Remember When P2P Wasn't Just About File Sharing?

from the oh-right... dept

These days, it certainly does seem like the term "P2P" is forever linked with unauthorized file sharing. However, that wasn't always the case. It is true that it was often associated with file sharing -- but there was lots of talk about other P2P applications that focused more on distributed computing -- allowing more powerful applications that pulled spare cycles and bandwidth from computer systems around the world? Certainly, there are still some of these projects going -- but the big promise for how distributed computing systems were going to become a hugely powerful part of the next generation of applications and services hasn't matched the predictions from five or six years ago. There certainly are some success stories. Things like Skype show a distributed application at work -- but whenever you hear people talking about P2P today, it tends to just be about file sharing networks. In some ways, this is too bad, because there were some really powerful possibilities that made sense for distributed computing. Perhaps part of the problem, though, was that it was simply overhyped at the beginning with people thinking that anything could be made better with distributed computing systems. However, not everything really makes sense as a distributed app, and when things like a distributed search engine failed to catch on, those who were simply jumping on the hype bandwagon seemed to shift gears and focus on more shiny AJAX widgets instead. That's probably a good thing, because now it means those who are working on serious distributed systems can focus on them in peace, without having to deal with all the hype.

Filed Under: p2p

UK Considers Forcing ISPs To Block File Sharing

from the as-if-that-will-work dept

Following the recent UK shutdowns of OiNK and tv-links, Lord Triesman, the parliamentary Under Secretary for Innovation, Universities and Skills, is now threatening to regulate ISPs if they don't stop file sharing. Unfortunately, Lord Triesman seems a bit confused both about technology and economics here -- which is disappointing, as his thoughts on regulations would impact both negatively. He seems to think that this would involve an easy technology fix saying that "it is quite possible to know where it is happening and who it is happening with." Then he follows that up with: "we will be able to match data banks of that music to music going out and being exchanged on the net." That sounds good, but unfortunately, he's been misinformed. While it is true that many people do reveal who they are, those who are serious about this stuff know how to remain mostly hidden. Triesman says that they're not concerned with 14-year-olds sharing files, but only the professionals who are making "multiple copies for profit." The problem is that those are exactly the people who won't be caught by these methods.

Next up, Triesman trots out the old and tired myth about how piracy will cause the music industry to disappear: "We have some simple choices to make. If creative artists can't earn a living as a result of the work they produce, then we will kill off creative artists and that would be a tragedy." Yes, it's true that if they can't earn a living from what they do, we will lose new creative content (I'm assuming he didn't really mean that it would kill the artists literally), but the big implicit assumption there is that piracy means they can't earn a living from the work they produce. As we've seen over and over again that's not true. If you understand the economics, you can use free file sharing to your advantage to make a bigger name for yourself and make more money from other sources. To imply that file sharing kills off creative content is clearly incorrect -- and it's about time that myth died off.

Filed Under: business models, copyright, file sharing, p2p, uk

International Game Of File Sharing Whack-A-Mole Continues

from the and-what-good-does-that-do? dept

In what we're sure will be declared yet another "significant blow" against "piracy," the IFPI helped shut down a private bittorrent tracker site that was used by many people. Following the arrest of the service's creator and the taking down of the site, the IFPI has put up one of its typical scary warning notices about how it's now trying to track down the users of the site -- though most people view that as an empty threat. There is little doubt that this particular service was mainly used for unauthorized file sharing. However, you do still have to wonder what the IFPI and others think they're accomplishing here. It becomes increasingly laughable to have anyone think that bringing these sites down does anything positive for the industry. It's clearly not in the best interests of musicians who are quickly moving as far away from organizations like the IFPI and the RIAA as possible. At the same time, musicians are recognizing that playing this giant game of whack-a-mole is both counter-productive and stupid. It doesn't do anything to damper file sharing at all. Once a copy is out there it's out there, and shutting down one player in the space doesn't make any difference at all. The users just scatter and show up again elsewhere, further underground. In the meantime, many more are realizing that rather than worrying about these services, it's time to embrace them, recognizing that they're incredibly efficient distribution and promotion mechanisms that can be used to help a musician become much more successful. About the only people who it's hurting are those who think they're in the business of selling little plastic discs -- and we've already described why felony interference of a business model isn't a crime.

