Stick it to the RIAA



  • If you've been following the news in the IT world lately, you've probably heard about Jammie Thomas, the girl who was sued by the RIAA for sharing 24 music files and lost to the tune of $220,000. I won't even begin to rant about how a jury of 12 people could actually find sufficient evidence in a screen name and IP address, but I will post a link to this story. If you are an IT professional who gets paid reasonably well, why not contribute $20 or so (that's less than an hour's pay for me) to her legal fees so that she can bring an appropriate appeal to court. Any morally conscious member of the internet community should realize that the RIAA is using scare tactics and a team of bully lawyers to extort exhorbitant amounts of money from defenseless people, and that this ruling should not be allowed to turn into a legal precedent for future cases.

     

    http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/news/46250-website-set-up-to-help-defendant-in-riaa-case





  • [quote user="Renan "C#" Sousa"]That, and http://www.boycott-riaa.com/ [/quote]

    Ah yes, that too. Thank you.

     Also, for those who are Radiohead fans, or just like them a bit:

     The new Radiohead album comes out tomorrow, and is being released without a record label. You can purchase the music for download from their website (www.radiohead.com) for any amount you would like. Simply donate however much you think the album is worth to you and download guilt-free. I think this is a great step toward dethroning the major record labels.



  • @PerdidoPunk said:

    ... how a jury of 12 people could actually find sufficient evidence in a screen name and IP address ...

    Are you kidding? The evidence was overwhelmingly against Jammie in the case:

    • She conceeded to using KaZaa (which, unlike BitTorrent for example, exists solely for file sharing)
    • She was computer literate
    • She replaced her hard drive after getting caught
    • Her IP and MAC address matched up
    • She did not have wireless
    • The music shared was similar to her tastes
    • Her KaZaa username was the same as her email and shopping username

     

    Her defense ("there's no proof that a spoofer-hacker-zombie wasn't actually behind the sharing") was pathetic. It wouldn't even fly in a criminal trial, let a lone a civil trial where the burden of proof is much lower.

    I'm not saying that the copyright law is fair or unfair, but she violated it, and she knew it. No one seems to be questioning her guilt, only whether or not there's enough evidence to prove it.

    She may not have realized the consequences at the time, but as soon as she got that "pony up and don't get sued" letter (which, again, I'm not saying is a fair or unfair tactic), she became well aware of her problem. With plenty of evidence and a experienced legal team against her, she chose to fight. That's not valiant, that's just stupid.

    I'll give my $20 to someone who is probably innocent and actually has a legitimate argument against the evidence.



  • @Alex Papadimoulis said:

    @PerdidoPunk said:

    ... how a jury of 12 people could actually find sufficient evidence in a screen name and IP address ...

    She may not have realized the consequences at the time, but as soon as she got that "pony up and don't get sued" letter (which, again, I'm not saying is a fair or unfair tactic), she became well aware of her problem. With plenty of evidence and a experienced legal team against her, she chose to fight. That's not valiant, that's just stupid.

    I'll give my $20 to someone who is probably innocent and actually has a legitimate argument against the evidence.

    I for one am not one to put self-preservation over doing the right thing.

    If I were to receive a similar letter, I would fight it in the hopes of finally establishing that these lawsuits are completely worthless, so that they'll stop happening, even if it meant personal risk to me. Somebody has to stand up against these people. I've been doing my part by boycotting RIAA member labels since they first started suing individuals for file sharing. Whether or not somebody knowingly downloaded and shared an album doesn't mean jack to me; the artist barely sees dollar one of royalties from album sales anyway. The "damages" to these labels are nowhere near what they allege in court, and a $220,000 judgment is absolutely ludicrous. Music has been pirated since way before digital formats were available, and that never seemed to hurt the recording industry as much as they said it did. People still buy music in droves. This is an example of a corrupt oligopoly struggling to maintain control over an industry that is increasingly accessible to new entry. Big, bloated major labels are going to drown in a sea of independent music, and they're trying to keep their heads above the water by pushing the fans down below.



  • It's more a case of a shoddy defence than anything else. The RIAA thugs walked into the case with no evidence at all, and the defence lawyers managed to hand them everything they needed.

    Software development is not the only field where people manage to screw up very simple tasks out of sheer incompetence, stupidity, or laziness.
     



  • @PerdidoPunk said:

    Music has been pirated since way before digital formats were available, and that never seemed to hurt the recording industry as much as they said it did.

