[iltos]

the nytimes today published two very different stories, one about a revolt of sorts taking place on the net....and one about the kurds stalling on a heavily negotiated bill working its way throught the iraqi parliment, designed to insure the equitable distribution of oil profits.

maybe it's because the kurds are fiercely independent, but the stories seemed to me to be about the same thing

on the surface it's hard to draw the parallels
the revolt, in a nutshell

Sophisticated Internet users have banded together over the last two days to publish and widely distribute a secret code used by the technology and movie industries to prevent piracy of high-definition movies.

An online uproar came in response to a series of cease-and-desist letters from lawyers for a group of companies that use the copy protection system, demanding that the code be removed from several Web sites.

Rather than wiping out the code — a string of 32 digits and letters in a specialized counting system — the legal notices sparked its proliferation on Web sites, in chat rooms, inside cleverly doctored digital photographs and on user-submitted news sites like Digg.com.

initially, digg, on the advice of its lawyers, capitulated, and removed all reference to the code.....but the outcry of its users turned the tide, and digg has decided to ignore the legal implications and again allowed stories and comments to proliferate on its site....

the issue here, imo, is clearly one of free speech and self-determination...the "who owns the internet" story thats been popping up all over the place, and has congress in such a tizzy.....and while the big guns...sony, disney, time/warner, et al...all certainly have the right to protect their investment, two things are worth noting
a/ the code is useless without specialized knowledge and some specialized software, things that are availablle to only the most sophisticated computer folks
b/ the "revolt", as i see it, is not so much AGAINST corporate rights to protect revenues with encryption codes, as it is FOR the web's right to self determination of content.

the kurds, in a nutshell

Kurdish and Sunni Arab officials expressed deep reservations on Wednesday about the draft version of a national oil law and related legislation
The draft law, which establishes a framework for the distribution of oil revenues, was approved by the Iraqi cabinet in late February after months of negotiations.

the Kurds have taken issue with a new provision that was quietly packaged with the draft oil law by the Shiite-led Oil Ministry last month. The measure would essentially cede control of the management of nearly all known oil fields and related contracts to a state-run oil company to be established after passage of the law, said a spokesman for the Kurdish regional government.

The spokesman, Khalid Salih, said the provision violated a clause in the Constitution that says the central government must work with regional governments to determine management of known fields that have not been developed. The Kurds, who have enjoyed de facto independence in the north since 1991, have been arguing for maximum regional control over oil contracts.

here, after apparently supporting a draft of the bill, the kurds have taken a step back, owing to the addition of the new provision, which they see as undermining their rights of self-determination and their potential for future oil revenues.

the irony here, perhaps, is that they are the "sony" in this situation, defending their right to an "encryption" code -the originial wording of the bill- to protect their interests....and yet they are simultaneously an independant tribe, much like the technically and/or philosophically sophisticated users of the internet, who themselves have few rights in the "new world order", and yet will refuse to bow to the power of "economic imperatives" from more powerful factions.

and it points out, imo, just how this "new world order" -which in iraq is currently manifested as the proliferaton of the democratic process, and on the web is currently a struggle, seemingly, against the freedoms insured by that process- is torn between its ability to empower the individual/the "tribe", and its desire to profit from that empowerment.