So, just for kicks, we tried via MSN. At this point it’s also worth remarking that ADSL2+ upload speeds kick butt — we were done in two hours fifteen apparently (I went AFK but believe MSN’s logs). And the file even got there intact. I know.
Not as much bandwidth as the Odyssey (car I drive), but quite enough for when you’re feeling lazy/out of blank CDs. Double ewe oh oh tee.

Consider it under trial. I downloaded it not-from-an-official source because I haven’t got a Windows machine hooked up to this thing and can’t install anything by ActiveSync, so I needed an unofficial package (that, in this case, just happened to be cracked because that file looked like the right approx size on various peer-to-peer nets). If I’m not over it after 30 days I’ll fork out $15 or whatever it is from AstraWare. Which I probably won’t be (nor, I imagine, will various other users of this thing allow me to!)

Stupid DRM. My computer, of course, gets around the copy protection on this CD instantly. My DVD player (which I use as a CD player: shut up Steve, CD players don’t sound a-few-hundred-dollars better, so I don’t care! ;-) ), on the other hand, can’t play the damn thing. As of right now I’m ripping it to my computer (losslessly with FLAC) and will have a prestine, non-DRM copy on a burnt CD for my use in a matter of minutes.

And if a friend ever asks if they can borrow my Yellowcard CD (bought on a whim knowing only one of their songs, I’ll add), I’ll be sure to lend them the version that works better: The one I burnt myself, without your stupid-arse software all over it.

Oh, yeah, and I’ll hesitate to purchase EMI CDs in the future. All other DRM-encumbered crap I’ve bought in the past has at least had the courtesy to work in my DVD player (this one made detection take ages, then picked it up as a VCD with wierd timecoding) — this is the barrier at which point it becomes infinitely easier to use Peer-to-Peer than buy things that look like they might be interesting in a CD store.

With physical media, I can (read: should be able to) toss it in anything and expect it to work instantly (no ripping required, etc.).

And, you know, if I wind up using Peer-to-Peer for this kind of stuff, my lossless (yeah, that’s CD quality, not MP3 junk) audio collection will be shared back with the rest of the world. Yes, even the CDs you make it harder for me to use legitimately. I will figure out a way to get them onto my computer (or someone else will with another CD), and I will use sharing networks if scumbag content providers provide me with sufficient impetus to do that.

(Incidentally, if anyone wants to borrow a non-DRM-encumbered Yellowcard CD…)

Pop the disc in, over a perfectly legitimate install of Windows, to wipe and upgrade (from within the installer, so it can detect Windows first). Naturally, it doesn’t work. So I pull out a legitimate Windows disc to flash at it. Of course, it doesn’t work. On one of the installs, it wasn’t even an OEM modified disc (I’ve got a Windows ME disc here from Gateway which it also choked on, later) — but alas, it would not work.

Aharrrr! Thar be pirates lurkin’!

A quick sail over to them thar dangerous peer-to-peer waters quickly patched up the problem, especially when I can download an OEM disc image (~400MB) faster than Windows XP actually installs. Not that anyone ever would, of course. Yarrrrrr!

It’s now installing rather happily, just for the record. And there are separate licenses for each of the computers Windows XP is being installed on (or has been installed on), and the pirated copy of Windows 98 isn’t in use… but it sure simplified the installation process! Thank you, Gnutella!

“Unless you’re a pretty big cybergeek, people are generally happy to watch it on TV,” said an executive at one UK broadcaster who asked to remain anonymous.

Nevertheless, Hollywood is not standing by idly. Fearful of a repeat of the rampant downloading that crippled the music industry, the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) has forced the closure of several sites that provide the links needed to download movies and television shows.

In my previous post on piracy-related issues, I talked about the inadequacy of staggered global release policies in an environment in which consumer sovereignty exists to the point where this staggered release system is completely irrelevant, and serves only to promote and give additional cause for piracy. We’re seeing exactly the same issue with staggered television episode release, too.

Succinct version: The UK broadcaster executive labelling the issue as being niche and only for “pretty big cybergeek[s]” is horribly, horribly naïve and generally misguided, making him/her more than a little bit the fool.

Not-so-succinct version: They’re horribly wrong, and I’ve got anecdotal and other evidence to conclusively prove him so. Really. Admittedly, anecdotal evidence which is drawn from a smaller spectrum of society, but it’s indicative of a greater problem to come (teenage culture representing an “early adopter” market within the field of consumer electronics and technology), which cannot be simply ignored in the way that it appears broadcasters have ignored this.