    Let's not forget that, as every good primary school teacher attempts to teach children, sharing is a good thing, no matter how hard big business tries to rewrite ethics into some system for accumulating wealth.



  • @PerdidoPunk said:

    If I were to receive a similar letter, I would fight it in the hopes of finally establishing that these lawsuits are completely worthless, so that they'll stop happening, even if it meant personal risk to me.

    I don't think they're worthless; they've sent a strong message. Much stronger than all of those "sharing is stealing" commercials. If anything, fighting an unwinnable battle (like in this particular case) only strengthens their message.

     

    @PerdidoPunk said:

    Whether or not somebody knowingly downloaded and shared an album doesn't mean jack to me; the artist barely sees dollar one of royalties from album sales anyway. The "damages" to these labels are nowhere near what they allege in court, and a $220,000 judgment is absolutely ludicrous.

    Certainly not, and I think this is a fault of outdated copyright law. But in this case, the defendend outrageously lied and spun wild alternative theories. Had she taken a different approach - unfair, outdated laws; not knowning consequences; etc - she would have had a chance with the jury.

     

    @PerdidoPunk said:

    This is an example of a corrupt oligopoly struggling to maintain control over an industry that is increasingly accessible to new entry. Big, bloated major labels are going to drown in a sea of independent music, and they're trying to keep their heads above the water by pushing the fans down below.

    Yes, but its their right to. It's their music, after all.

    You're doing the right thing by boycotting something you're opposed to. I hope you follow suit and buy independent music. But it's a waste to give whiners like Jammie any money or support. Despite having ample alternatives (myspace, indie music, itunes, cd store, etc), she knowningly infringed on the RIAA's copyrights and insulted everyone's intelligence with her rediculous "gee, well there's no way to definitively prove I did it" BS.



  • @asuffield said:

    It's more a case of a shoddy defence than anything else. The RIAA thugs walked into the case with no evidence at all, and the defence lawyers managed to hand them everything they needed.

    It's called discovery.

     

    @asuffield said:

    Software development is not the only field where people manage to screw up very simple tasks out of sheer incompetence, stupidity, or laziness.

    But I will agree with you that her lawyer was certainly incompetent for not advising against defending. Either that, or the defendent was stubornly stupid. Actually, I bet it was a combination of both.

    When it got to deposition time, someone should have told her "well, it looks like they're serious about this whole thing and, since you really have no defence, I recommend cutting your losses and settling for a few thousand."



  • Maybe she was just playing the "if everything goes boom, I'll collect money from the net society" game.

    BTW, I'm surprised that the RIAA did not have to prove that actually any copy at all was made. 



  • @ammoQ said:

    I'm surprised that the RIAA did not have to prove that actually any copy at all was made. 

    I suspect the RIAA made copies and verified that they were the real deal. If they did that, it seems to make sense and be fair (offering for share == sharing == infringement). Especially if we fall back on an "off-line" example.

    If I had a booth at the flea market selling bootleg videos, should an investigator have to document me sharing (selling/bartering/etc) a copy with someone else? Or should the fact that I had a booth and offered him a video be sufficient?

     



  • @Alex Papadimoulis said:

    @ammoQ said:

    I'm surprised that the RIAA did not have to prove that actually any copy at all was made. 

    I suspect the RIAA made copies and verified that they were the real deal. If they did that, it seems to make sense and be fair (offering for share == sharing == infringement). Especially if we fall back on an "off-line" example.

    If I had a booth at the flea market selling bootleg videos, should an investigator have to document me sharing (selling/bartering/etc) a copy with someone else? Or should the fact that I had a booth and offered him a video be sufficient?
     

    In the flea market booth example, the possion of the bootleg videos alone is most likely illegal. And it's obvious that the intention of that person is to distribute those bootleg videos.

    On the other hand, a shared folder is something that can happen unintentionally (though I'd suspect kazaa users know what they do).



  • @Alex Papadimoulis said:

    @asuffield said:

    It's more a case of a shoddy defence than anything else. The RIAA thugs walked into the case with no evidence at all, and the defence lawyers managed to hand them everything they needed.

    It's called discovery.

    Discovery is not ever allowed to be a fishing expedition. The case should have been shot down when the RIAA walked in with no evidence at all. You are not supposed to be able to get discovery without having actual evidence of unlawful conduct.

     

    @asuffield said:

    Software development is not the only field where people manage to screw up very simple tasks out of sheer incompetence, stupidity, or laziness.

