Copyright2005

1

P2P Technology and Its Implications

Roger ClarkeXamax Consultancy Pty Ltd, Canberra

Visiting Professor at A.N.U., U.N.S.W., Uni. of Hong Kong

http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/...

.../EC/ANUSems.html#Sem16 , P2P-Pol-0508.ppt

Department of Computer ScienceA.N.U., 3 August 2005

Copyright2005

2

P2P Technologyand Its Legal and Policy

Implications

Themes• Where It Came From• What It Is• How It’s Different• What It Can Be Used For• What It Is Used For• Its Implications for:

• eBusiness Strategy• Regulators• Consumers and Citizens

Copyright2005

3

Star Topology / Master-Slave Architecture

1950s Onwards

MasterComputer

Slave‘Dumb

Terminal’

Copyright2005

4

The ARPANet’s Peer-to-Peer Topology

1969 Onwards Multi-Organisational

PeerComputer

PeerComputer

PeerComputer

PeerComputer

PeerComputer

PeerComputer

Copyright2005

5

‘The PC’ Era – Still Peer-to-PeerMid-Late 1970s Onwards

SmallPC

BBSin

SmallPC

SmallPCs

SmallPC

SmallPC

- to -

Copyright2005

6

Client-Server Architecturemid-1980s Onwards, esp. mid-1990s

Onwards Multi-Organisational

ServerSoftware

inLarge

CentralHost

ClientSoftware

inSmall

RemotePC

PCsin

LocalArea

Network

Copyright2005

7

Client-Server Architecturemid-1980s Onwards, esp. mid-1990s

Onwards Internet-Mediated

Serverin

Host

Clientin

Workstation

Clientin

Workstation

Clientin

Workstation

Clientin

Workstation

Clientin

Workstation

Clientin

Workstation

Serverin

Host

Serverin

Host

Copyright2005

8

Key Developments Since the Mid-1990s

• Workstation Capacity (now rivals Hosts)• Workstation Diversity (vast, expanding)

desktops, laptops, handhelds, smartcards, ...phones, PDAs, cameras, ... carburettors, fridges, ... RFID tags, ...

• Broadband Connectivity (now widespread)This enables dispersion and replicationof devices capable of providing services

• Wireless Connectivity (rapidly increasing)This enables Mobilitywhich means Devices change networkswhich means their IP-addresses change

Copyright2005

9

Wireless Comms Using Electromagnetic Radiation

• Wide Area Networks – Satellite (Geosynch, Low)GS is Large footprint, very high latency (c. 2 secs)

• Wide Area Networks – Cellular (to 20km per cell)1 – Analogue Cellular, e.g. AMPS, TACS2 – Digital Cellular, e.g. GSM, CDMA3 – ‘3G’, e.g. GSM/GPRS and W-CDMA

• Wide Area Networks – ‘WiMax’, IEEE 802.16• Local Area Networks – ‘WiFi’ (10-100 m radius)

e.g. IEEE 802.11x esp. 11b,g / Apple Airport• Personal Area Networks (1-10 metres)

e.g. Bluetooth (or beamed infra-red)

Copyright2005

10

P2P – The Motivation

• “P2P is class of applications that take advantage of resources (storage, processing capacity, content, human presence) available at the edges of the Internet”

• A program is both Client and Server:• a workstation provides services to others

e.g. a music playstation can be a mixer too• So Workstations also acts as Hosts

Copyright2005

11

Multiply-Connected Topology / P2P Architecture

Late 1980s but esp. Late 1990s Onwards Internet-Mediated

PowerfulWork-andPlay-Workstations

(1)Conventional

Depiction

Copyright2005

12

Multiply-Connected Topology / P2P Architecture

Late 1980s but esp. Late 1990s Onwards Internet-Mediated

(2)PreferredDepiction

Client / Serverin

Workstation

Client / Serverin

Workstation

Client / Serverin

Workstation

Client / Serverin

Workstation

Client / Serverin

Workstation

Client / Serverin

Workstation

Copyright2005

13

P2P – Towards a Technical Definition

P2P is a network architecture in which each node

is capable of performing each of the functions

necessary to support the network

and in practice many nodes do perform many of the functions

Copyright2005

14

The Essential Nature of P2P• In principle, Every Device is a Client and a Server• In practice, Many Devices perform Server-functions• Collaboration is inherent• Clients can find Servers• ‘Single Points-of-Failure’ / Bottlenecks / Chokepoints

are avoided by means of networking dynamics • Enough Devices with Enough Resources participate as

