P2P and File Sharing 101
p2pnet news view Freedom | P2P:- This article is designed to be informative (biased opinion included 
) and educational for anyone thinking about file sharing, but who’s unsure, scared, or has no clue how to go about it ’safely’.
But first, let’s get some basic terminology down, and debunk any propaganda you may have read.
Peer-to-Peer
P2P by definition is the ability of one computer to connect to another across the internet. Similar protocols such as networking are examples of computer connectivity. If you have more than one computer at home and they all connect via one device (router/hub) to the internet, then you have what’s known as distributive networking. If you do your job on a computer with others, then you have a distributive network.
This debunks the MAFIAA gospel that only one computer can be connected to the internet at any given time. If you have ever ‘RDS’ed (Remote Desktop) to another computer, then you’ve experienced a peer to peer protocol. If you have IM (Instant Messaging), and it has file transfer abilities, once again, you’ve experienced a P2P protocol.
The primary definition of a P2P is that there is a direct connection between two (or more) computers without any intermediary support. The protocol itself is robust enough to handle load balancing, packet distribution, TCP handshake and OS integration.
Typically, it’s a stand-alone application initially designed to allow higher learning establishments to communicate and distribute research. The first known P2P was between MIT in Boston, MA, and UofC Berkley, CA. This allowed mathemeticians on both coasts to collaborate, and share research knowledge and research findings, not to ‘devastate’ pigs like the MAFIAA. Asshat claim we are devastating anything debunked. P2P was designed with higher learning at its’ core.
Kazaa is NOT a P2P, it is what’s known as ‘cloud computing’ connectivity.
It has some advantages of P2P, like OS integration, but little else. It uses the internet as a connectivity protocol and has no direct link from computer to computer, or computers. It hands off TCP handshake, packet distribution, load balancing, and security.
In a sidenote, it’s incredibly convenient that the RIAA sued Kazaa, not out of existence, but into compliance. And that ‘duplicity’ spawned a default ’shared’ folder, that at one time had an option defaulted to OFF. Not that I’m a conspiracy theorist, but the RIAA tactics are so astronomically stupid, I wouldn’t put ANYTHING by them. But regardless of my opinion, Kazaa now defaults your default folder for music as ’shared’ and bam, all of the sudden 40,000 lawsuits are filed, 90% against kazaa users, interesting….
If you’re using Kazaa, you’re an idiot. Let me rephrase that: you are an idiot AND should be fucked by the RIAA. The ole ‘I didn’t know that guns shot bullets, and I didn’t mean to shoot my wife’ is no defense. Read the manual, dumbass, and then uninstall it.
If you want to P2P, then read on.
Hotline
Adam Hinkley’s invention, known as ‘Hotline,’ was a very basic application that allowed you to connect to a centralized server that offered content in digital format.
In typical fashion, a P2P protocol usually has a server that handles the packet, tcp, handshake and OS (Operating System) integration, and a client application that allowed you to connect to said server.
Hotline came and went, and the asshats at the MAFIAA probably never even heard of it.
This was the beginning of file sharing. And it wasn’t designed for anything other than dissemination of digital content — any digital content.
Initially, it was used to share software. Back in the day, Photoshop was expensive, and not everyone could afford a copy, so we shared. It only just wandered into music and video once they were available in digital format. This was the time of invention, and experimentation. Users were not ‘hip’ on how to get CD content into digital format, it was new. And never mind movies: they were being sold on VHS.
File sharing was in full swing by the time content began digitization. The demand created knock-offs and a multitude of P2P applications flourished.
Trackers were designed to let you see who was online, what they offered, and usually how to gain access. But it was still underground and ultra-geek only at this time.
Do you think BitTorrent invented trackers? I don’t think so. Lynx was the first text based distribution avenue, then #irc, and THEN a GUI (Graphical User Interface) was overlayed to *nix functions, and voila, Hotline.
Enough history.
I like to include excerpts like that one to impress how long file sharing has been around. And the level of stupidity the MAFIAA is capable of.
WMG (Warner Music Group) recently filed a DMCA against one of their own. This enlightens us to their greed. They salivate and iIt only emboldens me when I read shit like this, that at the level of head-up-ass they represent, they are NEVER gonna catch me, or the other 90 million file sharers out there who know what we’re doing.
