Talk:File sharing/Archive 1

Archive 1

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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.

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)

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)

Darknet

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

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Actually USENET more then used to be a source of p2p file sharing, it still is. With over 4.2TB is transferred daily on it. This is all covered with sources in the USENET wiki article. Deathmolor (talk) 01:27, 14 May 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)

See Talk:Timeline_of_file_sharing#Prior_Work_Before_Napster M 11:50, 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)

See Talk:Timeline_of_file_sharing#Prior_Work_Before_Napster, I'm not going to argue in two places. M 23:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Article deterioration

This article has deteriorated from a largely technical focus of concept to a pop-subculture treatment of original research without sources about controversial file sharing networks and legal battles involved. Kbrose (talk) 21:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you give specific diffs or versions? I lot of the sources are readily available at the main article for the history section, ie timeline of file sharing. This is not an article about file sharing networks, it is an article about file sharing, which includes cultural impact, the very important copyright issue, history of major networks, and so on. M 23:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Please leave commentary before reverting. Which previous version are you referring to?   M  21:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe the Article deterioration can be corrected but M is going to need to keep his hand off the undo long enough for others to add information and rewrites. The generational information also needs to come back. There is half a dozen books on p2p file sharing that refer to the different generations. Deathmolor (talk) 01:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Just to start for clarification here M is the cause of the Article deterioration in my opinion. M seems to have some stake in this article either he wrote it and does not like it being edited or he is involved in some way. I don't trust the guy as far as i could throw him. He added a reference where it clearly says napster was the first until court battles shut it down. the next statement is that it was only p2p in part. Which means it was not p2p at all. I am going to start to consider all of M's reverts as vandalism unless he actually takes the time to read his own references and properly communicates the information within those references. I already contacted the author of the book in regards to its misuse and misquoting of it in Wiki. Just going through M's contributions to wiki he has only chosen to contribute related p2p and contributed Wiki rules changes to support his contributions. And some trivial Programming. His contributions seem to be focused on Napster and its standing and seems to be focused on removing all references to previous works. He also removed all reference to generational information related to p2p file sharing as well. Seems suspect to me. If you note this was how he removed first generation information 20:19, 19 April 2009 M (talk | contribs) (34,759 bytes) (→First P2P generation: server-client: overwhelming detail and explanations not needed.) (undo), at the time he did not cite sources as an issue. Now that someone wants to change his take on p2p file sharing its all about sources. The history of p2p file sharing due to its illegal nature is not something you will find in a scientific journal. Deathmolor (talk) 13:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC) Please don't make it difficult for other editors to communicate by going off-topic and replying to your own comments repeatedly. I don't think that this sort of commentary belongs here. Perhaps you should seek WP:Dispute resolution and explain to them what the problems are.   M  22:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC) From my perspective your the one making it difficult, and i have been contributing a good number of years longer then you. I think its nice how you like to control the flow of conversation in everything you do M but never respond to what your actually attempting to do. I find all your actions to be dubious but you refuse to respond that's fine but if assessed your personality right you wont be able to resist trying to change the flow of this conversation again. How about respond to the above instead of trying to change the actual talk article by changing the heading. This is still about article deterioration and you being the cause of it. Deathmolor (talk) 00:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC) Please stop modifying your comments and attacking me without provocation. You're making it unpleasant for me to continue editing this page, and difficult for me to communicate with other editors. Please stick to problems with the article itself, not the problems you're having with me over your vanity edits.   M  00:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC) Still not addressing why you have so much interest in just one topic in Wiki. it would seem i am not the only one doing vanity edits. I believe you are involved with Napster in some way. The only way you will be able to prove me wrong is come out of your anonymous position. You have some vested interest in this topic and i am interested in knowing who you really are. Deathmolor (talk) 02:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC) I properly sourced through M's own methods of using google books that napster was not even p2p software. So indeed it cannot be the first of something it is not even apart of. Sorry M you lost now show people how big you really are and accept you lost this one. Deathmolor (talk) 03:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC) Stop replying to yourself, it makes the page hard to read. You are going to have serious problems if you try to WP:OUT other editors over content disputes. Nearly every personal attack you are making against me is not only inappropriate, but false.   M  14:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, at the time, Napster was indeed called a p2p network because files were still transferred from peer to peer. By your logic, classical BitTorrent wouldn't be p2p either because it needs a central tracker for each torrent — and trackers most certainly aren't peers. Note that I'm not saying anything about the validity of M's edits as I haven't followed the saga. -- intgr [talk] 10:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the input but read the references please. It's ok to have an opinion on something but M wants to have a battle of references. I was willing to let it go that they claimed to be first p2p but i will keep pushing and keep putting in references if he continues to try and force naspter into being the first p2p software. He tried to make it about vanity but I took that out of the equation myself, just because a software was popular does not mean it was first. his interests in this are also suspect Deathmolor (talk) 10:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to note that M himself removed the generational information about p2p file sharing even though within his own references the authors refer to generational information. In his delete comment he referred to the generational information as crap. So M clearly does not read the references he chooses to use either which is leading to the degradation of this page as a whole. Deathmolor (talk) 10:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed at Talk:Timeline_of_file_sharing#Prior_Work_Before_Napster , where several editors have reviewed Deathmolar's recent edits and found them to be inappropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia. Please continue related discussions there, if necessary.   M  21:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Please do not single-handedly move or edit the entire thread here. Kbrose (talk) 21:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Be more careful when you revert - you deleted several comments.   M  23:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