Servers for discovery, and as Servers for services• 'Free-Riding' / 'Over-Grazing' of the 'Commons'

is restrained through software and psych. features

Copyright2005

15

Categories of P2P

Pure• Functions and objects are distributed across all nodes, so

no one node is critical to the network's operation; so control is very difficult – USENET, Fidonet, Freenet, Gnutella(1)

Compromised / ‘Two-Tier’• Functions and objects are highly distributed; the index is

substantially but not fully distributed – FastTrack, Gnutella(2)

Hybrid• Functions and objects are (highly?) distributed; the index is

heirarchical (the DNS) or centralised (Napster, BitTorrent)

Copyright2005

16

Why P2P Is Attractive• Much-Reduced Dependence on individual devices

and sub-networks (no central servers)• Robustness not Fragility (no single point-of-failure)• Resilience / Quick Recovery (inbuilt redundancy)• Resistance to Denial of Service (D)DOS Attacks

(no central servers)

• Much-Improved Scalability (proportionality)• Improved Servicing of Highly-Peaked Demand

(more devices on the demand-side implies there are also more server-resources)

Copyright2005

17

P2P Applications1. Of Long Standing

• ARPANET services generally, from 1969• Message Transfer Agents, since 1972

(SMTP), which perform both server and client functions

• USENET since 1979, now Internet Netnews• Fidonet file/message transfer system, since

1984• Domain Name System (DNS), since 1984,

a collaborative scheme, each server also a client

Copyright2005

18

Recently-Emerged P2P Applications2. Processing Services (cf. Grid

Computing)• Pattern-Searching of Data (e.g. SETI@home)• Data-Space Searching, in particular as part

of a collaborative key-discovery process (e.g. EFF's DES cracking project)

• Numerical Methods, large-scale / brute-force(e.g. fluid dynamics experiments, meteorology)

• Gaming, multi-player, networked• Message Transfer:

• conferencing/chat/instant messaging• cooperative publishing

Copyright2005

19

Recently-Emerged P2P Applications

3. Access to Digital Objects• Software:

• Fixes/Patches• Releases

• Virus Signatures• Announcements, e.g. of

technical info, business info, entertainment ‘info’, sports results, promotional messages, advertisements

• News Reports, by news organisations, and by members of the public

• Emergency Services Data• Backup and Recovery

Data• Games Data, e.g. scenes

and battle configurations• Archived Messages, for

conferencing/chat/IM, and cooperative publishing

• Learning Materials, in various formats

• Entertainment Materials,

in various formats

Copyright2005

20

The Predominant Use 1998-2005

• Consumer Sharing of Entertainment Materials:

• recorded music, in MP3 and other formats

• video, as bandwidths increase

• Copyright-owning corporations assert that a large proportion of those file-transfers is being performed in breach of copyright law

• There is evidence to support the assertion

Copyright2005

21

Indicators of Scale• In Sep 2002, 31m Americans used P2P to share music• In 2003, FastTrack peaked at 5.5m users and 60% of

the market, then fell due to publicity about lawsuits• By 2004:

• P2P data volumes estimated at 10% of traffic (Web 50%, all email incl. spam 3%)

• simultaneous users c. 10m• c. 50 m searches per day• FastTrack still had 4m users (40% of market)

and enabled access to 2m files, >10 terabytes• 50% of files audio, 25% video, 25% other

Copyright2005

22

P2P Networks and Protocols

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer-to-peer#Networks.2C_protocols_and_applications

