Contact Me
|
Wednesday, January 26, 2005
Posted at 12:52 pm by Gijsvanwiechen
Tuesday, June 29, 2004
Hi all,
The temptation is too big: I have to start continuing this blog. I have decided to move my blog to another more convenient one namely:
http://GvanWiechen.blogdrive.com Hopefully I'll see at least some people there!
SCROLL DOWN FOR MY PAPER ON BITTORRENT
Some minor adjustments:
Noticed that the notes are incompleteAmong others: Becker & Clement (2004); Strahilevitz (2002); Golle, Leyton-Brown & Mironov (2002), Adar & Huberman (2000)
Some examples: http://www.Desitorrents.com deals with everything Indian (from music and films to porn), http://crazymazey.kicks-ass.org specializes in horror-releases and http://mrtwig.net/is supplying everything that is South Park related.
Strahilevitz mentions that on Gnutellaa content is mainly accurately labeled.
[13] Further research is necessary in mislabeled files as well as availability, and my arguments are rather speculative: but the comments of (ex)users of different file-sharing networks and personal experience in this respect have lead me to believe that getting correct content is not as easy as it seems, especially when the content is not so popular. anecdotal evidence is getting obscure films of Jean-Luc Godard film on Overnet (La chinoise, Made in USA and A Bout de Souffle are two I remember not getting at) , while they are listed in the search engine, they are often incomplete, because not widespread or the original releaser does not use the program anymore.
And the two pictures weren't copied so here they are!
This is figure 1a:
And this is figure 1b:
ByeBye all!
Posted at 01:13 am by Gijsvanwiechen
The BitTorrent Way?
Final Paper Participatory Culture
Gijs van Wiechen
Studentno.: 0000531
June 2004
Instructor: Shenja de Graaf
Introduction
File-sharing and P2P are a much debated phenomenon in the realm of politics, business, internet developers and cultural and communication studies alike. Whether it is a futuristic assessment promoting the cliché “Power to the People” or a fight against the illegal activities taking place, it cannot be denied that P2P has proven to be very influential in thinking about relations between humans and between humans and various aspect of our capitalist consumer society. The topic of this paper tries to deal with some of these implications, relating to a new file-sharing technology called BitTorrent. Introduced to the public in October 2002, it has grown considerably and has introduced a different way of sharing of content. One of the interesting things of BitTorrent is that its founder Bram Cohen never meant to facilitate such a vast amount of ‘illegal’ file sharing, and thus did not have to deal in its design with some of the problems that Napster and kin had and actively addressed. So while a part of the success is technologically embedded within the protocol, a large part deals with problems that are far more social, related to the behaviour and willingness of the users. The tension and interaction between the technological and the social, I will try to argue in this paper, shape to a large extent the different ways in which BitTorrent is used as a file-sharing tool and introduces interesting ways in which peers communicate and interact with each other. One of the most striking things of BitTorrent, for instance, is that users have to download a specific file in order to get access to content. One of the implications of this is that people are dependent on fixed servers that host these files, creating the possibility for interesting community-related interaction. We shall see that with the use of BitTorrent in various spaces of the internet, it can be seen as move towards what Clay Shirky has called ‘social sharing’. (Shirky, 2003) Shirky sees this development as much in the download programs itself as in the use of it, making his term seemingly perfect for BitTorrent, although he does not mention it in his article.
Thus in this paper I will try to shed my light on what happens in the space between the original BitTorrent-protocol and the various user centred web spaces. I’ll try to examine in what ways the original protocol allows or obliges certain participatory acts, and in what ways these acts are shaped and addressed in various communities. First I’ll map out how BitTorrent works, and will search the ways in which BitTorrent introduces possibilities for new ways of (obligatory) interaction and hierarchies, and will position these developments within the debate on social aspects of file sharing. From this point of view I’ll try to pin point the implications of this protocol, by examining three specific websites, that all have a distinct way of managing access to files and ways of interaction between users. The first of these sites is Suprnova.org, one of the most popular sites related to BitTorrent, and its name has become almost synonymous with BitTorrent itself. I will then discuss Hawkies-world.org, which calls itself a BitTorrent-community. For this site membership is required and the content (of files as well as in conversation) gets actively moderated. Finally I will look at filelist.org a site that prides itself on being very restricted, not only moderating content, but actively monitoring members download behaviour and download/upload ratios. Furthermore access to their resources is restricted to members only and people who know to ‘work computers’. With these case studies it will hopefully become clear how a simple open-source program has introduced a way of file-sharing that reshapes current debates on social interaction in file-sharing and the ways in which P2P can function.
The BitTorrent Protocol and Original Client
Before we can start looking at the implications of BitTorrent and it’s relation to social practices in cyberspace, a short outline of what BitTorrent actually is, is of outmost importance. While BitTorrent has had a considerable growth since its public release in 2002, it remains an unknown phenomenon to many people, even those who regularly visit the internet or download files. Furthermore to grasp how BitTorrent obliges and promotes certain behaviour, it is very important to make clear what the original protocol allows. So below I’ll try to explain the intentions, practices and history of the BitTorrent protocol in short. I will not go into the technical specifics, unless this is of crucial importance to my argument.
Originally the BitTorrent protocol and client were released as a tool dealing with a problem very common with companies or people and their websites: server overload due to excessive traffic. Bram Cohen decided to create a protocol that dealt with this problem in a P2P manner. The sales-pitch on the official BitTorrent website sums this problem up quite well: “You have a great product, many customers, and are delivering your product to hordes of happy customers online. Serving large files creates problems of scaling, flash crowds, and reliability. As you grow, they become more central to your business, but your bandwidth costs go up as well. It's a vicious cycle.” BitTorrent deals with this problem of server overload by tapping into the upload sources of the users downloading the file from a main server. The source that has got a 100% copy of a file available for downloading is called a seed in BitTorrent lingo. While a peer is downloading a file from a seed, he makes the already downloaded parts of the file available to other peers to download. Two simple figures make the benefits of this approach clear: The figure 1a shows the classic client-server model, and it is not hard to imagine the strain put on a central server when it is confronted with a large amount of clients. Figure 1b shows the ‘BitTorrent-Way’ wherein the pressure is divided between all the available parties. As is shown in figure 1b, a peer does not even have to be connected to the original seed to get the file.
figure 1 a: Client-Server figure 1 b: BitTorrent
Source: www.bitconjurer.org/BitTorrent/introduction
To tap into such a file transaction, one must download a small file, with the extension .torrent. This file contains an outline of the number and size of all the different pieces of the main file (a so-called hash) and guides the BitTorrent client to a so-called tracker. This tracker is a web address that monitors the connections that exist around the transaction of a specific file. With this information the new user can make quick contact with some of the peers and seeders of the file. In the original protocol and client, uploading is the main condition for downloading. If a peer refuses to upload for one reason or another, it is impossible for him or her to download the file. This is an asymmetrical system, so the upload speed doesn’t necessarily have to be as high as the download rate. After a peer has downloaded the whole file, he or she changes into a seed and can choose to help the original seed distributing content. The word ‘choose’ is of significant importance, because while the protocol does force the peer to upload while downloading, it does not force the peer to leave his client running. The popularity of BitTorrent has mainly to do with the fast download speeds that can be reached, especially when one has a fast upload speed. This can happen because a peer is downloading from a multiple range of sources, but there is another important aspect. Without going into the specifics it is the efficiency of the protocol that tries to minimise the possibilities that peers have to wait in order to get a specific piece. This is has among others to do with the process of ‘rarest first’, meaning that BitTorrent will give priority to relatively rare pieces, thus trying to create a balanced supply and demand for all the pieces.
