p2pnet - rss feed: 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.
Brant Truax – p2pnet
[Truax 24, works for a small manufacturing facility in Concord, North Carolina. He’s been using p2p since Napster. He likes Anime, music, computer hardware, video games, and writing.]
=====================
Something you think we should know? tips[at]p2pnet.net
June 30th, 2005 at 2:37 pm
Hey Overnet is decentralized and does not require a server. It’s bundled with the edonkey and so even if the servers go down, the network is still intact on the decentralized part.
June 30th, 2005 at 3:24 pm
i dont have a problem at all with having to see a few page side ad’s or a few please donate paypal banners on the pages i use and visit, webpages and servers need to be paid for, and the more users you have the more expensive things get, and more drastic measures to cover expences have to be taken, often meaning that the webmaster or coder has to make a few out of pocket payments. its only when they decide to leech the community for all its worth that things go to hell. p2p is an incredible promise, the idea of free exchange of arts and ideas is extrodinary, especialy since its rarely ever seen in the real world. it comes as no surprise that money would ruin such a beautiful promise.
the trend that seems to be happening is the legal half is fighting the application companie half, making blows at eachother, some footing is made on either side, p2p companies go down, cartels lose in court. all this really does is inconveinence and aggrivate the end user. nither side really wins. the cartels dont discourage the end user from using the p2p app, and the p2p app company eventualy goes down or becomes too inefficent to meet the demands of the end user, hence the end user moves on to the next application. napster for example; everyone flocked to napster, then it was taken down and retooled, this system did not work for the user so they migrated to kazaa and morpheus. kazaa was infiltrated, flooded with crap, and their service was deminished to the point where it was useless to the end user, so they moved to other programs like limewire, and bittorrent. sadly nither limewire, bittorrent, nor morpehus will last forever. evetualy they will either be taken down or their service will deminish and a demand for a new application will rise giving some talented and innovative coder reason to dream up the application of tomorrow. wether he is fuled by the challange, the glory that follows such a succesful application or the rage of having to listen to the ignorance of the cartels reamins a question that can only be answered by the coder himself. no matter the reason, corprate or underground, legal or illegal, they can not stop innovation, inspiration or enginuity. they can make all the laws they want, go to all the courts they want and celebrate all the wins they want, the people will do what they want regardless, and until they realize that and try to make amends and work along side the people they will fail.
[i apolagize for any inacuracies and the horrendus spelling in advance, this is off the top of my head and my spelling sucks
]
June 30th, 2005 at 3:45 pm
You say it clearly. It’s all about money! Many *companies* came out with P2P to make profit. Let’s get back to the roots and develop THE P2P application where money and profit has nothing to do. Just pure sharing of great content! Mr. Mark from Zurich.
June 30th, 2005 at 6:45 pm
If it’s not about the money… then why not compensate the people who spent years of their lives and all their hard earned cash writing and recording the music!?!?!
No, the truth is simple… it IS about the money… you DON’T want to pay for the music… you are too greedy, and self-ceneterd to realize the harm you are doing to Amercian music…
June 30th, 2005 at 7:11 pm
show me one study, not done by the cartels or one of their subsidiaries, that displays profit loss directly from p2p activity. then mayb il feel bad for them.
and just so you know, i do still buy cd’s and movies, i also visit the thearters often, that is when the movies dont suck.
you ever think if they updated their buisness model and actualy considered what they were putting on shelvs and the big screen they wouldnt have so many problems? im sorry for not rushing out to see the newest tom cruise movie or rushing out to buy the same stamped out crap cd with 1 new track, that equaly sucks.
think before you speak
June 30th, 2005 at 8:01 pm
“…you are too greedy, and self-ceneterd to realize the harm you are doing to Amercian music.”
I can say in all honesty that American music isn’t what it was. It is my sincere hope that it totally craters and never arises again in the form it now is in. As a side benefit big business will follow that cratering, should that happen. I am doing my part to see it does so. Are you?
I would rather see music done by regular folks setting around a fire, plucking for the heck of it than I would to see what is going on now with music. So if you call that greedy, so be it. For myself, I want to see the entertainment industry doors, barred, locked, and then burned to the ground!
July 1st, 2005 at 3:20 am
“…you are too greedy, and self-ceneterd to realize the harm you are doing to Amercian music.”
It’s not always about people being greedy, some people here in the midwest just can’t justify it. The local university just approved raises for its lowest paid employees and they still qualify for food stamps.
“We still feel that it does not address the basic issue of poverty,” Hawkins said, explaining that even with the raise, employees still will qualify for food stamps. “I applaud President Gates for making a moral statement this fiscal year, but we believe the university can allot more.”
http://www.theeagle.com/stories/062205/am_20050622001.php
July 1st, 2005 at 5:34 am
Art is not supposed to be an endeavor of profit, it is an endeavor of creativity. And the media associations do not fairly compensate their contracted “employees” in comparison to themselves.
