Mind you, when I had a computer company I was always warning people about emails, etc. Unfortunately, people tend to write as they speak but there’s a really important bit that’s different/missing – no tone and no facial expression. Shows you how much we use both during communication though, doesn’t it?

I think your point about friends is true. I wonder if there is a name for it yet? 24 hour alliances?

The problem I think, seems to stem from the fact that

1) Bloggers are mostly the extremely opinionated sort ( I don’t think you are one), which are sometimes difficult to form relationships in the real world (not that extreme bloggers wouldn’t be moderate in real life)

2) People, especially Brits, are very quick to get offended, and in the interwebs it is very easy to misconstrue what someone is saying (if they are not using smileys).

Thus uneasy alliances are formed on single issues, at the same time enemies are formed on single issues too, oddly!

But for a film from the P2P it’s the same as the priates selling you a copy. You’re still paying for it – in terms of sharing your stuff with others – like bartering. (I am pro-sharing myself, I hasten to add). And it’s not true that we all love Hollywood. What about the people who have been caught file-sharing? I dare say they don’t love Hollywood. We only love it because, at the moment, they haven’t caught up with everyone.

But that, again, is Big Business v the other Market State. The Big Business try to get it stopped and the pro-sharers find a way around it (Pirate Bay being one example). Remember the first one they got shut down. Predictions were that this was the end or at least the beginning of the end. And, of course, it’s not. In fact, I would say, and certainly here, file-sharing is almost becoming a respected leisure activity!

Fluidity does cause a problem with co-ordination and may possibly make the campaigns weaker as a result. But, I think, it goes deeper than that. The fluidity is a problem because your friend today may not be your friend tomorrow (or even in the next few days/hours/seconds) depending on the group that they attach temselves to at the time. This has long-term repercussions for society and the way that society gels. In fact, it may well be the end of society as we know it.

The New World, whichever it is, may not be so great. See, now you’ve got me started…………

No-one hates Hollywood, in fact, the problem with P2P is because of the opposite- everyone loves Hollywood but just don’t want to pay the prices.

So there is a duality there- I like your product, hell, I even like you but I refuse to pay the price you demand (or pay for it at all).

For the record I am pro-sharing but against piracy. Piracy is selling a copy, file-sharing is free (like if I bought a DVD then let you borrow it to watch it).

Yes the fluidity perhaps presents a problem in co-ordinating online campaigns and perhaps damages the overall effectiveness of the interwebs overall.

It’s all very interesting to watch and sometimes a bit messy to get involved in.

The thing the group has in common in the new territories is very fluid, of course, and this means you can change group easily and quickly depending on your point of view on a particular subject.

Hence the sudden rush by a group of people who would, in other circumstances, be at other ends of the spectrum, to condemn that terrible Uzbech for daring to impose an outside law/rule onto their private ‘land’.

This is, actually, all as frightening as the War against Terrorism. OK, so it doesn’t actualy kill people, as far as we know, but it leads to the same uncertainty, the same flux.

However, this is inevitable now that the ‘Long War’ (see Philip Bobbitt – The Shield of Achilles) is over and capitalism won.

Considering he wrote his book in the year 2000 (I think), it is very inciteful in predicting this, as he called it, Market State. And as he said, there are different Market States, each group thinking that theirs is the way. And, as in any war, there will be casualties and victims – with the victims on the internet seemingly to protest the loudest.

The new rules of both engagement during the war and for what is acceptable within the society that each is trying to create, are still to be defined and these things we see are merely the way that they will be defined. The war between the Market States will be every bit as violent and vicious as anything we have seen before.

It’s not really a rebellion against Big Business (although that is how it is portrayed). It would be difficult to say otherwise as that would inform the people that the old Nation State (or is it State Nation – I’m afraid I forget right now) is dead. Even the governments don’t know what to do. Do they follow the Market state formula proposed by Big Business (who give them the cash to continue to be in government) or that being formulated by other groups (who give them the authority to govern)? It is a difficult tightrope to walk as a mistake at any point could have overwhelming effects on both them, as a government and society as a whole.

And given that the groups are so fluid an almost impossible task. Whether the results of it will be good or bad will depend on where you sit at the time of the end to the war. But, as always, the victors will write the history. If this misguided ‘Freedom of Speech’ group aren’t the winners, will all their stuff be on Pirate Bay for people to muse over in future generations?

Though I have yet to formulate my response to Tim, I would simply offer defense that I was pointing out the irony of some who have been accusing others of libel for quite some time, and others who have demanded that blogs be taken down in the past.

I like your analogy of the Wild West, the interwebs could certainly act as a frontier in that whilst the real world has boundaries and states (saying something in one state is illegal whereas it’s free in another)- and yet the interwebs allows a resident of one state to publish what they like in another state and be free from legal repercussions.

Look at the Pirate Bay, which is as yet, untouchable by Holywood and the RIAA- There seems to be 2 different worlds fighting a battle here-

1. The old territories, ruled by governments and regimes and locked into geopolitical boundaries, and
2. The new territories, free from boundaries, mostly (not always) out of reach of governments and creating a new global value system

It’s messy but big business has been doing this for years by off-setting tax in low-tax countries and influencing governments, it’s a rebellion of sorts, not just an uprising in the geopolitical sense, but a rebellion against big business.

Thoughts?