This is a good time to posit a moment and look at the official BitTorrent client; probably the most used BitTorrent client out there at the moment. First of all, the client is a very simple one, not unlike the normal download window of the Internet Explorer. It shows what and whereto it is downloading, the download process and speed and its estimated time left. Somewhat different than the IE window, is the mentioning of the upload rate and the amount uploaded. However as we have seen in the above, it leaves a lot of information out. There is among others, no mentioning of the amount of peers, the availability (according to number of seeds and their upload rate) and the address of the tracker. Other BitTorrent clients, using the open-source BitTorrent protocol, do show this and even let the user alter some of these aspects. I digress a little, but these differences are of crucial importance in showing clearly the intent that Cohen has. As he mentions in his resume, the fact that it is seamlessly integrated into the web is one of the important aspects. To create a wide appeal (going beyond the file sharing scene) he has created a simple interface that is hassle free and fully integrated in Windows-dominated web surfing. It is clear that the BitTorrent client assumes a central seed and tracker that are on 24/7. When dealing with the far more decentralized use in the P2P-file-sharing scene, the information given is not enough. Because peers, seeds and trackers have a very irregular up and downtime in this realm, it is of importance for the peer to ‘know’ the persons and aspects involved. He’s got to know how many peers there are and whether there are any seeds left, or if the tracker is off- or online, in order to asses the odds of him getting this file. This again shows the commercial or at least mainstream intent Cohen has for BitTorrent and his version of a BitTorrent client. Not only the sales pitch and interface of the client prove this, but recently BitTorrent has made alliances with big companies such as Blizzard-software. It is in this respect interesting to see that Cohen pitched the very first introduction of BitTorrent as an alternative to Napster, Gnutella and Freenet, promoting it on the famous Hacker-convention DefCon. Later declaring that “widespread copyright infringement was not what he had in mind”, when he made the client. Whatever Cohen’s original intent however, the open-source aspect of the protocol and its enormous potential has given rise to different BitTorrent clients, such as Azureus, BitComet, BitTornado. These programs deal with BitTorrent in a more complex way, and let the user alter the specifics relating to a BitTorrent transaction. Having established how BitTorrent works and what Cohen’s intentions are, we can now start to formulate some basic assumptions.
Flashmobs: BitTorrent in practice
It is important to keep in mind that a BitTorrent transaction consists of a swarm of seed(s) and peers around one specific file and one tracker. The decision to publish a specific file is made by the original seed (also called the releaser) and it is relatively difficult for a peer to get exactly what he wants. To tap into a transaction a peer must first get a torrent file, and these files are most often located on a website of some sort. A BitTorrent user must thus scour sites looking for his content, because there is no one integrated search function that searches for the peer, as is the case with for instance KazaA and Edonkey. At this moment there is also no source (a website) that searches for the user through all the torrents available, and it is unlikely that there will ever be one, because of the high number and diversity of torrent-related sites. It takes thus more personal work from the peer to find its content with BitTorrent. We touch here on the decentralized aspect of this way of file sharing. Although KazaA and Edonkey among others do not have a list such as Napster had with ‘who has what’, we can say that all users do come together in one sphere. Because a search function is integrated in the program, users do not have to leave the realm of KazaA to get what they want. This program of course is installed and run from a personal computer, but still connects with a central network that connects different networks of peers. In more technical terms KazaA is still server, client and router integrated in one program.(Shirky 2003) This, however abstract it may seem, is one of the last centralized aspects of KazaA. The difference of BitTorrent maybe best illustrated with its relation to the Suprnova.org site. The BitTorrent client in itself is useless, to get content one most visit one of the numerous website and get a torrent file. It is thus not surprising that Suprnova.org has almost become synonymous with BitTorrent, simply because it is a main source of getting to content. Suprnova.org is, however, only a piece (be it a relatively big piece) of the proverbial iceberg. So while the KazaA network is decentralized in its structure which is then centralized on the user’s personal computer by the installed program KazaA, BitTorrent is only centralized in the user itself, making a transaction possible by always combining at least two elements from different sources. A user will always have to choose a BitTorrent client and a torrent file from a specific site.
At this point we might start thinking about the difference of BitTorrent in a commercial and a file-sharing context. The BitTorrent protocol is only a tool, and with this different uses it becomes obvious it does everything but dictate its use. As we have seen, Cohen coins his protocol as solving bandwidth issues, making systems and transactions more stable by sharing the burden with the clients. This is thus much a question of endurance, maintaining connections for long periods of heavy usage. When related to a corporate website and product for instance (say the Blizzard example), it thus generates a more stable situation that tries to limit overload and downtime. On the other hand, when BitTorrent is used in a file sharing context, a BitTorrent transaction is all but stable and fixed. Because of the relatively few persons involved in a transaction (certainly when comparing them for instance with KazaA or a corporate product), transactions have a tendency to become flash mobs. A (large) amount of people sprout up around a seed, file and a tracker, somewhere in cyberspace. They start downloading and seeding it, but when the initial rush is over, the number of peers will decline and so will the number of seeds. The original seed is often not in this transaction anymore, and has gone to seed something new. He is there mainly to set up a transaction by seeding it for a certain percentage (100+ of course), he can then choose to leave it to others. That this is common practice is visible on BitTorrent forums, messages from original releasers along the lines of “I’ll stop seeding when there are three seeds and then it’s up to you” are very common. The left over seeds often only seed a maximum of 100%. The original seed was in essence doing an altruistic thing: uploading without downloading any new content. Follow up seeds will hopefully return the favour but it is unlikely that they share the extent of altruism, and abandon the transaction earlier then the original releaser. In time there will also be less demand and the transaction will die out. When the transaction is over, at first some peers will still tapping in, hoping on a new or reconnecting seed, but often these too will leave the realm, recognising that they have missed out on this file. What remains of the transaction is, frankly, nothing except maybe for a digitized reference on a tracker, but these also get cleaned up regularly: depending where it is published an old post may still linger at the bottom on a forum, leaving the remote possibility for a reseed. When the original releaser acknowledges this request the process starts up again, but this one will probably last even shorter. So in a specific time span a transaction will die out, leaving few references or traces. The time span of a working transaction can range from an hour to half a year or longer, depending on the number of peers and seeds, where it is published and how popular the specific file is. So while BitTorrent on the one hand allows a very stable and fast transaction, its durability is totally dependent from the different parties involved. If the main seed is server based, a transaction becomes equally fixed, if the seed is an individual, it will share his characteristics.
