Grif: The Realities...P2P vs P2
by Trane Francks - 6/19/06 3:30 PM
I'm aware of the realities of P2P.
> Bit Torrent is not the holier-than-though service you
BitTorrent - one word, not two - is an open-source file transfer protocol. There is nothing in and of itself harmful.
> I've made a fair amount of change cleaning up user's
> computers that use BT exclusively.
This is a matter of stupidity on the users' part, no? You're trying to blame a protocol & program for its misuse. If it is used at a legitimate site to exchange legitimate data, the risk becomes pretty much nil. If users are going to try to download pirated software on P2P networks, OF COURSE, they're putting themselves at serious risk. If somebody goes to a warez site, they get what they deserve. If somebody goes to a respectable and respected legal site that happens to employ P2P as its file transfer mechanism, I fail to see where the grave risk is.
> BT succeeds because users are provided with a good
> quality program that gives access to free,
> downloadable content on the net, whether that be
> copyrighted or not:
You're confusing the issue, Grif. BT succeeds because it is an efficient file transfer protocol that rewards user altruism (download speeds improve as upload speeds to the hive increase). It has nothing to do with the cost of the content, although there is an obvious trend toward users of ANY internet services preferring those for which there are no fees.
IBM uses BitTorrent to disseminate software updates from its server farms. The user downloads a proprietary "download manager" and the manager load-balances the downloads, improving download speeds and keeping any one server from being overloaded.
> The RIAA negotiation with Bit Torrent, among other
> reasons, was basically to avoid pursueing further
> legal action. .
I didn't mention RIAA talking with BitTorrent, I mentioned the movie industry.
> If you'll read my post above, although I linked to
> the KaZaa thread at McAfee's forum, I referred to P2P
> as a whole.
I understand, but I suggest that you are not nearly as aware of what BitTorrent is as you would presume and lead others to believe. You're championing a "P2P is risky" message where what needs to be championed, in my opinion, is the intelligent use of P2P.
> The fact that ALL users of ALL P2P software are
> downloading/sharing files with the "unknowns" of the
> world is the key point.
BT's protocol goes a long way to ensure that no single "unknown" can cause a problem. For a given hive with multiple leechers and seeders, no single "unknown" will supply a complete single file to another user. BT works by splitting the total file transfer into discrete chunks. In such a system, it is not possible for a single leecher or seeder to inject a virus into a legit download.
So, we get back to the issue not of BT, but of the content that people try to download and the tracker to which they connect to download that content. It's all about ethics and behaviour.
> Through experience with the product, you believe
> you've found a safe Torrent site to download legal
Not think, have. Moreover, I don't use BitTorrent "the product", I use BitTornado. See, it's a protocol first. My BitTorrent client is written in Python and runs on Linux. bt.etree.org is a stand-up community of music tapers/traders who steadfastly hold to high ethical and legal standards. There are no known security exploits in the FLAC file format of the files I'm downloading, so there is no known risk. Simple.
> You've managed your risk to the point that you think
> it negligible.. Unfortunately, not all users get a
> chance or even want a chance to get that far.
That's the users' fault and problem. Don't shoot the messenger, Grif. BitTorrent isn't to blame for its potential misuse any more than the English language is to blame for its use in, for example, racial denigration.
> If a song or movie is available from a particular
> location, it gets' downloaded, good or bad, and many
> suffer the consequences.
Educate the users and the consequences are only good.
Have a good day.