Mathew Browne

I went to Newham council’s free fireworks display in Beckton yesterday evening, which was fun. Quite a lot of mouthy chav children and teens though, who - judging by the average age of the many single mums there - get laid more often than I do. The grand finale of the display was very impressive. It was as if the sky had mortally offended their mum and they were seeking revenge against it. (Hence the title of this post.)

Then I got a call from a friend I haven’t seen for months telling me to meet him in a bar near Trafalgar Square at 10:30. So me and the Missus go along, knowing that we’d only be staying about an hour so we wouldn’t risk missing the last tube home. And then we waited. And waited. After an hour I got impatient and we went home. Bit gutted really, especially as I didn’t even get a text to say “never mind, see you next time”.

I guess that’s a case of karma for you. Henry, another friend of mine, who was with said friend at the time, was running a play this week in Islington that I didn’t bother going to see. His timing wasn’t excellent - he booked it from November 1st through November 5th. This was up against the free fireworks display from the comfort of my living room on Saturday, which was the only day I would have entertained the notion of going. The weekday performances were at 9:30 in the evening, which proved problematic - I could either stay at UCL then travel up later, which would mean 4 hours of killing time, or go home then go back into London to see the play. This would have meant a 90-115 minute round trip to see a 60 minute play. Plus, in the case of the days where I have work the next day and presuming I’d be staying afterwards for a drink - which I’d be expected to - I’d have ended up home about midnight, which is waaaaay past my bedtime. (I need 10 hours sleep to function.) I haven’t had the balls to apologise yet.

My spirits have been lifted by the huge free fireworks display I was treated to this evening, all from the comfort of my living room balcony. On the dock, the local resident’s association had loaded a barge chock-full of pretty explosives. I took some pretty awesome photos, which I will put online later and change this sentence to be a link to it. So, if you just read that, I still haven’t gotten round to it.

I am currently selling my huge Playstation game collection because (a) I could do with some extra bread (b) I don’t have the storage/shelving space to accommodate them all (c) I don’t have the time to play them anymore. So, at the time of writing I have 205 listings on eBay, with more to go on. The great thing is, I always bought the games in job lots where the average cost per game never came to more than £2(*) but individually many of them are worth more. Some a LOT more. Sadly, eBay’s listing fees, completion fees, and Paypal fees (if applicable) will eat away into my profits like a hungry fat bird.

* The exception to this rule is the game Kula World, which I bought for £35. It usually sells for £45-£50 second-hand. Owing to the fact that no-one bought it while it was originally out, only for it to be declared a classic game later, this is one of only a handful of games that has actually gone up in value. I’m keeping it not because it’s value is going up, but because it is - as correctly hailed by game critics in hindsight - a classic.

I had a discussion with Liam (a friend of mine who is doing a PhD in peer-to-peer networks - yes, really) about the legality of file sharing yesterday. We both concluded that it’s becoming an increasingly risky gamble for users, especially the less technically minded. Though the chances of getting caught seem slim, the repurcussions if you are caught are enormous. Did you know that you could be sued for $150,000 for each film you are caught downloading? Scary, isn’t it? It is easy to dismiss such huge figures as propaganda peddled by the film studios and record companies to scare people away from file sharing, but we are talking about people who have sued children and settled out of court for thousands of dollars. There is one woman in America currently facing bankruptcy over a $620,000 suit. It’s just not worth doing it anymore. The system is flawed, but not all of it is against the downloaders…

When using Bit Torrent, you download files bit by bit. However, while downloading you also upload the bits you have to other users. Hence the term file sharing.

Let’s say the MPAA manage to get hold of the logs for a Bit Torrent tracker, and in these logs they find that somebody at your IP address downloaded a film. (For arguments sake, let’s say it was Ocean’s Eleven.) A few days or weeks later, you get a letter from their lawyers saying they’re suing you for several thousand dollars because you downloaded - and by using Bit Torrent also helped distribute - Ocean’s Eleven, which is their coyrighted material.

How do they prove you downloaded their copyrighted material? All they can prove is that you downloaded a file called Ocean’s Eleven. They can only know it was copyrighted material if you had uploaded some of the film to them. As they hold the copyright for the film, they aren’t guilty of copyright infringement. Herein lies the chance to fuck with them.

What somebody needs to do is modify Bit Torrent such that each user generates some random material that is unique to them, but not identifiable. (For example, a few frames of random static would be suitable. A few frames of someone’s actual, personal home video footage would be very, very stupid.) Then, this material is sent as a header to all outgoing connections. Therefore, if the MPAA wants to prove you have Ocean’s Eleven, they first have to download your random static video. And as this video is your copyrighted material, that makes them guilty of copyright infringement.

So if they did this, and resultantly you get sued for thousands of dollars for copyright infringement, in theory you could countersue for infringing your copyright. Of course, your copyrighted material is worthless, unlike theirs, so this would never work in practice. However, in pursuit of a lawsuit against you, they would be forced to acknowledge that they have committed a criminal offence as well.

A question to ask oneself is: “If I’m volunteering this video to them by sharing it online, then are they guilty of infringing my copyright?” Well, if you give someone a knife and tell them to kill you, are they a murderer if they actually do it? Of course they are. More to the point, rumours are rife that a major Hollywood film studio is using this very technique to catch people out. Of course, it could be propaganda to scare people away, but they’re sufficiently mercenary (what with suing kids and all) that it could well be true - allegedly they are seeding Bit Torrent files of their own copyrighted material (*cough* popular TV shows that have recently been released on DVD *cough*) with the goal of acquiring thousands of IP addresses, and the aim of filing a massive lawsuit sometime in the near future. (So, avoid downloading a California-based popular TV series with a two-letter acronym, if you catch my drift) Furthermore, the files are only 98% complete; there are gaps at strategically placed points to make following the stories - and burning to DVD, at least to the Average Joe - impossible.

If only they stopped lining their lawyers pockets and put the money towards a system that works, then everyone would be happy. Of course, if that ever happens it is years away. Today they’re too busy suing people.