P2P, Digital Commodities, and the Governance of Commerce

  • Alain Bourdeau de Fontenay
  • Eric Bourdeau de Fontenay
Part of the Topics in Regulatory Economics and Policy Series book series (TREP, volume 43)


Peer-to-Peer (P2P) applications have important implications for the evolution of the Internet and online communications and services. They provide an architecture for decentralizing and distributing control in the Internet in a way that is fundamental to the trends already associated with it. This development poses interesting challenges and opportunities for the evolution of the Internet, for industry structure more generally, and for public policy.


Distribution Channel Digital Right Management Content Owner Copyright Owner Copyright Holder 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    We use the concept of community in this paper as developed in W. Edward Steinmueller’s “Virtual Communities and the New Economies,” chapter two in Evolving Patterns of Social and Technical Interactions, edited by Robin Mansell, Oxford University Press: Oxford, 2002.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Desmond, Paul. 2001. Five Tech Trends with Legs. NetworkWorldFusion News, 10 October, 2001, <>.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    P2P may help improve the efficiency of streaming, hence lowering the demand for bandwidth. Its decentralized structure makes it particularly resistant to IT disasters, and its contribution to supercomputing may help break Moore’s law. In addition, “Dan Bricklin . . . said wireless technology based on the 802.11b standard is one example of a technology that will drive demand for p-to-p communication and collaboration between individuals, but in a decentralized ad hoc manner.” See Marc Jones, 2001. CTO Forum: Ray Ozzie, Others Spell Out Evolution of P2P Computing. NetworkWorldFusion News, 20 June, 2001, <>.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Newton, Jon. 2002. One out of Four Americans Have Downloaded MP3,s, Says New Study. Music Industry News—as it happens. Music Dish, 6 March, 2002, < 1 >.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shirky, Clay. 2000. What is P2P … And What Isn’t! The O’Reilly Network. 24 November, 2000, <http://www.bpenp2p.eom/lpt/a//p2p/2000/l1/24/shirkyl-whatisp2p.html>.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rutherford, Emilie. 2001. The P2P Report. CIO, 2002, <>.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    An excellent presentation of P2P with a focus on Napster can be found in Lucien Rapp’s “L’Industrie Européennes des Contenus en Danger de ‘Naspériza-tion.’” Présentation to the European Council, 13 September, 2000, <>.
  8. 8.
    Shirky, op. cit.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Koller, Mike. 2001. P2P Picks Up Steam—Napster had the hype, but corporate networks are now seen as hot market. InternetWeeky 3 September, 2001, <>.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    See Tim O’Reilly, chapter one in P2P: Harnessing the Power of Disruptive Technologies, edited by Andy Oram, The O’Reilly Network, 5 December, 2000, <>.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Koller, op. cit.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Many of today’s best known P2P systems (e.g., Groove, which is very successful in the business community) involve a central server at some stage.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Winer, Dave. 2001. The P in P2P. The O’Reilly Network, <>.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Koller, op. cit.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rutherford, op. cit.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shirky, op. cit.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bricklin, Dan. 2000. Thoughts on P2P. 10 August, 2000, <>.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bricklin, op. cit. Shirky (op. cit.) adds: “Intel’s ‘server P2P’ is not P2P, because servers have always been peers. Their fixed IP addresses and permanent connections present no new problems, and calling what they already do ‘P2P’ presents no new solutions.”Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    In fact, the ability to intervene and oversee some elements of the work environment for business applications is one of the reasons for using a central server in Groove, one of the most successful P2P systems in the corporate environment. See <>.
  20. 20.
    Shirky, op. cit. In the case of business P2P systems, the hardware becomes individual PCs owned by the corporation and operated by individuals rather than a centralized organization.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Federal Communications Commission. New Public Safety Applications and Broadband Internet Access among Uses Envisioned by FCC Authorization of Ultra-Wideband Technology. Press Release, 14 February, 2002, <>.
  22. 22.
