SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Feds Break Up Illegal Streaming Network That Dwarfs Netflix and Hulu Libraries
Two of the minds behind the nation's largest pirate streaming services, iStreamItAll and Jetflicks, have pleaded guilty to criminal copyright infringement charges, federal officials said Friday. Now we all can rest easier knowing there are a few less bad actors getting one over on multi-billion-dollar giants like Netflix and Disney.
A federal grand jury indicted the two men, Darryl Julius Polo, 36, and Luis Angel Villarino, 40, along with six other co-defendants back in August after feds busted their purported headquarters in Las Vegas, Nevada. In his plea agreement, Polo told DOJ officials that his illicit subscription-based service, iStreamItAll, offered more than 118,000 television episodes and 10,000 movies. Both men also admitted to working as computer programmers for Jetflicks, another Las Vegas-based streaming service that Villarino claimed hosted close to 200,000 pirated TV episodes.
All that adds up to more content than Hulu, Netflix, Vudu, and Amazon Prime combined, according to prosecutors. And all of it pirated from some of the world's most-frequented torrent sites, circumventing copyright owners' consent and cheating them out of what the DOJ estimates could amount to millions of dollars.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by jmichaelhudsondotnet on Monday December 16 2019, @06:13PM (7 children)
We can be friends.
My commentary is better.
Our time will be remembered as worse than book burning, this is a form of copyright-enabled elimination of culture.
I noticed quite early that when I was staying with people who had netflix, the things that I felt like watching, were never there. Ever.
You end up watching the office or star trek next gen from the 90s, and Im like, how is this progress? Why would I pay to watch all of the tv that took no effort to create? That in general, is filmed in workplace environments?
I made a list of my favorite 100 movies, and netflix had less than 10%. I couldn't find 90% of the movies I like anywhere but TPB, and even then generally shared by less than 5 people.
This is a form of censorship make no doubt about it. Not only do they get to choose the library, but they can re-edit, or selectively re-edit, or all manner of other censorship, especially once the national emergency broadcasting identifies your account.
I would say for 90% of the content in my archive, I am not stealing because I am saving it from a high risk of extinction. If you had to trade seinfeld and friends and the office for every other movie made in the history of the world, would you?
I bet not. But that is what is going to happen at this rate.
It is a monsterous, invisible fire, going on as we speak. The disappearance of old things, black and white things, movies about subcultures of fighting men, subcultures, that obscure wierd movie, everything but one main culture is threatened by this.
Try to find the movie Red Belt. It has some of the best MMA sequences I have ever seen, a famous lead actor, written by David Mamet one of the most famous writers(and I think jewish for everyone who thinks i hate everything jewish stfu clowns), and one of the best lessons about personal honor I even know of. A real feel good movie, that shows also a bunch of people being awful and forcing a good person into an impossible situation. A movie that has a lot to say about our time. And Ricky Jay.
Try to find it. Just try. Let me know how it goes, and if not, tell me why you think this movie deserves to be censored, or why or how it is being censored.
Was it intentional? Or is this just accidental oversight censorship? Or is this just nextgen cow vr for humans?
You tell me.
https://archive.is/QBVQJ [archive.is]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by meustrus on Monday December 16 2019, @07:58PM (6 children)
Couldn't that just be explained by backroom dealings between the various mega-corporations?
Netflix needs to negotiate with these corporations to secure rights for digital streaming. The ownership rights to a lot of TV and movies gets shuffled around and confused pretty easily, though. It might be pretty hard to figure out who "owns" distribution rights to Red Belt, let alone get a hold of them and negotiate a fair price.
So Netflix ultimately only gets the rights to things that rightsholders are intentionally marketing. Something less "popular", which probably got sold in a series of package deals to exchange for some more lucrative property, will not be getting marketed as such.
How much time and money would it take Netflix to track down the rights to these movies? How many people would actually watch them if Netflix did?
The problem almost completely vanishes in Netflix's DVD business, where Netflix can just buy a DVD without worrying about who "owns" distribution rights. Centuries-old legal traditions protect their ability to do whatever they want with their physical property.
We don't have any such legal traditions with digital media. The fundamental problem is that copyright law just isn't practically effective when pirates can copy things for free. You can shut down pirate printing presses because it takes a while to spin them up and they need to market themselves to be effective. Anonymous randos on the internet providing free copies out of the goodness of their hearts can't be shut down so easily.
