File sharing
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
File sharing is the practice of making files available for other users to download over the Internet and smaller networks. Usually file sharing follows the peer-to-peer (P2P) model, where the files are stored on and served by personal computers of the users. Most people who engage in file sharing are also downloading files that other users share. Sometimes these two activities are linked together. P2P file sharing is distinct from file trading in that downloading files from a P2P network does not require uploading, although some networks either provide incentives for uploading such as credits or force the sharing of files being currently downloaded.
[edit] The first P2P-Generation: Server-Client
The first generation of peer-to-peer file sharing networks had a centralized file list. Ultimately, Napster was held liable even if it used the most advanced technology available to identify works copyright holders had asked it to block, because no technology that can identify works with 100% certainty exists or can exist. Napster still exists today, but as a subsidiary of Roxio after they bought the name during the original Napster's bankruptcy phase, continues to operate today, and is now legally distributing music under a subscription-based model.
In the centralized peer-to-peer model, a user would send a search to the centralized server of what they were looking for, that is, a song, video, or movie. The server then sends back a list of which peers have the data and facilitates the connection and download.
The first file sharing programs marked themselves by inquiries to a server, either the data to the Download held ready or in appropriate different Peers and so-called Nodes further-obtained, so that one could download there. Best example was Napster (today a Payment offerer) or eDonkey2000 in the server version (today likewise with Overnet and KAD - network decentralized).
[edit] Web Based Sharing
Webhosting for file sharing is also used. Since it is here very possible to exchange privately and in the very small communities also unpopular files can be distributed very quickly and efficiently. Web hosters are independent from each other, therefore contents are not distributed further. Other terms for this are one-click hosting and web based sharing.
[edit] Server-client-protocols
- Audiogalaxy - Service ended in the middle of 2002.
- Direct Connect
- Napster - Closed in its original form in July 2001. Now it's a paid for service.
- Scour Exchange - The second exchange network after Napster. No longer exists.
- Soulseek - Still popular today despite being relatively old, with more than 120,000 users online at any time.
- TinyP2P - 15 lines Python - SOURCE code
- WinMX - The original servers were switched off in September 2005, but servers from other companies have taken over. Version 3.54 beta 4 is available from http://www.winmxgroup.com/
[edit] The second P2P-Generation: Decentralization
After Napster encountered legal troubles, Justin Frankel of Nullsoft set out to create a network without a central index server, and Gnutella was the result. Unfortunately, the Gnutella model of all nodes being equal quickly died from bottlenecks as the network grew from incoming Napster refugees. FastTrack solved this problem by having some nodes be 'more equal than others'.
By electing some higher capacity nodes to be indexing nodes, with lower capacity nodes branching off from them, FastTrack allowed for a network that could scale to a much larger size. Gnutella quickly adopted this model, and most current peer-to-peer networks implement this design, as it allows for large and efficient networks without central servers.
Also included in the second generation are distributed hash tables (DHTs), which help solve the scalability problem by electing various nodes to index certain hashes (which are used to identify files), allowing for fast and efficient searching for any instances of a file on the network. This is not without drawbacks; perhaps most significantly, DHTs do not directly support keyword searching (as opposed to exact-match searching).
The best examples are Gnutella, Kazaa or eMule with Kademlia, whereby Kazaa has still a central server for logging in. eDonkey2000/Overnet, Gnutella, FastTrack and Ares Galaxy have summed up approx. 10.3 million users (as of April 2006, according to slyck.com). This number not necessarily corresponds to the actual number of persons who use these networks; it must be assumed that some use multiple clients for different networks. The number of BitTorrent users cannot be measured directly, however, there should be more users than of eDonkey2000 and that's why providers try to restrict the BitTorrent traffic first. One must also understand that number of users indicated by software applies only to users which are active at this moment.
[edit] Multi-Network-Clients
[edit] eDonkey2000 - Network
[edit] Gnutella - Network
- Acquisition - Mac OS X, closed source (Shareware)
- BearShare - Microsoft Windows, closed source, development stopped in 2005,
- Cabos - Mac OS X and Microsoft Windows, based on LimeWire and Acquisition
- FileScope - .NET, open source (GPL), C#, also supports other networks
- FrostWire - open source (GPL), Java, based on LimeWire
- Gnotella - development stopped in 2001
- Gnucleus - Microsoft Windows, open source (GPL), C++, supports also Gnutella2
- Gtk-gnutella - Unix, open source (GPL), C
- I2Phex
- LimeWire - open source (GPL), Java
- MLDonkey - open source (GPL), Objective Caml, also supports other networks
- Morpheus - Microsoft Windows, closed source, also supports other networks
- Mutella - open source
- Phex - open source (GPL), Java
- Qtella - open source (GPL), development stopped in May 2004
- Shareaza - Microsoft Windows, open source, also supports other networks
- Symella - Symbian S60 v3, open source implementation for mobile platforms
- Swapper.NET - .NET, closed source, C#, development stopped in July 2004
- XoloX - contains adware/spyware
[edit] BitTorrent - Network
- Azureus - Multi-Platform Popular Client, pioneering the Zudeo service.
