Le sigh.

[whismerhill]

yeah it's scary ... we were at the same point several month back in france ...
that is with a law which was pushed & rushed, ultimately it failed (to be rushed) however it managed to get through opposition somehow after a while...
HADOPI / HADOPI2 are their names if you want to know more ...

edit: it's quite complicated being mainly a political fight between factions that try to resort to alternate ways to circumvent everything that could prevent the application of said laws ...

[Skid]

yeah it's scary ... we were at the same point several month back in france ...
that is with a law which was pushed & rushed, ultimately it failed (to be rushed) however it managed to get through opposition somehow after a while...
HADOPI / HADOPI2 are their names if you want to know more ...

edit: it's quite complicated being mainly a political fight between factions that try to resort to alternate ways to circumvent everything that could prevent the application of said laws ...

Frances 3 strikes and your cut off rule failed to make it though because the law assumed guilt based on nothing more then an accusations from the entertainment industry. Given that the methods to gather the accusation have been known to accuse OAPs of downloading hard core gay porn, and that they have never been opened up for scrutiny the whole thing was rejected.
The new version now means that the person accused can defend themselves against the accusations and are not automatically assumed to be guilty.

The problem with all these measures is they can be completely bypassed by use of encrypted connections, proxy servers, VPNs or other such methods. So in short all there doing is wasting tax payers money, on something that won't work, that nether the public nor the ISPs want, just because the entertainment industry write misleading one sided reports and banish them as facts.

[The_cranky_hermit]

yeah sure of course, stealing IS bad ... but people will always try to get what they can't, for some that implies going against laws/order/morality or whatever ...

Fortunately for the vast majority of industries, stealing from them isn't as simple as piracy, and therefore, relatively uncommon. Digital entertainment industries are not so fortunate.

the analogy doesn't perfectly match since in games/pirates cases you would be giving the so called "freebies" to everyone, not just pirates

Doesn't really invalidate my point. I'm not trying to make a perfect analogy so much as I'm trying to point out that it's unfair to suggest appeasement as a "valid business strategy."

The problem with all these measures is they can be completely bypassed by use of encrypted connections, proxy servers, VPNs or other such methods.

The problem with these methods is that they completely defeat the purpose of P2P. If everyone uses them, then P2P isn't really P2P. It gets pushed further underground, and/or slows down to a crawl.

[Skid]

The problem with these methods is that they completely defeat the purpose of P2P. If everyone uses them, then P2P isn't really P2P. It gets pushed further underground, and/or slows down to a crawl.

Not really, its still P2P just via another server, download speed don't get effected ether, just latency, which is a none issue with downloading. It will however put more of a strain on the network.

[StingingVelvet]

They could just make the use of encryption require a license or something, then bust everyone else who uses it.

We've been heading toward government action over the internet since it was put into normal citizen's houses, it was just a slow build up. They will find a way, governments always find a way to control unless there is a massive rebellion, which I doubt will happen over something like this.

I'm not happy about it mind you, but we brought it on ourselves. Even I, the great anti-pirate, have slipped up on occasion, it's just human nature to try to get away with things when the chance of punishment is small. So the government will make the chance of punishment much greater and the average Joe will stop pirating, simple in its depressing reality.

[Skid]

The odd thing is the internet was designed to decentralised and uncontrollable by one person or by a government, the whole point of it was that everyone could access everything on it. The BBC did an extremely good documentary on it called The Virtual revolution.

[StingingVelvet]

The odd thing is the internet was designed to decentralised and uncontrollable by one person or by a government, the whole point of it was that everyone could access everything on it. The BBC did an extremely good documentary on it called The Virtual revolution.

True, but governments find a way, we should have always assumed they would. In this case it's rather simple: control access to the uncontrollable creature.

[The_cranky_hermit]

Not really, its still P2P just via another server,

The whole point of P2P is that it isn't "via" a server. You send and receive bytes directly through your peers. If everyone is connected to a proxy, and the proxy is sending bytes to the users, it isn't P2P any more.

And putting "strain" on the network ultimately does make download speeds plummet.

[Skid]

Not really, its still P2P just via another server,

The whole point of P2P is that it isn't "via" a server. You send and receive bytes directly through your peers. If everyone is connected to a proxy, and the proxy is sending bytes to the users, it isn't P2P any more.

And putting "strain" on the network ultimately does make download speeds plummet.

