Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Collapsing P2P Networks

Hemos posted more than 12 years ago | from the easier-then-pie dept.

The Internet 226

Andrew writes "I'm a undergraduate at the University of Washington, and after seeing this article on Salon, I dusted off a paper I had written last year. I examined P2P networks under a model usually used in describing animal populations, and found that it may be possible to cause a collapse in the network based on the intrinsic nature of the technology. Just as in animal populations, P2P networks require a sizable "critical mass" of users, and overharvesting can cause a systemic collapse - what if this were done on purpose? Quite ominously, my second recommendation on disruption was carrying damaged or incorrectly named files. You can read theabstract and the actual paper"

cancel ×

226 comments

fp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3721017)

fp. fuck CLIT. fuck logged-in trolls. ACs rule. this post can't be claimed away from AC.

Re:fp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3721024)

You must suck at the sex. You don't fuck the clit you moron.

Re:fp (-1, Offtopic)

liloconf (560960) | more than 12 years ago | (#3721025)

i am so lost....

p2p can be good if (-1)

OklaKid (552472) | more than 12 years ago | (#3721028)

p2p can be good if software with parasites attached like Kazaa were not used, (yeah i know about Kazaa-lite)...

Aiding the enemy, huh? (2)

ObviousGuy (578567) | more than 12 years ago | (#3721031)

You know what we do with those types, don't you [bayinsider.com] ?

Re:Aiding the enemy, huh? (2, Insightful)

governorx (524152) | more than 12 years ago | (#3721258)

Well if it isn't bad enough already I must say that a lot of files on a p2p network are already incorrectly named. Ever tried to download pr0n and find out that whats actually in the video is quite the opposite to whats in the filename. Seriously though, Ive seen people with files on their computers that are false in a certain way.

So we have to go through the points of the author and refute them.

1. Incorrectly named files. Been Done. Been done on purpose. People keep on d/ling. For some reason this example comes to mind: Busy Child from Chemical Brothers sounds exactly the same a Busy CHild from Crystal Method. And I have the Crystal Method cd. BTW, before the Napster fiasco ended, it was possible to crypt filenames.

Also if you name a file incorrectly, the search engines on p2p clients will probably never hit them anyway. And if the filename is misleading other sources can be checked and if nothing else, the filesize/dates of modification can be compared.

2. Broken files. It happens very often. But there are multiple sources on a p2p network so even assuming that clients get baited they will delete the useless/damaged file and re-d/l it from another source. Comparing filesizes before downloading is also a good strategy.

3. As for overharvesting, its just a way to block some traffic and I doubt that this would be legal. If an organisation put resources to this end, many surfers will get a slower service than what they expect and cause backlash. If I get a group of people and we block an street intersection the cops would surely interfere. Essentially what he is saying is lets spam the p2p network to hell until its abandoned. Too bad we all know what we think about spam.

Die llama spammers.

Re:Aiding the enemy, huh? (2)

hagardtroll (562208) | more than 12 years ago | (#3721337)

Will the real slim shady please shut up! [microdot.co.uk]

You'll have to excues my P2P ignorance, never used it, but couldn't a rating system like E-Bay, or even Karma on Slashdot be used to label bad hosts and good hosts for the desired files? Then, the spoofing done by different members could be identified.

Rating system. (2)

Grendel Drago (41496) | more than 12 years ago | (#3721439)

The problem would be---what makes the rating system any more trustworthy than the files themselves? Remember, both eBay and Slashdot have centralized control, a metasystem above the individual users.

Such a metasystem, in a P2P environment, would need to be decentralized and yet trustworthy. (It's must not be as easy for a spoofing client to say "I'm trustworthy" as it is for them to say "I have files to share! Download my pustulent VBS payload!".) This is a complex research question, to which there's no one simple answer. A lot of people are trying, though... see some of the threads on this story for good links on the subject.

--grendel drago

Interesting document, any realworld links? (2)

jukal (523582) | more than 12 years ago | (#3721034)

As you have spent some time studying this field, you have probably run into realworld P2P happenings that follow the "rules" stated in your paper, could you name these, causes and results and the services in question?

Re:Interesting document, any realworld links? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3721087)

Read page 17 and 18.

Re:Interesting document, any realworld links? (2)

jukal (523582) | more than 12 years ago | (#3721180)

Yeah, there was something about gnutella. I got greedy and wanted more.

Re:Interesting document, any realworld links? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3721126)


could you name these, causes and results


Oh man...nobody said nothing about a TEST!

animal population requires food (0)

maf212 (448756) | more than 12 years ago | (#3721037)

There will never be a lack of "food" available as long as enough peoople share their files. So, I don't see a point where there will be too many users. More users just equals more files available. And with things like the new WinMX 3.0 you dl off of multiple people at one time, so if you find a song that, say, 30 different people all have, then chances are it is gonna be the real song with no problems.

