Le sigh.

[Skid]

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.

Your view is that is carrys a smaller meaning today then it used to, this isn't true, as with more technical terms is meaning has been broadened as the concept has been developed, P2P now also includes systems like folding@home and SETI@Home.

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.

Once again you don't know the difference between a centralized P2P Filesharing network and a decentralized one, a centralized one is simply one where all the peers connect to a central server to find out where the other peers are and what they have to share. A decentralized one doesn't have that single start point and isn't dependent on any of the servers.

Adding proxy servers or VPNs do no stop a system from being a Peer to Peer system, as only the route changes, and the route the information takes is not what makes a peer to peer system.
Peer - ADSL Modem - Internet Switch - Internet Switch - Internet Switch - ADSL Modem - Peer
Peer - ADSL Modem - Internet Switch - Internet Switch - Proxy Server - Internet Switch - Internet Switch - ADSL Modem - Peer
That what will happen, the proxy server becoming just another point in the chain of connections connecting you to the peer, also the number of proxy servers are extremely high and it will never end up with everyone using just the one server, not that that would accurately matter since a proxy server and a VPN are simply acting as a network switch, forwarding the data like your own route does. It doesn't change the data, the protocol nothing, it just forwards the data to the correct computer which is what every router and switch on the internet and in people home do anyway. If you have two people in your home download the same file on a file sharing system both computers will use your local router, by your definition that would mean your not using a P2P network.

Also to add, your definition would mean that every P2P network that crosses the seas isn't a peer to peer network, because all of the data has to be funnel down one of the few lines that cross say the Atlantic passing though common routers on ether side.

[StingingVelvet]

You guys seem to all forget that the internet is a series of tubes.

[Skid]

You guys seem to all forget that the internet is a series of tubes.

I retraced all comments, Velvet is right, the internet is a series of tubes, nothing more need to said. :cheers

[DaFox]

Perfect time to lock this.

[The_cranky_hermit]

Your view is that is carrys a smaller meaning today then it used to

My "view" does not concern what it used to mean.

Once again you don't know the difference between a centralized P2P Filesharing network and a decentralized one,

Sure I do. A "centralized P2P filesharing network" as you describe it, isn't really a centralized network - the data still flows in a decentralized manner, as the Wikipedia article illustrates. Forcing everyone to use a proxy would mean the data no longer flows in a decentralized manner, and no longer has any of the advantages of the P2P model.

Adding proxy servers or VPNs do no stop a system from being a Peer to Peer system, as only the route changes, and the route the information takes is not what makes a peer to peer system.

Every source you have linked to or mentioned shows that the route is *precisely* what distinguishes a P2P network model from a server-client model.

[whismerhill]

@cranky
Just to conclude, you're mistaken in thinking that all PC gaming companies have "getting more sales" as a primary objective. For the rest I think you just want to argue for argument's sake...

On the subject of network types
as I understand it, it's not the route it's what each end point does for the other which defines the type of network...
otherwise in the event that a lot of internet relays would go down due to a massive attack (virus or whatever)
a model could change on the fly (due to the lower number of routes)... which makes no sense

in a server-client model, only the server has something of value to share (aka resources) (the server requests nothing/it is clients which need said resources )
in a peer to peer model, everyone has something of value to share... every peer will at times request or give resources to other peers

Hence I believe widescreengamingforum.com is a traditional client-server model, the server requests nothing, even when the client send data to it (through posting for example) it's still the client who initiates the action, the request...


As for using VPNs & proxy relays for P2P & the slowdown effect, it all depends on how the VPN/proxy/anonymity architecture is laid out ...
for example using the TOR project for P2P is doomed to failure (according to its authors), however other architectures might work better or not ...
Simple independent VPNs which would just be used to encrypt traffic between the client and the VPN & then continue normal connections, could work if the number of VPNs is high

[The_cranky_hermit]

Just to conclude, you're mistaken in thinking that all PC gaming companies have "getting more sales" as a primary objective.

What do you suppose is their objective, then? Getting just barely enough sales to make a profit?

For the rest I think you just want to argue for argument's sake...