And there's not a whole lot of people interested in solving this digital copyright problem for the right reasons. There's plenty of entrenched interests who would like to keep making money forever. They care about extending copyright into the digital space. But they don't care about extending the first sale doctrine.
Who does? Pirates don't need to operate legally to live long lives free of the repercussions of their archival practices. Individual consumers tend to be more interested in the social value of popular media than in the actual meaning of particular stories, so they will only ever be concerned about current media.
I think it's pretty much just historians who care. But there's no money to be made in history.
--
I really think there are simpler potential causes of this problem than intentional censorship. As the saying goes, never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence.
The simpler causes speak to the same larger problems of centralization in the economy, though, and I don't have a solution for that. It gets into issues of economic efficiency vs redundancy, and while the current goal of efficiency has these kinds of problems, I would say that economic redundancy (AKA protectionism) defines the stagnation of the Dark Ages - small-scale kingdoms focusing on their own local economies ignorant of the growth opportunities inherent to making trade agreements, peace treaties, and common governance across larger and larger areas.
It makes me wish for some larger moral principles to override our basic greedy human tendencies. Too bad that centralization is a problem for religious organizations, too.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 2) by jmichaelhudsondotnet on Tuesday December 17 2019, @02:00PM (5 children)
I am trying to address much of what you say with my work, it may not yet be apparent.
I do not like the 'never attribute' saying, I would change it to 'sometimes you must attribute malice when it can be explained by incompetence but a lot of the time you can't' or something like that. It is not an absolute law. We know now that Bush W may have been ignorant but the PNAC people sure knew their cover story was a lie. The 911 facts that have came out do not point to incompetence being the cause.
The problem of obscure works disappearing is foreseeable and if you have a billion dollars and are making the indusetry leading streaming service, you have to know this is what is going on, that you are making a central repository that will neglect tertiary things, and that tertiary things are critical to a diverse culture.
Which is to say, I think they know very well they are creating a centralized monoculture and that their future has no use for thriving diversity.
It is a problem everywhere in plutocracy or capitalism whatever you want to call it. Only work gets done when it is obvious profit will result under the current ruleset.
As I see it, a copyright system that was totally broken is being imposed on technology that makes it irrelevant, which reinforces the already strong urge of capitalists to turn a decentralized tech into a centralized one, and has numerous side effects on the network as well as deep into human culture.
There is just a public interest here that government and corporations will not ever do anything about, their interest will always be in using their advantages of armies of lawyers and physical authority to hold on to the old system however broken it is.
We are headed down a direction where they will have the ability to confiscate drives, search drives for pirated content at borders, ban torrenting with deep packet inspection. The totalitarians will gradually see the pirates as the source of the unrest, the alternate versions of their history books will need to be scrubbed from history.
Will a high school history book in 2100 teach that some people did not believe the official story of 9/11? Will the history be taught or will the official report be taught as history?
This single question could result in billions of people dying, and ancient or freakishly updated copyright law being used as a primary means to persecute those outside of the dominant culture, if the public interest sector of the world does not do something.
This same pattern of the interest of the public needing to assert itself tracks across every sector of global society, solving problems and spreading solutions may itself become illegal as the tech itself becomes the primary means of control under such a dystopia.
I will be here all day long with long term thinking and larger moral principles, but at the moment it is a lonely and somewhat dangerous perch.
https://archive.is/OczM2 [archive.is]
https://archive.is/o3lM9 [archive.is]
https://archive.is/dmjdm [archive.is] (the left hand side of this diagram really loves centralization and draconian copying laws)
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Tuesday December 17 2019, @04:24PM (4 children)
I agree that centralization and plutocracy is the cause of all of these problems. What I'm trying to say is that centralization and plutocracy is not the root cause.
What we are dealing with is fundamental human nature. These institutions didn't come from nowhere. They evolved based on what generation after generation of new humans accepted and even desired out of their society.
The system is bigger than any individual. It would be better to characterize it as a dispassionate and super-intelligent AI than as controlled by malevolent individuals.
