Re: Napster PI helpful
Eric Murray wrote: > I agree with you, Napster is going to try to switch their > user base to a for-pay model. it's not like this had not happened before - there was this swiss site that (non-commercially) provided lyrics to songs. they got sued by the record industry (I don't recall whether the RIAA or some european equivalent). they closed down first, then reopened later, after they had cut a deal.
Re: Napster PI helpful
Tim May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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..." At this point I am unable to imagine what vectors of attack would prove fruitful for them. That obviously does not mean there aren't any. Perhaps someone else has put some thought into this and has some ideas. The CNET coverage of the Napster debacle includes links to an article covering a survey which indicates that at least 60% of the Napster users would continue trading files regardless of what the courts have to say. On a similiar note, I have been using OpenNAP servers since I started using napster. They presently don't have the same density of users, but I imagine that will change quickly enough. They are located in several different countries, tho I am not sure what he chances of legal action being brought against them in their home realms are. -- Craig Brozefsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Lisp Web Dev List http://www.red-bean.com/lispweb --- The only good lisper is a coding lisper. ---
Re: Napster PI helpful
> 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..." They already have: http://www.applesoup.com - Alex
Re: Napster PI helpful
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 01:47:35PM -0400, Tim May wrote: > > 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. They're already working on it: there was an article in the SJ Merc a couple days ago about a deal between Napster and Liquid Audio, to create some sort of RIAA-acceptable system using Liquid Audio's watermarking technology. I agree with you, Napster is going to try to switch their user base to a for-pay model. -- Eric Murray http://www.lne.com/ericm ericm at lne.com PGP keyid:E03F65E5 Security consulting: secure protocols, security reviews, standards, smartcards.
Re: Napster PI helpful
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.
Napster PI helpful
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. 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. 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). -- Lucky Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP encrypted email preferred.
