Working the spin machine
p2pnet.net News View:- It took a while to digest the Supreme Court’s ruling in MGM v Grokster. After reading the decision in full once, and then some key paragraphs a few times over, it’s become clear both sides are working the spin machine overtime.
The entertainment industry hails this as a tremendous victory but in reality, it’s only marginally closer to successfully suing two p2p companies that represent only a fraction (albeit a large one) of the total p2p activity on the net. Despite what they might claim, the cartels aren’t even one step closer to convincing younger Americans (the ones using p2p software) that what they’re doing is wrong.
Grokster and Streamcast claim that the Supreme Court has only muddied the waters for technology makers, but unfortunately if this court’s new theory of inducement liability is applied, well, the ads and memos sort of speak for themselves. It doesn’t seem as though the entertainment industry will have a difficult time showing a court that Grokster encouraged users to download copyrighted material, and in fact, that may have been its business model in the first place.
The reality is: this decision could be potentially devastating if it’s applied a certain way, and totally benign if applied in another way. We’ll almost certainly see more visits to the Supreme Court on related issues. Once courts have had a chance to rule on multiple cases under the principle of inducement liability, technology makers and the general public will have a better sense of what is likely to land someone in court. Until then, we’ve just got to wait and see.
Lost in all of this are, of course, the users. Remember, regardless of this decision, you can still get sued for uploading popular music. Remember, too, that we, the users, are what this supposed revolution is all about. It’s about content control coming to our hands instead of the labels’. It’s about being able to freely share ideas, music, and art. It’s about a lot more that just copyrights and intellectual property.
And it was never supposed to be about the money.
When Shawn Fanning started Napster, it was for the fun of sharing files with his college friends. It seems unlikely that his plan was to profit from his little experiment. When Napster got shut down though, someone - many someones - were right there, waiting to swoop in and try to profit from our desire to share. We couldn’t stand the idea of a distributed computing application and spyware in Kaza, so someone coded Kaza lite. We loved SuperNova but when Loki introduced a new client bundled with ads and spyware, we recoiled in horror.
So why is the p2p community so bent on rallying behind Grokster? Does anyone believe for a second that if the people behind Grokster didn’t think they would profit from people using their software, they’d have even bothered to code it?
Would they be fighting tooth and nail in court if their application was a giant money sink? Probably not. In the end, the RIAA, the people behind Grokster, the MPAA, and the people behind Streamcast are only after one thing, and isn’t the best interests of the consumer.
It’s money.
This ruling, if nothing else, is a wake up call to the p2p community of users. We need, now more than ever, to show that we’re not interested in profits, losses, gains, balance sheets, or stock options. P2p is about us, about distributing ideas freely and easily in a way that’s never been possible before. To that end, it would seem a p2p application meeting the following criteria would best suit our agenda:
Not for profit If you’re trying to make money from our desire to share with one another, you’ve missed the point. Not only that, it’s clear now that you’re opening up to a virtual hornet’s nest of liability suits. So if you’re trying to get rich off our bandwidth, we’d prefer you just don’t bother writing the software.
For the Community A p2p application’s stated objective, its purpose, needs to be sharing ideas and media with one another. Some p2p applications may also arise simply out of the curiosity of the coder. These will probably work well too. But the best software will certainly come from authors who are passionate about people communicating and sharing.
Embedded Distributed Computing Applications Not the kind Digital Entertainment had in mind, either. Seti @ Home and Standford’s Folding @ Home are just two projects which could be integrated into a p2p application. We’ve argued all along that we’re not bad people or criminals. Let’s prove it with the software we use by trying to help understand our universe.
Secure, Reliable Credits for Uploaders We can’t afford to let leechers abuse the system. A p2p application must reliably reward those who contribute the most and handicap those who don’t give back in equal measure.
Currently, the closest to the above stated objectives is probably Emule. It’s not as fast as it could be, and the credit system is easily circumvented, but the program is ad free and the website makes no exciting claims about downloading the new Britney Spears album.
Bit Torrent also stands a good chance, given its altruistic roots, but it, too, suffers from an easily exploitable credit system and its ephemeral nature makes it difficult for older files to stay available for long. Neither application contains embedded distributed computing software. Emule is also a served network, which makes it much more susceptible to lawsuits targeting individual servers. And we all know how easily Bit Torrent sites are shut down.
The killer p2p application isn’t out there yet, but it’s coming. Coount on it. And when it arrives, it won’t be from the likes of Grokster or Streamcast.
In all the talk of copyrights, new business models, and profits, let’s make sure we don’t forget what we’re really after. The elimination of the greedy hypocrites who currently possess a stranglehold on the arts in the United States, and perhaps all over the world.
When entertainment turned into big business, we were forced to live with the consequences. If p2p becomes big business, it won’t be any different.
To underscore their hypocrisy, rapper Jay-Z said in a statement prepared (of course) by the RIAA: “This is a great victory for artists, songwriters and all of those who make their living through the creative process.”
Thanks Jay. We’ll keep that in mind the next time we listen to one of your albums, complete with endorsements of violence, drug abuse, theft, murder, and the objectification of women.