P2P: the new information war?

aEwkVS ftltyfekwvje, [url=http://hvycqwgzfelz.com/]hvycqwgzfelz[/url], [link=http://xpelgjvbzfeu.com/]xpelgjvbzfeu[/link], http://qelrafyrtdgv.com/

Truth and Lies (subtitled: Leni’s Deceit) By Anthony Steyning We all burst out laughing as infamous leaders stop and look out over the utter devastation they’ve inflicted upon their subjects and themselves, calling this useless defeat a glorious day, a moment of blessed victory. We are rightfully scornful when, after finally having been put on trial, these same leaders manage to brand themselves victim or martyr, not one of those hundreds of thousands of poor, poor bastards they murdered in cold blood. In disbelief we take note of ‘Democratic People’s’ republics that are or were as ‘Democratic’ as a Gulag, and ‘of the People’ like the moon belongs to Freddie, down the block. On every day basis we listen incredulously as one breathtakingly useless product after another is publicly misrepresented for quick gain. The list goes on and on, in politics, in commerce, in religion, in sports, in the arts, in battle as in love: the chronic fib.

I particularly enjoyed Miriam Rainsford’s positive and forward looking approach in ‘P2P : revolution or evolution?’ and I found her presentation of Draos’ information feudalism enlightening. I think I would take one step further than Rainsford and say that I see P2P networks not as a route to ‘embracing new and emerging values’ but as an essential need for social beings to be able to communicate, even trade, one-to-one and hence as an extension to traditional social values. I have laid out my reasons for thinking in this way in a paper on social

I don't see how the fact that Ian Clarke wants to pay the rent (by forming Uprizer) implies that he is some kind of traitor to the ideology of Freenet - he continued to spend just as much of his spare time on Freenet as he did before forming Uprizer. Where in Freenet's philosophy does it say that making money is bad?

Some people just resent anyone that tries to make money, irrespective of what other good they do, envy is the disease of the left (as greed is the disease of the right).

What is with the record company's these days? I am really starting to wonder why they bother complaining and sueing. It strikes me to wonder, does the internet really infringe upon the record companies business? Take a look at home videos. Before the recordable vcr came out movies, in order to be watched, had to be purchased, but as soon as the record button came into action it all changed. Why then has the movie industry not been hit as hard? Any suggestions?

Hello. Siva here. This has already been a wonderfully rich set of discussions about the effects of peer-to-peer communication, and thus peer-to-peer thinking, on various areas of life in the 21st century. This part of the series is the most important. When the editors at openDemocracy.net first discussed the series with me, we agreed that it would serve as an ideal place for generating feedback and debate. And it certainly has. Bill Thompson has served as an ideal critic for my leaps of logic and broad assumptions. His technical expertise has driven the discussion to a higher level than I could have alone. And our back-and-forth has revealed a serious difference in our respective faiths in the good work of the state when it comes to information regulation.

I enjoyed the dynamic writing of Ziva. The notion that empathize has inspired a world wide people movement is interesting and thought provoking. The on going struggle between the will of the people and the State in Mexico is itself worthy of closer evaluation if indeed this is a problem that the whole world can empathise with and create a "people movement" that transcends representative government (even if it is only somewhat representative). In California where the experiment of little "a" anarchists has fallen on bad times is a good case in point. Unlike their neighbor (Mexico)-- they have awesome political and economic power -- perhaps the most of any people in the world (they are the richest American State are they not?) In the last election, a dismal turnout elected a very unpopular governor who has now made history as the only governor in America to get "fired" for poor job performance. Apathy seems to be a major problem in America even though we are in a time of great transition and global forces threaten our way of life like never before.

In ‘The anarchy and oligopoly of science’ the third instalment of his essay on the implication of electronic peer-to-peer networks for culture, science, security and globalisation, Siva Vaidhyanathan sees the free information flows at the heart of science as under threat from the mercantilist economy, the post 9/11 security frenzy, the exclusive ownership of genetic databases and by science policies of governments and universities. I have met Siva twice, and I have always enjoyed both his lecture and his imposing personality. But he has always surprised me with the simplicity and honesty or is it the naivety with which he presents and develops his argument (and I’m still not sure which is right). On the issue of science about which, as a Biologist and Research Coordinator, I suppose I am professionally qualified to comment I fear that naiveté is getting the better of Siva

"While the copyright system benefits the publishing oligarchs at the expense of scientific openness, it has not had nearly the restrictive effects that the patent system has had on science." hmmm, no. Information is not restricted by either copyright or patent, it is the use of the information that is restricted. The purpose is to allow creative people to share their discoveries without the threat of losing control over the commercial use of their ideas. The intention is to aid the flow of information and so encourage others to build on earlier work, to find alternative approaches or further developments. Patented ideas can be directly incorporated in new uses by properly crediting and compensating the creator of those ideas.

I am wondering about the terms "anarchy" and "oligarchy" to describe the current struggle over digital information control and distribution. Are those useful terms? Seems to me the terms leave out the politically important middle ground of balance between (a) the rights of the public to share and distribute information for the public good, and (b) the rights of creators and inventors to be compensated and credited for their work. Labeling (b) as "oligarchy" is misstating the case. Sure, Jack Valenti is an oligarch, Michael Powell, Michael Eisner, no argument there. But can't someone support position (b) without being on the side of Evil? Similarly, seems to me that someone could be an advocate of position (a) but also respect the principle of crediting work (notice that I did not say "original authorship"). Creating information does involve work, after all.

[originally posted in _Media & the net_ discussion since this one did not exists at the time] Subject - P2P Author name - Gary Jones Date - 3-7-2003 In _The challenge is not P2P but democracy and accountability_ Bill Thompson seems to demonstrate that a little knowledge can be confusing. More knowledge can help. "Siva’s claim that ‘most of what happens over peer-to-peer networks is relatively anonymous’ is similarly misleading." You might check out Freenet. "It is also wrong to claim that P2P file sharing networks are unmediated and uncensorable, at least not as currently implemented."

Siva Vaidhyanathan's four part essay on peer to peer will be published by openDemocracy over the following weeks. This essay which draws on the research for a forthcoming book he described to us as a 'work in progress' and a 'provocation'. He wants to test his ideas in public before committing them to a book- so what he is looking for is tough criticism (such as Bill Thompson's piece, in the debate), questions and comments. What has he missed, exaggerated, got wrong? He will be checking the discussion frequently and answering your questions and comments when he is able. Be part of this 'peer review' process- and see the impact of your critique (Siva has already incoporated and addressed the criticisms he has received into his work).