Talk:File sharing

Split

User:Nethgirb, I agree with you. The article is cleaned up and needs to be split between true P2P file sharing across the web and client for songs, video etc, and standard server to server, server to client file sharing. The former is simpler, while the latter is much more complex subject as web 2.0 file collaborative file, media sharing needs explorer, etc etc, along with bog standard file sharing. scope_creep 23:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I added a note that the article needs to be cleaned up; it was removed by 83.236.15.216 and I'm about to put it back. Here is some justification:

• Article needs to be split into -peer and filesharing (these were recently merged by 83.236.14.29). Those two terms do not mean the same thing. There are peer-to-peer applications that don't involve sharing files, such as telephony, multicast of live video, grid computing, and web caching (which involves files but not in the typical "file sharing" sense).
• Too much point of view or unjustified statements. Examples: Filesharing has and will ever be in the internet sounds like a battle cry. The EFF is a donor-supported group which protects the digital rights of mankind: what constitutes the "rights of mankind" is open to interpretation. Sometimes it seems that this rating system does not have a big impact on the download speed: too qualitative.
• Way too long and disorganized: For example the introduction is about 3 screens long and talks about a broad range of particular things without giving a good overview. e.g. there's a line about BitTorrent in which "swarm" is used without being defined. And the Wikipedia software notes when you're editing that This page is 49 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size.
• Needs general cleanup; e.g. the acronym P2P is expanded twice in the first few paragraphs.

Nethgirb 00:07, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, thanks to User:Dysfunktion for reverting the merge, which fixes two of the problems. Nethgirb 03:25, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

This "merging" is nonsense, and badly done to boot. Both Peer-to-peer and File sharing are rather large articles, and describe rather unrelated concepts. I took the liberty of undoing the merge (especially since nothing has been done to Peer-to-peer to reflect that the two are merged). If this should prove controversial, feel free to revert, but please argue for it here first. Haakon 15:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I see the original revert of the merge was not complete. The article is much improved now, although I do think it would be reasonable to have a list of major file sharing applications/networks here. Peer-to-peer needs to be cleaned similarly; there's still a lot of file sharing-specific info there. Nethgirb 01:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

There is already a list of apps and networks in File-sharing program, so I put that in "See also". Haakon 15:59, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

As part of cleanup of Peer-to-peer, I moved two full sections from that article to File sharing. Apologies for just dumping this content as-is; someone should integrate it with the rest of the article, but I am not knowledgeable enough to do so. Ahtih 23:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

EFF paragraph

I've added a paragraph about the role that the EFF plays in the file-sharing dilemma because I feel that it's important. Feel free to edit it.

--BrandonHimes 19:34, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think your paragraph is pro-EFF POV, but I work for EFF, so maybe someone else can figure out a way to tone down your praise. -- Schoen 17:35, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Multiple protocols

The documents current structure doesn't take into account that filesharing projects more and more strive to support as many filesharing protocols as possible in the same tool. There should be a division between filesharing storing data on a remote computer to be used by different people (Samba, AFS, exploited FTP), file sharing applications [partitially] using the ressources provided by equally important hosts, and the phenomenon of music/movie-sharing and their links to the warez-scene.

I can't comment on your first remark but I strongly agree with the second, i.e., that this article covers two distinct topics, with SMB, NFS, and the like belonging to the first while napster & co. to the second. Further, I'd much prefer seeing these two topics taken apart, the current article is long enough as it is, without covering at any decent depth the first of the two groups. I'm struggling to tell these two apart, though. Suggestions, anyone? --jtg 10:15, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

IRC

I don't see how IRC can be listed as a "file-sharing utility". It's a chat network. (Internet Relay Chat)

Furthermore I'm confused as to why CuteFTP are listed in the HTTP category rather than the FTP category.

The "Operating System File Sharing Servers" also leaves me nothing but confused...

Have I missed something fundamental, or is this list rather messy and partially wrong?

belgarat 23:19 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)

It's in part a consequence of the mixture of file sharing and file trading concepts in one article. IRC includes file sharing tools (the ability to exchange files) and has been widely used for file trading. No idea why CUte FTP is listed where it was/is, except that it may also support HTTP transfers. The OS file sharing servers are the original meaning - sharing of files within a company via network file servers. Jamesday 16:30, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Merge with P2P?

