] LOS ANGELES (AP) -- As the recording industry prepares
] hundreds of copyright lawsuits against online music
] swappers, the makers of file-sharing software are
] fortifying their programs to try to mask users'
] identities.

Just like Tom said. What we could ultimately end up with is systems that are completely peer-to-peer -- even for data transfer. All the nodes cache and there's some magic distributed directory services that maps file names to IDs and hashes. The result is that any one node only knows the IP addresses of its peers and unwinding the web becomes very difficult.

The bad news here is that it might well force the industry's hand to seek legislation banning peer-to-peer systems like this in the first place. Like we've said, the only place you can get any good degree of copy-protection is a totalitarian state.

As I see it now, the Right program is to bleed enough money out of the "IP Industry" (MPAA/RIAA) until real reform of the entire copyright system becomes feasible. Fair use is too soft. Arguing against copy-protection ultimately requires arguing against copyright.

"Copyright" or "Intellectual Property" is a totally spurious meme. What is more appropriate is "copytax" ... you're entitled to receive a (fixed) royalty whenever someone copies something you created. But you have no right to *control* copies or derivative works.

Such a system would allow the movie industry to remain viable though perhaps not as outrageously profitable as it has been.

The music industry is a somewhat different story. In the past, the music industry provided 3 things: production, distribution and marketing. Production is widely available and inexpensive. Similarly, getting CDs pressed is very cheap now and distribution via the net even cheaper. Good music sells itself. You only need marketing to sell bad music, right?