Net neutrality, Pirate Bay, Michael Jackson
p2pnet news view P2P:- “Frankly, I’m genuinely dismayed that TPB is percieved as being that important to the p2p/bittorent ecosystem,” says Henry Emrich in one of his rare actual post (instead of comment 
) posts.
Couldn’t agree more.
“One of the biggest technological — and cultural — advantages of the p2p phenomenon, is decentralization: instead of the traditional client/server architecture, every p2p’er is — at least in principle — capable of fulfilling both roles, to varying degrees of effectiveness,” he says, going on »»»
Some observations:
Net Neutrality
I stayed out of the thing between Koltai and Surfer, but I do have a few things to say on this topic.
Koltai (and others who defend things like traffic-shaping and DPI and suchlike) usually say that the ISPs have to do this stuff because the network can’t handle the demand. Basically, it boils down to the impossibility of pouring ten gallons into a five gallon jug.
The only problem with this is that ISPs have been hyping their superfast downloads as a selling-point. If ISPs are REALLY only selling browser bandwidth (Koltai’s term for it), they have no business claiming otherwise just so people upgrade from 56k dialup.
The funny part is, if any other industry engaged in this kind of false advertising and tried to justify it afterward, it wouldn’t wash. If I go to the shoe-store to buy what they swear is a size 10, and it turns out to be a size 5, I don’t particularly give a shit if they say they had to mis-state the size because there’s a shortage of shoe-leather.
False advertising is false advertising, and if the ISPs can’t HANDLE anything but browser bandwidth, they should be honest enough to at least admit as much (instead of trying to cover for it after the fact by way of traffic-shaping.)
Does that mean I think traffic-shaping is inevitably bad. Nope, no more than priority mail is bad when the post-office does it: if you need lower-latency/closer to realtime for some reason, you should be allowed to pay for it. The problem comes when they use traffic-shaping instead of actually upgrading their infrastructure to realistically handle demand. Simple as that.
As a side-note, I really do think that the scare-stories about ISPs wanting to create their own walled gardens — and in so doing, turn away from the interoperability that has characterized Internet development up to this point — is unfounded. Anybody remember Compuserve and Prodigy? the BBS scene? The walled-garden paradigm existed before the Internet came into it’s own, and, quite simply, failed horribly when it went up against the Internet. How stupid would people have to be, to actually go back to something like that, after having a decade of inter-operability? It won’t work.
The Pirate Bay
Frankly, I’m genuinely dismayed that TPB is percieved as being that important to the p2p/bittorent ecosystem. One of the biggest technological — and cultural –advantages of the p2p phenomenon, is decentralization: instead of the traditional client/server architecture, every p2p’er is — at least in principle — capable of fulfilling both roles, to varying degrees of effectiveness.
TPB — and, to a lesser extent, all trackers and indexers — are a potential vulnerability, in that taking one out, potentially causes huge damage. That’s one of the reasons the Media-Cartels keep attacking trackers/indexers. (DHT is — at least to some degree — a patch for this vulnerability, in that it can it allows for local peer discovery irrespective of whether a tracker is involved or not, and it’s also possible to add multiple trackers to a torrent file, which allows for backup in the event that a tracker goes down, but the basic point remains.)
So, the mere fact that TPB, Mininova, Isohunt etc ARE big players is troubling in itself.
But what’s MORE troubling is the sale seems to have poisoned a lot of folks’ outlook on the p2p/copyright-reform scene.
TPB was basically the flag-ship, and were more than willing to give the Cartels a resounding bitch-slapping in response to DMCA takedown-bullshit, so for them to have sold TPB to a gaming company nobody knows much about hasn’t gone over very well.
Now, if Global Gaming can actually put some kind of decent business-model together (users get non-DRM’ed media, content-creators actually get paid) it’ll be cool. The only problem is, anything percieved as commercialization tends to go over pretty badly among p2p’ers/copyright-reformists.
Given their experiences with the corporate media-cartels, it’s understandable that attempts to turn p2p into a business are met with skepticism.
Another obstacle is the fact that pirates tend to be willing to pay content-creators, but not middlemen, and if the tracker/index-portal begins charging, in a very real sense, they become just another middleman — even less justifiable than the RIAA, because at least the RIAA DO have recording-equipment and distribution channels.
Considering that most of the work involved in p2p is done by the users themselves, it’s hard to understand why people should pay the tracker/indexer, simply for access to content created and/or distributed by the user-base itself.
Another issue is that even IF they do manage to create a viable business-model around p2p, that won’t do anything about obscenely-long copyright terms, draconian attempts at enforcement/punishment, or the undeniable fact of the RIAA/MPAA member-corporations’ complete uselessness. (Hint: I have a better recording studio than the Beatles ever had in their entire career, in an upstairs bedroom at my house, and I built it out of off-the-shelf equipment. So what exactly do I gain from signing, again?)
Michael Jackson
Wow. For at least the last decade, everybody thought MJ was a sick freak (even a lot of his fans.)
Now, after the guy’s dead — from what was likely a deliberate OD — people seem to be really desperate to put all that down the memory-hole.
“Why do we give a damn about celebrities, anyway?” – Henry wonders, adding:
“One of the biggest perks of the p2p/open culture/copyright-reform movement is that, if we win, the notion of fame as we understand it, won’t be possible.”