You do know that most if not all the P2P systems before bittorrent where centralised and controlled by a central server. Also the point of proxys and VPNs are to redirect traffic, much in the same way routers do on the internet anyway, the only thing you could argue wasn't P2P are seed boxes, but even then, the term peer doesn't refer to the end person, but a software client or a computer/server. The method in which the data gets to the end user isn't the important thing in P2P, its the fact that data is sent from one peer to another, method is irrelevance so long as it gets there.

The second point is partly true, but putting strain on the network won't necessary make one or all the connections slow down, but it will have an effect, although I wouldn't use the word plummet as I would be shocked if it was that bad.

[The_cranky_hermit]

You do know that most if not all the P2P systems before bittorrent where centralised and controlled by a central server.

Having a server to direct traffic and whatnot is one thing. Having a server that every byte the clients receive must pass through is another. If everyone used proxies, the P2P would resemble the latter thing.

Also the point of proxys and VPNs are to redirect traffic, much in the same way routers do on the internet anyway

The difference is that everyone has their own router. It wouldn't be practical for everyone to have their own personal proxy in Sweden or wherever they think the authorities can't do anything. To propose that everyone use proxies means you're looking at millions of people sharing a handful of proxies, which is ultimately the client-server model that P2P was invented to overcome the limitations of.

The method in which the data gets to the end user isn't the important thing in P2P, its the fact that data is sent from one peer to another, method is irrelevance so long as it gets there.

The method matters. Peer-to-server-to-peer, for instance, is not P2P. It's server-client.

[Skid]

You do know that most if not all the P2P systems before bittorrent where centralised and controlled by a central server.

Having a server to direct traffic and whatnot is one thing. Having a server that every byte the clients receive must pass through is another. If everyone used proxies, the P2P would resemble the latter thing.

Also the point of proxys and VPNs are to redirect traffic, much in the same way routers do on the internet anyway

The difference is that everyone has their own router. It wouldn't be practical for everyone to have their own personal proxy in Sweden or wherever they think the authorities can't do anything. To propose that everyone use proxies means you're looking at millions of people sharing a handful of proxies, which is ultimately the client-server model that P2P was invented to overcome the limitations of.

The method in which the data gets to the end user isn't the important thing in P2P, its the fact that data is sent from one peer to another, method is irrelevance so long as it gets there.

The method matters. Peer-to-server-to-peer, for instance, is not P2P. It's server-client.

You've never run a trace route have you, here let me explain, P2P like every other internet connection is NOT a direct connection, here is a trace route from my IP address to the server hosting this web site,

Code: Select all

C:UsersSkid>tracert widescreengamingforum.com

   

   Tracing route to widescreengamingforum.com [174.120.166.166]

   over a maximum of 30 hops:

   

     1     2 ms     1 ms     2 ms  192.168.12.110

     2    32 ms    56 ms    33 ms  lo0-central1.thn-ag2.plus.net [195.166.128.229]

     3   177 ms   211 ms   204 ms  84.92.6.192

     4    35 ms    45 ms    43 ms  te3-2.ptn-gw01.plus.net [212.159.1.53]

     5    44 ms    43 ms    44 ms  t2a1-ge2-0-0.uk-lon1.eu.bt.net [166.49.211.45]

     6    29 ms    43 ms    43 ms  ge-2-1-0.mpr1.lhr2.uk.above.net [195.66.224.76]

     7    50 ms    38 ms    44 ms  ge-4-1-0.mpr1.lhr2.uk.above.net [64.125.27.145]

     8   120 ms   111 ms   127 ms  so-0-1-0.mpr1.dca2.us.above.net [64.125.27.57]

     9   154 ms   146 ms   151 ms  so-1-0-0.mpr3.iah1.us.above.net [64.125.29.37]

    10   153 ms   172 ms   155 ms  xe-1-3-0.cr1.iah1.us.above.net [64.125.30.105]

    11   152 ms   148 ms   149 ms  xe-0-1-0.er1.iah1.us.above.net [64.125.28.5]

    12   146 ms   149 ms   152 ms  209.66.99.94.available.above.net [209.66.99.94]

    13   134 ms   147 ms   145 ms  et5-4.ibr04.dllstx3.theplanet.com [70.87.253.53]

    14   159 ms   144 ms   157 ms  te9-2.dsr01.dllstx3.theplanet.com [70.87.253.14]

    15   161 ms   152 ms   281 ms  te1-4.dsr01.dllstx2.theplanet.com [70.87.253.114]

    16   166 ms   158 ms   146 ms  te5-1.car13.dllstx6.theplanet.com [70.87.254.234]

    17   144 ms   157 ms   146 ms  a6.a6.78ae.static.theplanet.com [174.120.166.166]

   

   Trace complete.

