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?"
(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.)
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.
2 1337 4 u!
especially for legal content... bitTorrent has made it so that you can get all sorts of legal content like game demos, linux distros, etc. off p2p without having to be on horribly slow ftp servers.
P2P is not used just for piracy. P2P is used to download the latest Linux kernel, the Matrix preview when the official site was slashdotted, etc. It might stop having millions of users downloading copyrighted stuff, but it will always exist, and will be extremely useful to a lot of people involved in legal activities.
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?
P2P will be around forever, in whatever form it takes through the future's unimaginable technology, for one simple reason:
It's free.
Legal systems for digital media distribution will always cost money. Why pay money when you can get something almost as good -- or as good, with a little know-how -- for free?
The coolest voice ever.
...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.
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
Just like Data processing was considered a passing fad in the 1970s. After all, things are going from a community-based system to people working ISOLATED BY THEMSELVES.
/sarcasm
For instance, there is something new out there called the INTRA-web. Rather than connect to the OUTSIDE world in an attempt to get information, you simply search your own hard drive.
Analysts predict that someday in the future, people will have no further need to ever be connected again, and people will live in isolated padded cells, not talking or communicating to anything at all, simply staring at the ceiling.
IAALS.
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.
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.
When I think of all the millions I've saved.
What pundits fail to realize is that P2P is not a class of applications; it is simply a form of distributed computing architecture in which nodes act as both client and server.
The term P2P is, however, a passing fad. It is a label for this architecture whose greatest association is with a class of applications designed to steal intellectual property from others. It is unfortunate that this association has come about. However, the architecture will outlive the fad.
P2P will not die just because the RIAA has cracked down on a few people sharing music.
First, let me say that I don't particularly support massive stealing of music - A bit of sharing between friends, sure, but the wholesale infringements we see thanks to the likes of Kazaa, no. That said...
As with virus/worm authors, the RIAA has served a useful purpose, if by reprehensible means. They have demonstrated that P2P has a major flaw that most people do not know about - The model itself does NOT automatically mean anonymity. It just means that no central server exists to shut down, thereby making it all but impossible for any legal action to completely kill. People (can) still have accountability for their actions on a P2P network. Aside from the RIAA's abuse of this fact, we should worry quite a lot more about government use.
So my prediction - P2P services such as Kazaa, that try to track users and transactions, will fade into oblivion. At the same time, those that make every effort to prevent logging, to give plausible deniability, and that use encryption to hide the actual data going over the weak links (anywhere between the first "P" and the second "P"), will gain in popularity. As an obvious current choice, the open-source Freenet does this already, though it has serious problems as far as actually finding what you want goes.
Someone will eventually find a way to make Freenet (or a similar app) more useable, however, without compromising the benefits I mention above. That will replace the current generation of P2P programs, but will itself still count as P2P.
So no, the idea won't die, nor will its use. Implementations will simply become far more sophisticated, and while at each step in the free-information arms race a few people will suffer (as has held true throughout all of history), the rest of us will benefit from their sacrifice.
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.
Imagine a P2P system like Kazaa but with one extra twist...Whenever
someone wants to download a file from you, your computer doesn't send
it directly to theirs. Instead your computer sends the file to a proxy
machine which then sends the file to the rceipient. Both connections
are encrypted with public-key cryptography, and the proxy machine
stores nothing that is not encrypted. Congratulations, you have just
send a file to anyone (maybe even an RIAA spy) without then
interacting with you and finding out what your IP address is or who
you are.
Now imagine that in addition to super-peers, Kazaa maintains a list of
proxy servers whose sole job is to upload stuff from users and
download stuff to other users. You can run such a 'data peer' yourself
legelly since all the data is encrypted so you don't know what your
computer is storing.
Of course this network is less efficient than Kazaa, since each file
gets copied twice whenever it is downloaded. I guess that's why
nothing like this network exists yet. But if Kazaa dies due to its
users being sued off the network, I'll bet this 'proxy'-based network
takes over. Let the RIAA try to sue users on this proxy network!
Anyone interested in helping build this?
Practice Kind Randomness and Beautiful Acts of Nonsense.