Seed/Peer & Content: Incentives to share
A lot has been written already on the paradoxical aspects on the social incentives of file-sharing, mainly focusing on ‘classic’ programs as Napster, Gnutella and KazaA. Because of the emphasis put on this topic in the structure of the programs as well as in scientific research, it is important to see how we can relate BitTorrent to this discussion. The question that is central in the debate on incentives to share is two-fold. On the one hand there is the question why people are sharing in the first place. Sharing in this case refers directly to the issue of copyright infringement. Technically, and almost every sharer knows this, sharing copyrighted data is theft and punishable by law. It can lead to fines or even imprisonment. This is a very high cost for something not having a direct effect (meaning making content available does not necessarily supply you with fresh content). The other aspect is the problem of free-riding, or why people are downloading but refuse to upload. Different empirical researches have shown that, for instance, 25 and even up to 70% of the users of Gnutella do not share files. (Heyer, 2002; Adar & Huberman, 2002) While free-riding is a fundamental problem for P2P-networks, it is more important to look at why people are sharing and if these explanations make some aspects of BitTorrent more clear. The explanations can be narrowed down to three main aspects: an economical, altruistic and reciprocal incentive. Strahilevitz argues that the latter two are intertwined in a ‘code’ actively promoted by file-sharing programs but also lives in the mind of the user. (Strahilevitz, 2002) These are mutually enforcing, according to Strahilevitz: “the ingenious structure of file-haring networks solidifies a norm of sharing and that this norm of sharing is reinforced by the users’ mistaken but predictable notions of reciprocity”. Because sharing is of vital importance for a P2P network, Gnutella and others have created a ‘charismatic code’ promoting the fact that everybody shares. This as empirical data shows is a plain and simple lie, but by stating this lie, it taps into the user’s feelings of reciprocity. If you have been given something by someone, supposedly as an altruistic deed, it is more then kind to give something back. This code however also masks uncooperative behaviour, by only showing the persons who do share to an individual user. Furthermore it creates affinities between large groups of anonymous users, simply because people are meeting each other because they have the same interest. Strahilevitz acknowledges however that this works more strongly when dealing with relatively obscure artists, but it remains an important aspect by which in the minds of the user a picture is created. In some file-sharing applications (for instance KazaA) this is even more advanced, and users can search other user’s lists, to try to find something interesting. Not dealing with these social factors, Becker & Clement argue that there is also an economical motive. This has to do with the rational process of keeping the network alive. This incentive is particularly strong when a network has just started, because the amount of the same file and the diversity file are responsible for the success of the network. Becker & Clement also see a difference between the creator of a file, and someone who’s merely passing it through to other persons. While the ‘cost’ or work of the first is relatively high, the latter will have to do profoundly less to share it. This analysis however seems to fall short, because again it seems that social considerations dictate the willingness to help a network grow.
BitTorrent deals with these incentives to share, but we have already seen that it can not be considered as one network. One crucial difference moreover is that with BitTorrent uploading is obligatory for downloading. So while KazaA and Gnutella deal with the fact that some persons just never share, because they have nothing to upload in their shared folder directory, with a BitTorrent transaction a peer will always share something, ranging from 0,1 % to over a 100. The incentive is thus mainly focused on the fact that a peer must leave his download window open after he finished downloading. It seems to be that an original releaser, even more than with KazaA or Gnutella, makes a decision to put effort into a release solely on altruistic grounds. This altruistic behaviour is enforced by the high visibility the first seed has and the fact that he can actively monitor the number of peers. When publishing on a large file-sharing network, the file quickly becomes a part of this network, and the publisher has technically lost touch with his product. Although this can happen with BitTorrent as well, and it often does, this is only after some time, with a structural break in between. As we have seen a BitTorrent transaction starts every time from scratch, and as mentioned above a lot of seeds are actually choosing to stop seeding when the transaction can continue without him. With an over the top comparison, it could be seen as feeding a baby bird, only to watch it fly away, giving the nice feeling that you did a good job. Of even graver importance, however, is the fact that a lot of transactions are started within communities that already established a relatively dense-knit group. Because of the large amount of forums and communities on the internet, a user can choose and join one or more that has his or her taste(s). There are, for instance, BitTorrent-forums related to language, ethnicity or nationality, forums that are specialised in a specific movie or music genre or dealing with one specific program. While reciprocity on Gnutella is for Strahilevitz largely based on misperception, and anonymity a force to be dealt with, a BitTorrent-forum actually shows a relatively large percentage of people you are dealing with. This is not to say these people actually know each other, they are still largely nicknames sending over-friendly Thanks or comments, but it becomes clear that other user are similar people as the user. When you know that a member called “Megaman” has supplied a release you enjoyed, the best way to thank him is to share some of your own interests and the forums give you the possibility to actively recommend it. The way which interaction is structured on a site or forum is, however, is very diverse as we shall see in the different case studies.
This rather positive and optimistic analysis goes by the fact that BitTorrent has a free-rider problem too, and it seems that much in the same way as Becker & Clement describe it, this problem gets larger as the BitTorrent community grows. In BitTorrent lingo these persons are often referred to as ‘leechers’. Because the BitTorrent protocol does not dictate an upload/download ratio and only forces to upload until the transaction is completed, a charismatic code such as Strahilevitz argues is not a universal phenomenon. People are dealing with this problem in a far more diverse and decentralised way. Rules and promotion related to the encouragement to remain in the transaction after their download has been finished, happens on a variety of different levels. In the popular alternative BitTorrent client Azureus a warning is integrated through a pop-up, announcing that the user’s upload ratio for a specific file is less then 100 % and that a ratio of under 100% is a bad thing for the BitTorrent network. More often the website or members of communities promote seeding, or are portraying leechers rather negative. The case studies will dedicate some attention to these aspects in the three different websites.
