Uncovering The Dark Side of P4P
Written by Ernesto on August 24, 2008P4P is touted as the new and improved P2P. The technology has the potential to lower bandwidth costs for ISPs and speed up downloads for P4P enabled filesharing clients. There is a dark side to this new technology though. The strong anti-piracy connections are fuel for conspiracy theorists, and Net Neutrality might be at stake.
Earlier this week, researchers from Yale University and The University of Washington presented the latest findings from their P4P research. P4P is a new technology that could make any filesharing application (including BitTorrent) cheaper for ISPs, as it tries to connect to local peers as much as possible. Local traffic is cheaper for ISPs and reduces the load on the network. In addition, P4P enabled filesharing clients will download files faster than regular clients.
In theory this is a great idea. However, P4P requires collaboration between the developers of filesharing clients and ISPs, which might be a problem. Indeed, most P2P companies TorrentFreak talked to are not that excited about the initiative, but they wont say that out loud, and play along for the time being.
There might even be a darker side to the project, as the P4P working group includes some prominent members of the entertainment industry and well known anti-piracy lobbyists. Besides that, we argue that it is likely that the technology might slow down transfers of people who are on ISPs that don’t end up supporting the technology, raising serious Net Neutrality issues.
Let’s start off by looking at the mission statement of the P4P working group, which was founded last year. One of the key objectives of the group, quoted from their official mission statement (pdf) is as follows (emphasis added).
[to] Determine, validate, and encourage the adoption of methods for ISPs and P2P software distributors to work together to enable and support consumer service improvements as P2P adoption and resultant traffic evolves while protecting the intellectual property (IP) of participating entities
It might of course be that the P4P group included this objective to cover their asses. However, we have our doubts. For now, the technical specs give no reason to believe that the new technology will support piracy filters or other anti-piracy measures. But, when you consider that the MPAA, NBC Universal and several other representatives from the entertainment industry are members of the working group, this might very well be suggested in the next phase of the project.
One might wonder, why is the MPAA involved in all this? Obviously their agenda is to stop copyright infringement, so we have no reason to believe that they will try to steer P4P in this direction as well. This would not be a big surprise really. The P4P working group was founded by The Distributed Computing Industry Association (DCIA), a collaboration of the entertainment industry, ISPs and P2P companies. The purpose of the DCIA is clear, as we can read on their website (emphasis added):
Our number one priority clearly is the elimination of copyright infringement and, because DCIA advocates the commercial development of distributed computing (as opposed for example to trying to stop it), our key strategy centers on proliferating legitimate commercial services to displace unauthorized media file sharing currently being conducted by consumers on a massive scale.
This shows the P4P working group from a whole other perspective doesn’t it? We have no doubt that the researchers involved in this have the best of intentions, and that they really want to develop a new technology that benefits P2P users and ISPs. We also believe, however, that the MPAA and other rights holders who are part of the project, will push their agenda forward sooner of later.
The DCIA collaboration is an initiative from Hollywood’s big shots and several of the larger technology corporations. Back in 2002, both sides got together and decided that it would be a good idea to start a working group to keep an eye on future technological developments. Below, we quote a paragraph from one of the original letters (pdf) discussing the matter, signed by the CEOs of the MPAA, Walt Disney, Sony Pictures, AOL Time Warner, Vivendi Universal, Metro-Goldwyn- Mayer, Viacom and News America (emphasis added).
We thus propose the establishment of a new high level working group, independent or as part of an existing process, to find technical measures that limit unauthorized peer-to-peer trafficking in movies, music and other entertainment content.
And so the DCIA was born, which later started the P4P workgroup. We will leave it up to the readers to decide whether this is a serious threat or not, we will find out sooner or later anyway.
There is one other “dark” aspect of P4P we want to mention though, something that hasn’t been reported elsewhere, even though it can have some very negative consequences for P2P users.
By looking at the latest P4P research report, we come to the conclusion that P4P might slow down the downloads of people who use non-P4P clients, or those who are on an ISP that doesn’t support P4P. This is because P4P users will be more likely to share with local peers, while regular P2P users share with everyone (note that both can be in the same swarm). This goes against Net Neutrality principles, although this depends on how one defines Net Neutrality.
Since P4P prioritizes local traffic, P4P users will share less with users who do not use the technology. This will affect both the upload and the download side, but the data in the report seems to suggest that the give and take ratio is worse when P4P is enabled, so they take more from other ISPs (relatively) than they give back (mild leeching). This is most likely facilitated by the fact that upload speeds tend to be slower than download speeds.
Let’s conclude by saying that the researchers from Yale University and The University of Washington came up with a promising technology that could potentially speed up P2P downloads, at least for some users. Getting ISPs and filesharing developers to embrace this new technology will not be easy though. ISPs will sure be motivated, as it will save them money. However, we’re not so sure that BitTorrent client developers (and others) will adopt it so easily, since it might degrade performance on non P4P ISPs.
The largest threat (as usual) might come from the anti-piracy lobby, as they will probably push for content filters or other anti-piracy measures. They haven’t done this so far, but to us this seems to be inevitable.