Malevolent individuals come and go. Machiavellian-ism persists. That worldview itself is just a natural realization of human greed and ambition. The system it creates is bigger than any of us.
Schools in 2100 will of course be teaching a watered-down version of history, just like schools today. More important is what historians will be able to discover when everybody alive today, and everybody that knew us, is dead. That history, like all history, will be defined by what evidence has been destroyed.
This is not new. Societies throughout history have had their histories deliberately pruned to sell a particular narrative.
We can fight all we want to push our narrative, but in the end we will still be part of the same closed loop of human nature. The future will refuse to change.
Precious few people throughout history have broken out of that closed loop to do something truly transformative. Their messages are largely misunderstood by the masses. Siddhartha Guatama. Jesus. Francis Bacon. Adam Smith. Karl Marx. Milton Friedman. Steve Jobs. Every one of these people preached a broad universal understanding (of varying qualities, no I am not trying to call these people equivalent). Every one of these people has been reduced to some childish abstraction of one facet of their overall message. Their followers see one isolated thing which their leaders saw as interconnected. Cosmic messages reduced to earthly sound bites.
One must nevertheless aspire to reach their kind of cosmic understanding. Keep asking why. Why does copyright suck? Why do we let Disney make money forever? Why do we like friendly corporate overlords? Why are humans so easily manipulated? Why do humans conform so strongly to social cues?
When you get to the end, you realize you can't throw out the bathwater without throwing out the baby. Centralization and plutocracy is the inevitable result of the very forces that converted Homo Sapiens from loose groups of turd-flinging monkeys into cohesive tribes naturally selecting for increasing intelligence.
There are lots of places in that causal chain to try to make changes. Human society, however, is the most complicated network on Earth. Just like making seemingly small changes to the DNS system could produce profound impacts on the Internet as a whole, so can small changes to social values create numerous and often unanticipated impacts.
We've been here many times before. Revolutions almost never make society better, because revolutionaries are so focused on the problems of their current society that they don't consider the problems that they will inflict upon the future society.
Don't be Hugo Chávez. Don't throw out the capitalists just to open the door to massive corruption. Think bigger. Go deeper.
---
FWIW, I am finding our conversations rather stimulating. And while I'm not willing to agree with you on certain things, I'm coming to understand that your ideas come from a rather different place than they first appear. Perhaps I had you confused with the supremacist bigots around here who sound superficially similar.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 2) by jmichaelhudsondotnet on Wednesday December 18 2019, @06:48PM (3 children)
Thank you for the kind words.
Much of your response reads as an apology or best of all possible worlds, just get used to it, facts of life. True innovators can only spend so much time in this territory, I try to innovate so I try to live in the realm of what is possible, if possible with what has been demonstrated, that I don't have to reinvent.
2 anecdotal tangencial things that might provide perspective are the magsafe connector and the spanish flu epidemic of 1918.
The magsafe connector is a brilliant innovation, it could be used everywhere but in a world where companies value sales more than the quality of the product, and where patents can make the use of good ideas illegal. Both of these systemic traits are totalitarian in nature, you aren't allowed to have the best idea because someone with more power decided that you can't have the best ideas, because their interests are more important.
Actual human traits like quality and efficiency are thrown out the window in favor of accounting and legalities, paper tigers, norms, don't rock the boat, TPTB.
Consider Aspen Colorado in 1918, they had a local militia close the town to keep people with the flu out. A perfect example of federalism. There was something overwhelming the national government, the state government, and a local government was able to make a smart decision to protect their population without command or oversight from the higher levels of organization.
Our system now would be unable to do this. The local militia would be filled with nutjobs and secret police, and the 50 agencies would try to interfere and integrate with a national strategy, and it would be a clusterfuck. The actual secret agents(or another epstein) would bring the flu in themselves by accident via helicopter or something, the quarantine would not hold.
I am not proposing many radical solutions, I am primarily noticing that the functioning parts of america are not the ones that are being relied upon or built upon, they are being removed in favor of a very scary nationalization.
The obvious solution with something like the magsafe is some kind of public purchase of this idea and then setting it free. The same could or might be said for movies and the copyright term. There has always been a way for ideas to be made free and open, shared, unpatentable and this is what very powerful people are spending a lot of time and effort trying to break with things like transpacific trade deals, and no right to repair, and dmca, or copy-pretention tech that breaks tech.
