P2P Goes from Peer to "Pssst!!"

Teach Your Children to, er,  NOT TO Share



The big news, not so long ago, was that the RIAA [1]
was actually bring suits against teenagers, even some younger children,
and getting judgments against them for file sharing. Download music/get
caught/pay the fine.  Or, in most cases, have Mom & Pop [2] pay
the fine.  Rampant downloads and sharing on Napster [3] and Kazaa [4],
et al, prompted the RIAA to get in cahootz with the FBI and various
ISPs (mostly the ones owned and operated by the major Bell Operating
companies), to find those against whom they could make a case of piracy [5].  This is a worldwide matter, with cases being brought against peer-to-peer downloaders in the UK [6], even this year.


Many digital natives [7] (a recently coined term for kids who have grown up in the
always-on, connected, digital world) have a sense of their right of
entitlement; an attitude that the downloads are there for the
taking.  It sheds light on a paradigmatic gap [8] - what constitutes stealing and what is simply friends swapping and sharing?


There's an argument to be made that the ISPs violated the privacy of
the users by allowing the FBI to view user records, and to track who
was clicked in to what site for how long, and using how much bandwidth
and actively in the process of downloading.  There's arguments on
the other side, as well, such as acting in violation of the end user
agreements, and the ISPs always having the right to distribute or
relaease such information if asked by proper authorities.


Excellent discussion about this can be found at the EFF's website [9], among other places.


Grokking the File Sharing Issue 



The Grokster decision made file sharing a more dangerous and onerous practice.  It also has reaches into creativity, innovation, and how --in this case--
the intersection of technology, media, and commerce manage to stifle
the process, as opposed to coordinating or combining toward an improved
or enhanced environment.  Business Week [10] Online ran an excellent interview with Stanford Law professor Larry Lessig [11] on the impact of the decision.   There's more coverage, all over the web.  Tech Law Advisor [12] ran  a good piece with pointers [13] on where to find further discussion.



The Decision Prompts an Immediate Response



Almost as soon as the decision had been rendered did work begin to
overcome the problem.  Obstacles are made to be overtaken, and the
hacking community took this as a challenge.  It is important to
attempt to grok (pun not intended, but you may chuckle if you please)
the digital native viewpoint:  "I
buy a CD, I want a copy in my car, in my backpack, and one at
home.  Why can't I make two copies?  And if I bought it, why
can't I just burn a couple of copies so I can share this with my
friends?  We pool our CDs, so we can all get more music."



Those of us with some background in this arena remember how the RIAA
trembled in fear that cassette duplication would have radical and
negative impact on profits from sales of LPs.   Somehow the buying
public managed to continue to then purchase LPs, it does now, despite the ease of
recording to CD for multiple-copy distribution.  A recent report
showed record (well, CD) sales rising again, again despite an even
easier technical environment in which to make copies.



Sharing Becomes A Covert Action 



And now come the Darknets.  Sharing had been an open, inclusive,
connecting and joy-inducing practice.  Did the record industry or
Hollywood take the long look, to see how they could make this work for
them? Did they consider the coming of age of a generation of file
sharers, or the social context impact of the availability of shared
media?  Did they ponder the opportunities and avenues of pursuit
that would or could enable them to reach new and expanded markets, to
jump in to this environment as a player (with a profit motive, no doubt
and no problem)? 



Of course not.  The view from the corporate level, from the
legal department, and from the managerial level who see everything as
tied into how they fare this financial quarter . . . was fear, loathing, and a
desire to make things stay as they were, not get with the obvious move,
and respond to change.  They chose to react, not to respond. 
Big difference there.



And they completely overlooked the growth of the net, the web, the user
interaction, and the creativity of those whom they understand nothing
about, despite marketing their products to them.  They chose to
pounce, rather than to study, gain insight, or perhaps even perceive
something known as "opportunity."  There's a big difference
between sharing and piracy.  Sharing is among the few.  A
strong argument can be made that sharing actually increases
sales.  This is not about piracy as mass distribution of stolen
master tapes.  That is a different issue.



And now the hackers have changed tactics.  Switching gears from
public sharing, new darknets are being formed.  Private sharing,
secret peering.  From peer-to-peer to pssst!-to-pssst!



An article in The Mercury News' SiliconValley.com [14] tells the tale of capable, skilled hackers, going about dealing with the Grokster Decision.  They create darknets --
altering the social structure from sharing on a public level, 
peer-to-peer, to a private level, available only to members of a
darknet.  Closed, private sharing.



The net effect: secret sharing, sub rosa activity, the underground
emerges in response to the new state of affairs.  This a result of
the changed legal and social implications of sharing.  It brings
about an end to the very public and viral appreciation and --in a
word-of-mouth open market manner-- promotion of music --and puts it in the closet.



The Digital Natives are Restless -- And Going Underground




A generation of music (et al) lovers who were celebrating an
appreciation and getting the word out about music now must do so in
secret.  Will this help sales?  Will this drive up market
value and provide shareholders with a more valubale holding?  The
old paradigm business minds will say yes, we are now protected. 
They will assert that piracy and theft concerns are now more controlled, and
therefore profits will increase.



But the long view from here is that the net effect is a new and secret
underground movement keeping their positive feelings about the product
to themselves.  The digital natives' restlessness takes their buzz
and makes it a dirty little secret.  Keep it mum, don't go
public. 



And thus the restless natives will be careful not to
generate buzz or participate in promoting and publicizing that very
product which BigBiz thinks is now more prone to profit.  The
lesson learned by those who celebrated and shared is this: keep it
quiet, do covert operations, and don't get caught.



Bottom line: Opportunity missed.  After all, who could see shareholder value in teaching children to share?