- BitComet - Windows, closed source, C++
- Shareaza - Windows, open source (GPL), C++, also supports Gnutella2, Gnutella1, eDonkey2000/eMule
- µTorrent - Windows, closed source, C++, light-weight client
- ABC - Windows, open source (GPL), Python
- Deluge (gTorrent) - GTK+, open source, Python
- eXeem - Stopped development in August 2005, contains adware
- KTorrent - KDE, open source (GPL)
- MLDonkey - platform-independent, open source (GPL), Objective Caml, also supports eDonkey2000/eMule, Overnet, Emule Kademlia, FTP, Gnutella1, Gnutella2
- Opera starting from version 9.0
- Rufus - Windows, open source, Python
- Tomato Torrent - Mac OS X, open source, BSD license
- Xtorrent - Mac OS X
- Transmission - GTK+, platform-independent, open source (MIT License)
- Star Torrent - .NET, C#
- SymTorrent - open source implementation for mobile platforms
- Tribler - platform-independent, open source (LGPL), Python
- BitRocket - Mac OS X (native), open source (BSD license
- BitZip - Windows, closed source, works with torrent & .bt files.
See also: Comparison of BitTorrent software
[edit] FastTrack - Network
- Apollon - KDE, open source (GPL), based on Poisoned, also supports other networks
- Grokster - development stopped in June 2005
- Kazaa - official client, contains adware/spyware
- Kazaa Lite - derivative of Kazaa, contain no or less adware/spyware
- Mammoth - open source, development stopped in January 2004
- MLDonkey
[edit] Further networks or clients
- aimini
- Applejuice
- Ares Galaxy - nearly TRACKs - similar network
- Coral Content Distribution Network
- Darknet
- DC++ - Direct Connect client
- Dijjer
- Direct Connect
- Drumbeat - Mac OS X, OpenNAP client
- iMesh - since October of 2005 Payment offerers
- Jubster - client, supported networks: EDonkey2000, Gnutella, nearly TRACKs and further, contains adware
- JXTA
- Lopster - OpenNAP client
- Nicotine - Soulseek client
- OpenNap - Napster clone
- Peanuts - client, supported networks: Ares Galaxy, nearly TRACKs, Gnutella and further
- PowerFolder - An easy, secure and private file sharing program
- Piolet - client, successor of Blubster, network: MANOLITO P2P network (MP2PN)
- RevConnect - Enhanced DC++
- SlavaNap - Napster clone
- TekNap - OpenNAP client
- XDCC
[edit] The third P2P-Generation: non-direct and encrypted
The third generation of peer-to-peer networks are those that have anonymity features built in. Examples of anonymous networks are ANts P2P, RShare, Freenet, I2P, GNUnet and Entropy.
A degree of anonymity is realized by routing traffic through other users clients, which have the function of network nodes.This makes it harder for someone to identify who is downloading or who is offering files. Most of these programs also have strong encryption to resist traffic sniffing.
Friend-to-friend networks only allow already known users (also known as "friends") to connect to your computer, then each node can forward requests and files anonymously between its own "friends" nodes.
Third generation networks have not reached mass usage for file sharing because most current implementations incur too much overhead in their anonymity features, making them slow or hard to use.
An example might be: Petra gives a file to Oliver, then Oliver gives the file to Anna. Petra and Anna thus never become acquainted and thus are protected. Virtual IP addresses are also often used, further obfuscating the user's network location. Additionally all transfers are encrypted, so that even the network administrators cannot see what was sent to whom. Example software includes WASTE, JetiANts, Tor and I2P. These clients differ greatly in their goals and implementation. WASTE is designed only for small groups and may therefore be considered Darknet, ANts and I2P are public Peer to Peer systems, with anonymization provided exclusively by routing reach.
