Home  ›  Os It Legal to Upload a Song to the Internet Through Peer to Peer File Sharing

Os It Legal to Upload a Song to the Internet Through Peer to Peer File Sharing

Written By Thursday, April 14, 2022 Add Comment Edit

Data distribution using P2P networking applied science.

Peer-to-peer file sharing is the distribution and sharing of digital media using peer-to-peer (P2P) networking technology. P2P file sharing allows users to admission media files such equally books, music, movies, and games using a P2P software program that searches for other connected computers on a P2P network to locate the desired content.[1] The nodes (peers) of such networks are terminate-user computers and distribution servers (non required).

Peer-to-peer file sharing technology has evolved through several pattern stages from the early networks like Napster, which popularized the technology, to later models like the BitTorrent protocol. Microsoft uses it for Update distribution (Windows 10) and online playing games (east.thousand. the mmorpg Skyforge [ii]) use it every bit their content distribution network for downloading large amounts of information without incurring the dramatic costs for bandwidth inherent when providing only a unmarried source.

Several factors contributed to the widespread adoption and facilitation of peer-to-peer file sharing. These included increasing Internet bandwidth, the widespread digitization of concrete media, and the increasing capabilities of residential personal computers. Users are able to transfer one or more files from one computer to another across the Internet through diverse file transfer systems and other file-sharing networks.[i]

History [edit]

Peer-to-peer file sharing became popular with the introduction of Napster, a file sharing awarding and a gear up of central servers that linked people who had files with those who requested files. The central index server indexed the users and their shared content. When someone searched for a file, the server searched all available copies of that file and presented them to the user. The files would be transferred straight between private computers (peers/nodes). A limitation was that only music files could be shared.[three] Because this procedure occurred on a key server, still, Napster was held liable for copyright infringement and close downwards in July 2001. It afterwards reopened as a pay service.[4]

After Napster was shut down, the most pop peer-to-peer services were Gnutella and Kazaa. These services besides allowed users to download files other than music, such as movies and games.[iii]

Engineering evolution [edit]

Napster and eDonkey2000 both used a central server-based model. These systems relied on the operation of the respective key servers, and thus were susceptible to centralized shutdown. Their demise led to the rising of networks like Limewire, Kazaa, Morpheus, Gnutella, and Gnutella2, which are able to operate without whatever key servers, eliminated the central vulnerability by connecting users remotely to each other. However, these networks still relied on specific, centrally distributed client programs, so they could be bedridden past taking legal action against a sufficiently large number of publishers of the client programs. Sharman Networks, the publisher of Kazaa, has been inactive since 2006. StreamCast Networks, the publisher of Morpheus, shut downwards on April 22, 2008. Limewire LLC was shut downward in late 2010 or early on 2011. This cleared the way for the dominance of the Bittorrent protocol, which differs from its predecessors in two major ways. The showtime is that no private, group, or visitor owns the protocol or the terms "Torrent" or "Bittorrent", meaning that anyone tin can write and distribute customer software that works with the network. The 2d is that Bittorrent clients have no search functionality of their own. Instead, users must rely on third-party websites like Isohunt or The Pirate Bay to find "torrent" files, which function like maps that tell the client how to find and download the files that the user actually wants. These 2 characteristics combined offering a level of decentralization that makes Bittorrent practically impossible to close down. File-sharing networks are sometimes organized into three "generations" based on these different levels of decentralization.[5] [6]

And then-called darknets, including networks like Freenet, are sometimes considered to be 3rd-generation file-sharing networks.[seven] Soulseek is a first-generation file-sharing network that has escaped legal trouble and continues to operate in the third-generation era.

Peer-to-peer file sharing is too efficient in terms of cost.[8] [9] The system administration overhead is smaller because the user is the provider and unremarkably the provider is the administrator as well. Hence each network can be monitored by the users themselves. At the same time, large servers sometimes require more storage and this increases the price since the storage has to exist rented or bought exclusively for a server. However, unremarkably peer-to-peer file sharing does not crave a dedicated server.[10]

Economic impact [edit]

At that place is still ongoing discussion about the economic impact of P2P file sharing. Norbert Michel, a policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation, said that considering of "econometric and data issues, studies thus far take produced disparate estimates of file sharing'due south impact on album sales."[11]

In the book The Wealth of Networks, Yochai Benkler states that peer-to-peer file sharing is economically efficient and that the users pay the full transaction price and marginal cost of such sharing even if information technology "throws a monkey wrench into the detail mode in which our social club has chosen to pay musicians and re-cording executives. This trades off efficiency for longer-term incentive effects for the recording industry. However, information technology is efficient within the normal meaning of the term in economics in a way that it would not take been had Jack and Jane used subsidized computers or network connections".[12]

As peer-to-peer file sharing can be used to exchange files for which the distribution right was granted (e.g. public domain, Creative Eatables, Copyleft licenses, online games, updates, ...).

