At 04:36 PM 2/13/04 +0100, Thomas Shaddack wrote: >"retranslating" the stream. This way it may not be technically possible
>for the broadcaster itself to know the number of listeners -> impossible >to assess the fees -> impossible to getting reliably proved the number of >listeners to. What can happen then? If you don't accept a police state, you can't force leaves to enumerate. >Similar with FCC decency rules they recently tightened after the >"Superbowl Boob Incident". How can the FCC execute their jurisdiction over >a distributed struture, where there is no official registered owner of the >station? Can they go after the volunteering DJs, or after the listeners? If Jackson's tit had been on private media (cable, satellite, movies, newspaper, net) it would have been OK. The FCC asserts its TV censorship over frequencies designated for the lowest common denominator, ie consumable by all. (Though rather heavy on warporn if you ask me.) The FCC, having the guns, maintains the fences. They fenced this band for kids, free to air. They killed the injuns so its their spectrum now, and this is how they divvy it up. >How would look a good, decentralized structure for allowing pseudonymous >IP stream "broadcast" with minimal resources, the ultimate Internet Pirate >Radio station? A good idea, but pondering architecturally: If you had a constant stream of white noise from your node to many others, all the time, you could use a plaintext streaming protocol without doing the anon/crypting in the particular application.