Today a group of people at school were talking about the TV show “Desperate Housewives”, and someone said words to the effect of “I wish I knew what happened next week, this is addictive TV!” (apparently most of Australia would agree with them, as evident from the statistics posted on Steve’s weblog). That’s far less interesting in and of itself than what came next – a comment along the lines of “Oh, in the US they’re up to [some other season or something], I’ve already seen them”, coupled with an offer to plot-spoil for other watchers of the series. Which isn’t exactly something the networks need to worry about – plot spoilers rarely would actually deter someone from spending an hour (or 47 minutes, given the 13 minute advertising restriction in that timeslot in Australia, if I recall correctly – someone might care to clarify as a matter of trivia?) watching a programme they enjoy, even if it makes little to no difference to them in terms of plot revelation.

The more significant part of this comment is of course that this person had actually seen these episodes, and context which direct quotation can’t convey – this person is a TV addict, but they’re hardly a “geek extraordinaire”, which is important in criticising this executive’s statements. The person who’d seen the episode was hardly the only one, either, although the only instance that immediately springs to mind as being noteworthy.

A slightly more removed example from this is from a few months back, relating to those piratical-problem-children, university students from an institution that shall remain unnamed. Episodes from the entire first season of The OC, long before we were too far into it here in Australia. On a laptop, downloaded from Peer-to-Peer, by an arts student with a moderate (and I mean very moderate!) IT bent… nobody ever try and say that using peer-to-peer is beyond the scope of any average teenager or university student!

Which is, of course, exactly what this executive was suggesting – that downloading content that isn’t available by other means is something solely restricted to geeky people. It’s not. And until this fact is recognised by networks, they can enjoy watching their advertising revenue fall as viewers enjoy ad-free downloaded captures of programmes not yet even released in this country – all of which could be circumvented through studios permitting and supporting simultaneous International content release, because realistically “global premiere rights” don’t offer anything aside from marketing appeal, as the audience can’t just hop continents in order to view it on a competing network (that’s an issue for another decade, when real-time video streaming becomes as prolific as audio streams are today… although competition with traditional radio networks is only just beginning to become apparent in the US, with the advent of dedicated wireless streaming services), but they CAN wait 24 hours to view an ad-free capture of the same programme via the Internet if they’re patient, or if the programme isn’t available in their locale.

The executive wasn’t completely wrong. People are happy to watch things on TV. The only issue with that is that TV must be showing the content that people want to watch – that’s long been a recognised fact, but perhaps not so much in the timing of this content delivery… now, it has to be on a schedule which leaves the audience no alternative which is desirable (because TV itself is easier to use than peer-to-peer downloading).

No, it is their distribution methods that are at fault here. I don’t mean to launch on the usual tirade regarding their apparent neglect of the existence of electronic global distribution infrastructure, although that certainly plays a part of it (Peer-to-Peer and the role it plays is addressed further on, although hopefully not in the usual rhetoric-filled manner we’re all learning to ignore); I’m more concerned with the way in which, given the self-established impact (or claimed impact) of Peer-to-Peer technology and the Internet as a distribution tool in general, the studios (I refrain from making locale-specific references such as the MPAA, etc.) persist in their old distribution model in terms of their film to home consumption (VHS/DVD) release cycle.

It is clear that piracy is not greatly hindered by staggered international release dates, as DVD rips of most movies are immediately available on Peer-to-Peer networks after their release ANYWHERE, and studio rips of many before then. As such, the notion of staggered international release generally is now fundamentally flawed and is clearly detrimental to the business prospects of the production houses, more than “traditional” (read: VCD/SVCD Asian organised piracy ring reproduction) ever was, if only by economies of scale (whilst a restricted number of people from affluent nations which present a target to the production studios could conveniently acquire these “traditional” pirate copies, now significant numbers of people are connected via broadband in these affluent target areas, presenting an ever-increasing problem!).

The solution to this, it would seem, is simply to use co-ordinated International release dates — this is not, however, an absolute solution, and is still flawed in that it does not recognise the degree of consumer sovereignty that undeniably does exist. It is important that the studios recognise that people do have access to file-sharing facilities, and release their products accordingly. As such, the gap between VHS/DVD consumer release (n.b. NOT rental release) and the end (or even winding down) of cinema screening must be decreased to such a point as to be utterly inconsequential — consumers have no reason to wait, as they enjoy sovereignty (legal issues aside) over their access mechanisms!