Specially startups can salvage massive amounts of money compared with other means of content commitment networks.

A calculation example:

with peer to peer file sharing: total toll = filesize customers × cost-per-byte {\displaystyle {\text{full price}}={\frac {\text{filesize}}{\text{customers}}}\times {\text{cost-per-byte}}}

with casual content delivery networks: full price = filesize × customers × price-per-byte {\displaystyle {\text{total price}}={\text{filesize}}\times {\text{customers}}\times {\text{cost-per-byte}}}

Music industry [edit]

The economic issue of copyright infringement through peer-to-peer file sharing on music revenue has been controversial and difficult to determine. Unofficial studies found that file sharing had a negative impact on record sales.[13] [fourteen] [15] [16] [17] Information technology has proven hard to untangle the crusade and effect relationships among a number of different trends, including an increase in legal online purchases of music; illegal file-sharing; drops in the prices of CDs; and the extinction of many independent music stores with a concomitant shift to sales by large-box retailers.[xviii]

Also many independent artists choose a peer-to-peer file sharing method named BitTorrent Package for distribution.

Motion-picture show industry [edit]

The MPAA reported that American studios lost $2.373 billion to Internet piracy in 2005, representing approximately one third of the total toll of film piracy in the Usa.[19] The MPAA'south estimate was doubted by commentators since information technology was based on the assumption that i download was equivalent to i lost auction, and downloaders might not purchase the movie if illegal downloading was not an selection.[xx] [21] [22] Due to the private nature of the study, the figures could not be publicly checked for methodology or validity,[23] [24] [25] and on Jan 22, 2008, equally the MPAA was lobbying for a bill which would compel universities to scissure downward on piracy, it was admitted by MPAA that its figures on piracy in colleges had been inflated by up to 300%.[26] [27]

A 2010 study, commissioned by the International Chamber of Commerce and conducted past contained Paris-based economics firm TERA, estimated that unlawful downloading of music, film and software toll Europe's creative industries several billion dollars in revenue each year.[28] Furthermore, the TERA study entitled "Building a Digital Economic system: The Importance of Saving Jobs in the Eu'due south Creative Industries" predicted losses due to piracy reaching every bit much as 1.ii million jobs and €240 billion in retail revenue by 2015 if the trend continued. Researchers applied a commutation charge per unit of x percent to the volume of copyright infringements per year. This rate corresponded to the number of units potentially traded if unlawful file sharing were eliminated and did not occur.[29] Piracy rates of one-quarter or more[ vague ] for popular software and operating systems accept been common, even in countries and regions with stiff intellectual property enforcement, such as the United States or the Eu.[thirty]

Public perception and usage [edit]

In 2004, an estimated 70 meg people participated in online file sharing.[31] Co-ordinate to a CBS News poll, well-nigh 70 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds thought file sharing was acceptable in some circumstances and 58 percent of all Americans who followed the file sharing issue considered information technology acceptable in at least some circumstances.[32]

In Jan 2006, 32 million Americans over the age of 12 had downloaded at least 1 feature-length moving-picture show from the Internet, 80 percent of whom had washed so exclusively over P2P. Of the population sampled, 60 percent felt that downloading copyrighted movies off the Cyberspace did not constitute a very serious offense, however 78 percentage believed taking a DVD from a store without paying for it constituted a very serious criminal offence.[33]

In July 2008, twenty percent of Europeans used file sharing networks to obtain music, while 10 pct used paid-for digital music services such equally iTunes.[34]

