According to the RIAA, this piracy is costing BILLIONS. If continuous distribution of corrupted files is what it takes to shut down the networks, I'm sure that's what they will pursue.
However, I don't even think this would be very costly - writing a program that dynamically generates corrupt MP3s and modifying some clients would probably be pretty cheap, IMO.
A few people here seem to think that it means that you'd want to just sue random people on the network. That's not true - the idea is that you'd watch what people were searching for, and sue people that were GUILTY of downloading copyrighted files.
Although this is a fairly aggressive analogy, what this is really proposing is similar to what happens with holding people hostage. Although it may be that a large group of people could overtake a gunman, the potential damage the gunman could do on one person keeps everyone in line. Same scenario here, except that it's with time-consuming/stress-inducing litigation.
I want to point out that distributing these sound loop files is only one of MANY different strategies available.
In your scenario, some entity is distributing fake sound files for a little while, and then they stop. Is this realistic? Why would they want to do that??
More realistically, I would expect that they park fake clients on the network 24/7, and distribute fake files all through the day. Then many of the files downloaded would be fake, although not all. As this slowly started to annoy people more and more, Gnutella would gain more of a reputation for having too much noise, pushing out potential users. This would make the # of false users grow percentage wise, which would feed into a loop.
What you seem to be arguing is that there is no limit to the number of users. In animal populations, food is only one determinant of the carrying capacity of the environment, along with overcrowding, susceptibility to disease, other resources (water, places to rest, etc.).
In the case of P2P networks, the carrying capacity is probably determined mostly by bandwidth constraints. At the very least, there is a minimum amount of internet bandwidth, and so there must be some maximum number of users. In the paper I discuss this further, citing problems with P2P broadcasts clogging up the network, etc.
While it's true that the P2P concept is here to stay, I argue that in the long term, it may not yield the type of easy filetrading that mainstream audiences need to continue using it.
The same way that in general, the average computer don't use IRC or newgroups because of all the clutter and technical difficulty, P2P networks may also become inaccessible to that group.
I remember back when Napster was still in full force - you could find almost any file. Now on Gnutella, it takes much more time and there is a lot more noise than before. P2P networks may eventually be relegated to a second class citizen, used mostly to trade warez, and no longer a threat to digital media companies.
Firstly, you have to realize that I am simply proposing that a model used in ecology could be modified to describe P2P networks. Because the paper is fundamentally about an abstract mathematical model, any phenomenon that roughly resembles animal populations may be accurately described. Applying models from one area of study to another happens quite often - for example, I have been reading recently about how many models in quantitative finance come from physics and engineering.
However, some of your points are valid, and in fact, I try and touch on some of them on pages 17 and 18 of the paper. However, this model does account for some level of random perturbation (see the reference to the Tung paper), and as long as the perturbation is not too large, the system will still go the course described by the paper.
The main issue that comes up from what you've mentioned is that the population can grow or shrink almost arbitrarily, which I agree with. However, if you think about the way that people behave, what's important is that if file selection degrades, over time, people will stop using the network. You are examining the problem at very close detail, as opposed to the big picture process. If I were to add in some sort of stochastic process to this, I'm sure I'd get the same result.
Instead of criticizing this as "stupid" and "cargo cult science," maybe you can realize that it's just an attempt to reapply a theory from another area, which happens quite often and is completely valid.
While it's true that some of these strategies are cropping up already, perhaps naturally, my point is that a CONCERTED effort, causing these problems to be quite common, could shut down the network.
For example, for broken files, it may be true that for now, comparing filesizes is a good strategy. How about if there were false clients that reported correct filenames but incorrect data? You think you can use MD5 to fix this? How about if they report false MD5 ids (based on what other nodes are reporting)?
This escalation of conflict causes the systems to be annoying to use, and by turning off the casual user, the goal has been accomplished.
I agree that this conflict will make the P2P model and software stronger in the long run. However, that doesn't mean that whatever commercial entities that are willing to engage the networks like this won't succeed.
For example, if there is a constant escalation in the conflict, so that P2P continually has to adjust to new ways to get files, the lag to fix those errors will drive out the casual users, and decrease piracy. That in itself may be enough!
I agree that if a group of dedicated people wanted to maintain a P2P network for a relatively small number of people, that's certainly feasible.
