David Bishop

Here’s a video from Tom Baldwin who is standing in one of the Bristol seats for the up coming general election on behalf of TUSC:

An article I wrote about the ethics of file sharing, edited by Jim Lowe.

Since the explosion of Napster in 1999, file sharing has rarely been out of the news. It is usually demonised, yet according to some estimates around 8 million people in the UK use file sharing networks.

History and Philosophy of the Internet
The Internet was developed in the 1960s by universities and the US military, it consists of networked computers exchanging information over large distances. One of the first uses of it was to send academic papers back and forth over networks for fast peer reviewing of research, so file sharing has always been a part of the Internet. In the 1980s when the home computer became popular, newsgroups became very popular. These forums for discussion were places where anyone could freely discuss and quickly and cheaply spread media quickly to anyone else in the world who was also connected to the Internet.

The Internet is based on Open Source technology, which is “software for which the original source code is made freely available and may be redistributed with or without modification.”- Oxford Dictionary. This means the creators consent to remove the ‘all rights reserved’ that exists under current copyright law. The Internet has spread to almost every nation, across multiple languages and alphabets, can be accessed on PCs, Macs, phones, and TVs, and use a variety of different programming languages. Despite this, it is incredibly stable and works remarkably well. The software that manages the hardware and keeps it all ticking over was built by collaboration, for free, for the good of us all. This is undoubtedly a strong argument against the need for a profit incentive.

The 1990s saw a major commercialisation of the Internet, allowing capitalists to exploit and profit from a publicly-funded creation. Another example of the costs being socialised and the profits privatised! Since then, the Internet has become progressively less free and more closed.

Other Mass Media
When the printing press was invented it was seen as a heresy. Before this, information was scarce, and there were instances where books were actually chained to posts and guarded! The printing press allowed information to be produced and distributed far more quickly and cheaply than before. Eventually, as the technology developed, printing presses became more expensive, and so a democratic invention came to serve the rich and powerful.

The Internet is denigrated as the early printing press was, from scare stories about the security of email to attacking file sharers as stealing from artists. It is also a democratic medium that the rich and powerful would like to own and control.

Net Neutrality
One of the founding principles of the Internet was the concept of ‘net neutrality’. The internet is the ‘world wide web’ which, as the name suggests is like a spiders web, with lots of nodes (servers) connected to each other – a network. When we connect to the internet we are connected to everything else on a equal basis.

However, the capitalists are now seeking to rip up net neutrality and allow Internet Service Providers to restrict the flow to some servers and increase to others. For example, The Sun could pay BT to allow full access to its site and slow access to other sites down to a trickle, so no one would bother with the slow stuff and go to The Sun website instead. This hasn’t quite happened yet but many ISPs already restrict or totally block access to file sharing networks. Many ISPs also have their own media download services which they will allow unrestricted access to, while restricting other media access during peak times. Reflecting this trend and thinking, the head of Virgin Media recently stated that ‘net neutrality is a load of bollocks…’

History of File Sharing
1st generation file sharing networks consisted of finding a file on a server and downloading it, a long and tedious task. The 2nd generation, with the advent of Napster, allowed people to share a small part of their hard disk drive and then search everyone else’s shared drive for a file they want and then download it. The problem was that the indexing of who had what file was all done centrally on the Napster server, so the operation could easily be shut down by chopping off the head (the Napster server)! 3rd Generation networks were an improvement as they became decentralised so they couldn’t be shut down very easily by authorities. This had the unfortunate side effect of slowing down searches for media. The 4th Generation improved the speed of finding files.

5th Generation networks like BitTorrent greatly increase the speed of file sharing by allowing you to download one file from several servers at once. Files are spilt into thousands of fragments (packets) so you can download some packets from one server and some from another and it can put it all back together again when finished. So instead of relying on one server and its speed you can download from dozens, hundreds or even thousands of different users. The more everyone shares the more powerful the networks become, making it almost impossible to stop without draconian laws to disconnect users from the Internet, which Peter Mandelson recently proposed. As a recent study showed that access to the Internet is fast becoming as essential as any other utilities, this is quite a serious suggestion which can be seen as another New Labour attack on civil liberties.