    But I will agree with you that her lawyer was certainly incompetent for not advising against defending. Either that, or the defendent was stubornly stupid. Actually, I bet it was a combination of both.

    When it got to deposition time, someone should have told her "well, it looks like they're serious about this whole thing and, since you really have no defence, I recommend cutting your losses and settling for a few thousand."

    Alternatively they could have built a defence on the bogosity of the law (jury reversal is still fundamental to common-law countries, the lawyers just don't like it), or on the misconduct of the RIAA thugs. Arguing against the evidence was just plain stupid.



  • @Alex Papadimoulis said:

    If I had a booth at the flea market selling bootleg videos, should an investigator have to document me sharing (selling/bartering/etc) a copy with someone else? Or should the fact that I had a booth and offered him a video be sufficient?

    If they want to charge you with trafficking, they do have to document you selling a copy. If they just catch you holding bootlegs, it's only some minor infraction and the most anybody can really do is get them confiscated. If they ask you for a copy, that's entrapment (the unlawful act occurred because you asked for it) and cannot be used as evidence.

    There is no law against hanging up a sign saying "bootlegs for sale here". Except possibly under some "truth in advertising" law, if you don't actually have any for sale.

    Everything relating to physical trading has always worked this way. There does not appear to be any justification for things to work differently in the realm of pure data.



  • @Alex Papadimoulis said:

    @ammoQ said:

    I'm surprised that the RIAA did not have to prove that actually any copy at all was made. 

    I suspect the RIAA made copies and verified that they were the real deal. If they did that, it seems to make sense and be fair (offering for share == sharing == infringement). Especially if we fall back on an "off-line" example.

    If I had a booth at the flea market selling bootleg videos, should an investigator have to document me sharing (selling/bartering/etc) a copy with someone else? Or should the fact that I had a booth and offered him a video be sufficient?

     

    Considering that kazaa generally downloads pieces from multiple users, if they managed to get a complete copy of each file from her.

    What would happen if, hypothetically, I had encrypted some *other* file in such a way that the bit sequence was exactly the same as some music file and the checksum ended up being the same. Or better yet, I could just dump the output of a random number generator into a file and every once in a while come up with the same sequence of bits. Let's not forget that music is generally compressed, so the bit sequence is really completely different from what was originally on the cd. Then anybody could download the file from me, open it as an audio file, and have a copy of the music. Yes, I realize this is the old adage of an infinite number of monkeys with typewriters, but I don't think that's any more ridiculous than the current copyright laws. For $220,000 I could buy at least a few dozen monkeys with typewriters, I think. Maybe one would get lucky.

    What if I share a file that has the same filename as some music. From what I've heard about many of these lawsuits, that's all the RIAA goes on. If they were able to find sufficient evidence in this case, they just got lucky. In general they may not be able to. Perhaps someone who is guilty might even destroy his or her hard disks, or even merely shred the pertinent data upon receipt of such a notice, and if the RIAA had only obtained a few KB of the file from them, would that be sufficient evidence against them? If someone sees me with a piece of metal that is physically identical to a piece of an automatic weapon, should I be arrested on weapons charges? These are gray areas.

    Jennifer Pariser, Sony BMG's chief lawyer, said recently, "When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." Making "a copy" of a purchased song is just "a nice way of saying 'steals just one copy'," she said. [http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071002-sony-bmgs-chief-anti-piracy-lawyer-copying-music-you-own-is-stealing.html]

    Well, I guess I'm guilty for owning an iPod. Apparently, the only legal way for me to listen to my music is to carry around my hundreds of cd's and vinyl records, since to transfer them to another format is theft. And nevermind burning a copy of a cd and archiving the original to keep it from being damaged.

    Am I allowed to walk down the street singing a copyrighted song? Can I play music loudly in my car? Wouldn't that count as illegally showing it publicly if other people could see it? What if I have a party and play my music for all the people there? Certainly more people would be listening to it than if I were to let a few people download or stream music from my PC.

    DISCLAIMER: I am not saying that I do share my music, or that I do pirate music. In the cases where I have downloaded an album, I've made a point to listen once, decide if I like it, and if I do, purchase it, online, at a store, or if possible, directly from the artist. If a friend already owns the album, I borrow it for a day or two to preview it. It really doesn't seem reasonable to me that I should have to dish out money for a CD without knowing what I am purchasing first, and to me this means listening to it all the way through once or twice. If I don't like an album, I shouldn't be screwed into paying for it so that I can use it as a coaster. If there's a song by a band that I simply must have, I'd rather just purchase the one song (and that's what I do).