[edit] Waste network
- WASTE
- kDrive similar to WASTE, development stopped at present
[edit] Ants network
[edit] Mute network
[edit] I2P network
[edit] Turtle-Network (F2F Instant Messenger)
- Retroshare_Instant_Messenger
- Turtle F2F - Turtle for privacy of filesharing
- giFT - File-Sharing Application for Turtle
- Apollon - giFT-Frontend
[edit] other networks or clients
- Freenet
- GigaTribe - successor of TribalWeb software - [1]
- GNUnet
- Nodezilla
- OFF System - so-called Brightnet [2]
- PowerFolder - An easy, secure and private file sharing program
- Proxyshare - ISP cache/proxyserver
- RShare
- Share - successor of WinNY
- Tor
- WinNY - development stopped in November 2003
- Zultrax - Client, supported networks: ZEPP and Gnutella
[edit] The fourth P2P-Generation: Streams over P2P
Apart from the traditional file sharing there are services that send streams instead of files over a P2P network. Thus one can hear radio and watch television without any server involved -- the streaming media is distributed over a P2P network. It is important that instead of a treelike network structure, a swarming technology known from BitTorrent is used. Best examples are Peercast, Cybersky and demo TV.
[edit] General
[edit] Tree structure
[edit] Swarm structure such as Bittorrent
[edit] Copyright issues
File sharing (such as with the Gnutella and Napster networks) grew in popularity with the proliferation of high speed Internet connections, relatively small file size and high-quality MP3 audio format. Although file sharing is a legal technology with legal uses, many users use it to download and upload copyrighted materials without permission, which can be copyright infringement if done without authorization for improper purposes. This has led to attacks against file sharing in general from many copyright owners.
There has been great discussion over perceived and actual legal issues surrounding file sharing. In circumstances where trading partners are in different countries with different legal codes, there are significant problems to contend with. What if a person in Canada wishes to share a piece of source code which, if compiled, has encryption capabilities? In some countries, a citizen may not request or receive such information without special permission.
Throughout the early 2000s, the entire file-sharing community has been in a state of flux. In the year 2000, there was speculation over how seriously record companies and the Recording Industry Association of America would strike the file-sharing community because of its limits compared to more traditional forms of media [3]. However, the communities suffered strain as record companies and the RIAA tried to shut down as much of it as possible. Even though they have forced Napster and Grokster into cooperating against copyright violations, they are fighting an uphill battle since the community has flourished and produced many different clients based on several different underlying protocols. The third generation of P2P protocols, such as Freenet, are not as dependent as Napster is on a central server; and as they encrypt the shared data, it is much harder to shut down these systems through court actions. Another attempt (used by the maintainers of KaZaA) is to change the company's organization or country of origin so that it is impossible or useless to attack it legally. To date, file sharing in Canada is sometimes legal (unauthorized downloading of music is permitted, for example) , though not completely so[4]. The uphill battle also extends to the legal actions taken by the RIAA and motion picture counterpart MPAA against individuals using file-sharing programs to distribute material protected by copyright. Ambiguity in the interpretation of copyright law has been a major factor contributing the lack of successful enforcement by the Intellectual Property owners. In Electra v. Perez for example, the Court ruled that the act of making such files available for distribution equated to infringement of the works involved. In the more recent UMG v. Lindor, Judge David G. Trager ruled that the RIAA would be required to prove that actual distribution (sharing) occurred. Should this case go to trial in 2007, it will likely set a precedent for further RIAA and MPAA actions.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is a donor-supported group which seeks to protect and expand digital rights. Its activities include litigation, political lobbying, and public awareness campaigns. The EFF has vocally opposed the RIAA in its pursuit of lawsuits against users of file sharing applications and supported defendants in these cases. The foundation promotes the legalization of peer-to-peer sharing of copyrighted materials and alternative methods to provide compensation to copyright holders.[1]
[edit] Legal controversy
- Further information: EU Copyright Directive
Under US law "the Betamax decision" (Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.), case holds that copying "technologies" are not inherently illegal, if substantial non-infringing use can be made of them. This decision, predating the widespread use of the Internet applies to most data networks, including peer-to-peer networks, since distribution of correctly licensed files can be performed. These non-infringing uses include sending open source software, public domain files and out of copyright works. Other jurisdictions tend to view the situation in somewhat similar ways.
In practice, many of the files shared on peer-to-peer networks are copies of copyrighted popular music and movies. Sharing of these copies among strangers is illegal in most jurisdictions. This has led many observers, including most media companies and some peer-to-peer critics, to conclude that the networks themselves pose grave threats to the established distribution model. The research that attempts to measure actual monetary loss has been somewhat equivocal. Whilst on paper the existence of these networks results in large losses, the actual income does not seem to have changed much since these networks started up. Whether the threat is real or not, both the RIAA and the MPAA now spend large amounts of money attempting to lobby lawmakers for the creation of new laws, and some copyright owners pay companies to help legally challenge users engaging in illegal sharing of their material.