Previously: Find and Share Music with TinySong
Next: Most Downloaded DVDrips on BitTorrent (wk34)
49 Responses
I’m not exactly sure why the need the help from the ISPs, but my guess is they need a list of IP addresses that are from the same ISP. However, there are good ways around this, first you can use a simple trace and count the hops to determinate who’s closer to you. But later on, when IPv6 is introduced, it will be possible to determine from what ISP the address is, as well as globally the location of the user by looking at the IPv6 address.
It wouldn’t surprise me to see private trackers banning P4P-aware clients. I’ve seen other clients banned for far less threatening infringements on swarm integrity.
why is an isp needed to help with this anyway? why not just build in to clients the ability to prefer closer peers and seeds instead?
actually, i think there is an azureus plugin to do this.
Wont be too bothered by this as long as this is open source, because no matter what the scumbags do or demand the code will most probably fork to a different program where programmers will simply drop the offending parts… the good thing is the longer the anti-piracy goons wait to demand the implementation of the offending code the easier it will be for people later to drop it, but if it was implemented from the ground up and its at the base protocal, that would pose a problem…
just my $0.2
Cheers!
Ryan
http://www.ezee.se
If in fact P4P services do have some sort of copyright filter it will ultimately fall by the way side as many file sharers will refuse to use it. The whole community will of course go back to p2p which(for the most part) never have and(for the most part) never will have such filters.
imo,of course
It will also allow for easier prosecution, since both the sender and receiver are far more likely to be in the same jurisdiction, provably so I would think.
Many recent articles on TorrentFreak are nothing but FUD.
@6
Go FUD yourself.
TF Rocks!
@7 Delaware
Go FUD yourself. Again!
(damn thing updated halfway thru)
“Hoever, we’re not so sure that BitTorrent client developers (and others) will adopt it so easily, since it might degrade performance on non P4P ISPs.”
However?
(thanks fixed it)
Is there not already a mode for azureus that does the same thing?
@4
You mean “just my $0.02″
Just my 20 cents, lol. :P
This could help legal P2P services such as Channel 4’s 4OD and the like. People who pirate will still use P2P though. So no harm really.
@12: Inflation. ^_~
Remember when “that and a dime will get you a cup of coffee?”
Clients are already quite good at sensing which peers provide good speed. Peer-for-peer will not increase speeds, it’s just ISP speedcaps in a new form.
Lol wut?
Anyway it will be hackable to develop new trackers…
P4P doesn’t go against net neutrality principles; it involves no traffic discrimination whatsoever. It is a system that provides peer-to-peer application developers with information on network topology and load, nothing more. Network neutrality means that traffic is carried without regard for its content, not that everyone’s connections have the same bandwidth.
As for the possibility of content-filtering, P4P changes nothing fundamental. If the first P4P-enabled clients came with some sort of filtering scheme, it would be easily removable without reducing the benefit of the technology.
I doubt that P4P can ultimately work in the long run, Utorrent like I would imagine other clients, to do local peer exchanges but I turn it off, it’s unnessecary.
Ultimatly P2P works because in the US tv shows come out before the UK etc. where as it’s easier to record a movie in a cinema in the UK, running of totally independant ISPs. I do think P4P has alot of commercial value but next to none with pirate use.
I think yo mean dark side not dark site or am i wrong?
What happened to P3P?
Did i miss a version?
LOL
I don’t feel that the reward would be worth the risk.
You wouldn’t get that much of a boost. If your downloading a torrent with a lot of seeds, then you have a good chance to have someone in the same area, but with so many seeds you’ll get very fast downloads and max your connection anyway.
And if its a torrent with little seeds, then your chances of someone being in the same area are extremely slim, and you’ll have a slow download.
This technology might reduce some bandwidth strain on ISPs, but its not like they are going to implement it and then just forget about it, they’ll still dislike it.
I’ll be sticking with p2p.
@ 19 releasepirates.com
He means in the summary BTW;
“P4P is touted as the new and improved P2P. The technology has the potential to lower bandwidth costs for ISPs and speed up downloads for P4P enabled filesharing clients. There is a dark ——site—– to this new technology though. The strong anti-piracy connections are fuel for conspiracy theorists, and Net Neutrality might be at stake.”
its crazy. ON the back of my mind I would not be surprised that there is a net for all the fish. i believe that the centralized protocols should be kept in place and patience is always a virtue. More so now than ever; thanks to the internet we can find out who is behind what and with what purpose is something new created. Thanks a lot for torrent freak for pointing this out.
Oh great, more fearmongering.
I’m sort of noticing a pattern with TorrentFreak:
1) Fearmongering
2) Advertisement
3) Articles of how we’re winning the fight
Have the writers of this site been to conspiracy blogs recently? If so, when is TF going to publish articles on the NWO et al?
@24
It is a private blog, what’s wrong about fearmongering?
This is a bigger threat than the NAFTA super highway, Ron Paul is all warning us about.
