Copyright 2005-06 1 ePublishing Business Models in the P2P Era Roger Clarke Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd, Canberra Visiting Professor in eCommerce, Uni. of.

ePublishing Business Models in the P2P Era

Roger ClarkeXamax Consultancy Pty Ltd, Canberra

Visiting Professor in eCommerce, Uni. of Hong Kong Visiting Professor in Cyberspace Law & Policy, U.N.S.W.

Visiting Professor, Dept of Computer Science, ANU

http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/EC/...

P2P-BM-Bergen {.html, .ppt}

Norwegian School of Economics and Business

Administration Bergen – 22 May 2006

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (Uncompressed) decompressorare needed to see this picture.QuickTime™ and a

TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressorare needed to see this picture.

Themes

• What, and why, is P2P? (15)• The Political Economy of P2P and

Music (8)• Can old Business Models survive? (4)• Are new Business Models emerging?

Client-Server Architecturemid-1980s Onwards, esp. mid-1990s

Onwards Internet-Mediated

Serverin

Clientin

Workstation

Clientin

Workstation

Clientin

Workstation

Clientin

Workstation

Clientin

Workstation

Clientin

Workstation

Serverin

Key Developments Since the Mid-1990s

• Workstation Capacity (now rivals Hosts)• Workstation Diversity (vast, expanding)

desktops, laptops, handhelds, smartcards, ...phones, PDAs, cameras, ...carburettors, fridges, ... RFID tags, ...

• Broadband Connectivity (now widespread)This enables dispersion and replicationof devices capable of providing services

• Wireless Connectivity (rapidly increasing)This enables Mobilitywhich means Devices change networkswhich means their IP-addresses change

P2P – The Motivation

• Take advantage of resources that are available at the edges of the Internet

• In order to do so, make each participating program both a Client and a Serverand hence each workstation acts as a host as well, e.g.

• a music playstation can be a mixer too• your PDA can host part of a music catalogue• your PC can host part of a music repository

P2P ArchitectureCooperative Use of Resources at the

Server & Client

inWorkstation

Server & Client

inWorkstation

P2P Differentiated from Client-Server

Functions of a P2P Server

• Manage Comms with other devices• Manage Directories:

• of Objects (e.g. files)• of Services (e.g. currency

conversion, or credit-card payment processes)

• Manage Repositories of Objects• Manage Services

Important Characteristics of P2P

• Collaboration is inherent• Clients can find Servers• Enough Devices with Enough Resources act as

Servers for discovery, and as Servers for services

• ‘Single Points-of-Failure’ / Bottlenecks / Chokepoints are avoided by means of networking dynamics

• 'Free-Riding' / 'Over-Grazing' of the 'Commons' is restrained through software and psych. features

Why P2P Is Attractive• Much-Reduced Dependence on individual devices

and sub-networks (no central servers)• Robustness not Fragility (no single point-of-failure)• Resilience / Quick Recovery (inbuilt redundancy)• Resistance to Denial of Service (D)DOS Attacks

(no central servers)

• Much-Improved Scalability (proportionality)• Improved Servicing of Highly-Peaked Demand

(more devices on the demand-side implies there are also more server-resources)

Technical Concerns about P2P

• Address Volatility: old addresses may not work(hence trust based on repetitive dealings is difficult)

• Absence of Central Control (hence risk of anarchy)• Inadequate Server Participation (over-grazing)• Security Challenges:

• Malware, embedded or infiltrated• Surreptitious Enlistment (at least potential)• Vulnerability to Masquerade• Vulnerability to Pollution Attacks (decoys)

P2P Applications1. Of Long Standing

• ARPANET services generally, from 1969• Message Transfer Agents, since 1972

(SMTP), which perform both server and client functions

• USENET since 1979, now Internet Netnews• Fidonet file/message transfer system, since