Narrow Horizons & Darknets: Trust and Accountability
Clay Shirky and Robert Kaye have both written about the future of file-sharing and the phenomenon of Darknets. (Shirky, 2003; Kaye, 2004) They bring forward some interesting problems that we can relate to different BitTorrent transactions and are very useful when we start looking at the specific cases. Shirky argues that with the new tactics of the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) trying to ‘crush connectors’ such as KazaA, file sharers will move into tighter groups that are difficult to penetrate. Because KazaA is maintained by a relatively small number of highly connected nodes, if the RIAA tries to attack these, it brings much harm to the system. When this tactic succeeds, and according to Shirky it does, it’ll force the file-sharers to go somewhere else. Because the threat of attacks is becoming larger when a network is highly visible, Shirky envisions that people move into highly secluded groups unobservable from the outside world. This move of file-sharers into ‘underground groups’ is also signalled by Robert Kaye. A term often used for this mixture of file-sharing and social groups is a so called Darknet. According to Kaye “combining file sharing applications with social networks enables people to create a trusted network of their friends to keep out he bad guys”. Trust and accountability have been major issues in P2P since its beginning. With the RIAA and others trying to infiltrate large networks, the trust of the peer-to-peer transaction is under great strain. Not only can a file be incriminated a seemingly harmless peer can log your IP and use it for a lawsuit of some sort. Trust is difficult topic but two aspects are of crucial importance. One is the fact of reputation; the other has to do with the number of people involved. (Waldman & Cranor, 2001) If a positive reputation of a releaser or site is established, it is easier for the user to trust the persons involved. The second factor is the number of person involved; it speaks for itself that fewer involvements of unknown people will reduce the risk of one being a ‘bad guy’. With their actions the RIAA thus forces file-sharers to find a different way of interacting. Accountability is a second important aspect, and more or less relates to the problem of trust: who is responsible for the content and transaction. (Dingledine, Freedman & Molnar, 2001) This also has to do with reputation; a familiar person will be more likely to give you good content. Content in large networks are often unaccounted for, and mislabelled content seems to be far more common today than old research suggest. The RIAA and music labels have been releasing corrupt copies of popular songs on KazaA and other instances (on all the large networks) and there are many examples of files that do not consist of the things promised. Secondly the availability remains uncertain until a download is finished on these networks.
Shirky and Kaye are quick to acknowledge the problems of turning to small and secluded groups of file-sharers generates. One the one hand fewer members in a community, obviously means fewer files available and could endanger the popularity of this system. Furthermore fewer members could seriously harm the efficiency of a system. But on the other hand it allows users to explore their weak and strong ties, where in older, massive file-sharing systems there were only ‘random ties’. The benefit of this is, according to Kaye “Exploring the weak ties in your network is likely to give you access to more relevant information/content than a random tie”. This allows people to show interest in one another and their tastes, more than solely searching for personal benefit.
BitTorrent is not mentioned in Clay’s article, and Kaye sees it as being one of the tools that the ‘darknets’ could use. Again we encounter the problem that while BitTorrent is extremely useful for these tight-social networks, these aspects are not inherent in the protocol itself. It’s its use that dictates the way how it works. For instance, while Kaye and Shirky are emphasising the protective aspects of these new groups, BitTorrent itself is a highly unprotected way of sharing files, with every IP in the transaction easily traceable, and the original seed(s) for all to see. To deal with this security issue, users and communities have to look for other ways to protect their actions or remain secluded. Firewall programs like protowall or peerguardian must be installed if a member wants to be safe from bad guys peeking in, communities can do essentially the same thing by monitoring IP and blocking access to possible bad guys. However because the transaction is so focused on one file, and it can reach fast download speeds, it wins at this point in accountability. The fact that torrents are published by community members introduces furthermore forms of reputation and trust among members, especially when the communication is taking place in a members-only community. Looking at these different forms of communities surrounding BitTorrent, it becomes clear that this realm is still constantly developing and recently there is a shift to more secluded realms. Many web communities have forbidden their content to be published on highly visible sites such as Suprnova.org, with members that get caught risking a permanent ban. Again it will be the case studies that will define these characteristics more clearly.
Posted at 12:58 am by Gijsvanwiechen
Case-Study I
www.suprnova.org
Suprnova.org is in many respects the quintessential BitTorrent site. Not because the way the site is structured, but because the enormous amount of content published here every day. For example an average day (in this case the 27th of june) will show 64 game, 62 movie, 47 television, 194 music, 79 software, 12 Anime, two Apple Mac, one comic and 13 miscellaneous releases, combined a grand total of 474 releases. The statistics of suprnova show a daily average (June 2004) of 1,800,522 hits a day, coming from 852,806 visits. The popularity has quite possibly to do with the easy lay-out; it’s a simple point and click way of getting to torrents, with the new ones that have been published in the last two days ordered according to type and time. Older torrents are listed alphabetically in one of the sub-menus, and a search function makes it very easy to find what a user is looking for. Furthermore it monitors the amounts of seeds and peers in order to show the status of a transaction. Seedless torrents get filtered out so that the possibility to finish a transaction is as high as possible. The moderators are trying to maintain a high standard, limiting the amount of bad files on their site. Endorsing an active policy in correct labelling, instigated when an increasing number of foreign language movies were posted on Suprnova.org, tries to rule out unclear or faulty labels. They furthermore moderate the releases posted on the site and a releaser can only pride itself with a green name (showing he’s a bonafide ‘submitter’) after he had a reasonable amount of good releases. This last aspect seems of little importance, however, because the majority of releasers have no status at all. It nonetheless makes clear that Suprnova.org tries to maintain a certain standard, building and keeping the reputation of being the main place to post and get your torrents. Even the advertisements on the site are relatively modest, except for the starting pop-up. Anecdotal for this policy is the immediate separating of all ties with novasearch.net, when it was infected with a virus. Novasearch had an agreement with the original site, but was moderated by a group unaffiliated with supernova.org. The problem of the virus, almost certain not the fault of the novasearch people, was reason enough for Suprnova to create their own search engine, and dropping the partnership with novasearch.net.
Suprnova.org is probably the only site that caters to such a vast amount of persons, and can pride itself with so much fresh content everyday. Looking at Suprnova.org from the points mentioned in the previous part of this paper, it becomes clear that not all its tactics correspond with what has been said. As we have seen, they do try to maintain a reputation and are very serious in terms of trust and accountability. But there is almost no room for interaction between peers, at least not on the official site. There is a forum and an IRC-channel, but it is not likely that they have such a large amount of visitors. These channels are furthermore not meant to announce releases. The original seed (or uploader of a torrent), gets his nickname mentioned, but contact is not possible. Interesting also is that sharing gets only marginally endorsed. Suprnova.org does announce “Keep your torrent downloads open after you've finished downloading! Uploading to others ensures that the torrent network stays alive!” But this is written in black, and does not really draw attention to it self. The paradox that lingers around Suprnova.org is that because Suprnova.org has so many users, the number of seeds staying online becomes of less importance. This development mimics that of bigger file-sharing networks and their problems with free-riders. But on the other hand when only 50 of the 500 peers decide to keep the file seeded, the transaction has enough members to keep it running efficiently.