‘Why pay for what I can get for free?’
P2P protocols have come and gone, lots of them. Just like ‘product’, if it sucks, nobody will use/want/pay for it. It’s the ideological epitome of man.
‘Why pay for what I can get for free?’.
Morals come and go, but if you need Photoshop to pass a university class, and you couldn’t afford the 800usd, there were places to get it for nothing and learn. This isn’t a ‘cop-out’ to justify why I and 90 million others file share. Not at all. It’s only an underlying motivator, nothing more. Of course I know it’s a violation of civil matters, agreed upon by majority, and I don’t really give a fuck. I forget who wrote, ‘If the majority of people break a law, then there is something wrong with the law’.
Anyway, off-topic I go again…
With the inception of an avenue to chat your bud in Australia, or play chess with a bud in Ireland, or swap recipes with your ‘tovarich’ in Georgia (Eastern Europe), it became mainstream, like a word processor.
Email and BBS and #irc started to migrate to one or many of these new ‘protocols’. We called it P2P for what it was, peer to peer connectivity. Only asshats at MAFIAA called it ‘piracy’ for marketing purposes.
I saw a great graphic the other day — theft removes a copy, file sharing distributes a copy, piracy happens on the high seas near Somalia. If the college student intent on learning Photoshop never gets to launch the application, how is he supposed to learn it? And get a job? If he couldn’t afford it in the first place, where is the lost sale? Debunk another one.
Jon posted an article by Simon yesterday. ‘Why are people `pirates`? Good question, and even better answers.
I have an observation I’d like to add. Sans the actual distribution of digital content, p2pnet.net is something of a peer-to-peer formulae. It lets me banter with intellects like ‘Henry Emrich’, an avid poster here, and Chronos, or however he spells his name this week, and who’s hard to understand sometimes.
But that’s the point.
The internet shouldn’t have borders, or ideologies, or fucking opinions for that matter. We’re all equals, you and me, in this diverse culture we call internet.
‘Robert’ responded to the topic, and was moved to thought. I don’t know Robert – using his moniker is enough for me – but he proves a point that I can have a legitimate exchange with someone completely anon, and remain topical.
This is P2P. People connecting.
I always sign my posts ’stw’, which stands for Share The Wealth, a phrase I coined eons ago that stuck because of its obviousness. I define stw as; ‘Get what you need, contribute how you are able.’. And this precept is defined as ‘Just don’t leech (download everything in sight), but offer advice, expertise, finesse, opinion or file to respectfully compensate the P2P you got from.’
That’s our ‘piracy’.
Honor among pirates? Mebbe ..
I’ll review applications to consider, security measures to implement, obvious dangers, elaborate on how P2P actually ‘works’, and what the MAFIAA is REALLY doing to find you, in my next article.
Surfer – p2pnet
February , 2009
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It`s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
February 11th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
“This debunks the MAFIAA gospel that only one computer can be connected to the internet at any given time.”
I never heard or seen them quoted as saying this. That would be a totally moronic thing to say, because everyone knows that there’s millions of computers connected at any one time. I’d be interested in a link, if you can find one.
Otherwise, good article and I’m looking forward to part 2. I read it all the way through without skipping, not something I normally do with long articles.
February 11th, 2009 at 6:10 pm
thanks,
www(dot)p2pnet.net/story/13027
February 11th, 2009 at 7:42 pm
Thanks surfer.
However that article doesn’t actually say that about the MAFIAA. For those that haven’t seen the article, it talks about identifying file sharers by IP address. Perhaps you’re thinking of:
” Plaintiffsâ witness Linaresâdeclaration ⦠states:
Users of P2P networks can be identified by their IP addresses, because each computer or network device (such as a router) that connects to a P2P network must have a unique IP address within the Internet to deliver files from one computer or network device to another.”
Which isn’t quite right either, of course and the sort of dumbed down, incorrect statement that you’d expect an IT illiterate lawyer to make.
However, the article does explain that data packets arrive at the destination computer by having an IP address (the one common to many computers behind the NAT layer) and destination information. After all, the destination computer must be identified uniquely somehow or it would receive no data, would it?
