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?"

Comments

no passing fad

[ummit]

I'm not heavily into P2P at all, so I'm speaking out of some ignorance, but: do we now accept the RIAA's definition that P2P is synonymous with piracy? It seems to me that, even if all sharing of copyrighted music were discontinued, P2P would still have a perfectly valid place in our spectrum of networking possibilities.

(As an example, I'd like to see P2P used to maintain collaborative anti-spam blacklists, so that there wouldn't be single-point-of-failure central repositories.)

Re:no passing fad

[Kyouryuu]

I couldn't have put it any better. The original news post seems to assume that peer-to-peer is synonymous with piracy. As far as that aspect goes, I don't really know the answer. As far as P2P in general goes, we're seeing many widespread uses of the technology. Peer-to-peer allows a user to divide work across several machines rather than concentrating on a powerful, base machine. Such a solution is easily scalable - we can merely add more machines to the network instead of trying to upgrade a central machine to increasingly expensive bleeding-edge technology to keep up. Countless scientific surveys tout the benefits of a peer-to-peer approach compared to a centralized approach in various applications. In every application? Of course we cannot make such a generalization, but that doesn't make the concept any less valid.

The original asker of the question is short-sighted to assume that the RIAA will end peer-to-peer as a concept. Bottom line: Peer-to-peer is just a method for dividing a workload amongst several machines, not a gateway to piracy. Please don't let the RIAA or anyone clueless argue that peer-to-peer is anything more than what is clearly is.

No, but like any fad

[Anonymous Coward]

There comes a time when it moves to the mainstream. Long-term and practical uses for P2P are just now being developed. It's a bit like the internet in general. At first, a few early adopters, then it was everywhere and everything, and now, it's calmed down to a more reasonable level. Instead of edogfoodwithfreeshipping.com, you have real uses for the web and the internet.

killer app

[Frymaster]

p2p is the killer app of the internet. really. access to information (the web) and communication (email, chat) is nice, but people want stuff. it's like one big mall... and we know how much americans' love their malls.

Re:killer app

[darkov]

This is what mystifies me. Software, including anything that can be encoded such as music or movies, is absolutely made for the Internet and p2p. The cost of distribution is zero. The marginal cost per unit is zero. All these stupid corporations need to do is work out that they're sitting on a gold mine and increase their profits exponentially. They ought to figure out that 1000 times the sales at one tenth of the price is still 100 times the revenue, or something in that order.

But, as all monopolies and oligopolies inevitably do, they have become fat and lazy and will eventually alienate or destroy (through overpricing) their market. Technology is just helping that process along. One day's they'll wake up and make a mint.

Meanwhile p2p and such tech will grow and flourish.

The big question is...

[Robotech_Master]

...how are you going to keep them (from) down(loading) on the farm after they've seen the lights of peer-to-peer? Apparently more people use P2P than bothered to vote in the last Presidential election. With that many people engaged in the activity, it's not like it's going to dry up and blow away because the RIAA starts cracking down. Heck, if legal crackdowns ended illicit behavior, we wouldn't have had any booze since the '20s and we wouldn't have a drug problem now.

On the other hand, there's a certain case to be made for the vast majority of those sixty million P2P users being ignorant sheep who can only use P2P in the first place because it's so easy to install the app--and who may not even be aware that they're uploading songs at the same time as they're downloading them, strange as that would seem to a Slashdot reader. And so, even if someone comes up with a totally "safe" method of filesharing, it could lose many of its prospective users if it is even slightly nontrivial to get working properly. (As an example, consider what happened to the mp3 websites after the RIAA's last legal crackdowns...they retreated behind a web of spawning browser windows, porn ads, top ten lists, and so on, until you have to be a hacker just to find where the MP3s actually are.)

So balancing the two questions...I think peer to peer will always be with us, but depending on how easy it is to use, it may lose a lot of its users--and, thus, a lot of potential sources for files.

P2P vs. Commercial File Sharing

[__aagmrb7289]

I guess when you look at this, the best question is: why are these systems being used now? And the even better question: what are the legal uses of the system now?

My answer is that the best reason to use these right now is to share ideas, music, pictures, etc. with other people, including strangers: things that you own and have the right to redistribute, either because you created it, or you have permission from the creator. Email is used heavily in this fashion, but it has the limit of most providers attempting to make attachments a no-no: either for cost considerations (size); or for the fear of viruses. So, is there a legitimate use? Yes.

Next question would be: what are the usage numbers for these legitimate uses? Well, that one I can't answer too well. My first guess would be that it is a relatively small percentage of the current traffic, with a VERY high figure being around 40%. So, is that enough to keep these things around? Yep.

Okay, so, my conclusion is that P2P serves a useful purpose, outside of the illegal ones. So, the next question becomes, can a commercial solution replace these P2P solutions? That one is really easy - no! There is no way that any organization can afford the freedom that is required in moving these files back in forth. Anyone in IT is quite aware of all the potential dangers to the network, and anyone involved in the whole law side can see how heavily exposed these companies would be if they were allowing viruses, etc. to be damaging customer's systems.

So, ultimate conclusion? Unless they are outlawed, P2P networks are useful, and are likely to remain in existance for a long time.