Slashdot Mirror
Has P2P Become a Passing Fad?
plasticmillion asks: "As the RIAA launches increasingly rabid attacks against P2P networks and users, pundits continue to debate the future of P2P. On the one hand, some argue that P2P is just a clever way to escape detection from copyright owners, like in this recent Slashdot story. Others, like Clay Shirky, make a strong case that processing is destined to move to the 'edges' of the network. I'm curious to know what Slashdot readers think: is P2P the start of a major new trend that is just getting started, or is it a passing fad that will fade once legal client/server systems for media distribution finally take hold? If the former, which of the supposed advantages of P2P over client/server systems are really significant?"
One thing which I think is interesting is that recently, VOIP over P2P was mentioned. Of course, you don't have to be kreskin to see that some form of legal online music purchasing has to eventually become legal. However, I think that the recent mention of VOIP over P2P shows that the technologies made for decentralised P2P will still be used, just not for the purposes that are currently used for.
I think p2p is here to stay, and there are still features that need to be put in place univerally before it's mature, and all the various p2p flavors are comparable.
The various bits are there scattered across different p2p networks. IMNSHO, all p2p networks/clients ought to have:
-Swarming (as defined/used in BitTorrent)
-Privacy/anonymity (perhaps as much as in Freenet)
-Good searching (Kazaa, Napster, those types. With room for improvement all around)
-Open-source clients with no ads/spyware
-Decentralized/self-organizing networks (no central point of failure, or at least minimal)
-Browser/web server hooks to autoswarm web content (there ought to be bittorrent:// links)
Pardon my BitTorrent bias. I moderate the bittorrent_help mailing list, so I have more exposure to that.
All these features should someday be pushed into numerous language libraries, so that they become ubiquitous.
Seems to me that there's quite a bit of confusion what peer-to-peer really is...
In academic environments, P2P is commonly defined as having one or more of these characteristics:
1. Peers should be able to freely offer services to other peers.
2. The addressing system should be independent of lower layer network addressing systems.
3. Peers should be assumed to be of variable connectivity.
Yes, this means that even some partly centralized systems are peer-to-peer. Like distributed computing and instant messaging. P2P is clearly beyond just file sharing, and it has been used for ages.
On the other hand we see how the traditional client/server system can break down if it has a significant user base and not enough bandwidth. The new Steam client hasn't allowed me to connect to a game since I installed it six hours ago. Who knows how much more data could have been transferred if all the Steam users were connected to each other and sharing their cache through a P2P network?
The next step in P2P would be to combine the swarm downloading of Bittorrent with a persistent P2P network like Edonkey2000. The Achilles Heel of Bittorrent is that it can only transfer one file at a time, and the only way to download multiple files is to open multiple instances of Bittorrent, which drains upload speed, a precious commodity among home broadband users. Some work is being done towards this goal but it currently deals with upload rates for individual downloads, and doesn't manage multiple downloads.
P2P is definitely the future, and I predict its popularity will continue to rise as more consumers sign up for broadband and start sucking down large media files like full albums and movies from corporate sites who aren't prepared for the broadband explosion.
And the next headlines on Slashdot being about the latest crack-down on the ever-persistent internet pirates.
I'm not a fan of copyright law or really any of this legislation or the prosecution of the individuals involved. But we need an agreement, not an arms race. The harder we make it to track the harder 'they' will work to prosecute/legislate/etc.
And its understandable. P2P and file sharing in general is too important to let it get eclipsed in this battle and that's why we *need* DRM. At least that way protected files popping up on a sharing networks isn't reason enough to shut it down and it *shouldn't* be.
Quack, quack.
P2p will survive and grow if, and only if, the content available via p2p is attractive.
The question posed is a bit like asking, 500 years ago, if the printing press will survive. Well...it depends on what's printed.
If p2p is the only way to get something people want, then it will surviv e. If p2p offers nothing people want, it will fade.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Already built. Earthstation 5.