On Wikipedia I searched the phrases/terms "internet piracy," "p2p software," and "Napster."
The first one brought me to a section on copyright infringement that can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_piracy
Things that are missing in this post would be views from countries that do allow copyright infringement, like Canada and most of Europe. Europe is mentioned twice in the entry while the U.S. is mentioned or referenced in almost every sentence. The biggest part missing from this entry would be the viewpoint of online piracy not destroying media, but actually helping to garner interest in it. There are sections titled "Comparison to Theft" but there are none titled "Comparison to Promotion" because that viewpoint is lacking.
My p2p software search eventually took me to an entry on the p2p service in general which can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer-to-peer
The major thing I think that can be added to this entry is the expansion of their "anonymity" section which currently only has one bullet point. A major problem for the U.S. government with online piracy is that despite their ability to collect ISPs, the system is still greatly anonymous. I could add information about what a peer to peer interaction would look like to an outside source (two isolated ISPs with no identity sharing a file for several minutes) and how it is so hard to track down the people who use p2p software.
The last search was to find out some information on Napster, which can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napster
This entry is greatly lacking on historical impact. The hsitory given is brief and I feel that they skip over why Napster was such a big deal, it began the p2p craze and changed the way we view the internet. An article was just published in The Santa Clara that said media companies declare 80% of internet traffic is illegal piracy, a trend that Napster greatly started. I could add a section on the historical impact of the Npaster service in the present day.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Blog 2
This blog will center around why P2P software is controversial.
I used google to find these sites because the way they deliver their results (most pages linked to them) helps the most when trying to find the most concrete and solid knowledge on this subject.
I searched for "p2p file sharing effects on record sales" and the best site I found was: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070212-8813.html
1) Ken Fisher of ARS TECHNICA is responsible for this website article.
2) This site is funded by CondeNet Inc.
3) This information was published on February 12th, 2007, so it is fairly current information.
4) The main argument and opinion given on this site is that p2p file sharing has had no noticeable impact on record sales. The research used to support this found that file sharing affected no more than .7% of record sales. It concluded that popular music will have both high downloads and a high purchase rate. This was based on a study which tracked a p2p server and Nielsen Soundscan for a particular music product. An interesting point it rbings up is that record companies rely on "units shipped" rather than "units sold" to determine how many units they sell. In this economy, places like Best Buy do not want merchandise sitting around so they try to order the lowest amount possible. This would account for the 80 million cd sales drop, not piracy, whcih accounts for about 6 million.
5) The main point missing from this site is that of the artists. Do they like it when their music is constantly downloaded for free? Whether they do or do not is not told in this article. A site funded by the record industry would be a good place to look for a second source.
The second phrase I searched for on google was: p2p file sharing record sales fall which found this website: http://www.thelongtail.com/the_long_tail/2005/11/the_effect_of_p.html
1) This was written by Chirs Anderson, a blogger from "The Long Tail" who quotes almost exclusively from a report written by David Blacburn, a Harvard PhD student.
2) This site is funded by the Wired Blog Network.
3) This article was published on November 24, 2005, which is not too current but it presents some intriguing points that I had not thought of.
4) The main argument given on thsi site is that piracy does hurt record sales, but it's effects can best be seen at the top. In other words, people are more likely to download, rather than purchase, more popular music. Therefore leaving realatively underground albums selling at a stable clip and more popular albums suffering greatly. This could easily explain the lack of "platinum" albums in recent years, nobody wants to buy the new Kanye West CD because everybody can just download it. Some math from the article states that if there were 30% less file sharing, the msot popular record would leap from sales of (for example) 130,000 to 160,000. Which goes without saying that without any file sharing the totals would nearly double. The math in this article also shows how lower ranked albums are not greatly affected by piracy, but if good artists are not encouraged to release more music due to album sales then tehre will be less music to purchase or download. A big factor in the music industry that this article brings up is that artists will not want to continue to make music if they know they could be selling twice as much without piracy. An intriguing topic that I hope to cover in my project.
5) The main viewpoint missing from this site is what was covered in my first site: the downloaderss perspective. I think tehse two site contrast each other nicely and give a wide spectrum of information.
I used google to find these sites because the way they deliver their results (most pages linked to them) helps the most when trying to find the most concrete and solid knowledge on this subject.
I searched for "p2p file sharing effects on record sales" and the best site I found was: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070212-8813.html
1) Ken Fisher of ARS TECHNICA is responsible for this website article.
2) This site is funded by CondeNet Inc.
3) This information was published on February 12th, 2007, so it is fairly current information.
4) The main argument and opinion given on this site is that p2p file sharing has had no noticeable impact on record sales. The research used to support this found that file sharing affected no more than .7% of record sales. It concluded that popular music will have both high downloads and a high purchase rate. This was based on a study which tracked a p2p server and Nielsen Soundscan for a particular music product. An interesting point it rbings up is that record companies rely on "units shipped" rather than "units sold" to determine how many units they sell. In this economy, places like Best Buy do not want merchandise sitting around so they try to order the lowest amount possible. This would account for the 80 million cd sales drop, not piracy, whcih accounts for about 6 million.