1984• Domain Name System (DNS), since 1984,

a collaborative scheme, each server also a client

Recently-Emerged P2P Applications2. Processing Services (cf. Grid

Computing)• Pattern-Searching of Data (e.g. SETI@home)• Data-Space Searching, in particular as part

of a collaborative key-discovery process (e.g. EFF's DES cracking project)

• Numerical Methods, large-scale / brute-force(e.g. fluid dynamics experiments, meteorology)

• Gaming, multi-player, networked• Message Transfer:

• conferencing/chat/instant messaging• cooperative publishing

Recently-Emerged P2P Applications

3. Access to Digital Objects• Software:

• Fixes/Patches• Releases

• Virus Signatures• Announcements, e.g. of

technical info, business info, entertainment ‘info’, sports results, promotional messages, advertisements

• News Reports, by news organisations, and by members of the public

• Emergency Services Data• Backup and Recovery

Data• Games Data, e.g. scenes

and battle configurations• Archived Messages, for

conferencing/chat/IM, and cooperative publishing

• Learning Materials, in various formats

• Entertainment Materials,

in various formats

P2P Networks and Protocols

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer-to-peer#Networks.2C_protocols_and_applications

BitTorrent network: ABC, Azureus, BitAnarch, BitComet, BitSpirit, BitTornado, BitTorrent, BitTorrent++, BitTorrent.Net, G3 Torrent, mlMac, MLDonkey, QTorrent, SimpleBT, Shareaza, TomatoTorrent (Mac OS X) [2], TorrentStormeDonkey network: aMule (Linux, Mac OS X, others), eDonkey2000, eMule, LMule, MindGem, MLDonkey, mlMac, Shareaza, xMule, iMesh Light, ed2k (eDonkey 2000 protocol)FastTrack protocol: giFT, Grokster, iMesh (and its variants stripped of adware including iMesh Light), Kazaa by Sharman Networks (and its variants stripped of adware including: Kazaa Lite, K++, Diet Kaza and CleanKazaa), KCeasy, Mammoth, MLDonkey, mlMac, PoisonedFreenet network: Entropy (on its own network), Freenet, FrostGnutella network: Acquisitionx (Mac OS X), BearShare, BetBug, Cabos, CocoGnut (RISC OS) [3], Gnucleus Grokster, iMesh, gtk-gnutella (Unix), LimeWire (Java), MLDonkey, mlMac, Morpheus, Phex Poisoned, Swapper, Shareaza, XoloXGnutella2 network: Adagio, Caribou, Gnucleus, iMesh, MLDonkey, mlMac, Morpheus, Shareaza, TrustyFilesJoltid PeerEnabler: Altnet, Bullguard, Joltid, Kazaa, Kazaa LiteNapster network: Napigator, OpenNap, WinMX

Applejuice network: Applejuice Client, Avalanche, CAKE network: BirthdayCAKE the reference implementation of CAKE, Direct Connect network: BCDC++, CZDC++, DC++, NeoModus Direct Connect, JavaDC, DCGUI-QT, HyperCast [4], Kad Network (using Kademila protocol): eMule, MindGem, MLDonkey, LUSerNet (using LUSerNet protocol): LUSerNet, MANOLITO/MP2P network: Blubster, Piolet, RockItNet, TVP2P type networks: CoolStreaming, Cybersky-TV, WPNP network: WinMXOther networks: Akamai, Alpine, ANts P2P, Ares Galaxy, Audiogalaxy network, Carracho, Chord, The Circle, Coral[5], Dexter, Diet-Agents, EarthStation 5 network, Evernet, FileTopia, GNUnet, Grapevine, Groove, Hotwire, iFolder[6], konspire2b, Madster/Aimster, MUTE, Napshare, OpenFT (Poisoned), P-Grid[7], IRC @find and XDCC, used by IRC clients including: mIRC and Trillian, JXTA, Peersites [8], MojoNation, Mnet, Overnet network, Peercasting type networks: PeerCast, IceShare - P2P implementation of IceCast, Freecast, Scour, Scribe, Skype, Solipsis a massively multi-participant virtual world, SongSpy network, Soulseek, SPIN, SpinXpress, SquidCam [9], Swarmcast, WASTE, Warez P2P, Winny, AsagumoWeb, OpenExt, Tesla, soribada, fileswapping, XSC