Filed Under: bittorrent, file sharing, p2p, takedown
Companies: ifpi, oink, riaa

Congress: P2P Promotes Identity Theft! We Need New Laws!

from the maybe-one-of-these-will-stick dept

It would appear that the entertainment industry's friends in Congress are now trying to blame just about anything evil online on P2P technology. A few months ago, a group of representatives started saying that P2P technology had to be regulated because it was a national security threat. The reasoning behind this? Because some idiot gov't employees ignored policies forbidding the use of unauthorized 3rd party apps (or putting sensitive data on home computers) and misconfigured P2P apps... ending up in secure documents being available for download. In other words, even though the real fault was stupid gov't employees ignoring policies and misusing the technology... it was the technology's fault.

Apparently, that argument didn't generate enough support for a new law against P2P technology. So now the exact same group of Congressional Representatives is claiming that P2P technology is evil and must be stopped... because it promotes identity theft. The politicians (many of whom just so happen to come from places where large entertainment firms are based... though, we're sure that's a coincidence) are clearly trying to come up with an excuse (any excuse) to come up with new laws against P2P systems. Today's action involved asking the FTC to investigate this perceived threat from P2P systems and also asked whether the FTC felt it had enough enforcement powers to address this problem, or if it needed help from Congress. In other words, the well-choreographed dance has begun. We'll soon see legislation introduced to crack down on file sharing systems, officially in the name of stopping identity theft, but really thanks to campaign contributions from the entertainment industry who still hasn't realized that it's harming itself. The more they do this, the more real innovation will move elsewhere.

Filed Under: congress, identity theft, national security, p2p
Companies: congress, riaa

Grokster Case Lives On... Judge Debates How Best To Kill Streamcast

from the so-many-choices dept

Many people think that the Grokster lawsuit ended with the Supreme Court ruling over two years ago. However, that's not the case. The Supreme Court was simply ruling on an aspect of the case (whether software providers were liable for what their users for doing) and then sent the case back to the lower court to then review its original decision. Grokster, whose name the case is most identified with, shut down, but Streamcast was also involved in the case and it decided to fight on, claiming that it did not "induce" infringement, and therefore was not guilty of copyright infringement. Unfortunately, the judge wasn't convinced and still found the company guilty. Since then, there's been an ongoing process of determining just what the punishment should be. The judge clearly hoped that Streamcast would make life easy by settling, but the company is nothing if not persistent in standing by its various lawsuits. Ed Felten points out that the judge is now trying to carefully weigh the punishment options for Streamcast, which seems rather odd, because it's pretty clear that no matter what the punishment, Streamcast is done. There's basically no way for the company to stay in business after losing this case, so Felten can't figure out why the company would keep fighting this -- though, the longer it stays alive, the more chances the RIAA has to claim yet another victory over the company.

Filed Under: business models, copyright, file sharing, inducement, p2p
Companies: grokster, streamcast

Another Example Of Less Intellectual Property Protection Leading To More Innovation

from the innovation-without-IP dept

ZeroPaid, TechCrunch and Wired are all pointing to a video interview done by writer Thomas Crampton of a guy in China, who talks about how much more advanced P2P technology is in China, mostly because the makers of that technology don't have to constantly hide themselves underground or fight with the entertainment industry and the government just for the right to exist. While some are saying this is quite a revelation (others are pointing out that the claims seem exaggerated), it shouldn't be surprising at all to find out the technology is getting better without the constant pressure from the entertainment industry. For years, we've seen example after example after example of where the fight to more stringently protect intellectual property in the name of innovation has actually done the opposite, slowing down the pace of innovation. In fact there are whole books on the topic. This is merely another example. While the entertainment industry has continued to insist that more stringent copyright laws help promote innovation, that's increasingly being proven incorrect.

Amusingly, it seems that the "protectionist" China is leading the way with much more free market policies on these issues. Two and a half years ago, we pointed out that, despite all the problems with rampant "piracy," the Chinese music industry was doing extremely well -- because those musicians had learned to adapt and embrace new business models that didn't require directly selling the music. It's only two years later that musicians outside of China seem to be catching up.

However, the more important lesson here is in understanding the unintended consequences at play. The RIAA and the MPAA (and Congress, through the generous donations of those two organizations) have talked about how important it is to "protect" content -- but in doing so, they crippled the industry for developing P2P tools, which have the potential to be a much more important part of economic activity in the future. Better tools for the distribution and promotion of content are quite important, and by cracking down on that in the name of "piracy" we've now hurt the US's ability to lead in that field -- and without any real benefit to the content creators the industry was so anxious to protect. It's really the same as any other protectionist policy. If you protect an industry, it just allows others elsewhere to be more innovative and more nimble and to take control over that industry. It simply destroys the industry at home where it's supposedly "protected" and hurts consumers by offering them less innovation for more money.

