Slashdot Mirror
New File Sharing Networks
An anonymous reader sends in: "Most readers of slashdot have been following the exploits of the RIAA and their attempts to shut down Napster, KaZaA, Morpheus, etc. In response, it appears some live music fans have taken things into their own hands and started new file sharing networks made exclusively for trading live recordings of bands that allow that sort of thing. The main player, RNL has reached version 1.0, features a distributed architecture, supports linux, and is even GPLed. Another peice of interesting software is Furthur. Though still only in beta, Furthur has cool features like allowing a user to piggy-back another user's download to reduce the load of the uploader."
Haven't these guys heard of etree.org? Etree has been around for a few years, and exists to allow the trading of lossless recordings of live shows from bands who allow trading.
Its not p2p, mostly ftps and burn + post cds, but it has been there for some time. Loads of good shows too :)
This post will enter the public domain 70 years after my death, unless Disney buys another extension.
Though I am no byte-level expert, this isn't really anything new or its misleading. What this seems to refer to is how the traffic would be routed. IE, if "Joe" has live Pearl Jam and 3 people request it, the network is smart enough to take bytes from people farther along in the download. Even then, thats more load-balancing.
Otherwise, this is no different from any other P2P filesharing mechanism where files naturally propagte from a source and are eventually downloaded from other nodes. Still, if your network were *smart* enough to resend packets as little as possible (IE, if the network would multicast concurrently-requested packets) then this would be leaps-and-bounds above current P2P.
Furthur is being developed by some of the etree.org crew. Etree.org has an outstanding track record so far. The group trades only "taper-friendly" recordings, and if anyone asks for a recording that isn't taper-friendly, members are sure to jump on the request and tell him to look elsewhere (some are more polite than others).
/.) would be chaos. However, the group is pretty well self-policed.
You'd think that a group of over 13,000 (that was last I heard a while ago, and with the second related story in a week, there are sure to be many more directed from
The fact is, if someone wants an illegal bootleg, there are plenty of other places to look rather than the etree.org lists. Rather than get flamed and endanger etree.org, those people just go elsewhere for those needs.
Check out etree.org's legal page for more information about policy. After 3 years, there still hasn't been an RIAA shakedown.
Presumably the record companies defer to the bands on this point.
Well, the way I understand recording contracts is that the recording company owns the recording, but the band still owns the music. The band rarely gets enough of a cut from the contract that sales hurt their personal bottom line. Huge bands like Pearl Jam, Metallica et al are big enough to negotiate that sort of deal. This is why Lars from Metallica was one of the few artists who cared about Napster. If you'll notice the RIAA, not the artists, is suing people. They claim they are protecting the artists, but they are really looking out for their own pockets.
Most bands dont make money on the record, they make money on the concerts and appearances. Granted, they do make money, but it's usually small compared to what they make from other sources...why else would they tour? The recordings basically serve them as advertisements.
The bands typically own all rights to the music itself (not the recording) and they have the right to allow or disallow fans to record concerts.
Usual dislaimers apply...IANAL, esp a contract lawyer, and have never seen a 'typical' recording contract and am just make observations on what I've heard and read.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.-Franklin
I have been using Etree for three or four years now. For those not aware here, etree site-op's release their server content on the etree-announce mailing list periodically. Users can download, through FTP, high quality concerts from folks like The Grateful Dead and other microphone friendly bands. I think what keeps etree pure currently, is that with only a (relatively) few site-ops, control over content, is easily implemented. This will undoubtedly collapse under the massive abuse inherent in peer-to-peer networks.
.shn's of Brittney Spears 2/18/02 Cleveland Show being traded alongside some of music's most influential live bands. For what it's worth check out what is being traded on etree at their database site
It would be quite sad to see
a good overview of different p2p architectures is over here at openp2p.com.
One system the author fails to mention is Circle, which uses a decentralized hashtable system., more about it at his system is in a pdf slideshow he'll be giving at linux.conf.au
My favorite quote from his page: "FastTrack (aka Kazza/Morpheus) is kind of like trying to optimize a bublesort", which leads me to believe he has a regular quicksort at hand. (actually he does claim O(n log n) seachs, so its about right)
Also to note are Chord and GISP which seem to use simular schemes, where Chord is pure acadamia (someones masters thesis). GISP is an implementation of something from JXTA, suns p2p framework.
this is my sig.
from furthur's website:
All shows on the Furthur Network are 100% MD5 verified! When users initially share a show, Furthur will run an MD5 verification check, to ensure the file integrity. If any file doesn't check out, Furthur won't allow it on the network
This gives them a lot of control over network content. Don't want something on the network? Pull it's MD5 sum from your database.
do not read this line twice.