Peer-to-Peer Content Distribution and Over-The-Top TV: An Analysis of Value Networks

  • Jorn De BoeverEmail author
  • Dirk De Grooff


The convergence of Internet and TV, i.e., the Over-The-Top TV (OTT TV) paradigm, created opportunities for P2P content distribution as these systems reduce bandwidth expenses for media companies. This resulted in the arrival of legal, commercial P2P systems which increases the importance of studying economic aspects of these business operations. This chapter examines the value networks of three cases (Kontiki, Zattoo and bittorrent) in order to compare how different actors position and distinguish themselves from competitors by creating value in different ways. The value networks of legal systems have different compositions depending on their market orientation – Business-to-Business (B2B) and/or Businessto- Consumer (B2C). In addition, legal systems differ from illegal systems as legal companies are not inclined to grant control to users, whereas users havemost control in value networks of illegal, self-organizing file sharing communities. In conclusion, the OTT TV paradigm made P2P technology a partner for the media industry rather than an enemy. However, we argue that the lack of control granted to users will remain a seed-bed for the success of illegal P2P file sharing communities.


Content Distribution Content Provider Digital Right Management Content Owner Revenue Model 
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.
    Ali R (6 May 2008) VeriSign’s Sale of Kontiki: $1 Million plus Stake in New Business. Available via Cited 6 Aug 2008
  2. 2.
    Anderson N (13 Aug 2007) ISPs to BBC: We will throttle iPlayer unless you pay up. Available via Ars Technica. Cited 22 May 2008
  3. 3.
    Ballon P (2006) Business Modeling for ICT Products and Services: Conceptual Framework and Design Criteria [Report]. In: Limonard S (ed) Integrated Methodological Framework: Investigating Business Models for Broadband Services – the Case of iDTV, TNO, DelftGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ballon P (2007) Business Modeling as the Configuration of Control and Value. Paper presented at the 20th Bled eConference, Bled, Slovenia.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Benkler Y (2006) The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom. Yale University Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    De Boever J (2008a) Value Networks of P2P TV: An Analysis of Actors and their Roles. In: Mellouk A, Bi J, Ortiz G, Chiu DKW, Popescu M (eds) Proceedings of The Third International Conference on Internet and Web Applications and Services, IEEE Computer Society, Los AlamitosGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    De Boever J (2008b) Peer-to-Peer Content Distribution: An Analysis of the Internal and External Potentials and Obstacles. In: Cordeiro J, Filipe J, Hammoudi S (eds) Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Web Information Systems and Technologies, INSTICC, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Einhorn MA, Rosenblatt B (2005) Peer-to-Peer Networking and Digital Rights Management: How Market Tools Can Solve Copyright Problems. Policy Anal 534:1–22Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    European Interactive Advertising Association (2007) EIAA Mediascope Europe Study. Available via EIAA.\Flaunch%2Epdf. Cited 5 Jun 2008
  10. 10.
    Fetscherin M (2006) Digital Rights Management: What the Consumer Wants. J Digit Asset Management 2(3/4):143–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gehrke N, Schumann M (2003) Constructing Electronic Marketplaces using Peer-to-Peer Technology. Paper presented at the 36th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Big Island, HawaiiGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Haßlinger G (2005) ISP Platforms Under a Heavy Peer-to-Peer Workload. In: Steinmetz R, Wehrle K (eds) Peer-to-Peer Systems and Applications, Springer-Verlag, Berlin HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hummel T, Muhle S, Schoder D (2005) Business Applications and Revenue Models. In: Steinmetz R, Wehrle K (eds) Peer-to-Peer Systems and Applications, Springer-Verlag, Berlin HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    IDC (2007) The Expanding Digital Universe: A Forecast of Worldwide Information Growth Through 2010. Available via EMC. Cited 4 Apr 2007
  15. 15.
    Lechner U, Hummel J (2002) Business Models and System Architectures of Virtual Communities: From a Sociological Phenomenon to Peer-to-Peer Architectures. Int J Electron Comm 6(3):41–53Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lechner U, Hummel J, Eikemeier C (2003) Business Model Peer-to-Peer – Is there a future beyond file sharing? Paper presented at the First Conference on Design, Analysis and Simulation of Distributed Systems, Orlando, FloridaGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Liebau NC, Pussep K, Graffi K, Kaune S, Beyer A, Jahn E, Steinmetz R (2007) The Impact of the P2P Paradigm on the New Media Industries. Paper presented at the Americas’ Conference on Information Systems, Keystone, Colorado, USAGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    MacInnes I, Hwang J (2003) Business Models for Peer to Peer Initiatives. Paper presented at the 16th Bled Electronic Commerce Conference, Bled, SloveniaGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Norton WB (2007) Video Internet: The Next Wave of Massive Disruption to the U.S. Peering Ecosystem. Paper presented at the Stanford Networking Seminar, Stanford, USAGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Osterwalder A, Pigneur Y (2002) An e-Business Model Ontology for Modeling e-Business. Paper presented at the 15th Bled Electronic Commerce Conference – e-Reality: Constructing the e-Economy, Bled, Slovenia.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Osterwalder A, Pigneur Y, Tucci CL (2005) Clarifying Business Models: Origins, Present, and Future of the Concept. Commun AIS 16(2005):1–25Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Picard RG (2000) Changing Business Models of Online Content Services: Their Implications for Multimedia and Other Content Producers. Int J Media Management 2(2):60–68Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Porter ME (2001) Strategy and the Internet. Harvard Bus Rev 79(3):62–78Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rodriguez P, Tan S-M, Gkantsidis C (2006) On the Feasability of Commercial, Legal P2P Content Distribution. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Commun Rev 36(1):75–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rupp P, Estier T (2003) A Model for a Better Understanding of the Digital Distribution of Music in a Peer-to-Peer Environment. Paper presented at the 36th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Island of Hawaii, (Big Island), HawaiiGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Slocombe, M (16 May 2005) BBC iMP: Public Trial For 5,000 in September. Available via Digital Lifestyles. 16 May 2005
  27. 27.
    TimeWarner (14 Nov 2005) Is First Major Portal to Deliver DVD Quality Videos (Press Release). Available via TimeWarner.,20812,1129718,00.html. Cited 10 Oct 2007
  28. 28.
    Timmers P (1998) Business Models for Electronic Markets. Electron Markets J 8(2):3–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Van Audenhove L, Delaere S, Ballon P, Van Bossuyt M (2007) Changing Content Industry Structures: The Case of Digital Newspapers on ePaper Mobile Devices. Paper presented at the 11th International Conference on Electronic Publishing, Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Werbach, K (2008) The Implications of Video Peer-to-Peer on Network Usage. In: Noam EM, Pupillo LM (eds) Peer-to-Peer Video: The Economics, Policy, and Culture of Today’s New Mass Medium, Springer Science + Business Media, LLC, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wierzbicki A, Goworek K (2005) Peer-to-Peer Direct Sales. Paper presented at the Fifth IEEE International Conference on Peer-to-Peer Computing, Konstanz, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Xie H, Krishnamurthy A, Silberschatz A, Yang YR (2007) P4P: Explicit Communications for Cooperative Control Between P2P and Network Providers. P4PWG Whitepaper. Available via DCIA. Cited 5 Nov 2008
  33. 33.
    Xie H, Yang YR, Krishnamurthy A, Liu Y, Silberschatz, A (2008) P4P: Provider Portal for Applications. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Commun Rev 38(4):351–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for UX Research / IBBT, K.U.LeuvenLeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations