dumwaldo slags p2p

[assorted]

dumwaldo (aka onewaldo; who some of you may remember from napster software and later naphoria) cross posted this at dslreports and vcdquality.

i like it enough that i'd like to discuss it. but i'd rather not discuss it at either of those places. so here i am copying and pasteing:

********begin dumwaldo post***********

*for the purpose of this thread IRC will not be included as a peer to peer program. i am speaking only on the 'new breed' of file sharing software.

ever wonder why peer to peer clients are so disliked by many? there are a few different reasons why i dislike peer to peer software so i am going to rant about some of them here. i am just expressing my opinion here and nothing more.

the short list of reasons why peer to peer is disliked by me.

#1 the peer to peer genre of software is responsible for promoting ignorance.

#2 the makers of most peer to peer programs do not respect the users of their software.

#3 the use of peer to peer software requires you run a server.

#4 peer to peer is the slowest and most unreliable way to get large files.

now here are the expanded explinations.

#1 the peer to peer genre of software is responsible for promoting ignorance.
i think everybody will agree that it was napster that started the 'revolution'. napster was created by some college kids that wanted to make it easier to find and download mp3's. there was no long term goal, napster was created for immediate gratification.

millions of people signed on to napster and quickly made it the most popular file trading community. with that came an influx of a new different type of user. prior to napster people had to have a higher level of active involvment making it more of a hobby. napster's ease of use and ability to almost immediatley gratify a persons desire brought with it anybody that 'didnt want to pay'. what was once a hobby feuled by an enjoyment of music (or whatever the files happen to be) started transforming into a way to stick it to big media companies and save a few bucks. these people are not interested in a new hobby and therefore want to put in as little effort as possible,

supporting people that just want a one click solution is in my opinion supporting ignorance. the expression 'give a man a fish he will eat for a day but teach him how to fish and he will eat forever' jumps to mind here. what peer to peer programs attempt to do is just keep giving out free fish while never teaching you how to fish.

#2 the makers of most peer to peer programs do not respect the users of their software.
the evidence of this claim is thouroughly illustrated by vast number of these applications that include malware, spyware, or trojans. the idea of even including this type of add on shows the motivation behind the development of these programs is for personal profit and gain not to help people out. every peer to peer program out today is simply seeking to emulate the amazing popularity of napster. why? because that popularity equals money.

add on apps like cydoor and brilliant are not implimented into peer to peer programs for free. the makers of the peer to peer applications charge a fee to the add on makers for including their application within their own. the more popular your peer to peer program is the higher the fee to include an add on.

to the makers of the peer to peer programs you are just a comodaty and your contributions in the form of sharing are assets of their company. through your efforts a company like kazaa can yeild big financial rewards and business status while offering you little in return.

i am well aware that many apps do not include any kind of malware but this does not look at the bigger picture. perhaps the program you are using today will be discovered to have malware tomorow. you just dont know. the overall trustability of just about every peer to peer maker seems to eventually fall into the spotlight and become exposed. it is not untill something is exposed that you can do something about it so the result ends up being millions of people using and promoting the use of products with malware attached untill it becomes popular enough that someone with the know how looks it over and makes the public aware of the risks.

#3 the use of peer to peer software requires you run a server.
one of the biggest and most overlooked problems inherent of using peer to peer apps is the fact that the majority of the community has to share in order for it to work. when you start up a program that allows others to remotley start your computer uploading to them it is a server. there is no difference between running kazaa and running an ftp server.

lets forget issues of violating ISP service agreements by running a server. this point is so strong it does not even need the added endorsment of your ISP. serving warez is illegal while downloading is not. the laws regarding supplying illegal warez are quite clear cut and defined. the laws regarding downloading are very undefined and under constant challange. there is no clear cut law saying it is illegal to download.

if you look back at any types of sucsessfull legal preceedings you will find that uploading content that you do not own the full rights to distribute has never been in question. it has always been clearly against the law. that is backed up in the peer to peer world as far back as napster's banning of 30,000 users at the request of metallica. had metallica requested that all users that had download their works be banned then napster would have laughed at them and so would the courts.

#4 peer to peer is the slowest and most unreliable way to get large files.
since the supply on peer to peer networks comes from users allowing files to be uploaded through their personal connections you will have a hard time finding fast sources. the way broadband is expanding, offering much higher download speeds than upload speeds this is a problem that will get worse as more people get faster download abilities. some programs try to combat this by using multiple sources but thats just an invitation for problems. this becomes especially true when files are traded without first archiving into a format with error protection like rar.

once again because the supply is from other users allowing uploads from their machine it is common for your source to disapear before you complete your transfer. lets face it many peer to peer'ers turn off their machines or shut their client/servers. you do not get the reliability of a professional or experienced server operator.

now looking at speed from the aspect of when things become widley available after being released onto the internet. there is a trickle down effect that carries releases down from the highest echelons of distribution to the lower areas where these files are traded. peer to peer is one of the last places that releases trickle down to. now i know someone will say 'but i see releases on e-donkey the same day as they are released'. but that is an illusion. if ten people have something on e-donkey and 10,000 people are trying to get it from the same 10 people is it really available? no it isnt available untill you can actually get it. it will take a few days before it spreads around the network to a point where it is readily available to the entire community.

i am not one of the people that feel peer to peer programs draw attention to "the scene". in fact i feel it does the exact opposite by taking away resources that would otherwise be directed at higher sources. i do think most people use these peer to peer programs out of convenience or because they dont know of other ways. i might put down peer to peer programs but at least i know why.

so if i have it all wrong could someone let me know?

******************end dumwaldo post*********8


though i disagree with some of what he's writing; i agree with a lot of it. also, he's given it a fair amount of thought and i'm curious what others think.

