must and therefore will fix this problem. Private
property is too valuable an economic tool. - Bob
Metcalfe, Polaris Venture Partners, Ethernet
nonymity is not something we'll
continue to treasure. In order to create trust, we need
to know something about one another - we need to have
persistent (even if pseudonymous) identities. These
identities don't have to come from a central source
- indeed, there should be competition for the provision
of authenticating information, and lots of nuance with
respect to how much identifying information is needed
for a particular communication. This sort of thing must
not be government mandated. Private ordering will map
much more tightly to the groups it serves. So,
anonymity may cease to be possible, but pseudoanonymity
will thrive. - Susan Crawford, policy analyst for
Center for Democracy & Technology and a fellow with
the Yale Law School Information Society
here will always be independent software
developers and hackers who are capable of circumventing
any technological obstacles to file-sharing. The only
question is whether the content-creation industries
will be able to develop product offerings and business
models that are more tempting that file sharing. -
Alexandra Samuel, Harvard University/Cairns Project
(New York Law School)
t's hard to take something away that
you already have. I do have a problem with the wording
of the prediction though. I doubt China's internet
users are going to have that type of "Digital
Freedom," and there are a lot of people in China.
The concept of digital freedoms is closely aligned with
other more narrowly defined concepts such as freedom of
speech or freedom of the press. However, digital
freedom is a much broader construct. - Robert Lunn,
FocalPoint Analytics/USC Digital Future
ompanies will develop elaborate means
for protecting products and governments will support
them. In addition, over time - longer perhaps than the
10 years asked about in the survey - people will begin
to see the Internet as part of society and not as a
wild territory beyond civilization where anything goes.
As that change of view occurs, people will begin to
obey rules that will reduce substantially the theft
that goes on now. - Stanley Chodorow, University of
California - San Diego/Council on Library and
agree. There is a strong movement
toward open-source access to information and
publications on the Internet. I regularly share my
publications electronically and download others'
publications. We still have to iron out some of the
copyright laws, but I am confident the trend toward
greater access to digital products, both scientific and
artistic, will continue to grow. - Gary Kreps,
George Mason University/National Cancer
igital rights management v. piracy (or,
alternative phrasing: digital rights management v.
public perception of "fair use"): It's a
technology spiral, much like spammers v. spam blockers.
What one side protects the other will crack; so the
battle will continue, at least for a minority of users.
But, for the majority of people, the development and
expansion of services such as iTunes and new
innovations in multimedia distribution will provide
satisfactory solutions. - Rose Vines, freelance
tech journalist for Australian PC User and Sydney
t is equally possible that intellectual
property will be over-protected and fair-use rights
will have eroded. - Peter Levine, University of
ld digital projects, yes. The new stuff
will be protected better by virtue of its tremendous
size. HiDef TV, for example, cannot be copied with
current set-top boxes. - Douglas Rushkoff,
ost material will be easily copied, but
some material will be locked up. Most likely, it will
be possible, but it will also be possible to get
caught, and the penalties will be drastic. Hopefully,
though, most people will find it easier to simply pay
for copying fees, rather than trying to get something
for nothing. - Simson Garfinkel, Sandstorm
think technical impediments, such as
digital-rights-management systems, will prevent this.