BitTorrent network: ABC, Azureus, BitAnarch, BitComet, BitSpirit, BitTornado, BitTorrent, BitTorrent++, BitTorrent.Net, G3 Torrent, mlMac, MLDonkey, QTorrent, SimpleBT, Shareaza, TomatoTorrent (Mac OS X) [2], TorrentStormeDonkey network: aMule (Linux, Mac OS X, others), eDonkey2000, eMule, LMule, MindGem, MLDonkey, mlMac, Shareaza, xMule, iMesh Light, ed2k (eDonkey 2000 protocol)FastTrack protocol: giFT, Grokster, iMesh (and its variants stripped of adware including iMesh Light), Kazaa by Sharman Networks (and its variants stripped of adware including: Kazaa Lite, K++, Diet Kaza and CleanKazaa), KCeasy, Mammoth, MLDonkey, mlMac, PoisonedFreenet network: Entropy (on its own network), Freenet, FrostGnutella network: Acquisitionx (Mac OS X), BearShare, BetBug, Cabos, CocoGnut (RISC OS) [3], Gnucleus Grokster, iMesh, gtk-gnutella (Unix), LimeWire (Java), MLDonkey, mlMac, Morpheus, Phex Poisoned, Swapper, Shareaza, XoloXGnutella2 network: Adagio, Caribou, Gnucleus, iMesh, MLDonkey, mlMac, Morpheus, Shareaza, TrustyFilesJoltid PeerEnabler: Altnet, Bullguard, Joltid, Kazaa, Kazaa LiteNapster network: Napigator, OpenNap, WinMX

Applejuice network: Applejuice Client, Avalanche, CAKE network: BirthdayCAKE the reference implementation of CAKE, Direct Connect network: BCDC++, CZDC++, DC++, NeoModus Direct Connect, JavaDC, DCGUI-QT, HyperCast [4], Kad Network (using Kademila protocol): eMule, MindGem, MLDonkey, LUSerNet (using LUSerNet protocol): LUSerNet, MANOLITO/MP2P network: Blubster, Piolet, RockItNet, TVP2P type networks: CoolStreaming, Cybersky-TV, WPNP network: WinMXOther networks: Akamai, Alpine, ANts P2P, Ares Galaxy, Audiogalaxy network, Carracho, Chord, The Circle, Coral[5], Dexter, Diet-Agents, EarthStation 5 network, Evernet, FileTopia, GNUnet, Grapevine, Groove, Hotwire, iFolder[6], konspire2b, Madster/Aimster, MUTE, Napshare, OpenFT (Poisoned), P-Grid[7], IRC @find and XDCC, used by IRC clients including: mIRC and Trillian, JXTA, Peersites [8], MojoNation, Mnet, Overnet network, Peercasting type networks: PeerCast, IceShare - P2P implementation of IceCast, Freecast, Scour, Scribe, Skype, Solipsis a massively multi-participant virtual world, SongSpy network, Soulseek, SPIN, SpinXpress, SquidCam [9], Swarmcast, WASTE, Warez P2P, Winny, AsagumoWeb, OpenExt, Tesla, soribada, fileswapping, XSC

Copyright2005

23

P2P Multi-Protocol Applications

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer-to-peer#Networks.2C_protocols_and_applications

eMule (Edonkey Network, Kad Network) (Microsoft Windows, Linux)aMule (eDonkey network) (Linux, Mac OS X, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, Windows and Solaris Op Environmt)Epicea (Epicea, BitTorrent, Edonkey Network, Overnet, FastTrack, Gnutella) (Microsoft Windows)GiFT (own OpenFT protocol, and with plugins - FastTrack, eDonkey and Gnutella)

and xfactor (uses GiFT) (Mac OS X)Gnucleus (Gnutella, Gnutella2) (Microsoft Windows)Hydranode (eDonkey2000) (Microsoft Windows, Linux, Mac OS X)iMesh (Fasttrack, Edonkey Network, Gnutella, Gnutella2) (Microsoft Windows)Kazaa (FastTrack, Joltid PeerEnabler) (Microsoft Windows)Kazaa Lite (FastTrack, Joltid PeerEnabler) (Microsoft Windows)KCeasy (Gnutella, Ares, giFT)MindGem (Edonkey Network, Kademlia)MLDonkey (BitTorrent, eDonkey, FastTrack, Gnutella, Gnutella2, Kademlia)