P2P Multi-Protocol Applications

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer-to-peer#Networks.2C_protocols_and_applications

eMule (Edonkey Network, Kad Network) (Microsoft Windows, Linux)aMule (eDonkey network) (Linux, Mac OS X, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, Windows and Solaris Op Environmt)Epicea (Epicea, BitTorrent, Edonkey Network, Overnet, FastTrack, Gnutella) (Microsoft Windows)GiFT (own OpenFT protocol, and with plugins - FastTrack, eDonkey and Gnutella)

and xfactor (uses GiFT) (Mac OS X)Gnucleus (Gnutella, Gnutella2) (Microsoft Windows)Hydranode (eDonkey2000) (Microsoft Windows, Linux, Mac OS X)iMesh (Fasttrack, Edonkey Network, Gnutella, Gnutella2) (Microsoft Windows)Kazaa (FastTrack, Joltid PeerEnabler) (Microsoft Windows)Kazaa Lite (FastTrack, Joltid PeerEnabler) (Microsoft Windows)KCeasy (Gnutella, Ares, giFT)MindGem (Edonkey Network, Kademlia)MLDonkey (BitTorrent, eDonkey, FastTrack, Gnutella, Gnutella2, Kademlia)

(MS Windows, Linux, Mac OS X, Palm OS, Java)mlMac (BitTorrent, eDonkey, FastTrack, Gnutella, Gnutella2)Morpheus (Gnutella, Gnutella2) (Microsoft Windows)Poisoned (FastTrack, Gnutella)Shareaza (BitTorrent, eDonkey, Gnutella, Gnutella2) (Microsoft Windows)WinMX (Napster, WPNP) (Microsoft Windows)XNap (OpenNAP, GiFT, Limewire, Overnet, ICQ, IRC) (Java)Zultrax (Gnutella, ZEPP)

The Predominant Use 1998-2005

• Consumer Sharing of Entertainment Materials:

• recorded music, in MP3 and other formats

• video, as bandwidths increase

• Copyright-owning corporations assert that a large proportion of those file-transfers is being performed in breach of copyright law

• There is evidence to support the assertion

2. The Political Economy of P2P and Music

Copyright-Owner Perspective – 1998-2005

esp. RIAA, increasingly MPAA• Serious Risk of Loss of Control over © Objects

(‘appropriation’ / ‘theft’ / ‘piracy’)

• Serious Risk of ‘Cannibalism’i.e. killing existing high-margin revenue (CDs)

by substituting low-margin revenue (digital)

• Lack of Clarity about ePublishing Business Models

• Exploitability of Market Concentration and Power

Use of Legal Action to Destroy Napster

1999-2002

• Napster was P2P-with-a-chokepointIt relied on a central directory of file-names and host-identities

• Court action by RIAA resulted in closure of the directory, and hence the collapse of the service

• Many P2P applications have some central facility that can be attacked in such a manner, incl. AOL Instant Messenger, ICQ, DNS(Replication does not remove central control)

But ... File-Sharers Are Adaptable

• Renegade file-sharers:• started on Napster (1998-2002)• as it came under attack, they gravitated

to Kazaa/FastTrack (2002-2003)• as that became a target of legal action,

they moved to BitTorrent (2004)• now that’s seen as too centralised, they’ve

moved to eDonkey (esp. in Korea), and Gnutella-2 (esp. in the USA) (2005)

Subsequent Legal Action

• Any critical central service represents a chokepoint.If it’s within jurisdictional reach (and the US is highly aggressive in extending its laws beyond its territories), then it can be attacked through the courts

• Gnutella, FastTrack and many other P2P services decentralise their directories as well as their storage

• Court action intended to preclude such P2P services will need to gain injunctions against production, dissemination and use of the tools and/or protocols