- Jonathan Band, partner, Morrison & Foerster
LLP (law firm)
he prediction does not say if they will
do so legally. I expect that business models will be
worked out so that there is plentiful copying and
it's all legal. - Peter Denning, Naval
Postgraduate School, Monterey, Calif., columnist
Communications of the ACM
his is not even true in 2004. Use of
anonymous p2p networks is not as easy and as second
nature to the average user as one may think. Once we
study online skills in more detail we will realize that
the average user knows less than academics/journalists
tend to assume. So even if, technically speaking, it is
possible to distribute digital products easily, many
users likely don't know how to do it. The fears
about copying due to lawsuits by RIAA and the like may
become increasingly more widespread and may limit
people's p2p activities even more. - Eszter
Hargittai, Northwestern University
n 2014, although users may not
specifically use anonymous peer-to-peer networks in the
sense of Napster, the widespread free trade of digital
products will re-emerge after an aggressive half-decade
of failed attempts at copy protection by commercial
interests. - Dan Ness, MetaFacts
he anonymous peer-to-peer networks will
only survive so long as the industry refuses to offer
consumers a viable alternative. The most successful
industry in every technology cycle is the adult film
industry. Digital media industry business strategists
need to learn lessons from these thinkers, who continue
to drive technology innovation as a way to maximize
profits. - Elle Tracy, The Results Group
f course, hackers, hacktivists and rogue
programmers will always find a way to get round
DRM-style measures of RIAA and their equivalents and
share these methods freely. It will become easier to be
anonymous on P2P networks. - Bornali Halder, World
opying and distributing will still
occur. Licensing and copyrights will evolve to better
address this reality. Corporations will come to realize
to value of getting products in people's hands
before they make a purchase. Demos and trialware will
proliferate, as will "pay as you go" models.
- Lyle Kantrovich, Cargill/the blog Croc o'
do believe that all content once
digitalized should be freely distributed to everybody.
Information and culture to everyone, please. -
Antonio Coelho, Globo.com
t will depend on what type of product.
Intellectual property will still have an owner.
Owner's of content will have the ability to use
sophisticated digital rights management tools (DRM) to
determine who has the access to the content and who
does not. However, where rights are granted, people
will be able to distribute the content freely and
easily through P2P and other networks. - Marty
Shindler, the Shindler Perspective Inc.
his is one of the value-added features
of the Internet. It cannot be defeated through software
or DRM, and I have never understood why they try. -
Mike Weisman, Reclaim the Media
n another 10 years, I would hope that
consumers and the creators of digital products will
arrive at a new social contract that eliminates
anonymous P2P networks, makes digital products easily
accessible and affordable for consumers, and rewards
creators for their work. - Andris Straumanis,
University of Wisconsin at Eau Claire
nti-piracy measures have been largely
ineffective. Organizations like the MPAA and RIAA need
to embrace new technology and figure out how to benefit
from it rather than denouncing it as evil. There were
predictions that the VCR would destroy Hollywood years
ago but it did the exact opposite. You cannot stop
technology. If you want to succeed, you will have to
embrace it and make it work for you. - Jay Buys,
nd the entertainment industry will at
last have moved to the XXIst century, from a product
economy to a service economy, thereby making more money
than ever while contributing a little bit more (but not
much more) to cultural inventiveness and diversity.
- Daniel Kaplan, FING (France's Next-Generation
owever, if barriers are erected high
enough or the cost of alternatives is low enough, the
scale of use could drop to just those willing to do the
work to get around them. In the end, information wants
to be free, and no-one can prevent a copy being made of
a book, painting, song, or movie. - William
f, by ''freely,'' you
mean at no charge, I disagree. Too many people have an
investment in intellectual property, for any of the
major governments of the world to end that. As long as
there are copyright, patent, and related laws, many of
the owners of intellectual property will want to be
compensated for its use even though information wants
to be free! - Elliot Chabot, House Information
Resources (House of Representatives)
And the following are from predictors who
chose to remain anonymous: [Workplaces of respondents
whose reactions are listed below include AOL, Evident
Marketing, the Future of Music Coalition, the Open
Society Institute, MIT, RAND, Microsoft, Ventureramp,
Jupitermedia, the University of Pennsylvania,
Internet2, the University of Washington, the National
Center for Technology and Law, University of Texas at
Austin, Media General, University of Maryland, Rutgers
University, Michigan State University, FCC, National
Public Radio, University of California at Berkeley,
Gartner, Fleishman-Hillard, North Carolina State
University, Hewlett Packard, the Center for Rural
Strategies, Albany Law School, Idaho National
Engineering Laboratory and others.]
Again, this comes down to decentralization or
centralization. If security measures increasingly lead
to centralization and lack of privacy protections on
the web are continuously backed up by increased legal
reach through copyright and patent law. I could easily
see this as the Prohibition of our century.