What I'm saying, however, is that the concept of P2P for the masses may be quite difficult. For example, the comment that I am replying to discusses how quickly P2P networks can change to new threats - have you thought about what that would mean in the real world, for distribution? It takes weeks, if not months for most people to update to new versions of clients, and with that much hassle, the userbase of "casual" users would collapse.
I for one am cheering for such a major upgrade. With recent advances with Redhat 6.0, GNOME 1.0, GTK+ 1.2, and many others (including the anticipated release of Mozilla), Linux is finally advancing far enough and fast enough to be a serious contender in the desktop market.
It's important to note the large availiability of applications and tools not only to make it easy for developers to create products for Linux, but also the tools to make it easy for "normal" users to experience the advantages of using an open source OS.
Especially with all the recent news coverage that Linux has been getting, the idea that device support (at least video device support) has started to become largely comprehensive (especially with a section of the market Linux has long been bad with, totally new drivers, as evidences by nVidia and Creative's moves) really adds to the appeal of the operating system.
Quite simply, I cannot wait until I can get my hands on a version of XFree 4.0, especially if there's some very cool and useful features such as multi-head support, support for more cards, &c.
Thanks to everyone that has helped develop and test X, and remember to support open source software!
The result of this for AMD is pretty interesting, as they are now the major competitor for Intel (not that they haven't been for the past year or so). Even though it is conceivable that Cyrix could be bought and rematerialize as a strong company, as another poster pointed out, that's extremely unlikely.
Research takes a *lot* of money, and because of this news that Cyrix is being sold, it seems extremely obvious that they are short on cash (and probably ideas).
So has Intel won? It's interesting to think that Intel has established such a strong brand and product line that they've done what many predicted they wouldn't be able to do: defeat their competitors.
Hopefully this'll wake some people up over there at AMD, that all the patting on the head they've been giving themselves due to their moderate success doesn't mean much-- they haven't really beaten Intel, but rather just established a niche for themselves. But Intel isn't stupid, and they're fighting back with their own lines of cheap relatively fast processors (Celerons), which can potentially eat away at AMD's little niche in the market.
Anyway, it would be extremely pleasant if AMD's K7 did well. When I read the false reports against their machines, I was extremely disappointed, since it would definitely nice to see AMD do well against Intel. Diversity is always good.
There was a picture that I saw a while back with this girl in this grey underwear, and on the band it said, "Linux - You know you want me." Does anyone know about where I could find this again? I want it as wallpaper.
America may have bombed China in '45 in order to fight against the Japanese (who occupied China at that point-- look up the Rape of Nanking). Since we were still in WW2 by that point, we were supporting the Communist as well as Nationalist forces within China, who fought it out afterwards. Anyway, the point was that the native Chinese people within China were actually United States allies, and the bombing must have been to aid them.
I cannot believe that this kind of stuff can happen-- could you imagine the kind of suffering fans had to go through to get little clips and such back in the 80's with the other StarWars?
Now, we miss 60 Minutes and someone records an entire clip with all the stuff filtered and now we can all see it. Mine's going right now-- something tells me Slashdot is going to kill all the mirrors.
From Yahoo!, a Gameboy costs ~$60, and from Yahoo! again, the price for a PalmV is $450.
For that price, why not just buy both? Wait a minute, I forgot one thing-- having a PalmV that plays videogames lets someone pretend to be doing very important business while at a meeting, right?:)
Just like everything else, the carefully crafted ideas in a movie belong to someone, in this case George Lucas (and his legions of employees). The fact that there might be a 4+ hour uncut version of the Phantom Menace really shouldn't make you want to go find it-- it seems to me that the proper response would be for you to be appalled.
I know as someone who works in the computer industry, intellectual property is extremely important to me (especially in software, where it's all ideas). If someone were to somehow come in here (especially a "fan") and steal the alpha version of our flagship product, I'd be extremely annoyed.
I think that we all owe it to George Lucas to all convene in some movie theater on May 19th and see his film (and shell out the money), because frankly, he deserves it. Let's show the film industry that we appreciate quality movies so they'll stop releasing crappy ones like "Wing Commander."
Slashdot Mirror
According to the RIAA, this piracy is costing BILLIONS. If continuous distribution of corrupted files is what it takes to shut down the networks, I'm sure that's what they will pursue.
