Main | P2P Manifesto by Robin Good »
P2P Manifesto: because P2P is unstoppable, positive for companies, for the market and for users
You can download P2P Manifesto from this link“Quantity and quality of P2P technologies are inversely proportional to the numbers of lawsuits issued to stop P2P”
3rd Monty’s Law
Content
- P2P Manifesto Abstract
- P2P is unstoppable
- P2P is positive for Companies
- P2P is positive for the market
- P2P is good for users
- Suggested Web Sites, Blogs, Links
P2P Manifesto Abstract:
P2P it’s a revolutionary technology. P2P is technically unstoppable.
Most of all, P2P it’s positive for companies, for the market and it’s good for users.
P2P has already proven to be an unbreakable technology.
Both centralized server systems and decentralized ones are evolving, improving every day, adding new features that makes, as a matter of fact, totally useless both complaints issued by Majors and technical surveilling countermeasures.
Companies can benefit by P2P technology both for empowering their products distribution (products, content, information, etc.) and for creating new kind of business.
P2P has refreshed the market by enlarging the number of players and the market size itself.
Users enjoy sharing all possible information.
It's natural that they have immediately adopted P2P technology because it allows them to have what they want when they want it.
Without intermediation and directly from the “info owner”.
File sharing is evolving to “social sharing” where individuals share all kind of social interesting information.
The swappers of today are becoming “file networkers”, individuals capable of creating large social networks that soon will be -paradoxically - the most desired ally of the Majors.
P2P will then soon become a more complex integrated system for sharing and networking (PnetP).
P2P is here to stay.
January 16, 2005 in P2P Manifesto - Original Version | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83455cf3d69e200d83421eb4a53ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference P2P Manifesto: because P2P is unstoppable, positive for companies, for the market and for users:
» El manifiesto P2P from El Blog de Enrique Dans
Vía Smart Mobs llego a este blog dedicado al P2P manifesto desarrollado por Marco Montemagno, Profesor de la Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore de Milán. Contiene algunas perlas francamente buenas... [Read More]
Tracked on Jan 17, 2005 12:34:06 AM
» P2P Manifesto from Smart Mobs
Marco writes Smartmobs: P2P Manifesto is a P2P study that I've done and also a project, released under CC license... [Read More]
Tracked on Jan 17, 2005 12:35:37 AM
» P2P Manifesto from Chris Pirillo
Because P2P is unstoppable... [Read More]
Tracked on Jan 17, 2005 9:07:46 PM
» Why P2P File Sharing Is Good: The P2P Manifesto from Robin Good' Sharewood Tidings
Marco Montemagno, an Italian new media communication expert, entrepreneur and blogger, who has worked and collaborated with some of the most established media corporations including Italy's RAI and Murdoch's Sky TV network, has just published online a ... [Read More]
Tracked on Jan 17, 2005 10:35:10 PM
» P2P File-Sharing Is Good. And It Can't Be Stopped from Robin Good's Latest News
Marco Montemagno, an Italian new media communication expert, entrepreneur and blogger, who has worked and collaborated with some of the most established media corporations including Italy's RAI and Murdoch's Sky TV network, has just published online a ... [Read More]
Tracked on Jan 17, 2005 11:01:44 PM
» The P2P Manifesto from Adam Fields weblog
This is an interesting piece on the inevitability of P2P to survive. I've discussed this before.
http://montemagno.typepad.com/p2p_manifesto/2005/01/p2p_manifesto.html
Elaborating on the comment I wrote on that page --
"Content" cannot b... [Read More]
Tracked on Jan 18, 2005 5:11:45 AM
» Le Peer to Peer a son manifeste... from Articles
... et il s'appelle "P2P Manifesto".
De plus en plus inévitable malgré les sursauts des industries culturelles (musicales et cinématographiques), le P2P (surtout BitTorrent) est maintenant utilisé par des sociétés pour diffuser des catalogues, infos... [Read More]
Tracked on Jan 18, 2005 7:22:24 PM
» poker 665 from poker 665
poker 665 [Read More]
Tracked on Dec 10, 2005 1:45:22 AM
Comments
Very interesting text. Two common misconceptions about p2p tech:
1. What most people often overlook is that the internet is essentially a file sharing network, and was designed to be a many-to-many medium. The ISPs and the dotcoms don’t quite get it (view the web as a collection of cable TV channels) and deployed a one-to-many infrastructure for most people. Now things start to change and there’s a war between CABLE and DSL providers around who will provide better upstream bandwidth (for photo sharing).