Henry Emrich – p2pnet
[Ermich says he's, "just some guy," sometime musician, wannabe writer, sporadic blogger, and (hopefully) good-natured person. He and his wife live in Pennsylvania with two cats, and, "entirely too many record albums".]
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi
July, 2009
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It`s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
July 17th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
“The only problem with this is that ISPs have been hyping their superfast downloads as a selling-point.”
That was my argument!
July 17th, 2009 at 6:04 pm
I would suggest that contemporary walled gardens are not quite the same as prior portals. Various marketing studies that I’ve looked at show a correlation between willingness to ‘enjoy’ a digital product and the speed of delivery. If product A is delivered almost instantaneously, and B in 4 hours, then consumers who are not already committed to product B will decide to get product A because of the speed differential. Using this, walled gardens version 2.0 mean that if you delay traffic to non-affiliated sites/groups/applications/content sources using traffic throttling and shaping you create a strong preferential drive to affiliated content that is quick and easy to access. Full on censorship/blocking of content was the way of walled gardens 1.0; 2.0 feeds on the psychology of the consumer. As a result, it looks different than prior gardens, but retain core elements in common.
July 18th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
“As a side-note, I really do think that the scare-stories about ISPs wanting to create their own walled gardens â and in so doing, turn away from the interoperability that has characterized Internet development up to this point â is unfounded. Anybody remember Compuserve and Prodigy? the BBS scene? The walled-garden paradigm existed before the Internet came into itâs own, and, quite simply, failed horribly when it went up against the Internet. How stupid would people have to be, to actually go back to something like that, after having a decade of inter-operability? It wonât work.”
Those who forget history, are doomed to repeat it.Many of today’s Internet users do not know about Compuserve and Prodigy and take open Internet for granted.
Where they may be familiar with walled gardens is when they buy an iPod or an iPhone, but even there, those who haven’t jailbroken it passively think that this is how things should be and it can’t be other way. This is why Canada has crappy mobile phone service, this is why Canadians are paying for many things more than those in US (it is not the size of the market thing, there are _smaller_ markets who pay less).
July 19th, 2009 at 10:30 am
good article..
July 20th, 2009 at 1:37 am
“Where they may be familiar with walled gardens is when they buy an iPod or an iPhone, but even there, those who havenât jailbroken it passively think that this is how things should be and it canât be other way. This is why Canada has crappy mobile phone service, this is why Canadians are paying for many things more than those in US (it is not the size of the market thing, there are _smaller_ markets who pay less).”
*sigh*
For the sake of brevity I’m going to assume that both reader’s write originate from the same person. Please feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.
1. So, your argument is that walled-gardens could work, if they’re fast enough, or they deliberately make access to anything outside shitty enough that people won’t bother? Heh. Sounds like yet another pandering to the lowest-common-demonenator situation to me.
Maybe I’ll buy this, in terms of streaming video or such, but when even the least “tech-savvy” folk on the Net are used to being able to email one another irrespective of what ISP they’re using, the only way to sell the “walled-garden” thing would be on top of at least a minimal level of solid interoperability — in which case it’s nowhere near the big threat that they’re making it out to be.
2. As to the other thing, you’re basically assuming that the user-base is just stupid enough to accept those kind of restrictions as “the way things should be?” Uhh…..I really dislike this mentality, folks. The “average user” is neither as stupid, or as gullible as both the corporate scumbags AND the “Digerati” want to believe. It’s really not that hard to learn. The mere fact that there ARE so many people wo do “jailbreak” their Ipods, hack their cellphones, bitch-slap the DMCA, etc. etc. indicates that at least SOME people give a damn.
Attempts at “vendor lock-in” only work if your user-base is stupid, and completely isolated from information which risks subverting that paradigm. Everything from cellphone hacking, “circuit-bending”, the open-source/free-software thing, even game modding — up to and including re-chipped consoles — indicates that at least SOME people aren’t stupid enough to buy into vendor lockin.
(How many times to we have to reiterate why DRM always fails?)
Thanks for the props, Surfer. I’ll freely admit that I’m not at my best lately (long story.)
July 20th, 2009 at 1:43 am
More clarification:
Chris Crocker isn’t particularly “techie”, but he — and the plethora of folks involved in video-blogging, podcasting, blogging, etc. etc. are becoming more “techie” all the time. The thing is, they can’t HELP but become more educated, because the only way for the media cartels/ISP’s to drive their own marketing, is to hype “the latest thing”, and in so doing, risk waking a lot of folks up. I, for one, was never particularly into computers until my old Tascam 4-track conked out on me, and I had to figure a different way to do the recordings and such. Just to get the programs installed, the soundcard to detect, etc. etc. required a learning-process.
Same with Blogging, podcasting, etc. etc. Also — especially given the fact that we’re being forced into doing more and more stuff digitally — people are going to be REALLY pissed if their ISP doesn’t allow them to look at their bank accounts (or the latest bottle-rocket-up-somebody’s-ass video on youtube.)
July 20th, 2009 at 11:35 am
The RIAA does NOT have recording equipment and distribution channels. The RIAA is purely a LEGAL arm representing MOST of the companies who do have recording equipment and distribution channels in the US. The RIAA cannot have that infrastructure because then they would run afoul of the US’ anti-trust laws.