However, I don't even think this would be very costly - writing a program that dynamically generates corrupt MP3s and modifying some clients would probably be pretty cheap, IMO.
A few people here seem to think that it means that you'd want to just sue random people on the network. That's not true - the idea is that you'd watch what people were searching for, and sue people that were GUILTY of downloading copyrighted files.
Although this is a fairly aggressive analogy, what this is really proposing is similar to what happens with holding people hostage. Although it may be that a large group of people could overtake a gunman, the potential damage the gunman could do on one person keeps everyone in line. Same scenario here, except that it's with time-consuming/stress-inducing litigation.
I want to point out that distributing these sound loop files is only one of MANY different strategies available.
In your scenario, some entity is distributing fake sound files for a little while, and then they stop. Is this realistic? Why would they want to do that??
More realistically, I would expect that they park fake clients on the network 24/7, and distribute fake files all through the day. Then many of the files downloaded would be fake, although not all. As this slowly started to annoy people more and more, Gnutella would gain more of a reputation for having too much noise, pushing out potential users. This would make the # of false users grow percentage wise, which would feed into a loop.
What you seem to be arguing is that there is no limit to the number of users. In animal populations, food is only one determinant of the carrying capacity of the environment, along with overcrowding, susceptibility to disease, other resources (water, places to rest, etc.).
In the case of P2P networks, the carrying capacity is probably determined mostly by bandwidth constraints. At the very least, there is a minimum amount of internet bandwidth, and so there must be some maximum number of users. In the paper I discuss this further, citing problems with P2P broadcasts clogging up the network, etc.
While it's true that the P2P concept is here to stay, I argue that in the long term, it may not yield the type of easy filetrading that mainstream audiences need to continue using it.
The same way that in general, the average computer don't use IRC or newgroups because of all the clutter and technical difficulty, P2P networks may also become inaccessible to that group.
I remember back when Napster was still in full force - you could find almost any file. Now on Gnutella, it takes much more time and there is a lot more noise than before. P2P networks may eventually be relegated to a second class citizen, used mostly to trade warez, and no longer a threat to digital media companies.
(I am the author of the paper)
Firstly, you have to realize that I am simply proposing that a model used in ecology could be modified to describe P2P networks. Because the paper is fundamentally about an abstract mathematical model, any phenomenon that roughly resembles animal populations may be accurately described. Applying models from one area of study to another happens quite often - for example, I have been reading recently about how many models in quantitative finance come from physics and engineering.
However, some of your points are valid, and in fact, I try and touch on some of them on pages 17 and 18 of the paper. However, this model does account for some level of random perturbation (see the reference to the Tung paper), and as long as the perturbation is not too large, the system will still go the course described by the paper.
The main issue that comes up from what you've mentioned is that the population can grow or shrink almost arbitrarily, which I agree with. However, if you think about the way that people behave, what's important is that if file selection degrades, over time, people will stop using the network. You are examining the problem at very close detail, as opposed to the big picture process. If I were to add in some sort of stochastic process to this, I'm sure I'd get the same result.
Instead of criticizing this as "stupid" and "cargo cult science," maybe you can realize that it's just an attempt to reapply a theory from another area, which happens quite often and is completely valid.
(I am the author of the paper)
While it's true that some of these strategies are cropping up already, perhaps naturally, my point is that a CONCERTED effort, causing these problems to be quite common, could shut down the network.
For example, for broken files, it may be true that for now, comparing filesizes is a good strategy. How about if there were false clients that reported correct filenames but incorrect data? You think you can use MD5 to fix this? How about if they report false MD5 ids (based on what other nodes are reporting)?
This escalation of conflict causes the systems to be annoying to use, and by turning off the casual user, the goal has been accomplished.
I think you have great points in your comment.
I agree that this conflict will make the P2P model and software stronger in the long run. However, that doesn't mean that whatever commercial entities that are willing to engage the networks like this won't succeed.
For example, if there is a constant escalation in the conflict, so that P2P continually has to adjust to new ways to get files, the lag to fix those errors will drive out the casual users, and decrease piracy. That in itself may be enough!
(I'm the author of the paper)
I agree that if a group of dedicated people wanted to maintain a P2P network for a relatively small number of people, that's certainly feasible.