Should this be merged with P2P? --Delirium 23:47 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)

No, P2P is different from file sharing. If anything, information about filesharing programs on that page could be moved here.

No. Peer to peer and file trading are different concepts, also context distinct from the peer to peer file trading networks which get much coverage in both articles. The file trading networks content is probably best split out into an article of its own, so these two articles can cover the technologies and both reference the file trading networks as one example of the application of the techniques. Jamesday 17:41, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Proposed split/merge of this and Peer-to-peer to form the following three articles:

• File trading, concentrating on the wellgfgh known internet music and video exchange services and methods (whatever they are, peer to peer, IRC, newsgroups etc.).
• Peer-to-peer covering generic peer-to-peer technology
• File sharing covering generic file sharing technology, as in office file sharing via file servers or peer file servers or similar network services not primarily used for the exchange of music and video.

Any objections or comments? I'll wait at least one week from now before acting, unless someone else wants to do it sooner... Jamesday 16:30, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I am a bit late with this comment, but please, go ahead. This sounds like a good thing to do, especially regarding the now missing file trading article. Its subject is sufficiently different (includes even things like BBSes, floppynets, etc.). The only problem is that file trading is usually called "file sharing" in reality. Is there an alternative technical term for file sharing technologies? Paranoid 16:53, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I see that peer-to-peer has now been merged into File Sharing. I would recommend splitting them back out, perhaps with a much trummer P2P page, because there are applications of P2P (such as telephony) that are not at all file sharing. Comments? Nethgirb 21:31, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Usage Statistics and Player Activity

Stats: I'd like to see a discussion of statistics (a top 10 perhaps with millions/thousands of users) for p2p programs, partly because figures are pretty hard to find, and because this valuable data is of interest to all sides in the debate.

Activity: Players (end-users, network-service users, industry bodies, enforcement agencies, and international bodies: issue groups and governments) might be reported as to current activities and priorities, which information is fairly easily available.

I agree with what else is being mooted. retro

Directors on file sharing

When this transition to 3 or more separate articles will be done, this fact should be included in the file trading one: Many music artists and some movie directors have voiced their support for file sharing of their copyrighted works. For example, Michael Moore has repeatedly stated that he supports non-commercial sharing of his movies. Quentin Tarantino has encouraged viewers in countries where his films are not legally available, to get pirated copies. [1]

Paranoid 16:53, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Don't forget the other big guy

Kazaa was also emergent after the shut down of Napster. Recently Napster just launched a new revamped music download service where the user's can download for a nominal fee. There are still many debates over this in the music industry especially with RIAA [Recording Industry Association of America].

All industries are ever changing and must adapt to the consumer. Consumer is and always will be King.

Privacy text removed

I removed the following text from the article:

== Privacy concerns==

The concept of being tagged and tracked is one which has been a reality for some time. Personally identifiable information is legally associated with a person's actions in order to verify their identity.

Think credit cards: these have to be associated with the purchaser, otherwise the credit card couldn't send a bill for those purchases. This concept has also entered into the computer world, and many people are fearful of advertisers tracking their virtual "movements". While advertisers claim that this is to target more applicable or interesting ads, many people argue that they never want to see another ad again, and certainly don't want to be tracked without explicit permission. This desire for anonymity has spilled into file sharing such that some clients have encryption and obfuscation functionality to protect their users.

Concepts such as decentralization and trust have also been used as a means of hiding the identity of users.

The reason is that it seems very out of place there. If it is to be used at all, it should be included in some other article more directly related to privacy. Paranoid 16:53, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi!

It seems that my edit (80.108.95.244) is deleted without any notice. I think that when talking about file sharing the inormation why the networks are so slow should not be hidden. Do you think the paragraph should be placed in the pages of the edonkey2000/fasttrack network?

access to P2P sites

As the majority of file sharing is illegal (copyright infringement by distribution), and as Wikipedia appears to have various discussions in progress on correct use of copyright protected material, is it fair and/or ethical to provide access to the means of theft of non public domain material? File_sharing#Communities_and_external_links

By submitting your work you promise you wrote it yourself, or copied it from public domain resources — this does not include most web pages. DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION!

The above statement does appear contradictory of allowing these kinds of links...

I would like to remove the links to those sites if there are no reasonable objections.

