, and in fact that is exactly what is being planned by many
>>private interests. So I opt for Gov. oversight in a good idea than no
>>public oversight in a bad one.
>>Do you object to number recall on your telephone? There are plenty of
>>useful and desirable reasons to monitor media traffic without the
>>participant's identities being archived anywhere. I'm suggesting we do that
>>BY LAW instead of leaving it all up to the selfish and uncontrolable whims
>>of private commerce, who will do it for sure under the guise of "marketing
>>data" eventually.
>>>on Sat, 27 Apr 2002 Don Joyce told me:
>>>->My idea has nothing to do with copy protection - there would be
>>>->none on-line because all Net content could be free for the
>>>->taking. Copying content there would become ENCOURAGED(!)
>>>->because the more you are copied, the more you will be paid.
>>>->It's a complete reversal of the status quo, eliminating the
>>>->entire concept of digital "crime" and effectively removing the
>> >->entire concept of copyright enforcement from on-line
>>>->activities. As for tracking, I see only a little ugh, not a big
>>>->or even important one, because it would ONLY read what you are
>>>->doing in terms of content transferrance, NOT that it is you
>>>->doing it or why. Neither would it stop you from doing whatever
>>>->you want to do, and it
>>>that's great if you could get it to happen exactly that way. i'm
>>>just saying, it would only take a little bit more to *add*
>>>features to the system that would invade privacy and prohibit
>>>certain behaviors. so while you're pushing for that, the
>>>corporations that want more are pretending to help you and work
>>>with you and then at the last minute they're pushing through
>>>their big-brother add-ons. it's just too dangerous, IMHO.
>>>To be clear: you're talking about a great theory, i agree, but
>>>I'm talking about what would (or might) happen if it really
>>>turned into public policy. scary. I'd rather just not go there. I
>>>don't want my computer or my walkman or my TV sending any
>>>information to anything anywhere, for any reason, unless i tell
>>>it to.
>>>Rumori, the Discussion List
>>>to unsubscribe, send mail to
>>>with "unsubscribe rumori" in the message body.
>>>Rumori list archives & other information are at
>>Rumori, the Discussion List
>>to unsubscribe, send mail to
>>with "unsubscribe rumori" in the message body.
>>Rumori list archives & other information are at
>Rumori, the Discussion List
>to unsubscribe, send mail to
>with "unsubscribe rumori" in the message body.
>Rumori list archives & other information are at

Rumori, the Discussion List
to unsubscribe, send mail to
with "unsubscribe rumori" in the message body.
Rumori list archives & other information are at

Home | Detrivores | Rhizome | Archive | Projects | Contact | Help | Text Index

[an error occurred while processing this directive] N© Sharerights extended to all.