    Of course, everyone has an opinion, and all of these things are open to interpretation. The RIAA would say that the current copyright law is insufficient. I'm sure they would be happy with an even more restrictive version of the DMCA. Whether we like it or not, and whether Jammie is guilty or planned her defense poorly, a judgment like this sets a legal precedent, and if it's not one that you agree with, you shouldn't complacently sit by and let it happen.



  • Hmmm... why not create a file sharing program that for each (copyrighted file) to share, creates one file with random noise, same length as the original file, and one file that is the original file xored with all the noise (of course this file contains only noise, too); then those two files are distributed to two different users in a random way so nobody can tell which one is the noise and which one is noise xor original. To restore the original, the receiver has to download both files; obviously a waste of bandwith; but both sharers can plausibly claim that they only distributed original noise and not a derived work of the original.



  • Come on people, the real moral of the story is that downloading is not what gets you in trouble... uploading is. Nobody gets any real legal trouble just for downloading.



  • @ammoQ said:

    Hmmm... why not create a file sharing program that for each (copyrighted file) to share, creates onen file with random noise, same length as the original file, and one file that is the original file xored with all the noise (of course this file contains only noise, too); then those two files are distributed to two different users in a random way so nobody can tell which one is the noise and which one is noise xor original. To restore the original, the receiver has to download both files; obviously a waste of bandwith; but both sharers can plausibly claim that they only distributed original noise and not a derived work of the original.

    And when people get in trouble over that, distribute files that, when XORed with the current contents of the RIAA website, result in something copyrighted to you - after all, then the RIAA is distributing one of the two "xor pieces" of that file.



  • The bigger problem is that the RIAA has set up legal precedents that you don't even have to SHARE the stuff you download (in this case, for instance, there was no mention or PROVING of any actuall uploading by the defendant) ... and don't forget that in copyright violation cases, the defendant has to pay the plantiff's legal fees. Federal Law. :-(



  • @asuffield said:

    Discovery is not ever allowed to be a fishing expedition. The case should have been shot down when the RIAA walked in with no evidence at all. You are not supposed to be able to get discovery without having actual evidence of unlawful conduct.
     

    Sure it is! If I make a civil claim against you, you are required to hand over potential evidence that I request which may support my claim. "We think you shared our music because the files were on your IP address, so hand over your harddrive." You would have a very tough time challenging that request.

     

    @asuffield said:

    Alternatively they could have built a defence on the bogosity of the law (jury reversal is still fundamental to common-law countries, the lawyers just don't like it), or on the misconduct of the RIAA thugs.

    IIRC, jury nullification is not a valid/allowed defense in US courts. Jurors can choose to ignore the law, but the defense is not allowed to give them any indication that they're allowed to do so. The Plantif is allowed, however, to say that they're not allowed to nullified ("you have sworn to uphold the law, blah blah blah").



  • @PerdidoPunk said:

    What would happen if, hypothetically, I had encrypted some other file in such a way that the bit sequence was exactly the same as some music file and the checksum ended up being the same ... Maybe one would get lucky.

    I think we'd say that's unlucky. If you create a work that just so happens to be indistinguishable from another work, that's copyright infringment. It'd be rediculously unfair any other way...

     

    @PerdidoPunk said:

    What if I share a file that has the same filename as some music. From what I've heard about many of these lawsuits, that's all the RIAA goes on. If they were able to find sufficient evidence in this case, they just got lucky. In general they may not be able to. Perhaps someone who is guilty might even destroy his or her hard disks, or even merely shred the pertinent data upon receipt of such a notice, and if the RIAA had only obtained a few KB of the file from them, would that be sufficient evidence against them?

    They start with file names and go from there. While a filename certainly isn't enough evidence to win a case, it is enough to initiate discovery of further evidence. If someone refused to disclose (or, worse, destroyed the evidence), that's pretty damning against them. In a civil case, you balance probabilities, not look for reasonable doubt.

    If there was evidence that I likely had X, and then I destroyed X after being asked about X, and could provide no evidence to support that I had good cause to destroy X or that I did not have X in the first place, it's more likely than not that I had X. And that's all one needs to win a civil case.