Surely it’s the combination of the IP address and routing information that can actually individually (crucially, without %100 certainty, apparently) identify a file sharing computer on the internet, whether it’s behind NAT or not?
Now, while I work in IT, I’m not an expert on the complexities of networks and would appreciate someone explaining why this, together with a network card MAC address, can or cannot work to nail individual computers in a court case. I have the feeling it can unfortunately…
Of course, this does not tell you who was actually *sitting* at the computer, but this may be able to be determined with reasonable certainty by other means eg internet access account held by a person living alone and filesharing the same files over several weeks, perhaps.
February 11th, 2009 at 7:47 pm
” Now, while I work in IT, Iâm not an expert on the complexities of networks and would appreciate someone explaining why this, together with a network card MAC address, can or cannot work to nail individual computers in a court case. I have the feeling it can unfortunately⦠”
All of those things can be ’spoofed’.
It’s nothing to change a MAC id, and remove traces of that change.
On an open WiFi , any one could be connected, ad long as they are in
range.
I reccommend to folke to leave their router open.
Since anyone can be sued, even if they NEVER ENGAGE IN FILE SHARING, an open
WiFi connection leaves a plausible defense.
February 11th, 2009 at 8:31 pm
Surfer, some of the P2P references sound a lot like TCP/IP, from what I have learned about it anyhow. I learned about it through a TCP/IP Sockets tutorial for Linux, with the basics in 6 modules, then 5 or 6 on examples and then 4 or 5 advanced modules. TCP is the connection oriented protocol while UDP is the connectionless protocol.
These are the basics from which everything else is derived (emails, text messaging, bit torrent, and p2p apps like Limewire), correct? They all have to create IP packets and use sendto/recvfrom for UDP (is this even used in P2P? No connection so I guess not — what about Bit Torrent is UDP used there?) and send/recv for TCP. Do they create RAW data packets or just use TCP/UDP socket connection types and let the OS handle filling in most of the tcp/ip headers? Do they incorporate IP headers as well, as a means of responding to errors or lost packets or SYN attacks?
It sounds from the quote “The primary definition of a P2P is that there is a direct connection between two (or more) computers without any intermediary support. The protocol itself is robust enough to handle load balancing, packet distribution, TCP handshake and OS integration.” that it really just employs TCP connections, and in the case of multiple hosts, you would have multiple connections.
Just trying to understand this, I don’t have the time to go over the P2P source code as I am working on an Open Source project (OpenSEK) and spending too much time reading up on copyright/riaa/mpaa/business models (see Trent Reznor case study: ), environment stuff, etc… while awaiting security clearance so I can start a new job (I’ve been searching for 6 months).
And thank you for the reference! I am glad I finally decided to comment here. I first started that on Matt Good’s site, another fair site where people mostly show respect, and sometimes on yahoo’s news (very bad for respect, amazing the comments people make without doing any research) which apparently no longer has comments (or I was blocked).
February 11th, 2009 at 8:33 pm
sorry here’s the case study link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Njuo1puB1lg
February 12th, 2009 at 4:32 am
surfer,
what a cool article. can’t wait for the next one. i for one don’t think anything within the riaa can change until the current heads (and close associates) have died. without knowing how old they are, i’d guess riaa will keep chasing us for another 50 years, best case scenario. i mean, realistically, we can’t expect people to in such a short time completely change their mind about how their business works. you know they’re wrong, i know they’re wrong, and chances are everyone reading this do too, but until they’re willing to realize it there’s very little to do.
i love the irony that when you buy an album of your favorite artist, a fraction goes to the artist, but most goes to the recording company who’ll spend your money chasing file sharers, ie most likely yourself.
February 12th, 2009 at 9:24 am
@Robert,
You are basically correct, P2P is TCP oriented. And I refer to ‘direct’ connections, however, this is not entirely true. You ‘bounce’ thru connections (read other computers) from source to destination, and it is not entirely direct, like VPN is a direct connection.