(MS Windows, Linux, Mac OS X, Palm OS, Java)mlMac (BitTorrent, eDonkey, FastTrack, Gnutella, Gnutella2)Morpheus (Gnutella, Gnutella2) (Microsoft Windows)Poisoned (FastTrack, Gnutella)Shareaza (BitTorrent, eDonkey, Gnutella, Gnutella2) (Microsoft Windows)WinMX (Napster, WPNP) (Microsoft Windows)XNap (OpenNAP, GiFT, Limewire, Overnet, ICQ, IRC) (Java)Zultrax (Gnutella, ZEPP)

Copyright2005

24

Technical Concerns about P2P• Address Volatility: old addresses may not work

(hence trust based on repetitive dealings is difficult)• Absence of Central Control (hence risk of anarchy)• Inadequate Server Participation (over-grazing)• Security Challenges:

• Malware, embedded or infiltrated• Surreptitious Enlistment (at least potential)• Vulnerability to Masquerade• Vulnerability to Pollution Attacks (decoys)

Copyright2005

25

Business and Government Concerns about P2P

• Address Volatility, plus Inadequate Identifiers, hence:

• difficulty in identifying and locating users• reduction in user accountability

• Absence of Central Control, hence:• reduction in technology-provider accountability• no single point for a denial of service attack

• Challenge to Authority:• of Copyright-Owners over Users• of Censors over Users

Copyright2005

26

P2P Architecture’sResilience and Robustness

A Direct Implication

• The removal of a device as a result of the execution of a warrant or injunction is indistinguishable from other forms of denial of service attack

• In John Gilmore’s words:

“The Internet treats censorshipas damage, and routes around it”

Copyright2005

27

The P2P Battleground – 1998-2005

• MP3

• Napster

• FastTrack, et many als.

• CD-quality digital soundin files sized 1 MB/minute

• a central catalogue of a distributed database, to facilitate sharing of MP3 files

• a distributed catalogue of a distributed database, to facilitate sharing of (MP3?) files

Copyright2005

28

Use of the Law to Destroy Napster

1999-2002

• Napster was P2P-with-a-chokepointIt relied on a central directory of file-names and host-identities

• Court action resulted in closure of the directory, and hence the collapse of the system as a whole

• Many P2P applications have some central facility that can be attacked in such a manner, incl. AOL Instant Messenger, ICQ, DNS(Replication does not remove central control)

Copyright2005

29

Use of the Law to Constrain P2P Generally

2002-• A critical central service represents a chokepoint.

If it’s within jurisdictional reach (and the US is highly aggressive in extending its laws beyond its territories), then it can be attacked through the courts

• Gnutella, FastTrack and many other P2P services decentralise their directories as well as their storage

• Court action intended to preclude such P2P services will need to gain injunctions against production, dissemination and use of the tools and/or protocols

Copyright2005

30

Challenges for Copyright-Owners

• Identification of Copyright Objects

• Identification of Devices that store those objects and that traffic in them

• Demonstrating:Unauthorised Reproduction, Publication, Adaptation and/or Authorisation

• Identification of the Person Responsible for a breach

• Association of the Person with the Device used to perform the act that constitutes the breach

• Location of the responsible Person• Bringing Suit (e.g. jurisdiction)• Collection and Presentation of

Evidence sufficient to win even civil, let alone criminal cases

• Proposing Interventions that could be awarded by court injunction

Copyright2005

31

Who To Sue?Protocol – Owners? Originators?

Publishers?

• BitTorrent (BitTorrent Inc. and/or Bram Cohen)

• eDonkey (“FileHash.com

is a search engine”. Pardon? Meta Machine Inc., NY?)

• FastTrack (Niklas Zennström?, Janus Friis?,

Jaan Tallinn?, and/or Consumer Empowerment?)

• Freenet (Ian Clarke?, Matthew Toseland?, the Freenet Project?)