It is clear that the time to release between the cessation of cinema screening and home release is now utterly redundant — previously, it existed to protect the interests of cinemas, but now consumers widely have access to pirated resources as they wish, at or even before cinema release time! Clearly, in this present climate, consumer sovereignty is demonstrated by electing to go to the movies rather than simply downloading them and watching them at home. With this in mind, the respective anti-piracy propaganda messages displayed in countries around the world at the beginning of movies are now even less relevant than they would have been five to ten years ago! Then, consumers made active choice to partake in piracy — now, they make active choice not to, by patronising cinemas at all!

It is clear that cinemas, therefore, have intrinsic appeal in their presentation of content, rather than any exclusivity of content that may exist or be contrived to exist as a result of manipulation of releases by studios. If this intrinsic appeal is acknowledged, there should be little detrimental effect in a minor overlap of cinema/home release at the conclusion of a screening period, surely! Likewise, the video and DVD rental chains would not suffer substantially by changing their business model to permit the sale as well as rental of content — it is simply a matter of habit; habit which is proven to be outdated and rapidly becoming irrelevant in this new market of extreme consumer sovereignty.

I have a specific example in mind when I write this article, but that isn’t overly relevant. Suffice to say, I have seen this movie at cinema release, and was going to purchase it from Video Ezy (a local rental/sale chain; there was confusion on their website regarding the respective release for rental and sale of this movie) — but couldn’t. The movie is still in Overnight release stage, and I was planning on studying this film for academic purposes — something that is financially unrealistic given imposed rental conditions, and something which may be easily circumvented through the use of peering technologies. Will I buy it when it becomes available? Most probably. That’s not really relevant, though — I could elect not to, regardless as to legal/moral obligations.

The failure of major studios to recognise this capacity for choice and adjust their strategies accordingly is apparently far more damaging than the effects of piracy and human greed alone.

Lycos spokesperson, Kay Oberbeck, is quoted as saying that “the [Make Love not Spam] campaign was only meant to be temporary”, it’s primary goals being to spark discussion and raise awareness — something which it has unquestionably achieved, perhaps in a realm far greater than that of just unsolicited spam marketing (I refuse to use euphemisms here — spam is unsolicited, intrusive, trespassing, unrequested and undesireable — not “direct marketing”). The campaign has raised questions regarding the state of regulation of the Internet, both in terms of anti-spam legislation, and the legality of “electronic sit-in” tactics, up to and including the use of distributed (collaborative) attacks on a centralised point.

Arguments over the semantics of what exactly constitutes a DDoS attack have also arisen as a result of this campaign: Whilst it’s generally accepted that this is indeed a distributed attack, the curious nature of the application, in that it attempts to raise the costs of spamming but not altogether “deny service”, coupled with the fact that participation in this campaign is user-driven (by way of active participatory choice), mean that this cannot be likened to virus-driven DDoS attacks seen in recent times, such as those upon The SCO Group’s website.

Not only is the basic question of what constitutes a (D)DoS attack raised, but also the question of what, exactly, is required for this attack to be considered “distributed”. Legally speaking, the attack has not been launched from any one co-ordinating point. The software distribution point and directory listing points were centralised, however these were not responsible for the independent actions of over 100,000 users^[1], who downloaded the software, and ran it.

Collaborative attacks such as this make litigation remarkably difficult, considering the very distributed participation — how can Lycos be sued for something they didn’t do? And, even if they could be sued for “something” they didn’t do, is it even legitimate to prosecute over a “denial of service” attack such as this? Some have commented that by connecting a computer to the Internet, you accept the possibility of such attacks implicitly — admittedly, this was posted on Slashdot, a (slightly more Left) IT news source, but the point bears consideration.

Was the campaign a “good” thing? In accordance with the stated goals presented to the world in hindsight, yes. Having said that, however, Lycos appear to have been standing on defensive footing for much of this campaign, denying events which the rest of the world seem to have witnessed, beyond most reasonable doubt (speaking specifically of the denial of the compromise of their website, either by a direct hacking, or DNS poisoning). Starring, the agency responsible for developing the Spray website (an arm of Lycos) and the Make LOVE not SPAM campaign, maintains the intention of the campaign is to increase the costs involved with SPAM advertising (as well as awareness raising and a promotional utility for Spray mail), something which everyone took as implicit, but (so far as I’ve seen) Lycos hasn’t explicitly stated^[2].

So what’d they do wrong, from a constructive perspective? Well, it was of a closed nature, for one. Lycos copped a surprising amount of criticism for this one from the mainstream media, specifically as “independent verification” of the nature of sources was unable to be performed — fears that the lists of offenders were corrupted remained unresolved, as public access to this information was not readily available ^[3]. If Lycos’s present stance on the project is legitimate, then the project rather deliberately remained closed in nature — if it were open, they would have an AOL-style Gnutella on their hands (admittedly, the situation of recall is remarkably similar, but the project hasn’t been able to get out of control due to a lack of publically available source code), arguably a worse corporate nightmare than the legal mess in which Lycos may find themselves entangled.