I was using P2P back when it was called IRC channels with a bunch of guys running FTP servers. Before that, I was into the type of P2P that was traded in wierd locations throughout Compuserve. Before that, we called the Bleeding Edge and other local BBS's and spent hours uploading gif files to their public areas. Before then, it was floppies and a copy of Renegade, and casette tapes with holes drilled in them.
Now, I've gone off the searchable networked P2P, and on to sending secret web links to people I meet over IRC. Napster, Kazaa, they just simplify and dehumanize the interaction. The ways that used to work -- hunting down generous people with loose morals and begging them for files -- still work just as well. As does sneakernet and a stack of discs. I've had file sharing "parties" in the past year...grandiose events where three friends come over with a couple cool CDs and we trade them.
Ironically, I don't trade files much at all. Not because I am afraid of the RIAA, but because most of what I want to listen to nowadays is off the major lables that are members of the RIAA and I want to support them. I had to seriously hunt for CDs from bands like Jiker, Valis, Edan (the humble magnificent) and the Black Keys. These same bands are all over the P2P networks. When your music distribution system is so screwed up that it is EASY to steal music but nearly impossible to BUY it...you've got big problems. Maybe an answer is to shut down p2p. Maybe a better answer is finding some way to reach the millions of listeners who don't want to hear Madonna's robotic warbling.
Hey freaks: now you're ju
Justin Frankel knew what he was doing when he made WASTE: On big, open P2P-networks, you never can be sure if happysunshine84 downloading a MP3 from you isn't someone preparing a lawsuit. A closed, WASTE-like network is therefore a better solution, also redusing the noise (spam, renames, clients modified to not upload, etc) you usually see from the typical P2P networks.
I never tried WASTE, as I never got the thing to work under Linux, but as I understand it, I can have e.g. have one network with 10 co-workers and another one with my friends. If I share the files I download from both groups, I will be a link between those two networks. Now, if also my co-workers and friends are on more than one network, fresh files will always be pouring in (If these guys are nice and share what they download).
Quality-filtered content where no-one from the outside can know what you are doing, what else can you wish for?That is, besides a Linux client
I shall go and tell the indestructible man that someone plans to murder him.
I'll bite as well. Now I agree that piracy "may" be contributing to some loss of sales, I also propose that it is also generating sales as well. The truely sad part of the matter is that they are even telling their employees that the problems they are facing are all because of piracy. Now, I don't buy that BS at all. There are just as many studies out there that support the case that P2P and music downloading are generating CD sales as there are case studies that say the opposite.
The real issue here is the fact that thier business model was forced to change due to technological developments, and they don't want to change at all. They feel that they should continue to mass produce the same style songs as they have been for the last 10-12 years and still have people eat up everything they lay on the plate. Well, P2P and Napsture has changed that. No more can they just place 1 or 2 decent songs on an album and expect everyone to go out and purchase that album for $20 just for those 2 songs. The music industry needs to actually redesign the way they produce and sell their music now. They can no longer expect people to buy the $20 album for those 2 songs with another 7-8 of pure filler. P2P has caused this problem, and that, I will concede.
No more will customers continually overpay for the product, as they know that CD's are easily created (physically created), and they also know how easy it is to mix songs that they (the customers) like to listen to. They want to be able to purchase a "custom" CD with the tracks that they select, not what they are told they "must" buy. People will no longer stand for purchasing something at full price for only wanting to listen to 16% of the product.
Now that is only the start of the problem that the music industry is facing. The other problem is the fact that they have been signing fewer and fewer new bands and creating less and less new music. There was a great study posted here before (sorry, too lazy to look it up), which delt with compairing the number of new bands signed (and their respective new songs produced) with the overall sales generated that year for the music industry. The study showed that there was a very high correlation between the number of new bands to the number of sales. Over the past 3 years, there has been approximately 30-40% decline in the number of new bands being signed. According to the numbers in that study, at least 20% of the "lost" sales over the last 3 years should be attributed to the fact that there are 30-40% less new bands being singed and thus less "new" styles of music out there that people might sample.
