Transferring files over the Internet have been normally been made using email (SMTP) and file transfer protocol (FTP), for smaller files and larger files, respectively although not exclusively. These methods use the client-server model where communication is relayed by servers to clients. With email, data is transmitted to the server for delivery, transmitted to the destination between servers, and is fetched later by the receiving client. With FTP, data is transmitted to the server for storage, and is fetched by the receiving client from said server. These were the modes of file transfer before peer-to-peer computer networks or internet-based file-sharing networks became popular.

Peer-to-Peer (P2P)

A peer-to-peer (P2P) computer network is a network that mostly uses direct connections between peer nodes (clients). Such peer nodes simultaneously function as both clients and servers to other nodes on the network. Any node, thus, is able to initiate or complete any supported transaction with any other node. Peer nodes may vary in local configuration, storage quantity, processing speed, and network bandwidth. File sharing networks such as FastTrack, FreeNet, GNUtella, and OpenNap are examples of such. ^[1]

P2P networks have become a popular medium through which users share huge amounts of data. The bandwidth of all clients or nodes can be used fully and that the available download bandwidth may increase due to the increase in the number of nodes. Such networks also distribute the cost of sharing data among peers (clients) in the network, by aggregating the resources of a large number of independent nodes in P2P systems, allowing applications to scale without the need of powerful and expensive servers, and thus reducing the cost of sharing data unlike if servers would be utilized.

Simply said, users of P2P networks need not be aware of matters involving server administration, but would merely install P2P software in their regular computer, for them to acquire and share various media stored in their shared folder. P2P users are further allowed to download component parts of a file they are interested in from various users of a P2P network, instead of relying on a single source or website for the whole file. Anyone who has used the first version of Napster and the now popular Kazaa would have an idea of how P2P networks work.

It was in 1984 that the phrase “peer to peer” was used, with the development of the “Advanced Peer to Peer Networking” architecture at IBM. This referred to earlier research- and business-oriented peer-to-peer systems, which predated popular internet-based file-sharing networks. The first generation of Internet P2P networks had a centralized file list, which the courts of the United States deemed to be infringement of copyright. This generation includes the first version of Napster. ^[2] After media companies prevailed over Napster, a new generation of P2P networks emerged. They had decentralized file lists, and had improvements like distributed hash tables (DHT) and other optimizations for decentralized search. This generation includes GNUtella and FastTrack (specifically Kazaa). As anonymous P2P networks allow for distribution of material with little or no accountability for it, such demand for such networks increased especially after the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) clamped down on individual P2P users in 2003. Such generation of anonymous networks includes Freenet, I2P, and GNUnet. ^[3]

Underutilized and imperfect tool

Although regarded generally as file sharing networks, most of the commonly shared files are either copyright-protected materials, such as mp3 music files and DivX ^[4] movie files, or adult-oriented media. The use of P2P networks, therefore, is rendered limited by such content; unlike non-P2P tools, such as email, which has cut across gossip, protected content, and forwarded feel-good messages towards legitimate and useful communication purposes. The trend does not appear to go to the other direction with regard to P2P systems as content demand remains towards the illegal and titillating than on the legitimate and “boring.” This trend may not be overturned in the immediate future until there is serious initiative towards the legitimate use of P2P networks, such as for academic or research purposes, or even for business purposes such as hiring. Such turnabout is not farfetched, as the Internet itself has been transformed from academic and scientific to proprietary over the years.

Considering that increased legitimate use of P2P systems may be possible, certain challenges must be overcome before the potential of such systems may be realized. For one, the scale of the network and the autonomy of nodes make it difficult to identify and distribute the resources that are available. As the system is dynamic, with nodes constantly joining and leaving, resources and resource demands are constantly changing, making it difficult to determine which resources are indeed available. Further, some peers may be malicious and, thus, peers may receive inauthentic information or may be victims of denial-of-service (DoS) attacks. ^[5] Due to the anonymity of users in certain networks or due to the ease of changing profiles, it would be difficult to pinpoint and report malicious users at a given time. ^[6]

Moderating the P2P threat

Due to the prevailing content provided by nodes in P2P networks, such networks pose grave threats to established media companies. Thus, these P2P networks have been targeted by industry trade organizations, where the latter spend large amounts of money attempting to lobby lawmakers for legal restrictions. Industry organizations have not been successful in its advocacy to subvert the operations of P2P networks, but have been relatively successful in protecting its intellectual property rights before Unted States courts, as may be seen in the Napster case (infringement) and recently involving Kazaa (as to infringing users’ identities).

Due to the networks’ parallel functionality as to other methods of file transfer, such networks may also collectively turn into an alternative forum to malefactors, such as terrorists, or may become a medium for the dissemination of their propaganda. Further, the networks are increasingly becoming alternatives to websites containing child pornography, which are currently being effectively clamped down.

Current file-sharing legislation

The following bills are, as of this writing, pending in the United States Congress: (1) Protecting Children from Peer-to-Peer Pornography Act of 2003 [HR 2885], which seeks to prohibit the distribution of peer -to-peer file trading software in interstate commerce; (2) the Government Network Security Act of 2003 [HR3159], which seeks to require Federal agencies to develop and implement plans to protect the security and privacy of government computer systems from the risks posed by peer-to-peer file sharing; and (3) Piracy Deterrence and Education Act of 2004 [HR4077].

