C|Net News reports that the Distributed Computing Industry Association (the P2P industry group), has proposed a third business model for legally sharing music via P2P (Trade group proposes new P2P music model). You can read the details of all three models in a Power Point presentation (ever hear of open formats DCIA?): P2P Music Models [PPT].
Like their other models, this model has a snowball's chance in H-E-Double-Hockey-Sticks chance of succeeding, but then the DCIA isn't really interested in success, they are just interested in acting as if they want a solution. However, to the extent that they are proposing solutions that give the music industry a chance to control the market, the DCIA is essentially fronting for the RIAA. So let's take a look at this "new" model:
The model is a joke from the introductory sentence:
Sell content to consumers in the P2P marketplace - first by digital watermarking and DRM, then through uploader incentives and user participation programs.
Ummm, and why would people want to buy something they can get for free? Why will people download music files with DRM when they can, just as easily, download files without DRM? This makes absolutely no sense. Which brings us to "Phase 1":
Introduce digital watermarking system and apply DRM to copyrighted music in P2P distribution regardless of point-of-origin
What planet do these guys come from? Seriously. What sort of draconian, totalitarian solution will be required to ensure that all copyrighted music that enters P2P distribution networks has DRM and watermarking? This is simply ridiculous. It is hard to believe they can say this with a straight face. However, wouldn't Hollywood love this solution? All content would be ID'd and protected by DRM. I say that the DCIA can take my non-DRM, non-watermarking Ogg Vorbis ripper when they pry the keyboard from my cold, dead fingers.
Maybe We Can Bribe Stupid People, aka Phase 2
Incentivize active file sharers with revenue-sharing program for upgrading and applying DRM to music files they redistribute
This is a really great way to identify uploaders, who will presumably have to provide all sorts of identifying information to the RIAA in order to get their share of the funds. These readily identifiable uploaders better make sure they aren't sharing non-DRM'd copyrighted files or they will be in for a world of legal liability. This, of course, would tend to make their ability to redistribute much less than those who don't play nice with the RIAA/DCIA.
In any case, how in the world will they implement this? Will uploaders get paid for each download? Will uploaders get paid for each DRM wrapper that is opened? If so, how will the RIAA/DCIA keep track? Will each uploader have to create a unique DRM wrapper? The problems here are not trivial.
Also, explain to me again why P2P is the best way to implement this system? Why not just use webpages?
All Your Files Are Belong to Us, aka Phase 3
Ubiquitously deploy ID/DRM system to protect consumer-produced as well as label-produced musical works
Well, of course consumers should be able to participate in this DRM'd paradise. After all, if consumer-produced music wasn't properly DRM'd then we would be swamped with lots of non-DRM'd files in the P2P network, which would make it much, much harder to stop the non-authorized filesharing of copyrighted music.
Although this would be "voluntary" ("Develop technologies to permit consumers to insert file-fingerprints and register their own recorded musical works for P2P distribution" [emphasis added]), in the end it would become mandatory for all filesharing:
After full marketplace acceptance, evaluate TBD methods for potentially filtering unknown music files in manner acceptable to all affected parties
Gee, isn't that what the RIAA is asking for now? Thanks for nothing DCIA.
Ernest Miller pursues research and writing on cyberlaw, intellectual property, and First Amendment issues. Mr. Miller attended the U.S. Naval Academy before attending Yale Law School, where he was president and co-founder of the Law and Technology Society, and founded the technology law and policy news site LawMeme. He is a fellow of the Information Society Project at Yale Law School.
Ernest Miller's blog postings can also be found @
1. Cypherpunk on February 7, 2004 05:51 AM writes...
You're right that this scheme is quite unlikely to succeed or even be attempted; and the other two proposals in their presentation also seem pretty questionable (except for phase 1 of model B, which is basically a compulsory licensing scheme, like many groups are pushing).
A couple of comments: as far as the phase 1 concept of watermarking "regardless of point-of-origin", my reading was that this was something like SDMI, the failed attempt to come up with a watermark that would survive ripping. Such a technology is not inherently Draconian or totalitarian, but it is very questionable at this point whether it can be made to work successfully.
For phase 2, where uploaders would apparently be rewarded for sharing DRM files, you ask why use P2P instead of web pages. That's an odd question, which could be read as implying that P2P is for sharing illegal data; if the data was legal, you might as well publish it openly on the web. Is that what you meant?
In any case, I don't see any problem with using P2P to share popular and legal data; it can be an effective technology for load distribution and easy propagation of popular content. Look at bittorrent.
My bottom line in judging such proposals is ultimately whether they call for legislation to force people to go along. I have no problem with the music industry distributing DRM'd data; or P2P companies doing the same, setting up revenue sharing or whatever other incentives they want. Maybe it will work, maybe it won't; but let a thousand flowers bloom. Somehow we need to find a way to fund the creation of information goods, and the more experiments, the better. Where I object is when the parties call for more laws to impose some universal solution, whether DRM or compulsory licensing. I'd much prefer to see a diversity of approaches and models being used as we head into an uncertain future.
Permalink to Comment2. Ernest Miller on February 7, 2004 02:46 PM writes...
You may be right on the watermarking point, but that would be very difficult to do. I expect that programs that would rip out most watermarks will be available not too long after the watermarks are initiated. However, how does your argument apply to DRM?
Actually, I do question much of the necessity for fully distributed P2P. I see a great deal of value in a partially centralized/partially decentralized model. But the fully decentralized models seem more legally useful than practically useful (although there are uses for them). Bit Torrent is a good example of a technology that makes sense. However, note that Bit Torrent is a partially centralized (the seeding server) and partially decentralized (the downloader/uploaders) model.
I have no problem with people trying out different models. However, I see no reason that this model will work without legislative intervention (which is contemplated in the model).
Permalink to Comment3. Robert Young on March 6, 2004 11:44 PM writes...
Ernest,
It seems to me that DCIA's latest proposal is similar to Kevin Marks' "Mediagora" model, Weed's new music-sharing service, and the Fraunhofer Institute's "Potato System".
If I understand correctly, all these models are attempting to enable "consumers" with the capability to become a member of the distribution value chain by providing an economic incentive to turn his/her computer and network connection into a money-making digital "factory and storefront" for music, movies, ebooks, etc. IOW, an opportunity for people to use p2p as a profit-making venture. So for instance, I could buy a movie from Disney for $10, put it up on a p2p network or my blog and make money from all those who buy it from me. The buyers, in turn, can then do the same and make money themselves, and on and on, generation after generation. All the while, the copyright holder is getting paid for each transaction.
That's interesting, but this is what really intrigues me... let's assume net users adopted such a model, and, a movie studio decides to release a film under such a framework. Let's further assume the release becomes a huge hit like LOTR and generates $500 million in revenues. In today's world, the theatre chains, movie rental stores, mass-market retailers, and cable/network TV would account for all the distribution and revenue/profit generation.
Under a people-distribution model however, the result is quite different. Yes, the viewers/consumers will still spend $500 million to watch the movie. However, these "consumers" will *also* earn the revenues as they themselves were the distribution channel (in place of Blockbuster, Walmart or Comcast). In fact, mathematically speaking, it's possible that no one person (or the vast majority) would ever need to spend any net money to enjoy music, watch movies, etc.
There's something quite "disruptive" about such a scenario, don't you think? That said, maybe I'm totally wrong :)
Robert
Permalink to Comment