Salocin

Overpeer vs The Filesharers

I found out today about a company called Overpeer. Run by Marc Morgenstern, a one-time VP of the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP), this company seeks to protect copyrighted content by making it harder to download from P2P networks. It does this by offering for download a very high quantity of low-grade or sabotaged versions of the file. In the case of music, this could be a low-quality rendition or a short-length sample to encourage users to buy the song, and in the case of computer games, they could be offering the demo version or a crippled version disguised as the real thing. Obviously, file-traders are very upset that anyone should offer non-valid files through their networks and therefore jeaopardise their ability to get music for free. In a move that may well enter the all-time hitlist for hypocrisy, the self-declared mouthpiece of the "don't pay for it" brigade, Zeropaid.com describes Overpeer as "Greedy Fuckers".

But when you look at Overpeer's activities through the lens of the filesharing networks defense attorneys, they're really above reproach. In a recent judgement, a filesharing network was acquitted of wrongdoing because it was judged that they were not responsible for what was being done on their networks. If, however, they were now to complain in any way that Overpeer's actions damaged their networks, they would be acknowledging that what gets transmitted over their networks *does*, in fact, interest them, and that by damaging the ability of illegal filesharers to copy copyrighted material, Overpeer damages the value of their service. This would totally compromise their defense, and so they won't do it.

In reality, all the record companies can do in the face of filesharing is try to sue individuals, and bitch and whine. But the reverse of that coin is that all the filesharers can do in reaction to Overpeer's sabotage is bitch and whine, and they can't even sue, because what Overpeer does is perfectly legal.

Overpeer forces nobody to download anything, it doesn't damage your computer in any way. All it does is encourage you to download a legal piece of data. Legal because they have the copyright-holder's permission to distribute it, and that's all they do - use filesharing networks to distribute free data. Exactly what the networks claim they were designed for. They don't illegally use up bandwidth because the only bandwidth they use up is from people requesting the compromised files in the first place - and they're breaking the law by that very action, so they haven't got a leg to stand on. This is one part of a strategy of smart retaliation.

There are parallels between terrorism and filesharing - ok, so this is a bit farfetched, but the there's a little truth in it: The problem with terrorism is that you can't attack any coherent entity in return for their attacks on our society. The problem with filesharers is that they are equally difficult to track down, for similar reasons - they hide behind anonymity, technology and one-to-one (peer-2-peer) relationships. You need to be innovative to combat this. The RIAA/MPAA didn't start the fight, they're just adapting to the opposition's guerilla tactics, and it's interesting to watch!

What? Did you think they were just going to lie down and surrender?