Decentralized licensing leads to a model where
information can circulate, creators can be compensated
and existing bottlenecks of control disappear.
The current copyright battles remind me of prohibition
and its eventual overturn. When you have five billion
people wanting to imbibe information in a certain way
... it's the providers that have to change their
methods and we are already seeing this occur in news,
music, software, etc. They will put up an initial fight
but by 2014 the battle will be won and an accommodation
Copyright and intellectual property issues will tie
this up for decades in the developed world, where most
of the valuable content originates. Until there are
mechanisms for revenue sharing that support peer to
peer transfer this won't happen. I don't think
it will until we restructure our economic and legal
system, which certainly won't happen by 2014.
We have all ready seen some test marketing of digital
books and it has not gone very well. It seems consumers
actually like to sit with a good book and turn the
pages. This will be one of those marketing issues that
consumers decide. Music is another story. We have been
very wary about changing the copyright system. The
major blockade to the distribution of digital products
is making that system work in some easy, legal way
where gaining the rights does not cost so much that it
prices the digital product out of the market. We are
not there yet.
I am pretty certain that technologies that enable what
Grant McCracken calls a "culture of
commotion" will outstretch legal attempts to
regulate such circulation, but it is going to be an
Peer-to-peer networking is here to stay. What will
have to change is the transactional business.
Peer-to-peer networking is a disruptive technology that
can only be addressed through innovative means.
I hope that this prediction turns out to be true, but
I doubt it will be. There will be increasing pressure
to "lock down" digital products and to
eliminate anonymity. That's what I expect.
With micro-payments starting to make more sense,
everything will be plug and play.
Encryption technology will outpace the technology of
I don't believe peer-to-peer will proliferate, as
security and privacy issues increase the downside for
consumers of unstructured and illegal sharing.
We're headed toward digital prohibition.
We will see two models of internet use emerging. One
will be the commercial internet, where information is
paid for. The other is the open source internet that is
more artistic and chaotic in a positive way. We will
come to associate the commercial internet with
"credible" and the open source internet with
"you never know what'y'a gonna get"
though these perceptions will not necessarily align
with the actual status.
Unfortunately, I think the "wild west" days
are over for some forms of anonymous sharing.
The question is appealing, but I challenge it because
I think there will be a splitting of behavior. I think
that for much content such as movies and popular music,
that there will be a shift to on-line sales and a
lessening of the appeal of illicit sharing. I agree
that the tools will be available to the vast majority
of users, but I think as legal downloading gets easy
and if competition drives the price down, this market
will grow. But peer-to-peer may be used for other
classes of digital information.
Peer-to-peer networks, while largely focused on
illegal activities, are inherently hard to shut down.
Recent court rulings have provided the legal cover they
need to keep going.
The prediction mixes two concepts, "digital
products" and "free replication." There
are really two kinds of products: those that are placed
deliberately in the public domain, and those over which
authors want to retain control. I believe that P2P
networks will evolve so that public domain works are
easily replicated, while controlled products can only
be copied in a controlled manner.
IP interests will continue to push for defensible
limitations on redistribution.
The advent of digital rights management technologies
imbedded in digital products, combined with the rise of
identity-based "authentication" for network
access will make it harder to copy and distribute, but
Much content will still be freely available, but some
will not. Workable DRM systems will protect the
I think these are impossible to stop and so something
must be done to create a flexible
It's human nature to do this, so yes. Peer to peer
networks are pretty much the same as tape trading, just
easier and with vast availability. We in the music
industry have to get off our high horse and make it
more desirable to purchase media vs. trading it. iTunes
has done a great job, in my opinion, of making the
online acquisition of music a good experience for the
user and this needs to be encouraged. In this model, we
could actually save money on manufacturing and
distribution costs if the volume was comparable.
There's no stopping p2p.
Digital file sharers will always stay one step ahead
of programmers, regardless of how advanced digital
copyright protections become.
New systems will be designed all the time to
circumvent IP safeguards.
