Feeds

Silent tech majority invites Mickey Mouse to poison P2P

The killer app that killed innovation

  • alert
  • submit to reddit

5 things you didn’t know about cloud backup

Comment It happened years ago. The "KA" appeared, and everyone embraced it. They hugged that "KA" with all their might, hoping it might correct a collapsing technology scene. Then, when the "KA" grew a sore, they dumped it.

The "KA" or killer app was Napster - and on a larger scale P2P software. P2P file-trading started to thrive around the same time that the Nasdaq started to dive. Intel saw P2P as a way to sell more processors and publicly cheered the technology. Sun Microsystems followed suit with the JXTA P2P protocols. A host of smaller software companies crafted flimsy business models around the P2P idea. These players recognized that the time to whine about not having a killer app had passed - one was gyrating right in front of them.

Now we find P2P software in front of the Supreme Court. And not only P2P software. Hollywood today will ask the Supremes to overturn an ancient decision protecting the use of VCRs and indirectly other devices that can be used to copy content for personal use. A huge chunk of innovation is on the line.

Has the tech industry that once salivated over P2P software's ability to chew through processors, hard drives and bandwidth run to the rescue? Not exactly.

The only company willing to stand out on its own and back the P2P software makers is Intel - the most vocal advocate of the old, illegal Napster (not the boring new Napster).

In a brief turned over to the Supreme Court, Intel dutifully told the judges of its patent and copyright love and insisted that people worship said patents and copyrights. Then, it got to the point. Intel begged the Supremes not to overturn the old "Sony" decision that protects VCRs and the like.

The Sony rule

"The development of innumerable technology-based products has depended on the Sony rule and its erosion would chill innovation and put a damper on one of the largest components of the U.S. economy: computer, software, consumer electronics, and telecommunications companies, many of whose products and services are built on technologies developed by Intel, contributed some $844 billion to the U.S. Gross Domestic Product in 2003," Intel wrote in the brief (PDF).

Intel's lawyers did everything they could to weaken the company's pro-P2P stance with fluffy language, but the message came through in the end. Intel, like many vendors, is most afraid of Hollywood's quest to clamp down on any product that could potentially be used to infringe on a copyright.

(Funny thing is Intel pulled in $34.2bn last year all on its own, while the worldwide music business made roughly double that at $75bn, according to the well-researched The Future of Music. Intel's looking a bit more important to the old bottom line from where we sit.)

While Intel was the lone vendor willing to speak on its own, a few more companies did find their voice. AT&T, Bell South, MCI, Savvis Communications SBC, Sun Microsystems and Verizon filed a brief together as a type of internet coalition. They too extolled the virtues of copyrights and then made similar arguments, as Intel, in favor of unfettered technological innovation.

"The surest way to depress capital investment in new Internet technologies, such as wireless data services, on demand video, and 'seamless mobility' - the transmission of content from television, to computer, to cell phone, to new devices yet to be created or marketed - is to modify Sony by adopting any of the malleable, multi-factored tests proffered by petitioners [Mickey Mouse and Friends] and their amici," the vendors wrote (PDF).

Other than these few companies, the direct IT vendor votes in support of P2P and Sony were sparse. The rest of the pro-Grokster briefs came from lawyers, professors, recording artists, civil liberties groups and free software fans. The Consumer Electronics Association, the Computer and Communications Industry Association, and the Home Recording Rights Coalition also spoke up for their members.

You might think some smart folks over at Seagate, AMD, Cisco, Adobe, IBM, Apple, HP or EMC would consider for a minute how a P2P revolution could benefit them. No such luck.

Secure remote control for conventional and virtual desktops

Next page: Strange bedfellows

More from The Register

next story
6 Obvious Reasons Why Facebook Will Ban This Article (Thank God)
Clampdown on clickbait ... and El Reg is OK with this
Kaspersky backpedals on 'done nothing wrong, nothing to fear' blather
Founder (and internet passport fan) now says privacy is precious
TROLL SLAYER Google grabs $1.3 MEEELLION in patent counter-suit
Chocolate Factory hits back at firm for suing customers
Facebook, Google and Instagram 'worse than drugs' says Miley Cyrus
Italian boffins agree with popette's theory that haters are the real wrecking balls
Sit tight, fanbois. Apple's '$400' wearable release slips into early 2015
Sources: time to put in plenty of clock-watching for' iWatch
Facebook to let stalkers unearth buried posts with mobe search
Prepare to HAUNT your pal's back catalogue
Ex-IBM CEO John Akers dies at 79
An era disrupted by the advent of the PC
prev story

Whitepapers

Endpoint data privacy in the cloud is easier than you think
Innovations in encryption and storage resolve issues of data privacy and key requirements for companies to look for in a solution.
Implementing global e-invoicing with guaranteed legal certainty
Explaining the role local tax compliance plays in successful supply chain management and e-business and how leading global brands are addressing this.
Advanced data protection for your virtualized environments
Find a natural fit for optimizing protection for the often resource-constrained data protection process found in virtual environments.
Boost IT visibility and business value
How building a great service catalog relieves pressure points and demonstrates the value of IT service management.
Next gen security for virtualised datacentres
Legacy security solutions are inefficient due to the architectural differences between physical and virtual environments.