Google Wins the Filesharing Wars? 200
The Importance of writes "Compulsory licensing schemes such as those proposed by the EFF have been critiqued, but now LawMeme has an interesting article that claims Google will win the filesharing wars if a compulsory license is adopted."
blablabla (Score:1, Insightful)
However, if filesharing becomes legal through a compulsory license, what is the purpose of the Gnutella-based software anymore?
Sharing bandwidth, perhaps?
Uses for P2P (Score:4, Insightful)
Firstly, I cannot begin to comprehend the effort required to stay on top of the copyrighted material being shared around the network. File hashes can be used for sure, but imaging the resources required for checking and verifying this. Sure, a few automated systems currently exist for music, but when we're talking about w2k3 iso's, DiVX movies etc, these are going to require some serious resources, whether computing or man-power to acheive this. Certainly this will be required to satisfy the RIAA, MPAA et al.
Secondly, assuming they acheive this, then what, in all honesty is the network going to be used for. Sure, there's currently the odd RH iso that get's distributed by bittorrent. With most sharers scared to offer their mp3 collection (ie combination of ripped of their own cd's and downloaded), few will bother weeding out their copyright free music to share. With no sharers, there's no network. Besides, at the moment indepedent music seems served quite happily by services such as mp3.com and others.
Wrong and right (Score:5, Insightful)
However, I agree with the other half of the article, which basically says "Google is God", something that has been obvious for several years. For many people, Google is the Internet, something AOL and MSN never managed to do with their fluff-filled "portals". Whatever new things come along, Google will be there, doing them better, leaner, faster,...
But it will be several dotcom lifetimes before Google will be the place to go to download no-longer-pirate tracks and movies. I don't think the P2P companies really have such a long horizon.
y2k business plan (Score:0, Insightful)
2. google is the main web search tool
so
google is going to be the leader p2p!
w007!
Google? A dictator? (Score:5, Insightful)
If Google started being assholes to their users most of them will simply go and use another search engine to find things. But they don't. So people keep using Google and the wonderful features it provides.
monopolist (Score:3, Insightful)
And some more alarming privacy issues are listed on http://www.google-watch.org/.
I'm still in favor of having the choice between several sources for searching/news/p2p/blogs. This will enhance the competition between the competitors and will make their services better.
Look at all the OSS. Most pieces of software have several forks or similar/related projects which ultimately results in a better piece(s) of software for a specific task
Re:Google? A dictator? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:monopolist (Score:5, Insightful)
They still trumpet on about the Google Toolbar being spyware despite the fac that when you install the toolbar it spells everything out in plain english under a big red heading labelled "READ THIS CAREFULLY! IT'S NOT THE USUAL YADA YADA YADA!".
They still trumpet on about Google's immortal cookie yet fail to realise *gasp* Google does have user preferences and uses the cookie to track those preferences. Some small part of me believes that the Google reps never responded because they died laughing about... THE COOKIE.
They trumpet on about geotargeting but in reality its almost required by governments with lax freedom of speech policies who try to prevent their citizens from accesssing certain material. You can always turn it off in the prefs by telling google to go back to google.com for searching but now the legal onus is on you.
While the site does have some valid points, most of them are either overexagerations or crying sour grapes. Personally, I think the only thing that really needs to be addressed is Google's transparency. Sure it's a fairly big concern to address but Google hasn't steppped far out of line yet. If they were to say, for example, sell every user's personal search data to the highest bidder I would be incredibly pissed and be calling for their blood.
But they haven't.
So I won't. And I'll continue to use Google while they remain like they are.
Google's Predestiny? (Score:5, Insightful)
Specifically, the problem of indexing the web is an extremely thorny one. There is a massive amount of content, almost none of which has any structure whatsoever, and much of which is of dubious interest (i.e. it's total crap). The page rank system used by Google is simply brilliant and deserves all the accolades heaped on it.
Indexing a bunch of MP3s is a much, much simpler problem. As the author of the article points out, Napster had this pretty much nailed years ago. So Google's technical advantage is definitely questionable. What about its deep pockets, market presence, etc.? Sure, this indicates that Google might be a contender in this theoretical new market, but there are a couple of other companies out there with brands, deep pockets, etc. Say IBM, or eBay, or Amazon, or Microsoft, or Yahoo, or... okay, you get the point.
To me this article is a perfect example of attracting attention by taking a superficially intriguing stance, basing it on today's much-hyped company to gain topical interest. Upon examination, the conclusions of the article don't hold water.
"you assume too much" (Score:3, Insightful)
Uh, markets don't work that way (Score:3, Insightful)
Some would die as happens with all markets with too much overall supply. While I agree that the majority of people would flock to fewer services, niche markets would exist just as they do right now in the music industry.
The problem is that the cost of entering the music distribution market would drop considerably. Therefore you would see MORE services, not fewer, with each catering to market segments.
The reason why compulsory license is opposed by the RIAA and their members is because it just legalizes exactly what they are trying to prevent: loss of control of music distribution.
