|
published
25 May 2000
Inevitable
technology
by Dylan Tweney
Napster is all but dead. And so too may be the notion of defensible
intellectual property, thanks to a new network called Freenet.
Sure, Napster just got $15 million and a new CEO from VC firm Hummer
Winblad [1]. But mark my words: Napster is not only in trouble,
it's already obsolete.
Napster has been forced by Metallica to disconnect the accounts
over over 300,000 users who, the band alleges, have been trading
copyrighted recordings of the band's songs using the Napster network.
Other legal trouble is surely in the wings. A host of recent copyright-related
lawsuits (RIAA vs. Napster, MPAA vs DeCSS, Microsoft vs. Slashdot)
have targeted Web sites and software developers, making life very
difficult for anyone whose business model is based on trading other
people's information. [2]
Even the gurus of open source software are lining up against Napster.
"Piracy is bad," Linus Torvalds has said. "Of
course you should be able to sue over copyrights." [3] (Note
that Torvalds holds a trademark for the word "Linux.")
A hint of things to come for Napster: MP3.com was recently found
liable for copyright infringement in a suit brought by the Recording
Industry Association of America, which was upset that the music-trading
site was offering free downloads of copyrighted songs.
As a result of that suit, MP3.com no longer provides free access
to copyrighted songs. The company is crowing about its success in
getting people to pay a $10 monthly fee for unlimited access to
streaming media feeds; MP3.com pays royalties to record labels out
of those fees. Still: this is on MP3.com's Classical Music Channel.
As if that's a huge moneymaker. [4]
Napster is in a similar position. As long as the company provides
access to copyrighted recordings -- even if it doesn't host the
MP3 files itself -- it is vulnerable to lawsuits. Today it's Metallica
and Dr. Dre, tomorrow it's everyone from Bob Dylan to Britney Spears.
Eventually, the company will have to start paying royalties to record
labels whose songs it distributes, and to make that work,
it will have to generate substantial revenues from its downloads.
Perhaps Napster has enough momentum to switch over to a for-pay
model, enabling it to pay royalties to copyright holders? A new
study found that 57% of U.S. college students use Napster at least
once a week. 70% of them use it monthly. And the study hints that
most of them would be willing to pay $15 per month to use the service.
[5]
Don't bet on it.
Already there are a host of alternative technologies that do what
Napster does, cost nothing, and are far less susceptible to legal
action. (It would have to be a pretty dumb college student who would
spend their pizza and beer money on something they could
get elsewhere for free.) For example, OpenNap provides an
open-source version of the Napster database. Gnutella is
a file-sharing program designed to distribute any kind of file,
not just MP3s. And there are many others, as reports from Wired
and C|Net make clear. [6,7]
One of the most interesting new file-sharing networks is Freenet,
which is designed to be a completely decentralized, anonymous,
information-sharing network. There is no central registry of
files, no centralized addressing scheme. Once a file or piece of
information is posted to Freenet, it is automatically propagated
to other Freenet nodes. As a result, it is difficult, if not impossible,
to determine the locations where a piece of information is physically
stored -- and it's therefore nearly impossible to remove any information
once it has been introduced into Freenet. What's more, information
can be posted and retrieved anonymously, making it hard to catch
anyone responsible for posting something -- or those who download
that information. [8]
Freenet aims to be nothing less than a completely unfettered alternative
to the Web. On the Web, sites can be blocked or taken down entirely,
and domain names can be taken away, enabling authorities to shut
down or turn off sites that they judge to be illegal, immoral, or
simply objectionable. Freenet makes such controls nearly impossible,
short of an across-the-board crackdown on network technology.
There are some obstacles to Freenet's success: For instance, the
system currently lacks any kind of search capability, meaning it
is very difficult to find anything unless someone gives you a specific
Freenet address. As long as it lacks a search tool, Freenet won't
be especially useful to a broad base of users.
Nevertheless, Freenet is a clear shot across the bows of intellectual
property. With such a network, there is effectively no way to prevent
the unlimited, worldwide distribution of any kind of information
-- articles, books, music, videos, even software. Copyrighted or
not, intellectual property can be introduced into Freenet anonymously
and irrevocably.
Is this a good thing? It depends on who you ask. People who make
their living from intellectual property (and I count myself in that
group) are likely to be very nervous about something like Freenet,
because it takes away any leverage that the creators of content
currently hold. Others, who believe in freedom of speech (I also
count myself in this group) see Freenet as a way to circumvent censorship,
distributing information wherever and whenever it is wanted. If
you believe "information wants to be free," you'll love
Freenet.
In the end, your opinion may not matter. The technology is here,
and no doubt other similar technologies will soon follow. Technological
development follows something very akin to Murphy's Law: Anything
that can be invented, will be.
So the recent flurry of copyright-related lawsuits may turn out
to be futile in the face of such seemingly inevitable technologies.
That doesn't mean we should stop asking questions about what whether
the technology is moral or not. And the legal battles over copyright
have barely scratched the surface of the technologies involved.
One person who has been able to think "ambidextrously"
about these technologies and their social implications is Andy Oram;
see his essay on the social impact of Gnutella and Freenet [9] and
his excellent technical overview of the two technologies [10].
The question is, has intellectual property become obsolete? Or
can the producers of content -- words, music, software -- still
find ways to generate value from their efforts?
---
[1] Napster
gets new CEO, $15 million infusion
[2] Copyright
clash: Boundaries of legality
[3] ZDNet:
News: Linux leaders: Beware of Napster
[4] MP3.com
Reports Strong Subscription Service Demand
[5] Napster
University: File Swapping and the Future of Entertainment
(press release)
[6] Napster
May Not Matter Any More
[7] Music
may be only the beginning of grassroots piracy
[8] The Free Network
Project Homepage
[9] The
Value of Gnutella and Freenet
[10] Gnutella
and Freenet Represent True Technological Innovation
|