    Shirky, op. cit.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gnutella, another P2P file sharing application, takes decentralization one step further by eliminating the central server that provides a single point of failure in the Napster system. The Gnutella system searches the Gnutella network “horizon” or virtual vicinity for the desired file, branching further until the file is found. It is adaptive to hosts joining and dropping off the system in real time. The decentralized P2P concept has been further improved by FreeNet, which uses intelligent routing and caching to further alleviate bandwidth loads.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Richtel, Matt. 2002. Napster Wins One Round in Music Case. New York Times, 23 February, 2002, Section C. The issue is complex as it involves also for a court the “judicial capacity to evaluate ‘high tech product’…” In that case, the decision was referring to Microsoft. See Berlind, David, 2002, Can Justice Cope with Technology? ZDNet Tech Update, 25 February, 2002, <,14179,2846246,00.html>.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    See O’Reilly, op. cit.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pavlicek, Russel. 2001. Open Source Alive and Well at O’Reilly P2P Conference. The O’Reilly Network, 27 December, 2001, <>.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    At the same time, the change is dynamic. As in the Microsoft case, “by the time a court can assess liability, firms, products, and the marketplace are likely to have changed dramatically . . .” Berlind, op. cit.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    “Napster is a completely new way of thinking about buying music online. It is an application that takes the hassle out of searching for MP3s. . . . You can locate and download your favorite music in MP3 format from one convenient, easy-to-use-interface.” (See Michele Wilson-Morris’s “Recording Industry Sues Napster For Copyright Infringement”, in The Story of a Revolution: Napster and the Music Industry, edited by Sounni Bourdeau de Fontenay, Tag It: New York, September 2002, <>.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    For further discussion, see Eric Bourdeau de Fontenay, “The Digital Economy: How Digital Goods are Reshaping the Rules of Commerce, Characteristics of Digital Goods.” MusicDish, 1 November, 2001, <>.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    See Eric Bourdeau de Fontenay, op. cit.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    “As of February, 2000, SETI@home has grown to encompass 1.6 million participants in 224 countries. The amount of computing time contributed since May, 1999, is equal to 165,000 years, averaging 10 Teraflops (about 10 times more than the largest supercomputer on the planet). It is the largest computation ever done, and has attracted the participation of 20,000 groups such as schools and private companies.” See <>.
  32. 32.
    Neel, Dan. 2001. Intel, Researchers, to Create P2P Supercomputer. Info World. Network World Fusion, 3 April, 2001, <>.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Stewart, Bruce. 2001. Saving Lives with P2P. O’Reilly Network, 1 March, 2001, <http;//>.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
  35. 35.
    Day, M., J. Rosenberg, and H. Sugano. 2000. A Model for Presence and Instant Messaging. Internet Society. RFC 2778.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Udell, Jon. 2001. Can IM Graduate to Business? The O’Reilly Network, 20 December, 2001, <http://www.openp2p.eom/pub/a/p2p/2001/12/20/udell.html>.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Guernsey, Lisa. 2002. You Can Surf, But You Can’t Hide. New York Times Online, 7 February, 2002, < circuits/07HERE.html?pagewanted=all>.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kinsella, Paul. 2001. Tying up the Loose Ends in the Mobile World. Telepho-nyWorld, 11 July, 2001, < news.cgi?category=all&id=994900317>.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kinsella, op. cit.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kinsella, op. cit.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Bourdeau de Fontenay, Eric. 2001. An Incentive-Based Approach to a P2P Marketplace. Presentation to L’Internet de demain: Quel réseau, pour quoi faire? Net 2001. Paris. 28 March, 2001, < form.php3>.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
  43. 43. 2000. This week we lay it on the line with … Ian Clarke, creator of Freenet, 11 June, 2000, < ian.php>.
  44. 44.
    See <>. This is the software that enabled Metallica to identify the Napster users who Metallica cited for copyright infringement.
  45. 45.
    “The number of commercial sites in the U.S. generating DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) notices in the first six months of 2000 increased by more than 200 percent over the number of notices sent in all of 1999.” Recording Industry Releases Midyear Anti-Piracy Statistics. RIAA. 19 September, 2000.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    O’Reilly, op. cit.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    At the same time, as noted earlier, it is the lowering of content reproduction and distribution costs.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    While Web services, per se, are not P2P, they share many common features.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Bourdeau de Fontenay, Eric. 2000. P2P 8c The Digital Market Place. Keynote Address, ACSEL Conference. New York. 26 October, 2000, <>.
  50. 50.
    Law, Gillian. 2001. Researchers Toy with “Parasitic” Computing. IDG News Service. Network World Fusion. 30 August, 2001, <>.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alain Bourdeau de Fontenay
    • 1
  • Eric Bourdeau de Fontenay
    • 2
  1. 1.Columbia Institute of Tele InformationColumbia UniversityUSA
  2. 2.Tag ItUSA

Personalised recommendations