     

    @PerdidoPunk said:

    If someone sees me with a piece of metal that is physically identical to a piece of an automatic weapon, should I be arrested on weapons charges? These are gray areas.

    It would likely be probable cause to arrest and get a warrant against you, but perhaps not enough to convict you.



  • @Alex Papadimoulis said:

    @asuffield said:

    Discovery is not ever allowed to be a fishing expedition. The case should have been shot down when the RIAA walked in with no evidence at all. You are not supposed to be able to get discovery without having actual evidence of unlawful conduct.
     

    Sure it is! If I make a civil claim against you, you are required to hand over potential evidence that I request which may support my claim. "We think you shared our music because the files were on your IP address, so hand over your harddrive." You would have a very tough time challenging that request.

    Your discovery request should be denied unless you could prove in court the relevance of the material you request. That means you need to have some actual evidence, and not a vague claim.

    Getting an expert witness to testify that they have traced traffic to your internet connection, and providing a full log of their activities and analysis, would be sufficient to request copies of the relevant data unless/until the defence submits their own expert testimony showing that the evidence could equally explain somebody else being responsible and therefore doesn't prove a thing. Discovery requires non-circumstantial evidence of an unlawful act connected to the defendant and the requested evidence. It's the same standard required for a search warrant.

    The RIAA's evidence collection is done on the cheap and is usually full of holes. They really should have had it all thrown out of court (might still get that, it's an appealable issue).



  • @Alex Papadimoulis said:

    • She conceeded to using KaZaa (which, unlike BitTorrent for example, exists solely for file sharing)

    What is bitTorrent used for other than file sharing? 



  • @Alex Papadimoulis said:

    ...

    If there was evidence that I likely had X, and then I destroyed X after being asked about X, and could provide no evidence to support that I had good cause to destroy X or that I did not have X in the first place, it's more likely than not that I had X. And that's all one needs to win a civil case.

    ...

    @PerdidoPunk said:

    If someone sees me with a piece of metal that is physically identical to a piece of an automatic weapon, should I be arrested on weapons charges? These are gray areas.

    It would likely be probable cause to arrest and get a warrant against you, but perhaps not enough to convict you.

     

    These are two properties of our judiciary system that severely worry me. I think that the validity of that kind of circumstancial evidence in civil suits leads to most of the frivolous lawsuits that take place in this country, including a lot of cases brought about by insurance fraud.

    As far as probable cause goes, I really don't like the fact that the police and a prosecutor can essentially fabricate a reason to arrest somebody. Whether or not there is a conviction, going through that mess is something that's sure to be traumatic to most people. I personally play it safe and avoid activities that could get me in trouble with the law. That doesn't mean I don't feel a bit nervous about the vanishing civil liberties in the United States. While I may not be directly affected right now, the trends of tightening restrictions on flow of information and the erosion of privacy are quite alarming. Unless people begin to act now to prevent these kinds of things from happening, pretty soon we'll have no freedom left at all. All for what? Security? Peace of mind? I'll have peace of mind when I know that the government and corporate America (read: corrupt lobbyists) isn't trying to infringe on my own personal life.



  • @tster said:

    What is bitTorrent used for other than file sharing? 

    BitTorrent is also used for legal distribution of large files, e.g. Linux ISOs and other large open source projects. You could also legaly download the sci-fi parody Star Wreck by bittorrent. In short it's a usefull tool to distribute large files that many people want at the same time without having lots of big servers. Like any other tool, it can also be used to do illegal things, like sharing pirated movies, but the same could be said about ftp, http or computers in general.



  • @ammoQ said:

    @tster said:

    What is bitTorrent used for other than file sharing? 

    BitTorrent is also used for legal distribution of large files, e.g. Linux ISOs and other large open source projects. You could also legaly download the sci-fi parody Star Wreck by bittorrent. In short it's a usefull tool to distribute large files that many people want at the same time without having lots of big servers. Like any other tool, it can also be used to do illegal things, like sharing pirated movies, but the same could be said about ftp, http or computers in general.

    I knew computers where evil. 



  • @Alex Papadimoulis said:

    IIRC, jury nullification is not a valid/allowed defense in US courts. Jurors can choose to ignore the law, but the defense is not allowed to give them any indication that they're allowed to do so. The Plantif is allowed, however, to say that they're not allowed to nullified ("you have sworn to uphold the law, blah blah blah").