In the near future, it seems that Supernova.org will encounter some serious problems that are largely due to their popularity and high visibility. A news-post on the site mentions the problems they are having with torrents that used restricted trackers, and a lot of communities do not want their trackers used on Suprnova.org. This seriously endangers the reputation Suprnova has. It will be quite possible that this site will be the first target on the RIAAs list, either as a threat or an access portal, because of the large amount of content and the possibility to tap into a transaction so easy.
Case Study II
www.hawkies-world.org
In contrast to Suprnova.org, Hawkies-world is using a strategy that is far more common within the BitTorrent phenomenon. Hawkies-world consists of a forum, which they cal a BitTorrent community, and access to it is only allowed to registered members. Signing up, however, isn’t restricted, so anyone can join if he wants to put some effort in it. There are numerous similar sites that use this structure to let people exchange content and conversation. By allowing a great deal of unrelated conversation it tries to create an atmosphere where people can talk to each other. Within the forum there are numerous subsections, where likeminded people can join and discuss certain issues. Most subsections are located in the torrent-section, divided by genre (music), file specifics (movies and adult) or platform/OS (games and software). It is without question that the focus of almost everybody on this forum is getting torrents and thus access to content. The number of posts shows this: the music and adult section topping the charts with respectively 2,720 threads with 23,075 posts and 1,763 threads with 19,419 posts. The procedure to publish on this forum is relatively simple: a releaser starts a new thread in the correct section and attaches a torrent file for other users to grab. Often this is accompanied by some extra information or a link to encyclopaedic resources such as IMDB or Allmusic.com. Because of the forum-structure it is possible for a member to say a quick word of thanks, showing his appreciation for the release and the effort put into it, or he can even choose to comment on it. Although this isn’t obligatory, a releaser can feel underappreciated when a lot of members have downloaded a file, but none of them have said thanks. When voicing his grief, often some thanks will be posted soon afterwards. An interesting feature recently introduced on this forum is the ‘who downloaded’ button. By clicking on it a list appears with who downloaded the file. This makes visible exactly who did not respond to the thread, and thus could function as a monitor of social behaviour. People can also send Private Messages to other members, which is often used for requesting a reseed of a dead transaction, but also for numerous other forms of communication. Hawkies webradio station is yet another means to create a personal atmosphere among the members. All the above underline the social aspects of such a forum, although this contact isn’t necessarily very intense or personal. Because a BitTorrent transaction needs a fixed position where torrents can be posted, and a BBS/forum structure is easy to use for moderators and users, social interaction gets an important position in the BitTorrent way of file sharing.
Although membership is relatively easy, Hawkies-World does promote the idea of a secluded group, and do not want too much visibility. They enforce this by certain rules or by moderating content. With the rise of Suprnova’s popularity, Hawkies have decided not to allow torrents using their trackers to be posted on Suprnova.org. Because often a tracker address has a reference to the original source (i.e. http://super2.hawkies-world.com:6969/announce), publishing it on Suprnova is considered to be too risky. They block the IP’s related to for instance the RIAA and the MPAA (Motion Pictures Association of America), in order to make the transaction and communications more secure. They do not allow live links to outside websites, so the reference cannot be traced back to them. Recently they have started requesting members to re-release a torrent, rather then transferring a torrent from the outside to Hawkies-world, even if they’re seeding it. Shirky envisions that “most file-sharing would go on in groups from a half dozen to a few dozen -- small enough that every member can know every other member by reputation.”(Shirky, 2003) And this seems to be a case within Hawkies-world, because there are many subsections, and these sections have different amounts of participating members, so relatively small transactions are often taking place. In a forum such as Hawkies-world it is possible to build a reputation by the originality of releases you publish and the amount and sort of posts you make. These reputations tend to be especially established in one or more subsections, be it in Asian XXX or the Jazz/Classical music section. This means that reputations rarely cross the borders of interest, but because Hawkies-world builds its community spirit so thoroughly, it manages to generate an overall good reputation and trust among members.
The moderators of Hawkies-world leave the promotion of sharing or condemning of leechers to the members, and do not enforce a specific policy. This works quite well, considering the large amount of signatures that promote sharing and seeding or denounce leeching or hit ‘n’ runners. The forum format actually allows people to articulate their own policies, as mentioned above for instance by announcing their departure when a specific share-ratio has been reached. More aggressive are those members that threaten to personally block everyone who doesn’t seed after the download has been finished. By leaving these decisions to members themselves, Hawkies-world presents itself as a casual, trustworthy sphere, where people can freely exchange content and conversation, while still controlling some important aspects of the forum and its visibility. They never appear to be rigid as is we shall see is also possible in our third case: filelist.org.
Case Study III
www.filelist.org
As open as Suprnova.org is, or as good-willed the people of Hawkies-world are, so restricted seems filelist.org. This site can be best described as no-nonsense in its design; it has a simple lay-out with at its core a list of available torrents. Furthermore there are some parts that provide information about how filelist.org and BitTorrent works; a part to view your profile; a forum and a top 10 list. The forum is quite small and simple, especially when compared to Hawkies-world. Because there are not that many releases posted there, it does not encourage so many people to come to that place. Mainly the forum deals with computer topics, and let’s people request some (but not all) files. What is the most interesting in respect to BitTorrent however is that filelist.org pursues a vigour policy that they demand members to follow. They have a license agreement that lasts for some 18,500 words which goes on and on about the rights and obligations a member has. More important is that they use a tracker that can only be accessed by registered members, and that these members have to set their connections in such a way that it is different from the standard settings. For instance when an IP is trying to connect through ports 6881-6889, it gets the message that these ports are blacklisted. This all has to do with keeping many people out. The difference with the Hawkies-world policies is clear: where Hawkies is blocking everyone who’s either a proven “bad guy” (RIAA etc.) or tries to limit non-members accessing their trackers and files, Filelist sees everybody as guilty until proven innocent, and restricts even members that use standard ports. That this policy is at the heart of filelist.org is proven by the fact that they actively monitor everyone’s download and upload behaviour. Your access to files is dependent on your ratio and even on amounts uploaded. If you’re ratio is less then 1 (i.e. downloaded more then uploaded) you get put on a waiting list, that has a minimum of 3 hours, but can get as high as 24 hours before you may start downloading. The same rules apply for the amounts uploaded. Whatever your ratio, when you uploaded below 2,5 gigabytes you will be put on the same waiting list, again ranging from 3-24 hours. To endorse this performance related policy, they have made top 10 lists, with, among others the best uploaders, and best downloader’s, the best sharers (according to Upload/download ratios) and of course the worst sharers. So were the previous examples dealed with an incentive to share, filelist.org shows us an obligatory policy to share.
However negative this analysis feels as opposed to Hawkies-World or Suprnova.org, to active members these rules seem to be a prerequisite for honest file-sharing. This group seems rather paranoid at this point, so scared of leechers destroying the BitTorrent system or authorities shutting them down, only time will tell if they were right in the long run. Of the three discussed sites, filelist seems to mimic the new tight and secluded groups bound by social rules that Shirky and Kaye envision the closest. But at the same time shows the problems already signalled by them. Filelist.org has a limited number of files, especially when considering it is not bound to a specific kind of content. For the same reason the hassle to get accepted could be seen as too much.
