Google Wins the Filesharing Wars?

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."

What's that you say?

[CaptainAlbert]

Compulsory licensing, eh? What's that when it's at home?

Perhaps I haven't been following closely enough, but exactly who is to be compelled to license what, from whom? Is this a big license signed between big companies, or a little license signed by people who listen to music, or those who make it, or just those who download it, or is it a shrink-wrap license like you get with software? Is it free, or does someone pay for it? Who? How much? What does it all mean? Am I the only person who doesn't know? PLEASE MOM, I WANT TO KNOW? WHY? WHY?

Ahem.

If Google ever decided to do this...

[overbyj]

then they would certainly rise to the top. Their search engine is by far head and shoulders above the rest. It is fast and efficient. However, I am not sure of two things.

The EFF can push all they want but I seriously doubt filesharing will ever become legal, even under a compulsory licence. The RIAA is now equating P2P with kiddy porn and therefore the reactionary dumbasses in Congress will jump on this now.

Second, Google picks and chooses its battles carefully. The recent purchase of blogging company illustrates this. I think they would have to decide that it is worth the hassle assuming again, it became legal in the first place.

In the event all this ever pans out, I, for one, will welcome our new Google overlords. (thought I would just go ahead and get that out of the way.)

Flaws

[Mattcelt]

1/ but there is little that keeps people from posting listings on multiple auction sites either.

Well, except for the fact that you are contractually bound to sell the item only once!

2/ Of course all these companies will swiftly shift to a Napster-like network when the law is passed.

Not so. These networks exist because there was something that Napster was inherently lacking - privacy. And these networks will continue to provide that, because the RIAA/MPAA won't be able to sue to receive personal information if no law is being infringed. So anyone who wants to trade files anonymously will still use these networks.

3/ What does Google do, exactly? They index what is already present, leveraging existing protocols and content. They will leverage what Gnutella/Kazaa/&c. currently present unless there is more money to be made otherwise. While it is possible that they will create their own filesharing system, I consider it doubtful they will.

But of course, only time will tell. And if compulsory licensing (which makes so much sense!) does come through, it will be a huge win for consumers, no matter who provides the medium for distibuting it.

Mattcelt

Compulsory licensing will never work

[mattso]

Right now all compulsory licensing deals actually involve money. Radio stations pay money to play songs. Sure the compulsory license means they don't have to make a deal with each artist and record company, but there is still a non-zero fee involved. Any P2P compulsory licensing will involve some sort of fee (per download, per month, per something) and a system to collect that fee along with reporting what that fee was for so the money could make it back to the record company. In a P2P world like that no one is going to want to share files and bandwidth. It's one thing to give away files and bandwidth for free as part of a community, but if all your bandwidth and files are making a bunch of other people money I doubt your going to be so happy about it. The only thing compulsory licensing could do is create better versions of PressPlay type services. It is not likely to even apply to P2P as we know it. It would effect things like Apple's iTunes though, in ways they might not be so keen on. Unless that compulsory license involved a $1/track fee. In any case I don't see Google getting into this. It's not a search business, it's a content provider business. Which of course is why all the current P2P software companies are running on borrowed time, they have no content and no money to host it even if it was licensable. While they might think they can work out a model where uploaders are paid from the fees the downloaders pay(thereby giving people a reason to offer files) I doubt there is a company on earth that could handle all the tax issues making every uploader a small business would entail. Not to mention all the other issues involved in quality control and correct reporting of what the file was. The future of compulsory licensing is a bunch of businesses not in the P2P field but more like PressPlay and Apple. They host content, they charge for that content. If Google wanted to get into that I'm sure they could but I don't see it happening.

No money for EFF's bad idea

[wfrp01]

I mostly support the EFF. But when they started promoting compulsary licencing, I decided not to support them. Perhaps they should revamp their support structure, such that if you donate money, you can direct it to a specific cause. And in such as way as the causes you *don't* believe don't indirectly benefit (by sharing the same overhead expenses, etc.) I'm not going to waste a penny on an organization that promotes ideas completely contrary to what I believe in.

