Changing Our Internet Rules - Yet Again.
======================================================================
RESUME: NAPSTER, my.MP3.com, SCOUR.NET, GNUTELLA, FREE.NET
======================================================================
NAPSTER
Napster provides a central directory of MP3 music files that Napster
users store on their own PCs. Napster then allows a user to download
those (hopefully, but not always legal) music files directly from the
other users' hard disks.
======================================================================
my.MP3.com
my.MP3.com actually copied 80,000 copyrighted music files to their Web
site to allow people who had purchased the CDs to listen to them over the Net.
======================================================================
SCOUR.NET
Scour.net recently upped the ante by allowing video and other file formats
to be swapped.
======================================================================
GNUTELLA
Gnutella, the stepchild of AOL acquisition Nullsoft, takes the Napster
"central directory/distributed file system" concept one step farther
by establishing a completely distributed directory along with a distributed
file system. This removes any central entity, such as my.MP3.com's file store,
or Napster's centralized directory, that can be targeted by a lawsuit
Indeed, Gnutella's source code has been released to the Open Source
community, meaning that many Gnutella-like programs are now appearing.
And the concept will be constantly evolving...
======================================================================
FREE.NET
"FreeNet," which is taking the Napster/Gnutella idea some steps
farther, implements a completely distributed and replicated file system
with no central directory.
Using the Internet as its transport mechanism, FreeNet automatically
replicates content to many FreeNet sites, or "nodes," as soon as a file
is "put on FreeNet." In a process that reminds me of the early days of
the Internet and its Newsgroups, volunteers provide FreeNet nodes which
collaborate to store-and-replicate files of any form -- not just music.
This effectively makes it impossible to "call back" or delete a file
once it's released. Indeed, without even a centralized directory (as
with Napster), there is no central or identifiable entity responsible
for FreeNet at all!
FreeNet is also designed to be relatively anonymous and, eventually,
encrypted, so that no one running a FreeNet "node" can even be aware of
the content it's hosting. According to the FreeNet FAQ:
"FreeNet is a single world-wide information store that stores,
caches, and distributes the information based on demand. This
allows FreeNet to be more efficient at some functions than the Web,
and also allows information to be published and read without fear
of censorship because individual documents cannot be traced to
their source or even to where they are physically stored."
Even the keywords used to search for content will be encrypted, making
it a challenge for "sniffing software" to detect what's going on. More
than 20,000 copies of FreeNet's preliminary version have been
downloaded during its first week.
A comment in the ABCnews.com article sums up some of the concerns
around this innovation:
"FreeNet, if it is able to get out of its early stages, could be
the final nail in the coffin for organizations trying to prevent
online piracy. Since FreeNet is wholly decentralized, there is no
central company to sue for copyright violations. And because each
�node� is encrypted, and users anonymous, it will be nearly
impossible to track down any individual pirate or pirated work."
======================================================================
NOW THE FULL TEXT
Napster has been at the dramatic forefront of changing the rules for
the music industry. You may recall that Napster
(http://www.napster.com/ <http://www.napster.com/> ) provides a central
directory of MP3 music
files that Napster users store on their own PCs. Napster then allows a
user to download those (hopefully, but not always legal) music files
directly from the other users' hard disks.
This has taken the Net world by storm, significantly impacting
university and some corporate networks, and even stressing "last mile"
home Internet infrastructures
(http://www.compaq.com/rcfoc/20000417.html#_Toc480185377
<http://www.compaq.com/rcfoc/20000417.html#_Toc480185377> ). With some
good reason, content owners of music distributed in violation of their
copyrights are up in arms, and they have been searching for legal means
to stem this tide. The Recording Industry Association of America is
suing Napster; high profile artists like Metallica and Dr. Dre are
suing universities that don't block access to Napster; and now lawsuits
are being brought against individual students as well
(http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-1765545.html?tag=st.ne.1002
<http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-1765545.html?tag=st.ne.1002> )! It
might almost seem like a slapstick comedy routine, if this wasn't so
economically serious.
How serious? In a somewhat related issue, U.S. District Court judge
Jed Rakoff has just ruled that "my.MP3.com" has violated copyright law
and is liable for damages, which could reach into the billions of
dollars! (http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/reuters/REU20000428S0008
<http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/reuters/REU20000428S0008>
and http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-1776075.html?tag=st.ne.1002
<http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-1776075.html?tag=st.ne.1002> ).
Note, though, that what my.MP3.com was doing is fundamentally different
from how Napster-like programs operate: my.MP3.com actually copied
80,000 copyrighted music files to their Web site to allow people who
had purchased the CDs to listen to them over the Net. In the case of
Napster and similar programs, no business, such as my.MP3.com, is
copying copyrighted music for their users. This is a significant
distinction.
To restate my position, I do not condone violating intellectual
property law. Period. People work hard to produce good music,
software; books, (even this journal), and they deserve to be
compensated for their work.