Re:animal population requires food (1, Interesting)

apt142 (574425) | more than 12 years ago | (#3721169)

Well, the information is the food. Like in the real world, food is abundant and replenishable. You could say that information is the same. Creative people (artist, musicians, etc.) grow the information in much the same way as a farmer.

The thing you have to remember here is that information is only needed once. For example: You only need to download your favorite song once. What good is two copies of the same thing? This works for software too. Why have multiple software that does exactly the same thing? Plus, if information is something that is learnable then once you have learned it, it becauses useless to you. You can't learn it again (barring any mental disorders).

Let's consider the overhunting issue. With so many users sharing information, you won't have to look far to find what you want. Meaning, you will be able to dl everything you want. With such access, you would have a pretty big store of information yourself, just by dl'ing what you look for. So, The more you have the less you will need.

Sure there will always be more stuff to download. But, you would need to download much less once you reach that saturation point.

Start of a bad trend (2, Interesting)

rattler14 (459782) | more than 12 years ago | (#3721039)

True, the music industry could make tons of phony user aliases and bombard the servers with numerous useless queries and corrupt files. But where does it stop? This same technique could be used by companies to overload a competitors internet servers and capabilities... This method, though very possible, seems more like a mild virus attack that could potentially lead to a backlash of similar attacks from some pretty pissed off users.

Seems like a plausible solution, with some negative side effects.

Re:Start of a bad trend (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3721093)

With the legislative convergence of "terrorism" and "hacking", you probably don't want to be the one instigating such an attack, unless you're damn sure your victims aren't going to go to the cops.

Re:Start of a bad trend (5, Interesting)

oakbox (414095) | more than 12 years ago | (#3721123)

Isn't that the point though? You can't go to court suing Sony because they created a lot of damaged versions of their songs. How does this sound?

"I was trying to download an illegal copy of their copyrighted music and it was damaged!"

I think this is one case where they could simply set up some distributed PC's (different IP's in different class C's) and just have P2P clients serving 'bad' versions of their own copyrighted music. Set up a little consortium of several different records companies, and it becomes DAMN hard to apply an effective filter.

You might counter by setting up a central key list of 'correct' MD5 checksums, but then THAT list becomes a target of litigation from the RIAA.

I don't like it, but it is an elegant solution. Use the power of P2P against itself. Anonymity works both ways.

Re:Start of a bad trend (3, Informative)

ColaMan (37550) | more than 12 years ago | (#3721213)

I think this is one case where they could simply set up some distributed PC's (different IP's in different class C's) and just have P2P clients serving 'bad' versions of their own copyrighted music.

Somebody is already doing this ,to some extent.
Searches on gnutella (for just about anything) bring up hits with file names like "your search terms.MPG" ... at 20k or so, I'm not interested. But still, it means somebody's written a client that replies to the P2P network with flawed data deliberately.

Re:Start of a bad trend (1)

Saeger (456549) | more than 12 years ago | (#3721236)

Er, no, that's a result of a gnutella worm [f-secure.com] . That file is probably a something.jpg.vbs script and it propgates by being dl'd and executed by "morons" who don't look at file extentions.

--

Re:Start of a bad trend (1)

Saeger (456549) | more than 12 years ago | (#3721244)

Sorry, I linked to the 8K .exe worm; it's another one that uses vbscript... here [commandcom.com]

--

Ah! (2)

Grendel Drago (41496) | more than 12 years ago | (#3721241)

You've noticed this too? Is there any trend to the IPs of machines sharing these? Are they all at sony.com or something? (Hey, they could be grievously stupid...) In any case, perhaps some provider like Gnucleus [gnucleus.com] could provide a realtime ban-list of this kind of abuse. Centralizing this information wouldn't have any legal ramifications, and while it's a flawed, stopgap solution, it would work, at least for a while.

I wonder if those results are virii or something. I usually just filter them out by requiring filesizes about 100k...

Have you noticed the "[searchterms] free bangbus passes.htm" and .url files you get sometimes? I think it's just spammers doing some of this, and not the actual media industries.

--grendel drago

errors (-1, Redundant)

ObitMan (550793) | more than 12 years ago | (#3721041)

I hope you didn't submit this yet...
In the abstract you have a sentence: "Our analysis of the model leads to three potential strategies." You then list 4 points.
Is this one of those multiple choice papers?

Re:errors (1)

Assassin17 (60351) | more than 12 years ago | (#3721057)

not to mention the first two sentences:

"Peer to peer networks have generated significant attention in the recent past, especially file trading networks such as Gnutella commonly found and Morpheusin ecological models of fish and birds. If the mode."

still an interesting read, though :)

Re:errors HAHAHA (0)

liloconf (560960) | more than 12 years ago | (#3721110)

i just redownloaded his paper and he fixed some of his errors, seems he doesn't want a few thousand people seeing how much of a tard he is :)

Re:errors (1, Interesting)

ObitMan (550793) | more than 12 years ago | (#3721061)

HAH. I read the article but not the blurb. Is that a /. first?
The paper is a year old.
I wonder what the review of it was or if the prof or assistant even caught it.

