P2P-Zone - View Single Post - YESSS! According to Microsoft p2p is undefeatable

JackSpratts · 22-11-02, 12:35 PM

The Darknet?

Interesting paper but the authors are in no small way diminished by a few preconceived notions stemming from their industry based arrogance. Take the name they’ve given to the filesharing systems for one; "Darknet". Sounds pretty ominous and underhanded. All these things occurring in a hidden world beyond the reach of a civilized influence. But it’s their employer Microsoft who runs the Darknet - closed source, monopolistic, predatory, whose benefits flow first and foremost to the corporation and away from the people. Peer-To-Peer networks by contrast - created and managed mostly by the people for themselves, enable planet wide personal communications and are open to all comers, even adversaries. That’s the very definition of a Lightnet. So did Microsoft think people would believe DRM is for consumers? That reducing ones ability to acquire and use content benefits individuals? Who outside of Microsoft believes that? I doubt even the MPAA or the RIAA believe the over-heated rhetoric but to their credit the authors don't buy it either.

It has been ever thus. A small group in power marginalizes and demonizes a feared majority with pejorative labels and negative descriptions. In this case it’s one company, albeit massive, at risk of losing its dominance from open source competitors and from the very people it’s trying to control. No wonder they’re name calling.

Other than that the authors nailed it.

“This means that in many markets, the darknet will be a competitor to legal commerce. From the point of view of economic theory, this has profound implications for business strategy: for example, increased security (e.g. stronger DRM systems) may act as a disincentive to legal commerce. Consider an MP3 file sold on a web site: this costs money, but the purchased object is as useful as a version acquired from the darknet. However, a securely DRM-wrapped song is strictly less attractive: although the industry is striving for flexible licensing rules, customers will be restricted in their actions if the system is to provide meaningful security. This means that a vendor will probably make more money by selling unprotected objects than protected objects. In short, if you are competing with the darknet, you must compete on the darknet’s own terms: that is convenience and low cost rather than additional security.
Certain industries have faced this (to a greater or lesser extent) in the past. Dongle-protected computer programs lost sales to unprotected programs, or hacked versions of the program. Users have also refused to upgrade to newer software versions that are copy protected.”

Indeed.

Thanks Smokey! Let me add it's well worth the 16 page word .doc read.

- js.

22-11-02, 12:35 PM	#7
JackSpratts Join Date: May 2001 Location: New England Posts: 10,018	The Darknet? Interesting paper but the authors are in no small way diminished by a few preconceived notions stemming from their industry based arrogance. Take the name they’ve given to the filesharing systems for one; "Darknet". Sounds pretty ominous and underhanded. All these things occurring in a hidden world beyond the reach of a civilized influence. But it’s their employer Microsoft who runs the Darknet - closed source, monopolistic, predatory, whose benefits flow first and foremost to the corporation and away from the people. Peer-To-Peer networks by contrast - created and managed mostly by the people for themselves, enable planet wide personal communications and are open to all comers, even adversaries. That’s the very definition of a Lightnet. So did Microsoft think people would believe DRM is for consumers? That reducing ones ability to acquire and use content benefits individuals? Who outside of Microsoft believes that? I doubt even the MPAA or the RIAA believe the over-heated rhetoric but to their credit the authors don't buy it either. It has been ever thus. A small group in power marginalizes and demonizes a feared majority with pejorative labels and negative descriptions. In this case it’s one company, albeit massive, at risk of losing its dominance from open source competitors and from the very people it’s trying to control. No wonder they’re name calling. Other than that the authors nailed it. “This means that in many markets, the darknet will be a competitor to legal commerce. From the point of view of economic theory, this has profound implications for business strategy: for example, increased security (e.g. stronger DRM systems) may act as a disincentive to legal commerce. Consider an MP3 file sold on a web site: this costs money, but the purchased object is as useful as a version acquired from the darknet. However, a securely DRM-wrapped song is strictly less attractive: although the industry is striving for flexible licensing rules, customers will be restricted in their actions if the system is to provide meaningful security. This means that a vendor will probably make more money by selling unprotected objects than protected objects. In short, if you are competing with the darknet, you must compete on the darknet’s own terms: that is convenience and low cost rather than additional security. Certain industries have faced this (to a greater or lesser extent) in the past. Dongle-protected computer programs lost sales to unprotected programs, or hacked versions of the program. Users have also refused to upgrade to newer software versions that are copy protected.” Indeed. Thanks Smokey! Let me add it's well worth the 16 page word .doc read. - js.