This article and this talk page have become and endless squabble over the pro and cons and politics of P2P networks much akin to many Internet bulletin boards. I would recommend to restore the article to its state of early April and return to a presentation of the development, technology, applications, and directly related issues of the general concept of file sharing. Kbrose (talk) 21:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is appropriate, especially since it seems to be a copyvio of this page, in addition to being very poorly written. Please see also Talk:Timeline of file sharing.   M  23:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

File sharing

File sharing has a long history of which P2P networks are only a recent phenomenon. Usenet certainly was a major filesharing system in the early Internet and its predecessor networks. The history and practice of file sharing can be sensibly discussed with relatively little mentioning of Napster or any other flavor.Kbrose (talk) 22:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

File sharing is distinct from peer-to-peer networks and from shared resources. Both of these have been around for a very long time, but file sharing in the sense that this article deals with it began in 1999.[4][5][6] I don't think that it's appropriate to turn this article into one about sneakernets, punch cards, the distribution of books, the sending of html documents and other files over early networks, etc. These early technologies were a foundation for what is now known as file sharing - millions upon millions of currently-active users, thousands of lawsuits, possible cause for the decline of 'mass media', protests with people waving the jolly roger around. Their role in the development is addressed in the article, and it's mentioned that people did in fact 'share files' on them. I too found technical information sorely lacking in this article, but that was before I made any significant changes.   M  23:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we need to cover the basics. The article saying file sharing. We need to explain to a reader what that is first of all and foremost. Now that we have all agreed to work towards a consensus I don't think a revert is apropreat at this time. Lets discuss this further. 1999 was not the beginning by many peoples standards as far as file sharing is concerned. Avoiding any discussion as to specific software sharing of copyright material has a long history. Now before anyone undoes others contributions to forward this general outlook on file sharing. We need this consensus. More then just one person here has said we can do this without discussing commericial packages and that legal matters should be discussed. When a user comes to the page they should get a general idea of what the topic is about and they should also get the understanding it has a long history and the sharing of copyright material started with file sharing with disks. This article may have started to discuss commercial p2p software, i think its clear enough to see that the heading says file sharing and not p2p software here is the list. I recommend another article might be appropriate if someone wants to list the who's who of p2p software. Even to the most uneducated in the field it is easy to see that file sharing didn't start with napster in 1999. Deathmolor (talk) 12:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I have rewritten the lead to better reflect the content of the article. According to WP:LEAD:

“ The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic... ”

Neither version really accomplished this goal completely. Further tweaks can be done, but please try to keep it to a summary of the content in the article, weighed by importance. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

There are two issues here. First is the 'definition' of file sharing, second is 'who got there first'. So first, we're not talking about shared resources. We can have a discussion about whether we should rename this to 'P2P File sharing' and make File sharing disambig to both, but I don't think we need to. This is also not about 'peer-to-peer' networks, since most file sharing isn't "really" peer-to-peer anyway: Napster used a search index, Kazaa used supernodes, Freenet uses central services for peer discovery, BitTorrent uses trackers. This is also not an article about 'media' sharing in general. It's an article about the organized and large-scale sharing of creative works by people who were typically only consumers of such works, made possible by the internet and technologies/networks explicitly designed to facilitate such sharing. (Incidentally this often conflicts with copyright.)
Now, second - "file sharing existed before Napster" is true, but this does not need explicit pointing-out. Usenet was not a file sharing service, it was a communication service. The fact that it might (or might not) have been the first service to be used for file sharing is not nearly as notable as what happened with Napster, where client-server-network were designed explicitly to share mp3 media files, and suddenly your neighbors were talking about it, and 3+ major overlay networks spring up within about a year. And as far as the citations are concerned, Napster was the first such service.
As for the current lead, we can (and should) mention that 'file sharing had its humble origins in those huge floppy disks' in history, but saying that it includes manual sharing of files is like talking about the pony express in the courier services lead. There are a couple of other issues, but let's get these settled first.   M  23:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Basically, there is a decision to be made: should the article be about all forms of sharing files (primarily) illegally or just peer-to-peer sharing? If it is the former, then there should be at least some mention of off-line sharing. If it is the later, the article sound be renamed "peer-to-peer file sharing."

