p2pnet.net News Feature:- On the vexing question of whether or not the DCIA is anything other than a front for Kazaa and its owner, Sharman Networks (who set it up and funded it) the Phantom DCIA Poster has been at it again.

Someone - could it be DCIA (Distributed Computing Industry Association) ceo Marty Lafferty? - has been leaving long, unsigned messages in ‘answer’ to p2pnet stories. We’ll be running an interesting update on that shortly.

For now, more recently, the Phantom DCIA Poster has struck again, this time in response to a piece by Drake Zamanov in Slyck.

Zamanov, in turn, has just posted a detailed reply to the DCIA post.

Now read on >>>>>>>>>>>>>

dcia wrote: To characterize the DCIA’s demand of the MPAA last Thursday and, in another venue, the RIAA last Friday, to end their boycotts of the P2P distribution channel, as ‘cozying up,’ is certainly an unusual view of that action. And to characterize this as an FTN-only move is plain wrong.

Zamanov: On p2pnet, you posted this: dcia wrote: Instead, it is actively conducting ’shuttle diplomacy’ between parties on all sides, several of whom are involved in serious litigation. Despite the degree of difficulty, the DCIA is making gradual progress with the major players. Specifics of such efforts obviously must remain private pending the outcome of court cases.

Sharman Networks has been trying to entice the RIAA into working with them for a long time and recently - through the DCIA - they have tried to entice the MPAA. It sure looks like they’re trying to cozy up to the enemies of P2P since they are having closed door meetings with them and not trying to protect their users from lawsuits.

dcia wrote: Rather than as this article maliciously claims, ‘that the DCIA is now parroting the same propaganda the RIAA has been spewing concerning file sharing hurting rights holders,’ the DCIA is now doing real work to develop positive solutions based on identifying and building upon common ground between content creators and their P2P-using fans.

Zamanov: A statement can not be called a malicious claim when it’s true. Marty Lafferty said, ‘We do not agree with those who claim that ’swapping movies and music ‘without compensating rights holders ‘doesn’t really hurt anybody’. I did not invent this quote. Many artists would agree that P2P has helped them and several studies/surveys have showed that P2P has not negatively affected music sales. Nikki Hemming used to speak out about how P2P helps artists. I wonder if she agrees with Lafferty’s view of P2P.

The only thing the DCIA is working on is a scheme to profit from P2P and its user base.

dcia wrote: The DCIA is absolutely not ‘against the free exchange of information’ and totally disagrees that this is about Sharman Networks wanting to ‘capitalize on their large, but shrinking user base before it?s too late.’ This statement attributes an incorrect objective to Sharman Networks and assumes an inaccurate condition of its Kazaa Media Desktop (KMD) user base.

Zamanov: I would, once again, like to quote Marty Lafferty. ‘Our Members Relatable, Predixis, and Shared Media Licensing (SML), are working to address unprotected files entered by consumers into P2P distribution.’

This statement alone shows that you are against the free exchange of information since you are working on ways to prohibit the sharing of certain files.

dcia wrote: What the DCIA IS against is the unresolved copyright infringement issue that increasingly threatens P2P users and takes resources away from industry advancement.

Zamanov: What resources have been taken away from industry advancement? P2P means peer to peer. Your vision of P2P is not really P2P, it’s a pay service.

dcia wrote: The solutions the DCIA seeks are more open, not more closed; more flexible, not more rigid; more creative; not more constraining. The DCIA wants to see authorized P2P content distributed in ways that take advantages of the technology’s ability to offer consumers more choices - including ones that remain FREE - not fewer options. This is all about creating more value, not less.

Zamanov: Nonsense. The DCIA wants to implement advanced DRM. DRM is very restrictive and certainly not flexible. Adding DRM and charging your customers will not provide P2P users with more choices. They will, however, make Sharman Networks and other companies in the DCIA a lot of money. That’s what your struggle is all about - money, not P2P.

dcia wrote: As the article correctly states, ‘Sharman Networks has played a large role in shaping P2P.’ The DCIA believes that Sharman Networks would appreciate the observation that its opposition to the anti-P2P litigiousness of the entertainment industries has had a strongly beneficial effect. Even more importantly, the DCIA knows that it appreciates the support and loyalty of its users. And its ‘true motives’ have been easily evident and transparent to anyone who has closely observed it during its two years of existence.

Zamanov: Perhaps you’re right. They have been transparent and we should have known from the start that your true motives were to capitalize and profit from P2P.

dcia wrote: It is patently false and the worse kind of slander to say that ‘Sharman Networks doesn’t give a damn about file sharers.’

Zamanov: Again, it’s not slander if it’s true. Sharman tried to eliminate Kazaa Lite. A hacked program that got rid of the spyware KMD installed on computers. Kazaa Lite allowed P2P users to hide their shared folders before KMD ever had this feature. If Sharman Networks really cared about their users they would be working on ways to protect their anonymity online instead of cozying up to the enemies of P2P.

dcia wrote: While DRM and associated technologies are clearly part of many of these solutions, tools for promoting and ensuring fair use are just as important.

Zamanov: DRM is not part of the solution. File sharers will not accept any form of DRM. If you are successful in convincing the MPAA or RIAA to work with you and then implement your advanced DRM, your user base will quickly evaporate. It’s funny that you mention fair use since DRM goes against it.

dcia wrote: Key to any viable solution is that it respects the openness of the Internet - regarding access, standards, and intellectual property. Creativity, honesty and innovation are exactly what are needed in this environment.

Zamanov: Intellectual property laws are a joke. They stifle creativity and innovation.

dcia wrote: The article could not be more wrong in its maligning assertion that ‘If they were to strike a deal with the MPAA, you can be sure that Sharman Networks would do everything in their power to hunt down anyone who is sharing ‘unprotected’ files on their network.’ That would involve a fundamental violation of several of its core principles and could only be claimed by an incredibly ill-informed opponent of the company.

Zamanov: Lafferty is the one who said that they are working to address unprotected files. You can spin the facts as much as you want, but the quote is there for everyone to see.

dcia wrote: That the Kazaa brand is still standing is a testament to at least two factors, neither of which is unusual-investment benefits: 1) the success, despite unprecedented levels of harassment, of Sharman Networks leadership in improving the user experience provided by KMD, and 2) the inexorable power of P2P technology - which is arguably a manifestation of the broader force of technological progress itself.

Zamanov: Baloney. The main reason why Kazaa is still standing is because many file sharers aren’t even aware that other P2P applications exist. Kazaa’s ‘inexorable power of P2P technology’ pales in comparison to what other P2P networks offer.

dcia wrote: Sharman Networks has always seen the ultimate role of P2P software providers as legitimate participants on the distributor side of the extraordinary new phenomenon of ’super distribution’ bringing benefits to both consumers and content rights holders far superior to preceding distribution channels.

p2pnet: Sharman Networks has always seen the ultimate role of P2P as a syringe through which to inject Sharman Networks into the Korporate Klub mainstream.

This entry was posted on Monday, June 21st, 2004 at 5:56 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

HOME

Viewed 1370 times