In spite of the Betamax decision, peer-to-peer networks themselves have been targeted by the representatives of those artists and organizations who license their creative works, including industry trade organizations such as the RIAA and MPAA as a potential threat. The Napster service was shut down by an RIAA lawsuit.
In A&M Records v. Napster, 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001), the court found that Napster was both vicariously and contributorily liable for the copyright infringement its users were engaged in. Vicarious liability in these types of cases extends to a provider who financially benefits from the infringement committed by its users while having the ability to police that infringement but has failed to do so. The court found ample evidence that Napster’s future revenue is directly dependent upon “increases in userbase.” It also found that Napster could have done more than it claimed with regards to restricting users from sharing copyrighted material. Later on in the opinion, the famous peer-to-peer provider was also found contributorily liable. It knew of the infringing use that Napster could and did have, in a medium where the software provided essential access. The RIAA could have sued individual users at the time for violating federal law, but thought it more prudent to shut down the means by which those users shared music.
Napster's use of a central server distinguishes it, on its facts, from the next generation peer-to-peer technology, in which the communication of files is truly "peer to peer." Therefore, additional litigation was needed to determine the legality of their uses.
In MGM v. Grokster, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed a decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which had granted a summary judgment of dismissal, and held that there were factual issues concerning whether the defendant p2p software providers had, or had not, encouraged their users to infringe copyrights. If they had done so, they could be held liable for secondary copyright infringement.
The main point of the Grokster holding was about "inducement." "The classic case of direct evidence of unlawful purpose occurs when one induces commission of infringement by another, or "entic[es] or persuad[es] another" to infringe, Black's Law Dictionary 790 (8th ed. 2004), as by advertising. Thus at common law a copyright or patent defendant who "not only expected but invoked [infringing use] by advertisement" was liable for infringement …" The court noted that simply providing the material was not enough. While the decision did not find liability, it simply laid out the groundwork for how the law should be interpreted.
A little over a year later, the RIAA initiated the first major post-Grokster case, Arista v. Limewire, in Manhattan federal court. Lime Wire has counterclaimed in that suit, charging the major record companies with antitrust violations and other misconduct."Lime Wire Sues RIAA for Antitrust Violations"
Shortly thereafter, the lower court judge in Grokster found one of the defendants, Streamcast, the maker of Morpheus, to be liable under the standards enunciated by the Supreme Court. "Streamcast Held Liable for Copyright Infringement in MGM v. Grokster, Round 2" ("Recording Industry vs. The People")
The foregoing cases dealt with 'secondary liability' under the Copyright Act, i.e. whether and when the p2p network software providers can be held liable for 'primary' infringement by their customers. Meanwhile, the underlying question of what uses those customers can make of p2p software without committing a primary infringement is a matter just beginning to be explored, most notably in litigations brought by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) against p2p customers.
In Elektra v. Barker[2], an RIAA case against Tenise Barker, a Bronx nursing student, Ms. Barker moved to dismiss the complaint, contending, among other things, that the RIAA's allegation of "making available" did not state any known claim under the Copyright Act.[3][4]. The RIAA countered with the argument that "making available" is a copyright infringement, even though the language does not appear in the Act.[5]. Thereafter, several amicus curiae were permitted to file briefs in the case, including the MPAA, which agreed[6] with the RIAA's argument, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), the U.S. Internet Industry Association (USIIA), and the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA), which agreed with Ms. Barker.[7][8] The US Department of Justice submitted a brief refuting one of the arguments made by EFF,[9] but did not take any position on the RIAA's "making available" argument[10]. The Elektra v. Barker case was argued before Judge Kenneth M. Karas in Manhattan federal court on January 26, 2007, and as of this writing is awaiting decision.
Anonymous peer-to-peer networks allow for distribution of material - legal or not - with little or no legal accountability across a wide variety of jurisdictions. Many profess that this will lead to greater or easier trading of illegal material and even (as some suggest) facilitate terrorism, and call for its regulation on those grounds [11]. Others counter that the presumption of innocence must apply, and that non peer-to-peer technologies like e-mail (for which there are also anonymizing services), have similar capabilities. Further, the potential for illegal uses should not prevent the technology from being used for legal purposes.
