- Related Stories
-
BitTorrent to open digital-media store
February 23, 2007 -
Aiming to unclog legitimate P2P
August 7, 2006 -
VeriSign to acquire Kontiki
March 13, 2006 -
BitTorrent to crack down on use of name
February 6, 2006 - Related Blogs
-
Outlawed at Ohio U: P2P file sharing
April 26, 2007 -
BitTorrent receives $20 million in financing
November 30, 2006 -
Host your big files in the P2P cloud
July 6, 2006
(continued from previous page)
We come in peace. BitTorrent, the company, does not support piracy. In fact, piracy is our biggest competitor and the most significant challenge to making our company profitable.
That said, the potential for tech-aided piracy begs a few fundamental questions. Why aren't similarly broad actions being taken to block other technologies that can be used to transfer and share copyrighted material (such as newsgroups, FTP, IM and e-mail--along with photocopiers, printers and CD burners)? Can the techniques implemented to manage the abuses of other technologies be applied to P2P? Why isn't Ohio University working with P2P industry leaders to find productive solutions, instead of copping out with unilateral bans?
And why are university policy makers not raising awareness for the legal services to rent or purchase content legally? More effectively, why doesn't the campus reply to industry pressure with a plea for steep college discounts and more aggressive marketing support for legal download services like iTunes and the BitTorrent Entertainment Network?
Ohio University has a responsibility to its community that is clearly undercut by this ban. Experimentation and adoption of any new technology undoubtedly opens the door to unforeseen risks. But we have the simultaneous obligation to monitor and manage any new risks that surface and apply ingenuity to address them. American universities bear the absolute obligation to lead the world with their openness to new ideas wherever they originate.
By applying a short-sighted, arbitrary ban on a technology with so many redeeming uses, Ohio University has deprived its students, faculty and staff of a powerful tool, as well as censored a treasure trove of information and entertainment that is not available through any means other than P2P. It has created an environment that doesn't prepare its people for the "real world" where P2P technologies are being adopted in powerful, constructive ways. Worse yet, the university's administration has set a terrible precedent for its staff on the desirability of seeking creative ways to support new technologies.
My prediction is that this ban will have a devastating effect on Ohio University's ambitions in computer science, engineering and IT, particularly as most of the country's leading engineering schools are embracing innovative ways to manage P2P traffic. The ban could even hurt general enrollment for the school. Who wants to spend what could be their most formative years in an environment that seeks to stunt creativity and innovation? It's antithetical to what we, as students and parents, want from higher education.
If you're an Ohio University student, you should follow the instructions in the dean's note. Contact the IT service desk to get an exemption and exercise it. Download a photo from space for a term paper from NASA's Visible Earth series. Or download some of the thousands of legal movies, TV shows and music at the BitTorrent Entertainment Network. Or reduce the cost of servers for your school by "torrenting" the documents on your campus Web server--it's as simple as 1-2-3.
P2P isn't the enemy. Narrow-minded policy that thwarts innovation is.
Biography
Ashwin Navin is president and co-founder of BitTorrent. He is currently
See more CNET content tagged:
P2P, BitTorrent, ban, hybrid car, student
Without doubt, BitTorrent & Limewire et al are 99% tools for
downloading music & movies. But there still remains a legitimate
use which can't be developed or realised without
experimentation & innovative ideas - hard to do if you are tech
restricted.
I also find it hard to believe that even the "thou shalt not"-ers
don't have a bit of Spiderman 3 when the curtains are drawn.
Legally it's a difficult one, but I'm a firm believer in Uni being a
place you can break rules & test the water - part of the learning
process.
A fun idea: Anyone enrolled in computer/internet related
courses is exempt from the ban. The official stance being that
full access is part of the learning process. The bonus is that the
'geeks' get to trade movies for 'jock-free' lunch breaks.
I use BitTorrent and Limewire and am pretty sure I don't have malware. Off course that might have to to with the fact I am not downloading software or other executable file types (except from trusted sources). People who don't keep their software up to date, are connect to network with other, browse (or download from) untrusted websites, and/or open email attachments are also easily comprised and I would argue likely comprise a fairly large precentage of those on a university network.
"I don't believe we need to allow students access to "burglary tools" in order for them to get an education."
Any system that allows people to connect to each other with suffcient speed can be a "burglary tool". For example, the ability of Windows to create shared resources can easily be used as such. The MyTunes addon for iTunes turns it in to music sharing platform. The point is that technology can be abused and those that want something for free are probably going to get it. Not all P2P is filesharing is bad, some of it is uses are very legitament like distributed computing and VoIP(Skype). A blanket ban on P2P was merely the quickest solution that presented it's self and Ohio Univerities administrators went for it.
And let's be fair: do you really think 20,000 college students at OU are using P2P for "legitimate" purposes? I'm not sure how old I was when I started to respect copyright laws, but the majority of 18-to-22-year-olds I know couldn't care less...
If your college found it's network insufficent to handle existing traffic, then perhapse an upgrade should have been implemented, not a blanket ban on technology.
Let's just pass all these kids to Ohio State... who needs a good CS program anyhow? Come on.
-disgruntled alum
P2P on institutional systems is generally NOT used for institutional business and does present its own security issues, beyond that of unnecessary use of bandwidth.
Students will find that in many more Institutions than they may think so if they choose to leave for that reason then maybe they were attending for the wrong reasons to start with.
I see no mistake at Ohio University.
What about computer science students needing to learn how P2P works with an eye towards creating the next generation of P2P software.
Seriously, you don't have a clue!
this is a horror show. If my son wanted to major in computer science or any related IT field, he most definatly would not be going to this school that blocks technology that is ever increasing in use out in the real world. blocking access to real world technology isn't going to prepair him for the real world workplace. I hope all of this school's students recognize this, and enroll elsewhere.
But what about the other uses of P2P? Such as Skype? Does this block the use of this service? What about popular games such as World of Warcraft, who use a BitTorrent setup to distribute patches?
While I don't think there's an easy way to differentiate between 'legal' and 'illegal' downloads at this point, I don't think the blanket ban is all that great. Not to say I don't blame them for doing it, but I think a better solution should be researched.
P2P has many legitimate uses and a network at a public school has no business blocking legitimate traffic.
To insulate the institution, it was correct to eliminate P2P for the entire network that they provide. There are other connectivity options for those who still want P2P.
term used to describe a method. That being said, the President
of the university, and his staff is showing some grave ignorance,
and unfounded fear.
I'm too tired to continue, but the author of this story is way off
base, not indicating the president is wrong, but for his
continued misconstrued use of the term P2P. The president of
the university is way way off because he illustrates a lack of
knowledge we do not expect from the president of an
educational institution.
Technology: The application of scientifi knowledge for practical
purposes, esp. in industry. Machinery and equipment developed
from such scientific knowledge. The branch of knowledge
dealing with engineering or applied sciences.
Methodology: A system of methods used in a particular area of
study or activity.
Method: A particular form of procedure for accomplishing or
approaching something, esp. a systematic or established one.
Orderliness of thought or behaviour; systematic planning or
action.
P2P stands for peer to peer communications. In laymans terms,
its the ability for to systems to talk directy with each other, like a
phone call. This means, that once these to systems are
connected, they do not use a server a manage their connections.
Tell me, how in the hell do you ban that, and if you did manage
to ban that ability, how in the hell is that supposed to help.
Especially in an institutions whose entiire purpose is for
learning?
There are way too many people with points of view that are
completely invalid because their lack of understanding disqualifies
them from being considered serious. But put a whole pack of
them together, then its suddenly news, and the rest of the people
start to think its the truth.
P2P specifically refers to a class of applications based on the
idea of an overlay network, in which there are no servers. This is
why it is "peer to peer" networking; the point is that all nodes in
the network are equal.
That's the sense in which the article is using it, and it's what
Ohio University is banning.
In fact, they're specifically banning peer-to-peer *filesharing*,
according to their policy statement.
but a term used to describe a method. That being said, Ohio
University, is showing some grave ignorance, and unfounded
fear.
With all due respects, the author of this story is off base for
referring to P2P as a technology, not for indicating that Ohio
University is wrong. Ohio University is way off because it is
illustrating a lack of understanding by attempting to "throw the
baby out with the bath water".
P2P stands for Peer-to-Peer communications. In layman's
terms, it is the ability for two systems to talk directly with each
other, similar to a phone call. Once the two systems have
identified each other, using their internet protocol (IP) addresses,
and a one or more ports, communicate efficiently without the
use of a server. Think of P2P as two systems talking to each
other without a middle man in-between to manage information.
This is an important methodology in computer applications, and
design. It is in part, the reason the internet was created in the
first place. To place a blanket ban on P2P is an irresponsible
move by any institution for higher learning.
I have included three definitions, for "Technology",
"Methodology", and "Method" respectively:
Technology: The application of scientific knowledge for practical
purposes, especially in industry. Machinery and equipment
developed from such scientific knowledge. The branch of
knowledge dealing with engineering or applied sciences.
Methodology: A system of methods used in a particular area of
study or activity.
Method: A particular form of procedure for accomplishing or
approaching something, esp. a systematic or established one.
Orderliness of thought or behaviour; systematic planning or
action.
Any institution should have the rights to limit, restrict, or ban
the use of software that is (not thought to be) detrimental to
their program(s)/agenda. When a problem is known, it should
be identified, documented, then a planned solution to lessen
and/or eliminate the problem should be created. Labeling a
critical methodology as the source, and cause of a problem is
simply irresponsible.
I hope Ohio University can leverage some their actual knowledge
base, instead of actually knee-jerking and kicking over the table
instead of fixing it.
legitimate users versus the number of people using it to steal
stuff (music/software/movies) is pitiful. Now, banning it clearly
won't help to promote legitimate use, but it does help to curb
some of the problematic uses.
Besides the issue of people using P2P to get stuff for free,
without paying those whose hard work went into it, there are
other problems with current P2P technology, including:
1. A lot of spyware, trojans and viruses are distributed as part of
supposed P2P software. Even "legitimate" P2P software
sometimes comes jammed full of adware.
2. Some P2P packages share various locations by default. This
means that some users are sharing files they did not intend; or,
put another way, the P2P software they are running is sharing
files *without their knowledge!*
3. A lot of malware is distributed via P2P. It's a good way to
distribute it because it's a royal pain even for law enforcement to
track down the origin of a particular file on some of the P2P
networks. Also, people are less likely to complain about "Free
Latest Version of Microsoft Word.exe" being a computer virus,
because they'll be worried about the consequences of being
caught with something they shouldn't have.
P2P does have some good uses, sure. Nobody could argue that
(for instance) distributing Ubuntu via P2P is a good thing, taking
a lot of load away from the distribution servers and making it
easier for others to get it. To my mind, the problem with P2P is
not that it's peer-to-peer, it's the (wholly unnecessary)
anonymity. If your sharing is good for all of us, then why would
you *not* want it to be known that it was you doing the sharing?
On the other hand, if you're sharing things you shouldn't, you're
screwing *everyone* else. For instance, if I buy a copy of
Spiderman 3 when it comes out, some of my money will go, in
taxes, to various governments, my own included; that will be
used for a variety of things, many of which everyone would
agree are good - e.g. education, healthcare, looking after the
elderly and the poor. If, on the other hand, I steal it via a P2P
system, nothing is paid to the governments in tax, so effectively
you steal not only from the producers of the things you steal,
but also from the little old lady down the road, from the children
at the local school, from the man dying of cancer at the local
hospital. And yes, you may be stealing from some huge
corporation you might not like. But you're also stealing from the
guy who spends his day holding the boom mic, from the
carpenters who make the sets for movies, from the artists who
slave away at the graphics for video games. Those guys aren't
millionaires. They aren't rich. They're just trying to make a living.
It should be pretty obvious that anonymity isn't a good thing in
that case; the shame of those who openly steal from all of us,
and of those who help others to do so, should be visible to us
all.
is a necessary methodoglogy, among many, for computer
application design.
What I find disturbing (alarmingly disturbing), is your negative
stance against P2P because the transactions between two
systems are anonymous to a server, unless it is being "sniffed".
You attempt to create a debate over the use of P2P by citing
examples of how it can be misused. The problem with your
assertions is the examples you have mentioned are all software
related, and have nothing to do with P2P, except in the fact that
they may use P2P as a communications method. This is a real
problem, because those same examples can occur without P2P
as the commucations method.
P2P isn't bad. It is akin to saying point to point communication
is bad. In fact, that's exactly what you are saying. This cannot
be anything but wholly disturbing. Especially when applied to an
institution for higher learning. If this is the stance taken, then
no one who wishes to study computer science should even
attend Ohio University, or any institution that would restrict the
very aspects of what they must learn.
Yet it seems like a bad idea for consumers when used for business applications. Think about it, businesses are getting this practically free distribution ability by using the processing power and bandwidth of their paying customers. Now unless the companies will pass on the substantial savings (which of course the music/movie industry won't) why should I help companies make more money by using my resources without compensating me???
P2P has its place, but anyone who helps greedy companies make more money for free is an idiot.
If the RIAA wants to use my computer and internet connection I pay for to distribute their content then they better pay me in some form.
dismissive. Because of that, I would greatly appreciate hearing
your point of view. However, your current post is non-sensical
(it makes not sense).
It sounds like you are saying that P2P is bad
because it is a free distribution media. In addition, it appears
you are arguing that you computer is being used for an
inventory location for digital information.
Screw it, I can't help it. ARE YOU ON CRACK OR DID YOU FALL
ON YOUR HEAD AS A BABY!
Quit imagining things. If your computer is being used to store
information for others to pick up as if you were a distribution
center, and you don't know about it, you have serious issues,
none of which has anything to do with P2P.
If you think corporations NEED your computer to warehouse, and
share digital information you have simply lost your mind.
Blizzard is a good example. They are bringing in $50 million+ every month yet they use a bit torrent patch system.
It wouldn't be so bad except that it is far slower then a direct download. a 5mb patch can sometimes take hours on a fast connection.
Meanwhile free download sites offer the patches as direct downloads that are very fast. If a free site can afford direct downloads Blizzard certainly can.
What if I don't want you using my computer like this? As it stands, the bittorent client doesn't offer a level of transparency in what it's doing on my computer. If, for some reason, it's doing something I don't want it to do, I have only one of two choices: 1) get over it, or 2) uninstall the program.
So I'm not impressed with P2P. Until I can set up such a program to where I can know with certainty that it's not storing something I don't want stored on my computer, I'm opting out.
There are several BitTorrent clients, but if you're using the official one you can get the source code. As for the complaint about transparency, that argument can be made against most software (especially programs that connect to the internet). You don't know everything Windows or any third party app is doing.
I think you're confusing BitTorrent with projects likes Freenet were everyone donates a bit of their harddrive to help publish material some may wish to censor.
Your choice.
At the last place I was contracting at it was no gun sites, no porno sites, no gambling site, to IM programs, no bittorrent, no FTP, etc.
Learn it live it love it: When using someone else?s uber fast system, you simply have to accept restrictions.
It is a different environment and purpose then work places, you can not compare the two.
- Bandwidth doomsday scenario : red herring
- by sent2null May 9, 2007 4:15 PM PDT
- I won't touch on the actions taken by the University other than to say that they are simply trying to control a problem on their networks. Sure, there are probably better options that they can implement to do this (like ban specific p2p ports or programs instead of all p2p) but if they have a problem, they should not be knocked for trying to implement a solution.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(58 Comments)That said, I want to touch on the common refrain that the author makes in this article. Namely, that p2p is instrumental in alieviating the network conjestion on the internets routing nodes. It is true that client to server based traffic routes could be significantly distributed over more routing nodes when going from client - server distribution to peer to peer or mesh distribution methods but this does not really reduce the total traffic over the networks nodes. Ultimately, requests for files with large data sizes will tax the network and as more clients have switched from the low bandwidth lines (dial up, ISDN) to high bandwidth lines (dsl,cable,t1,fiber) this has opened up the desire for people to share larger files. The network infrastructure of the net has had no problem keeping up with the expanding bandwidth utilization metrics of the many client nodes that communicate on it. This is going to be less of a problem over time , not more of a problem thanks to the implementation of DWDM (dense wavelength division multiplexing) technologies on the trunk lines through which large telecoms route metropolitan, wide area and regional router traffic. So to say that internet bandwidth is in peril is a really red herring. DWDM allows a nearly infinite ability to generate bandwidth from thin air by using more lambdas on the fiber trunk lines that route the largest amounts of bandwidth. The idea that the internet would ever run out of bandwidth now is an obsolete one that might have been true 10 years ago before DWDM switches significantly dropped in price while simultaneously going up in the number of lambdas they could pack down a single fiber line. Couple this with the incredible amounts of entrenched dark fiber that the telecoms happily dropped into the infrastructure all over the world before the telecom crash of late 2000 and you see why bandwidth on the internet will never more be a problem, no matter what the clients do.
Regards,