The obvious solution to the firearms problem and terrorism problem is localization of security, building functioning local militias who actually train with weapons and for emergencies, and identify dangerous loners and help them before they go loco.
But what do we get? Local police integrating via computers with 50 different national agencies and training in foreign countries to identify gun owners as terrorists. The national guard which failed to do anything systematically to prevent the disaster and helicoptered around saving people from rooftops for some PR.
I would say looking at this the united states has every interest, for security, in purchasing the magsafe connector to protect our cables and computers from flying off coffee tables at tremendous expense, and in re-establishing local defense forces with local government.
Did you study Chavez? That is one of the things he did, he made a bunch of new local community organizations and fostered them at the local level. That worked, it is still working. Venezuelans now all recognize they are dealing with a foreign invading force and have a national culture resisting it.
That chavez could not find a thousand accountants that could be trusted is a much more difficult problem, and one that ties in with the main problem he is facing, the totalitarian international system can offer the moon(like to cipher in the matrix). Just screw chavez and move to bermuda with the stolen venezuelan money, the international accounting pals would say.
Anything we do in any country to create an actual system that functions for humans, and our nature, will face the problem that there is another country nearby with the totalitarian system attempting to lure any individual away from the solidary require to create an alternative.
I refuse, however to see the oligarchs and traitorous accountants, or cipher, as the representation of humanity any more than the agents or people who are otherwise at home in the matrix. There is a subset of sociopaths and pscyhopaths, without empathy, without consideration, maybe worshipping the devil who knows, but these are the minority and their only claim to power is their vast control mechanisms.
I have identified the major control mechanisms, and if you attach the control mechanism, you attack the oligarch. So if we all choose a control mechanism to undermine, we will start to make real progress. This is what Bernie Sanders is actually doing, and why the oligarchs hate him.
My best attempt to explain:
https://archive.is/dmjdm [archive.is]
But we will not be able to create any alternatives to a global totalitarian system if we are unable to have any solidarity with those we share interests, which is why we have to stop this thing where all of our public organizations are infiltrated, which is why,
https://archive.is/VAqlQ [archive.is]
https://archive.is/OczM2 [archive.is]
https://archive.is/o3lM9 [archive.is]
https://archive.is/TmRS6 [archive.is]
https://archive.is/TjIwI [archive.is]
And then this one I made today,
https://archive.is/cKeB9 [archive.is]
It should be no wonder that israeli zionists do not want to hear this because everything they do in the world is to establish oligarchical control mechanisms, which is what weinstein and epstein, intel backdoords, nso iphone backdoors, hasbara and their war to exterminate islam means to me. And they want everyone like you to think everyone like me is a nazi, or for me to become a nazi, because in that case I am just a tiny startup totalitarian system vs theirs that is already up and running, but also why they are desparate to silence people like me because should the United States get its head out of its ass and jail the Republican(sic) traitors currently hamstringing The Republic, that is the end of their plans.
This is perhaps my moment of patriotism, I want every soldier in the united states to know that it is all on the line this year, the whole united states thing, the whole chance to not have a totalitarian global system, the whole chance to have rights and to the extent they decide upon betrayal and selling out, they will inherit the whirlwhind.
https://archive.is/wZMMJ [archive.is]
https://archive.is/N15xT [archive.is]
https://archive.is/prt0J [archive.is]
And also why this is timely, as in today, as in what we are doing on an hourly basis globally affects this long term decision to the extent that you are not sleepwalking through this life.
https://archive.is/Nn3S5 [archive.is]
https://archive.is/9AhsD [archive.is]
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Wednesday December 18 2019, @09:22PM (2 children)
Would magsafe even exist though if it weren't for patent protection? What incentive would Apple have to make quality products if everyone else could copy them? Maybe it would be fine for this isolated example, but one cannot ignore the fact that innovation really exploded around the same time patents first started to exist.
It could be a coincidence due to industrialization. But before we had patents, it was far more common for guilds to own the technology and sell its function as a service. Now that I think of it, this sounds pretty similar to Software As A Service, which is a direct response to software piracy.
We need some way to at the very least convince selfish capitalists to share their inventions in a more open way. They aren't willing to do so without some profit protection.