Similar legislation are also pending with the Philippine Congress, although focusing more the general issues, such as Internet piracy and child pornography, through all Internet protocols and not necessarily through peer-to-peer networks only. Among these are: (1) An act amending certain provisions of Republic Act No. 8293, entitled “An act prescribing the intellectual property code and establishing the intellectual property office, providing for its powers and functions and for other purposes,” [HB00322] which seeks to amend the Intellectual Property Code through the integration of comprehensive, efficient and adequate strategies designed to respond to Internet piracy, among others; and (2) An act seeking to improve child protection against abuse, exploitation and discrimination, amending for the purpose Republic Act No. 7610, as amended by Republic Act No. 7658, otherwise known as the “Special Protection and Discrimination Act”, appropriating funds therefor and for other purposes, [HB01961] which seeks to impose penalty for child pornography through the internet and mandates the creation of a central data bank to monitor abuses made by foreigners against children and prevent their reentry, among others.

Conclusion

Peer-to-peer systems are tools that may serve legitimate purposes, although they are currently being used more extensively for less than legal ends. Subverting said networks, in general, would negate technological advances as to avenues for Internet-aided communication, especially as to distributed file sharing. Shutting down said networks would only highlight the fact that there is a shortage of ingenious solutions to prevent transmission of prohibited media by infringers and perverts. The solution being proposed, i.e. closing the venue of possible malefactors, is clearly and arbitrarily desperate. For one, sharing case digests over Kazaa is an interesting thought.

Endnotes

1. Other examples are those of Applejuice (which includes Applejuice Client), BitTorrent (which includes ABC, Azureus, BitAnarch, BitComet, BitSpirit, BitTornado, BitTorrent, BitTorrent++, BitTorrent.Net, G3 Torrent, mlMac, MLDonkey, QTorrent, SimpleBT, Shareaza, TomatoTorrent, and TorrentStorm), CAKE (which includes BirthdayCAKE), Direct Connect (which includes BCDC++, CZDC++, DC++, NeoModus Direct Connect, and JavaDC), eDonkey (which includes aMule, eMule, LMule, MindGem, MLDonkey, mlMac, Shareaza, and xMule), ed2k or eDonkey 2000 (which includes eDonkey, and eMule), FastTrack (which includes giFT, Grokster, iMesh, Kazaa, Kazaa Lite, K++, Diet Kaza, CleanKazaa, Mammoth, MLDonkey, mlMac, and Poisoned), Freenet (which includes Entropy, Freenet, and Frost), Gnutella (which includes Acquisitionx, BearShare, Gnucleus, Grokster, gtk-gnutella, Limewire, MLDonkey, mlMac, Morpheus, Phex, Poisoned, Swapper, Shareaza, and XoloX), Gnutella2 (which includes Adagio, Gnucleus, MLDonkey, mlMac, Morpheus, and Shareaza), Joltid PeerEnabler (which includes Altnet, Bullguard, Joltid, Kazaa, and Kazaa Lite), Kademlia (which includes eMule, MindGem, MLDonkey, and VarVar), Manolito/MP2P (which includes Blubster, Piolet, and RockItNet), Napster (which includes Napigator, OpenNap, and WinMX), WPNP (which includes WinMX), among other networks (including Akamai, Alpine, Ares Galaxy, Audiogalaxy network, Carracho, Chord, The Circle, Coral, Dexter, Diet-Agents, EarthStation 5, Evernet, FileTopia, GNUnet, Grapevine, Groove, Hotwire, iFolder, konspire2b, MUTE, and OpenFT). See Peer-to-peer. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer-to-peer [back]
2. For a digest of A &M Records Inc. vs. Napster, see Volume 1, Issue 2, page 15 of the Philippine Quarterly IT Law Journal. [back]
3. Peer-to-peer. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, supra. [back]
4. DivX® is the brand name of the world’s most popular video compression technology. At its core, DivX is a codec (short for compression/decompression) - a piece of software that compresses video from virtually any source down to a size that is transportable over the Internet without reducing the original video’s visual quality. What is DivX? DivXNetworks, Inc. http://www.divx.com/divx/whatisdivx.php [back]
5. A “denial-of-service” attack is characterized by an explicit attempt by attackers to prevent legitimate users of a service from using that service. Examples include (1) attempts to “flood” a network, thereby preventing legitimate network traffic, (2) attempts to disrupt connections between two machines, thereby preventing access to a service, (3) attempts to prevent a particular individual from accessing a service, and (4) attempts to disrupt service to a specific system or person. CERT/CC Denial of Service. CERT Coordination Center, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University. http://www.cert.org/tech_tips/denial_of_service.html [back]
6. Peer-to-Peer Research at Stanford. Mayank Bawa, Brian F. Cooper, Arturo Crespo, Neil Daswani, Prasanna Ganesan, Hector Garcia-Molina, Sepandar Kamvar, Sergio Marti, Mario Schlosser, Qi Sun, Patrick Vinograd, Beverly Yang of the Computer Science Department, Stanford University. http://dbpubs.stanford.edu:8090/pub/showDoc.Fulltext?lang=en&doc=2003-38&format=pdf&compression= [back]