I. Introduction

Peer-to-peer networking, an advent of the twenty-first century, has revolutionized the way files are transferred and shared. While the individual has taken advantage of this technology, the music and film industries have been far less receptive to P2P networks such as Kazaa, Limewire, and BitTorrent. In response, the Recording Industry Association of America has launched an anti-piracy campaign using litigation as their main weapon. The extensive use of P2P networks in our society has also raised numerous ethical questions, leading to a discrepancy in opinion between different groups. The ever-increasing use of P2P networks like BitTorrent will force the music industry to evolve, while both the individual and the artist reap the benefits.

II. Background

Before the creation of P2P networks, files had to be kept on a dedicated, centralized server. This resulted in high upkeep costs for companies and a reliance on a functional server. A P2P network, however, does not rely on a single server. It is a decentralized network where each computer has equivalent capabilities and responsibilities (Mitchell). This allows files to be shared with relative ease over the network, as each computer is connected and is not restricted by geographic location. P2P is technically defined as:

…a class of applications that take advantage of the resources – storage, cycles, content, human presence – available at the edges of the Internet. Compared with the traditional client-server architecture of the Internet, a P2P application has the important properties that each peer node belongs to a different owner, and pays and contributes its own resource in return of the service rendered by the P2P network. Thus, the peer is both a resource provider and a resource consumer. As more and more nodes join the P2P network and demand on the system increases, the total resource of the system also increases. (Li 46)

This has led to an explosion in P2P applications like Gnutella and Freenet, in which a computer can gain access to this network simply by downloading the application. Once the program has been downloaded, the client computer can then exchange files with any other computer on the vast network. This concept became widespread with the introduction of Napster, a user-friendly MP3 file-sharing program that became the world’s most popular software application almost overnight (Mitchell). After it was shut down in a fierce court battle, other P2P applications stepped in.

P2P use has been increasing every year since the turn of the millennium. “The traffic analysis conducted by CacheLogic…illustrates that ever since year 2003, P2P file-sharing traffic has surpassed web traffic and becomes the single largest traffic type by volume on ISP networks. Now on the Internet backbone, 65–70% of the traffic can be attributed to the P2P” (Li). This surge in popularity is only going to continue in the future. Recent studies indicate that P2P growth has not slowed despite significant court wins by anti-piracy groups (Rodriguez 78).

III. Applications

The BitTorrent file-sharing protocol has been at the forefront of the P2P revolution. BitTorrent allows users to transfer large amounts of data without putting much stress on a single computer, while still allowing users with small bandwidth capabilities to take part in large data transfers. But how does it work? First, a user makes a file — a seed — available on the BitTorrent network. Other users called peers can then download the seeds. Each peer takes only part of the data from each seed, preventing an individual computer from becoming overwhelmed.  After the download is completed, the peer becomes a seed, allowing others to download the file. The individual files are downloaded in the form of another tiny file called a torrent, which must be loaded into a BitTorrent client. This client is what allows the user to be connected to the vast BitTorrent network. 

Connecting to the BitTorrent network via a personal computer is a relatively simple process. By downloading a BitTorrent client like Vuze (formally Azureus), Transmission, or Microtorrent, the user has full access to the P2P network. Once downloaded, the user can simply visit torrent sites—also called P2P search engines—that contain vast collections of files. Once the file is downloaded, it is then loaded into the BitTorrent client. The download will commence, and depending on the user’s connection speed, will download until completion. Once the file transfer is complete, the user will become a seeder, contributing a piece of the file to other peers. This is what keeps the P2P network functioning, allowing torrents to have good “health.”

III. Discussion

As a result of the BitTorrent network and other P2Ps, piracy has become a major problem for the music and film industries. The infringement of copyright law can be categorized into two spectrums: piracy and softlifting (Prasad 223). Piracy is the theft of copyrighted material for monetary gain, while softlifting is the copying of protected software onto multiple computers for personal gain. While great strides have been made to reduce both piracy and softlifting, offenders always seem to be able to circumvent any protective measures. The explosion in P2P traffic has made it virtually impossible to curb piracy, which in turn has greatly affected the music industry. The decline in CD sales in Spain over the past few years is arguably due to the development of P2P networks (Sandulli 325). The results of Sandulli’s study indicates that P2P users’ behavior is not consistent. Some users use P2P as a substitute for CDs, while other users feel that P2P is more complimentary. This view is shown by RIAA spokesmen Jonathan Lamy, who looks to a recent study by market tracker NPD Group showing that in 2008, 18% of Internet users downloaded music or other media from a pirate site, compared with 22% who opted for a legitimate site (Juskalian). This detracts from the opinion of the music industry and gives credence to proponents of P2P networks. However, the inevitable truth remains that CDs will eventually become obsolete due in part to P2P technology.

While the BitTorrent network receives flak from the recording industry, P2P networks have a variety of positive aspects. For the new musician and small companies, P2P provides a favorable distribution scheme. This allows for greater competition, which then cause software and music companies who are victims of piracy to invest in research and development, increasing innovation (Prasad 221). Software, for example, has benefited from piracy. Piracy has provided an efficient method of distribution, because as Rajeev Prasad notes, software is only as valuable as the users make it. Also, the relationship between revenue lost and revenue gained due to piracy is closer to equilibrium than many think (Prasad 227). When an individual pirates a piece of software in MP3 format, that person is more likely to either spread awareness to his/her peers or purchase other products from that company. While there is definite revenue loss in the short run, the increase in audience leads to higher revenues in the long run.

The RIAA has not taken kindly to the development of P2P file-sharing networks like BitTorrent. In response, the RIAA has gone through the judicial system to shut down torrent sites. One such BitTorrent tracker that was sued is The Pirate Bay. The Swedish site’s founders were collectively fined $3.6 million and sentenced to a year in jail each for helping violate copyright law (Raphael). The Pirate Bay’s founders are now planning on creating a new service called IPREDator that does not keep a log of consumer activity, greatly increasing user anonymity. The Pirate Bay and Napster both teach a lesson about modern P2P networks: when one tracker gets shut down, many others proliferate in its place like a virus. As Karl Bode, editor of Broadbandreports.com, says, “‘I’ve seen every attempt in the book to reduce peer-to-peer piracy, but it just continues to grow”’ (Juskalian).

After initiating lawsuits against 35,000 people, the RIAA is realizing that attacking the individual will not stop the growing phenomenon of P2P file-sharing. Instead, the organization is sending warning letters to Internet service providers (ISPs) in the hope that they will shut down the pirate. Once the user has been identified, many ISPs will sever their Internet connection or severely limit their bandwidth allowance (Juskalian). One major limitation of BitTorrent is that its users are not fully anonymous; the ISP has full access to what the user has downloaded and uploaded. Many ISPs, however, refuse to comply with the RIAA and will not reveal the names of file sharers. The case Verizon v. RIAA greatly altered the landscape of the P2P battle and highlighted the conflict between privacy and intellectual property rights. At first, the Court ruled on the side of the RIAA, causing many ISPs to comply with the music industry. After the decision, Verizon went to the United States Court of Appeals. The Appeals Court ruled that it does not have the authority to enforce the measures the RIAA requested (Grodzinsky 244). This ruling suggested that while sympathetic towards the copyright holders, the Court could not overlook the issue of privacy.

IV. Effects on Piracy

The emergence of file-sharing through P2P networks has led to the questioning of where the line should be drawn between the protection of privacy versus the protection of intellectual property. The laws that stand between the two are known as copyright laws. “According to Jessica Litman, the original purpose of the copyright law in the U.S. was to encourage the production and dissemination of works of authorship. It was a model that encouraged sharing because it required authors who wanted copyright protection to request it” (Grodzinksy 247). This is why sharing digital information in the form of books and scholarly journal articles is not a problem; credit and consent are easily given. The problem with copyright law is that it is nearly impossible to find the owner of the material in question. The question of who owns the rights to many music files are intricate; does it belong to the artist, the record label, the industry itself, or the distributor? In making the mere ownership of a digital media source without proper consent a crime, the RIAA is creating a muddled “middle-ground” in copyright law due to the sheer difficulty in acquiring such consent.

The RIAA is holding ISPs partially responsible for piracy, and in response, many are increasing surveillance on their users. Universities, for example, have begun to monitor the downloading and uploading activities of students. Many ISPs have become “Gestapo-esque”, overseeing invasive actions on personal autonomy. (Grodzinsky 248). Like piracy, this invasion of privacy can be construed as unethical. Unless a highly unlikely equilibrium forms between protection for intellectual property and personal privacy, one side will always have the advantage. Currently, the only way the problem has been tackled is through the legal system, which has historically expanded property rights in exchange for diminished privacy.

For individual file sharers, rationalizing piracy is relatively easy. Softlifting and piracy lack a clear, identifiable victim. Instead, the victim is a corporation or company for whom individual has no sympathy. Society also dictates file-sharing as socially-acceptable, removing the concern of a guilty conscience. Even when individuals are aware of intellectual copyright infringement, their moral judgement is unaffected. It is also easy to rationalize that the music companies and artists still live luxurious lifestyles despite prevalent piracy. Others will blame the record companies for charging exorbitant prices for CDs. Many use P2P as a method to sample an artist’s discography before purchasing the CD. Lastly, the abundance of free music on the Internet has created the illusion that pirating is completely ethical (Shang 351). Members of cyberguilds like Demonoid.com and PassThePopcorn.org follow the norm of reciprocity, which holds that the download-to-upload ratio should be as close to 50% as possible. This contributes to the belief that piracy is ethically acceptable.

V. Conclusion

P2P networks like BitTorrent have revolutionized the way files are shared, causing an surge in piracy and raising questions of cyberethics. With over 60 million P2P music users and growing, the music industry has seen its welfare placed in jeopardy (Grodzinksky 249). It has begun a fight for its life, sparking a battle between intellectual copyright law and the protection of personal privacy under the United States Constitution. The battle has just begun; brace for the sequel.

Works Cited

Grodzinsky, Frances S. and Herman T. Tavani. “P2P Networks and the Verizon v. RIAA Case: Implications for Personal Privacy and Intellectual Property.” Ethics and Information Technology 7.4 (2005), 243 – 250.

Mitchell, Bradley. “P2P Networking and P2P Software.” About.com. The New York Times Company, 2009. Web. 10 Nov. 2009. <http://compnetworking.about.com>.

Prasad, Rajeev. “Piracy Over Peer-To-Peer Based on Personal Network.” Wireless Personal Communications 37.3-4 (2006), 221 – 231.

Raphael, J. R. “File Sharing’s Future After the Pirate Bay Verdict.” PC World 27.7 (2009): 13. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 20 Oct. 2009.

Rodriguez, Pablo, See-Mong Tan, and Christos Gkantsidis. “On the feasibility of commercial, legal P2P content distribution.” ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review 36.1 (2006), 75-78.

Russ, Juskalian “10 years after Napster, online pirates alive and well.” USA Today n.d.: Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 20 Oct. 2009.

Sandulli, Francesco D. “CD music purchase behaviour of P2P users.” Technovation 27.6-7 (2007), 325-334.

Shang, Rong-An, Yu-Chen Chen, and Pin-Cheng Chen. “Ethical Decisions About Sharing Music Files in the P2P Environment.” Journal of Business Ethics 80.2 (2008), 349 – 365.

BitTorrent Presentation

Don’t do this on a college campus, at work, or anywhere where some other entity is liable besides yourself.

Throughout the science fiction genre, the concept of time travel’s paradoxical nature is thoroughly explored. Chris Marker’s La Jetée and Terry Gilliam’s 12 Monkeys use time travel as a vehicle to explain the human psyche and its relation to memories. By doing so, these two films reveal how natural the pondering of time travel is and exemplifies the level of appeal that the time paradox presents. The allure of time travel lies in man’s desire to change past events and relates to the interconnected elements of the past, present, and future.

The human mind naturally visualizes the past, which is manifested in dreams and memories. Since the propensity to focus on the past is innate, so is the desire to change previous events. This idea is clearly illustrated in both La Jetée and 12 Monkeys. In La Jetée, the Man chooses to go back in time to be with his love, but is shot by an agent on the pier. This suggests that once an event occurs, it is unalterable; the Man cannot escape his past. This concept is also explored in 12 Monkeys, albeit in a more ambiguous fashion. It is unclear whether Jones stops Dr. Peters from spreading the virus. Ironically or intentionally, Jones introduces herself as being “in insurance,” which could have multiple meanings. It suggests that Jones is insurance for the human race, but also could simply act as a coincidence. If Jones is insinuating that she is insurance for humanity, then she most likely stops Dr. Peters from releasing the virus. While the resolution of the film is still up for interpretation, one thing is very clear: Cole fails to kill Dr. Peters before he boards his flight. In addition, Cole perishes just as he did in his dream. This supports the idea that some elements of the past cannot be changed, despite the technology depicted in the two films.

Time can only move in one direction: forwards or backwards (Groleau). Thus, time travel depends on the principle that all events happen in the present, disregarding the temporal continuity we possess as humans (Kawin 16). In order to grasp the concept of time travel, we must first discern the notion that time is continuous. This is represented by the use of still images in La Jetée. Each image is seamlessly integrated so that the film seems continuous without actually being so (Perry). Since every moment is a memory, it can be replayed as the present. A memory, however, cannot be altered and is still considered the present when rewound (Kawin 17). The “new” present then creates an original future, while still leaving the past unchanged. Thus, the beginning of both films are identical to their end, because the resolution is predetermined during the two main characters’ flashbacks.

Currently we are unable to fully comprehend the concept of time travel. Whenever man cannot explain an uncertain phenomena, humanity fabricates extraordinary tales. In this case, these two films represent a fictional representation that explains the uses of time travel and predicts its limitations. Interestingly, these uses and limitations are similarly depicted in each film. Taking into account that La Jetée is French and that 12 Monkeys is American, this shows that traveling through time has a universal appeal and a similar representation. Also, the physics of time travel are still not understood, which is shown in both films.  For example, the scientists in 12 Monkeys send Cole into the wrong era multiple times, and one of the scientists makes an off-hand remark that they still lack the knowledge necessary to perfect time travel. In La Jetée, the underground scientists repeatedly fail to have a subject successfully achieve the goal they seek. Until the Man is used in their temporal experimentation, the scientists fail to find a subject capable of a successful time warp. Relying on the Man’s obsessive memory of a childhood dream, the Man is able to withstand the disorientation of time travel (Coppen). This suggests that time travel is not possible for every individual, requiring certain mental characteristics. Of course, since both films are works of fiction, this conclusion is baseless.

The essence of time travel is paradoxical in nature. In both films, the heros fail in their respective quest to return to a previous life. The captors, on the other hand, successfully complete their goal; Jones reaches Dr. Peters and the captors in La Jetée gain the technology necessary to return to the surface of the Earth. This duality suggests that time travel can be utilized successfully for some but not others. This also suggests that time travel is able to change the course of history, but this representation is seen in fictional films, detracting from its validity. The films support the idea that the past can be both alterable and fixed, adding to the paradoxical nature of time travel itself. The two films also illustrate that the past and future are the keys to the present. The past can be used as a tool to eradicate undesirable outcomes, while knowledge of the future can be used to avert disasters or negative experiences.
The past, present, and future are all connected by humanity’s ultimate desire to alter past events. This regret forms the basis for man’s strong thirst to unlock the secrets of time travel. The films La Jetée and 12 Monkeys illustrate both regret as a catalyst for discovery and the paradoxical nature of time travel.

Human Computation
Luis von Ahn, an assistant professor at Carnegie Mellon University, researches novel ways to utilize human processing power in order to solve problems that even the most sophisticated computers cannot.  He presents his research via a video presentation on Google Video (url:http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8246463980976635143#). Ahn recognizes that humans spend inordinate amounts of time participating in activities that lack measurable productivity. By creatively channelling the power of human processing, Ahn suggests that seemingly arduous tasks can be easily solved.

If time is money, the average person wastes an extraordinary amount of it. Ahn points out that humans played over nine billion hours of the card game solitaire in 2003. If these “wasted human cycles” are converted into productive cycles, then tedious tasks that only man can accomplish can be completed with relative ease. One way of doing this is to set up a game in which the players do the work of its maker while still having fun. In his presentation, Ahn unveils the ESPgame, which labels images for better search engine results while its users are having fun. This duality allows the creator to achieve his goal of image labeling without paying any extraneous costs for labor. In an effort to ensure accuracy, several controls are placed into the game. These give his research credence because it assures the job is done as well with the game as it would be done by paying someone to complete the task. Since each player knows the purpose of the game, there is no trickery involved. This takes out all the ethical questions that revolve around this form of free labor.

Computers are unable to process facts that we deem to be common knowledge. Physically entering in these “common-sense” phrases into a database is not feasible due to the obscene amount of time required to do so. In order to solve this problem, Ahn created a game called Verbosity. Verbosity is conceptually-similar to the ESPGame, creating a compilation of facts to be used in improving artificial intelligence. Perhaps the most impressive mechanism involved in this game is how accurate the common-sense facts are. This is due to the fact that it is has asymmetric verification.  This form of applied mathematics works in both Verbosity and Peekaboom. The research suggests that this method can be used for a variety of open problems in artificial intelligence. A problem that cannot be solved using artificial intelligence can be solved using a form of a CAPTCHA. These CAPTCHAs, however, can be compromised by certain ploys and scams. On the other hand, the problem can be solved by creating a game in which the players fix the problem as a sort of side-effect. The idea to turn work into a game does have limitations. There will always be detractors; people will look for ways to cheat the system. If cheating becomes widespread, the quality of the work will dramatically decrease. Another limitation is popularity among players. Most games see  an exponential decay in popularity as time increases since its release. Unless the creator can find a way to spice up the game, its popularity will wane. This can be avoided by adding new features, improving the layout, improving accessibility, etc.

Ahn’s research is a promising and ingenious way to solve tedious problems in a cheap and efficient manner. By feasting on the social tendencies of the individual, Ahn has created several games that people want to play and has succeeded in forming a personal connection between the two players in each game. The connection between players is so strong that on occasion the players will ask Ahn to reveal the identity of their partner. This profound connection will only increase the time the player spends playing the game, and by extension, the amount of work that is accomplished. The problem, however, is that this method will only work in a constrained set of circumstances. Ahn compared his game creation to an art form, or a type of algorithm. Like an algorithm, there is no set process to finding a solution. This suggests that the future applications of his research will be sporadic. It is the responsibility of the artist, or in this case, the creator, to harness the power of human cycles.