If You Want It, Here It Is, Come And Get It
(But You Better Hurry 'Cause It's Going Fast)

For the older generation, or should I say for the non-techie population, the news probably passed unnoticed. The Supreme Court is hearing arguments in the case of MGM vs. Grokster, and as hundreds of millions of Americans yawn a chill is being felt throughout the global tech community. "Why is that?", you ask. Well, if you buy all the hype and hyperbole, this is a case which will decide America's technology future, or at least the future of file-sharing over so-called P2P networks. For those of you not up on your internet lingo, P2P is the technology so much in the news these past few years that allows the wholesale distribution of copyrighted materials to millions of internet users each day. I realize this whole subject may seem a bit obtuse to those who aren't tuned in to the P2P scene so let me try to explain what's going on.

First of all, don't believe everything you read on the internet (except for this blog, of course). While it's true that the internet is a vast, diverse ocean of thought and ideas, venturing out into the water quickly makes it clear that for all it's breadth its deepest point the it is no more than a few inches deep. In fact I'd characterize it as a very incestuous place, endlessly self-referential, and constantly parroting the same opinions, discarding the same facts, and shouting down the same people who challenged its most sacred and misguided assumptions. If you want to know how many gigaflops that new processor can do, or what the temperature in Jefferson, Mississippi might be, the internet is the place to go. Otherwise, I'd sooner trust an email asking me for my bank account number than the internet, at least when it comes to diverse or divergent points of view.

As a case in point, let's look at MGM vs. Grokster. Go to any techie website, read any techie blog or news report, browse any techie forum and I guarantee you will find mimicked there the same P2P oath that no self-respecting internet junkie would ever dare speak against.

"It's just like back in the 70's when they (they being the evil 'them') tried to outlaw the VCR."

"What are they talking about?", you ask. Well let me try to explain. You see, according to the unofficial hardcore techie creed new technology is good, subverting the status quo is good, and free...well, that's best of all. Conversely, asking accountability of new technology is bad, law and order is bad, and, worst of all, asking payment is downright obscene. You have to understand the creed before you understand their position.

And so the techie argument goes like this. Back in the 70's there was this new technology called the VCR which the TV networks and the Hollywood studios were sure would be the death of their industries. They filed a lawsuit charging that VCR's should be made illegal because they allowed people to violate their copyrights and make unauthorized copies of their properties. The case eventually made it to the Supreme Court and the Court decided that since the VCR had substantial non-infringing uses the manufacturers could not be held liable for the acts of those who used the machines for illegal purposes. In other words, the media companies lost and we all got to keep our VCR's. I may have misplaced a fact or two along the way but I'm sure I got the gist of it right.

Now we fast-forward to the 21st century and we have this new technology called P2P that techies argue is the same old VCR thing all over again. Like brainwashed acolytes they parrot that the media companies are trying to restrict our access to new technologies by holding technology companies responsible for the illegal actions of its users, just like they failed to do back in the 70's.

And here's where I part company with the techies.

Now hear me on this because it's important. (In fact you may want to take 0ut a pencil and paper and write this down) If you understand nothing else about this issue understand this: The techies are lying to you America, and they know it. Let me repeat that for emphasis. The techies, and by that I mean the technology companies, their lawyers, and the tech community at large, are LYING to you. "What is the lie?", you ask. It's simply this.

P2P, unlike the VCR, is not a reproduction technology - it is a distribution technology.

So what, you ask. Is there a difference? Let me explain. In order to distribute millions and millions of copies of copyrighted works over the internet you need two things: Some means of copying the content off of the CD or DVD or cable or satellite network, etc..., and some means of distributing the content to other users. The first step, the copying, is easily done and there are literally hundreds of programs out there that will copy or "rip" CD's and DVD's and dozens of devices that will capture content off of an audio or video source and transfer it to your computer. When the techies talk about the VCR this is what they are really talking about, because this is really the only part of the process analagous to VCR's and the taping of TV shows that we are all familiar with.

However, the second part of the process is much different and is made possible largely by the ease with which digital content (as opposed to the analog content found on those old VHS tapes) can be transferred over the vastness of the internet. Digital content, it turns out, is very portable and compressable and amenable to the distribution models that P2P networks like Grokster and Streamcast are happy to provide and profit from.

Now I don't want to confuse anyone by going into the why's and where's of P2P technology, but you should be aware that there is nothing even remotely analagous to P2P in the VCR world. In fact, a good analogy for P2P would not be the VCR but rather cable TV. Again, remember, Grokster is not a copying program, it is not "ripping" software, and the techies that tell you it is are liars. Just like the cable company, Grokster is a conduit and facilitator for the distribution of content. The cable companies distribute content over their private networks, and the Grokster's of the world distribute it over the internet. However, with one important difference.

The content coming over your cable box has been paid for. Licenses have been bought, royalties have been paid. The content coming over Grokster is stolen. Well, I should say 'technically' it's been stolen, because we have to remember the techie creed. Free is good. The air is free, the sky is free, butterflies are free - why shouldn't CD's and DVD's be free too? If I can take it and you can't stop me, then that's just an expression of my freedom, isn't it. Can't we all be brothers? (I could go on but I feel a Jesse Colin Young song coming on)

Anyways, everywhere you go on the internet that's the argument you hear, and one that I think leads to an obvious question. If Grokster wins this case, shouldn't the cable companies and satellite companies also be allowed to distribute unlicensed (i.e. stolen) content over their networks? Shouldn't Comcast or Time-Warner be allowed to add bootlegged movies to their Pay-per-view lineup? Well, it's just a thought, and besides, we all know the consequences of Grokster losing this case would be far worse. Why Xerox machines be illegal if that happens. Right? Oh wait a minute. I almost forgot - Xerox makes copy machines, don't they?

Damn, there's that lie again.