• Gnutella (Justin Frankel?, Tom Pepper?, Nullsoft?, the Gnutella community?)

• Gnutella 2 (Michael Stokes?, the Gnutella2 community?)

• Joltid (Niklas Zennström and/or Joltid, Stockholm)

• Skype (Niklas Zennström and/or Global Index)

Copyright2005

32

Copyright2005

33

Who To Sue? Providers of Applications/Client-Server

Packages?• Kazaa Media Desktop

(Sharman, Vanuatu and/or Altnet, Sherman Oaks CA and/or Nikki Hemmings and/or Kevin Bermeister and/or Anthony Rose)

• Grokster (Grokster Ltd, Nevis in the Caribbean)

• Morpheus (StreamCast, formerly MusicCity)

• Kazaa Lite (Sharman??)• iMesh (Elon Oren of

Israel?)• MLDonkey (Fabrice Le

Fessant?, INRIA?)• WinMX (Frontcode

Technologies?)

Copyright2005

34

Copyright2005

35

The Copyright-Owner Fightback

• Legal – Lawsuits and Publicity• Political – Copyright Expansionism• Technological – Digital Rights

Management• Reduction of the Power at the Edges• New Business Models

Copyright2005

36

What’s Different about Copyright Objects Now, and in the Future

• Digital not physical / Bits not atoms• Copying is intrinsic to transmission• Copying is performed by the consumer

=> Consumers now need a copyright licence

• Copies for personal use are indistinguishablefrom copies for re-sale, and copies for adaptation

• Copiability and Adaptability are intrinsic=> Appropriation is a virtue, but still

a vice

Copyright2005

37

Copyright Expansionism• Accidental extension through buffers, cache• Lawyers’ ‘nastygrams’ and misuse of process• Lobbying for, and Enactment of, Laws:

• extending copyright laws• criminalising hitherto civil law breaches• enlisting law enforcement agency support• transferring enforcement costs to the State

• DMCA-based Gaoling, no bail, delayed charges, charges withdrawn once chilling effect achieved

• Embedment in Marketspace Mechanismsof Existing, Expanded and Imagined Rights

Copyright2005

38

Digital Rights Management Technologies

Passive Technologies

• Object-Protection under the owner's control• Object-Protection while it is in transit• Means of Tracing Rogue Copies:

• 'Watermarking' technology (to uniquely identify the publication)

• 'Fingerprinting' technology (to uniquely identify the particular copy)

• Object-Protection under a licensee’s control

Copyright2005

39

Digital Rights Management Technologies

Active Technologies – 1 of 2

• Notification to the licensee of their rightsat the time that the object is accessed

• Identification of licensees• Authentication of identities• Destruction / Disablement of the data object

in the event of licence expiry or breach(cf. the sterility gene in proprietary GM crops)

Copyright2005

40

Digital Rights Management Technologies

Active Technologies – 2 of 2

• Enforcement Mechanisms, client-side• Prevention, e.g. preclude actions that

breach permissions for printing display• Recording of actions that exercise

permissions under the licence• Recording of (attempts to) breach the

licence, e.g. making copies beyond the limit

• Reporting of (attempts to) breach the licence

Copyright2005

41

Ways to Reduce the Power at the Edge

• Make workstations ‘diskless’ or ‘thin’• Prevent software from being stored, and require

users to download a copy each time it is used (the Application Service Provider – ASP – model)

• Connect remote devices via asymmetric links, high-bandwidth downwards, low upwards (SDSL’s 1:1 ratio cf. ADSL and cable’s 2:1, 4:1 and even 8:1)

• Insert in every consumer-device:• Identifiers• Location and Tracking Technology

• Upgrade / Replace the Internet Protocol Suite

Copyright2005

42

A More Constructive Closed Approach

• Identify customers’ price resistance-point(by finding out ‘what the market will bear’)

• Set prices accordingly(and thereby sustain payment morality)

• Discourage and prosecute breaches where the purpose is commercial

• Take no action over breaches by consumers(time-shifting, format-change, sharing?)

• A Case Study:• Apple iTunes charges USD 0.99 per

track!??