In February 2009, a Tiscali UK survey found that 75 per centum of the English public polled were enlightened of what was legal and illegal in relation to file sharing, but at that place was a dissever equally to where they felt the legal burden should be placed: 49 percent of people believed P2P companies should be held responsible for illegal file sharing on their networks, 18 percent viewed individual file sharers every bit the culprits, while xviii percent either didn't know or chose not to answer.[35]

According to an earlier poll, 75 per centum of immature voters in Sweden (18-xx) supported file sharing when presented with the argument: "I recall it is OK to download files from the Net, fifty-fifty if it is illegal." Of the respondents, 38 percent said they "adamantly agreed" while 39 percent said they "partly agreed".[36] An academic study amongst American and European higher students plant that users of file-sharing technologies were relatively anti-copyright and that copyright enforcement created backfire, hardening pro-file sharing beliefs among users of these technologies.[37]

Communities in P2P file sharing networks [edit]

Communities have a prominent role in many peer to peer networks and applications, such equally BitTorrent, Gnutella and DC++. There are different elements that contribute to the formation, evolution and the stability of these communities, which include interests, user attributes, cost reduction, user motivation and the dimension of the community.

Involvement attributes [edit]

Peer communities are formed on the basis of mutual interests. For Khambatti, Ryu and Dasgupta common interests can be labelled as attributes "which are used to determine the peer communities in which a particular peer can participate".[38] There are two ways in which these attributes tin can be classified: explicit and implicit attributes.

Explicit values are information that peers provide about themselves to a specific community, such as their involvement in a subject or their taste in music. With implicit values, users do not direct express information about themselves, admitting, it is still possible to find information about that specific user past uncovering his or her by queries and research carried out in a P2P network. Khambatti, Ryu and Dasgupta divide these interests further into three classes: personal, claimed and group attributes.[38]

A full set of attributes (common interests) of a specific peer is divers as personal attributes, and is a collection of information a peer has about him or herself. Peers may determine not to disclose data well-nigh themselves to maintain their privacy and online security. It is for this reason that the authors specify that "a subset of...attributes is explicitly claimed public by a peer", and they define such attributes as "claimed attributes".[38] The third category of interests is group attributes, defined equally "location or affiliation oriented" and are needed to class a...basis for communities", an example being the "domain name of an internet connectedness" which acts as an online location and group identifier for certain users.

Price reduction [edit]

Cost reduction influences the sharing component of P2P communities. Users who share exercise and so to attempt "to reduce...costs" as made clear by Cunningham, Alexander and Adilov.[39] In their work Peer-to-peer File Sharing Communities, they explain that "the act of sharing is costly since any download from a sharer implies that the sharer is sacrificing bandwidth".[39] As sharing represents the basis of P2P communities, such as Napster, and without it "the network collapses", users share despite its costs in order to attempt to lower their own costs, particularly those associated with searching, and with the congestion of net servers.[39]

User motivation and size of customs [edit]

User motivation and the size of the P2P customs contribute to its sustainability and activeness. In her work Motivating Participation in Peer to Peer Communities, Vassileva studies these 2 aspects through an experiment carried out in the University of Saskatchewan (Canada), where a P2P awarding (COMUTELLA) was created and distributed among students. In her view, motivation is "a crucial factor" in encouraging users to participate in an online P2P community, particularly because the "lack of a critical mass of agile users" in the grade of a community will not permit for a P2P sharing to role properly.[forty]

Usefulness is a valued attribute by users when joining a P2P community. The specific P2P system must be perceived every bit "useful" by the user and must be able to fulfil his or her needs and pursue his or her interests. Consequently, the "size of the community of users defines the level of usefulness" and "the value of the organisation determines the number of users".[forty] This two way process is defined by Vassileva equally a feedback loop, and has allowed for the birth of file-sharing systems like Napster and KaZaA. Notwithstanding, in her enquiry Vassileva has also found that "incentives are needed for the users in the beginning", peculiarly for motivating and getting users into the habit of staying online.[40] This can be done, for case, past providing the system with a wide amount of resources or by having an experienced user provide assistance to a less experienced one.