Conclusion
In this Paper I have tried to map out the relation of the BitTorrent protocol and the ways it is used in various web spaces. I have considered what sort of behaviour the BitTorrent protocol promotes and what issues must be addressed by the users of this tool, and what choices are possible in this respect.
With its obligatory upload and file-specific transfers, BitTorrent provides some alternatives and maybe even reshapes dominant issues in P2P file-sharing such as incentives to share, reciprocity, trust and accountability. Because a user must upload in order to download, reciprocity is embedded in the system. And as we have seen it is difficult to asses whether or not this also leads to different actions when a transaction is (technically) finished. Because BitTorrent itself only deals with a single transaction of one specific file, it leaves a lot unaccounted for. Furthermore, because this new tool is designed for mainstream use, and does not solely deal with file-sharing, it allows users the freedom to fill in these social aspects of file-sharing, such as trust and accountability, in ways they seem fit. This difference became clear in our case studies, where the policy of such highly restricted zones as is the case with filelist.org is directly opposed and even a direct reaction to the highly visual and open realms of Suprnova.org. It has also unintentionally created different spheres where people meet each other. Hawkies-world as we have seen seems to exploit the fact that users of BitTorrent have to visit a place in order to get to content. By making this place a nice hangout, it creates bonds with people, and tries to build a community. This reputation seems to give people enough incentive to release their stuff almost solely on that forum.
The introduction and rise of BitTorrent interestingly enough coincides with the demise of large file-sharing networks, that started with the defeat of the original Napster. Also the growing aggression of corporations such as RIAA and MPAA, are stirring up this world. This promotes the creation of tight social and secluded groups that more emphasis on trust. BitTorrent seems to fit perfectly in this development. What the relation between the two exactly is, and who is the main factor responsible for this development can not be assessed at this point. Because BitTorrent is so new it remains difficult to say something meaningful about what is to happen next. There are a lot of factors that come into play. Whether small sites like it or not, for instance, Suprnova.org is functions in many ways as their lifeline. With fewer members creating less content a mainstream site such as Suprnova.org takes a lot of the demand for fresh and diverse content away. Paradoxically many of these sites do not want to supply to Suprnova.org anymore, and Suprnova puts itself in danger by being so visible. Interestingly enough because the BitTorrent protocol and client itself maintain such a neutral status, it is becoming very popular in and outside the file-sharing scene, and does not have to deal with such issues as copyright. With the move into tighter social groups, it also questions whether or not everybody now downloading from KazaA will also make this shift. Social sharing could thus also have the potential to “send people into online stores”. (Shirky, 2003)
While far from complete, this analysis has thus show shown how a collision of certain developments, technological as well as social, can have an unpredictable outcome. The BitTorrent example shows the virility of the file-sharing seen and shows that with a successful “crush the connectors” strategy file-sharing can retire to yet another, even more decentralised and socially bound system. This development has only just begun, but it has a potential worth more thorough research.
Literature
Adar, Eytan & Huberman, Bernardo A., Free Riding On Gnutella, In: www.firstmonday.dk, Volume 5, Number 10, 2000. http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue5_10/adar/index.html
Becker, Jan U. & Clement, Michel, The Economic Rationale of Offering Media Files in Peer-to-Peer Networks, Institute for Research in Innovation
Management, 2004
Cohen, Cohen Incentives Build Robustness in BitTorrent, May 22, 2003 www.bitconjurer.org
Dingledine, Robert, Freedman, Michael J & Molnar, David, Accountability, In: Oram, Andy (ed), Peer-to-peer: Harnessing the power of disruptive technologies, O’Reilly, Sebastopal CA, 2001
Golle Philippe, Leyton-Brown, Kevin & Mironov, Ilya, Incentives for Sharing in Peer-to-Peer Networks, Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Heyer, Clint, Naanou, A Scalable Moderated P2P Network, 2002, http://thestaticvoid.net/portfolio/p_naanou.html
Kaye, Robert, Generation File Sharing with Social Networks, May 3, 2004,
http://www.openp2p.com/pub/a/p2p/2004/03/05/file_share.html
Knight, Will, Data "swarms" could rescue overloaded web sites, www.newscientist.com,2002 http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99991761
Leuf, Bo, Peer to Peer, collaboration and sharing over the Internet, Addison Wesley, Indianapolis, 2002
Schiesel, Seth File Sharing's New Face In: The New York Times, Feb 1st, 2004
Shirky, Clay, File-sharing goes social, October 12, 2003, http://www.shirky.com/writings/file-sharing_social.html
Strahilevitz, Lior Jacob, Charismatic Code, Social Norms, and the Emergence of Cooperation on the File-Swapping Networks, University of Chicago, 2002
Waldman, Marc, Cranor, Lorrie Faith & Rubin, Avi, Trust, In: Oram, Andy (ed), Peer-to-peer: Harnessing the power of disruptive technologies, O’Reilly, Sebastopal CA, 2001
Posted at 12:48 am by Gijsvanwiechen
Thursday, June 10, 2004
Posted at 09:38 am by Gijsvanwiechen
Thursday, June 03, 2004
And here, at last is the last Q&A, based on Nixon's article in "Cultural Economy"
Enjoy ;-p
Re-imagining the ad-agency
S. Nixon
In this piece Nixon talks about the changes in the relationship between client and advertisement agency, as an example of the intense relation between culture and economics. Explain this.
The ad agency and its business relations are usually considered in purely economic terms, but with recent debates within this realm, the importance of culture surfaces quite clearly. With economic recession amongst others, clients of the advertisement industry were forced to re-evaluate the use of marketing and the budget that can be spend in this facet of business. This re-evaluation instigated a more thorough investigation within the advertising industry itself. It dealt with the ways advertisement should work and the best way to get paid for these services. At this point the relationships are very much a question of economics, dealing with question and demand, and the ways to stay innovative within a certain market segment. However with this re-evaluation of the advertisement industry, a question was raised that dealt not so much with the economic position of the industry, but with the identity of it. It had to consider how it should act and how it relates to the cultural climate. It was argued that the tactics of the industry, where out-dated and had difficulty surviving within a new a changed cultural climate. The traditional and economic practice of commission payment, for instance, was preventing the industry to use the potential of new media devices at its fullest, because it emphasises too much on the effect of the end product (the advertisement), not on ideas related to it. It becomes clear within this example that economics alone does not deal sufficiently with factors shaping the relationship.
Posted at 02:25 pm by Gijsvanwiechen
Wednesday, June 02, 2004
Here is the first of this weeks Q&A's, the others will follow shortly!