Which is why patents were originally supposed to expire after 7 years. I think a return to that timeframe would do a lot of good. 7 years is a good balance between public access and protecting the profit motive for industrial innovation. Then it goes into the public domain, including all of the schematics necessary to prove that a copy matches the patent. And if you can't make a profit off an invention in 7 years, you're bad at capitalism and don't deserve protection.
I don't know about obvious. People that don't own guns think that the obvious solution is to get rid of guns. Your "identify dangerous loners" plan sounds suspiciously similar to the NRA's deflection about "mental health".
Not that I think common-sense gun reform will solve the mass shooting/terrorism problem. The standard package aims to reduce suicide and gang violence with firearms, which I consider a noble goal but rather beside the point.
The mass shooting/terrorism problem is really cultural. School shooters and ISIS fighters share something powerful in common: not fitting into an accepted identity group until some extremist cause manages to fill that void for them.
If we can survive the next few decades, I think the male children of SJWs may solve this problem by applying feminism to men. The Patriarchy forces boys into not-always-fitting social roles just the same as it does girls, but until now it's accepted without evidence that these roles are somehow fine. They're not. Boys are taught to disregard social skills, and those that buy into it are locked into a lifetime of isolation defined by making decent money doing demanding physical labor with no one else willing to put up with them.
I will admit though that this reasoning comes from a narrower worldview than the rest of this discussion. In the broader context, I'm not sure how much of modern society relies on toxic masculinity to function correctly. It's quite likely that toxic masculinity was our strongest defense against tyranny. It may be too late though, because since half the country has turned against it as a cultural ideal, it's become part of the Culture War, and the other half has become ideologically defensive of it. That in and of itself may have already destroyed any utility of toxic masculinity as a check against tyranny.
So this area gets a great big shrug from my end. Please don't disregard it based on the feminist language, though. Feminism has a lot in common with your ideology, to the point where I think you could replace "Zionists" with "The Patriarchy" and still be talking about basically the same group of people.
And where did the totalitarians get the moon so they can offer it up? They got it because their system is inherently more efficient at accumulating resources.
It's the same throughout history. There's always been a tricky game between people who create and share value and people who take and accumulate value. Tribes/city-states/nations tending toward the former tend to get destroyed by those tending toward the latter. Furthermore, the takers get to decide which history books to burn.
Ultimately, the takers run out of creators to steal from and turn on each other. Then when they're done burning civilization to the ground, humanity starts the long arduous process of building it back up from nothing.
The first challenge is to build a system where the takers are kept occupied so that the creators can create. This is the problem countries like Mexico and Columbia are failing to manage as paramilitary groups are terrorizing the peaceful citizens, keeping them from investing in a better life for everyone.
The second challenge is to the keep the takers close at hand to rise up and defend creators from other takers. This is the problem countries like Hong Kong and Venezuela are failing to manage as nearby superpowers seek to corrupt and subvert what made them isolated utopias for a short time.
The third challenge is to build this system without relying on a central authority to manage it. The Soviets failed at this hard. China seems uninterested, but they have a long history of Confucian ideology that sort of mitigates it. America's central authority is breaking down. The European Union seemed to strike a better balance for a while, but may not be capable of weathering its current challenges.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 2) by jmichaelhudsondotnet on Thursday December 19 2019, @03:44PM
'more efficient' - this word efficient means a whole different things if you exclude the loss of human life and human suffering, which is what you are doing
I reject any use of the word war for things other than war, also words like 'hijacking'. So there is no drug war, war on christmas, culture war, these are all just normal conflicts blown out of proportion which at this very moment are being used to try to start an actual real live shooting civil war. We need to use de-escalating language, and this constant 'war talk' is the paradigm case of toxic masculinity.
And I am making you aware that you are using it in your own speech without noticing....
Toxic masculinity helps the military, it is there for the military and the military rejects forms of education that are too soft or too accepting, especially because a generation of people who understood the history of the middle east would know they are going to iraq and afganistan for israeli interest, not american ones. Or they would recognize the historical parallels between the warsaw ghetto and gaza, can't have that. Or people asking tough questions about balfour or 1948.
So a rounded view of history, thinking for yourself, absence of hierarchy, mediation, conflict resolution are all things society needs but the military does not, so the civilian needs are sacrificed because real power is used to do this.
