Official Ares Free Download

p2pnet news view | P2P | Music:- There still seems to be confusion over Cory Doctorow’s statement, “There’s no such thing as streaming”.

So says  p2pet frequent poster Devil’s Advocate, talking about an interview Don Tapscott (bottom) recently had with Cory Doctorow.

“It was an interesting Q&A because Cory doesn’t think is any such thing as music streaming,”said p2pnet.  Don was talking to Corey for Rebuilding the World, co-authored with Anthony D. Williams and due out next spring.

The book centres on the thesis that we need to “rethink and rebuild many of the organizations and institutions that have served us well for decades, but now have come to the end of their life cycle,” explained Don.

Now, “I find it alarming that people have a problem understanding Cory’s point,” says DA, going on >>>

For me, there’s nothing in the statement that can be argued with, as it is rooted in the very fundamentals of how computer networking works, and therefore, how “The Internet” works.  The “alarming” part is, if these very fundamentals are being misunderstood, then designing a “solution” to the problems facing digital music will be nothing short of impossible!

Unfortunately, publishing Don Tapscott’s “rebuttal” hasn’t helped the situation.  As far as this subject goes, Tapscott is possibly being deliberately clueless.  Whatever the reason for his misinformation, we need to clarify some things before it gets too widely distorted…

The reality is, there simply ISN’T any such thing as “streaming” over the Internet.  Streaming is something that is done by a BROADCAST medium, which the Internet just ISN’T.  I seem to remember trying to make this point before, and for a very good reason.  I wanted to discourage people from designing “solutions”, based on this false premise, that will only get shot down when they meet with reality.

People!  Content is copied, downloaded and played by your own computer, regardless of what the content is and how you acquire it, end of story.  This could very well be the one factor that ultimately distinguishes computer networking from “broadcasting”.

And, after the content is downloaded, no part of the source has been depleted.  This reality further defeats any inappropriate analogies comparing the Internet (or digital music) to any kind of “utility” (like hydro), or “service”.  Besides, your ISP has already supplied the “service”.  Its measured in “bandwidth” units, and it’s considered “depletable”.

The closest thing to “streaming” you ever experience on the Internet is when your computer is allowed to download the content in a byte order that enables you play it as it downloads.  This is still not streaming – it is simply opening a file before it completes the download.  And, whether or not the file is allowed to stay resident on your computer after playing it, it has still been copied from someone else and downloaded.  Having these files delete themselves after playing them doesn’t make the action a “stream”.

This whole idea of “streaming” is a carry-off from the broadcast world of television and radio, where in order to capture a copy for yourself, you have to intervene with another technology (i.e. tape or VCR) which “settles” on a product that is not in any way an “equivalent” to the product that was broadcast.  In broadcasting, the product is TRANSMITTED to the airwaves by the content provider during a certain time, making the product available to those who “tap into” or “tune into” the transmission at that time.

Streaming is the act of broadcasting something that one or more can witness in realtime.  Technically, even “on-demand” programming offered by your cable company isn’t “broadcasting” or “streaming”, as they’ve given you a way to “call up” content, from a digital server, that is formatted for your digital converter to send to your TV, when you ask for it.

Another false example of “streaming” would be a supposed “simulcast” over the Internet.  Unlike television, where live video cams add the experience to the existing broadcast signal, the Internet simulcast needs a server to collect the video data and OFFER it to the Internet, via a webpage, where users still have to download the content and play it with their own plug-ins or players.  Same as any other data transfer.

Another curious point that seems to come into this for some reason is some perceived “ownership” issue with the original content.  If we’re talking about “streaming” over the internet (which we are), then this scenario has nothing to do with the “art” (which is the original content), as you are dealing with COPIES.  “Collecting” and “owning” refers to controlling the digital file copies that people want to retain, as they want to be able to play the file when, where, and on the device they choose.  You can’t “stream” music from your car player, or from any place/device with limited or no internet service.  You can only play that which you’ve already downloaded.  (Note the quotes on “stream” – I’m not advocating the use of the term.)

First, I see arguments for mechanisms (such as levies) to pay (compensate) for the circulation of these copies – a statement that is built around “ownership”.  But then, I see a complete flip-flop on that in order to enable some misguided quest to classify “providing copies over the Internet” as some sort of “service” (for which I’m sure a “levy” would continue to be pushed).  And, “providing copies” is really all anyone could hope to accomplish with any action performed on a computer network, because, THAT’S ALL IT DOES!

Send, receive, copy.  That’s pretty well all the actions there are to report.  The Internet allows us to send and receive packets primarily composed of copied data.  Data copied at one end of the wire or the other.  Every network packet has an origin and a specific destination.  A true broadcast only has an origin, and doesn’t have or need a destination.  (That is the nature of broadcasting.)

With a computer network, packets need to be reassembled with other packets to form a product that still depends on other equipment (the destination computer) and processes (the applications on the destination computer applied by a human) to use the product.  Broadcasting is performed independently at the origin (the broadcaster), often without any other dependent processes or equipment, and the product is readily available, regardless of whether or not everyone that can access it is using it.

I could go on and on.

Just because you WANT really badly for something to be true, in order to suit a proposed business model, isn’t enough to actually MAKE it true.  Instead of trying to “rebuild” all the old ideas so that they (appear to) fit the new environment, people should be simply moving on, and building on the realities of the new environment.

“The Internet is not a radio or TV network, and you cannot convert it to either one,” DA emphasises, adding:

” It is not a ‘broadcast medium’ of any kind.  The quicker everyone wraps their heads around this and accepts the fact, the quicker the solutions to the current problems will surface.”

Follow p2pnet on Twitter.

If p2pnet has value for you, help me keep it online. Cheers! And thanks : )

(If you don’t fancy online payments, please email me at p2pnet @ shaw dot ca and I’ll send you my snail-mail address.)

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi

p2pnet – ‘There’s no such thing as streaming’, December 4, 2009

Related Articles

 Enjoyed this? Subscribe to the feed.