As much as any individual might want to see
'information be free', the rights of
intellectual property holders will not be changed
within the next 10 years. Current trends lead me to
think that although there will always be renegade
systems, the vast majority of individual users will be
constrained by technological devices/software from
copying and distributing legally protected materials
Media is the new exchange economy. It is fungible.
What is copy? Digital sampling. Media constructivism,
is a form of expression. Remixing, sampling, recasting.
See redvsblue.com and spooky's new KKK remix. DJVJ,
Control Room, we are all producers and consumers of
media. We need to get out of our own way. PPV is the
model. Open up the channels. Cable, utilities and
telecom are holding us back. The net's new form is
blending realities and structures of physical, virtual
and biological. Web pages and bookmarks are a rearview
mirror. Cyberspace has evolved to a new state. And most
can not see it because they are not part of the
cognitive tribe. We must pierce the veil of media as
artifact and understand it as a form of expression to
ever be able to postulate where it will be much less
where it is or what form it takes as a verb. As
performance art. As expression.
Like spam, it's an arms race. The means may
change, DRM may change, but file sharing is here to
There will be pirate undergrounds, but not used by
''the vast majority.'' Laws and
prosecution will continue to dampen the activity of
some. Copy protection at the software and hardware
level will limit the activity for others. This is an
area of concern of mine. The goverment continues to
feed the corporate money machines via copyright
extensions and heavy-handed restrictions. I fear
you'll have to pay just to visit a
The ''vast majority'' of Internet
users don't do this now, and won't, even in the
next 10 years. They may be able, but the question
implies that ability equates to action, which is not
the case. And many users don't find current P2P
networks at all easy. In the next 10 years the
intellectual property owners will devise several means
to deliver content people are willing to pay for - to
avoid litigation, because it's better than the free
version, because it's safer than the free version,
because it's easier than the free version, etc.,
etc. etc. By 2014 we'll see a variety of models
ranging from piracy to luxury premium
''Freely'' challenges too many
entrenched ideas about intellectual property. I hope we
find ways of lowering costs and increasing the
flexibility of sharing, but digital property does have
value, and we need to find ways of appropriately
compensating their owners.
Other legal forms of distribution like podcasting will
make this statement appear as dated as Edsel.
They will not need peer-to-peer networks to copy and
distribute: they will set up their own file-sharing,
and they will crack copy protection.
I think - no, I hope - that there is an
intellectual-property commons that opens access to a
much wider range of information and resources. If it
comes to be, then it may not be
''anonymous'' peer-to-peer networks.
Instead, p2p networks may be visible and supported by
The culture industry is spending millions of dollars
on legal and technological protection for their
products and they are trying to destroy free speech,
educational use, and first sale. They have the time and
might to sue users, one by one, and are doing it.
Congress is lax and does not understand the
This practice has already been highly curtailed. Media
giants will find ways to get their pound of flesh for
the use of their products. The question I have is
whether independent artists and other creators will
find a way to get some kind of return from their work
that is distributed via the Net.
Digital copyright law will adapt to technological and
networking advances, and keep the current status quo.
Some people will copy and distribute; the majority
Ad supported products/content and micropayments will
eliminate many of the copyright infringement issues not
related to music or movies. The entertainment industry
will continue to be attacked for its retrograde
policies when it comes to licensing non-commercial use
of content. Use of cryptography will only serve to
alienate customers and drive up the payoff from
Peer-to-peer networks will be replaced with
inexpensive server farms, and high-speed networks will
allow users to connect to content they want without the
insecurity of peer-to-peer invasion. The spyware-rich
software that enabled peer-to-peer also increased
skepticism about their reliability.
The smart companies will work with this need for free
information, not against it.
The genie is out of the bottle as much as the content
controllers would like to stuff it back. Soon the days
of the middleman getting extremely rich off of the work
of other will be gone.
Cartels that control the entertainment media will
continue their relentless attack on consumer rights,
and I expect them to be successful in driving
file-sharing activities underground. The majority may
still be able to copy and distribute digital products,
but not easily and freely.