Most of the high end protocols used for P2P do format and control packets structure, including BitTorrent. Protocols like kazaa and limewire leave packet construction to the OS. UDP is another story, UDP is not necessarily ‘connection-less’. It is similiar to TCP yet it utilizes the ‘handshake’ to communicate ‘what’ is being sent, and how the packets will be formatted, so the destination understands what is coming and how it will be formatted. UDP is an underlying support for ancillary connectivity. An example of UDP would be: If you have high speed connectivity and a provider based ‘modem’ (not to be confused with dialup), then your provider uses UDP in the background to monitor what IP is assigned to you, and ‘authenticating’ your account to hardware so they can ‘identify’ if you are authorized access. In the past, we have had reports of providers pinging the router over 100x/sec to try and monitor ‘what’ you are doing. It is also used to monitor your traffic usage. (Not entirely, they can monitor your traffic usage from TCP packets as well).
When I review security measures to consider when using a P2P, one point I will emphasize will be disabling UDP. I hope to post enough information in my articles to have a complete ‘how-to’ white paper on how to safely share files.
Thanks everyone for comments, this is the whole idea to spur thought. I will try and answer all intelligently posted questions.
stw
February 12th, 2009 at 9:28 am
@DRM Koolaid,
Correct, I was trying to find the article that references to court records where the RIAA lawyers argued IN COURT that it is impossible for more than one computer to be assigned the same IP address. Thanks for finding the correct reference for others to review. And I agree with the stupidity of the RIAA’s thinking that an IP address equates to ‘whomever’ is currently sitting in front of the computer.
February 12th, 2009 at 9:32 am
@Dreddsnik
Leaving your wi-fi open for later use as a defense in a file sharing dispute is just absolutely foolhardy. No offense meant, but there are other precautions to take that will ensure your ‘activities’ are not monitored other than leaving this gigantic security hole in your internet use.
One of the topics I will cover when I review security measures in another article, is this old argument of leaving your wi-fi open. Very BAD idea, and not just for file sharing issues.
stw
February 12th, 2009 at 11:00 am
” Leaving your wi-fi open for later use as a defense in a file sharing dispute is just absolutely foolhardy. No offense meant, but there are other precautions to take that will ensure your âactivitiesâ are not monitored other than leaving this gigantic security hole in your internet use.
One of the topics I will cover when I review security measures in another article, is this old argument of leaving your wi-fi open. Very BAD idea, and not just for file sharing issues. ”
I respectfully disagree with that, but I look forward to a well thought out response from you.
Besides, it’s not meant to stop anyone from being monitored.
As I said, even if you do nothing at all, the RIAA can still sue you.
Their methodology is akin to pulling am ip out of a hat.
With so many open hotspots within blocks of each other, they could never prove
in court where any file came from or went to.
There are also many ways to secure your computer while still leaving the hotspot open.
Now think about another reason that the Labels would want all hotspots closed ?
Just think about everyone in a small community, with deliberately open hotspots,
with very specific folders open for general access ?
Ooo this guys got some old Zep etc …
It functions like a slightly higher tech sneaker net.
Yes, there are risks, but as I said, there ARE other ways to secure PC’s and still keep
an open spot.
February 12th, 2009 at 11:11 am
Both the RIAA and directv have sued people they knew to be innocent. Then knowing they were innocent, forced them to pay money to settle the false lawsuit. While this is illegal and fraud, government was supposed to protect innocent persons from such a fraud. Because government failed to protect and has ignored those who were innocent, sued, and made to pay moneys under pressure, those innocent people need to do just what government has done to them. That is to ignore government and the justice system just like justice has ignored them. Jury nullification is a way to send the message that government had a responsibility to protect. The next time you are a juror, ignore justice and cast your juror vote accordingly. Next time you witness an event, ignore justice. It may seem repulsive for a victim of crime to ignore justice, but it was even more repulsive for justice to ignore the victim of crime committed by the RIAA and Directv.
February 12th, 2009 at 11:57 am
@Dreddsnik
Fair enough. I agree there is validity on both sides of that ‘fence’, and I will present my view for debate in a future article.
stay tuned.
stw
February 12th, 2009 at 8:50 pm
testing my new sig..
surfer – p2pnet technical editor
[surfer self proclaims; by day a Senior SQL Architect / Engineer / Mathametician for over 10 years and Ivy League graduate, doing work for the 'Health Care Industry', that by night, 'devastates' the movie/music/software/font/ebook/tv industries by supporting the file sharing community for over to 12 years, to the tune of 250gb/mo in an effort to 'Share The Wealth'.]