Re:errors (0)

ObitMan (550793) | more than 12 years ago | (#3721339)

How can the first post to note this fact be redundant?
Moronic moderator alert

cheap music please (1)

oever (233119) | more than 12 years ago | (#3721042)

All these P2P programs can have a lot of problems:
- music downloaded can be wrong or low quality
- music is often illegal
- download is speed is really slow

What labels should do is let users download music for a small fee. For example by buying 100 songs for 100 bucks. Songs to be chosen by the user at any time.

I think a service like this can be really succesfull. The labels do not need to be affraid of piracy because of the crappy quality or low survival rate of these programs.

Re:cheap music please (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3721077)

For anyone to buy into that the major label would have to distribute the wav file of the CD track, not the lossy mp3 or some other lossy format. Even then the fee can be no more than 50 cents a track. I won't pay $1 a track because at that rate I can just go out and buy the god damn CD and CDs are already overly artificially inflated compared to cassette tapes. They would have zero distribution costs besides bandwidth so the cost should be MUCH less than a CD in a store. No cover art, no jewel cases, no distribution costs.

What you MEANT to say (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3721129)

"music is often illegal"

Today's pop music is so bad it OUGHT to be illegal.

Music industry strikes back? (2, Insightful)

kraven_73 (586236) | more than 12 years ago | (#3721045)

As stated in Salon there are a lot of bogus files. As for now there is enough stuff out there to get the song you want. However, maybe this is just a first try of the music industry to frustrate users of p2p networks. When they get things going they could probably flood the networks with songs, without any means to distinguish them from the good ones.

sinister motive? (4, Funny)

potcrackpot (245556) | more than 12 years ago | (#3721048)

The practice of flooding the system with bad files is far more sinister than most of us realise.

This is actually the next step in the Taliban's fight against capitalism. They are continuing their religious war, attempting to reduce our morale by preventing us listening to music, except in short frustrating bursts of the same 10 seconds.

Their aim is to reduce us, to bring us down from within by sabotaging our right to Good Music In MP3 Format.

We Will NOT give in.

Uh, wait. Why did they start with 'No Doubt'?

Re:sinister motive? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3721056)

No it isn't: capitalism is prevening us from listening to music too.

Re:sinister motive? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3721120)

Touché!

Re:sinister motive? (0)

apt142 (574425) | more than 12 years ago | (#3721179)

Would we notice if they went to Britney Spears next?

Re:sinister motive? (1)

macdaddy357 (582412) | more than 12 years ago | (#3721199)

No we wouldn't notice. People who listen to Britney Spears are too stupid to use a computer. They actually buy the CDs.

Re:sinister motive? (2, Funny)

denladeside (535103) | more than 12 years ago | (#3721190)

Techno and Dance is *supposed* to sound like that :-)

Animal Zoo (1)

dazdaz (77833) | more than 12 years ago | (#3721049)

So does that include my Goldfish and Parrot disrupting p2p?

Re:Animal Zoo (-1)

TrollBurger (575126) | more than 12 years ago | (#3721071)

Yeah, really fucking funny.

User moderate shared files (3, Insightful)

Albanach (527650) | more than 12 years ago | (#3721052)

Would a Slashdot style system of user moderation of shared files be a solution? Perhaps public and private keys to sign files as your online handle. Well known names would sson spring up and their signature could be used to verify the quality of the shared file before downloading. Of course there are many reasons people wouldn't want to sign files they might be sharing or have downloaded...

Re:User moderate shared files (1)

k4m3 (259891) | more than 12 years ago | (#3721076)

The problem is that as soon as a registry with file signatures is done, RIAA will strike back saying "you can identify the faulty files, so do it".

Re:User moderate shared files (2)

Cally (10873) | more than 12 years ago | (#3721121)

what's needed, then, is a /distributed/ modeeration system - perhaps a bolt-on to the Gnutella protocol? RIAA/MPAA can't sue Gnutella, Inc., cos they don't exist - there are just people writing code and people running code. Yes?

Re:User moderate shared files (2, Insightful)

Joakim A (313708) | more than 12 years ago | (#3721165)

Yes. Distributed networks without central servers is the way to go. A protocol for fingerprinting of all files and user moderation would be really neat. Might be pretty hard to implement though as we can't trust client side software to calculate the fingerprint. Especiallay as we want to check the file before it is downloaded. Signing might be the way to go but then you can tie the rip to the 'creator', don't want that...

Anyway, these things tend to get solved by smart people who have way to much spare time. I am truly amazed of the amount of work dedicated to cracking and warez..

/J

Re:User moderate shared files (3, Insightful)

Hellkitten (574820) | more than 12 years ago | (#3721245)

what's needed, then, is a /distributed/ modeeration system

And how do you intend to stop them from 'spamming' this distributed system with fake moderations?

Re:User moderate shared files (2)

big_hairy_mama (79958) | more than 12 years ago | (#3721174)

This was discussed [slashdot.org] last time slashdot covered [slashdot.org] this, and it seems like the consensus was that it would be trivial for an organization to create thousands of bogus users and stuff the balots.