FadedRed 21:46, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I object. Firstly, it is possible to explain how to do something, or to be curious about how to do something, without advocating it. Also, no theft occurs on filesharing networks. Remember that copyright violation is usually a civil offence, whereas theft is a criminal offence. These links are not in contradiction of the Wikipedia policy that you quote. Having said that, it does look like some external links might be trimmed from that list. Tim Ivorson 21:56, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Actually copyright violation can be a criminal offence. Federal law provides severe civil and criminal penalties for the unauthorized reproduction, distribution, rental or digital transmission of copyrighted sound recordings. (Title 17, United States Code, Sections 501 and 506). The FBI investigates allegations of criminal copyright infringement and violators will be prosecuted. However I do agree that only certain links really need to be removed from the list. FadedRed 22:06, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. Unless you want to discuss the precise changes that you plan, I advise you to leap in and edit. Until you get a useful suggestion, you won't know what people think, or whether anybody else will answer. Tim Ivorson 22:18, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for your input :) FadedRed 09:23, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Darknet

Should it really be a redirect? --PopUpPirate 00:32, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

FileSharing, is it good or bad

In order to obtain an answer to the question, if peer to peer file transfer softwares such as Kazaa and Gokster should be legal, the effects of these programs have to be identified. One of the many areas that these programs have effects is the everyday life. Through these programs people are able to download any file that they are searching for, be it music, movie files or some pictures from a certain event or some documentary. Although it is still debated if downloading songs and movies is piracy or not, the concept of accessing any song any time of the day from a computer has been the luxury that technology has offered. The reason why it is so appealing to download these files isn’t because they are free; it is because they are risk free. Couple good hits from an album drives many people into buying the whole album only to realize that rest of the songs are not as good as they had expected. With current album prices in average within the range of 10-18 USD, it simply is not worth the risk of buying an album which one may end up not even listening to it the second time. Basically the opportunity cost of buying an album or a movie is high relative to simply getting connected to the internet and downloading. Although it is disrespectful to the producers of these movies and albums to just download their products and use them for free, how is it that these companies such as Sony can claim ownership to cultural products such as music? It is not always music and movies that people tend to download from one and another. It is very likely to witness someone getting some setup files for drivers or a zip file the demo of a game. Basically if there is a use any file can easily be transferred between PCs. Last year when my laptop almost crashed I had no alternative ways of backing up the important files in my documents. I was out of blank CDs and I was in dire need of repairing my laptop. However I was working on a homework which was due in couple days. Therefore I sent all the necessary files to my roommate and manage finish my homework in his laptop. If I was not able to transfer my files I probably would have failed that homework. --Sadimert

just like its benefits softwares like Kazaa also hold powerful threats to the everyday social life. Some of the many things that can possibly be searched in Kazaa are video and image files. Almost none of these p2p softwares that I have encountered have filters to what the users share. All one have to do is to select the folders that are to be viewed by other users and immediately they are accessible. Another problem with these softwares is that there is no legal age to use them. In other words any single person with access to internet is able to use them. The question that rises from this issue is; what are the risks of allowing kids to have access to unlimited sources of files? It is inevitable not to encounter pornographic files in these programs and there is nothing to hold these kids from simply downloading them and viewing them. Although Kazaa offers a parent filter system, it is very unlikely for parents to know, every software installed in their child’s PC. There are laws against people under 18 to view pornographic material but unfortunately since it is very hard to monitor whether a files contains adult material this law is hard to apply. Therefore these programs leave families defenseless against pornography. Another problem with allowing peer to peer file transferring occurs almost at everything dealing with internet. Viruses, Trojans and hackers hold a threat to our society today for almost everything is based on computers. Since there is nothing which monitors what is shared by the users, these programs cause PCs to be vulnerable to hackers for these downloaded files might contain viruses or patches. Both the problems introduced to the social life are due to the lack of a monitoring system for files that are shared. If Kazaa could reduce the allowed type of sharable files so that there will be less opening for viruses and if the engineers of Kazaa could develop a security system to overcome the distribution of porn these two threats to society could be removed.

--Mertsadi

Sharing files in the internet does not only affect social life, the entertainment industry has been under the influence of downloading files. The main stream artists like Usher, 50 Cents and G-Unit have reached record numbers with their sales. This year in number one spot 50 Cent comes with 2.8 millions of sold and distributed albums. When these artists are searched in programs like Kazaa, i2hub and Imesh, the results are very interesting. They produce results almost more than any other search. Then how is it possible that these artists sell the most number of albums when their music is what tends to populate in most users? It is inevitable to drive the conclusion that file sharing in fact helped these artist. The main stream artists are not the only ones who enjoy the benefits of file transferring. People always tend to take the actions that have the least risk. It is very unlikely to witness people buying albums that are not widely known. Through these programs people are able to sample the music of local, underground or unknown artists. Therefore it is very hard to say that sharing their music hurts them because through sampling their product customers gain new tastes in music and loyalty to these unknown artists.

--Sadimert

Although sharing music helped the big and the small names what about those artists in between who happens to be the major group in the industry? Consumers always tend to follow the least risky way especially when it comes to dealing with money. Unless someone has a collection of albums there will be many other things to buy before it comes to albums, such as food and transportation costs. After those costs one can set aside a budget to spend on entertainment such as movies, theatres, albums and even going to some restaurant. Therefore it holds a certain risk to buy an album and actually not like it at the end, thus having wasted very precious money. In a way downloading these files is a substitute of buying these not credible albums since they are not the ones that are constantly played in radios. Due less reputation and less customer loyalty the sales of these artists have reduced. In a way it is possible to drive the conclusion that file sharing has caused the gap between the sales numbers of main stream artists and less known musicians to increase greatly. Although the numbers do not show a decrease in the industry due file sharing that is due to the success of a sample number of artists. --Mertsadi

SOLUTION: The best approach in business is to identify the problem and attack directly to that. Although bundling goods and selling them at a premium price is a good idea to increase revenue it is still a short term solution. Suing the p2p softwares will have draw backs; therefore it is not the best approach either. The real issue is that downloading songs turned from sampling albums into owning every single album out there. One possible solution to the current issues in the files transferring without losing its benefits is to have a major company which monitors these softwares. In a way, a software owner out there that wants to be legalizing the product could sign up with this company which is under government monitoring. This way there are the layers of security because government regulates the company which monitors these softwares. Since the problem is that people are downloading more than the point where it is still healthy for the industry, a system is required to decrease the transfers. This umbrella company could monitor the download of every single user of every single program. In a way, in order to use any one of these programs one must open an account with the company. This way everyone who downloads is automatically in the system and it will be easy to monitor that. There could be a cap as to how much people are allowed to download in a certain period of time. It would be costly to check how much everyone downloads therefore this system might not be the best idea. But there is a way to regulate natural barrier to downloading which is that there could be product standards for these softwares. For example each software must have a family filter which will not allow the sharing of pornographic files and all of these programs must put a speed cap. In other words the users will not be able to download faster than a certain speed which will make it less appealing to download albums rather than songs. If both the speed cap and the number of downloaded files cap is applied than users will only be able to sample albums and they will have more reasons to buy albums. At least this way if the music industry still fails then it no longer is a problem caused by file sharing. The sharing of files has huge benefits such as the boost on side industries and technologies, easy access of files and the luxury of being able to sample and listen to albums in PCs and media file players. I strongly believe that if the Supreme Court decides in favor of Sony the society will take a huge hit because there are other ways to overcome the problem. By introducing a system which works like a tree the root being the government, next branch being the umbrella company and from there to software engineers and the users of these programs, the harms of peer to peer file transferring is minimized and the benefits are still absorbed. --Sadimert

First of all, when we talk about ethics of file sharing, we shoudl know the concept of homogeneous contents and heterogeneous contents. Everyday we are sharing and transferring files,named documents or photos we are producing with word processor or digital camera. These kinds of files are called heterogeneous contents, because it is quite unique contents comparing to music or movie files which are homogeneous value to almost everyones. But as you know, heterogeneous contents are valuable only to your colleagues or family and friends.

So, bad is illeagal file sharing of multimedia files , but good is natural everyday file sharing of personal or heterogeneous contents.

So,now there comes new emerging file sharing markets, social network based or trust based file sharing platforms. enfra.net, foldershare.com (MS acquired recently), beinsync.com etc. but not yet they didn't find critical mass. it's new and test market. They should find killer app or killer contents which can boom up those. And enfra.net is finding its way to personal knowledge network which can utilize social network based trusted networks.

I tried to add tornadodrive.com to file-sharing websites, but it was declined due to sharing not legal content? What is meant by sharing not legal content. All of the file-sharing websites let users share any type of content. And i haven't noticed any by tornadodrive.

Tim O'Reilly, cf. http://www.openp2p.com/lpt/a/3015, sees it as an opportunity.

A link to a page of "Good & Bad" p2p programs is maintained at http://www.malwareremoval.com/p2pindex.php it is being continusly updated and is a forum room avalable at that forum for suggestions to add or alter that page. Testing of the installs of the p2p programs are being done by anti-malware staff from that site. I think that page should be linked to from this page for advise for new users to p2p programs. ChrisRLG (talk) 11:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Failed to add tornadodrive.com

I tried to add Tornado Drive to file-sharing websites, but it was declined due to sharing not legal content? What is meant by sharing not legal content. All of the file-sharing websites let users share any type of content. And i haven't noticed any by tornadodrive.

Most important is that file sharing is not only P2P-networks, but also webservices like Tornado Drive.

Cleanup

What about the article needs to be cleaned up? Hyacinth 13:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

"Ooga Booga" on the last line of the introduction, maybe? Syntricate

Copyright and illegal

I just want to explain why I think its neccessary to mention copyright and legal issues in the introduction. I've just been asked by a neighbours child to install one of these applications, and I thought I better check what the legal situation was. I was suprised to find that this and other related articles, either did not mention this or word things in such a way that it becomes unclear that the law is being broken and that their is a risk of procecusion. Hence the wikipedia article did not provide me with the information needed to properly advise the family on whether they should install the program or not. Overall I think this article is very pro filesharing and hence not really NPOV. --Salix alba (talk) 13:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

To my mind the balance seems right. Looking at the TOC shows that after a section on History, followed by a description of what filesharing actually is, comes a substantial section on Copyright Issues. As noted in the article, "there has been great discussion over perceived and actual legal issues surrounding file sharing." In any event, the executive summary is that installing filesharing programs is not illegal and there is no risk of prosecution from doing so. If you then use that program to download copyrighted content the matter may be different; but if you use the program solely to download legal content, there is still no risk of prosecution and no laws have been violated. My reading of the article is that it communicates this quite clearly. Dtsazza 19:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Freenet Controversy

Isn't it normal to inform in an encyclopaedia that freenet is more 'underground' and 'unrespectable' that it seems to be, unlike most p2p networks like ed2k and fastrack, and that it's a bit unfit to describe it as the third generation mainstream p2p networks?SamiKaero 11:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

You may think that Freenet is unrespectable, but that does not make it a veriable fact which belongs in an encyclopedia. As for "third generation", it is a poorly defined term, not used by P2P developers. Freenet may or may not be "third generation", depending on who you ask. --Haakon 11:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Ethical, economic and legal issues

Currently the article contains discussion of copyrights and legal issues only. I think a discussion of the ethical and economic issues would also be appropriate here. For example, ethically file sharing is not the same thing as stealing, but is also a slippery slope - can a person honestly say "I wouldn't have bought it anyway" when they have the reward of not paying for it? Compare with Kavka's toxin puzzle. Economically marginal utility is an important aspect (for example the utility of a song will be different for various consumers - those for whom the price is too high are forced to download). Richard001 07:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Ethincally, file sharing most certainly is the same thing as stealing. You are aquireing a product that normally requires money at no cost by circumventing the full due legal process of procuring it. Piuro 23:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

No, it isn't the same thing as stealing. With stealing you are taking something that is scarce, i.e. a physical object. With file sharing, you're copying the thing in question, which has no direct economic impact on the owner. If you would never have bought it anyway, there's basically no loss to the owner that you 'stole' it by downloading. And there lies the ethical issue that is file sharing. I believe this is something that warrants discussion in the article. Richard001 05:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

And I completely disagree. The same argument could be used to say that, since i'm never going to actually buy a Ferrari, I can go steal one that someone else bought. After all, there would be no eceomic impact to the company that produced it in the first place. Piuro 19:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You're talking about something scarce again - a Ferrari is a physical object that the owner has only one of - you're denying him the right to own a Ferrari which he has paid for. Short of 'cloning' his car you can't possibly compare stealing it to file sharing. Richard001 04:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

A fictional short story book, by Bruce Sterling, "A Good Old-Fashioned Future" explains the economic controversy nicely.

"Well, your network gift economy is undermining the lawful, government-approved, regulated economy!"
"Well," Tsuyoshi said gently, "maybe my economy is better than your economy." 
"Says who?" she scoffed. "Why would anyone think that?" 
"It’s better because we’re happier than you are. What’s wrong with acts of kindness? Everyone likes gifts."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ne0Freedom (talk • contribs) 01:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC) 

Why isn't this mentioned in economic:

The Impact of Music Downloads and P2P File-Sharing on the Purchase of Music: A Study for Industry Canada" by Birgitte Andersen and Marion Frenz http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/ippd-dppi.nsf/en/h_ip01456e.html 71.165.55.144 (talk) 04:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)DLP

The question of legality of file-sharing copyrighted content should be done in the Ethics of file sharing article. It is a global issue and it is a very complex issue that deserves more attention than can be given in an article about the technology of file-sharing. Theoretically you could relate it to discussing the World Wide Web(Software) in an article about the development of the internet(Hardware). Sastep3 (talk) 11:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixing the fourth generation paragraph

Can someone fix the paragraph about the Fourth generation? I have no clue what the author is trying to say.

There appears to be multiple such instances throughout this entire article. It really is in pretty rough shape. Nick Lima 02:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree - I tried to clean up the third gen example, but would appreciate if someone else had a second draft go at it. I didn't get the fourth gen stuff, tho. David 12 January 2007

These bits were apparently translated from the German version using babelfish.altavista.com or something similar. The fourth gen also seems to be manageable this way. saimhe 09:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was. As for the third gen, it looks quite good given my English skills -- couldn't add anything. saimhe 21:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

shared file storage location

where will be the shared files stored in a client/server architectured network? can we get that shared file even when the system that contain the source is shut downed? what is the alternete solution to increase the availability of the shared files? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.212.253.226 (talk) 06:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

File sharing - copyright and legal

As this is one part of the topic and not the majority of it, it wasn't really well covered in this article. I have given it an article of its own File sharing and the law and moved the entirety of the copyright and legal sections there, replacing them with a summary style section and link.

Please do help improve that article! FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Move list to new article?

Any objections to moving the list of file sharing applications to List_file_sharing_utilities ? I will move it there for the time being, feel free to move it back if you think it should be there. I personally think it makes the article too gawdy :). --ShaunMacPherson 17:02, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

List cleanup (recent comments)

Does anyone object to replacing all the lists of clients and other programs with a reference to the File-sharing program article? It would increase the signal to noise ratio of this article and make it less of a spam magnet. Thoughts? ? JonHarder ^talk 01:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I would merge them to a separate list of file-sharing software article, but regardless I agree that this article doesn't need it. -- -- intgr ^#%@! 19:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that the lists are inherently "unencyclopedic" -- the definition of that word is surely subject to change with the advent of Wikipedia! These lists are quite impressive as a historical picture of the explosion of clients that resulted from the RIAA's attempt to kill Napster.

However they can be moved to another place if they will remain well-linked and easy to find. (If they are to be collected on one page with categories, then the various sections of this article should link directly to the corresponding sections of that article.)

A better approach might be to use collapsible lists so that they can remain inside this article yet without cluttering its default view. Is that infeasible at present? I will submit a request for that capability on the laundry-list-guys talk page. Parsiferon 15:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Percentage of P2P traffic out of total internet traffic

I didn't really know where to add this, but a new research shows that up to 95% of all internet traffic is made up by P2P traffic: [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Munksgaard (talk • contribs) 14:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Napster Acquisition

I find it misleading to say that "Napster (today using a pay system...," and "Closed in its original form in July 2001, since changed to a fee-based service," when it isn't really the original Napster that runs today. It was "acquired" by Roxio Corporation. However as far as I know all the acquisition really ever was, is a marketing tool using the infamy of the name "Napster" and the Cat Logo; a renaming of pressplay. I suggest we replace the two above quotes and anything like them with something like: Napster (the original), Napster (before being shut down in 2001), or Napster (before being acquired by Roxio). "Closed in its original form in July 2001, since has been acquired by Roxio." --Taboo Tongue (talk) 15:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Arguments in Support of File Sharing

There is a major argument that is left out here. It is original content. If I make my own home video, my own original .mp3 content, my own documents, etc., then why should I be prevented from sharing them? I would own the copyright. Surely there should be a system in which I could share my own content. The Internet and file-sharing give a level of freedom of speech which previously has not been around. Why shouldn't someone have an unrestricted and anonymous ability for sharing their own content, provided it is not illegal in and of itself (ie., child pornography, software cracks, or crime instructions)?--24.167.191.204 (talk) 05:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Why exactly does this section exist? Wikipedia should not be used to justify either point of view on a topic.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 22:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

As no one can justify the inclusion, I will delete the section.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 18:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Generations

This is the first time I see the distinction in different generations of file sharing protocols. Is this used anywhere else then in this article? 131.234.65.177 (talk) 17:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

See Also section has too many links?

I think that the See Also section has too many links to other articles, and should be cleaned up;--Kelvin_HO^{Wiknerd(talk)} 16:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Winmx Generation 1 Heading is incorrect

Winmx utilising wpnp 3.0 and above is a hybrid two tier decentralised network similar to Gnutella and kazzaa/fastrack. Can I suggest you move this client to the correct category.

Here is a picture that explains visually the network architectural modal of the two levels, the simple server client structure is supplemented by a more powerful primary network that allows for a major increased in scale of the network, this is esentially the same model as gnutella etc just the terminology used here is different, primary=supernode.

http://www.winmxworld.com/images/fis2.png

I am the owner/producer of this visual work and allow free usage of this image.

I hope this is the correct place to point his out, as I dont wish to make a mess trying to update the information myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.30.157 (talk) 22:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Excellent picture to sumise the Winmx network. I dont know who thought winmx was a tier one network. Its far from that. You could almost break it up into secondry clients, chat servers, bots, and caches. They all run mostly on the secondry tier but all diffrent in their own respects. Do you have to register to modify the wiki, i stumbled accross this and was amazed to see what i read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.170.174 (talk) 13:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of moving it myself and I hope this fits in correctly but apologise if this is not so, the facts remains however it is a decentralised network and should not be in the client server section.

Attacks on peer-to-peer networks section

This section was duplicated in the Peer-to-peer article; I removed it from that one as it is specifically about attacks on file-sharing networks. I moved the brief paragraph after the bulleted list from the other version before deleting it; it could do with some references being added. evildeathmath 16:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The section as it appears here ought to go in the Peer-to-peer article because there is no mention of file-sharing. If it is true that such attacks are focused solely at file-sharing P2P networks then the section needs to be rewritten to make it clear that this is the case. Sastep3 (talk) 10:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

USENET

This article needs to talk more about USENET. USENET was around long before any true ad-hoc peer-peer networks. People used to share files on it all the time.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 14:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Dodgy Stats

Why is there a line saying "Of the population sampled, roughly 40% believed that downloading copyrighted movies and music off the Internet constituted a 'very serious offense.'? I believe this is just to use the statistics in favour of whoever wrote the article...why not say 60% believed it was not a very serious offence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.84.231 (talk) 12:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I modified this paragraph with the intent of striving to maintain the point made by the original author. The only changes are adding a sentence on the end of the paragraph to clarify the argument and adding the date of the research while taking out the redundancy of the fact that the study was done in the United States. Sastep3 (talk) 10:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Disaster Area

This article is one. So I think we should do a majpr reorg.

• The intro should make it clear that this page is about file sharing over the internet, not private networks.
• Get rid of this generation crap: We should group the types of sharing networks by how they work. For example Single-Server, Multiple Clients would Cover USENET, Web hosting etc. While Peer to Peer would cover most of the rest. Under Peer to Peer we could describe the difference between those networks with central index servers and those without. A third section could describe streaming files, whether traditionally or through p2p networks.
• 3rd and 4th generations can be mentioned in the appropriate sub sections of the p2p section.
• It needs to be recognized that legitimate uses of file sharing occur for example the Featured Torrents section of mmininova (a popular bittorrent website) With that in mind the Section Legal Issues should be renamed to Legal Issues of Illegal File Sharing, likewise the "risks" section should be called "Risks of Illegal File Sharing" or split into a general section and an illegal section reread it and its fine as-is
• Finally the Section "Attacks on Peer-to-Peer" networks should be reoved (or moved to the p2p page) because it’s not really relevant to file sharing in general.