That is why I made this meme:
https://archive.is/9AhsD [archive.is]
There is no more frontier at the moment, which is why everything seem to build up, and why the oligarchs think that opening the new space frontier will let off some steam, but it won't.
The new frontier is resolving our conflicts, the 'takers' or sociopaths can no longer just run to the hills with their loot. The hoarders can't really hide their hoard either, with the internet we will always get the panama papers.
At the moment though we are being overloaded becaese, I think, the sociopaths don't want to play the conflict resolution game and so they are forcing an end game they can control, during which they can eliminate the people with whome they would rather not argue. And of course the last thing they want is a thousand independent militias, they want a hundred thousand gun owners watching the tv to tell them which of their neighbors to shoot.
Anyone who does not believe in a local militia does not believe in the constitution, it is the most american idea, it is the way the revolutionary war was really won, and the west was won, albeit by genocide. But if you told the kids in south central that there was a militia for their are where they could be part of something, I think it would have a chance. But bad globalization hates real localization, this is the grand pattern to all of it.
Rapiscan, Carbyne, someone at the control center under the bad globalization will route your 911 call to a foreign country and one of their spies is trying to kill you, good luck getting help. Same thing, good luck catching the foreign spies with rapiscan tech managed by a foreign country. Same for iphone, intel, and microsoft cloud. Bad globalization routes all of your stuff through the non-local place and they get to decide if your thing works or not.
This is, of course, not security, and not real globalization, this is just a slow invasion via subversion and the giveaway of raw power over your country to another country.
Guess who does have local militias in the united states? A foreign country: APLEA Rangers
https://archive.is/5II5U [archive.is]
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Thursday December 19 2019, @09:58PM
With regards to both "culture war" and "toxic masculinity", I intend to reference existing concepts and all of the baggage that comes along with them.
Calling it "culture war" is useful in that it describes the extent to which one side, the conservatives, will go to promote their position. I fear that it will become a hot war soon. Using their language in this setting is irrelevant to that outcome.
Calling it "toxic masculinity" is useful mainly because I have no other way to directly reference it. I do wish that feminists would come up with a name for it that doesn't immediately disgust the very people that need to hear it most. I'm taking a chance here that you are open minded enough to look past the loaded language.
Truly frightening. This scenario reminds me of pretty much every major collapse in history, especially when combined with environmental stresses like we are beginning to see from climate change. Add to that the mass migrations caused by a combination of environmental stress and the violent schemes of competing groups of sociopaths, and you've got the Bronze Age Collapse and the fall of the Roman Empire at least. All we need to recreate the destruction of the Americas circa 1500 is a plague.
And there's the rub. We don't have local independent militias. We have hordes of gun-owning idiots who could be turned into agents of mass violence if Fox News told them to. Trump would provide government cover.
It truly saddens me that the plutocratic NRA has come to dominate what gun ownership means in the USA. You know they have a registry of all gun owners? You don't have to be a member to get their mailings; they know who you are. And they claim to represent you.
Once upon a time we had local gun clubs that taught people safe and responsible firearm handling and ownership. They may even have acted as militia armories if necessary. Where are those organizations now? Are they truly independent from the power centers they are constitutionally entrusted with defending us from? And how do we get them back?
Maybe VR games could be the new gun training simulators, but there's basically no chance they will serve the same purpose. Have you seen the propaganda shit-show in the latest Call of Duty? Even without propaganda, games aren't so likely to teach "safe" or "responsible". No consequences is a feature of such games.
--
We can keep going back and forth on how much exactly we are fucked, but I still haven't seen any ideas on how to fix it. Is "vote for Bernie" the best chance I'm going to get? What happens when that option goes away?
--
P.S. I would like to revise my previous statement by re-ordering the challenges of creating a safe space for creators. What I called the second challenge is really the first: using your own takers to protect you from everyone else's. This is the most basic function of government, and a lack of effectiveness in this area is why Palestine is so fucked. The challenge of protecting your creators from your own takers is the next step, and it requires the kind of national common ground that the US military basically failed to create in the new Iraqi armed forces. The challenge of making this system work without central authority is still the next big challenge, which nobody yet seems able to solve.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?