User classification [edit]

Users participating in P2P systems tin can exist classified in dissimilar ways. According to Vassileva, users can exist classified depending on their participation in the P2P system. There are five types of users to exist plant: users who create services, users who allow services, users who facilitate search, users who permit communication, users who are uncooperative and free ride.[forty]

In the first example, the user creates new resources or services and offers them to the community. In the 2nd, the user provides the community with disk space "to store files for downloads" or with "computing resource" to facilitate a service provided past some other users.[40] In the third, the user provides a listing of relationships to help other users find specific files or services. In the quaternary, the user participates actively in the "protocol of the network", contributing to keeping the network together. In the concluding situation, the user does not contribute to the network, downloads what he or she needs only goes immediately offline in one case the service is non needed anymore, thus costless-riding on the network and community resource.[twoscore]

Tracking [edit]

Corporations continue to combat the apply of the internet equally a tool to illegally re-create and share diverse files, especially that of copyrighted music. The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) has been active in leading campaigns against infringers. Lawsuits have been launched against individuals equally well every bit programs such as Napster in order to "protect" copyright owners.[ citation needed ] Ane try of the RIAA has been to implant decoy users to monitor the employ of copyrighted material from a immediate perspective.[41]

Risks [edit]

In early June 2002, Researcher Nathaniel Skilful at HP Labs demonstrated that user interface design issues could contribute to users inadvertently sharing personal and confidential information over P2P networks.[42] [43] [44]

In 2003, Congressional hearings before the Business firm Committee of Government Reform (Overexposed: The Threats to Privacy & Security on File Sharing Networks)[45] and the Senate Judiciary Committee (The Dark Side of a Bright Thought: Could Personal and National Security Risks Compromise the Potential of P2P File-Sharing Networks?) [46] were convened to accost and talk over the issue of inadvertent sharing on peer-to-peer networks and its consequences to consumer and national security.

Researchers have examined potential security risks including the release of personal data, bundled spyware, and viruses downloaded from the network.[47] [48] Some proprietary file sharing clients accept been known to bundle malware, though open up source programs typically take not. Some open source file sharing packages accept even provided integrated anti-virus scanning.[49]

Since approximately 2004 the threat of identity theft had become more prevalent, and in July 2008 there was another inadvertent revealing of vast amounts of personal information through P2P sites. The "names, dates of birth, and Social Security numbers of about 2,000 of (an investment) firm's clients" were exposed, "including [those of] Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer."[50] A drastic increment in inadvertent P2P file sharing of personal and sensitive information became evident in 2009 at the first of President Obama's administration when the blueprints to the helicopter Marine One were made available to the public through a breach in security via a P2P file sharing site. Admission to this data has the potential of being detrimental to Us security.[50] Furthermore, shortly before this security breach, the Today show had reported that more than than 150,000 tax returns, 25,800 student loan applications and 626,000 credit reports had been inadvertently made available through file sharing.[fifty]

The United states of america government then attempted to make users more enlightened of the potential risks involved with P2P file sharing programs[51] through legislation such every bit H.R. 1319, the Informed P2P User Act, in 2009.[52] According to this deed, it would exist mandatory for individuals to be enlightened of the risks associated with peer-to-peer file sharing before purchasing software with informed consent of the user required prior to employ of such programs. In add-on, the act would permit users to cake and remove P2P file sharing software from their computers at whatsoever time,[53] with the Federal Trade Committee enforcing regulations. United states of america-CERT also warns of the potential risks.[54]

Nevertheless, in 2010, researchers discovered thousands of documents containing sensitive patient information on popular peer-to-peer (P2P) networks, including insurance details, personally identifying information, medico names and diagnosis codes on more than 28,000 individuals. Many of the documents independent sensitive patient communications, treatment data, medical diagnoses and psychiatric evaluations.[55]

Copyright bug [edit]

The act of file sharing is non illegal per se and peer-to-peer networks are also used for legitimate purposes. The legal issues in file sharing involve violating the laws of copyrighted material. Most discussions about the legality of file sharing are implied to be about solely copyright material. Many countries take off-white employ exceptions that permit limited utilize of copyrighted fabric without acquiring permission from the rights holders. Such documents include commentary, news reporting, enquiry and scholarship. Copyright laws are territorial- they exercise not extend beyond the territory of a specific state unless that state is a party to an international agreement. Most countries today are parties to at least one such agreement.