Filed Under: china, competition, free markets, innovation, p2p, regulations

The Pirate Bay To Sue Entertainment Companies For Attacks

from the could-get-interesting dept

Well, this could get interesting. Following the leak of MediaDefender's emails, the folks behind The Pirate Bay now believe they have enough evidence to sue many major entertainment firms for "infrastructural sabotage, denial of service attacks, hacking and spamming." Basically, there's evidence in the emails that a bunch of firms, including Universal, EMI, Sony, Paramount and others were using MediaDefender to try to mess with The Pirate Bay's system. Whether or not the lawsuit actually goes anywhere may depend on a lot of factors (including Swedish laws, which I am totally unfamiliar with). There may be some questions about how the emails in question were obtained. And, of course, the entertainment companies will likely counter that they were just trying to protect their own materials -- which could find a sympathetic ear in a courtroom. Either way it would be quite a lawsuit.

Filed Under: copyright, denial of service, p2p, sabotage
Companies: emi, fox, paramount, pirate bay, sony, ubisoft, universal

No Wonder The Feds Hate Limewire; Terrorist Threat Assessment Leaked Via Limewire

from the so-that-explains-it dept

A few months back, we were a bit surprised at the misplaced anger directed by some Congressional representatives towards file sharing software provider Limewire. There were some outrageous claims about how Limewire represented a threat to national security and how it was all Limewire's fault that stupid government employees had leaked sensitive information. Of course, this was misplaced because it wasn't Limewire's fault that gov't employees were too stupid to configure the software properly. It wasn't Limewire's fault that gov't employees didn't follow rules that forbid them from installing unapproved apps on their machines -- or on transferring sensitive material to personal computers. Instead, it was all blamed on Limewire. It also wasn't entirely clear what sensitive reports had been leaked... but now we know of at least one. Apparently a national security terrorist threat assessment for the city of Chicago was recently available via Limewire. Though, again, the questions shouldn't be about Limewire, but what gov't employee would (a) have Limewire and classified info on the same computer and (b) configure Limewire to allow that classified info to be shared.

Filed Under: congress, file sharing, national security, p2p
Companies: limewire

MediaDefender Internal Email Leak Confirms Plans To Launch Honeypot File Sharing Network

from the oops dept

Back in July, there was a report that MediaDefender, a company that works for the MPAA and RIAA polluting file sharing networks with fake files, was working on a fake file sharing network that would trick users into downloading some spyware that could then be used to send details back to the entertainment industry for use in various lawsuits. After the news broke, MediaDefender denied that this was the intended purpose of the project, and said it was just an internal project that was accidentally made public. Speaking of internal stuff accidentally made public, late Friday the news began to spread that a bunch of MediaDefender's internal emails were now available on file sharing systems, and looking through them seems to indicate not only that MediaDefender was spending an awful lot of time on this fake site (called MiiVi.com) but even after it was exposed, the company was still working on it, while trying to find a new name that wouldn't be connected to MediaDefender. Of course, we should point out that hacking MediaDefender to get its internal emails (and phone calls, apparently) is not very smart. It makes MediaDefender start to look like the victim and opens up a very real (and reasonable) possibility of a lawsuit against whoever got (and then leaked) the emails. MediaDefender was a company that would have collapsed on itself eventually anyway. There's no reason to help push them over the edge -- especially using illegal or unethical means.

Filed Under: data leak, email, p2p
Companies: mediadefender

Why Is P2P Software The Focus In Latest Identity Theft Arrest?

from the that's-not-the-issue dept

The press has been buzzing about the fact that a Seattle man was arrested for identity theft earlier this week -- with most of the focus being on the fact that he used P2P file sharing software to find personal info about people which he then used in his identity theft scam to get credit cards under his victims' names, order products and then sell them online at half-price. Clearly, if he's found guilty of doing this, the guy was involved in a pretty massive fraud and deserves to go to jail. However, the P2P angle is an odd one, as one of the charges is "accessing a protected computer without authorization." The thing is, it wasn't without authorization. It was just that the individuals incorrectly configured their own file sharing software to expose private details. Just as some politicians want to blame P2P software for gov't employees misconfiguring it, it seems wrong to blame this guy for accessing documents that people stupidly made available. It sounds like the guy probably did plenty of other things that will get him locked up for a long time -- but unauthorized access isn't necessarily them.

Filed Under: file sharing, identity theft, p2p