napster vs peer to peer

Discussion in 'Community' started by Choppaface, Nov 3, 2002.

  1. Choppaface macrumors 65816

    Jan 22, 2002
    I've never understood this, and I thought some people here might know. what's the legal difference between napster and other P2P programs? why can't they take down stuff like limewire with the same methods?
  2. King Cobra macrumors 603

    Mar 2, 2002
    To directly answer your question, I'm not too sure. But I'll try to help you out.

    I think with Napster, when you download, say, a music file, you cannot make a backup copy of it. There is some sort of codec, or something, inside these files Napster provides, which does not affect mp3 players (AFAIK), but only comes into play when you try and make a backup copy of the file.

    As for the other networks, I think they stay up as long as the RIAA (or whatever) does not take control and shut them down. It's just that Napster is such a major file sharing org. among Limewire, Acquisition, etc., that it is easily recognized and has to have restrictions with its files.

    There was a multitude of previous discussions, here and at Cnet, with Napster possibly going out of business. Before the restriction was implemented, it worked as many of the other file sharing programs used to work, unrestricted and unlimited, except Napster was, again, more prominent.

    Of course, no matter what you use, there are some laws people need to follow. :)
  3. job macrumors 68040


    Jan 25, 2002
    in transit
    The reason why they cannot shut down Limewire is because the network is based entirely on the transfer of files between individual, personal computers.

    Such a network simply does away with any central server, therefore, the RIAA and FCC cannot physically shut it down, unless they confiscate all computers running Limewire (or any other Gnutella/P2P client for that matter).

    As long as at least two computers are on the same peer-to-peer network, that network will exist.
  4. Choppaface thread starter macrumors 65816

    Jan 22, 2002
    but wasn't the old napster basically peer to peer? I mean, it relied on the users' connections to transfer the what was the big deal? did the files go through some central server at napster first? or was it because napster kept some sort of index or something? so was there some issue of the connections between napster users not being direct or something?
  5. mac15 macrumors 68040

    Dec 29, 2001
    I hear of a new protocol coming in, its called M2U or me to you, its supposed to be better than p2p, don't know, and I haven't got any more info.
  6. Rower_CPU Moderator emeritus


    Oct 5, 2001
    San Diego, CA
    What the Fred ;) ?!?! What have you been smoking?

    I've never heard anything so Greg Danned funny in my entire life!

    :p :D :rolleyes:
  7. Choppaface thread starter macrumors 65816

    Jan 22, 2002
    i thought that was how the new napster was supposed to work
  8. redAPPLE macrumors 68030


    May 7, 2002
    2 Much Infinite Loops
    during the time of the "napster trials" there was once an article on which stated how napster "works" and why it was so vulnerable.

    napster used SERVERS. a user uploads a song, which is then stored in a server, in this case, the song can be completely download, without the fear that the other user would shut his computer down or abort "your" download.

    i guess napster keeps the songs in their servers, so others can download the songs too.

    the problem with peer to peer is that, the partner can abort "your" download or once he shuts down his computer, you lose connection.

    well according to documentations, the p2p program would connect to another computer with the same song and download the rest of the song (or other medium).

    can this be confirmed? i guess people would just search again, if the connection stops working right? ;)

    as some said, the advantage is there is no central server where the files are stored.

    so now the RIAA are trying to copy-protect their "cds".

    and F&$k them for that. they would just make the consumers mad. do not buy copy-protected cds.
  9. wilburpan macrumors regular

    Jul 23, 2002
    Close. The old Napster did use a server, but the only thing that was uploaded was a list of shared files. The actual files still resided on the individual's computer, and if that individual logged off the network in the middle of a download, the transfer would be aborted.

    This was the weakness in the old Napster that left them open to legal challenge. Since a server with a list of files existed, the RIAA held Napster responsible for policing traffic, since they had information as to what people were sharin which files. The various Gnutella variants operate without a server, so theoretically no one knows what files individuals are sharing.
  10. Nipsy macrumors 65816


    Jan 19, 2002
    It is truly wise logic...

    The collective minds battling copy protection are far far better than the minds which create it.

    This leads to a new phenomenon which I find hilarious. People buy crappy copy protected cds just to be the first to crack them and send them out to the Kazaa/Limewire world.

    There was a great discussion I read between several people (all of whom thought Celine Dion was crap), who were racing to buy and decode the cd.

    Record companies are shooting themselves in the foot (feet?) with this one.

    Celine came out. CNN ran a story about the "CD" breaking some computers, and not working in some CD players. Consumers became afraid of the "CD". Hackers were able to get the MP3s onto Kazaa et al. The "CD" sold poorly. The record company re-released it as a CD. Sales still sucked (relative to what they should have been) because of the stigma.

    Sound good for the artist?

    I wish the RIAA would look to the DVD industry for help. Many DVDs cost less than CDs. This makes the hassle of DeCSS not worth the time for the employed.

    If a DVD costs $15, it is really not worth being more anal than CSS. Most will plunk down $15.

    CDs still average $17.99. At $9.99, I think increased sales volumes and decreased piracy (as well as saved R & D and litigation costs) would more than offset the lost margin. At $10, it is more of a pain in the ass to d/l & burn a CD than it is to pay the money. At $17.99, it is the reverse.
  11. scem0 macrumors 604


    Jul 16, 2002
    back in NYC!
    I think it is also a popularity issue. Napster was extremely popular, and they got a lot of crap. I like to think of it in music terms. Eminem is very popular and says things that make people mad, so does little Kim, but who gets more crap? Eminem. Because he is more popular. That was one factor out of many that led the downfall of the great Napster. :D
  12. Choppaface thread starter macrumors 65816

    Jan 22, 2002
    huh but i thought that things like kazaa and limewire had servers that kept small file lists? no?
  13. arn macrumors god


    Staff Member

    Apr 9, 2001
    close but no cigar

    I'm surprised that people don't know how Napster worked...


    Client computers run Napster clients which connected to Napster's central servers. The client told Napster's server which files it had. When you searched, you sent the search query to Napster's server who looked at it's entire list of files from all the clients, and gave you results. When you downloaded a file, you connected directly (not through Napster's server). But, you still needed the server to do searches and bring the clients together. If you take out the Napster server... then you can't search for anything. End of service.

    Note: 3rd party servers have poped up using the Napster protocol... This is what is known as OpenNap.

    Gnuetlla (Limewire)

    Is entirely peer to peer. It's a big game of "telephone". You need to connect to at least on computer who is on the Gnutella network . When you search, you ask the computer you are connected to - "do you have this file" It then sends that same query to all of the computers it is connected, and you repeat this. So, the search gets propogated slowly to a ton of other computers, and results come back. It's a lot slower... but you can't kill it very easily as there is no centralized server.

    Even if you wanted to, you couldn't shut down Gnutella.
    There are 3rd or 4th generation P2P clients which do better. Gnutella's model doesn't scale very well.... Kazaa uses the concept of "Super Nodes" which are simply regular clients who are dynamically promoted to Super Nodes to act as a sort of server temporarily. This is all done automtically, so there is still no ONE server to take out.

    Kazaa, on the other hand, you could shut down... but I won't get into that. The reason they haven't been is I think due to legal issues outside the USA. They are based in another country and the legal process there hasn't shut them down yet.


Share This Page