A very good analysis.
And on a different tack, I expect/predict that Napster will reinvent
itself as a distributor of material with the permission of the record
companies and will then aggressively go after Gnutella, Freenet, and
Mojo types of sites. "Those who live by the sword..."
More comments below.
At 2:31 AM -0400 7/27/00, Lucky Green wrote:
>While I disagree with Judge Patel's PI in the Napster case, there is a
>valuable lesson in this result that should be of interest to Cypherpunks.
>Several lessons, actually:
>
>1. Systems that rely on cooperation from the law are fundamentally broken
>and will be compromised.
>
>
>2. Systems with a single point of failure, such as a centralized network
>information database or any other kind of head are less resilient in the
face of attack.
These being the main flaws in such systems as Freedom, Sealand, and
other centralized point of control systems. (Mojo Nation may
temporarily fall into that category, unless and until the system
"goes headless.')
>
>3. Almost a corollary to 2., attacks by predators, legal or otherwise,
>exert an evolutionary pressure on system architecture. While Napster will
>likely either be put out of business or change their delivery model so
>significantly to have little in common with their present offering, all
>this means to the larger population is that the Gnutella, Freenet, and
>similar strains with better DNA will spread faster.
Yep. Napster created the market, got the users interested, and now
other systems will capture the market. The RIAA's worst fears are
about to come true.
>
>The end result of the legal evolutionary pressures on Napster and similar
>distributed file sharing systems will simply be that the systems that
>ultimately survive and multiply will be those that are more worthy of
>surviving due to their resilience to attack, distributed nature, and
>better anonymity features.
>
>So in the long run, the predators currently at work are actually helping
>us to deploy better systems faster. I can live with that. (Which is not to
>say that the predators should not be resisted).
Digression on "rent-seeking behavior." In an effort to stave off
corporate extinction, the loss of all of their IPO dreams, and the
laying-off of their employees, Napster will probably "cut a deal"
with the RIAA. I don't know what form this deal will take...perhaps
some subscription system with fees kickbacked to the record
companies, perhaps some system where an artist must explicitly give
permission for his or her works to be indexed, whatever.
"Rent-seeking" is where someone seeks to collect some toll, some fee,
based on any of a number of points of alleged right to collect such
fees. Copyright is one form. Napster will likely seek to survive by
this kind of rent-seeking: "Hey, we came to an honorable arrangement
with the RIAA, as part of the settlement. Now, Judge Patel, we want
you to stop these pirates running Gnutella, Mojo Nation, and Freenet!"
A corporate entity like Napster, with hundreds of millions of bucks
at stake (seed money, expected IPO money), will not simply say "OK,
you win. We're liquidating the company."
Even as the appeals continue (fruitlessly, I predict), they'll be
looking to cut a deal. Then they'll be rent-seeking and seeking to
shut down those other services. Perhaps Lars Ulrich will even join
their board.
--Tim May
--
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
"Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