• RIAA v. Kazaa, and RIAA v. Grokster and Morpheus

Challenges for Copyright-Owners

• Identification of Copyright Objects

• Identification of Devices that store those objects and that traffic in them

• Demonstrating:Unauthorised Reproduction, Publication, Adaptation and/or Authorisation

• Identification of the Person Responsible for a breach

• Association of the Person with the Device used to perform the act that constitutes the breach

• Location of the responsible Person• Bringing Suit (e.g. jurisdiction)• Collection and Presentation of

Evidence sufficient to win even civil, let alone criminal cases

• Proposing Interventions that could be awarded by court injunction

Avenues of Copyright-Owner Fightback

• Legal• Lawsuits• Publicity

• Political• Copyright Expansionism• Criminalisation / Cost Transfer

• Technological• Digital Rights Management• Reduction of the Power at the Edges

Digital Rights Management (DRM) Technologies

• Passive• Object-Protection• Tracing ('Watermarking', 'Fingerprinting'

• Active• Notification of Rights• Identification of licensees• Authentication of identities• Destruction / Disablement of the data object• Client-Side Enforcement

(Recording, Prevention, Reporting)

Ways to Reduce the Power at the Edge

• Insert in every consumer-device:• Identifiers• Location and Tracking Technology

• Make workstations ‘diskless’ or ‘thin’• Connect remote devices via asymmetric links,

high-bandwidth downwards, low upwards (SDSL’s 1:1 ratio cf. ADSL and cable’s 2:1, 4:1 and even 8:1)

• Prevent software from being stored, and requireusers to download a copy each time it is used (the Application Service Provider – ASP – model)

• Upgrade / Replace the Internet Protocol Suite

3. Adaptations of Old Business Models

Conventional Proprietary Approaches

Exploit the Monopoly through High Prices

Leverage the Monopoly• Extend the Brand• Cross-Promote Sustain the Monopoly• Lock-in through

Switching Costs• Very Tight Licence-

Terms• Technological

Protections

Lawsuits to stop behaviour and to chill behaviour:

• Commercial Violations

• Single-Purpose Technologies

• Incitement (‘Authorisation’)

• Multiply-Usable Technologies

• Consumption

A More Constructive Approach• Give Away (a little of) your content, and charge for:

• convenient access• repeat access• other-party access• enhanced versions• searchability/navigation• timely access• archival access• ...

• But recognise when to let the market grow itself

Shapiro & Varian – ‘Information Rules’, 1999,Ch. 4 pp. 83-102: ‘Rights Management’

A Sustainable Proprietary Approach• Identify customers’ price

resistance-point (by finding out ‘what the market will bear’)

• Set prices accordingly (and thereby sustain payment morality)

• Discourage and prosecute breaches where the purpose is commercial

• Take no action over breaches by consumers (time-shifting, format-change, even sharing?)

The Evidence• Since 2003, Apple

iTunes charges USD 0.99/track!?

• Copyright-Owners get USD 0.70

• In 2005-06, they’re asking for:

• more money• more

flexibility

Publishers Need to Re-Discover Confidence in Their Ability to Value-

• Conception• Pre-Promotion• Expression• Copyright Clearance• Preparation for

Publication• Quality Assurance• Promotion and

Marketing• Logistics• Payment Collection

Contingent Liabilities, in any jurisdiction whose courts deem publication to have occurred:

• Copyright Infringement• Breach of Confidence• Defamation• Negligence• Negligent Misstatement• Misleading or Deceptive Conduct• Contempt of Court• Breach of Laws relating to:

• Censorship• Discrimination• Racial Vilification• Harassment• Privacy

4. Beyond Evolutionary Business Models

A ‘Business Models on the Web’ Taxonomy

Rappa (digitalenterprise.org/models/models.html)• Brokerage

Marketplace Exchange, Buy/Sell Fulfilment, Demand Collection, Auction Broker, Transaction Broker, Distributor, Search Agent, Virtual Marketplace

