Comments

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 27^th 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.[1] 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.[2] 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.

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.[3] 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.[4] 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.

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.

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.

Becker, Jan U. & Clement, Michel, The Economic Rationale of Offering Media Files in Peer-to-Peer Networks, Institute for Research in Innovation

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

Leuf, Bo, Peer to Peer, collaboration and sharing over the Internet, Addison Wesley, Indianapolis, 2002

McCullagh, Declan, Defcon Keeps Hackers Hooked, www.wired.com, 2001 http://wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,45248,00.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

NOTES PART II

[1] http://www.suprnova.org/nova-stats/: I’m not sure whether the visits are ‘unique visits’.

[2] Respectively www.suprnovaforums.com and irc://irc.suprnova.org/

[3] I will refer to it as a forum instead of a community, because I do not want to tie it up with the debate surrounding virtual settlements and communities.

[4] For instance: Www.filesoup.org, www.sharingthegroove.org and www.desitorrents.com


	Sec Basketball Tournament August 31, 2005 06:59 PM PDT Sec Basketball Tournament

McCullagh, Declan, Defcon Keeps Hackers Hooked, www.wired.com, 2001 http://wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,45248,00.html