In the area of privacy, recent court rulings seem to indicate that there can exist no expectation of privacy in data exposed over peer-to-peer file-sharing networks. In a 39-page ruling released November eight, 2013, Usa District Court Judge Christina Reiss denied the motility to suppress testify gathered by authorities without a search warrant through an automated peer-to-peer search tool.[56]

See likewise [edit]

  • Anonymous P2P
  • Comparing of file-sharing applications
  • Disk sharing
  • File sharing in Canada
  • File sharing in Nippon
  • File sharing timeline (peer to peer and not)
  • Friend-to-friend or F2F
  • List of P2P protocols
  • Open Music Model
  • Privacy in file sharing networks
  • Individual P2P
  • Public domain
  • Torrent poisoning
  • Trade group efforts against file sharing
  • Warez

References [edit]

  1. ^ a b Carmack, Carman (2005-03-26). "How Bit Torrent Works". computer.howstuffworks.com/. Archived from the original on 2011-08-07. Retrieved 2011-05-21 .
  2. ^ "Heads up if y'all're installing Skyforge - The downloader is a P2P client and by default starts with Windows. • /r/MMORPG". reddit. Archived from the original on 2017-02-thirteen. Retrieved 2016-03-03 .
  3. ^ a b Tyson, Jeff (2000-10-xxx). "How the Old Napster Worked". howstuffworks.com. Archived from the original on 2011-08-25. Retrieved 2011-05-21 .
  4. ^ "Copyright and Peer-To-Peer Music File Sharing: The Napster Case and the Argument Against Legislative Reform". murdoch.edu.au. March 2004. Archived from the original on 2010-07-09. Retrieved 2011-05-21 .
  5. ^ Gong, Yiming. "Identifying P2P users using traffic assay". Symantec. Archived from the original on 7 December 2014. Retrieved viii December 2014.
  6. ^ Watson, Stephanie (2005-02-10). "How Kazaa Works". estimator.howstuffworks.com. Archived from the original on 2011-08-15. Retrieved 2011-05-21 .
  7. ^ Peer-to-peer systems and applications. Steinmetz, Ralf., Wehrle, Klaus, 1972-. Berlin. 2005-11-03. ISBN9783540320470. OCLC 262681429. {{cite book}}: CS1 maint: others (link)
  8. ^ Babaoglu, Ozalp (2012). "Introduction to Peer-to-Peer Systems" (PDF). Complex Systems. Universitá di Bologna. Retrieved 6 Feb 2013. [ permanent dead link ]
  9. ^ "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2016-03-03. Retrieved 2013-12-25 . {{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy equally title (link)
  10. ^ Winkelman, Dr. Roy. "Software". Florida Center for Instructional Technology Higher of Teaching, University of South Florida. Archived from the original on 12 January 2013. Retrieved half dozen February 2013.
  11. ^ J. Michel, Norbert. Internet File Sharing and The Prove So far Archived 2011-x-08 at the Wayback Machine, heritage.org, August 23, 2004.
  12. ^ Yochai Benkler (2006). Wealth of Networks . Yale Academy Press. ISBN978-0300127232. benkler.
  13. ^ Alejandro Zentner, "File Sharing and International Sales of Copyrighted Music: An Empirical Analysis with a Panel of Countries" [ permanent dead link ] , The B.E. Periodical of Economic Analysis & Policy, Vol. five, Issue 1 (2005)
  14. ^ Liebowitz, Stan J. (2006). "File Sharing: Creative Devastation or Just Plain Destruction?". The Journal of Law & Economics. 49 (ane): one–28. CiteSeerX10.one.1.320.601. doi:10.1086/503518. JSTOR 10.1086/503518. S2CID 6000126.
  15. ^ Rob, Rafael; Waldfogel, Joel (2006). "Piracy on the High C's: Music Downloading, Sales Displacement, and Social Welfare in a Sample of College Students". The Journal of Constabulary & Economics. 49 (one): 29–62. CiteSeerX10.one.1.505.4843. doi:x.1086/430809. JSTOR 10.1086/430809.
  16. ^ Zentner, Alejandro (2006). "Measuring the Effect of File Sharing on Music Purchases". The Journal of Law & Economics. 49 (one): 63–90. CiteSeerXten.1.1.571.6264. doi:x.1086/501082. JSTOR 10.1086/501082. S2CID 154353570.