Re:Off-topic, but indicative

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably the full title was "Google Still Being Censored".

Yes, other engines were dominant before that...

[Kjella]

Particularly I remember altavista was very well known and respected for their search engine. Then Google took over and dominated.

The long-time "near-monopolies" like Intel, Windows are the exception, not the rule. Remember the GFX industry? 3dfx were king, head and shoulders above the rest. Then came nVidia, and suddenly dominated. Now, ATI is providing very competitive alternatives.

Even my mom (who doesn't use a computer except to read the web at work) has asked me about Google. Though I had to tell her the internet address was www.google.com, couldn't find that on her own...

Kjella

Filesharing is NOT illegal

[awalrond]

The article seems to suggest file sharing is illegal. It isn't. Infact by creating this reply I've shared a file with slashdot. OH NO - LOCK ME UP! Sharing copyrighted files may well be illegal, depending where you are, but anonymous distributed filesharing (Freenet et al) make is near impossible to police. And of course, filesharing is a global activity; There are no border patrols and you don't need a passport. So the difference any new US laws or licensing will make is... zero Give up, go home and have a bud. But NEVER feed the lawyers

Is it possible...

[SeXy_Red]

That all the file sharing companies are doing it because they believe it is the right thing. After all, isn't the whole idea of file sharing that software should be for everyone and not just for a select few that can afford it? And isn't it true that most of the file sharing software that were mention are themselves bases off of open source code, further perpetuating the concept of free-trade?

The RIAA are idiots!

[AstroDrabb]

They should come up with a consumer license. This license would allow a home user to download the songs they wanted and they would not be breaking any copyrights. The RIAA could charge $5 USD per month for this license. With an estimated 60 million Americans downloading files, that would generate 3.6 Billion USD per year! This doesn't even count the rest of the world that would bring this number into the tens of billions USD per year. They would be making FAR more money then they do now. This would also allow users to choose the way that THEY want to download music without all this DRM crap, OS/software requirements or copy protection. The file sharing services that offer the best features would rise to the top. If the RIAA would let me run thier organization for one year, I would bring in SO much cash they wouldn't know what to do with it. People love music and are willing to pay a FAIR price for it, on their terms. However, people are not willing to live with price fixing and over priced music and worse of all to be painted as a criminal for listening to music.

Re:blablabla

[skagin]

First- I've read repeated comments here and elsewhere asserting that Gnutella clients are hell on bandwidth. Mine (which has been running, excepting upgrades, constantly for over three years) uses less than one kilobit/sec of bandwidth for searching and protocol overhead. I've tried other networks and have not seen any of them do as well.

Second- I've never had a searching problem. Once my client gets a good position in the network I never fail to get around 25 responses/sec from usually all save one of my directly connected peers. Anything I've spent any time at all searching for I've found and been able to aquire so long as I have the patience to wait 1-6 hours for it dependant on file size.

Third- decentralized networks _are_ useful to outsmart "dimwitted judges", but vastly more important are the advantages of redundant storage and independence from the vagaries of centralized index servers. See the freaking definition of the "Internet" for more.

Fourth- I share and download open content, most specifically episodes of MST3K, whose most excellent copyright owners have encouraged their fans to share their content since p2p networks were pure s/f. Someone is going to have the rank temerity to charge me, not only for my bandwidth, but also for the right to share content which I paid for years ago when I subscribed to Comedy Central, whose copyright owners have given blanket permission to reproduce? As my esteemed parent post noted, it is copyright violation which is illegal, not filesharing. I find it hard to credit that the EFF would confuse the issue as their compulsory licensing proposal seems to have done. Their section heading "Making P2P Legal" is very bad spin for a group which proposes to be defenders of digital freedom.