To me, a web of trust [slashdot.org] makes more sense. It would take some time to get "into the web", but it take even longer for an organization to build up enough trust to effectively distribute bogus files. As soon as they start, their trust is ruined, and everyone knows not to download from that person.

Re:User moderate shared files (1)

trumpetplayer (520581) | more than 12 years ago | (#3721331)

The good thing the Internet has is the power to CHOOSE the contents you access. Moderate music files and you will have much more Spice Girls than Dizzy Gillespie. To eat "contents that people like / want to see" we usually just turn on the TV.

Although a single network may collapse... (3, Insightful)

GnomeKing (564248) | more than 12 years ago | (#3721055)

P2P as a concept is unlikely to collapse

Networks come and go, and encounter obstacles as the number of people using the network increases, but as one reaches "critical mass" another is born because the first became too unstable

There are a large number of p2p networks at the moment, some are more successful than others, but importantly they use very different technologies, some of which are less affected by increasing numbers of users
The fasttrack model appears quite comfortable with several million users, when the orignal gnutella protocol couldnt cope with that number (iirc)

I'm sure that a number of p2p protocol designers will attempt to use the ideas in the paper to avoid the various pitfalls

Well, atleast we know who skipped maths lessons (5, Funny)

GnomeKing (564248) | more than 12 years ago | (#3721065)

In particular, our analysis of the model leads to
three potential strategies, which can be used in conjunction:

1. Randomly selecting and litigating against users engaging in piracy
2. Creating fake users that carry (incorrectly named or damaged files)
3. Broadcasting fake queries in order to degrade network performance
4. Selectively targeting litigation against the small percentage of users that carry the majority of the files

Pythonesque... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3721081)

...Our four, four! potential strategies are:

Re:Well, atleast we know who skipped maths lessons (2)

treat (84622) | more than 12 years ago | (#3721085)

choices 4 and 1 are the same.

choices 1 and 4 are different... (2)

GnomeKing (564248) | more than 12 years ago | (#3721125)

Choice 4 is much more likely to give "good" results since more of the major holders of illegal material are targetted

Holywood would get better results by shutting down illegal DVD manufactureres of spiderman in korea (or wherever they are) rather than someone who makes a copy for his friends

Choice 1 gives everyone the same chance of being targetted and thus small time distributers/downloaders will be hit a higher percentage of the time and not have as great an effect on the overall level of content available

Re:Well, atleast we know who skipped maths lessons (5, Insightful)

Saeger (456549) | more than 12 years ago | (#3721131)

1. Randomly selecting and litigating against users engaging in piracy

countermeasure: encryption + the bad press that randomly sueing upstanding citizens would bring.

2. Creating fake users that carry (incorrectly named or damaged files)

countermeasure: webs of trust & md5 hashes.

3. Broadcasting fake queries in order to degrade network performance

countermeasure: evolve to shun the DoS nodes (again, webs of trust & a 'witness system' needed).

4. Selectively targeting litigation against the small percentage of users that carry the majority of the files

countermeasure: This being the most effective [scare] tactic of the four, the best way to deflect it would be hiding your identity, or somehow spreading everything available very thin (freenet style) for plausible deniability, or serving from offshore, or rotating selections...

--

Re:Well, atleast we know who skipped maths lessons (5, Interesting)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 12 years ago | (#3721163)

Yes, you can probably counter all these tactics, but they would still do their job.

If the labels can force p2p networks into a more complex model, it culls the less technically able users. I think if the p2p music sharing networks evolved into systems requiring md5 hash lookups, trust networks and other countermeasures, Joe Schmoe wouldn't be bothered using them. He wants something he can just hook up to, grab stuff, and leave.

Music piracy has always happened. Its just booming now. They just want to stop the boom, not eradicate it entirely.

Re:Well, atleast we know who skipped maths lessons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3721207)

5. Monopolize internet access so you can squeeze the bandwidth out of p2p.

countermeasure: ????

Re:Well, atleast we know who skipped maths lessons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3721323)

Wireless!!!!!

viva la revolution!

if you dont mind the packetloss and the lag of hundreds of wireless AP hops it will be greaT!!

Ask a silly question... (4, Insightful)

CaptainAlbert (162776) | more than 12 years ago | (#3721070)

From the introduction in the paper:

> This paper aims to address the following
> questions:
> 1. How must the depensation model be modified
> in order to account for conceptual
> differences between P2P networks and animal
> populations?
> 2. What are the conditions necessary to cause
> catastrophes in P2P networks?
> 3. What does the model imply about other ways
> to limit or stop P2P networks?
> 4. What is the most effective method to stop
> P2P networks?

I bet if you'd set out to answer a more interesting question, you'd have obtained a more interesting answer.

Natural populations are well known for their ability to adapt to their environment; to mutate or change their behaviour in response to stimuli (threats) in their surroundings. If you truly wish to study P2P networks as if they are ecosystems or populations, there are plenty of more productive entymological questions to be asked.

