Slashdot Log In
P2P Filesharing vs. The Web
Posted by
michael
on Fri Sep 19, 2003 06:25 PM
from the inculcating-values dept.
from the inculcating-values dept.
The Importance of writes "The recent RIAA lawsuits have raised many questions and issues, but the focus has been on P2P filesharing. Before there was P2P, though, there was filesharing via webservers. There doesn't seem to be much complaint about the RIAA shutting down people who upload MP3s to their homepage. Why do many people seem to treat http filesharing different than P2P filesharing? LawMeme has one answer."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
People dont share much anymore (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:People dont share much anymore (Score:5, Insightful)
As a prior post mentioned, prosecution is another problem. The RIAA is attempting to quench the problem at the source, which is definitely the easier way to go.
I'm not a big fan of neo-modus/direct connect, mainly because of DC++. It's made the sharing requirements for Direct Connect irrelevant. People get on as many networks as they want, and share 2-3 slots with about 15KB of upload between them all between about 10 different networks, making them effectively just leeches.
Plus the requirements for DC servers have gotten so bloated that they basically require some amount of spoofing to even get on. I haven't used DC in more than a year, and the last time I did, most servers were requiring you to share 30-50 gigs of media, bigger than many casual file sharers actual hard drive.
Parent
Re:People dont share much anymore (Score:3, Informative)
I have a 3 GB per month download cap.
My ISP has a no "Servers" rule. Large uploads gets you banned.
I can't be a good server with my ISP Ts & Cs.
Getting onto a better ISP for me is well... problematic...
Regards...
Re:People dont share much anymore (Score:5, Insightful)
Right. Where would the RIAA come up with over 50 gigs of media content? It's not like they own all the music in the world right?
Parent
Re:People dont share much anymore (Score:5, Interesting)
Most major universities (mine is in that crowd) turn a blind eye to P2P traffic... until they get a C&D complaint. The policy here: the networking people immediately cut off the connection. They will not turn it back on until a student says the offending file has been removed (honor code is involved - very serious honor code). And, if it really was the student's fault - that is, the student can't prove the letter was a mistake - it's a $80 reconnect fee.
The university I'm at has ~15,000 students. They get several C&D letters a week - many are repeat offenders. Just about everyone I know (or rather, who understands how) cuts off their upload and leeches in order to avoid C&D-type problems.
Get a single C&D letter, be out $80... whoops, there went the month's beer money. College students ain't stupid, not when it comes to getting that beer...
Parent
Re:People dont share much anymore (Score:5, Insightful)
it's more than that: people, once they understand the whole client/server model, get really slaved to that idea. they use their p2p app as a client used to retreive stuff from servers.
this is why there hasn't been much outrage over the whole ftp/web sharing prosecution. joe average looks at the servers as being different, more dedicated. the servers as the "pushers and pimps" the clients are just "casual users and johns".
at least that's how they see it.
Parent
Maybe. (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you kidding? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Are you kidding? (Score:5, Interesting)
from robots.txt [robotstxt.org]:
User-agent: NPBot
Disallow: /
Parent
Re:Are you kidding? (Score:3, Interesting)
hmmm (Score:2, Interesting)
Old Fight (Score:5, Insightful)
We need to use P2P (Score:5, Interesting)
We need to use P2P as the official file distribution system for Linux. I think we should replace the whole ftp web based style with a clicknrun gui style P2P system for file distribution.
Re:We need to use P2P (Score:3, Informative)
But like another poster said, P2P isn't great for low-demand things like most software. Right after release, it works well (and we've already got that covered with Bittorrent), but I can't see it being useful after that first window.
Re:We need to use P2P (Score:3, Informative)
Um (Score:2, Interesting)
Simple. It's easier. (Score:5, Insightful)
As far as the person getting them. some may not even know how to get it to "stop playing in the browser" and actually save it to the desktop using right click (option+click if 1 button)
Not to mention the fact that when you type in "Britney Spears MP3's" in google you get anything BUT Britney MP3's... let's be reasonable here.
Even the most basic user can figure out how to install a program (in windows everything is "I agree" - "Next" - "Finish" - "Done") and type in a song name and grab it or share it.