2. There are many uses to p2p tech beyond distribution of commercial copyrighted materials. As people start to have more and more personal media (digital photos, home video clips, blogs, lists) - the need to share them with friends & family is apparent. Also, uploading personal media to a big-brother-like locker in the sky is unattractive for many as home PCs are starting to be perfectly capable of storing and serving this content (with the help of a smart network that will handle authentication, encryption, and non-routable Internet hosts) - This is one of the problems that Grouper attempts to solve with its private p2p file sharing network.
Posted by: Aviv Eyal | Jan 16, 2005 9:04:55 PM
Very good thinking Aviv.
Posted by: Marco | Jan 16, 2005 9:16:41 PM
good grief man!
if you're going to post a "manifesto" get a friend to proof read it first. you make the rest of us look bad. sheesh.
excellent idea, lazy execution!
Posted by: random | Jan 17, 2005 7:14:59 PM
I agree with random, you really need to check your grammar. I would fix it but I'm not even sure what you meant to say in some parts.
Posted by: Jaime | Jan 17, 2005 8:01:14 PM
Hi guys thanks for your attention.
I just started yesterday and I was just checking it right before to be...slashdotted !
Well any help will be much appreciated Jamie :)
Posted by: Marco | Jan 17, 2005 8:13:35 PM
The biggest problem is this: many of the really valuable content is protected by copy right.
Since there is no technological solution against P2P, content right owners, who want to sell, not to share will use every possible venue to get the legislation and law enforcement do what technology can't.
In that sense P2P is like DRM:
"At the end of the day, all P2P systems share a common vulnerability: they provide their legal attackers with with public entry to P2P, where opponents of P2P can join P2P and legally prove that content exchange happened. At this point, from the legal point of view it's just the question of creating all the legislation peaces which would make every aspects of P2P illegal, as stealing a candy bar from the corner store.
P2P is not really a technological challange, it's a legal challenge.
It's not an impossible challenge, though.
Here are two ways to handle it.
1) Any accusers should be investigated to be involved by P2P themselves. If this could be proved, they should not have right to sue for something they have committed themselves.
2) Of course everybody involved in P2P could report his/her illegal action to the authorities and everyone could refuse any settlement and volunteer for prison term. This would fo course, disable the court system and the prison system, by overloading it suddenly with millions of cases. At this stage law makers should realize that the cost to enforce the law would be much higher than the benefits, it would become one of those laws, which simply can not be enforced.
Long leave P2P - since it is really revolutionary for the society, as a whole.
Of course, as they say, all progress requires sacrifice.
It is just unusual that this time, this case the very segment of the society will carry the burden, which used to be exempt of this, traditionally.
Posted by: random.nick | Jan 17, 2005 8:44:07 PM
Neo can't stop his music from being stolen because the people have the capabilities to steal his music. The same could be said for shoplifting, and yet shoplifting is not as widespread as pirating.
This is horrible. Your grammar needs work and the arguments go off in tangents and prove things that don't need proving. Most importantly, you do not address the fact that industries do not get paid for pirated content. If you don't get paid for the work you put out, then what is the incentitive for working?
It's basic economics, and pirating is counter-productive in a capitalist society and you cannot prove otherwise. Face it.
Posted by: Mike Wang | Jan 17, 2005 8:46:37 PM
Mike I appreciate your crithics and different point of view. Why don't you write a paper with your opinions ? I'll be happy to post it here :)
Posted by: Marco | Jan 17, 2005 8:57:25 PM
hey man, interesting read. i do agree you need to work on it a bit. if you want some serious research thats already been done, check out chris v's "Distributed Media Ecosystems and the Location of Resistance in Peer-to-Peer Literacy." it's a paper he's been working on for a long time and every time i get a good link i link it to him. i just posted him a link to this on his blog.
anyways, linkage:
http://critical-v.blogspot.com/2004/12/distributed-media-ecosystems-and.html
---
also, in response to mike wang.
get a grip dude, the record industry and movie industry have made RECORD profits in 2004. that means they've collectively made more money than they've ever made in a single year before.
heres the substantial info for that (also pulled from /., thanks for keeping the dream real, guys.) linkage: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20040903-4156.html
so with record profits, tell me again how this is actually HURTING them?
there was another interesting slashdot article (which i cannot currently find the link to.) which talked about a strange piece of data about pirating. the riaa loses more money every year to physically copied cd's than it does to pirated music online.
so why arent they going after street bootleggers? i mean, that really is more legitimate since someone else is making money off them without any royalties. whilst the terrible awful piraters, they just leech for free and share for free.
so mike, in conclusion, quit being an effing wang and check your facts.
also, how about when wilco got signed (i cant even believe im using this example cuz i hate wilco.) onto a record label because they released their album on a p2p and it took off in sales.
i mean, you cant just sit there and say it has NO commercial viability. that'd be like saying linux has no commercial viability while it brings in millions of dollars of revenue every year.
sheesh. people dont understand those crazy internets!