If the article stays at "file sharing" then, obviously, there is not a lot to say about manually sharing files so a few lines would be sufficient (similar the current version). The one thing missing is a line or two about early anti-piracy measures. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

It should be about all forms, and like you said, there isn't much to say about manual sharing. In less developed countries, programs and movies are shuffled around manually on cds, and this is pretty significant. However, that's not file sharing, it's the sale of copyright works by a very small group, for profit - usually called piracy, properly called organized copyright infringement. The claim that file sharing is illegal or phrases like 'illegal file sharing' should probably be avoided. There are, as far as I am aware, no laws against file sharing. This is why limewire, freenet, bittorrent, etc. clients are all perfectly legal. Programs made explicitly to help violate copyright are illegal, though, as is indiscriminately sharing your media - though not always. In Canada, for example, it's covered by fair use. In Sweden, the Pirate Bay is (and remains) legal.   M  02:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

As for naming: comparison, p2p. Peer-to-peer should probably redirect here, after it and client-server are merged into network architecture. You can tell that people are getting confused, since there's a bunch of filesharing junk in peer-to-peer, when it's really supposed to be a very technical article. See also [7] -these articles are not trying to direct readers to high-level compsci info.   M  02:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Well i could not disagree more on the USENET part. Usenet right now is 98% binary transfer of files. Currently is popular still. Its not a past tense and is transfering over 4.5TB daily. Usenet is still growing. You want to make it a thing of the past even though Usenet is still growing. Just because you personally have declined in the use of it. Does not mean its not still used widely. You are making conclusions not supported in the facts. Also i feel the legal stand point on file sharing still needs to be covered heavily. If you ignore the legal aspects your doing a disservice to a possible reader. Deathmolor (talk) 13:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Look at this list [8] as you can see file sharing is linked by many things and the first and foremost link is copyright. File sharing requires the act of a copy. Copyright is at the forefront of all file sharing and its history is very important. The origin of piracy comes from the idea that everyone in the 70's and 80's was allowed to share all software. It wasn't until one convention can't remember what that was where everyone was accused of being pirates when it was discovered people were sharing all the software instead of paying for it. there is a lot of history to explore here. Deathmolor (talk) 13:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

5TB is, for example, about 4000 movies (cd/dvd) uploaded. 35% of all internet traffic in 2005 was BitTorrent. 5TB is nothing by comparison. Don't give us synthesis, "5TB is a lot, so it's popular" - next time you bring up Usenet, have a reliable source that supports your claim. I don't think your copyright/piracy message actually makes any sense, nor does it have its facts straight. Let other people talk for you by providing sources.   M  16:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

M the reliable source is on the USENET wiki page. I wish you would take the time to actually read references when they are given. Right now your just saying nay to everything i say again which is unproductive and again a little insulting so. If you actually read the USENET page it cites the source for traffic data and provides a chart so you don't have to read as much. I know how that bothers you. As for you.. you provide statics without sources at least i actually offer USENET wiki page link for people to look at. As for 4.5TB being transferred that only counts for the core USENET traffic it does not count traffic from ISP to customer. Bittorrent statistics includes traffic to the individual customer. So you assessment again comes from uneducated assessment of the situation. If you want to include client traffic you would have to take 4.5tb times it by the number of USENET nodes and then multiply that by the number of users each usenet server serves. The number would be considerably larger but i didn't think i had to indicate that due to the fact it is obvious how much more traffic we are talking about if that user information is included. I for instance alone was called by my ISP a few months back because i downloaded 58GB from their USENET server. That was just me. Deathmolor (talk) 17:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't care; stop making up estimations and provide sources. 35% in 2005.   M  17:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

i am not making up anything, If you read the usenet page yourself you would see it but here is my 2 min of following the links there. http://www.news-service.com/stat/feeder1-stats/ . Deathmolor (talk) 19:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Good, that's a ref for 5TB. In 2008, 273 petabytes were transferred daily,[9] so assuming that BT traffic has fallen to just 10% of that, then this is 27000TB, half of which is upload - so 14000TB upload vs 4TB Usenet upload.   M  20:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

editing this to be a little shorter, 1000 of just the top node that were cited there is 4000 more known nodes and even more unknown nodes and an unknown number of users attached to each node. [10]. Your assessment assumes no user. using your stat comparison would be similar to only include seed traffic from BT traffic. Deathmolor (talk) 22:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