Re:Simple. It's easier. (Score:3, Insightful)
2nd: I really really really don't understand why people don't use USENET (newsgroups) more often. I mean it is simple, clean, quite a good deal more anonymous that anything else (if you are using private accounts). It is fast and loaded with good stuff. I use it ALL THE TIME and couldn't be
Re:Simple. It's easier. (Score:4, Insightful)
Well.. a) actually it is. but because of b) you pretty much have to pay for it to actually get anything more complex downloaded. At the current volume it is pretty much impossible for anyone to capture the whole feed without substantial investments and that costs money. There are lots of free servers and even as close as 5-6 years ago most of them were carrying the binary groups too but it just doesn't make sense anymore.
Parent
Re:Simple. It's easier. (Score:5, Funny)
Windows: "We have the right to stick it to you anytime we feel like it. You will, in fact, take this lying down."
User: "I agree"
Windows: "By continuing this install routine, you agree to forefit all rights to your computer, worldly assets, and your wife."
User: "Next"
Windows: "Remember, Thou Shalt Not Worship Any OS But I. Are you still trying to fight this, or are you finished?"
User: "Finish"
Windows: "Thank you for installing. Your computer now has 5 new pieces of spyware. Your privacy is....
User: "Done".
Parent
Re:Simple. It's easier. (Score:3, Interesting)
But more important, I've got 10M of disk quota from my ISP for a website. I've got an old computer with a 20G hard drive running a P2P program. Which one you think is going to work better for sharing files? I suppose I could set up my own web server, b
Re:Simple. It's easier. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Simple. It's easier. (Score:3, Informative)
Additionaly, this fuctionality is built into microsoft office 2k [can't remember if it was in office 97]. You can easily save file to ftp://blablabla.com. This feature when I started using it didn't seem to be in another other "save as" dialog box.
Peop
Its easier (Score:4, Insightful)
Also Webpage sharing is also harder to do say anonymously or at least with that feeling. Given you need a credit card and least some sort of contact info it appears to many that Kazaa is safer.
and The final reason is
OT- Does anyone know of a good Open Source Windows 32 Platform Firwall?
Err... (Score:5, Insightful)
People uploading stuff to webservers: takes a semi-technically inclined person to do it, webspace costs money, webspace is a lot more finite than hard drive space, doesn't get much traffic, doesn't get spread "virally".
P2P: Any Joe Schmoe can do it, it gets a LOT of traffic (millions of people on P2P networks, it's free, you can share as much as your HD can hold, due to the easy searches in P2P you get more traffic, files spread "virally" - one person can rip something and the next day hundreds can have it.
-- Dr. Eldarion --
Re:Err... (Score:3, Insightful)
So there is basically a progression from instant messaging to P2P. In instant messaging, you basically "know" everyone you're connected to. In P2P, you don't really know anyone you're connected to. But in both you c
No-one really defends the sharers (Score:4, Interesting)
If all the leeches were using websites to grab their music then there would be an outcry, but they don't - they use P2P so that is where the focus is.
http (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course running your own server has its advantages. However, most of the folks with their own servers are not the people that use the PTP services. The folks relying on PTP are often fairly unsophisticated computer users who are looking for the latest song for free and are unknowingly relying on a infrastructure to find their songs. They don't know how it works, they just click and the song comes through for free. Hosting your own server requires a little more work which the vast majority of people are not capable of performing. (Although Apple is lowering the requirements for hosting your own Apache server significantly. One click and you are live.)
Shades of grey... (Score:2, Interesting)
With a p2p network its much more shades of gray. Some people offer the latest Britney, some offer all stuff from IUMA, but most are in between.
Two reasons (Score:4, Insightful)
1. Easier to find files- download one app and do a search as opposed to having to hunt down different webpages for different files and all of the hassles included with that approach (dead links, 401s, etc).
2. More files available on filesharing (generally speaking).
Riaa doesn;t need to shut down webservers... (Score:5, Interesting)
On a side not, I still get occasional mails from people that find a google listing and ask for access to a certain song. I can deal with that.
Re:Riaa doesn;t need to shut down webservers... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
hmmm... I wonder... (Score:2, Funny)
I think I got it!
I think it might have something to do with p2p being about 500 times more widespread as a way for mainstream folks to download music.
I'm a genius I know.
I don't think many non-geeks use anything but kaaza and the like.
The personal touch (Score:4, Interesting)
Not the same attck at all. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm kind of amazed that the article's author missed this if he did any background research at all.