In the European Union (EU), the 2001 EU Copyright directive, which implemented the 1996 WIPO treaty ("World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty"), prohibits peer-to-peer, claiming it is a violation of the directive. However, not all European member states have implemented the directive in national legislation. Notably, on December 22, 2005, after discussing the EU directive, the French parliament passed two amendments legalizing the exchange of copies on the internet for private use. In a later proceeding, the French government withdrew the article in question and made illegal any p2p client obviously aimed at sharing copyrighted material. The term "obviously" was not defined. The project of law (called DADVSI) has still to be discussed by the French senate and, if the decision differs too much from the Parliament's, it will be debated on second lecture back at the Parliament (Assemblée Nationale).
Interestingly, Canada stands out by authorizing, at least until the projected copyright reform, downloads on peer-to-peer networks under the "private copying" exception.
[edit] Important Cases
- US law
- Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios (The Betamax decision)
- MGM v. Grokster
[edit] Attacks on peer-to-peer networks
Many peer-to-peer networks are under constant attack by people with a variety of motives.
Examples include:
- poisoning attacks (e.g. providing files whose contents are different from the description)
- polluting attacks (e.g. inserting "bad" chunks/packets into an otherwise valid file on the network)
- defection attacks (users or software that make use of the network without contributing resources to it)
- insertion of viruses to carried data (e.g. downloaded or carried files may be infected with viruses or other malware)
- malware in the peer-to-peer network software itself (e.g. distributed software may contain spyware)
- denial of service attacks (attacks that may make the network run very slowly or break completely)
- filtering (network operators may attempt to prevent peer-to-peer network data from being carried)
- identity attacks (e.g. tracking down the users of the network and harassing or legally attacking them)
- spamming (e.g. sending unsolicited information across the network- not necessarily as a denial of service attack)
[edit] Risks
Some file sharing software comes bundled with malware such as spyware or adware. Sometimes this malware remains installed on the system even if the original file sharing software is removed, and can be very difficult to eliminate. In many cases such malware can interfere with the correct operation of web browsers, anti-virus software, anti-spyware and software firewalls, and can cause degraded performance on affected systems. Such malware is typically bundled with proprietary software, and not those in open source. In most cases it is possible to easily remove adware and spyware by running spyware removal programs. Such programs can often remove malware without influencing the functionality of the file sharing software.
Some are also concerned about the use of file sharing systems to distribute child pornography, inflammatory literature, and illegal or unpopular material. Novice users may find it difficult to obtain information on which networks are "safe" for them to use. However, experienced users know that there is only one way to get in contact with such material: You have to actively search for it.[12] Therefore they recommend not to search for illegal material.
[edit] See also
- Disk sharing
- File sharing timeline
- Comparison of one-click hosters
- File-sharing program
- Comparison of file sharing applications
- Compulsory license
- Open Music Model
- FairShare
- Spyware
- File sharing in Canada
- P2P
- BitTorrent
- MP3 Newswire
[edit] References
- ^ Electronic Frontier Foundation. Making P2P Pay Artists. Retrieved on April 25, 2006.
- ^ Elektra v. Barker
- ^ Elektra v. Barker, Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss Complaint
- ^ Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss Complaint
- ^ Elektra v. Barker, Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Dismissal Motion
- ^ Amicus Curiae brief of MPAA
- ^ Amicus Curiae brief of EFF
- ^ Amicus Curiae brief of USIIA and CCIA
- ^ Statement of Interest of U.S. Department of Justice
- ^ Statement of Interest, page 5, footnote 3
- ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/4758636.stm
- ^ Morris, Alan (2003-08-22). Testimony of Mr. Alan Morris about Pornography, Technology and Process: Problems and Solutions on Peer-to-Peer Networks. United States Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC. Retrieved on 2006-11-20.
[edit] Further reading
- Stephanos Androutsellis-Theotokis and Diomidis Spinellis. A survey of peer-to-peer content distribution technologies. ACM Computing Surveys, 36(4):335–371, December 2004. doi:10.1145/1041680.1041681.
- Stefan Saroiu, P. Krishna Gummadi, and Steven D. Gribble. A Measurement Study of Peer-to-Peer File Sharing Systems. Technical Report # UW-CSE-01-06-02. Department of Computer Science & Engineering. University of Washington. Seattle, WA, USA.
- Ralf Steinmetz, Klaus Wehrle (Eds). Peer-to-Peer Systems and Applications. ISBN 3-540-29192-X, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Volume 3485, Sep 2005
- Ghosemajumder, Shuman. Advanced Peer-Based Technology Business Models. MIT Sloan School of Management, 2002.
- Silverthorne, Sean. Music Downloads: Pirates- or Customers?. Harvard Business School Working Knowledge, 2004.
- Selected Papers — A collection of academic papers