http://www.webtoolkit.eu/wt

Basically it's a graphical UI framework (like Qt), except rather than
outputting to a windowing interface, it outputs to the web. It's a
pretty crazy shift in how you program for the web, but possibly a shift
for the better.

Basically, PHP and most web frameworks were built around the "page"
metaphor, reflecting their content-centric history. Websites sorta back
into applications by breaking them down into "pages". But this doesn't
always make sense. (In Expensify's case, for example, we pretty much
only have two pages that do everything, which is a bit of a mess.)

Wt takes an entirely different approach and builds up the application in
terms of normal UI constructs. Accordingly, you don't think in terms of
page loads and ajax calls, you think in terms of dialogs and frames.

Furthermore, it handles all the details of progressively degrading based
on browser capabilities. For example, it includes vector rendering. If
the browser supports it natively, it'll do it all natively. Otherwise
it does it serverside. The programmer can ignore those low-level
browser-specific details and just focus on "I want a graphic here that
does this".

Anyway, probably not a real option right now, but an interesting thing
to consider nonetheless. So much of the web is based on its
content-centric background, and that makes a lot of it annoying. It's
interesting to instead rethink the web not as a series of linked pages,
but as a general rendering framework -- like OpenGL or X Windows.

Unfortunately, I bet Wt will be overlooked because it's written in C++.
But I think the ideas it's pursuing (though I doubt they pioneered
them) are going to become mainstream.

Indeed, given the realities of compile-before-deploy (GWT, less css,
minification, code generation), the growing adoption of strict typing
(eg, in JavaScript 2.0 / ECMScript 4.0), the latest trends in graceful
degredation for different form factors and browser capabilities, and
even the overwhelming success of Objective-C for iPhone apps -- maybe
we're coming to realize that all those tried-and-true language features
and programming constructs weren't such a bad idea after all?

-david

Did you see that ThePirateBay switched from central trackers to DHT with
peer exchange?

http://thepiratebay.org/blog/175

We all just took one more step toward the darknet. The even more
interesting of the two is actually the peer-exchange (PEX) component:
DHT is just a distributed version of a central tracker; it tells you the
same thing as the tracker, just in a way that can't be stopped. But PEX
actually allows you to participate in a swarm without "announcing"
yourself: so the number of people actually downloading/uploading a given
file becomes even harder to measure. The combination makes torrents not
only unstoppable, but moves us closer to them being untraceable.

Next up: default-on encryption in all the major torrent clients (putting
a nail in the coffin for ISP sampling), and then some form of
digitally-signed DHT-based indexing/browsing (such that centralized
tracker sites become unnecessary). At that point it'll become
essentially impossible to figure out what's being shared and to what degree.

The only chink in that armor is you could still target individuals by
just starting to download something and see who you connect to.
Granted, the RIAA has already given up on this approach, but there's
nothing to say they (or someone else) couldn't start again. If they do,
then it's just one more upgrade cycle away from onionskin routing and
voila: the darknet is born.

-david

Thank *god*, I hope they shut down The Pirate Bay for good. It's the
only thing holding up the next generation of pirate tools.

I think the natural next step would be fully distributed trackers with
fully distributed indexing. The lesson learned from Kazaa and the
others, however, is content must come from centrally-curated sources --
there must be *some* trust among thieves. That's all TPB really
offered, after all.

But that same trust can be had by just having central curators publish a
public key and then digitally signing all their "certified good" torrent
files. Then whatever search method you use -- flood, DHT, whatever --
just filter by trusted curator and you'll only see good results.

This way the curators get all the benefits of central control, but
without actually having to host their own servers or even reveal their
identities.

If we're really lucky, the pirates will use this opportunity to build in
default-on encryption as well. Then not only will it be
cryptographically impossible to know who is "promoting piracy", but
it'll be nearly impossible to know it's happening at all.

Brilliant! Only the French can invent more creative ways to promote piracy.