Posted by: chuck kirk | Jan 17, 2005 9:15:26 PM
I have to agree with some of the guys above. This piece really needs some proofreading. It seems very random at times and arguments are not very good. And one sentence doesn't count as a paragraph!
It would be really nice to have the sources listed as in academic studies. That gives some credibility. Yeah, I know, managing lists of source articles sucks.
Posted by: heikki | Jan 17, 2005 10:46:52 PM
You missed the point. "Content" cannot be protected from copying because it's not a "thing". Content is a pattern. If you can view it in any meaningful way, you can copy it. As many times as you want to.
DRM technology, and the assault on P2P technology, is not meant to stop piracy, because attempting to do so is actually futile. It's about restricting what legitimate users can do with content. It's also, by its very nature, a dead end. The rights of content owners cannot trump general purpose computing - the costs are too great.
This issue is larger than P2P - what happens when the entire music library of the human race fits on a card that's cheap and small enough to sell with a cup of coffee? It will happen.
http://www.aquick.org/blog/2004/12/22/the-mpaa-has-no-idea-whats-about-to-hit-them/
I've written about these issues a fair amount recently on my blog:
http://www.aquick.org/blog/topics/drm-copying/
Posted by: Adam Fields | Jan 17, 2005 10:56:41 PM
P2P hurts the established business modell for the recording industry.
This modell went like this:
1) Creating music is very expensive: studio costs with all the gears are skyhigh
2) Promoting music is very expensive: just to create a video cost a fortune, getting out a hit to the radio stations and MTV takes lots of connections (expensive)
3) Marketing music is very expensive, only the biggest labels can guarantee that your CD ends up on a shelve of the giga record store
4) Since everything is very expensive, it's best to limit the number of artists/products as much as possible to maximize investment and profit.
5) Very high cost is very good by the way: it keeps independents out of business, it keeps musicians from rebelling too much. It's a big boys game.
Here is the modell then: get a very few selected artists, finance a few albums at high cost, cut off everyone else, who can't afford it and collect your extra profit by keeping in business only a few giants.
Add to this periodic change of media: LP, cassette, CD, DVD - which may force to buy the same product over and over.
Keep separate price structure for your products for the different regions of the world.
Obviously, this modell can't stand a few changes:
1) Produce your music relatively cheap (Pro Tools Digi 002 and other products can create bloody good quality recordings, fairly cheap.)
2) Much cheaper recording cost means much more products. No good... the giants can't control anymore who is allowed to record and who is not.
3) Quality video production is still expensive, placement of hits on the radio, and tv is still only the big boys game, but annoyingly, web presence opened up the flood gate for uncontrolled self-promotion, cheap again.
4) Getting the CD into the giga store shelves is still the big boys game, but annoyingly enough, distribution of songs as mp3 is insanely cheap.
Anything that can be done cheap is the breath of death for the old business modell, because it puts endless number of players in the game, who were previously easily prohibited, due to luck of capital.
The pie suddenly has a real danger to get much more but much thinner slices. This is crisis for the industry. Who can promise anymore to a band that if they write a second hit, they don't have to work for the rest of the life?
P2P "stealing" is the most obvious target, but the industry is in war with the whole technology revolution, with anything that makes expensive cheap and destroys monopoly and market control by large capital to invest - and of course, extreme profit, which can be further invest to keep the cycle going.
Posted by: random.nick | Jan 17, 2005 10:57:56 PM
Given the CC license, I have taken permission to give my little contribution to Marco's excellent vision while giving him all the credit he deserves.
As an Italian myself I can probably better understand what he meant in those brave sentences and I have done my best to convey his key ideas in a shorter and more condensed format, while mixing here and there a little share of my own. ;-)
Cheers to you Marco for your great vision!
(Me sei piaciuto proprio)
Robin
Posted by: Robin Good | Jan 17, 2005 11:16:26 PM
Robin you've done an excellent work !
I'd like to post it here too, if you agree.