"Deathmolor estimates that Usenet user traffic is really high" is not a good reference. You need sources. Usenet non-popularity (not a great source, but food for thought).   M  23:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Google trends is not a usage statistic either. USENET has been steadily increasing since its inception that is a verifiable statistic. But i am not interested in a bittorrent vs usenet discussion i am only interested in usenet not being disregarded. You seem to think wiki is a popularity contest and only the popular things are worthy of note. That is not the case. Anyway I am moving on you can continue to discuss this among yourself but until another editor posts its not worthy of any more of my time. Deathmolor (talk) 07:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

it doesn't mean i am not watching. Nice chip away tactic. You managed to chip away the usenet paragraph until deletion in just five edits. Deathmolor (talk) 13:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Auto-archiving

Just a quick note to say I set up auto-archiving to clear some of the really old chat on this page. I used pretty conservative settings, so it shouldn't clear out anything currently relevant. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

M Owning page

M just wont let up owning this page and is removing any other editors contributions not by one undo either he chips away at contributions until its removed. Suspected WP:OWN actions. Agreed to make a consensus before changes but lied and destroyed trust of other editors. This is becoming an issue. Deathmolor (talk) 13:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

This is the preferred way of making revisions. You are expected to revert back only to the first such revision you disagree with. So if I remove the names, because no other technology mentions the names of its creators, and you revert to that, you are expected to explain why you think Usenet's creators should be mentioned, while other creators are not mentioned. I strongly urge you to work together on this, and to explain why you think something does or does not belong, instead of accusing other editors.   M  18:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I urge you a lot to actually reach a consensus rather then determining a consensus is reached by yourself. If you come to a descision on your own that means it is not a consensus. So i strongly urge you work with other editors and myself and come to an consensus. If you would like to explain why you believe USENET references do not belong here then maybe we can determine what can be done rather then using chip away edits over the course of one day so no one can revert the removals. Deathmolor (talk) 00:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

You withdrew from the conversation. I've explained nearly all of my edits. I'll paste the relevant ones here: (combining. check the preceding diffs individually.) (uncited. what does that even mean?) (obvious, fluff) (no central servers is just misleading, 'one of largest' is very dubious & uncited (see talk).) (no other tech mentions devs or authors, base64 is irrelevant). Now it's your turn. Start with this one, and tell me if and why you disagree. Why do you think that a) those authors should be there, even though we don't mention any other authors, and b) why usenet's encoding is relevant to the history, while, say, Kazaa's isn't.   M  00:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry i am not going to let you direct the flow of this conversation. I know how you like to control everything and that is not what i am going to do ever. So if you think you can do that your wrong. Why do you feel that it does not belong? You were the one questioning that USENET is for news text only and not files. Does this not answer those questions you have about its use for binary files? If you don't want something in the article then do not put forward those questions in the talk page and actually read the USENET link and see for yourself what it does. If you question the source your going to get more information. Please don't attack one persons edits it doesn't look good. Removals being undone are one thing but edits and contributions being targeted for removal is completely different. You need to have a better reason for its removal then i need to have it be there. You would have to have some question as to the source. This is what consensus means. Deathmolor (talk) 00:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

This is not what consensus means. You have reverted back to your wording, despite a clear explanation on my part. I have given the explanation twice now, and ask you to respond to it.   M  02:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry M i do apologize but i cannot decipher the intent of your discussion focus enough to form an answer to anything. All i can say is you want to remove my contributions and as of yet I have no reasons why, thus I have no answer for you. All i know is there is no particular reason for that information not being there. Removal of a contribution on a topic holds specific weight if you continue to remove information on the only article you have wrote and target all contributions to it and possibly just one persons. I think you need to let this slide and let the article evolve without removing things. Deathmolor (talk) 18:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup-rewrite

Why and how so? Hyacinth (talk) 09:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Usenet

(moved from personal talk page of Kbrose)