Re:Not the same attck at all. (Score:3, Informative)
You may not remember that FTP, Usenet and IRC were rife with all kinds of pirate material up before Napster came along. Most were only a Webcrawler [webcrawler.com] search away (and it looks like they still are [webcrawler.com]). Warezing music helped lead to the popularity of MP3 in my opinion and experience. Napster was merely a new architecture and interface.
And dude, don't insult just because you disagree. It just mak
Cat and mouse (Score:3, Insightful)
Watch out for legislation (Score:3, Insightful)
After all, there's really very little functional difference between P2P and HTTP - it's a negotiation between two machines to provide data to each other. P2P is really just a client/server pair per machine.
My Mac is running both Apache and Safari - what would distinguish it functionally from a P2P client?
P2P & HTTP Replaced By B2P? (Score:4, Interesting)
Now they are taking the overused advice of "adopt a new business model", which seems to be services such as Apple's iTunes Music Store [apple.com] (Soon for Windows) [macrumors.com], BuyMusic.com [buymusic.com], Rhapsody [listen.com], and soon Roxio Napster 2.0 [napster.com].
The new RIAA attack plan is to offer B2P services. The problem? DRM. If I buy a CD from iTMS, for example, it may be $9.99. I would buy the same CD in store for $14.99. No, I'm NOT paying five bucks for the album art, professionally burned CD, etc. I'm paying for the right to do with it what I want. There's something about having "SOMETHING" in your hands. They can't take that away from you, like they can with digital music.
P2P for me is a way of sampling music before buying the CD. This will never be replaced by a $0.99 deal, since I like to download it, and listen to the song throughout the day. At work I listen to different music than at home. At night, different music from the day. Walking music is different from sittin' or driving music. Rhapsody fails here, so does iTMS... you can only sample certain portions, while in front of your computer. It's not the same.
Why P2P is better than HTTP? It's easier. More people use it, than HTTP was used for MP3 trading. Does it matter? No, B2P will overtake them both. There IS a large number of people who ONLY want digital music, that's why they turn to P2P. These people will turn to B2P once it becomes "mainstream."
For the most part the RIAA doesn't have to do legal battles any more (though it is a nice source of income), they can attack it by offering new online services, just as EVERYONE has been saying for years. Me, I'll stick to brick and mortar, and P2P though.
How many friends do you have? (Score:3, Insightful)
Obscure works (Score:5, Informative)
The media seems to be focusing on, and the RIAA seems to be only going after those who share the mass-market crap like Britney, Eminem, etc. I for one, am more interested in Asian pop, anime, classical recordings, game soundtracks, indie stuff, (indie) Christian music, etc. that are simply unavailable for sale in the US, whether you want to pay for it or not.
The Internet provides a unique medium to distribute works such as the aforementioned categories, whose owners can't/don't want to bother marketing in the US because the demand is so small in absolute numbers. In the absence of official marketing, it allows a building of a fan following for non mass-market type works, possibly paving the way in several years for more organized marketing efforts. Witness the growth of anime from underground fansubs to small marketers in the US, to recent feature theatrical releases (eg, Spirited Away). Without the initial underground sharing, you wouldn't have the word-of-mouth hype.
It's International Talk Like a Pirate Day (Score:5, Interesting)
We download, we vet the downloads. We upload songs to private FTP servers with the bandwidth we're not using when we're at work.
We have a trust based, friend based, non peer to peer, but distributed, quality controlled file sharing experience.
It's great. It doesn't get flooded with crap, it doesn't get flooded with music we don't like. Anyone with an account on the machines is known to everyone else.
Gosh it sounds just like some warez servers back when I used to have an interest in warez, or hacker BBS's when I had an interest in that.
The web? That's all a bit new fangled for us..
short answers: (Score:3, Insightful)
2) filesharing via webservers is slower (limited bandwidth).
3) filesharing via webservers is easy to spot. Either they make the site public and you can find it easy or they don't tell anybody and it doesn't really matter (if nobody knows where to download the files who cares?).
4) setting up a webserver takes some effort
P2P allows any idiot to share anything on their hard-drive. They can look at all the files all the other idiots are sharing. Bandwidth can be shared. Once a file is shared it is almost imposible to stop (you can bust 100 idiots but 100,000 more are still sharing the file).
I don't remember using HTTP to download MP3'S (Score:3, Informative)
Remember the MP3 search engines? Before Napster, college students and dotcommers were filesharing by putting MP3s on their webpages for download through good ol' http.