-david

http://torrentfreak.com/the-pirate-bay-ordered-to-delete-torrents-091022/

Anybody care to make any measurable predictions for how the French three strikes law plays out over the next year?  I predict:

1) It'll probably never really go into effect in any meaningful way.  It'll either be blocked somehow, or not enforced, or in some other way neutered.  By this time next year, there won't be a single person shut off as a result of the law.  This is the most easily measured of my predictions.

2) Regardless of whether or not it is enforced, there will be stories of how piracy took a nosedive.  But given that piracy is so incredibly difficult to measure, these stories will have essentially no data to back them up.

3) Despite claims of a nosedive in piracy, there will *not* be a substantial uptick in sales via legitimate channels.  It'll continue growing at roughly its current (slow) pace.

4) This I'm the least confident in, as France is too small a pirate market to really drive this sort of innovation, but at least one of the major pirate tools (probably Azureus) will begin shipping with encryption default "on".

Any other predictions?

- David Barrett

Really interesting NY Times chart here showing the relative value of all units sold across different media (CD, vinyl, digital, etc) since 1978.

Does anyone know a similar breakdown by number of units sold (independent of value)?  It'd be interesting to see a breakdown of units (or even by tracks) to compare the total volume of legitimate songs being purchased over time.  I wonder if it's constant, or gradually increasing, or quickly increasing with the advent of the internet?

For example, if we could see that the number of songs both being produced and consumed is steadily increasing -- while simultaneously revenue is decreasing -- it seems hard to argue that revenue is correlated with increased song production/consumption.

(At best it could be argued that revenue leads to higher quality songs, but that's a tricky one given that "quality" is entirely subjective.)

And if revenue bears no correlation with song production/consumption, then policies that protect and maximize revenue (eg, Copyright) become rather difficult to defend given the stated purpose of music Copyright to -- essentially -- increase song production/consumption.

-david

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-10295761-83.html

I can't wait to see what the next generation of P2P will turn up --
sounds like we're looking at major improvements in both security *and*
usability. All we need is some kind of catalyst... like more states
passing 3 strikes laws.

In fact... I wonder if the "three strikes" debate will turn out to be
the darknet's best friend? Consider:

Not long ago, there were real concerns that vigilante music-industry
groups in line with docile ISPs could start terminating users on the
assumption of piracy based on traffic signature alone. After all, when
darknets are employed, that's pretty much the only clue you've got.

But the three strikes debate has helped harden into place the notion
that users can't be terminated without court order. And given the
strict evidentiary requirements of most courts (at least, those in
countries that are interested in deterring piracy), I think the effect
is to raise the bar for prosecution impossibly high.

Remember, the *only* user successfully prosecuted for piracy was using a
very insecure, early-generation pirate tool. If she had just been using
a modern system like Bittorent, the defense would have completely collapsed.

(With Kazaa, they just ask her computer "what is your name, and what
have you pirated?" and it happily complies. With Bittorrent, her
computer has no name, and the only way it tells you what it has is if
you happen to be pirating it at the exact same time. Not only does it
become astronomically more difficult to "troll" for pirates in the first
place (become a massive pirate distributer and see who shows up, or
directly tap the backbone and see who pirates on your watch), the
resulting "haul" consists of low-value, semi-anonymous IP address.)

So today's legal climate is, frankly, as friendly to the anti-pirate
forces as it'll ever get. Here on out it will only get more difficult
to gather adequate evidence, and courts will only become more demanding
that you obtain it before authorizing action.

All this is a perfect storm for the "darknet defense": "Your honor, I am
not a pirate. I just do a lot of legal VoIP using "DarkSkype" (which
happens to maintain no calling records) to international colleagues
outside your subpoena jurisdiction. I also watch a lot of legal video
using "DarkTube" (which maintains no browsing history) from
international websites, again, outside your subpoena jurisdiction. As
for that big red "DarkTorrent" button that says "Get any song, movie,
book, or application for free!", I never pressed it even once. And as
for that 100GB encrypted "DarkNet Cache" folder sitting on my hard
drive, I have no idea what's in it, and I don't know the password. Honest."

Should be fun to see how this develops.

-david