Now the first one is my router, the last one is the server hosting this site, some of the IP addresses in-between are routers or switch, some of them are servers. My connection to this server is still a Peer to Peer, one being my computer, the other being the web server, if I used a proxy or a VPN all I'm doing is changing the route the data would take to get to my computer. It is still a Peer to Peer connection because I'm still requesting the data, and the web server is still responding to my request.

Peer to Peer networks are just a network of interconnected computers, so long as they are interconnected it doesn't matter how the data traverse the internet.

[DaFox]

Peer to Peer networks are just a network of interconnected computers, so long as they are interconnected it doesn't matter how the data traverse the internet.

Yep yep, With that being said Most Torrents uploaded are primarily seeded by actual server machines.

That wouldn't turn torrents into to a Client-Server based setup.

[The_cranky_hermit]

My connection to this server is still a Peer to Peer

No it's not. Your connection to this server is a traditional centralized server-client model. Which is exactly what a P2P network is not.

Peer to Peer networks are just a network of interconnected computers, so long as they are interconnected it doesn't matter how the data traverse the internet.

It's a decentralized network of interconnected computers. If the network is dependent on a central server, it's not a P2P network any more.

Yep yep, With that being said Most Torrents uploaded are primarily seeded by actual server machines.
That wouldn't turn torrents into to a Client-Server based setup.

Having a sole server be the only seeder and the only machine that uploads bytes would.

[Skid]

No it's not. Your connection to this server is a traditional centralized server-client model. Which is exactly what a P2P network is not.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/peer-to-peer
1. The kind of communication found in a system using layered protocols. Each software or hardware component can be considered to communicate only with its peer in the same layer via the connection provided by the lower layers.
The whole internet is a peer to peer system, peer to peer is nothing more then an exchange of data between two computers, reguardless of protocal, or the data that is sent, or the route the data takes.

It's a decentralized network of interconnected computers. If the network is dependent on a central server, it's not a P2P network any more.

LMAO, your clueless, dictionary.com also says:
2. A file sharing system like BitTorrent, Gnutella or Kazaa where computers that download data also serve that data to other downloaders. This increases the total bandwidth available in proportion to the number of users and so reduces download time. This contrasts with client-server where all clients download the data from a single server (or mirror), sharing its fixed bandwidth.
(2007-03-28)
Kazaa was/is centralized, and its still a peer to peer filesharing system, the definition of a peer 2 peer network hasn't change, any collection of computers (or servers) sharing resources are a peer to peer network. Again, the route the data takes or type of computer in question does not stop it from being a peer to peer network, the only think that is important is that they are sharing resources.


And because you don't seem to understand what a peer is:

A unit of communications hardware or software that is on the same protocol layer of a network as another. A common way of viewing a communications link is as two protocol stacks, which are actually connected only at the very lowest (physical) layer, but can be regarded as being connected at each higher layer by virtue of the services provided by the lower layers. Peer-to-peer communication refers to these real or virtual connections between corresponding systems in each layer.
To give a simple example, when two people talk to each other, the lowest layer is the physical layer which concerns the sound pressure waves travelling from mouth to ear (so mouths and ears are peers) the next layer might be the speech and hearing centres in the people's brains and the top layer their cerebellums or minds. Although, barring telepathy, nothing passes directly between the two minds, there is a peer-to-peer communication between them.

If you still insist on stubbornly thinking your right rather then looking this stuff up and learning what is correct, I can get my friend who's a network engineer for a large communications company to explain to you how networks work.

[The_cranky_hermit]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/peer-to-peer
1. The kind of communication found in a system using layered protocols. Each software or hardware component can be considered to communicate only with its peer in the same layer via the connection provided by the lower layers.

Whatever the term meant in 1994, today a P2P network refers *specifically* to a decentralized architecture, in direct contrast to a server-client model.