I'm arguing because there are still pirates who are over-confident in their ability to triumph over the threat of serious government intervention.

On the subject of network types
as I understand it, it's not the route it's what each end point does for the other which defines the type of network...
otherwise in the event that a lot of internet relays would go down due to a massive attack (virus or whatever)
a model could change on the fly (due to the lower number of routes)... which makes no sense

An event like that wouldn't make the network model change from P2P to client-server. It would make it change from P2P to a smaller P2P. Data flow wouldn't become dependent on a central machine just because several nodes go down. But forcing everyone to use a proxy would have that effect.

Simple independent VPNs which would just be used to encrypt traffic between the client and the VPN & then continue normal connections, could work if the number of VPNs is high

Where would you put all these VPN's? You can't just have everyone set up their own personal VPN in the basement - the illegal P2P activity would just be traceable to their basements instead.

[g00seberry]

Perfect time to lock this.

You know what, I'm keeping it open. Carry on discussing this, get it out of your system. When one piracy related thread is shutdown, another inevitably pops up, so go ahead and use this.

There is one condition.

Any post filled with only personal attacks or overly aggressive behaviour, as decided by any Mod, will get the user banned WITHOUT WARNING for 48hours.

So go nuts, but you have been warned. Keep it friendly.

[Soduka]

Everyone here is ugly.

[Tanuki]

Everyone here is ugly.

Some more than others.

We need a new title for this. Suggestions?

[Soduka]

I don't see a need for a new title, seems perfect to match my reaction. Each side has some particular vocal members that refuse to change their opinion. It will not end.


Hence, *sigh*.

[DaFox]

Each side has some particular vocal members that refuse to change their opinion. It will not end.

Hence why a debate needs a set time limit.

Everyone has made their points, not that it changes anything at all.

[whismerhill]

What do you suppose is their objective, then? Getting just barely enough sales to make a profit?

funny argument :doh I said not all companies have this as a primary objective which means it could be their secondary objective.
some companies have "do a great game" as a primary objective... which is not always compatible with sales depending on the vision of what "great" is

An event like that wouldn't make the network model change from P2P to client-server. It would make it change from P2P to a smaller P2P. Data flow wouldn't become dependent on a central machine just because several nodes go down. But forcing everyone to use a proxy would have that effect.

Broaden your vision man, this was purely hypothetical, yet your answer is "this is impossible"
so, although unlikely, let's say it is possible and you'll see what I meant instead of arguing over details... (edit: I could make a drawing if necessary)

Where would you put all these VPN's? You can't just have everyone set up their own personal VPN in the basement - the illegal P2P activity would just be traceable to their basements instead.

implementation details are irrelevant,the fact is : it could be done. companies could open up hundreds of VPNs in multiple locations, and even if their VPNs are located and raided by police, if they keep no data (hence no logs) there's nothing illegal in setting up VPNs as long as they don't advertise openly the possible abuse to hide illegal activities. As for current laws, it would be very difficult to accuse them of anything illegal.

also an individual could setup its own VPN on a distant server, hosted in a country with less drastic laws ...

Anyway, all of this is irrelevant, it can be done and a central server is not an obligation that's all I wanted to say. However the right implementation has yet to be done. (That said, some paedophiles already use such techniques and more to obfuscate their activities)

[The_cranky_hermit]

I said not all companies have this as a primary objective which means it could be their secondary objective.

Then that brings me back to a point I made earlier. If your "creative incentives" does not target piracy, if it would help maximize goals (their secondary objective), then they should be doing that anyway, meaning it isn't "working around" piracy.

Broaden your vision man, this was purely hypothetical, yet your answer is "this is impossible"
so, although unlikely, let's say it is possible and you'll see what I meant instead of arguing over details

You can't just assume unrealistic scenarios, argue what the result of these scenarios would be, and claim it means something. What if the Riemann hypothesis was proven false? What if we had a perpetual motion machine? What if Ubisoft came out with a DRM that was actually impossible to crack? Hypotheticals still need to be based in reality, or else they don't mean anything.

implementation details are irrelevant,the fact is : it could be done.