Hey, good cleanup. I still wonder why this should be mentioned in such detail. If we give corresponding weight to the other programs, networks, and issues (naming the creators of every single network, etc.), then that history section will end up being 5 times longer than it is.   M  14:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Usenet was *the* breakthrough in automated distribution of messages and files. It was one of the most important developments in distributed communications systems and file and message sharing. Before the WWW, every serious "Internet" user wanted access to Usenet, sine qua non. How can you even question the importance. Kbrose (talk) 15:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Right, I agree that Usenet was historically important. Could you please provide published sources for your (implied?) claim that it was the breakthrough in file sharing? Because of the books I've surveyed, Napster is given the credit for this, not Usenet - not that I support Napster, nor that I think it is brilliant or innovative, or whatever. But this is what my sources say (one of these is a google book linked from the file sharing article). So I guess the main thing is sources that establish Usenet as being important enough to get its own detailed paragraph, when even Napster has only a couple of lines. If we keep this up, this is going to cause that section to swell, a lot. Every small network is going to end up with a sentence, and Kazaa, The Pirate Bay, and Napster are going to wind up with a few paragraphs. This is clearly too detailed.   M  05:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I added more information and cited sources of its continued use as a major source of files. Also it is the target of law suits currently and anti-piracy groups see it as a real threat just due to the sheer volume of files shared through it. M tried to use some napkin math to make it sound like its not even on the radar but it is. Torrents and Usenet are the only things that are now. Deathmolor (talk) 19:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Calling Usenet a store forward network is like saying a car is a wheel based vehicle. Yet what is important is what type of engine it has. p2p structure is the basis of the network the way it has communicated has changed but the structure has always remained the same. Deathmolor (talk) 01:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

This statement makes absolutely no sense. Usenet is not P2P, in the core definition, users don't exchange messages directly and don't share resources, the servers do on a level of different granularity (which is not the level of typical P2P), but this can be said for many client-server architectures, such as DNS, E-mail. The core network protocol of news is clearly client-server, not P2P. The underlying network has nothing to do with this. Reading the edit summary: yes, indeed, it is stored on disk and then forwarded (perhaps hours laters) in the case of NNTP, e-mail can be similar. But the store and forward model doesn't necessitate that, as ordinary Ethernet packet switches can also employ the concept, albeit at a different scale and speed. This makes no statement about the relationship of C/S vs. P2P. Kbrose (talk) 03:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is largely considered to be one of the first p2p networks. Did you even bother to read the USENET article if you indeed feel the way you do please go over and remove all reference to p2p model it uses and see how far you get. Please by all means i would love to see you explain this to all the people who monitor the USENET article what your doing. Deathmolor (talk) 03:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

as for the store forward comment i completely agree with you it should be removed. Calling USENET a store forward network is completely incorrect. Deathmolor (talk) 03:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Usenet has nothing to do with P2P. Those who consider usenet as one of the first p2p network are wrong. The article on usenet only states that it was a model for the modern P2P network, not that it was a P2P itself. Moreover, the article also states that "usenet is significantly different from modern P2P services". The users are not connected directly to each other, that's why usenet will never be a p2p network. This sentence has to be changed. [[User:Mu2|Mu2] (talk) 17:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.139.254.142 (talk)

merging

• Ethics_of_file_sharing
• Copyrighted content on file sharing networks

I'm not sure why these articles exist. They contain a lot of original research, and we don't have enough editors to take care of them properly. They contain a fair bit of very redundant content. When this and the OR is cut out, there will be no problem fitting them into this article.    M   06:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

ya lets merge all of those, there is no need to continue to separate those articles. Although i caution at removing things as the article does need to reflect legal fights and ethics regarding the issue. Deathmolor (talk) 01:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The guidelines are that articles are supposed to be about 30k. This article is currently about 30k, and those articles together come to an extra 50k. So, no.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 13:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

And this current article does not cover the same material in the lead as the body. That seems to be because the article body doesn't expand on the points made in the lead, rather than because the lead is too expansive; in other words, the article is currently too short about what it already covers.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 13:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I agree with Deathmolor here. A guideline should not force us to remove content that is central to the topic into some backwater page, only to watch the same content re-grow in a much less encyclopedic/verifiable form. We can deal with the size of a page and the exact content of the lead after much more serious problems with the article are addressed.    M   16:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I've followed the procedure for measuring page size, and this article is only 22k, which is very much short of the 30-50k recommendation. This is after I merged in the 'ethics' article, half of which was either redundant with this article, or blatant original property-rights research (uncited, too). Hopefully this addresses your objection to page size.    M   18:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Doh. You're supposed to use "summary style".- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 03:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't follow. Use it for what? Summary style is for when a split occurs, while the article I linked explains when a split is appropriate. Could you clarify?    M   04:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)