LMAO, your clueless, dictionary.com also says:
2. A file sharing system like BitTorrent, Gnutella or Kazaa where computers that download data also serve that data to other downloaders. This increases the total bandwidth available in proportion to the number of users and so reduces download time. This contrasts with client-server where all clients download the data from a single server (or mirror), sharing its fixed bandwidth.

So I'm clueless on the grounds that dictionary.com completely verifies exactly what I've been saying. Thanks for clearing that up.

Kazaa was/is centralized, and its still a peer to peer filesharing system

Did every single byte you receive have to come through a central Kazaa server? If not, then it wasn't centralized. If so, then it wasn't P2P. Either way, both of these statements can't be true.

And because you don't seem to understand what a peer is:

There is nothing in that definition of "peer" that contradicts anything I have been saying.

If you still insist on stubbornly thinking your right rather then looking this stuff up and learning what is correct, I can get my friend who's a network engineer for a large communications company to explain to you how networks work.

Get him to explain it to you. Ask him if it's still feasible for a million pirates to download a 10GB game through a P2P network if every single one of them is using a proxy somewhere in Sweden. I know a thing or two about how networks work myself, and I tell you it isn't.

[Skid]

I give up, go do a networking course and then you can tell me I'm wrong, rather then making up bullshit and claiming you know better, the term peer to peer has not changed to anyone who works with networks (btw, I might not be a network engineer but I work with custom made system designed to communicate with servers over GSM, GPRS, Ethernet, PSNT, ADSL etc). Tust because you claim its changed doesn't make it true. Learn and work in the subject and then maybe you can argue with some knowledge.

I only have one other thing to say, go both to look up folding@home or better yet just wiki Peer to Peer.

Also, look up centralised and decentralised in relation to Peer to Peer, because you apparently don't understand that ether.

[whismerhill]

the analogy doesn't perfectly match since in games/pirates cases you would be giving the so called "freebies" to everyone, not just pirates

Doesn't really invalidate my point. I'm not trying to make a perfect analogy so much as I'm trying to point out that it's unfair to suggest appeasement as a "valid business strategy."

well I think it does invalidate your point... since it's not directed at pirates, it's not to be considered as "appeasement" measures but rather continued interest ones... it means new consumers might be tempted to buy the game, it means current users might be in the right conditions to buy the next game/add-on. it has absolutely nothing in common with mafia demanding protection money and their methods to do so...

[The_cranky_hermit]

I give up, go do a networking course and then you can tell me I'm wrong

I've done my share of computer networking courses. I tell you you're wrong.

Tust because you claim its changed doesn't make it true.

I don't claim it's changed. I claim it carries a specific meaning today. Whether that meaning is compatible with a definition from 1994 or not is aside my point.

I only have one other thing to say, go both to look up folding@home or better yet just wiki Peer to Peer.

Sure:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer-to-peer
It verifies everything I've been saying. It even has two nifty little diagrams illustrating what I mean about how P2P is decentralized and stands in complete contrast to the centralized server-client model that driving millions of pirates to a handful of proxies would ultimately resemble.

well I think it does invalidate your point... since it's not directed at pirates, it's not to be considered as "appeasement" measures but rather continued interest ones.

If it does nothing to try to reduce piracy, then it's not appeasement - it's ignoring the problem completely. And it's still not fair to expect companies to do nothing about piracy and just be extra competitive to compensate for it.

[whismerhill]

well I think it does invalidate your point... since it's not directed at pirates, it's not to be considered as "appeasement" measures but rather continued interest ones.

If it does nothing to try to reduce piracy, then it's not appeasement - it's ignoring the problem completely. And it's still not fair to expect companies to do nothing about piracy and just be extra competitive to compensate for it.

It's not ignoring the problem it's going around it, to target what a company really wants : aka making more sales
and I never said companies should ignore piracy, reread my posts if necessary...
All I'm saying is that going too far in the wrong direction ain't going to improve sales by a lot, and is going to cost a lot, both in terms of lost sales and in terms of copy protection costs.

[The_cranky_hermit]

It's not ignoring the problem it's going around it, to target what a company really wants : aka making more sales

Companies would want to maximize sales anyway, and if piracy is the main factor limiting this potential, there's no going around that problem. Even if they turn to "creative incentives," the problem is still there, and it's still preventing what they want.

and I never said companies should ignore piracy, reread my posts if necessary...

It's a point you're not being very consistent on. Saying you proposed strategy is not directed at pirates suggests it's something that you think would benefit them anyway, regardless of the levels of piracy.