GOOGLE could do it right now. Here's how. (Score:4, Insightful)
Suppose one had a GoogleNut tool. You query Google for a song. Google then distributes this Query to all of its distributed servers and on each one launches a Gnutella/Kaaza search, then replys with the a link that when activated uses your Gnuttell app/plugin to download the file from the location it found.
the Added value here is that 1) google's network would act as a fast bridge across the mostly small-world Gnutella networks. 2) they could cache simmilar requests 3) they could also develop lists of nodes to block if they detected RIAA style hanky-panky (e.g. different file sizes or fingerprints).
Since this mightbe more expensive than a regular search for Google, they could pay for it with say ultra-mercials while you download or make it a fee for service.
Article contradicts itself (Score:5, Insightful)
Network effects will bring one party to the top, as is already happening. Kazaa is not the best p2p app, but the most used and therefore most people use it. If legal changes make it possible again to have a central database, Kazaa is still in the best position to capitalize on that, because most people are still using Kazaa for downloading stuff.
Of course Google is bigger, but Google is bigger than eBay too and as the article states, eBay is the biggest auction site because of the same network effects. People go to eBay for auction searches and to Google for general searches, just as they go to Kazaa for music searches. If I type in the name of a song in Google, lots of results will appear, not just the mp3's.
It doesn't mean Google couldn't go after this market. If they would, they would stand a pretty good chance of winning, but so would Microsoft or Yahoo.
more from Douwe Osinga [douweosinga.com]
Google has nothing to do with it (Score:3, Insightful)
On the other hand, Google is a practical expression of the maxim "information wants to be free". Being able to find out where to get information is exactly the opposite of all "intellectual property" laws, whose purpose is to limit the people's access to information. If compulsory licensing comes into effect, how long until one is automatically charged a fee each time one looks into a website?
Slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
Compulsory licencing will end up being a tax on speech.
Re:blablabla (Score:3, Insightful)
And still the bandwidth (and processing power) you need for running the central database is quite expensive (note: that's why you can't compare bittorrent to napster, it just isn't centralized in the same way, and it solves the big-expensive-central-server problem.). Decentralized networks (including bittorrent following the reasoning above) are the only possibility way to do filesharing organized only by hobbiists, and that's why they will prevail.
Well, that is the point of the article. Once compulsary licensing allows anybody to setup bittorrents (however that is going to work), Google will win out. Distribution will be done through bittorrent, searching through Google. Kazaa with its smart tricks of hiding the central server will have no place to go.
Microsoft and/or Apple will be the winners! (Score:4, Insightful)
Who is going to win is not the one with better technology. Technology is not important to the end-users. The user interface and convenience is what matter.
Why do you think that Kazaa is more popular that Gnutella. That's because the search engine is more convenient... You can search meta data in addition to filenames. The underlying protocol or matching engine has nothing to do with it.
Anyway, if I search for "Evanescence" music files, even the most crappy search engine will yield good results (especially if sorted by the number of hosts who have it - automatic google ranking!)
The one who are going to win are the ones who are going to make filesharing part of their OS or services. The winner will be Microsoft, Apple, and maybe AOL could be a distant second (in the MS space).
Re:Google's Predestiny? (Score:5, Insightful)
Another need is that you might know a few lyrics of a song but not know who it's by or what it's called. My friend a while ago couldn't find that Bob Dylan song that goes "Everybody must get stoned" -- I had to tell him that it's called "Rainy Day Women #12 & #35."
Google has a bunch of smart people working for it, but I don't know if they'd necessarily have a head start on this problem. It's not the same as indexing the web.
Re:Decentralization is just a part of the problem (Score:3, Insightful)
They won't if filesharing is legal, or at least if there is no risk of getting sued. Look at Napster - centralized database, millions of users. As long as there's no risk to them, people don't generally give a shit about privacy.
Re:What's that you say? (Score:1, Insightful)
But somebody can still prevent covers. At least Megadeth had a big hullabaloo with somebody about their cover of the song "These Boots" (known best as a Nancy Sinatra song, written by some other dude). Who's the somebody, I don't know . . .
Re:Uh, markets don't work that way (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly. Why isn't the RIAA out there busting every pirate on the street corner selling CDs? Because the pirates don't threaten their control over their slaves -- I mean artists.
There is no lock-in effect (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no such lock-in effect for a filesharing service. A company like google can simple mass-burn CDs, or auto-download mp3s from elsewhere on the net and analyze them automatically for quality. If they can put catalogs online by the hundreds or thousands, they can certainly manage mp3s, given they are fully digital.
An example of a company that DOES have a lock-in effect is Lending Tree. Again, like Ebay, they act as a middle man, in this case between lenders and loan consumers. The more banks they have, the more choices consumers have and the more likely they are to want to see LT's deals. The more consumers they have, the more potential business that pool represents, and so they are more likely to attract banks. (And that's why they were bought out, since it was becoming clear they had passed the critical mass point for that lock-in effect)
There is no middle-man after compulsory licensing. There will be some services will all music on them. You'll D/L whatever you want. So it's traditional competition to attract customers.