This paper reads like a biologist saying "given, say, fish - how can we go about killing them?"

Nice to see *some* scientific analysis of this subject, however misdirected.

Re:Ask a silly question... (4, Informative)

capt.Hij (318203) | more than 12 years ago | (#3721111)

Some native populations have an amazing capacity for rebounding. This is especially true of insect populations which have a reputation of getting through population bottlenecks better than any other animal. However, the "Allee effect" is a well known biological phenomenon.

Many populations have a critical population level, and if they fall below that level they have a low probability of rebounding. For example, fruit fly maggots are more efficient when eating in groups and cannot survive if they cannot get enough eggs on the same fruit.

By the way if you pick up an ecology journal you are likely to find at least one paper on this subject. Trying to understand the Allee effect is an important aspect of understanding an organism and how it interacts with its environment.

Re:Ask a silly question... (2)

PhilHibbs (4537) | more than 12 years ago | (#3721113)

This paper reads like a biologist saying "given, say, fish - how can we go about killing them?"
Not really, it's more like "Given this species and it's environmental factors, what change in those factors could lead to it's extinction?" which is an entirely reasonable and useful question to ask.

gnutella has already been dos'd.. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3721073)

a few years ago a denial of service attack was launched against the gnutella p2p network. this was done by sending out large 'ping' packets, which were then sent all throughout the network, effectively using up the entire bandwidth of many slower nodes. i don't recall how this was stopped, perhaps by a client update, or maybe the attackers just stopped. if the later is the case, gnutella is probably still vulnerable to such attacks.

+5 Not Funny (0, Offtopic)

cca93014 (466820) | more than 12 years ago | (#3721074)


overharvesting can cause a systemic collapse

trying
very
hard
to
think
of
porn
joke

Why don't they.... (1, Interesting)

HowlinMad (220943) | more than 12 years ago | (#3721079)

Just make a Beowolf cluster of these networks then?

Re:Why don't they.... (1)

julesh (229690) | more than 12 years ago | (#3721460)

" (Score:1, Interesting) "

Err, hello, moderator... that was a 'lets make a beowulf cluster' joke, and not in the remotest 'interesting'.
:-)

Definition? (3, Insightful)

Mr_Silver (213637) | more than 12 years ago | (#3721083)

Whilst one man alone is not going to change things I get a little annoyed by the fact that people call Napster a peer-to-peer application.

In fact, it was really a client server application which only on downloading a file did it actually make any connection with any other user.

True P2P has no server and needs no server. Napster had and needed such a thing to work.

Personally I wouldn't call it peer-to-peer at all, but if I was forced to, I'd far rather call it a hybrid P2P and Client/Server solution.

I have to say this, so sorry... (2, Informative)

Graspee_Leemoor (302316) | more than 12 years ago | (#3721089)

Because everyone knows but none have yet said it.

Sharereactor/Edonkey cannot be flooded with damaged or renamed files and neither can any other network/client that relies on hashes of the downloads to ensure the file is the same.

As for using loads of bandwidth by doing loads of useless searches in an automated way, it would be very interesting to see how the different networks coped with this, especially the "next gen" edonkey, which is called "flock" and is in beta, and is supposed to use no servers...

graspee

Re:I have to say this, so sorry... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3721133)

"Sharereactor/Edonkey cannot be flooded with damaged or renamed files and neither can any other network/client that relies on hashes of the downloads to ensure the file is the same."

Yes they can. It's trivial to (re)write a client that send out "the right" hash for any given file that matches a search. The user then have to download it before he notises that the file is a fake.

To find the right hashes, you just have to monitor the searches and grab the results.

So, even with hashes you can decrease the efficiency of the network.

Re:I have to say this, so sorry... (1)

lfourrier (209630) | more than 12 years ago | (#3721200)

Yes, but the client can be required to prove it's integrity, by a hash on himself. Of course, it needs to know the key, and this is reverse engeenerable, but if some major do that, some norvegian or russian can throw them the DMCA.

Re:I have to say this, so sorry... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3721300)

Goooooo Nooorway!

We rule d;-D

Re:I have to say this, so sorry... (2, Informative)

wheany (460585) | more than 12 years ago | (#3721411)

On eDonkey every part is hashed individually, so your client will notice that a part has been corrupted and will download it again. Of course it slows the process, but it's faster to re-download 10(?) megs than 650 megs...

What a guy.. (1)

Sapphon (214287) | more than 12 years ago | (#3721096)

it seems that a simple and relatively inexpensive measure, which Herron says requires no more than "an intern in a room," might be worth serious consideration on the part of the recording industry.

Further questions about the proposed intern scheme were referred by Stacey Herron to her associate Mr William Clinton, recently put in charge of seeing the 'preferred files replicate and populate'

shuuuuut uuuuup! (1)

los furtive (232491) | more than 12 years ago | (#3721103)

You'll ruin it for all of us!