5) The main point missing from this site is that of the artists. Do they like it when their music is constantly downloaded for free? Whether they do or do not is not told in this article. A site funded by the record industry would be a good place to look for a second source.
The second phrase I searched for on google was: p2p file sharing record sales fall which found this website: http://www.thelongtail.com/the_long_tail/2005/11/the_effect_of_p.html
1) This was written by Chirs Anderson, a blogger from "The Long Tail" who quotes almost exclusively from a report written by David Blacburn, a Harvard PhD student.
2) This site is funded by the Wired Blog Network.
3) This article was published on November 24, 2005, which is not too current but it presents some intriguing points that I had not thought of.
4) The main argument given on thsi site is that piracy does hurt record sales, but it's effects can best be seen at the top. In other words, people are more likely to download, rather than purchase, more popular music. Therefore leaving realatively underground albums selling at a stable clip and more popular albums suffering greatly. This could easily explain the lack of "platinum" albums in recent years, nobody wants to buy the new Kanye West CD because everybody can just download it. Some math from the article states that if there were 30% less file sharing, the msot popular record would leap from sales of (for example) 130,000 to 160,000. Which goes without saying that without any file sharing the totals would nearly double. The math in this article also shows how lower ranked albums are not greatly affected by piracy, but if good artists are not encouraged to release more music due to album sales then tehre will be less music to purchase or download. A big factor in the music industry that this article brings up is that artists will not want to continue to make music if they know they could be selling twice as much without piracy. An intriguing topic that I hope to cover in my project.
5) The main viewpoint missing from this site is what was covered in my first site: the downloaderss perspective. I think tehse two site contrast each other nicely and give a wide spectrum of information.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Assignment 1
I used yahoo.com for my search attempts because of their relevancy ranking system. I am more interested in how relevant the information is to my inquiry than how popular the page is; namely because I am asking a specific question.
I searched 3 times with the terms: "how p2p networks work," "legality of p2p networks,"and "why napster lost."
The two best sites I found were:
-http://compnetworking.about.com/od/p2ppeertopeer/a/p2pintroduction.htm
-http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20030508_sprigman.html
The first discusses how p2p networks operate while the second analyzes the Grokster and Napster cases.
About.com "P2P Networking and P2P Software"
1) About.com writer Bradley Mitchell is responsible for the first article. It's purpose is to explain how p2p networks work as explaining things is normally the aim of about.com.
2) It is owned by the New York Times Company.
3) While there is no date for when the article was published, it mentions fairly new p2p services so it is current.
4) This article describes the most basic backbone of our project, how P2P networks actually work and which ones exist. It talks about how a peer to peer network actually works (two computers having the same responsibilities while uploading and downloading information) and it also talks about how the term p2p is commonly understood (online file sharing). It also talks about several popular p2p networks like Limewire and Bearshare.
5) The main information missing from this site is a more critical stance on the p2p search engines. It mwrely gives us background information, it does not delve into the deeper problems that p2p networks present.
1) Findlaw.com writer Chris Springman is responsible for this page.
2) This site is owned by Thomas Reuters.
3) This article was published on May 8, 2003.
4) While the article itself is not current, what it discusses is vital to our project. In fact it might be better that the article was written in 2003 because the article will have a better hold on the Grokster and Napster cases. This article basically evaluates why Grokster and Napster lost, and what effects this had on peer to peer file sharing.
5) This is a very specific site for our project because it only comments on Grokster and Napster. Therefore the information missing is basic p2p network information and background which ios adequately filled by the other site I chose.
-Alex
I searched 3 times with the terms: "how p2p networks work," "legality of p2p networks,"and "why napster lost."
The two best sites I found were:
-http://compnetworking.about.com/od/p2ppeertopeer/a/p2pintroduction.htm
-http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20030508_sprigman.html
The first discusses how p2p networks operate while the second analyzes the Grokster and Napster cases.
About.com "P2P Networking and P2P Software"
1) About.com writer Bradley Mitchell is responsible for the first article. It's purpose is to explain how p2p networks work as explaining things is normally the aim of about.com.
2) It is owned by the New York Times Company.
3) While there is no date for when the article was published, it mentions fairly new p2p services so it is current.
4) This article describes the most basic backbone of our project, how P2P networks actually work and which ones exist. It talks about how a peer to peer network actually works (two computers having the same responsibilities while uploading and downloading information) and it also talks about how the term p2p is commonly understood (online file sharing). It also talks about several popular p2p networks like Limewire and Bearshare.
5) The main information missing from this site is a more critical stance on the p2p search engines. It mwrely gives us background information, it does not delve into the deeper problems that p2p networks present.
1) Findlaw.com writer Chris Springman is responsible for this page.
2) This site is owned by Thomas Reuters.
3) This article was published on May 8, 2003.
4) While the article itself is not current, what it discusses is vital to our project. In fact it might be better that the article was written in 2003 because the article will have a better hold on the Grokster and Napster cases. This article basically evaluates why Grokster and Napster lost, and what effects this had on peer to peer file sharing.
5) This is a very specific site for our project because it only comments on Grokster and Napster. Therefore the information missing is basic p2p network information and background which ios adequately filled by the other site I chose.
-Alex
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