Re:If Google ever decided to do this... (Score:3, Insightful)
File sharing has been perfectly legal for decades. We did this legally with modem-based BBSs in the 80s (maybe earlier), and we continue to do this legally with FTP and (more recently) software such as bit torrent.
I'm well aware that you meant sharing copyrighted music files, so I'm asking everyone to stop saying "file sharing" when referring to distributing music files. A more accurate term is music file sharing (or just music sharing).
If we keep referring to music sharing by the generic "file sharing" meme, then any laws that are passed to outlaw music sharing will likely, if unintentionally, cross over into other types of currently legal file sharing such as Free software distribution.
Remember, swapping music files is just one form of file sharing. There are other, and in my opinion far more important, types of file sharing that have nothing to do with illegal distribution of copyrighted music files. It's important to make that distinction.
Re:Wrong and right (Score:4, Insightful)
Google is not God, it is not manifest destiny, it is not a historically necessary, it is not destined for anything. Google kicks butt for now. But there are other companies and technologies just waiting to gangbang it. Remember how quickly google appeared? It can be superseded just as quickly. Don't get religious on google, its just a company with good policy, clever technology and clever guys. Policies stagnate, technology goes out of date and clever guys leave. Hey, maybe yahoo can reinvent itself. Or maybe hotbot? Or maybe Ebay will turn its massive market power and revenue into a filesharing network?
Screw RIAA and the Artists! (Score:4, Insightful)
The rest of us don't get government protected handouts when technological advance makes our skills obsolete.
We don't rue the loss of the welder's job, the steelworker's job, the woodworker's job, the craftsman's job, the accountants job, when a machine makes it unnecessary.
So, why all of a sudden does an INDUSTRY deserve protection. You don't need to have an industry to distribute music anymore, and you don't need to have a select few artists be turned into mega stars. Now, everyone's opinion, art, and songs can be pushed out there.
Napster, Kazaa, the web, just reflect a basic economic reality. The supply of content is infinite and so the value of the commodity is zero.
Being in favor of copyright laws in the digital age is like trying to bring back the horse and buggy. Being in favor of the "intellectual property era" is like trying to where the catholic church was right before they had this thing called the renaissance.
We are now going through a second renaissance. So far, American industry seems hell bent on trying to stop it. It ain't the Terrorists that will sink the United States. It will be the gradual realization that intellectual property is absurd and that trying to enforce this artificial monopoly on the world is morally wrong.
This just in, lawyer doesn't understand oss (Score:2, Insightful)
So the article says that Gnutella et all are shooting themselves in the foot by trying to legalize music file sharing. I think he is operating under a bad assumption. He assumes that everyone that makes p2p software is doing it because they want to get rich.
He is missing an important point. A large number of people that make p2p software do it because they want to be able to share music on the internet. That's it. That's the motivation. That ability is riches enough. Screw the money.
Compulsory-licensing and micropayments converge (Score:4, Insightful)
We can all imagine problems with this scheme- the overwhelming financial success of pornography is the only the most cringeworthy of the drawbacks. But I can imagine a nation experimenting with this scheme, if various controls are added to keep it "clean". Of course that leads to ways for the gov to softly censor creative thought, by withholding funds on obscenity grounds...
This would be the system that P2P United lobbyists will prefer, as it gives their companies a reason to get paid in the future. Somebody has to monitor what files are duplicated, and transfer the set-fee to the deserving author, and some Napster-like system could handle the job. Oddly enough, this shift responsibility for punishing unauthorized filetrading to Kazaa.com and its ilk- users are only allowed to trade through official channels, so passing files by email or floppy-disk will have to be punished!
The funny part about this style of licensing is that once the system gets established, it'll look just like a mature, micropayment economy. Listeners download from Kazaa, Kazaa records what they took and each month prints out some cumulative paperwork: a bill for each subscriber, and a check for each musician. They'll take on exactly the business niche that micropayment middlemen [peppercoin.com] want to occupy.
Re:There is no lock-in effect (Score:3, Insightful)
The author is still right, but "lock-in effect" is mostly a red herring. Ebay has lock-in because the seller only has one physical product to deliver. Digital music files have no "conservation of mass" restriction to them.
When/if compulsory licensing happens, the best way to search for a file will be on a centralized server-cluster. That requires software development and a big capital investment, two things Google has been mastering over the past 5 years.
Meanwhile, Kazaa (and other, even less-viable P2P companies) have been squandering their efforts on distributed searches to evade legal responsibility. If that legal danger is removed, then their investment will have been worthless, and they'll never catch up with "Google Share" for finding files.
Now, it's true that we can't accurately predict that compulsory licensing will make Google the winner of the P2P war, or even that there will be only one winner. But the clear observation is that the victorious companies will be taken from the existing web-search market, not the P2P-services space. The "P2P United" tradegroup is truely working to obselete themselves.