Hey Chris, I've been working on a sort of code-as-concept-art piece, and I hope you'll find it interesting. I call it Baudio. In fact, the whole idea was germinated when we were discussing the idea of me contributing audio tips to Lockergnome - I was thinking about showing how to chop MP3 files together, but it started to get a little too complicated to be a fun tip for people to try. A little background: most everybody is aware of the recent RIAA lawsuits that are directly targeting people suspected of making copyrighted works available via file-sharing networks like Kazaa. Not so long ago, the RIAA's focus was stopping the file- sharing networks themselves (as opposed to individual users). At that time, groups like the EFF were arguing that we shouldn't hold a neutral technology accountable for how some may misuse it, and to that end the EFF themselves even suggested that the RIAA should instead start suing infringers.

The RIAA somewhat recently lost a round in court against a pair of file-sharing networks (Grokster and Morpheus) when the judge compared those applications to another new technology (and another lawsuit) from years ago - the Sony Betamax case. Essentially, the court agreed with the EFF position: you shouldn't hold the technology accountable for how some might misuse it. And the court also indicated that unauthorized copying of copyrighted works remains infringement, and remains illegal. So the RIAA has now shifted its legal attention to direct infringers, and the EFF's position has shifted as well. For instance, the EFF's "File Sharing: It's Music to our Ears" seems to kinda sorta say that copying is cool, regardless of copyright status.

But that's not the end of the story: a number of intellectual property rights commentators are calling for new copyright laws that would render what is now copyright infringement legal. For example, several popular proposals would create a new tax, and divide up the proceeds based on some formula that tracks downloads. Ultimately, the question we should all be asking is how the pros and cons of such alternative systems compare to the pros and cons of the system that we have now. However, if you dig a little deeper the first thing you'll notice is that there isn't really any complete alternative on the table, and so it gets a little tough to determine how it might impact free speech and privacy, how fair and cheat-proof it is, and so on.

Personally, I think anti-RIAA rhetoric is being used to promote these systems rather than specific technical details that explain how they would actually work. I think that if we're going to change our laws, we should know what we're changing them to, and we should do so for a better reason than "the RIAA sucks." As you know, I make Andromeda, software for playing your music over the Web. The thing is that the same copyright laws that protect record companies also protect people like me, sites like Lockergnome, etc. On the other hand, I know perfectly well that Andromeda users (myself included) want to let some friends and family listen in on their collection, and that seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to do, but copyright seems to disagree.

The point is that there are many interesting conversations to be had, and we might even learn just how great (or how flawed) these alternative systems are. But it's impossible to figure this stuff out when everything is getting buried by all the negative rhetoric. Here's where Baudio comes in. Most of these alternative copyright systems are only designed to track music, even though other file types are just as easily file-shared. So, for instance, film makers, coders, writers, etc. are all left out. I just created a simple hack, Baudio, that transforms any computer file into a valid audio file (a WAV). You can likewise decode Baudio-encoded files back to their original state. So, via Baudio, any type of file should now count under an audio-only alternative copyright system.

It sounds a little nuts, but it's not - for instance, imagine how many times something like Apache is downloaded, and I think you'll see what I mean. For example, the Nuke portal guys could start by offering their downloads as both regular and Baudio-encoded files, explaining that choosing the Baudio-encoded version helps out the team. Check it out. I think Baudio has implications for these alternative, audio-only, copyright systems because it shows how any file can be transformed into audio. And if these systems start to exclude works, then they run up against free speech problems - who gets to decide what art is worthy of compensation and what art is not?

Baudio is currently only available as a pair of PHP scripts, and is currently mostly a proof-of-concept. Windows executables are on the way (as are any other format that people might want). For more on the topic of how the file-sharing rhetoric is being used in place of practical solutions, you might check out this article I wrote for Salon.com, which was published simultaneously with a response from the EFF. If you're not a Salon subscriber, you can just follow the 'day pass' link for free access to the full articles. Derek Slater, a junior at Harvard who worked for the EFF last summer and is now an affiliate at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School wrote a thoughtful response to my Salon article. Though Derek is critical of some of my own rhetoric (point taken, and I'll try to do better next time) I think his article picked up on many of the issues that I had hoped to raise, and it pushes the dialog forward.

