Slashdot Mirror
Advances in Decentralized Peer Networks
PureFiction writes "Peer networks are gaining some
attention these
days given advances in much more
decentralized
search
architectures and
swarming
distribution
networks.
Research has indicated that these decentralized networks are resistant to
legal and
technological attacks.
The continued proliferation of
broadband
and wireless networking
will ensure
pervasive deployment
of distributed
peer networking infrastructure
that will drive significant innovations in
personal and
community
digital communications services."
"Research has indicated that these decentralized networks are resistant to legal and technological attacks. The continued proliferation of broadband and wireless networking will ensure pervasive deployment of distributed peer networking infrastructure that will drive significant innovations in personal and community digital communications services."
So what P2P networks are resistent to "last mile" control tactics? Port blocking. Speed limiting. Quotas. Remember control of P2P has one thing in common with security. It doesn't have to be perfect. It simply has to be innconvient enough that people give up and go away.
Why is it that for all these articles about P2P networks, I have never once seen Direct Connect mentioned?
There is more information (pirated software, movies, games, tv shows, etc) available on those networks than on any other network I have ever seen (except *maybe* napster). Everyone who uses it must share, and essentially must have a fast connection.
But there's never been a mention of it...
?
Well, I have a good example of a quasi-legitimate use for one.
I'm on WinMX, which I use heavily for the downloading of anime files. In this endeavour, I (and many others on the network) try to follow the rule of not sharing any files that are commercially available in the United States. At the moment, I have probably 40 GB of fansubbed episodes that I share to others, while downloading stuff that I don't yet have.
The nice thing about this is that the filesharing actually aids some of the US distributors by introducing new series to the US while they are still being shown in Japan (I had translated episodes of Chobits a week after their first viewing!) and helps the US Distributors gauge which series have gotten the most attention and would be good candidates to purchase the rights to.
As I said, this is quasi-legitimate, since it is still technically a copyright violation; I rationalize that by the fact that it is commerically unavailable and I remove the files when they get licensed. Additionally, I will often buy or rent the series when they come out on DVD, so the producers DO get their money.
Okay, I downloaded the RedHat 8 CDs using gtk-gnutella while all the FTP sites were swamped. Checked the digital sigs and I was on my way. Legit enough for you?
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
That's just it though, it's never going to be legitimate without some type of DRM.
Every tool has legitimate and illegitimate uses. I can butter my bread with this knife, or slit your throat with it. Do we need ARM (analog rights management) to maintain control of it?
Sorry I don't mean to be Mr. Obvious here, but I just feel any future P2P doesn't stand a chance if it doesn't have a legitimate foundation to stand on.
It doesn't need a legitimate FOUNDATION, it just needs a SINGLE legitimate use that is valid.
Yesterday I downloaded some high quality live recordings of Billy Corgan's new band, Zwan. It was in SHN format (lossless compression -- large file sizes) on one of the DC++ P2P network hubs.
This was completely legal -- Zwan encourages trading of their live recordings.
The RIAA & MPAA has already proven what a great team of legal sharks they have
True
and can overcome any technological advancements made in P2P
Ummm, false. They definitely have NOT shown that.
"And like that
Anybody with knowledge of writing software knows there's going to be now way of stopping peer to peer, at least not technically.
The only thing the powers that be can do IMHO is to make it illegal to share files and folders on a publicly (free) available network which contain copyrighted data.
When we get to the point where everyone has a phone/pda with 1 GB of storage and Wifi built this is going to be a real serious problem for the record companies.
It does not concern me at all that P2P content is currently mostly illegal warez, music, movies and porn. It's an excellent testbed for the ability of the technology to withstand technological and legal attack.
It does however comfort me that P2P works and is widely deployed. The average person is familiar with it and knows how to use it. If corporations and government ever get too oppressive, P2P is an powerful tool that the people can use to preserve their rights. Current P2P networks could easily be put into this type of service at need.
I see the net just now starting to realize the ideals that is was founded under. Decentralization, free access to information for all, everyone can easily be both producer and consumer, etc. All trends (wireless, weblogs, P2P) point to this.
I think one of the most exciting things about P2P is that the costs are borne by the consumer, not the publisher. This holds true with Freenet, and holds true with Gnutella and Kazaa as well. If I have a popular, non-commercial web page, I the publisher have to pay to keep my pages up, and the more popular the pages are, the more I pay. With P2P however, the consumers act as distributors as well, so whether it's an audio file, video, web page or whatnot flowing over Freenet/Kazaa/Gnutella, the cost for me to publish is not there. I like this because it means popular, non-commercial media can spread by virtue of popularity, and the Internet can't be monopolized by people who can control the flow of information simply because they own the printing presses and distribution networks. I also think this is what makes P2P something disdained by the powers that be. The RIAA/MPAA's activities are just the short-term, tactical activities of the people who fund them, I care very little for their rationale and look for what the long-term effects would be if they were fully successful, and it doesn't look good - I don't really care about the supposed morality of their authority or whatnot, I'm only interested in the effects of their actions. Thousands of years ago, the concept of property in this economy of scarcity was created. Recently this concept has been extended to the spectrum, to bits of information flowing between me and a friend's computer with it's economy of non-scarcity, and even to species themselves. If we do not build a technological foundation that helps put power in the hands of the people (like Gutenberg, Wozniak, and Justin Frankel), accompanied by social movements that protect people from the powers-that-be using law and authority to dominate them, I think we are headed into a dire future.