I'm going to make the section changes now, but I'll wait on the others to see if anyone has any comments. MorgothX (talk) 22:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Public perception section

I think the last paragraph in this section ought to be removed because the study concerned is misleading in it's argument. The study is presented in the LA Times Blog and the article gives no information about the study other than the fact that the author knows the individual. The article states that "this year's respondents said they download music regularly through file-sharing networks and other unauthorized sources, while buying music from iTunes intermittently (64% said they did so 1-4 times per month, with 5% saying more than 5 times). They were also asked to rate on a scale of 1 to 7 how nervous they were about being punished for illegal downloading, with 1 being "not concerned" and 7 being "extremely concerned." Two-thirds answered with a 1 (43%) or a 2 (24%)." The 31% of the group that do not download music through any source would likely put a 1, meaning that they are not concerned about being punished...obviously. Thus, the study...seeming to suggest that 43% of college students have no moral objection to illegally downloading music off the internet...is actually saying that 12% download music and do not worry about being punished.

Any objections? Sastep3 (talk) 11:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Economic Impact - Music Industry

The last two paragraphs in this section either need major work or they need to be deleted. The point that file-sharing, or the purchasing of music online,...I'm not sure whether this is the same thing...is causing many music stores to go out of business certainly belongs in this article. However, they are written in this section implying that music is not being purchased online, but illegally copied. Even if that is true it does not belong in this article. I would take out the references to copyright infringement and discuss the trend toward MP3s, rather than CDs, in greater detail. I would, but I don't know enough about it to know what I'm talking about. Sastep3 (talk) 11:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the last paragraph here. It contained only anecdotal claims. Much of this is based on the assumption that file sharing necessarily has a negative impact on sales. This is not established. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.66.99.129 (talk) 19:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Limewire

Does Limewire not deserve a mention in this article?  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 22:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Oldest form of File Sharing?

The oldest form of file sharing is Sneaker net.Tstrobaugh (talk) 17:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

BearShare

BearShare, originally a Gnutella client, should also be included in here somewhere, but I'm not sure where. Bax2x (talk) 02:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC) Comment moved here from main article --ZimZalaBim ^talk 01:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Cantica Aeterna

Cantica Aeterna[3] direct download of file storage links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.128.230.245 (talk) 16:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Prose

I cleaned up much of this article, mostly through deletion. A lot has been removed, and it is mostly fluff (sorry). Here's one example:

Third generation peer-to-peer networks are designed with a degree of anonymity provided by routing traffic through other users' clients, effectively hiding the identity of the users. Most of these networks use strong encryption to resist traffic sniffing.

No, anonymous p2p networks are called 3rd gen (by some), and they route traffic. Anonymity means the same here as "hiding identity". It's pointless to talk about 'strong encryption' (as opposed to what, weak encryption?) and traffic sniffing without getting into some serious explanations of how anonymity networks work, and what attacks can be launched against them. Most people don't understand what encryption does, so to mention it without explanation is misleading and not notable. So:

Anonymous networks usually route traffic through other users in a way that obscures the origin.

Same story for most of the rest. –M^T 21:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Napster First Issue

Napster was clearly not the first p2p file sharing application i am not even sure it was the first internet based one. One thing i am sure of though is it was not the first to share mp3's using file list request systems and file request systems. This latest rewrite was a blatant attempt to use Wiki to establish napster as the first p2p application. Deathmolor (talk) 04:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Citation needed. –M^T 07:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

There's also no cite for Napster being the first...that's a specific claim that isn't supported either here or on the Timeline of file sharing article and contradicts the Peer-to-peer#History claim that WWIVnet was first ("before Napster by over a decade" is supported on WWIVnet page). DMacks (talk) 07:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey, good point. Fixed now. M 08:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Source is false, Simtel archive is an archive from that period. Source sited was in errror. How do we deal with two sources but one predates the other? 68.150.46.249 (talk) 10:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

What we have here is two conflicting sources, one which is a subjective article and the other which is an archive. Linker34.zip has been submitted to the simtel archive in 1994. This cannot be changed or erased. Archived for posterity for all of history to see. Stop doing searches for Linker to prove your point because a search not specific enough would yield nothing obviously. bad attempt to prove ones point. 68.150.46.249 (talk) 10:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

i could bring over 100 sources to bear on this but i think we need to acknowledge napster in this article as the first popular internet p2p application. your turning this into a war of siting sources. Deathmolor (talk) 11:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Within your own sited source M. If you took the time to read another paragraph it would state that it was not true peer-to-peer. Wow M, do you always take the first sentence of a cited source and try to prove a point like that. You might want to read the whole article before you put your foot in it. Deathmolor (talk) 13:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)