Creating and Managing Brands
A. Tybout and G. Carpenter
Question:
Tybout and Caprenter mention several (dis)advantages of using specific types of branding. Explain how these (dis)advantages relate to the emphasis on functionality, image and experience.
The specific branding methods recognised by Tybout and Carpenter have on the one hand specific qualities, but also some negative side effects, directly related to the method chosen. The most tangible way of branding has to do with so called functionality. The brand is based on the qualities and features of a product, and the product thus gets promoted by its own merits as object of use. This method is often used for products that mainly have to do with everyday use, and for this it seems no-nonsense way of advertisement. Where use is of great importance the consumer can easily differentiate the different product within a market segment. With an emphasis on the technological or the economical superiority, brands can differentiate without losing touch with their product and its use. Maintaining efficient functional branding isn’t as easy as it seems, especially when the products within the market all get more alike, and it gets much harder to stay innovative and thus to differentiate oneself. Functional branding is also very much a short-term product, with companies racing after each other in order to keep their product specs up to date. Image branding hasn’t got this short-term problem, because an image is so specific it does not have to innovate itself all the time. Image branding has mainly to do with attaching an emotional quality to a brand and thus projecting a certain image to the consumer. The specificity of an image brand insures a relative insulation from its competition and of the price-market, especially when an image is already established. A new competitor will have to attack a brand already on the market, although it is far more functional. Secondly an established brand doesn’t necessarily have to consider the economic value of a product as opposed to the competition, because a brand can dictate its own value according to the popularity among consumers. Image branding also deals very well with a market that deals with products that have little functional qualities to differentiate on brand from another or where products have become so alike that there hard to differentiate with an emphasis on functional qualities. Although image brands do not have to deal with short time change, they do not live forever. Because it deals very much with feelings and lifestyles of consumers, an image can become outdated, which is a process that can harm sales more and longer, because it is less easy to solve as a momentarily innovative deadlock. Experiential brands back up an image with experiences and have far better contact with consumers then both functional and image brands. Often used for, but not limited to, products based on experience, not ownership, experiential branding emphasises the consuming of a product. The fact that it is related to people’s experiences makes it a highly personal way of branding and this is then also one of the main advantages. It also maintains the enduring quality of a strong image. One of the important and most difficult qualities of experiential quality however is maintaining consistency, because the experience must be the same in every instance the brand occurs. A lack of consistency will cause the consumer to loose its loyalty to the brand and a slip up is easily made. Also much in the same way as functional branding, experiential branding can get caught in a rat-race of innovation, in this case the introduction of new experiences. Because this form of branding is so highly personal, it can raise to high expectations that it cannot live up to, and greatly damage the brand in the eyes of the customer.
Blogging the Market
G. Darermos
Question:
Daremos argues that weblogs can be “a hierarchy circumvention mechanism”. What does he mean by this?
First and foremost Daremos deals in this article with the use of weblogs within corporations as a means of employees sharing there views with other employees but also the world. He only marginally focuses on all the unaffiliated bloggers that roam the internet. What is it then that these weblogs do so that they circumvent the hierarchies within the corporate realm? Mostly this has to do with a process that Daremos calls collaborative filtering. Whether it is through a computerized system (amazon) or through a weblog, collaborative filtering is the process wherein personal recommendations and opinions take centre-stage once again. It allows people to browse through numerous opinions in order to shape his or here opinion. Because this personal contact is considered to be more valuable to consumers, at least according to Daremos, the recommendation of a product by its production company becomes outdated. Traditional marketing and the hierarchies that surround it are thus becoming obsolete. Even from a corporate point of view, the use of employee weblogs can greatly increase the ‘personalisation’ of a company. Allowing personal contact with, for instance the developers, it also generates problems how a corporation must deal with these different views from the company, and how it must be incorporated within the corporate policy. This again shows how weblogs can literally bypass the traditional communication tools owned by a corporation and thus bypasses the hierarchic distinctions that are present in a company.
Posted at 05:16 pm by Gijsvanwiechen
Tuesday, June 01, 2004
Hi S,
Hopefully when you read this you're already feeling better, hospitals aren't quite the most fun places to go to.
About my Q&A's: i've got some delay due to some personal business, one mentioned somewhere below. This means that I cannot provide any Q&A's before the deadline at three.
I will however post these Q&A's somewhere tomorrow. I'm sorry if that messes up your schedule for grading them, which you were planning to do in the next few days.
Regards
Gijs
Posted at 12:36 pm by Gijsvanwiechen
Thursday, May 27, 2004
Research Outline
Participatory Culture
Gijs van Wiechen
0000531
Bittorrent communities: Easy, fast and social?
File-sharing is quite possibly the second most important thing happening on the internet, the first being the exchange of information through websites and email. In May 2003, for instance, one third of the adult internet users admitted using file sharing software (May 2003). While networked computers have always exchanged data, the introduction of the popular and easy to use system of Napster in the late 1990s has made file-sharing possible for every user of the internet willing to install this program. As with almost all activities in cyberspace, file-sharing is developing at great speeds and only five years after Napster has gained its momentum, it does not exist anymore in its original form. The so called second wave of file sharing jumped in the gap left by Napster, the most famous being KazaA and Gnutella. But there are clear signs that these programs, especially KazaA, are over there peak and that file sharers are once again looking for a new system. This however has not only to do with legal actions and shutdown of a program or different and better technological aspects of new programs. A lot of regular users of these programs tend to switch relatively easy because the gaining of popularity and the absence of maintenance usually means a network gets polluted very easy, and there is no control over the quality of content. A new form of file sharing has emerged and is gaining momentum as we speak. This is called Bittorrent. Without going into technical specifics, Bittorrent uses a system that is capable of high speed transfer and the program has relative control over the quality of the program, because Bittorrent is usually used to distribute one specific program, and doesn’t search on people’s hard drive. While Bittorrent is relatively young, with the first useable program introduced in October 2002, its growth has been unprecedented. An estimate of 10 million people have downloaded the original software of inventor Bram Cohen, and since its protocol is open source, a lot of download clients have been designed, such as Bit comet, Azureus and Shadow. It is because of this that Bram Cohen is already being compared with Shawn Fanning, the infamous creator of Napster. However I cannot stress enough that Bittorrent is profoundly different in its structure and functioning then Napster or even KazaA. This is not only technical, but very much a social difference. Even a popular program using similar techniques, eDonkey, is in much ways more like traditional file sharing programs then bittorrent. The bittorrent protocol and software is, however, only a small part of the phenomenon. The software only makes file transfer possible, and does not give the possibility to search for files. The files are offered by an individual through websites, by means of publishing a so-called torrent, a small file that allows connection with a tracker (usually a web address). This use of different of websites, trackers and within these the interaction within forums has serious implications for how peers interact with each other.