You can also chalk up a minumum of 10% more of the "lost" sales to the major economic troubles being faced in this country as well. You yourself should be able to realise this, especially with your wife lossing her job. Well, she isn't the only one out of work, or working in a job that pays far less then the prievious one. What is the first thing that you stop purchasing when you suddenly loose a major part of your income? Well you cut out non-essential purchases, i.e. anything that is not related to shelter, food, and health. Well, guess what doesn't fall under any of those 3 categories, $20 music CDs. With so many fresh-out-of-college students unable to find a job in the industry they just spent upwards of $100,000 over the last 4-5 years, and can only get work in the same summer job industries they could be imployed BEFORE they got that degree, you seriously think they will have the extra cash to purchase music CD's for $15-20 a pop?
The RIAA needs to seriously look at the above problem. They want to blame P2P and piracy for everything. Well, it isn't the real cause. The problem is and always has been their business model. P2P in a sense could be blamed, but only because it showed people that they should have to be forced purchase 100% of a product for only wanting to use 8% of that product.
I won't even get into the issue of P2P actually helping sales by introducing people to music that they never
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
Oh, and compact discs. I mean, 650 MB of read-only data? C'mon, that's more worthless than 8-track tapes!
Or maybe it is a fad like bell-bottoms. They go out for a while, then come back in the 24th century as part of Starfleet uniforms! Quick, everyone go check the ST Encyclopedia and see if it mentions P2P!
All joking aside, to use a trite but true statement, I think the genie is out of the bottle, cat's out of the bag, etc. The only people that think P2P is a fad are probably the people that want it to be a fad.
P2P will likely usher in new business models, and new ways of getting entertainment. The RIAA/MPAA clinging to the old ways would be, as some have pointed out, not unlike the makers of horse-drawn carriages trying to stop the production of the automobile.
Change happens. People don't usually like it, but are capable of adjusting. Corporations are not people (despite what the law may say) and simply refuse to adjust to change unless they can see an obvious, and instant, financial gain.
Technology often makes current systems obsolete. For example, gunpowder pretty much made the feudal system of government obsolete. In the future, an invention like matter transporters (beam me up!) would probably make our current governments obsolete.
P2P is making the way we purchase, oh I'm sorry, "consume" entertainment obsolete. I highly doubt the RIAA/MPAA can cripple technology enough to keep us all in the old days.
"To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit." -Stephen Hawking
Damn it, I'd still *use* Gopher if people hadn't taken down all of their Gopher servers and replaced them with this "World Wide Web" crap. :P
:P
Information via plain ol' text. I like it. No Flash ads in Gopher.
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?
.torrent files?
I believe p2p is the future. Copyright issues aside, I doubt I'm the only one that's noticed that there are some downloads that are getting extremely large. Maybe it's a game demo, a movie trailer, or a software upgrade. How often has it happened that some thing comes out like, say, a Matrix trailer or a new game mod and people swamp the main server and mirrors alike to download it? Why else would recent Slashdot articles on popular downloads be linking
The problem is further escalated by the fact that the ranks of broadband users are growning every day. I hear that Verizon is wanting to dump somewhere around 11 billion dollars into their network to ensure that all of their customers are able to get DSL, and they have lowered their prices across the board...You can now get 1.5 down/128 up for a flat $30/mo, similar to what SBC's been offering. With all this broadband around, popular web sites will not be able to keep up, expecially if they have downloadable goodies. The answer is distributed computing. p2p represents the infancy of the inevitibility of distributed storage, processing, and bandwidth.
-R
Now, give people free content without restrictions and you have something that everyone wants. Why are search engines the most popular websites? because the user types in what they want and gets it. From a users point of view, kazaa is the same as google except you can get everything that you cant get on google - its like the too hot for google channel. Are you seriously telling me that people dont want to be able to download all the music, films, porn, software, games, books and southpark they want for free!?!?! get real!
The only things that might kill p2p filesharing as we know it are:
Governments (well in the UK anyway) are pushing broadband for all sorts of PHB reasons like "education" and obviously the ISPs - AOL etc are gonna try and sell it. Sen. Hollings is even for it. The absolute irony here is that the very same people who are pushing broadband so they can sell content are the same ones who will be fucked out of their money by filesharing! its brilliant, serves them right for their evil DRM plans.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.