  17. ^ Stan J. Liebowitz in a serial of papers (2005, 2006)
  18. ^ Smith, Ethan. March 21, 2007. "Sales of Music, Long in Turn down, Plunge Sharply: Rising in Downloading Fails to Heave Industry; A Retailing Shakeout" Archived 2017-08-09 at the Wayback Motorcar, The Wall Street Periodical Website
  19. ^ "SWEDISH Authorities SINK PIRATE BAY: Huge Worldwide Supplier of Illegal Movies Told No Safe Harbors for Facilitators of Piracy!" (PDF). MPAA. 2006-05-31. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2009-12-10. Retrieved 2020-05-03 .
  20. ^ Gross, Daniel (2004-11-21). "Does a Costless Download Equal a Lost Sale?". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2007-10-12. Retrieved 2007-07-sixteen .
  21. ^ Oberholzer, Felix; Strumpf, Koleman (March 2004). "The Effect of File Sharing on Record Sales: An Empirical Analysis" (PDF). UNC Chapel Hill. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2008-06-13. Retrieved 2010-09-eleven .
  22. ^ Schwartz, John (2004-04-05). "A Heretical View of File Sharing". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2008-01-03. Retrieved 2007-07-16 .
  23. ^ Fisher, Ken (2006-05-05). "The problem with MPAA'south shocking piracy numbers". Ars Technica. Archived from the original on 2007-06-xiii. Retrieved 2007-07-15 .
  24. ^ "Movie Piracy Toll vi.i Billion". Torrent Freak. 2006-05-03. Archived from the original on 2007-09-30. Retrieved 2007-07-16 .
  25. ^ "Hollywood study examines costs of picture piracy". ZDNet (Reuters). 2006-05-03. Archived from the original on 2007-04-17. Retrieved 2007-07-16 .
  26. ^ Anderson, Nate (2008-01-22). "MPAA admits higher piracy numbers grossly inflated". Ars Technica. Archived from the original on 2012-05-09. Retrieved 2017-06-14 .
  27. ^ Anderson, Nate (2008-01-15). "2008 shaping up to be "Yr of Filters" at colleges, ISPs". Ars Technica. Archived from the original on 2011-09-13. Retrieved 2017-06-14 .
  28. ^ Mundell, Ian. Piracy in Europe costs $xiii.7 billion, Multifariousness. March 18, 2010.
  29. ^ Geoffron, Patrice. Building a Digital Economy Archived 2010-07-06 at the Wayback Machine, iccwbo.org, March 17, 2010.
  30. ^ Moisés Naím (2007). Illicit: How smugglers, traffickers and copycats are hijacking the global economic system, p. 15. Arrow Books, London. ISBN 1-4000-7884-9.
  31. ^ Delgado, Ray. Constabulary professors examine upstanding controversies of peer-to-peer file sharing Archived 2008-06-25 at the Wayback Motorcar. Stanford Study, March 17, 2004.
  32. ^ Poll: Young Say File Sharing OK Archived 2013-ten-29 at the Wayback Motorcar CBS News, Bootie Cosgrove-Mather, 2003-09-eighteen
  33. ^ "Solutions Enquiry Group - Moving picture File-Sharing Booming: Study" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on February 17, 2012.
  34. ^ 17:41 GMT, Thursday, 3 July 2008 18:41 UK. Technology: "Warning letters to 'file-sharers'" Archived 2010-10-30 at the Wayback Automobile, BBC NEWS.
  35. ^ MarkJ - 24 February 2009 (1:46 PM). "Tiscali United kingdom of great britain and northern ireland Survey Reveals Illegal File Sharing Attitudes" Archived 2011-07-16 at the Wayback Motorcar, ISPreview UK News.
  36. ^ TT/Adam Ewing. 8 Jun 06 09:54 CET. "Immature voters back file sharing" Archived 2010-08-fifteen at the Wayback Machine, The Local.
  37. ^ Ben Depoorter et al. " Copyright Backlash" Archived 2022-02-05 at the Wayback Machine, Southern California Police force Review, 2011.
  38. ^ a b c Khambatti, Mujtaba; Ryu, Kyung Dong; Dasgupta, Partha (2004). "Structuring Peer-to-Peer Networks Using Involvement-Based Communities". Databases, Information Systems, and Peer-to-Peer Computing. Lecture Notes in Reckoner Science. Vol. 2944. pp. 48–63. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-24629-9_5. ISBN978-iii-540-20968-iii.
