October 25, 2004

Another look at INDUCE

Jason Schultz has an interesting take on all the legal wrangling over INDUCE.

Why were the RIAA and MPAA so insistent during the negotiations on a broad technological definition? Why not just write a bill that narrowly targets P2P companies by name and be done with it? (For example, one could simply make it illegal to write a software program that utilizes the GiFT, FastTrack, Gnutella, Bittorrent, or OpenFt protocols and that would effectively ban most current P2P apps).

The reason, of course, is that INDUCE is not really just about P2P apps. It's about the future of all distribution technologies and in particular, about what I like to call "Me2Me" apps. As network and distribution technologies evolve, they offer consumers and computer users more and more control over their own media. P2P technology broke into the mainstream as a mechanism for distributing files amongst different people, but the same architecture is becoming popular among technologies designed to distribute one person's content amongst his or her various platforms.

For example, consider iTunes and the iPod. iTunes allows one to stream music to any computer on your local area network. It also allows you to transfer files to any number of iPods. It also allows you to rip, mix, and burn CDs. In essence, it allows massive distribution of content, albeit primarily to one's self, family, and friends. ...

The next generation will go even further. Imagine a wireless iPod that can synch with any iTunes application within 75 feet. Or a MP3 player for your car that automatically syncs with your home computer when you pull into the driveway. Or a media player on your laptop that automatically syncs with your TiVo to download the latest episode of your favorite Prime Time addiction.

This is, of course, the RIAA and MPAA's worst nightmare. Both industries have based their business models on controlling each and every permutation of playback for their content. The RIAA wants to make you pay when you buy the CD, when you download the iTune, when you listen to an Internet webcast, etc. The MPAA wants to charge you at the theater, for every copy of a DVD you buy, and (via advertising) for every show you watch on TV. Yet the more and more we as users and consumers are allowed to control and choose our own form of playback, the less Hollywood can justify charging us for each one. The more utility we get out of Me2Me apps, the less we're willing to pay someone for an extra copy or delivery mechanism. In the end, Me2Me technology may pose a larger threat to Big Cotent's bottom line than P2P ever did.

I have to say that this is a variant on the process that I hadn't considered as of yet, but it does make sense I'm a huge fan of TiVo, and if I could link it in with my PC (in a no-hassle, supported way), I might never leave my house.

Well worth the read.

Posted by Casper at October 25, 2004 04:24 PM
Comments

Not to mention that fact that in a survey of over 2500 musicians, 33% believe having their music on a P2P network BENEFITS them, despite not being paid, 33% aren't sure, and 33% believe it both helps and hinders them... If a majority of musicians don't want P2P to go away, why are we even considering it? I think that we need to find a way to pay musicians for their blood, sweat, and tears, but not at the expense of moving technology forward in this way that's generally good for musicians.

Posted by: Wendy at October 27, 2004 06:35 PM