I'd be happy to post here a "Robin Good revisited P2P Manifesto" if you like it?
Che ne pensi?
(Grazie davvero :) )
M
Posted by: Marco | Jan 17, 2005 11:23:22 PM
Marco, it would be an honour for me.
Please consider my work as if it was yours.
Use and do what you want with it.
from
Sharewood Forest
yours truly
Robin
Posted by: Robin Good | Jan 18, 2005 12:37:22 AM
Here's some of the gramatical errors I found:
"Either server centralized systems or decentralized ones" should read "Both centralized server systems and decentralized ones"
"Market it has been refreshed by P2P, enlarging" should read "P2P has refreshed the market by enlarging"
"It’s natural that they have immediately adopted P2P technology, to have what they want when they want." might be made more clear by stating it as "It's natural that they have immediately adopted P2P technology because it allows them to have what they want when they want it."
"paradoxically - the most desired allied of the Majors." should read "paradoxically - the most desired ally of the Majors."
"Take a singer (that we will call, Neo). He has just ended to realize its last album." should read "A singer (that we will call Neo) has just finished his last album." That might not be what you meant but that's what I took it to mean.
"Now Neo wants to sell it and wants also to avoid that it ends in the “dark circuits” of file sharing, where tons of kids would start swapping it free of charge, without giving to Neo not 1 $ ." should read "Now Neo wants to sell his album and also wants to ensure that it does not end up in the "dark circuits" of file sharing, where tons of kids would start swapping it free of charge, without giving Neo a single dollar."
"What kind of options for Neo then?" should read "What options does Neo have?"
"The first safest solution, is to close in a safe his MAC, with annexed Pro Tools and all the other used technology in order to create its music." shoud read "The safest solution is to put his MAC in a safe, with annexed Pro Tools and all the other technology used to create his music."
"In this way every byte containing his artistic creation would not be swappable (since it’s very protect from its safe), unless expert thieves will successfully enter his house, force the safe and start burning a DVD with the content of his hard disk! (we can for the moment omit this hypothesis...)." should read "This way every byte containing his artistic creation would not be swappable (because it's locked in a safe), unless expert thieves were to successfully enter his house, force open the safe and start burning a DVD with the content of his hard disk! (we can, for the moment, omit this scenario)." Hypothesis just didn't seem like the best word choice but I guess that's really up to what you meant, so you may still want to use hypothesis.
"Neo must necessarily then let his music listenable to somebody (or he better change business)." should read "Neo must then let somebody listen to his music (or else change careers)."
There's alot more I can go through, but I don't want to try to put all of that into a comment. I'm going to fix the copy and post it in my weblog. I'll then put the link here in the comments. I probably won't get that up until tomorrow though. This does seem pretty good and I want to see more made of it.
Posted by: Jaime | Jan 18, 2005 1:33:28 AM
Very good Jaime !
You can also have a look at Robin Good post here.
Thanks a lot :)
Posted by: Marco | Jan 18, 2005 1:38:19 AM
Jaime
first grammar corrections done.
When is finished, if you like it, I'll put a credit to you for all your translation help :)
Posted by: Marco | Jan 18, 2005 1:49:47 AM
"It's basic economics, and pirating is counter-productive in a capitalist society and you cannot prove otherwise. Face it."
Let's face it then.
Pirating (if you mean by that having free access to something to absorb it) was a basic part of getting the WEB so popular. Being able to view the source code in the browser was fundamental to the extremely fast, wide-spread use of HTML. If you were interested, the magic was right there, ready to explore. No special licence, special software to buy.
Should Microsoft invented the concept of browser, HTML would be a closed source, expensive Office plug-in, targetted and sold exclusively for corporate clients.
But, since Microsoft had no concept of global networking, beyond closed corporate networks, since they had no concept of sharing information for no profit, just for the beauty of sharing ideas, since they had no concept of Open Source, to show the whole world how to do it, they of course, could not have possibly concieved the whole idea.
It would have been "against basic ecomomy", it would have been "counter-productive in a capitalist society".
Now, you tell me what is counter-productive?
Posted by: random.nick | Jan 18, 2005 4:01:19 AM
I got the grammar fixed version on my blog. http://jmweirick.blogspot.com/2005/01/p2p-manifesto.html
Posted by: Jaime | Jan 21, 2005 12:57:41 AM
We have also italian Translation now here
http://www.p2pforum.it/forum/showthread.php?t=25329
Thanks Marco.
Posted by: VedoVa_NeRa | Jan 22, 2005 5:19:45 PM