[Squid]

comes off as a little 1337tst me thinks. good points tho, dumwaldo is a smart guy and a valuable member of the p2p community. i dun agree with m a lot of this tho but i'm simply too tired to make a point.

edit to add- the only p2p app i even use is BitTorrent and that only rarely.

FTP or IRC... otherwise it sucks

[JackSpratts]

for the record dumwaldo is a member of this forum but hasn't posted here using that name for months.

- js.

[napho]

I don't think he should blame p2p programs; it's the new file traders he doesn't like. Instead of a small group of music lovers trading on IRC now you have tens of millions of people trying to grab as much loot as they can. The comaraderie is still there if you want it; look at the eDonkey servers, forums, and hotlink sites not to mention the rooms and channels on WinMX and Soulseek...it's like IRC on a much larger scale.
As far as the makers of the programs not respecting the users, most don't have spyware and even if they do there are members of the "community" who can remedy that.
Download speeds are fine too-with Kazaa++ you can get max speeds without too much effort and on something slow like eMule just queue up a bunch of dvd rips and albums and come back a day or 2 later and you'll have what you want.
His attitude smacks of a kind of I miss the good old days/elitism that's out of place - so many ppl have computers now that things invariably had to change.

[TankGirl]

Originally posted by napho
His attitude smacks of a kind of I miss the good old days/elitism that's out of place - so many ppl have computers now that things invariably had to change.

What Napho said. Waldo makes many valid points but they don't really add up to a general case against p2p. For example, I surely despise malware and spyware too, but luckily there are spyware free and even open sourced options available for those interested. And if one dislikes the 'ignorant masses' and the associated phenomena p2p as a technology allows people to set up as intimate, dedicated, professional - and even elitistic! - groups as they wish.

What Waldo says about large P2P networks being the last step in the food chain to receive new content is correct but does it really matter that much if you get your movie a few days or a few weeks later from your favorite P2P network than what you would get it from IRC or newsgroups? For most people the P2P delivery is good enough, and it is probably only good that the more quality conscious 'higher sources' handle the initial distribution phase in the total sharing ecology.

- tg

ps. & off topic: a great new avatar, assorted!

[albed]

I'm not as into this area as anyone posting but my brief input is to draw a parallel to mass production vs. the old craftsman way of making a product that still echoes from the industrial revolution. p2p might be impersonal and kind of sloppy but it's much more effective at larger scales than irc. And people who want to pay a premium in effort can still use the old way.

And being out in the sticks with only dial-up means I couldn't really afford the old way.

[multi]

"community"...

[assorted]

well, in short... i agree with points 1, 2 and 4 and disagree with 3.

point 1 - yes, it promotes ignorance. but i agree with what y'all have said that it's simply the next step in the evolution. also, people having to actually learn something would be at the cost of decent music. soulseek and ag before it had good music because they were easy to use. when mp3 trading was IRC/FTP only the music selection was HORRIBLE. but... its' true that p2p apps support people grabbing stuff without having any larger understanding; which i think in the end will be bad.

point 2 - p2p makers absolutely have no sense of community and despise their users as profit potential. any community that develops within a p2p i think is doomed the same way our napster community would have been doomed had it stayed around. its' the nature of capitalism and unless a program is open source you shouldn't assume otherwise. it will take years before a p2p that's closed source can be trusted simply due to it's history (like say, mIRC is).

point 3 - i think people being forced to run servers (which is illegal) is GOOD for p2p. before p2p it was harder to get obscure material; now it's not. also, i firmly believe people need to give back what they get. so whatever. sure, for stuff like movies (and if arrests happen) this will have to move to smaller, more private communities, but it should be a multisource p2p that offers those small communities; hehe.

point 4 - i should mention dumwaldo made this post in reference to movies. so yeah. for movies p2p is too much of a bother for me. so i guess he's right. then again, i'll be fucked if i'm paying $10 a month for a newsgroup server (which is the only real fast option outside of getting more involved in the 'scene' then i'd ever like to become as a 30 year old man).

ps; squid: you said you disagreed with him, then said you only use ftp or irc you winking 1337tst bastard.

[JackSpratts]

Psychology plays the biggest part in all of this. It’s how you perceive the fundamental properties behind file sharing I think that ultimately determines much of your political position on the subject. Do you feel you're getting things "off the internet", impersonally, free, i.e. "scoring swag off the man" (the RIAA’s position), or do you feel you're getting your files from another individual person much like yourself in an intimate if highly virtual pas de deux?

I feel it’s the latter for me and actually that’s how the network of P2Ps really function. "The Internet" isn't sitting around waiting to cough up the latest image or sound arbitrarily to anyone who stumbles over it, but rather someone somewhere has made the effort and taken the time to become an amateur administrator and allow access to their database for no particular reason at all except a need to share and be a part of this amazing community (that word again). This fact becomes all the more apparent when you find out it’s easier to “score swag” without sharing anything at all (each time I test a new network I start with an empty folder and I’ve never been called out or blocked for leeching, not once in over three years). Obviously if we leeched all the time we’d have to go back to getting our things from central servers in some kind of an awful twilight-like AOL experience where all was controlled by an unseen presence and we ourselves reduced to barely autonomous consumers. But that is not Peer-To-Peer, nor has it ever been.

As for issues surrounding the programs that we use to facilitate our file transfers, how we pay for them and other areas of compensation, such as laws concerning “uploads” etc, well, ultimately it is up to us to determine whether we govern ourselves or allow someone else to do so for us. Or to us. Indeed, that's what this board is about isn’t it. In matters peer-to-peer, where we’re going, how we’re getting there and most importantly, who’s driving?

- js.