Ethics of File Sharing
File Sharing opens up a world of limitless, fast, free digital media, not just to download but to create and share as well. It allows ‘mash ups’ in which the skill is to take as many different sounds from as many different genres of music and try to make something that sounds good. Mash up is a genre of music that flourishes on file sharing networks but is almost impossible without them because of intellectual property restrictions. File sharing also solves the problem of a lack of availability due to being sold out, not sold in shops, or deleted. Anything and (almost) everything can be found on a network, somewhere.

But what about the artist? Artists could be benefiting from these new media outlets, but the record labels prevent this. With a similar royalty system to radio (but far more fair and balanced because of the technology) a fee could be integrated into file sharers month internet access charge which would then be split amongst artists. People could use file sharing networks as now, and artists would make money. It seems so simple, so why doesn’t it happen? The record industry is why. Such a change would make them redundant. Anyone can upload an MP3 and allow the networks to organically spread the media, whereas distributing old media like CD in shops is a long and expensive process, but a process which can be used to make profits by exploiting artists and ripping off music fans. Music can be downloaded legally from iTunes and Amazon at the same cost of a CD, at lower quality, without the artwork and not on the file sharing networks. This is centrally controlled by the record labels and allows them to continue to exploit artists and rack up massive profits.

By downloading music from file sharing networks, you can help break the parasitical recording industry and help artists. In the current system if an artist isn’t able to sell half a million records they are working for a pittance. Deducted from even the tiny cut they get from the sale of their music are promotional and tour costs and the interest fees they have to pay on the studio advances they get to live on whilst recording records. As an additional insult, the record companies take the artists copyright from them and have total control over what the artist produces.

The capitalist media portrays this as an issue about whether file sharing is stealing or not. This is a distraction. The real issue is who controls the production and distribution of media. We, the people, or the large corporations like Sony, Apple and Universal. This is a fight about who controls the Internet, us or them. This is a battle that we must fight as in five years time the Internet could be like newspapers and television, dominated by a few large corporations, which would be a very sad thing indeed.

File sharing networks allow for people to easily and freely download an artist’s music, decide whether they like them, and if they do, spread the word to friends and strangers all over the world and then support the artist by going to see them live, which is how artists make their living. Comrades, download and share as much media as you can. We have nothing to lose but corporate control of music and the Internet!

Folding@home is a brillant project started here at Stanford University which is a programming you can download free for Windows, Mac or Linux and runs in the background. It utilises your unused CPU cycles to understand protein folding, misfolding, and related diseases. If you have a Playstation 3 then you can also use it for Folding@home, there is an FAQ here.

ImmInst have their own team within this, which you can find out more about by clicking here

I am relived to see that a growing number of people are beginning to see what I think is the real way to fight the BNP. Although a lot still don’t seem to ‘get it’.

First we must look at why people vote BNP.

It’s not that people are getting anymore racist. It’s that the working class don’t have anyone they feel they can vote for anymore! Look at who votes for the BNP. It’s almost always from traditional Labour voters! I live in the West Country which Labour don’t do that well, and never have. It’s all Libs and Cons and the BNP poll awfully down here. One BNP counsellor did get in once but that was before revealing he was in fact tied to the BNP! When that was found out they promptly got kicked out!

Now this is very important when we look at groups like the UAF, Searchlight and groups like these strageies to counter the BNP. These groups activly form collations with literally any other group who wishses to fight facism. Now this isn’t some sort of sectarian rant, far from it. However if you join forces with lets say mainstream poltical parties like Labour, Libs and Cons then your associating with the exact reason why people are votiong BNP in the first place! That they don’t have a potlical party, and even if you do agree with the mainstream parties on that one point siding with them makes it look like you are like them, which anyone on the real left shouldn’t be!