They will make us CanmericaMexico!
HILIARY CLINTON IS THE ANTI CHRIST, oh wait… no OBAMA is!
I ain’t paying in Pesos!
7 + 3 = 10… but 10 + 1 = 11… it you subtract 2, for the number of towers… you get 9…
9/11! Its the Communist/Nazi/Zionist Conspiracy!
THEY, want to sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids through fluoridation..
Have you ever seen a commie drink a glass of water?
We are Happy with Current P2P Technology.
No Need any other buggy Technology like P4P or P5P LoL
Thanks any way, Good Try / Try again :-P
okokok
Interesting view
icicic
They will cleanse infringers “Peer-for-Peer”..
“One might wonder, why is the MPAA involved in all this? Obviously their agenda is to stop copyright infringement, so we have no reason to believe that they will try to steer P4P in this direction as well.”
We have no reason to believe that they will try to steer P4P in this direction as well? Hooray! The MPAA is on our side! ;)
Has anyone ever done a WHOIS on themselves? Anyone ever used something like speedtest that tells you your ISP?
All you got to do is add an IP look up table to the current system for people who are on the same ISP as yourself, and then if there isn’t anyone then back down to P2P level again.
They seem to be making this more complicated than it really is. The information is free and is out there you just got to go and find it! xD
MeH…
The ONO project does this already by studying backbone architecture and determining peers who are (roughly) closer to each other on the network.
Its free, open source and already works pretty well.
P4P on the other hand is the “officially approved” version of the same concept. Apparently the MPAA and the ISPs think they need to be actively involved in “making p2p more efficient” which is industry code for “we want to control what you download”.
Fuck em. Support ONO instead.
http://www.aqualab.cs.northwestern.edu/projects/Ono.html
it sucks black mans cock
Sadly ,”collaboration” is the key which means it’ll never fly!
RD
http://www.decrypt.net.tc/
@15 : “Clients are already quite good at sensing which peers provide good speed. Peer-for-peer will not increase speeds”
Ummm, no your wrong - get a clue. BT natively picks arbitary clients (regardless of speed). AND if you think it makes no difference:
1) you are clueless
2) try the Ono plugin for azeurus and try telling me that.
this already exists, its called IPfilters… which is already integrated in both Azureus and uTorrent. (its up to the end-user on how efficient their filters are)
project fails on so many levels.
Pay for music you like. Buy directly from the artist (or a trusted indie) wherever possible.
P4P is being developed specifically for protected, non-copyright infringing content. It is being worked on by companies like Pando that are working to deliver ONLY ‘premium’ content via P2P, and are looking for ways to make it network-friendly so that they don’t piss the ISPs off. As far as I know, there will be no private, open-source clients that work with P4P because they can’t ensure that non-pirated content is not running over the networks.
As for slowing down traditional, non-P4P filesharing — that’s not a part of the plan. Non-P4P clients will still exist — they just won’t work as fast and won’t connect to P4P-engineered apps.
Good article. P4P is definitely not a step forward and, as you pointed out, considering the groups involved this will only benefit ISP’s and the entertainment industries.
“this already exists, its called IPfilters… which is already integrated in both Azureus and uTorrent. (its up to the end-user on how efficient their filters are)”
This has nothing to do with IP filters.
So they now want the public to bear the cost of their infrastructure and then sell it back to us.
a peer to peer networking model, invented and developed by the MPAA and RIAA.
Do you need to actually say anything else on this subject?
Here’s my impression:
slow, painfully slow downloads, and you’ll have mpaa snooping on your system, as you’ve installed a nifty logger/backdoor by using any p4p enabled client.
good luck folks
“Ummm, no your wrong - get a clue. BT natively picks arbitary clients (regardless of speed). AND if you think it makes no difference:”
Umm, you’re half right. The clients are picked arbitrarily BUT the connections are maintained by the quality of the connection.
Your client picks peerA and peerB. PeerA sends data back to you slowly, your client drops peerA and keeps the line open to peerB.
That’s how it works, ignoring the availability factor of course.
If ISPs what it, then I don’t.
Good point, @6 !
“Aug 24, 2008 at 21:50 by hdt
It will also allow for easier prosecution, since both the sender and receiver are far more likely to be in the same jurisdiction, provably so I would think.”
All I had to hear was that Dan Glickman and the MPAA were involved (not to mention those scum at Viacom) to realize that this one is a no-brainer. These people can NEVER be trusted. EVER.
It’s all about control. They realize they no longer have it and they will do anything to get it back.
Not on my watch. :P
if it ain’t broke don’t fix it
1st, eMule died bcs of Bittorent
Now, Bittorrent die(d/s) bcs of Wua.la (http://wua.la).
Maybe some of you should have a look at Wua.la. Its save, its fast, its encrypted and works different (UDP only) and can not be throttled like bittorrent is.
Give it a try and join the biggest groups on Wua.la or create your own groups. ;)
Responses are closed
All remaining responses will continue to be archived. Use the TorrentFreak forums if you want to discuss something.