As someone else put it somewhere else, a long time ago:
“I’ll gladly compensate the artist. Give me their name and address and I’ll send them a check.”
I’m not helping the head guys at the RIAA buy a Gulfstream IV private jet. To hell with that.
No, I don’t want to pay for the music. Why should I? Local bands are so much cheaper and spew amazing quantities of creativity, but the popular stuff is all the same thing over and over, simply re-hashed, refried, and thrown back on the table, losing flavor with each new serving.
I’m sick of your kind. Every time someone supports the idea that art isn’t about financial gain, the media’s religious fanatics come out of the woodwork and scream about how it IS about the money and we’re forcing them to cut pay for their employees because we download good music. Executives get paid salaries measured in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, or even beyond that. Somehow I doubt that entry-level work comes without $10,000 per year in pay from alternative song distribution mechanisms when the execs at the top are looking at airplane catalogs and don’t feel the pinch.
Not only do I not want to pay for the music, I *WON’T* pay for it. The price is too high, the quality is too low, the talent is drained, the extras don’t matter, and the listener is left with only one or two songs for a $16 purchase. That’s $8 per song.
How is it that “Permanent Vacation” by Aerosmith is mostly composed of songs that I enjoy, but when I listened over that first Britney Spears CD one time, I hit my “track skip” button more times than I can remember? Even Nirvana, Metallica, and Foo Fighters had it going for my personal taste, but then when the milennium turned, Metallica’s new CD wasn’t satisfying (the Napster incident didn’t help) and finding a CD by a band that didn’t exist before ‘96 containing more than a scattered few enjoyable songs became practically impossible. My once-favorite rock station in the area, which carried a lot of music from before the turn of the century, has been putting lots of the latest stuff from new bands that RIAA’s member labels have signed up on the station. I have to tell you, I’ve moved away from them completely because of it. All of the commercialized components of the music industry are melting away in front of us. We no longer have compact discs that keep us listening to the entire disc for hours on end; we have to download one song in lieu of buying a whole CD and put together “mix CDs” because in short, my friend, the music industry “sucks ass.”
“You are an idiot! Ha, ha-ha-ha ha ha ha-a-a ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!” –the file idiot.swf that I downloaded somewhere
Go collect your pay from the RIAA for pushing their political agenda and get off my Internet, you sorry excuse for an American citizen. If it was within my power, I would strip you of your voting privilege.
July 1st, 2005 at 5:57 am
i completely agree with you.
although i do think that if a band wants some money from its fans in order to keep themselvs going (buying equipment, putting out flyers, booking rooms to play in ect.) thats fine with me, but its by all means not fine when the money is regulated by a gluttonus collective such as the RIAA.
i have no problem supporting the bands i love, its supporting uncreative fat asses that i have a problem with.
July 1st, 2005 at 10:42 am
My oh my, aren’t you dumb as dumb gets.
I pitty you. Do you work for the MPAA or RIAA.
Do you really think that people reading these comments actually believe you? The entertainment industry makes billions of dollars yearly. I haven’t seen any recording studios going under or producers in the food line at shelters.
Dude, it’s about greed. Just like Bill G., they CAN’T GET ENOUGH money. It’s a disease. People know this.
Wake up dude.
We do want to ‘pay for the music’ as you put but we don’t want to pay for their mansions and sports cars and speed boats and stretch Hum-v’s. You go out and but all the DVD’s and CD’s you can afford, go ahead…fool.
=======
This is a cookin site. keep it up!
July 1st, 2005 at 2:36 pm
“This is a great victory for artists, songwriters and all of those who make their living through the creative process.”
This ironic. The big looser of the copyright laws are precisely this group of persons. The next big loosers are the customers.
As to the spin, after reading several articles in the Internet press there is only on conclusion possible. Most of the press is dumb or in the take.
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
July 1st, 2005 at 3:29 pm
Bill Gates is one hell of a businessman. He happened to be handed a lot of lucky streaks and a few underhanded opportunities, and he took them and used them to further his business. That’s not necessarily the most appealing thing, but you’ve got to give him credit and leave him out of the RIAA/MPAA thing. He’s not suing people who download media files, they are.
July 1st, 2005 at 5:23 pm
“We no longer have compact discs that keep us listening to the entire disc for hours on end;”
That’s the cartels current model. If you want a hour of good music you need to buy 10-20 cd’s. They make more sales that way. They are killing themselves and honestly I hope it’s already too late for them. They might think that the end is near themselves why else would they sue their customers (er consumers I guess customer insinuates some rights where a consumer just consumes)
July 2nd, 2005 at 8:51 pm
Hey moron, how do they spend their hard-earned cash *WRITING AND RECORDING* music?! Those are very low-cost activities!
March 22nd, 2006 at 3:17 am
The one that would understand if I screamed AEP!? What’s the word crack honky?
This is the man whos’ car you continually fouled in HS
March 16th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
WTF?