Corporate Strategy Revealed! (1)

Sapphon (214287) | more than 12 years ago | (#3721109)

if a user doesn't like a previewed track, "then the industry and that record would have benefited from [that user's] ignorance."

I'm suprised the record labels let Britney Spears have any time at all in that case - hell, think of the teenage boy market if all they knew was what she looked like *grin*

Re:Corporate Strategy Revealed! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3721148)

Hell, I'm no where near being a teen anymore but I love Britney videos... with "mute" on of course.

Weenie (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3721114)

Typical UW Weenie, go work for M$, thats all your comp sci. students are trained for anything (according to your own profs.)

Time to re-vamp P2P specs (1, Troll)

wackysootroom (243310) | more than 12 years ago | (#3721115)

The RIAA will use this to their advantage if they are not doing so already. If the P2P community does not stay one step ahead, the RIAA will literally make Gnutella and other file sharing systems useless.

Re:Time to re-vamp P2P specs (1)

macdaddy357 (582412) | more than 12 years ago | (#3721223)

If they kill P2P, they will just send teens to the flea market to buy pirated CDs. They are tying their own noose! http://www.dontbuycds.uncoveror.com/piracy.htm

Well its obvious (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3721117)

The P2P networks are flooded with crap like

XXX illegal preteen sucking tits lolitas 12 yo sex anal rape gay microsoft linux BSD porn.jpg

Its hard to find anything decent these days, no wonder!

Don't forget the viruses, spyware and the fact that R*AA are suing the crap out of P2P networks

Solution, Buy a marker.

MD5, etc. (2)

Slashamatic (553801) | more than 12 years ago | (#3721118)

The problem always existed with P2P networks that they could be poisoned, with misleadingly named files for multimedia files and viruses for wares.

A system that permits sharing of copyrighted material is hardly going to provide a simple way back to resolve the real originator of the material. It is difficult to prove but probably likely that many bad files come from persons connected with the production and distribution of the original material.

There are several sites now that publish checksums and sizes of P2P files. If you trust the site, then you have a way of validating files.

The main issue remains is so-called leaching. That is, those who take but do not give. This may be out of fear or out of selfishness or it may even be just that the user is new. The community response seems to allow small downloads to anyone but to restrict larger downloads to those who do share themselves. I believe there are even some automated tools that will perform this check.

Re:MD5, etc. (4, Interesting)

jawtheshark (198669) | more than 12 years ago | (#3721204)

The main issue is so-called leaching.

While I agree entirely with the fact that leeching is a problem, you should consider these facts:

  • Not many people have the bandwith to share. I don't, I share nevertheless but restrict upload speed to 3KByte/second and 2 allowed connections. Why? I have only DSL 256/64kbps, which means I have about 8Kbyte/second upload and I give away a potential 6. I find that generous. This is however not enough! People do not have the patience to wait at these speeds, most of the time uploads that start on my machine (I check that from time to time) about 99% are cancelled by the remote side.
    Yet, I download! Most of the time pr0n, and from time to time music (usually when I heard a good song on the radio).
  • Firewalls. I have a firewall... and I will not in any case turn it of because I want to run Gnucleus. This effectively reduces my own choices to download: anyone who runs a firewall too is not able to communicate with my machines. If everyone runs a firewall, P2P networks like Gnutella would become useless. PUSH only works when the receiver does not have a firewall.
So technically this makes me a leech: I want to share files but due to bandwidth restrictions and due to firewall issues my sharing-abilities are clearly diminished. I have the goodwill but not the resources.
It wouldn't be the first time a P2P client advertising T1 performance aborts me and I find that very frustrating. Probably people using the tools you mentioned, and considering me a leech. Nice... :-(

Oh, and one thing about the whole P2P thing I don't like are the insanely large filenames filled with idiot keywords. Keywords in filenames....tsss.... Better would be a kind of database that associates keywords with files you chose on your harddisk. At least that way your files could have halfway decent-length filenames. Of course maintaining that would be a bit of work, but maintaining a filesystem filled with junk-filenames isn't any better.

Finally a little question for the P2P junks out there: many people claim they get to learn new kinds of music by P2P sharing. I won't say it isn't true, but how? You still need a handle to search new stuff? You just type in random keywords, or what? Just curious, because I'd like to broaden my musical horizonts a bit.

Re:MD5, etc. (2)

Saeger (456549) | more than 12 years ago | (#3721296)

people claim they get to learn new kinds of music by P2P sharing. I won't say it isn't true, but how?

The best way is simply having people with eclectic tastes recommend random shit to you -- either IRL, IM, on message boards, etc. Another way, which I like, is using Amazon's recommendation system.

Also, some file sharing apps have a "Browse User" option, and this is very handy for queueing up bands you've never heard of from a user with possibly similar tastes.

Not everyone likes being spoonfed engineered culture...

--

Attack of the Giant Leeches! (1)

r_barchetta (398431) | more than 12 years ago | (#3721418)


The main issue remains is so-called leaching. That is, those who take but do not give.

You mean like how people take music for free and do nothing to reward the person who created it?

Labels be damned, just give something back to the people doing the actual work.

-r

Impotent by Nature (1)

Bumpy bits (586242) | more than 12 years ago | (#3721119)

The failiar of ANY system is ultimatly inevitable. Best bet is to play with it while it still works

Solution: Decentralized Collaborative Filters (3, Interesting)

jake_the_blue_spruce (64738) | more than 12 years ago | (#3721135)

Collobarative Recommendations such as Amazon.com uses, (or Eigentaste [berkeley.edu] or RecTree [cs.sfu.ca] in academia) finally have algorithms that make it fast enough for an average PC to perform the operations. A decentralized version would not only foil spoofing and spamming, but would let you discover new things beyond the industry marketing machine. Does anyone have information on such work?

Disrupting P2P networks - legal? (3, Insightful)

CoderByBirth (585951) | more than 12 years ago | (#3721138)

I agree that it would probably be possible to quite easily kill any P2P network; imagine one of the nodes in any Gnutella-type network sending faked information all over the place or something similar, or some kind of malignant Direct Connect client.

But let's say that the music industry/whoever did this, would it be legal just because P2P networks are "possibly used" for distributing copyrighted material?

I don't see the difference between sinking someones Direct Connect hub and launching a DoS attack against a webserver.

"Black Ops". (1)

Grendel Drago (41496) | more than 12 years ago | (#3721270)

Please. If the corps employed black hats for any reason, do you think they'd admit it? Unless there's firm evidence to link the corp to the attack---which there's no reason for them to leave---there's no way to touch 'em. Bastards.

--grendel drago

Slashdot linking - legal? (2)

jbf (30261) | more than 12 years ago | (#3721315)

I don't see the difference between sinking someones Direct Connect hub and launching a DoS attack against a webserver.
So do you have a problem with /. linking to webservers that are likely to go down due to the load?

Unlike traditional web site DoS attacks, based on sending malformed messages (provable intent), DoS attacks in P2P can look like normal requests from normal clients that just come in really fast. IANAL, but much criminal law arises from intent, and the web DoSers (or bounce DoSers) clearly have intent. P2P networks just have a high-overhead protocol.

I don't think, in the end, that you can rely on laws to stop such problems. If you design a flooding mechanism into a protocol, you better be sure to rate-limit somehow... Maybe make people do some amount of work to perform a flood (though precomputation becomes problematic, because you want it to some extent, but not too extreme an extent).

Er, what? (4, Insightful)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 12 years ago | (#3721139)

This is hardly news. I can't remember the last time that I shared a music file from gnutella that was correctly named, labelled, untruncated and not a radio edit (mea non culpla, the first thing that I do is to fix the damn things, before making them available for re-sharing).

For exe's, it's even worse. There seems to be a deliberate misnamimg of some files, e.g. GTA2 labelled as GTA3, or in some bizarre cases files named as "game Foo (actually game Bar)". What on earth is the point of that? If you're warning that there are misnamed versions out there with this filesize, then say that, otherwise just name it correctly and be done with it.

Porn is the worst of all. I've lost count of the number of god damn bangbus promos (or worse, trailers that spawn popups) that I've shared and ditched, and I'm now so sick of it that I won't download anything under 5MB (most of the trailers are smaller than that).

What I can't understand in all this is that I'm sharing these from other gnutella users. Sure, they are injected through malice (or avarice), but what is wrong in the heads of users that they don't understand that this is our network, and our responsibility to clean up the file naming? Nobody is going to step in and do it for us. It's only going to get worse over time, and I'd rather download three different but accurately named versions of the same file than one misnamed version that turns out to be another badly encoded asian lipstick lesbian popup spawning commercial.

Repeat the mantra: our network, our responsibility.

Re:Er, what? (2)

Saeger (456549) | more than 12 years ago | (#3721171)

(or worse, trailers that spawn popups)

Yeah, but that only happens with MS's wonderful ASF format. I got annoyed with that too and wrote a simple util that strips out all the ASF "Script_Command_Object's". No more popups.

but what is wrong in the heads of users that they don't understand that this is our network

Why do people piss in the pool? Why do punks tag bridges? Same thing.

--

Re:Er, what? (2)

Skidge (316075) | more than 12 years ago | (#3721335)

What I can't understand in all this is that I'm sharing these from other gnutella users. Sure, they are injected through malice (or avarice), but what is wrong in the heads of users that they don't understand that this is our network, and our responsibility to clean up the file naming? Nobody is going to step in and do it for us. It's only going to get worse over time, and I'd rather download three different but accurately named versions of the same file than one misnamed version that turns out to be another badly encoded asian lipstick lesbian popup spawning commercial.

I think the problem is that people are pretty lazy and with big fat hard drives now pretty standard, what's the use of bothering to clean stuff up (other than keeping your porn downloads from others using your computer)? It's easier just to queue up a bunch of downloads and forget about the crap ones when you are done then it is to clean up the file names of the good ones and get rid of the bogus ones.

Maybe once it gets difficult to get even a few good downloads, people will start becoming more responsible with their sharing, but I doubt it. They will just give up and say it just doesn't work anymore.

Re:Er, what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3721343)

Repeat the mantra: our network, our responsibility, and someone else's content.

Re:Er, what? (1)

mrdogi (82975) | more than 12 years ago | (#3721361)

What I can't understand in all this is that I'm sharing these from other gnutella users. Sure, they are injected through malice (or avarice), but what is wrong in the heads of users that they don't understand that this is our network, and our responsibility to clean up the file naming? Nobody is going to step in and do it for us. It's only going to get worse over time, and I'd rather download three different but accurately named versions of the same file than one misnamed version that turns out to be another badly encoded asian lipstick lesbian popup spawning commercial.

Looks like it's already working on at least one person

Re:Er, what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3721379)

>culpla

culpa

Only morons download a 10 second mp3 clip (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3721143)

Yes.. there are plenty of morons on the P2P
networks.
Hell.. the majority of the files out there
are incomplete and/or corrupt and yet....
none of the morons sharing them ever delete them.

Gee... sounds a lot like the crap you have to
go through on a daily basis with live people.

Another technology hampered by Morons. Figures.

Re:Only morons download a 10 second mp3 clip (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3721437)

Is there a utility that will scan my mp3 collection for truncated songs and delete them?

it's the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy... (1)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | more than 12 years ago | (#3721144)

from the Salon article:

"All it takes is an intern in a room."

Isn't that how a President was brought down? ;-)

have you tried The Circle? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3721197)

the Circle is a fully scalable p2p system
(unlike gnutella, kazaa, morpheus, etc.
which do NOT scale)
it is based on a decentralized hashtable.
files have md5sums to avoid fake files.
and it uses a trust network.

see http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~pfh/circle/

Users tend to delete corrupt files (1)

kabanossen (227003) | more than 12 years ago | (#3721214)

Filling the network with corrupt files might have some short-term effect but eventually those files get filtered out [openp2p.com] as users find them useless and start deleting them.

Sub-network. (3, Interesting)

Grendel Drago (41496) | more than 12 years ago | (#3721293)

Hmm; I wonder if limiting access to the network will help with this. I'm going to be setting up an on-campus Gnucleus-LAN network this fall, and it'll be IP restricted to on-campus addresses. (This is mostly to deal with restrictions on off-campus bandwidth.) Maybe this will offer better control... but then again, maybe people will be just as lazy about it.

I wonder if this has been considered---limiting the network to a certain class of user (and thus excluding exploit boxes bought by AOL Disney Time Fox sitting on a DSL line somewhere in east Peoria) might be a solution to a few of these woes. Of course, for the user on some DSL line in east Peoria, that's little consolation.

I could send little SMB alerts to people who shared broken files... but that'd probably just annoy them mightily, and the lazy bastards wouldn't properly maintain their files anyway.

--grendel drago

Sustainable Population? (2)

squaretorus (459130) | more than 12 years ago | (#3721367)

Modern life should, we are told, lead to the formation of geographically independent social groups.

/. is a decent example, but is too generic. Better examples are 'class of 91, X Uni' or 'ex-Cisco c.2001'.

I'll bet a lot of these smaller groups operate pretty effective low tech P2P networks - i.e. 'anyone got a pic of murray vomitting?' gets mailed out - some responses come back.

The problem with GENERIC P2P is that you need roughly the whole population of the world to take part to make it work effectively. And even then - you start needing to ask more specific questions - i.e. which murray?

Surely small group P2P is the way forward. So a framework for niche-P2P, which then collects the results in a single 'ultraP2P' could operate well. Each niche P2P is autonomous - and can be voted out of ultraP2P by algorithm or human depending on ratio of good to bad behaviour.

Each user is a member of one or more niche P2P, and shares directly with these. Even if ultraP2P sucks, the nicheP2P's individually can suck or rock depending on the group.

This is how the web was won! And newsnet before it. No reason why it shouldn't work for P2P.

Re:Sustainable Population? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3721386)

This is called clustering and it's hardly a new concept.

If you're an anime freak, you should gravitate towards the anime cluster, because it's most efficient. If on the off chance you want to download a pic of Mickey Mouse, you'd be better off asking the Disney freak cluster.

Been there, done that, wrote the book... (2)

MattRog (527508) | more than 12 years ago | (#3721410)

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=28940&threshol d=1&commentsort=0&tid=99&mode=thread&cid=3108069

The idea is not a new one, and works surprisingly well.

The John Williams-issue (1)

Penguin (4919) | more than 12 years ago | (#3721456)

One of the most obvious consequences with music-sharing-P2P-systems is the fact that every 13-year old geek out there believe that John Williams has created every single piece of movie score!

I recently wrote a small rant on the subject. It's available at http://naps.ter.dk/ [naps.ter.dk] - and yes, it's partially meant as a joke.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...