• AdvertisingPortal, Classifieds, User Registration, Query-based Paid Placement, Contextual Advertising, Content-Targeted Advertising, Intromercials, Ultramercials

• InfomediaryAdvertising Networks, Audience Measurement Services, Incentive Marketing, Metamediary

• MerchantVirtual, Catalogue, Click&Mortar, Bit Vendor

• Manufacturer (Direct)Purchase, Lease, Licence, Brand Integrated Content

• AffiliateBanner Exchange, Pay-per-click, Revenue Sharing

• CommunityOpen Source, Public Broadcasting, Knowledge Networks

• SubscriptionContent Services, Person-to-Person Networking Services, Trust Services, Internet Services Providers

• UtilityMetered Usage, Metered Subscriptions

The Interpretation Adopted in this Analysis

An eBusiness Model is an Answer to the Question:

Who Pays?

For What?

To Whom?

And Why?

Internet-Era Business Models Lessons from Open Source and

Content Who Pays? For What? TO WHOM? And

Why?Direct Intermediated

• Retailer• Franchisee• Value-Adder• Bundler• Transaction

Aggregator

Internet-Era Business ModelsLessons from Open Source and

ContentWHO PAYS? For What? To Whom? And

Why?• Providers

• Third Parties

• Customers:• for the Good/Service• for Complementary

Goods/Services• ‘A Fairy Godmother’

Open Content Business ModelsWho Pays? A Fairy Godmother

• Subsidy / PatronageFunding from ‘external’ sourcesDeprecated as a gift, unless ‘market failure’

• Cross-SubsidyFunding from ‘internal’ sourcesDeprecated (but less so), because it’s ‘distortive’

• Portfolio ApproachMutual Cross-Funding from ‘internal’ sourcesHow business works – ‘cash cows’ fund the rest

Content Who Pays? FOR WHAT? To Whom? And

Why?• Goods & Services• Value-Added

Goods & Services• Complementary

Goods & Services

• Data• Information• Expertise / Knowledge

• An Idea in Good Standing

• Timeliness• Quality

Revenue from Complementary Services

• Installation• Infrastructure• Customisation• Education and Training• Consultancy

• Network-building• Search for Network

Effects• Viral Marketing

‘The After-Market’• Accessories• Upgrades• Enhancements• Extensions• Replacements

Lessons about Sales Revenue

• Direct, Immediate Reciprocity• Volume Sales at low rates per access or

copy• Differentiated Services for higher prices

(taking into account short ‘shelf-life’)

• Indirect and/or Deferred Reciprocity• Advertising• ‘Shareware’ – use now, maybe pay later

(esp. for breakthrough by new artists, genres)

Content Who Pays? For What? To Whom? AND

The Negative• Resource Control• Switching Costs

(capture, lock-in)• Grief Avoidance

The Positive• Perceived Value

(‘the genuine article’)• Cost Advantage

(incl. Time)• Quality Advantage

(incl. accuracy, security, timeliness, completeness, complementary services)

Open Content Business ModelsStrategic Opportunities

1. Reputation

• Reputation-Establishment, -Building, -Maintenance

• Collateral, and More ...• Papers• Postings• Blogs

• Hence Brand, Sub-Brand Value

Open Content Business ModelsStrategic Opportunities

2. Market Building• ‘Freeware’ – use it now, become habituated, and

buy something later – to build a future market

• Engage Toffler’s ‘prosumers’, who will provide:• feedback to enable quality assurance• feedback to enable product refinement

(market research and focus groups for free) • enhancements and extensions

3. Customer Engagement

Strategic Opportunities – 4. Costs

• Cost-Reduction: Reproduction and Transmission are hugely less expensive for Digital cf. Physical Media

• Cost-Transfer to Consumers:• Product Conception (‘prosumer participation’)• Pre-Promotion (e.g. fan-zines)• Production (e.g. prosumer mixing)• Promotion (e.g. ‘viral marketing’)• Distribution (P2P shifts transmission costs

away from the corporate server, to theoperators of participating client-servers)

Themes

• What, and why, is P2P?• The Political Economy of P2P and

Music• Can old Business Models survive?• Are new Business Models emerging?