  39. ^ a b c Cunningham, Brendan; Alexander, Peter; Adilov, Nodir (28 Oct 2003). "Peer-to-peer file sharing communities". Information Economics and Policy. Archived from the original on 4 March 2016. Retrieved 16 December 2015.
  40. ^ a b c d e f Vassileva, Julita (2003). "Motivating Participation in Peer to Peer Communities". Engineering Societies in the Agents World Three. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Vol. 2577. pp. 141–155. doi:x.1007/three-540-39173-8_11. ISBN978-3-540-14009-2.
  41. ^ Banerjee, Anirban; Faloutsos, Michalis; Bhuyan, Laxmi (Apr 2008). "The P2P war: Someone is monitoring your activities". Computer Networks. 52 (six): 1272–1280. CiteSeerX10.one.one.76.9451. doi:x.1016/j.comnet.2008.01.011.
  42. ^ Good, Nathaniel; Aaron Krekelberg (5 June 2002). "Usability and privacy: a study of Kazaa P2P file- sharing". HP Labs Tech Report. Archived from the original on 15 October 2013. Retrieved 15 October 2013.
  43. ^ Good, Nathaniel Due south.; Krekelberg, Aaron (2003). "Usability and privacy". Proceedings of the conference on Human factors in computing systems - CHI '03. p. 137. doi:ten.1145/642611.642636. ISBN1581136307. S2CID 14850483.
  44. ^ Markoff, John (June 7, 2002). "Security Hole Plant in KaZaA File-Sharing Service". New York Times. Archived from the original on 13 November 2013. Retrieved 15 October 2013.
  45. ^ Overexposed: the threats to privacy and security on filesharing networks (PDF). U.S. Government Press Function. 2003. ISBN978-0-16-070566-3. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2013-06-16. Retrieved 2013-10-xv . [ page needed ]
  46. ^ "The Dark Side of a Bright Idea: Could Personal and National Security Risks Compromise the Potential of P2P File-Sharing Networks?". Archived from the original on 2012-12-19. Retrieved 2013-10-15 .
  47. ^ Johnson, M. Eric; McGuire, Dan; Willey, Nicholas D. (2008). "The Evolution of the Peer-to-Peer File Sharing Industry and the Security Risks for Users". Proceedings of the 41st Annual Hawaii International Conference on Organization Sciences (HICSS 2008). p. 383. doi:10.1109/HICSS.2008.436. S2CID 15137757.
  48. ^ Håvard Vegge, Finn Michael Halvorsen and Rune Walsø Nergård (2009). "Where Merely Fools Dare to Tread: An Empirical Study on the Prevalence of Nada-solar day Malware". 2009 4th International Conference on Internet Monitoring and Protection.
  49. ^ "Torrent Server | TurnKey GNU/Linux". www.turnkeylinux.org. Archived from the original on 2022-01-16. Retrieved 2022-02-05 .
  50. ^ a b c Greg Sandoval. April 21, 2009 x:41 AM PDT. "Congress to probe P2P sites over 'inadvertent sharing'" Archived 2011-06-17 at the Wayback Auto, CNET News
  51. ^ "P2P File-Sharing Risks". OnGuardOnLine.gov. 2011-09-24. Archived from the original on 2013-01-28. Retrieved 2013-01-25 .
  52. ^ "Hearing on Barrow P2P Legislation Held on Tuesday". Congressman John Barrow. May 2009. Archived from the original on 2010-10-07. Retrieved 2010-09-11 .
  53. ^ "Text of H.R. 1319: Informed P2P User Deed" Archived 2012-01-21 at the Wayback Machine, GovTrack.u.s.a.
  54. ^ "Risks of File-Sharing Technology". US-CERT. Archived from the original on 2013-01-26. Retrieved 2013-01-25 .
  55. ^ Vijayan, Jaikumar (17 May 2010). "P2P networks a treasure trove of leaked wellness intendance information, report finds". Computerworld. Archived from the original on 24 April 2021. Retrieved 24 Apr 2021.
  56. ^ ComputerWorld.[1] Archived 2013-eleven-12 at the Wayback Machine " Don't look data on P2P networks to exist private, judge rules".

swintontheorand.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer-to-peer_file_sharing

Related Posts

0 Response to "Os It Legal to Upload a Song to the Internet Through Peer to Peer File Sharing"

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel