The BitTorrent Effect

For all too many I know, it doesn’t exist unless it’s mentioned in Wired. Hopefully this will peak their attention since some software engineer talking excitedly about what’s coming down the pike isn’t as effective (errr…).

…Like many geeks in the ’90s, Cohen coded for a parade of dotcoms that went bust without a product ever seeing daylight. He decided his next project would be something he wrote for himself in his own way, and gave away free. “You get so tired of having your work die,” he says. “I just wanted to make something that people would actually use.”

…You could think of BitTorrent as Napster redux – another rumble in the endless copyright wars. But BitTorrent is something deeper and more subtle. It’s a technology that is changing the landscape of broadcast media.

“All hell’s about to break loose,” says Brad Burnham, a venture capitalist with Union Square Ventures in Manhattan, which studies the impact of new technology on traditional media. BitTorrent does not require the wires or airwaves that the cable and network giants have spent billions constructing and buying. And it pounds the final nail into the coffin of must-see, appointment television. BitTorrent transforms the Internet into the world’s largest TiVo.

One example of how the world has already changed: Gary Lerhaupt, a graduate student in computer science at Stanford, became fascinated with Outfoxed, the documentary critical of Fox News, and thought more people should see it. So he convinced the film’s producer to let him put a chunk of it on his Web site for free, as a 500-Mbyte torrent. Within two months, nearly 1,500 people downloaded it. That’s almost 750 gigs of traffic, a heck of a wallop. But to get the ball rolling, Lerhaupt’s site needed to serve up only 5 gigs. After that, the peers took over and hosted it themselves. His bill for that bandwidth? $4. There are drinks at Starbucks that cost more. “It’s amazing – I’m a movie distributor,” he says. “If I had my own content, I’d be a TV station.”

During the last century, movie and TV companies had to be massive to afford distribution. Those economies of scale aren’t needed anymore. Will the future of broadcasting need networks, or even channels?

“Blogs reduced the newspaper to the post. In TV, it’ll go from the network to the show,” says Jeff Jarvis, president of the Internet strategy company Advance.net and founder of Entertainment Weekly. (Advance.net is owned by Advance Magazine Group, which also owns Wired’s parent company, Cond? Nast.) Burnham goes one step further. He thinks TV-viewing habits are becoming even more atomized. People won’t watch entire shows; they’ll just watch the parts they care about.

Evidence that Burnham’s prediction is coming true came a few weeks before the US presidential election in November, when Jon Stewart – host of Comedy Central’s irreverent The Daily Show – made a now-famous appearance on CNN’s Crossfire. Stewart attacked the hosts, Paul Begala and Tucker Carlson, calling them political puppets. “What you do is partisan hackery,” he said, just before he called Carlson “a dick.” Amusing enough, but what happened next was more remarkable. Delighted fans immediately ripped the segment and posted it online as a torrent. Word of Stewart’s smackdown spread rapidly through the blogs, and within a day at least 4,000 servers were hosting the clip. One host reported having, at any given time, more than a hundred peers swapping and downloading the file. No one knows exactly how many people got the clip through BitTorrent, but this kind of traffic on the very first day suggests a number in the hundreds of thousands – and probably much higher. Another 2.3 million people streamed it from iFilm.com over the next few weeks. By contrast, CNN’s audience for Crossfire was only 867,000. Three times as many people saw Stewart’s appearance online as on CNN itself.

…Cohen knows the havoc he has wrought. In November, he spoke at a Los Angeles awards show and conference organized by Billboard, the weekly paper of the music business. After hobnobbing with “content people” from the record and movie industries, he realized that “the content people have no clue. I mean, no clue. The cost of bandwidth is going down to nothing. And the size of hard drives is getting so big, and they’re so cheap, that pretty soon you’ll have every song you own on one hard drive. The content distribution industry is going to evaporate.” Cohen said as much at the conference’s panel discussion on file-sharing. The audience sat in a stunned silence, their mouths agape at Cohen’s audacity.

Wired: The BitTorrent Effect: 01/04

You’ll definately want to read this profile of BitTorrent and it’s creator.

Over 60,000 now, and CNN must have been listening to the blogosphere

The scope of this is just too much to comprehend. I have friends with family in the affected regions of India. They are OK and were just out of danger.

As an aside, it looks like CNN has gotten the message. Their TV news is now matching the coverage of their online wing.

Something people don’t always know – a news company can have entirely different staffs for online operations vs. their other outlets.

This Xmas season

This Xmas season, it’s severely cold here, and snowy across the middle of the US. I will make my yearly plea that we all go out of our way to think of those in need. The homeless can make efficient use of just about anything. Don’t just collect those bags of stuff for your tax write-off; give where the need is heaviest. I know it’s a down economy, and we’re all challenged ? but I see more of Shakespeare?s homeless this year, than I can ever help:

Poor naked wretches, wheresoe’er you are,
That bide the pelting of this pitiless storm!
How shall your houseless heads, and unfed sides,
Your loop’d and window?d raggedness, defend you
From seasons such as these?

Conservatives can try to make Scrooge into a hero, insulting the legacy of Dickens. If you have a heart, you know better than that. Dig out that old stuff in your closet, make someone warm tomorrow, and for the Xmas holiday. You there ? I know you’ve got that can of black olives in the back of your pantry. And you … you?ve got a can of chili you didn?t especially like sitting there. Give it someone who might truly enjoy it, instead of tossing it out when you do your spring cleaning.

The homeless, in general, do not bite. Walk up and talk to them, look them in the eye. Let them know someone cares. You may be surprised, even delighted. If you see one as you’re leaving your favorite restaurant, offer your ‘doggie bag.’ Going to McDonalds? Spend a couple of bucks and buy them a “Happy Meal” or better. To paraphrase Bob Marley, mankind *is* our business. You can?t do much about Iraq, but you can feed and clothe that homeless vet, can?t you?

To give you a different and personal spin, try this on for size. I can never forget that my father and his siblings were once ragged orphans, abandoned by their father and grandparents upon their mother’s death. If you don’t give, you might not be able to read writings from someone like myself in the future. You read me, thanks to the charity of private individuals. Individuals who gave a damn, who wanted to make a difference.

And did.

The cold of winter *is* when want is most keenly felt. Do not forget the needy this season.

Thank you.

dangerousmeta: 12/23/04

I quoted the whole post, which is wrong copyright wise, but Garret probably won’t mind. This is too important and he’d understand.

I can relate to his message – in the future you just might not have people like myself either, who grew up with Salvation Army provided Christmases amd spent time sleeping on the Frankford El because I had no where to go.

I said this before in the context of the election, but I’ll say it again in the context of life – if you have the resources, you have the responsibility to do something.

In Philly, we have Project H.O.M.E.. A terrific service that will help homeless with temporary relief, and long term, to help them beat their personal struggle with poverty.

One thing I do is keep a phone number on me at all times, their Street Outeach number (215) 232-1984. Call it if you find someone who is homeless. They will drive to your location and attempt to help him or her out. Better yet (and I need to do this myself) volunteer to be a driver by calling the same number. They always need help.

Kerry to enter the Ohio Recount Fray

2004 Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry will file today, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, papers in support of the Green Party/Libertarian Party recount effort. Specifically, Kerry will be filing a request for expedited discovery regarding Triad Systems voting machines, as well as a motion for a preservation order to protect any and all discovery and preserve any evidence on this matter…

Kerry’s entry into this recount effort changes the math on this matter dramatically. He can likewise show irreperable harm, and unlike the Green and Libertarian candidates, he can also prove a substantial chance for success on the merits because he lost the Ohio vote by a statistical whisker.

It should be noted that Kerry’s filing of these requests does not indicate his complete entry into the recount process, but does clearly indicate that he is moving decisively in that direction. His previous stance on the matter was based simply on his desire to defend the right to have a recount in the first place. The evidence of election tampering in Ohio, specifically surrounding Triad, has motivated him to actively join the fight. The Democratic Party is also quietly putting financial resources into the Ohio recount effort.

truthout: Kerry to Enter Ohio Recount Fray: 12/23/04

Out of Control: The Sequel

This morning I woke up to find that the torrent had died. Someone – no one knows who – had put enough pressure onto the operators of Suprnova.org and TorrentBits.com to shut them down. SuprNova.org was amazing, the Wal-Mart of torrents, a great big marketplace of piracy, all neatly dished up and aiming to please. You want this new Hollywood release? Here’s a recording from someone who smuggled a camcorder into a screening. – How about the latest episode of that hit HBO series? There you go, and no subscription fees to pay. Just fire up your favorite BitTorrent client – BitTornado, Azureus, Tomato, or that good old-fashioned Bram Cohen code. Click on the torrent, and you’re up and downloading, sharing what you’re getting with hundreds of others. Share and share alike. What could be more friendly?

For those of you who found the last paragraph littered with weird gobblygook, here’s your opportunity to come up to speed: BitTorrent is a computer protocol (a language computers use when communicating with each other) which allows computers to freely and efficiently share information with one another. This free-for-all of sharing is often called peer-to-peer or P2P, and it has become one of the most popular activities on the Internet. Many of you have heard how the record companies are deathly afraid that their markets are about to evaporate as their customers move from buying CDs to downloading pirated music. This much is true: for the last several years, peer-to-peer software has been used to help people find audio files on the internet – files being offered up by other people for you to download, anonymously. Find a song, click on it, and down it comes to your computer’s hard drive.

All of this song swapping began before most Americans had access to high-speed “broadband” internet connections. But, as of a month ago, just about half of the home users in the USA access the Internet through a broadband connection. These connections are anywhere from 10 and 50 times faster than the earlier “dial-up” connections which tied up phone lines and kept you waiting for what seemed like weeks as you struggled to download the latest gossip from your favorite website. While it takes some time to download music over a dial-up connection, you’d only wait about ten minutes for an average song. Movies and TV shows, which are much “richer” (more data), take a lot more time to download. The new U2 album, for example, might contain 45 million bytes of data. But an episode of “Six Feet Under” – roughly the same length – would probably run to 450 million bytes of information, ten times the amount. Coincidentally, that’s how much faster internet connections are, compared to a few years ago.

This increase in bandwidth has led to an enormous underground trade in all sorts of audiovisual media. It’s not just current movies – classics and cult films are available. (I downloaded Russ Meyer’s Beyond the Valley of the Dolls the day he died, watching it that evening, my homage to the great schlock director.) And, more significantly, nearly every new TV show that airs in the US or the UK is almost instantaneously available globally, because someone watching that show is recording it to their hard disk, publishing the recording to the Internet. This isn’t rocket science: computer peripherals which convert TV signals to digital data cost less than $100, and millions of them are out there already.

If you’re just one person with one recording of one show, and it’s a popular show, your computer’s internet connection is going to get swamped with requests for the show; eventually your computer will crash or you’ll take the show off the Internet, just so you can read your email. And in the early days of peer-to-peer, that’s how it was. Someone would find a computer with a copy of the song they wanted to listen to, connect to that computer, and download the data. It worked, but anything that got very popular was likely to disappear almost immediately. Popularity was a problem in first-generation peer-to-peer networks.

In November 2002, an unemployed programmer named Bram Cohen decided there had to be a better way, so he spent a few weeks writing an improved version of the protocols used to create peer-to-peer networks, and came up with BitTorrent. BitTorrent is a radical advance over the peer-to-peer systems which preceded it. Cohen realized that popularity is a good thing, and designed BitTorrent to take advantage of it. When a file (movie, music, computer program, it’s all just bits) is published on BitTorrent, everyone who wants the file is required to share what they have with everyone else. As you’re downloading the file, those parts you’ve already downloaded are available to other people looking to download the file. This means that you’re not just “leeching” the file, taking without giving back; you’re also sharing the file with anyone else who wants it. As more people download the file, they offer up what they’ve downloaded, and so on. As this process rolls on, there are always more and more computers to download the file from. If a file gets very popular, you might be getting bits of it from hundreds of different computers, all over the Internet – simultaneously. This is a very important point, because it means that as BitTorrent files grow in popularity, they become progressively faster to download. Popularity isn’t a scourge in BitTorrent – it’s a blessing.

It’s such a blessing that, as of November, 35% of all traffic on the Internet was BitTorrent-related. Unfortunately, that blessing looks more like a curse if you’re the head of a Hollywood studio, trying to fill seats in megaplexes or move millions of units of your latest DVDs releases. And, although BitTorrent is efficient, it isn’t designed to make data piracy easy; BitTorrent relies on a lot of information which can be used to trace the location of every single user downloading a file, and, more significantly, it also relies on a centralized “tracker”- a computer program which registers the requests for the file, and tells a requester how to hook up to the tens or hundreds of other computers offering pieces of the file for download.

As any good network engineer knows (and I was a network engineer for over a decade), a single point of failure (a single computer offering a single torrent tracker) is a Bad Thing to have in a network. It’s the one shortcoming in Cohen’s design for BitTorrent: kill the tracker and you’ve killed the torrent. But network engineers know better than to design systems with single points of failure: that’s one of the reasons the Internet is still around, despite the best efforts of hackers around the world to kill it. Failure in any one part of the Internet is expected and dealt with in short order. Various parts of the Internet fail all the time and you only very rarely notice.

Back to today, when the hammer came down. SuprNova.org and TorrentBits.com each played host to thousands of BitTorrent trackers. When these sites went down the torrents went Poof!, as if they’d never existed. This evening the members of the MPAA must be feeling quite satisfied with themselves – they see this danger as passed; never again will BitTorrent threaten the revenues of the Hollywood studios.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

As Hollywood is so fond of sequels, it seems perfectly fitting that today’s suppression of the leading BitTorrent sites bears an uncanny resemblance to an event which took place in July of 2000. Facing a rising sea of lawsuits and numerous court orders demanding an immediate shutdown, the archetypal peer-to-peer service, Napster, pulled the plug on its own servers, silencing the millions of users who used the service as a central exchange to locate songs to download. That should have been the end of that. But it wasn’t. Instead, the number of songs traded on the Internet today dwarfs the number traded in Napster’s heyday. The suppression of Napster led to a profusion of alternatives – Gnutella, Kazaa, and BitTorrent.

Gnutella is a particularly telling example of how the suppression of a seductive technology (and peer-to-peer file trading is very seductive – ask anyone who’s done it) only results in an improved technology taking its place. Instead of relying on a centralized server – a fault that both Napster and BitTorrent share – Gnutella uses a process of discovery to let peers share information with each other about what’s available where. The peers in a Gnutella peer-to-peer network self-organize into an occasionally unreliable but undeniably expansive network of content. Because of its distributed nature, shutting down any one Gnutella peer has only a very limited effect on the overall network. One individual’s collection of music might evaporate, but there are still tens of
thousands of others to pick from. This network of Gnutella peers (and its offspring, such as Kazaa, BearShare, and Acquisition) has been growing since its introduction in 2001, mostly invisibly, but ever more pervasively.

If Napster hadn’t been run out of business by the RIAA, it’s unlikely that any need for Gnutella would have arisen; if the RIAA hadn’t attacked that single point of failure, there’d have been no need to develop a solution which, by design, has no single point to failure. It’s as though both sides in the war over piracy and file sharing are engaged in an evolutionary struggle: every time one side comes up with a new strategy, the other side evolves a response to it. This isn’t justa cat-and-mouse game; each attack by the RIAA, generates a response of increasing sophistication. And, today, the MPAA has blundered into this arms race. This was, as will soon be seen, a Very Bad Idea.

Pointing up the single greatest weakness of BitTorrent take down the tracker and the torrent dies – has only served to energize, inspire and the resources of an entire global ecology of softwaredevelopers, network engineers and hackers-at-large who want nothing so much, at this moment, as to make the MPAA pay for their insolence. Imagine a parent reaching into a child’s room and ripping a TV set out of the wall while the child is watching it. That child would feel anger and begin plotting his revenge. And that scene has been multiplied at least hundred thousand times today, all around the world. It is quite likely that, as I type these words, somewhere in the world a roomful of college CS students, fueled by coke and pizza and righteous indignation, are banging out some code which will fix the inherent weakness of BitTorrent – removing the need for a single tracker. If they’re smart enough, they’ll work out a system of dynamic trackers, which could quickly pass control back and forth among a cloud of peers, so that no one peer holds the hot potato long enough to be noticed. They’ll take the best of Gnutella and cross-breed it with the best of BitTorrent. And that will be the MPAA’s worst nightmare.

Hey, Hollywood! Can you feel the future slipping through your fingers? Do you understand how badly you’ve screwed up? You took a perfectly serviceable situation – a nice, centralized system for the distribution of media, and, through your own greed and shortsightedness, are giving birth to a system of digital distribution that you’ll never, ever be able to defeat. In your avarice and arrogance you ignored the obvious: should have cut a deal with SuprNova.org. In partnership you could have found a way to manage the disruptive change that’s already well underway. Instead, you have repeated the mistakes made by the recording industry, chapter and verse. And thus you have spelled your own doom. It’s said that the best sequels are just like the original, only bigger and louder. Ladies and gentlemen, prepare yourselves for one hell of a crash. This baby is now fully out of control.

Mark Pesce: Sydney/Hobart: 12/20/04: Released under the Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0