Th BNP has done a very good job at making themselves out to be the party for the ‘white working class’, the forgotten group. The working class are indeed the forgotten group but thats ALL working class, not just white working class. The BNP play on these strings, there’ll speak out about how it was bad what happened to the miners, talking about needing better public services, etc. While doing the oppsite of course!

This is why firstly, on the left, we should not be working with the establishment at all, history has taught us this only makes things worse. Using trade unions and left parties we must build our own working class party and reject the Capitalist parties. The mainstream parties are the parties of the rich, and we need to show that the BNP are no different to the mainstream parties. Nationalists don’t give a shit about the working class because they devide people by nation rather then the real division which is class. We, the working class, have far more in common with workers from Polland, France, Germany where ever then we do with the Freedie Godwins of this world! To steal a quote from our friend Bob Crowe!

Secondly we should not give them any opportunity to ever say their freedom of speach is being encourhced.

The thing is they just use this as a weapon and secondly once you remove this weapon from them they have nothing else to say as their arguments have no logic. Engage with the idiots statements, dismantle their arguments. The problem is if all you do is run around shouting fascists it begins to lose it’s meaning, it just washes over people. Engage with them, ask them for real example, ask them to explain why immigration concerns them when Britain has been a multi cultural society for hundreds of years, why they single out Muslim when you could find text from any religion that’s a bit hateful, they have no answer. Ask them some pretty basic questions about British history and you’ll soon see that basically what they mean by british culture is waving a flag on a march, it’s nonsense they haven’t a clue, drag this out of them, show it to others! Of course arguing one on one with hardened BNP members is pointless they won’t concede any points but I think we must take platforms with them, to show others their nonsense and lies!

Reason and logic is on our side comrades, use it!

Aubrey De Grey certainly seems to get around! Here’s the latest from him talking about SENS, check out the web ste for some background (http://www.sens.org/) on the project or watch the videos, the following is made up of four parts, the next part should play automatically when you are done with each part…hopefully. It’s aimed at Scientists but I think it mostly makes sense, but if not try the FAQ on the SENS site first by clicking here.

The word really needs to be spread about ageing research, I cant think of a more important cause then tying to save peoples lives. The following video gives a general idea of what I’m talking about:

You can donate and find out more here: http://www.methuselahfoundation.org/ and http://www.sens.org/ aaaand here: http://www.healthyyears.org

SPREAD THE WORD MY FRIENDS!

Various raw footage from the upcoming film, To Age Or Not To Age? I can understand why people are sceptical if this stuff will ever come true, I’m sceptical but this seems to much of an important issue not to fund to the fullest!

http://www.youtube.com/user/tkfitz33

I have become a little obsessed in recent months watching and reading all I can about the life extension movement, I suggest everyone do the same it’s fascinating reading, the idea of it and the science itself too! There a lot of people saying a wind ranging amount of things, Dr Aubrey de Grey seems the most interesting character in the movement, and most vocal with his unique style. I posted a lecture he did at TED which you can find by clicking here. Also click here for the SENS (Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence) homepage which gives lots of information about it, and ability to donate and get involved. Also click here to see the The Methuselah Foundation which is the other half of SENS with information and what they hope to achieve and what not. No one knows what the future holds but this research just seems so important to try. Some people say they think ‘what’s the point it probably won’t come to anything’. But that’s like saying of we probably won’t find a cure for Cancer, AIDs whatever, we don;t not pursue these things, because we want it to happen, it’s the same principal is it not? Curing cancer and AIDS is about preventing death, so exactly the same concept. I just don’t get some peoples problems with trying. The point isn’t to try and ‘live forever’ it’s about trying to have choice in how long you live rather then now which is little choice. Like I said who knows, but something this important must be worth trying!

Really awesome video from 2007 of a lecture by John Pilger about the media machine and western propaganda, 43 minutes so bit of a watch but well worth it.