I remember back in the day, late '98 and early '99, when I was a college freshman, before Napster and it's P2P bretheren were invented. I didn't get my pirated music from HTTP websites. I got it from 2 sources. The first was a site called Scour.net, which searched in an HTTP page, but downloaded from FTP sites and Windows shares, mostly windows shares. It had a little application, the Scour dowloader or something, that helped you download stuff linked from the page. The other way I obtained illegal music was FTP sites. In fact, I ran one off of my college dorm connection, and the funny thing is back then nobody at the school really cared.
To Defeat the Undefeatable Foe (Score:3, Insightful)
As for the speculation about why the sturm and drang over p2p and not so much noise about http, I would note that, as LawMeme states, http sites are easier to take down. And so, let me propose that the point is to go after the unsolvable problem, p2p. After all, they can claim "we killed Napster, we subponeaed isp's, we even sued the 12 year olds and millions are still 'stealing' from us -- we cannot kill the beast. So, Congress, let's just tax hard drives, blank cd's, isp accounts, etc., and let the government, as proxy for the thieves, reimburse us for our losses." Because revenues from taxes are really pure profit. And would they split the reimbursements with their artists? Well, of course, I can't imagine why I would even ask the question!
Please note, the above analysis in no way endorses the RIAA viewpoint that the primary cause of their troubles is from filesharing. In fact, didn't we see that filesharing has decreased and, looking at their album sales, they are still selling fewer units.
Why we see http sharing as wrong, but p2p as okay (Score:3, Insightful)
There is a difference between sharing a song and downloading a song. People want to download songs. We directly benefit from being able to listen to a song. It's a selfish desire, although we can justify it in many ways (convience, cost, evilness of RIAA).
I don't think that ANYONE wants to share songs. We don't get any benefit from giving our songs to strangers, and we put ourselves at risk for lawsuits. On top of this is the effort that it takes to host a website and the cost. The only upside I can see is the possible ego boost or the chance that other people will allow you to download their songs.
So most of us feel no incentive to host mp3s on a website, and when people are prosecuted for it we feel no sympathy, after all we wouldn't have done it.
But p2p wouldn't work without people sharing songs, and so sharing your music directory is turned on by default in most p2p clients. How many Kazaa users do you think change the defaults? I'd be willing to bet that a good portion of people don't know that they are sharing their own songs, and wouldn't know how to prevent it. Other people who do know feel guilty if they download songs without sharing their own. Back in the Napster days I remember people would cut off a connection if you weren't sharing any songs.
When a p2p sharer is sued, we can sympathize, and we're afraid that it could be us next. But it's our desire to download and not our desire to share that causes our sympathy. P2P seems okay because we only see our end - we get to listen to a song that we wouldn't have bought anyway - no one gets hurt. We don't even think about the other half - that we are distributing all the songs that we paid good money for to any shmo with an internet connection.
The best way to share is netnews (Score:3, Interesting)
By comparison, the P2P "sharing" networks are horrendously inefficient. It's embarassing how crappy the technology is.
I've been thinking about a whole new approach, where what's passed around are random bitstreams. You have to get several bitstreams from different sources and XOR them together to get content. Different combinations of different bitstreams produce different content. No single bitstream contains copyrighted content, and every bitstream can be XORed with something which will provide legitimate content. The bitstreams are passed around via netnews. But I'm not going to implement this; it's not something I'm really interested in.
It already happened... (Score:5, Informative)
The article on Lawmeme conveniently forgets the fact that the last [slashdot.org] round [slashdot.org] of lawsuits [slashdot.org] effectively [taipeitimes.com] stopped [taipeitimes.com] web based file trading.
While this is only a number of articles on a couple of incidents, there is no question that web based file trading was effectively crushed by record industry litigation just a few years ago. With P2P, people thought they were anonymous.
However, the RIAA has consistently misrepresented the "safe harbour" clause. The intent of the "safe harbour" clause was to prevent ISPs from hosting copyrighted material on the ISPs' own servers. The identity part also had to with information hosted on the ISPs' own servers, but it appears that most judges are buying the RIAA's BS.
Welcome back to the Dark Ages.
RE: the REAL question? (Score:3, Informative)
Still, there will *always* be a steady flow of music swapping/copying - because most people realize that intangible items being copied never really equate with stealing tangibles.
Bottom l
Re:Is this news?? And if you must do opinion, then (Score:4, Informative)
Parent