Also check out an especially interesting series of posts by Ernest Miller, fellow of the Information Society Project at Yale Law School and former editor-in-chief of LawMeme. Ernest's posts look at some of the other issues regarding these alternative systems, beyond the traditional sticking points of how the collection and distribution of funds would work:

• Compulsory Licensing - What is Noncommercial Use?
• Some Questions and Concerns Regarding EFF's Filesharing Policy
• What Should the RIAA Sue For?
• Compulsory Licensing - More on Commercial/Noncommercial
• Compulsory Licensing - The Death of Gnutella and the Triumph of Google
• Compulsory Licensing - Where Are the Defenders of HTTP?
• Compulsory Licensing - The Public Domain Lottery?

"'I have an overall general knowledge of computers, but I draw a blank... when it comes to servers and how Verisign can steal the "URL not found page!" Can you give a simple layman's language [explanation of] how it is done?'

"The response started out with exactly what I was thinking: 'Great question!' Then went on to explain without using simple layman's language.

"I assume that when someone asks for an explanation in layman's language, they want to hear it in clear, basic terms, free of lingo, so that it can be understood by virtually anyone (including dummies like me). Not what happened. Two excerpts from the first paragraph of the answer:

• 'It all comes down to DNS record management.' -- Great! What's DNS record management? (In layman's language, please.) What exactly does DNS stand for? I Googled the term and found plenty of pages that employ the term but none that explain it (though I get that it is somehow related to domain management).
• 'Since VeriSign is the organization chosen to hold the keys to the base .com and .net top-level domains (TLD), they have the ability to add a wildcard record for those top tier addresses, and have done so.' -- What exactly does it mean that VeriSign 'holds the keys' to the base.com and .net top-level domains? And what the heck is a wildcard record?"

"First off, let's start with DNS. DNS is an abbreviation for Domain Name System, which is the program which converts IP addresses to a fully-qualified domain name. For example, the IP address 69.42.68.195 translates to the web site www.lockergnome.com. Oh, a fully-qualified domain name is the part of a URL which just contains the name of the computer. For example, the URL for Lockergnome's web site http://www.lockergnome.com. The fully-qualified domain name for the computer in that URL is www.lockergnome.com.

"The reason DNS came about is because it is much easier to use the Internet when things have names like www.google.com or www.yahoo.com as opposed to just using numerical IP addresses. So, basically, DNS servers contain a list of IP addresses and their associated fully-qualified domain names. If the fully-qualified domain name you type in isn't listed in your DNS server, it can query another one to obtain it, going all the way to VeriSign's 'master' DNS servers if necessary.

"The best analogy I've managed to come up with is postal addresses in the United States. The US Postal Service's ZIP+4 and ZIP+6 codes allow mail to reach a specific building, just as a packet of data goes to a specific computer. But while it's much more efficient to use a ZIP+6 code (12345-123456) to transport and deliver mail, it's harder for most people to remember and use than saying '100 Main Street, Anytown ST 12345' for an address, just as typing in www-something-dot-something is easier than entering a string of numbers.

"You have, of course, been using DNS servers since you first got connected to the Internet. Whenever you typed in a URL to a web browser, or sent someone an e-mail or downloaded a file at some point, a DNS server was involved, translating domain names into IP addresses (and vice-versa). It's just one of those things that, when working, works so well it's usually invisible.

"So, that's what a DNS server does. I think. Now, let's address the second half of your question: What did VeriSign do to alter things?

"Well, if you've ever mis-typed a URL, chances are you've ended up at the wrong web site or instead received an error message from your web browser saying that the web site you've tried to connect to is not accessible. The reason the web browser displayed that message was it contacted a DNS server and could not get a corresponding IP address for the domain name.

"What I believe Verisign has done is to re-configure their DNS servers, so instead of returning an error message when an invalid address is entered, they instead go to a page on their web site saying that an invalid address was entered, they offer to search for it, then allow you to register the invalid domain and display advertising. While the latter has clearly annoyed many people, it is the former process which is perhaps the most unsettling. What Verisign has done is, effectively, made it so there are no longer any invalid addresses on the Internet. Anytime you type in the wrong domain name portion of a URL, you go to their web site instead of receiving an error message.

"If you're curious about what DNS server(s) are used by your computer, try opening a Command Prompt by clicking Start | Run, entering CMD.EXE (or COMMAND.COM, if you're using Windows 95, 98 or Me), and clicking OK. Once the Command Prompt has started, type 'IPCONFIG.EXE /ALL' at the prompt and press the Enter key. You'll be able to view some of the computer's various settings for its Internet connection, including the IP address of your DNS server(s)."

Submit a Question or Tip | Discuss | Recommend It!