eclectica
2005-01-01, 15:38
With all the RIAA lawsuits going on and recent news of some websites that hosted BitTorrent .torrent files selling out or shutting down, some people feel that the only hope and future of p2p filesharing lies in the usage of networks which use proxying and encrypting, and ones in which the identity of the users is fully anonymous. These closed networks tend to be inefficient in some manner, because the proxying creates extra bandwidth, the encryption produces extra straining on a computer's processor, or the networks tend to be closed off to the public, limiting selection amongst a small group of trusted friends. Examples of such programs are ones like WASTE, MUTE, or Freenet. Some people call such networks "darknets", but I refrain from using that term because its definition varies depending on who is using it.
Real p2p filesharing to me is an international community of people who are bound together by a common interest in the music they share. It is a bond which transcends borders and laws. It is a community of people connected by way of digital means, and it is as meaningful as any other community that people could be members of. Because of the international scope of it, p2p filesharing is to be regarded as a social movement and given religious and cultural protections as well as exemptions from copyright law.
The problem with closed, anonymous networks is that they go against the concept of community and the fraternity that exists between all p2p filesharers. In their closed secretive manner their participants act in a guilty manner no different from people trading child pornography. Their community lacks credibility because of its secret nature, and because of anonymity, there really is no community to speak of. A community which resorts to private communications is no community at all, and the idea of an "anonymous community" is oxymoronic. Those who prefer the sanctuary of a small incestuous private group lack credibility in what they stand for. For people who have lost their fighting spirit and grown weary and impotent, ready to retire from the real p2p filesharing community, the closed network is their best refuge. They are cowards dying a thousand deaths, as they desparately try to do what they can to go underground and avoid the RIAA.
Closed networks are very limited in their selection of material. The closed networks are not diverse enough to be called libraries. If it is not a digital library, then it can not be called real p2p filesharing.
There are the generations of p2p: first generation p2p, second generation p2p, and third generation p2p. First generation p2p networks are centralized servers such as Napster (shut down 2001) or Soulseek (still running), second generation networks are ones that are decentralized such as Gnutella, FastTrack, or WinMX. Is third generation then the closed anonymous ones? Well it depends on who you ask. According to the common definition, such as the definition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer-to-peer#Generational_classification_of_peer-to-peer_networks) at Wikipedia, it is. But as I see it, if third generation p2p is defined as the anonymous closed ones, then there will be no third generation of p2p that will succeed. It is because third generation as defined that way, would not provide everything that second generation could provide, and therefore couldn't replace it. Instead these closed networks are just tools to be used in addition to p2p filesharing, but are not to be thought of as replacements of the community and size of a real p2p filesharing network. To me something can only be called the next generation of p2p filesharing if it can replace the current generation, and surpass it in features and abilities.
Those of you awaiting for the next generation of p2p software are waiting for the wrong thing. The revolutionary developments in p2p filesharing will not lie in the development of software, but rather in the pursuit and advocacy of the p2p filesharing community as a social and ideological movement.
Real p2p filesharing to me is an international community of people who are bound together by a common interest in the music they share. It is a bond which transcends borders and laws. It is a community of people connected by way of digital means, and it is as meaningful as any other community that people could be members of. Because of the international scope of it, p2p filesharing is to be regarded as a social movement and given religious and cultural protections as well as exemptions from copyright law.
The problem with closed, anonymous networks is that they go against the concept of community and the fraternity that exists between all p2p filesharers. In their closed secretive manner their participants act in a guilty manner no different from people trading child pornography. Their community lacks credibility because of its secret nature, and because of anonymity, there really is no community to speak of. A community which resorts to private communications is no community at all, and the idea of an "anonymous community" is oxymoronic. Those who prefer the sanctuary of a small incestuous private group lack credibility in what they stand for. For people who have lost their fighting spirit and grown weary and impotent, ready to retire from the real p2p filesharing community, the closed network is their best refuge. They are cowards dying a thousand deaths, as they desparately try to do what they can to go underground and avoid the RIAA.
Closed networks are very limited in their selection of material. The closed networks are not diverse enough to be called libraries. If it is not a digital library, then it can not be called real p2p filesharing.
There are the generations of p2p: first generation p2p, second generation p2p, and third generation p2p. First generation p2p networks are centralized servers such as Napster (shut down 2001) or Soulseek (still running), second generation networks are ones that are decentralized such as Gnutella, FastTrack, or WinMX. Is third generation then the closed anonymous ones? Well it depends on who you ask. According to the common definition, such as the definition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer-to-peer#Generational_classification_of_peer-to-peer_networks) at Wikipedia, it is. But as I see it, if third generation p2p is defined as the anonymous closed ones, then there will be no third generation of p2p that will succeed. It is because third generation as defined that way, would not provide everything that second generation could provide, and therefore couldn't replace it. Instead these closed networks are just tools to be used in addition to p2p filesharing, but are not to be thought of as replacements of the community and size of a real p2p filesharing network. To me something can only be called the next generation of p2p filesharing if it can replace the current generation, and surpass it in features and abilities.
Those of you awaiting for the next generation of p2p software are waiting for the wrong thing. The revolutionary developments in p2p filesharing will not lie in the development of software, but rather in the pursuit and advocacy of the p2p filesharing community as a social and ideological movement.