A couple of weeks ago, brother Clay on Many 2 Many posted some of his concerns about a proposed social network filesharing concept (Robert Kaye on Social Networks for File Sharing).
The model in question is from Robert Kaye, creator of MusicBrainz, who posted on OpenP2P a text version of a talk he led at the O'Reilly Emerging Technology Conference on: Next-Generation File Sharing with Social Networks. What is the need for such models?
Social networks designed for file sharing should focus on three goals: share your files with others in your network, discover new files from other members, and protect the network from outside attackers. To achieve these goals, the social network needs to be founded on a well-defined social model.
Ok, although, I'm not really sure that there is much value in this sort of network except as an attempt to defeat attacks from outsiders such as the RIAA. To a certain extent that might be useful for those attempting to hide from legal liability, but I'm not even sure that is particularly useful. Of course, you could easily create a closed filesharing network of friends today and the RIAA would never be the wiser. There is a problem, though:
To apply this concept, the network starts with a group of trusted people forming a tribe of people. Starting a tribe as a friendnet, where each connection is backed up by a meatspace connection, is an excellent starting point. However, sharing files inside of a small tribe is only interesting for a short while because it presents a limited search horizon. If tribes connect with other tribes to form chiefdoms, the search horizon expands with each new connection in the chiefdom. Finally, connect chiefdoms to other chiefdoms to form states, and the search horizon may start to look similar to the search horizons in open file-trading systems.
Why do you want to call it a social network though? Do these "tribes" and "chiefdoms" have anything in common other than a desire to fileshare and avoid legal liability? Is this really the sort of social network to which one would want to belong? It may sound nice to call it a "social network" but it acts more like a conspiracy. The purpose isn't to increase social connectivity but to avoid liability - not the same thing:
Tribal elders must be aware that outside attackers can use social attacks on the network. For instance, if a number of members of a movie-swapping tribe are hanging out at their local coffee shop, they should be aware that attackers may appear as smooth-talkers with lots of knowledge about movies and claims of having a large collection of relevant movies. If one tribal member falls for the attack and invites the attacker into the network, the entire network is at risk. We'll go into the risks from attacks in more detail later, but tribal elders need to understand these risks and educate their tribe to act accordingly.
I'm sorry, but this doesn't sound like a "tribe" so much as a criminal enterprise. Do you really have to worry about social attacks on Friendster or Orkut? Why does the word "omerta" come to mind?
Don't get me wrong, private social networks are great ways to fileshare. I think it is great to recommend works to a friend and even to send them a copy. Such sharing can solidify and help friendships grow, as well as increase appreciation for the works themselves. However, I really don't see the benefit (except access) of "sharing" with strangers several links removed from me.
Think about blogs as a discovery system for news stories. I read my friends blogs and I read the blogs of strangers whose taste I've grown to trust. Through them I discover news stories of interest to me, some expected, some unexpected. I don't randomly access and read the blogs of total strangers ... it is generally a waste of time as a discovery tool. Why should music filesharing be different? Again, having strangers in the loop increases access to works, but there is nothing particularly social about it and it does not increase music discovery.
A truly social filesharing system would encourage people to create both public and private connections: private connections where one shared with existing friends and public connections in which individuals broadcast their tastes to the world (hopefully making new friends in the process). Kaye's vision, in its attempt to avoid legal liability, is a strangely crippled version of social networks, as there can be no truly public connections. It is more akin to a conspiracy-minded cell structure than a free and open system.