February 12th, 2009 at 8:51 pm
w00t
stw
surfer – p2pnet technical editor
[surfer self proclaims; by day a Senior SQL Architect / Engineer / Mathametician for over 10 years and Ivy League graduate, doing work for the 'Health Care Industry', that by night, 'devastates' the movie/music/software/font/ebook/tv industries by supporting the file sharing community for over to 12 years, to the tune of 250gb/mo in an effort to 'Share The Wealth'.]
February 13th, 2009 at 9:39 am
@surfer
Not quite sure what’s meant by technical editor, but it sounds neat.
February 13th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
me neither, but ya, not sure either.
I write editorials on technical issues.
February 13th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
I got a question for you surfer , don’t take it wrong it’s NOT meant to be
an attack. Its relates to another thread.
It’s obvious you know the tech side of these cases, even more so than I.
Would YOU volunteer your time as an expert witness if you could pass the
Daubert standards, or would you demand the ‘benjamins’?
I know I would , in a snap, but I could never pass daubert, ( zero formal training ).
February 13th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
I can probably pass the Daubert standards, I will research them.
And yes, I would be willing to volunteer my resources as an ‘expert’ for no financial gain in a situation like this.
The ecstasy of reducing their evidence to technobabble would be incredibly satisfying.
February 13th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
and yes, after reviewing the Daubert Standard, I have significantly competent experience and professionally verifiable education to easily pass for an expert in Internet Protocols, Interoperability and related Functional Engineering.
February 13th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
Now THAT would be helpful. If more techs out there like you are willing to do that,
not only would it significantly reduce costs for innocent victims, but an army of free
tech experts would strike significant fear into the black hearts of the RIAA.
E-mail Ray Beckerman, pay a visit to his site, and ask him how you can go about volunteering,
your services. If you know others that would also qualify, point them that way as well.
Hopefully, a list of available Daubert qualified expert witnesses can be built, as well as
the victim fund.
Every little bit goes a long way to show INNOCENT victims that they have a fighting chance.
February 13th, 2009 at 11:34 pm
im not sure how to answer that….
lemme think about it.
February 13th, 2009 at 11:49 pm
Not asking for an answer.
Just putting a thought out there, hoping it gets around to
the right ears.
We come here, seeing the crap the RIAA pull, day in and day out.
We see how they use their full financial weight against people who
simply do not have the financial means to fight them, because of
the false premise that the RIAA labels can’t compete with free.
Obviously we can never come up with enough money to fight
on an equal footing so the only solution is to have volunteers
with the tech expertise needed to force them to see just how
tough it can be to compete with free.
Every day I see people here with the tech skills needed to show
a judge just how wrong the RIAA ‘expert’ is, but THAT EXPERTISE
IS NEEDED IN A COURT.
Those with the expertise to prove just how off base the RIAA accusations
need to do it, in a courtroom, because it is the right thing to do.
If our side is unwilling to help without being paid a huge fee then we
are just as bad as the RIAA goons doing the injustice.
Whats that old saying about evil prospering because good men do nothing ?
As I said, I sure as hell would, but there is no way I would pass Daubert standards,
and there are too many holes in my self taught education.
Are we better than them, or are we the same ?
It’s just a thought, an idea, but on the net, ideas travel fast and I can only hope
that this is an idea that can catch on, and catch on quickly.
February 14th, 2009 at 12:21 am
unfortunately, my hesitation is personal.
‘our’ first precept is that you don’t connect your internet ‘persona’ to your IRL (in real life) ‘persona’, it’s just not done.
it’s a fine line I walk here concerning interested parties other than the MAFIAA. How do you think Matt Oppenheimer is gonna feel after I slap his ‘expert’ around in public? A fell blow for the innocent, no doubt, but at what cost?
exposing their technobabble is fairly simple, I was going to sniff the judge’s connection and bring ’screenshots’ that contradict MediaSentry’s and their moron ‘expert’ that indeed showed the judge engaged in illicit file sharing, and ask which one was ‘accurate’? exposing the lie that their ‘evidence’ is just so much snake oil and fiction that a college student, or graphic designer could give better evidence.