An open project would have allowed the project a greater chance of success, in that criticism pertaining to the validity of targets would be quelled, and even an official end to the project would likely permit a host of child-projects, all with the same goals in mind. The disadvantage to this, of course, is that community-powered vigilantism is far more susceptible to dubious attacks on innocent websites, due to it’s (comparatively) unregulated nature (if Lycos’s claims regarding the checking process are to be believed).

Will this spurn a host of similar projects? Probably. Such projects already exist, on a smaller scope — one project targetting Nigerian scammers is already in place — however none of them have enjoyed such widespread media attention as MLNS has from conventional press. Lycos’s position as a dominant European (and, to a lesser extent, American) portal has meant that their actions are far more closely scrutinised than those of small community bodies. Having said that, the popularity of peer-to-peer file-sharing applications didn’t come about as a result of mass media propagation, but rather through grassroots communication between peers, recommending the software to others.

Information Technology publications (both physical and electronic) played a part in making early adopters aware of these technologies, however the bulk of the work may be attributed to communities online who spread awareness of this software on a peer-based level. This technology has similar potential, on a far greater scale — it’s media exposure at launch was massive, and whilst it was rapidly removed (or censored), the amount of interest it generated offers projects which adopt a similar vein in the future a greater chance of success.

From a media perspective, future projects such as this will attract a mention, if only because of their similarity to this high-profile one. The ramifications of MLNS are great in scope; arguably, greater than Lycos have foreseen in the launch of this. Ultimately, this project demonstrates the power of the Internet as a tool for activism and collaborative empowerment — the true impact of these is something for which the world must wait and watch.

Notes

1. Actual downloads may far exceed this figure, given the rapid propagation of mirrors of this software, and the (highly questionable) actions of some backbone providers in blocking the official website, MakeLoveNotSpam.com — which raises a whole new set of questions pertaining to digital activism, if the providers to this form of self-enforcing electronic democracy are actively denying access to “questionable” facilities!
2. I’m quite open to being proved wrong on this point: so far as I can see, they haven’t stated that — I’ve been sifting through a decent amount of news material on the subject, but it’s more than possible that I simply missed it. If you feel otherwise, feel free to leave a comment/send me an email.
3. Admittedly, it was possible to access http://backend.makelovenotspam.com/xml/ for the data, but this wasn’t a highly publicised fact, and the methods by which this data was attained and verified remain shrouded in doubt.

I lost the Gateway Windows Me CD (I have absolutely NO idea how that was managed, seeing that EVERY OTHER system disc is still in my folder for such things, but hey!) for the Celery laptop, and have just finished downloading a nice new full ISO of Windows Me (heh, I laughed when the ISO preparer was marked as Microsoft themselves… yay for direct ripping!).  I was half expecting it not to work or something, but hey, it does.  Very cool.

Yes, this evidently makes me an evil pirate, and the peer to peer networks should be shut down, and users should never lose discs.  Well, that would be okay, if copyright law in this esteemed country made provision for “Fair Use”.  No matter what I do, I’d be breaking the law.  I can’t keep a copy locally, and I can’t download a copy remotely… what’s a geek to do?  Heh, hardly a geek, even — this thing is running Millenium.  Ah well.  It works okay, despite all the bad press.  It was built by an OEM, and came with an OEM dist. of Millenium (which, of course, I have now lost and replaced with a stock image of, but hey), so it has to run acceptably.

Hmmmm.  Yes.  Now I can finally dub (well, not strictly dub, but meh:P) some of the accumulating Platform 7 recordings (on tape) to file… well, I could before, if I could be bothered to move my desktop into the lounge room.  But that’s just too far away, and would mean too much time spent away from email ;)

“Copying files needed for Windows Setup…”  Hurry up and copy already!!!  Sigh.

In other interesting news, I’ve discovered why Google isn’t indexing this website properly.  Apparently my URL’s are too complex… SE’s can deal with query strings to an extent, but apparently any more than two and a bit and they start to struggle/or at least ignore bits.

The solution would basically mean either using URI’s of the form http://baseaddress/?$style.$page.$extravariable1.$extravariable2 etc., or using mod_rewrite to make even more friendly URL’s.

I’m not sure exactly what would be the most scalable way to do this, and haven’t got time immediately available to determine this… I may look at it next weekend, or later next week depending on other workload and the progress of existing web projects.

And that concludes my procrastination for this half hour…  back to the Extension seminar preparation and things like that!