An academic approach to this new system is thus very valuable. There is not much research into this field, because bittorrent is still so young. For my final paper I will then not try to give a full on research project, but will build an extensive research proposal, wherein I’ll map out and critically asses some of the ‘new’ functions and problems the bittorrent phenomenon introduces. I’ll try to combine this with academic research on peer-to-peer communication and social relations and hierarchies within cyberspace.
It is important to note that my main questions will focus on the social aspect of this new technology: the functioning of Bittorrent as a way of communicating with each other, and the establishment of social rules and regulations within the community and opposed to the whole of cyberspace. We could pose the question as follows:
How does the Bittorrent phenomenon introduce new and different social relations in the world of P2P file sharing?
Within this large domain of social relations we can pose a number of sub questions helping us touch on a number of different aspects of this phenomenon.
- What kind of hierarchical structures are promoted by Bittorrent and what are possible implications of these new social differences?
- How can we relate Bittorrent to ‘traditional’ forms of file sharing such as KazaA, Napster and Gnutella?
- How do people interact within communities and how can this be related to other cyber communities
- How does Bittorrent deal with issues of legality of content, the growing popularity and the relationship with corporate businesses?
Because of the descriptive nature of my research proposal, my methodology will mainly consist of diving deep into the world of Bittorrent, to map out its uses. I will probably present a few cases of specific use of social interaction that I’ll encounter through close analysis. To further theorize these aspects I’ll try to link these cases to what has been written about P2P and social interaction within cyberspace. Although I haven’t made a sufficient effort to find specific (academic) literature, and as mentioned I can not lean on literature that deals specifically with Bittorrent, it seems that there have been some writings about social conventions and norms within file sharing. In the nonacademic world, some short but very informative articles have been published, providing another source for trying to grasp the phenomenon of Bittorrent. I’ll name just a few authors that will probably return in my final paper. Lior Jacob Strahilevitz has written quite extensively on social interaction and file sharing in his piece Charismatic Code, Social Norms and the emergence of cooperation on the file sharing networks. On P2P.com, a number of authors (among them Clay Shirky and Robert Kaye) have also written about social norms within file sharing. I will also try to find a copy of Peer-to-Peer Harnessing the Power of Disruptive Technologies, edited by Andy Oram.
Posted at 07:53 pm by Gijsvanwiechen
Monday, May 24, 2004
First of all, let me share with you that my grandmother passed away this morning, at a beautiful age of 85 years. Luckily I had the chance to say goodbye to her yesterday....she will be greatly missed by me and all of my family!
But let's go on with our daily business, here are the questions for week six.
What is P2P…..and what isn’t?
C. Shirky
Question:
What are P2P-networks according to Shirky?
Shirky has a highly technical approach towards what P2P actually is. P2P networks are based on a system that connects multiple PC’s with another within the internet, in a way that bypasses large fixed servers. Whereas websites and servers are very stable and have fixed positions within cyberspace (often structured within DNS systems: giving these fixed positions alphabetical names), P2P networks do not have these structured beacons and work around it. Most usage of the internet is from normal people and is highly unpredictable in, for instance in their off- and online time. It requires a different approach to connect them, but when connected it provides an almost unlimited supply of resources. Ownership is also a large and defining part of P2P networks, if the network software for communication between specific persons and computers runs on a personal computer it is P2P, if it runs on a (corporate) server, it is not. P2P networks are thus networks that connect multiple dynamic users with each other without a server explicitly supplying software or resources.
The P2P report
E. Rutherford
Question:
In this article written for the corporate world, Rutherford argues the dangers and benefits of P2P for so called CIO’s (Chief Information Officers). What are these?
The benefits of P2P are three fold and can are based on the three main functions that are the most popular forms of P2P, also outside the corporate sphere. First of all technical companies can use the left-over resources of all users for computing jobs in terms of HD space, but especially left over CPU-power. This however is, as mentioned a highly specialised use of P2P only for companies dealing with specific products or research. More important are the so called instant-messaging and affinity community’s functions. The first is an evolved form of chat, and is very useful for short conversation, fast request of some information or even whole meetings. Because a person can set himself online or offline as he wishes, and contact is fast, efficient and direct. Affinity communities can swap files and other (personal) data without putting it on a central server; this again means an easy and direct way of dealing with files and information by searching, rather than requesting and/or manually searching and collecting it. Some dangers however make companies rather reluctant to really start using it. According to Rutherford the main problem is security, by allowing P2P communication of classified information, it becomes harder to control access and it might be easier for unauthorised persons to view these files and meetings, it also needs more advanced computers and larger bandwidth, because P2P computing needs this to function correctly.
A Plague of viruses
J. Boase and B. Wellman
Question:
Boase and Wellman mention a term for a mix between densely mixed and ramified neworks, as the predominant mode in society, what they call glocalized networks. They do not, however, extend to large extend on this phenomenon. How does a glocalized network work, when looking at the two extremes Boase and Wellman introduce?
Indeed we can try to look at how a glocalized network might work when we look at a combination of densely knit and ramified networks. Boase and Wellman argue that both of these networks have significant (dis)advantages in terms of viral spreading and by elaborating more on that we can see more clearly what a glocalized network looks like. First of all the densely knit networks consists of a few members, that have intense and a lot of contact with each other. Based on this there is a lot of trust within the group and knowledge about the other participants. In terms of the functioning of a virus (whether computer, biological or marketing wise) this means that within this group the virus is most likely to catch on and infect every participant. Because the high trust and closeness these people have, it is likely for them to be exposed to numerous ‘viral attacks’ and are very likely to activate it one of those times. This means that in a relative short period a virus has infected most of the participants. The densely knit network thus has the potential for a qualitative spreading of the virus. To thrive however, a virus needs to continually expend its range of ‘infections’, this because a virus is as much a process as the eventual product. In a densely knit sphere a virus would thus soon die out. Ramified networks, however, consist of loosely tied connections, and within it there is much possibility to focus on a large amount of targets. This means a spread based on very quantitative measures. However the ties within these networks aren’t necessarily very strong and so it is possible for a virus to spread itself, but the amounts of activation will be significantly less than within a densely knit group. The extremes of Boase and Wellman thus show a divide along the cliché of Quantity versus Quality. Glocalized networks have the possibility to employ the qualitative aspects of the dense groups with the quantitative spread of ramified ones. People do not have only a dense or a ramified sphere in which they operate; they can even have more then two dense groups. When a person has two dense groups he can transport one virus from the one to the other. Boase and Wellman call these persons ‘brokers’. As we can now see, the broker is the cause of the spread of one densely infected sphere to another. Secondly a strong and infected dense group has the potential to distribute a virus in a ramified sphere, with a larger amount of activations. Because a group usually has more authority and is more likely to projects an image of trust. For instance a virus distributed from the offices of a bona fide business to its clientele will make potentially more victims.
Posted at 05:39 pm by Gijsvanwiechen
|
|
|