Roger ClarkeXamax Consultancy Pty Ltd, Canberra

Visiting Professor in eCommerce, Uni. of Hong Kong Visiting Professor in Cyberspace Law & Policy, U.N.S.W.

Visiting Professor, Dept of Computer Science, ANU

http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/EC/...

P2P-BM-Bergen {.html, .ppt}

Norwegian School of Economics and Business

Administration Bergen – 22 May 2006

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (Uncompressed) decompressorare needed to see this picture.QuickTime™ and a

TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressorare needed to see this picture.

Categories of P2P

Pure• Functions, objects and the catalogue are distributed across all

nodes. No one node is critical to the network's operation. Control is very difficult – USENET, Fidonet, Freenet, Gnutella-1

Compromised / ‘Two-Tier’• Functions and objects are highly, not fully distributed• The index is highly, not fully distributed – FastTrack, Gnutella-2

Hybrid• Functions and objects are fully or highly distributed• The index is not, e.g. it may be hierarchical (the DNS),

centralised (Napster), or independent from the repository (BitTorrent)

Indicators of Scale• In Sep 2002, 31m Americans used P2P to share music• In 2003, FastTrack peaked at 5.5m users and 60% of

the market, then fell due to publicity about lawsuits• By 2004:

• P2P data volumes estimated at 10% of traffic (Web 50%, all email incl. spam 3%)

• simultaneous users c. 10m• c. 50 m searches per day• FastTrack still had 4m users (40% of market)

and enabled access to 2m files, >10 terabytes• 50% of files audio, 25% video, 25% other

Who To Sue?Protocol – Owners? Originators?

Publishers?

• BitTorrent (BitTorrent Inc. and/or Bram Cohen)

• eDonkey (“FileHash.com

is a search engine”. Pardon? Meta Machine Inc., NY?)

• FastTrack (Niklas Zennström?, Janus Friis?,

Jaan Tallinn?, and/or Consumer Empowerment?)

• Freenet (Ian Clarke?, Matthew Toseland?, the Freenet Project?)

• Gnutella (Justin Frankel?, Tom Pepper?, Nullsoft?, the Gnutella community?)

• Gnutella 2 (Michael Stokes?, the Gnutella2 community?)

• Joltid (Niklas Zennström and/or Joltid, Stockholm)

• Skype (Niklas Zennström and/or Global Index)

Who To Sue? Providers of Applications/Client-Server

Packages?• Kazaa Media Desktop

(Sharman, Vanuatu and/or Altnet, Sherman Oaks CA and/or Nikki Hemmings and/or Kevin Bermeister and/or Anthony Rose)

• Grokster (Grokster Ltd, Nevis in the Caribbean)

• Morpheus (StreamCast, formerly MusicCity)

• Kazaa Lite (Sharman??)• iMesh (Elon Oren of

Israel?)• MLDonkey (Fabrice Le

Fessant?, INRIA?)• WinMX (Frontcode

Technologies?)

Broader Strategic Impacts

The I.T. Industry

• IAPs – The Nature of Internet ConnectionsDemand for Relative Bandwidth Symmetrye.g. SDSL not ADSL

• ISPs – ServersDemand switches from central servers to dispersed devices at the edge of the net

Society

• Non-Commercial LeaksWhistleblowingHypocrisy Revelation Political StatementsReligious Tracts...