February 14th, 2009 at 12:30 am
‘If our side is unwilling to help without being paid a huge fee then we
are just as bad as the RIAA goons doing the injustice.’
I have to differ, the 3k fee is fairly low, and probably the discount rate. The mind and education flexed by high end thinkers doesn’t come cheap, it is how it’s monetized.
Microsoft has some seminars I am currently reviewing that are 3-5 days and range from 18k-48k for SQL 2008 Certification, just the tests are 300/ea x 6 tests.
stw
February 14th, 2009 at 10:57 am
” I have to differ, the 3k fee is fairly low, ”
Low to you, perhaps.
Take a poll of the types of people the RIAA targets deliberately,
( we already agree that it IS possible for them to target college
students ) and see how many of them consider 3,000 a bargain.
Thats my point.
” itâs a fine line I walk here concerning interested parties other than the MAFIAA. How do you think Matt Oppenheimer is gonna feel after I slap his âexpertâ around in public? A fell blow for the innocent, no doubt, but at what cost? ”
Sounds a lot like the murder witnesses to mob hits that ’see nothing’ out of fear.
Looks like the AA’s are going to win.
If the people who are capable of stopping them are
too afraid or too greedy to help, they won’t be stopped.
( I am NOT saying either apply to you, I am comparing the
situation to the old Chicago mob days, and current gang climate )
Just pass the idea around, somewhere, someone just might step up to
the plate.
February 14th, 2009 at 11:22 am
don’t think I have flat out dismissed the idea, that’s not the case. I have already ‘assisted’ Ray on several occasions with technical advice and he doesn’t even know it.
I feel for the victims of these lawsuit extortion dramas, however, ignorance of the world is not an excuse. I realized what Napster stood for back when the RIAA raped it out of existence. And Morpheus, and Limewire, and Kazaa and BitTorrent. I did the due diligence and banned these protocols years and years ago, how is it so hard that only I came to this conclusion?
Sure the lawsuit campaign is fixed. Ultra super, to the top of government fixed. Methodically, and quite deviously the MAFIAA sues Kazaa to default the shared folder, then goes looking for people using it. I read an article on TorrentFreak where the MPAA seeded movies to BitTorrent and were then sending out litigation letters to ISPs minutes later for the seed. This isn’t a game the average Joe is gonna win. Then with data collected on Kazaa users they petition Congress/Parliment/Commisions, whatever for more stringent IP laws, and copyright infringement extentions, and stiffer penalties, including considering criminal charges. I mean cmon. The best solution is stay out of the way of this freight train, not stand in front of it.
It is my government’s job to stand up to these asshats, and they don’t, so what’s that tell me? It’s not gonna get better, only worse.
The world is run by the elite now, not even a mountainous pile of Jammie Thomas verdicts will change that. I am not a defeatist, only a realist.
Besides, if they want to sue Joel for a cool million for 7 songs, imagine how pissed they would be knowing the full truth behind the file sharing scene, and that I have close to 700,000 songs, and even I am only a drop in the ocean.
stw
February 14th, 2009 at 11:27 am
This is an idea and debate that deserves an article of it’s own,
with the pro’s and cons.
Too bad i’m shit for a writer.
i’ll put some thought to it.
February 14th, 2009 at 11:33 am
agreed. I have submitted an article to Jon about the new Air Force tool to sniff BitTorrent networks, and I have to write another File Sharing 101 article this weekend as well.
I am probably a unique case. I am an ‘expert’, yet I am also a ‘pirate’.. he eh , being an expert kinda made me a pirate, ironic.
February 14th, 2009 at 11:52 pm
Surfer,
Great article, and like others I’m looking forward to the next one.
Back in the day i was using Klite for P2P, and would you believe, I got a copy of PS
that had a tag reading ………….”Share the wealth”???? can’t TY enuff 4 that file!!
February 15th, 2009 at 1:03 am
stw