    Actually, regardless of what prosecutors, us federal judges and circuit judges would have the american public believe, If a jury aquits for any reason (including jury nullification) it must be upheld. there are RARE circumstances that would allow a judge to override a nullification verdict. Judges and so forth can even deny that such a thing exists, there's nothing stopping anyone from kicking people off juries if there is an implication that someone is planning on a nullification because they don't like the law, you can lose out in vore dire (or however it is spelled...) but if there's a stupid law that you don't think someone should be convicted for, then you can refuse to prosecute someone according to that law.

    In the US.

    for more info (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification#Nullification_in_the_United_States)



  • @ammoQ said:

    @tster said:

    What is bitTorrent used for other than file sharing? 

    BitTorrent is also used for legal distribution of large files, e.g. Linux ISOs and other large open source projects. You could also legaly download the sci-fi parody Star Wreck by bittorrent. In short it's a usefull tool to distribute large files that many people want at the same time without having lots of big servers. Like any other tool, it can also be used to do illegal things, like sharing pirated movies, but the same could be said about ftp, http or computers in general.

    Right. You might even say that large files are being legally shared.



  • @Random832 said:

    @ammoQ said:
    @tster said:

    What is bitTorrent used for other than file sharing? 

    BitTorrent is also used for legal distribution of large files, e.g. Linux ISOs and other large open source projects. You could also legaly download the sci-fi parody Star Wreck by bittorrent. In short it's a usefull tool to distribute large files that many people want at the same time without having lots of big servers. Like any other tool, it can also be used to do illegal things, like sharing pirated movies, but the same could be said about ftp, http or computers in general.

    Right. You might even say that large files are being legally shared.

    You know as wel as i do that "file sharing" is illegal, and hackers are people who break the law, and you can't export encryption software outside of the us, otherwise the terrorists win.

     



  • I'm OK with the verdict, but not the reward.

    And I do stick it to the RIAA - I haven't bought a CD in ages. I have bought individual MP3s lately, but soon get tired of them. Now I listen to streaming audio (I know, the RIAA wants that [effectively] dead, too), and download legally from GarageBand.com



  • @Random832 said:

    @ammoQ said:
    @tster said:

    What is bitTorrent used for other than file sharing? 

    BitTorrent is also used for legal distribution of large files, e.g. Linux ISOs and other large open source projects. You could also legaly download the sci-fi parody Star Wreck by bittorrent. In short it's a usefull tool to distribute large files that many people want at the same time without having lots of big servers. Like any other tool, it can also be used to do illegal things, like sharing pirated movies, but the same could be said about ftp, http or computers in general.

    Right. You might even say that large files are being legally shared.

    Jesus, I'm glad someone actually bothers to understand words.

     

    "What is BitTorrent used for other than sharing files?"
    "Oh, it's used for sharing large files."
    "..."
     

     Also, repeat after me... "File sharing is not illegal."   Go on, say it!  "FILE SHARING IS NOT ILLEGAL!"
     



  • @tster said:

    Also, repeat after me... "File sharing is not illegal."   Go on, say it!  "FILE SHARING IS NOT ILLEGAL!"

    I'm basically opposed to anybody who mounts a campaign to make "sharing" a dirty word. I hope they contract an unpleasant venereal disease. 



  • @tster said:

     

    "What is BitTorrent used for other than sharing files?"
    "Oh, it's used for sharing large files."
    "..."
     

     Also, repeat after me... "File sharing is not illegal."   Go on, say it!  "FILE SHARING IS NOT ILLEGAL!"

    IMO "file sharing" and "file distribution" are not exactly the same, though the difference is rather non-technical. Distribution: There is one clearly recognizable source and many receivers (even if the network protocol uses peer-to-peer transmission). Sharing: Each node is just as likely a source as it is a destination.



  • I fail to see how a song on a P2P network is any less "distributed" than a distribution of linux on BitTorrent.  Every node in the swarm for a torrent is uploading making it a source.  every node except for the original seed at one point downloaded it making it a destination.  Same way on Napster or Kazaa or anything else.  There was 1 original node that posted the material and everything else downloaded from it.

     



  • @tster said:

    I fail to see how a song on a P2P network is any less "distributed" than a distribution of linux on BitTorrent.  Every node in the swarm for a torrent is uploading making it a source.  every node except for the original seed at one point downloaded it making it a destination.  Same way on Napster or Kazaa or anything else.  There was 1 original node that posted the material and everything else downloaded from it.

    Technically you are right. From an organisatorical point of view, only the tracker is the source. 


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.