What I'm saying, however, is that the concept of P2P for the masses may be quite difficult. For example, the comment that I am replying to discusses how quickly P2P networks can change to new threats - have you thought about what that would mean in the real world, for distribution? It takes weeks, if not months for most people to update to new versions of clients, and with that much hassle, the userbase of "casual" users would collapse.
Then it's mission accomplished!
I for one am cheering for such a major upgrade. With recent advances with Redhat 6.0, GNOME 1.0, GTK+ 1.2, and many others (including the anticipated release of Mozilla), Linux is finally advancing far enough and fast enough to be a serious contender in the desktop market.
It's important to note the large availiability of applications and tools not only to make it easy for developers to create products for Linux, but also the tools to make it easy for "normal" users to experience the advantages of using an open source OS.
Especially with all the recent news coverage that Linux has been getting, the idea that device support (at least video device support) has started to become largely comprehensive (especially with a section of the market Linux has long been bad with, totally new drivers, as evidences by nVidia and Creative's moves) really adds to the appeal of the operating system.
Quite simply, I cannot wait until I can get my hands on a version of XFree 4.0, especially if there's some very cool and useful features such as multi-head support, support for more cards, &c.
Thanks to everyone that has helped develop and test X, and remember to support open source software!
The result of this for AMD is pretty interesting, as they are now the major competitor for Intel (not that they haven't been for the past year or so). Even though it is conceivable that Cyrix could be bought and rematerialize as a strong company, as another poster pointed out, that's extremely unlikely.
Research takes a *lot* of money, and because of this news that Cyrix is being sold, it seems extremely obvious that they are short on cash (and probably ideas).
So has Intel won? It's interesting to think that Intel has established such a strong brand and product line that they've done what many predicted they wouldn't be able to do: defeat their competitors.
Hopefully this'll wake some people up over there at AMD, that all the patting on the head they've been giving themselves due to their moderate success doesn't mean much-- they haven't really beaten Intel, but rather just established a niche for themselves. But Intel isn't stupid, and they're fighting back with their own lines of cheap relatively fast processors (Celerons), which can potentially eat away at AMD's little niche in the market.
Anyway, it would be extremely pleasant if AMD's K7 did well. When I read the false reports against their machines, I was extremely disappointed, since it would definitely nice to see AMD do well against Intel. Diversity is always good.
There was a picture that I saw a while back with this girl in this grey underwear, and on the band it said, "Linux - You know you want me." Does anyone know about where I could find this again? I want it as wallpaper.
America may have bombed China in '45 in order to fight against the Japanese (who occupied China at that point-- look up the Rape of Nanking). Since we were still in WW2 by that point, we were supporting the Communist as well as Nationalist forces within China, who fought it out afterwards. Anyway, the point was that the native Chinese people within China were actually United States allies, and the bombing must have been to aid them.
I uploaded the movies to some UW servers:
students.washington.edu/achen/TFN_TrailerC.mov
weber.u.washington.edu/~achen/TFN_TrailerC.mov
These should be added to the theforce.net site soon, so get the movies now!
I cannot believe that this kind of stuff can happen-- could you imagine the kind of suffering fans had to go through to get little clips and such back in the 80's with the other StarWars?
:)
Now, we miss 60 Minutes and someone records an entire clip with all the stuff filtered and now we can all see it. Mine's going right now-- something tells me Slashdot is going to kill all the mirrors.
God bless the internet
From Yahoo!, a Gameboy costs ~$60, and from Yahoo! again, the price for a PalmV is $450.
:)
For that price, why not just buy both? Wait a minute, I forgot one thing-- having a PalmV that plays videogames lets someone pretend to be doing very important business while at a meeting, right?
I knew it was going to correspond with when midterms start for me :)
Just like everything else, the carefully crafted ideas in a movie belong to someone, in this case George Lucas (and his legions of employees). The fact that there might be a 4+ hour uncut version of the Phantom Menace really shouldn't make you want to go find it-- it seems to me that the proper response would be for you to be appalled.
I know as someone who works in the computer industry, intellectual property is extremely important to me (especially in software, where it's all ideas). If someone were to somehow come in here (especially a "fan") and steal the alpha version of our flagship product, I'd be extremely annoyed.
I think that we all owe it to George Lucas to all convene in some movie theater on May 19th and see his film (and shell out the money), because frankly, he deserves it. Let's show the film industry that we appreciate quality movies so they'll stop releasing crappy ones like "Wing Commander."
Andrew