I challenge this fact on the grounds that there is no way to implement it in a manner that could meet the full demands without resembling the server-client model and having the bottlenecks associated with it.

companies could open up hundreds of VPNs in multiple locations, and even if their VPNs are located and raided by police, if they keep no data (hence no logs) there's nothing illegal in setting up VPNs as long as they don't advertise openly the possible abuse to hide illegal activities. As for current laws, it would be very difficult to accuse them of anything illegal.

If the governments were serious about stopping Internet piracy, and VPN companies suddenly popped up everywhere specifically to cater to the privacy needs of pirates, they would hold such companies responsible for what their hardware gets used for.

also an individual could setup its own VPN on a distant server, hosted in a country with less drastic laws ...

An individual could. A million individuals could not.

That said, some paedophiles already use such techniques and more to obfuscate their activities

And the authorities use techniques to find and arrest them. And in some cases, with really secure stuff like TOR, there have been crackdowns on the servers.

[StingingVelvet]

We need a new title for this. Suggestions?

DRM Pisses Everyone Off One Way or Another (Official Thread).

[DaFox]

Any post filled with only personal attacks

[whismerhill]

if it would help maximize goals (their secondary objective), then they should be doing that anyway

yet they are not ...

You can't just assume unrealistic scenarios, argue what the result of these scenarios would be, and claim it means something. What if the Riemann hypothesis was proven false? What if we had a perpetual motion machine? What if Ubisoft came out with a DRM that was actually impossible to crack? Hypotheticals still need to be based in reality, or else they don't mean anything.

pffff... I'm really bothered by your stubbornness to refuse even the simplest of demonstrations...
ok fine, even though I believe you trust the internet to resist anything a bit too much, let's give up on this example
two existing KAD networks could connect to each other as IDs are discovered & links are established
now if one of these KAD networks consist of IPs in university ranges ... then it is possible that all of the other KAD network peers ban universities' IP ranges, (since pirates try to protect themselves from institutions) except one peer who would then act as a link between both networks hence transforming two P2P networks into a client-server network according to the concept that the route defines the type of network...

If the governments were serious about stopping Internet piracy,

but are they ?

and VPN companies suddenly popped up everywhere specifically to cater to the privacy needs of pirates, they would hold such companies responsible for what their hardware gets used for.

I seriously doubt it because 1) protecting privacy can be used for a lot of other things than just to serve piracy. just refer to the TOR project usage
so this means pirates wouldn't be their one and only clients ...
2) on what kind of charges would you get them down ? because they relay potentially illegal data ???

although I already see how governments could adapt laws to such a situation by forcing to keep logs of all data passing through, in the mean time you would still be able to use the VPNs ...

An individual could. A million individuals could not.

agreed hence why I said an individual ... :lol:

That said, some paedophiles already use such techniques and more to obfuscate their activities

And the authorities use techniques to find and arrest them. And in some cases, with really secure stuff like TOR, there have been crackdowns on the servers.

sure but you can't take down millions of pirates in a reasonable amount of time with such techniques hence why our government is looking at ways to "massively-fine" supposed pirates....

[whismerhill]

now let's end this silly discussion about whether P2P is based on the notion of route or the location or resources
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Example_of_a_peer_to_peer_network.svg

in this example the link isn't precised because it's not important so it could be a single computer acting as a router with 5 RJ45 network connections
it would still be a P2P network despite all data passing through a single computer.

[The_cranky_hermit]

yet they are not ...

What does that have to do with your point?

pffff... I'm really bothered by your stubbornness to refuse even the simplest of demonstrations...

There's nothing simple about supposing the impossible. You'd basically have to re-write how the universe works.

two existing KAD networks could connect to each other as IDs are discovered & links are established
now if one of these KAD networks consist of IPs in university ranges ... then it is possible that all of the other KAD network peers ban universities' IP ranges, (since pirates try to protect themselves from institutions) except one peer who would then act as a link between both networks hence transforming two P2P networks into a client-server network according to the concept that the route defines the type of network...

I really don't follow what you're trying to illustrate here.

but are they ?

Haven't we established that they are taking measures so drastic that pirates will be forced to turn to proxies?