• NewsNo longer controlled by Media, Government, and Big Business

Business and Government Concerns about P2P

• Address Volatility, plus Inadequate Identifiers, hence:

• difficulty in identifying and locating users• reduction in user accountability

• Absence of Central Control, hence:• reduction in technology-provider accountability• no single point for a denial of service attack

• Challenge to Authority:• of Copyright-Owners over Users• of Censors over Users

P2P Architecture’sResilience and Robustness

A Direct Implication

• The removal of a device as a result of the execution of a warrant or injunction is indistinguishable from other forms of denial of service attack

• In John Gilmore’s words:

“The Internet treats censorshipas damage, and routes around it”

• We live in a quicksilver technological environment with courts ill-suited to fix the flow of internet innovation

• The introduction of new technology is always disruptive to old markets, and particularly to those copyright owners whose works are sold through well established distribution mechanisms

• Yet, history has shown that time and market forces often provide equilibrium in balancing interests, whether the new technology be:

• a player piano• a copier• a tape recorder• a video recorder• a personal computer• a karaoke machine, or • an MP3 player

U.S. Court of Appeals 9th CircuitAugust 19, 2004MGM v. GroksterFull Court DecisionOpinion by Sidney R. Thomas

• Thus, it is prudent for courts to exercise caution before restructuring liability theories for the purpose of addressing specific market abuses, despite their apparent present magnitude

4. Criteria for Selecting Between‘Modern Proprietary’ and ‘Open,

Sharing’‘Modern Proprietary’ is a tenable model, provided that a number of conditions hold:

• a pure for-profit corporation, with shareholders, who are expecting ROI

• customers expect to pay full price• the organisation has unique competency,

market leadership and/or high reputation• the materials require significant

investment

5. Pre-Conditions for Any IP Business

Materials• Productisation

• Defined • Discrete• Deliverable • Dependable

• Appropriate Copyright Licence

Open Content Licensing Choices• Ownership

• Exclusivity• Sub-Licensing

• Integrity Protection• Entirety• Copyright Notice

• Reproduction Control• Permission• Use(s) / User(s)

• Republishing Control• Permission• Use(s) / User(s)• Format(s)/Media• Incorporation• Tech. Protections

• Adaptation Control• Permission• Review• Distinguishability• Copyright Vesting

• Usage• Territory • Purposes• Person-Types• Fields of Endeavour

• Liability Management• Warranties• Indemnities

• Pricing• One-Time Fees• Repetitive Fees

Categories of Creative Commons Licence

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/, .../license/

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

Categories of AEShareNet Licence

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressorare needed to see this picture.

INSTANT LICENCES

End-user – E

MEDIATED LICENCES

Commercial – C

Free for Education – FFE

Unlocked Content – U

Share and Return – S

Preserve Integrity – P

Copyright 2005-06 1 ePublishing Business Models in the P2P Era Roger Clarke Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd, Canberra Visiting Professor in eCommerce, Uni. of.

p2p server

services slide

p2p networks

p2p applications

client slide

edge slide

cooperative publishing

music repository slide

Documents

Copyright 1987-2009 1 Roger Clarke Xamax Consultancy,...

Copyright, 2000-2003 1 Open Source Software and Open Content...

Copyright 2005 1 P2P Technologys Strategic & Policy...

Copyright 2005 1 REALITIES of CYBORGISATION Roger Clarke...

Copyright 2005 1 Trust Among Mobile Business Partners Roger....

Copyright 2013-15 1 COMP 2410 – Networked Information...

Copyright, 1995-2006 1 Information Security Roger Clarke,...

Copyright 2000-12 1 COMP 3410 – I.T. in Electronic...

Copyright, 2000-04 1 Biometric Insecurity Roger Clarke Xamax...

Copyright 1988-2006 1 Digital Privacy Roger Clarke, Xamax...

Copyright 2013 1 The Supervisor's Dilemma Roger Clarke Xamax...

Copyright 2013-15 1 COMP 2410 – Networked Information...

Copyright 2005-06 1 An Open and Closed Case: PrePrints and.....

Copyright, 1999-2002 1 Internet-Induced Constraints on...

Copyright 1988-2006 1 National Identity Cards? Bust the Myth...

Copyright, 1995-2002 1 Invitation to Research CASE STUDY:...