But even considering this latest ruling, as the music industry is
recognizing all too well, from a pragmatic standpoint the Internet is
fundamentally changing how people and intellectual property interact.
If it were just my.MP3.com or Napster, it's possible (if unlikely) that
this genie could be put back into the bottle through lawsuits and
similar means. But these programs are only the beginning.
Scour.net (http://www.scour.com/ <http://www.scour.com/> ) recently upped
the ante by allowing
video and other file formats to be swapped. And Gnutella
(http://gnutella.wego.com/ <http://gnutella.wego.com/> ), the stepchild of
AOL acquisition Nullsoft,
takes the Napster "central directory/distributed file system" concept
one step farther by establishing a completely distributed directory
along with a distributed file system. This removes any central entity,
such as my.MP3.com's file store, or Napster's centralized directory,
that can be targeted by a lawsuit
(http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-1676249.html?tag=st.ne.1002
<http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-1676249.html?tag=st.ne.1002> ).
Indeed, Gnutella's source code has been released to the Open Source
community, meaning that many Gnutella-like programs are now appearing.
And the concept will be constantly evolving...
FreeNet - Something New.
For example, RCFoC reader Danny Meyer brings our attention to
"FreeNet," which is taking the Napster/Gnutella idea some steps
farther. As described in the April 26 ABCnews.com/CNET
(http://abcnews.go.com/sections/tech/CNET/cnet_freenet000426.html
<http://abcnews.go.com/sections/tech/CNET/cnet_freenet000426.html> ),
FreeNet (http://freenet.sourceforge.net/ <http://freenet.sourceforge.net/>
), created by Ian Clarke and
others, implements a completely distributed and replicated file system
with no central directory.
Using the Internet as its transport mechanism, FreeNet automatically
replicates content to many FreeNet sites, or "nodes," as soon as a file
is "put on FreeNet." In a process that reminds me of the early days of
the Internet and its Newsgroups, volunteers provide FreeNet nodes which
collaborate to store-and-replicate files of any form -- not just music.
This effectively makes it impossible to "call back" or delete a file
once it's released. Indeed, without even a centralized directory (as
with Napster), there is no central or identifiable entity responsible
for FreeNet at all!
FreeNet is also designed to be relatively anonymous and, eventually,
encrypted, so that no one running a FreeNet "node" can even be aware of
the content it's hosting. According to the FreeNet FAQ:
"FreeNet is a single world-wide information store that stores,
caches, and distributes the information based on demand. This
allows FreeNet to be more efficient at some functions than the Web,
and also allows information to be published and read without fear
of censorship because individual documents cannot be traced to
their source or even to where they are physically stored."
(http://freenet.sourceforge.net/index.php?page=faq#sec1.1
<http://freenet.sourceforge.net/index.php?page=faq#sec1.1> )
Even the keywords used to search for content will be encrypted, making
it a challenge for "sniffing software" to detect what's going on. More
than 20,000 copies of FreeNet's preliminary version have been
downloaded during its first week.
A comment in the ABCnews.com article sums up some of the concerns
around this innovation:
"FreeNet, if it is able to get out of its early stages, could be
the final nail in the coffin for organizations trying to prevent
online piracy. Since FreeNet is wholly decentralized, there is no
central company to sue for copyright violations. And because each
�node� is encrypted, and users anonymous, it will be nearly
impossible to track down any individual pirate or pirated work."
The Good, The Bad, The Ugly -- And The Future.
There are, of course, both good and bad elements to FreeNet. Anonymity
can be a valuable element of free speech, yet it can also make it
easier for illegal activity, which should not be abetted, to take
place. But historically, EVERY new technological innovation has
similarly opened the doors for good and bad -- cars make high-speed
"getaways" possible, telephones provide all manner of opportunities for
collusion, and even the Internet as we knew it just yesterday, has its
problems. FreeNet makes its position on these matters clear:
"Won't FreeNet be a haven for criminals and pirates? FreeNet
implements free speech, nothing more. It won't encourage or enable
criminal behavior that wouldn't have happened without it..."
(http://freenet.sourceforge.net/index.php?page=faq#sec1.5
<http://freenet.sourceforge.net/index.php?page=faq#sec1.5> )
I don't yet know what to think of FreeNet; we haven't seen how it will
be used and evolve. But as always, it's up to each of us to ensure
that past, present, and future technologies are used more for good than
for evil, and that they are implemented in ways that we can, quite
literally, live with.
Jupiter Communications' Peter Christy offers this perspective:
"You should think of [FreeNet] as a technology that will allow
something else new and exciting, that people haven�t thought of
yet."
I suggest that Peter is right -- and for the most pragmatic of reasons.
As long as the Internet remains a haven of innovation (don't forget the
billions of dollars of new wealth that this innovation and related
technologies have created over the past few years), things like
Napster, Scour.net, Gnutella, FreeNet, and more, will continue to
spring up and to evolve, each with the potential for both good and bad.
What we do with these innovative technologies will say much about us
and our global society; far more than it says about the mere
technologies that give them birth.
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