I seriously doubt it because 1) protecting privacy can be used for a lot of other things than just to serve piracy. just refer to the TOR project usage

I know there are legit uses for privacy. That doesn't mean TOR nodes can't be seized if illegal stuff is traced back to them.

2) on what kind of charges would you get them down ? because they relay potentially illegal data ???

Because they relay actually illegal data (as in illegal data has been positively traced to them) and the operators have made no effort whatsoever to discourage this use.

agreed hence why I said an individual

And this individual's piracy habits are dependent on his peers - peers who do not have the luxury of protecting their identities while stealing. Ultimately this individual won't have any peers to pirate things from.

sure but you can't take down millions of pirates in a reasonable amount of time with such techniques hence why our government is looking at ways to "massively-fine" supposed pirates....

Fines would go a long way to fighting piracy, provided they were given out regularly and consistently, like traffic tickets are. Basically, it's not necessary to ruin pirate's lives or put them in jail - just make the threat of consequences real enough that they might think twice before digitally lifting the latest game/movie/album.

in this example the link isn't precised because it's not important so it could be a single computer acting as a router with 5 RJ45 network connections

This example *isn't* a single computer acting as a router. There are five computers in this example, and the picture makes it clear none of them act as a central server. If you added a sixth computer acting as a router, you wouldn't be looking at the original diagram any more.

[whismerhill]

There's nothing simple about supposing the impossible. You'd basically have to re-write how the universe works.

it's not, I'm not changing how the universe works :roll: my example was very possible, just unlikely, however we already have examples of unlikely happenings in computers & technology but whatever ...

Haven't we established that they are taking measures so drastic that pirates will be forced to turn to proxies?

not really... nothing is established yet, there's still judicial & technical challenges around the corner ...

I know there are legit uses for privacy. That doesn't mean TOR nodes can't be seized if illegal stuff is traced back to them.

sure, however unless the TOR node owner is actually using his computer for illegal stuff, they would find nothing on it to be used to back up their accusations...

Because they relay actually illegal data (as in illegal data has been positively traced to them) and the operators have made no effort whatsoever to discourage this use.

haha ! but two things : 1)you suppose they would make no effort whatsoever to discourage its use...
2)then every and each internet relay is guilty of those charges (relaying illegal data) so this would challenge the whole principle of how internet works by making relays responsible of what data pass through their computers ...

And this individual's piracy habits are dependent on his peers - peers who do not have the luxury of protecting their identities while stealing. Ultimately this individual won't have any peers to pirate things from.

you don't need a lot of individuals to make an effective P2P network ... (Direct Connect)

This example *isn't* a single computer acting as a router. There are five computers in this example, and the picture makes it clear none of them act as a central server. If you added a sixth computer acting as a router, you wouldn't be looking at the original diagram any more.

a computer router or a hardware router doesn't make any difference, it's still a link ...
but fine since you will obviously not agree on this let's forget about this one and instead see this :

http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/java/library/j-jxta2/side-jxta2.html

How does a P2P network "work," and how is it different from the conventional client/server or multitiered networks we're so used to [...] In a P2P network, everything you'd want to access (called resources) are owned and managed by peers

http://freepctech.com/pc/002/networks007.shtml

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Client-server

In peer-to-peer architectures, each host or instance of the program can simultaneously act as both a client and a server, and each has equivalent responsibilities and status.

ftp://ftp.tik.ee.ethz.ch/pub/students/2002-2003-Wi/SA-2003-16.pdf

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc751396.aspx

In the client-server scheme, a central server handles all security and file transactions; in peer-to-peer networks, each machine shares its own resources and handles its own security

http://www.enterprise-technology.net/network2.htm

In a client-server network architecture, however, certain computers are designated for full-time server duty, while others (such as user workstations) are full-time clients

http://www.ehow.com/about_5380893_peertopeer-vs-clientserver-networks.html

A client-server network involves multiple clients connecting to a single, central server. Public data and applications are only installed on the server

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Differences_between_peer_to_peer_network_and_client_server_network
http://www.computer.org/portal/web/csdl/doi/10.1109/P2P.2001.990434