1. Why have p2p networks been so successful?

Why do peers contribute to p2p file sharing

networks?

Ans: At this moment millions of internet users are sharing billions of different music files on just one of
the many free P2P software programs. The success and the increased use of these programs over the
years can be attributed to the following advantages of p2p networks:
1. This software allows anyone with an internet connection to share their music files with others,
enabling them to download any song they have ever heard of.

2. Software such as the original Napster, and subsequently Kazza, have been freely available to
download and use, allowing a net user to download unlimited numbers of MP3s at no cost.
3. With cost not being a barrier, consumers have been able download any music they like,
experiencing a wealth of artists they otherwise may never of heard of.
4. As consumers amass large numbers of MP3s, they can then burn them on to CDs or
downloaded on to portable MP3 players almost eradicating the need for people to purchase
hard copies of music.
Thus, It has been this versatility of P2P software which has seen it ride to success, offering far
more then any traditional medium ever has.

Peers contribute to this file sharing system because

1. Some of these platforms offer better speed for downloading to those users who contribute
by sharing files through their systems
2. They often rate the users who contribute more to the p2p programs which adds up
immensely to their sense of belongingness with the software programs
3. Further an added feature i.e. the chatrooms also make them answer the requests of the
other users thus making them add to the contributions.

2. How may p2p file sharing networks will there be in the long term? "0", "1", "2", "more than 2".
Substantiate

Ans: More than 2

Software such as the original Napster, and subsequently Kazza, have been freely available to download
and use, allowing a net user to download unlimited numbers of MP3s at no cost. Barrier to entry being
very low in the p2p software industry, they were subsequently followed by FastTrack, Gnutella,
eDonkey, overnet, emule etc. Looking over the history we can see that at any point of time there were
more than 2 players in the industry or even more and when a lawsuit was passed against any of these
websites, the users had always shifted to other such p2p platforms which made it easy for the new
entrants in this industry to lure the customers.

Inspite of all the measures taken by the music industry, they were not able to stop the people using such
platforms and they were also not able to threaten the new entrants. Thus after suing Napster on
account of copyright infringement, on June 25, 2003, the RIAA made a public announcement that it
would begin suing the users of P2P software. This course of action has, quite accurately, been referred
to as a legal intimidation campaign and has aimed to make an example of high users of P2P software to
deter others.

The RIAA begin their court actions by sending an opening letter clearly stating that the defendant may
be liable for up to $750 for each file they have provided for others to download. However one
interesting is point is that not a single one of these law suits have been resolved in court. The big four is
targeting individual users, including children and senior citizen, who simple can not afford to defend
themselves in what would be a lengthy and extremely expensive legal battle with international
corporations. As a result hundred of Americans are feeling forced to settle in cases where the courts are
still yet to decide whether consumers are liable. This substantiates the level of problems being faced by
the industry because of p2p programs and the inability of the industry to suppress such platforms whose
numbers keep on growing. Simply turning to the users will not help the music industry or RIAA to get rid
of these platforms and thus numbers will keep on growing as well.

3. Why has iTunes been so successful?

Answer:

1. It allows user to buy just the song they wanted only, they need not to buy the entire CD (Which
is more costly) to get that one song.
2. Also the cost of buying music from iTunes was very low

3. iTunes was the first digital music store where customers can buy a catalog similar to what they
would find in a record store .

4. The music and songs available at iTunes were all licensed and of good quality

5. No issue of piracy in iTunes Music

6. iTunes tracks were restricted from being played on other MP3 player

7. iPod of the apple have its own DRM system called Fair Play which encrypted the songs thereby
protecting musicians copyrights.

8. iTunes software is free to download on both Mac and window operating system and also easy to
use

9. The Song downloaded from iTunes could be enjoy in iPod , load to computers , and CDs of the
track can also be made.The track can be loaded to maximum five computers and can be burn on
5 CDs
 10. iTunes is offered not only on apple products but also through windows, different phones devices
offer the ability to use iTunes.

4. Who will win the competitive battle over the long run? p2ps or client-server systems such as
Apple's iTunes?

P2Ps

Client Server Systems

Answer: Peer to Peer file sharing will win the competitive battle as always even over the long run.
Several factors add up to support this point as :

a) The majority of P2P software programs are free and aside of internet connection, no additional
charge is levied for sharing or accessing files
b) Individuals can find a movie or song as easily as performing google search
c) Variety of content is available on P2P sharing websites in comparison to client server traditional
systems
d) Materials such as live performances, rarities, basement recordings, or movies that are not
distributed normally can be easily found on P2P websites thus increasing their reach
e) There are no restrictions on P2P files thus giving user the full freedom to use it howsoever he
wants to use
f) Bulk sharing with no complications can also be addendum for the popularity of P2P systems over
client server systems

Comparing it with iTunes, it is well understood that on one hand client servers provide legal
rights to the user for any content and on the other hand provides security mapping as well
making the use of such systems worthy and advantageous but this added advantage is only for
the high end customers which constitute a very small portion of the user base.
The case states that Out of the 42 million ipods in existence it was estimated that over 40
billion songs were in floatation of which 850 million had been purchased from iTunes by the end
of 2005 (Case, Page no. 13). Breaking this down we can conclude that only 20.2% of the total
number of songs on iPod were actually purchased from iTunes which further means that a large
portion of the high end users (users of iTunes) were also diverted towards the free service being
provided by P2P websites and the number of those customers is likely to increase over the
years. Hence P2P systems are likely to win over the client based server systems.

5. How should the music and film industries react to p2p?

So far, none of the techniques exercised by the music industry have been successful. These methods
have all involved attempts to suppress the use P2P and return consumers back to buying physical copies.
With its previous techniques failing the music industry may have to accept that the industry has
developed. Many users state that the ability to find any track is more important than the fact the music
is free. A result of this was that pay sites have eventually appeared trying to offer better services and
more protection then there free P2P rivals. A number of successful pay sites have appeared including
the Napster II and iTunes. These services allow the user to download virtually any song for either a
monthly cost or fixed rate per song with these payments often finding their way back to the major
record labels. These have been supported by the music industry which gets paid a share of the
download cost for providing the copyrighted files.

This move shows us that the industry has accepted that people want their music available over the
internet and as MP3s. However these MP3 stores still lack some of the benefits of P2P software, namely
the ability to utilise the files on anothers computer, find and download music from a user who you
establish have similar tastes or the download of many uncopyrighted or freely available songs.

Record companies are finally making huge investments into making music available for legal
downloading in a way which is convenient, easy and above all safe. The music industry has claimed,
quite correctly, that it's a lot quicker to rip something off and offer it free than it is to build a legal
framework around the same system so that artists, writers and producers can be paid for their work and
develop long-term careers. This has marked a change in the music industries perception and
developments would imply they have adapted and accepted that P2P software is here to stay and has, in
some respects, called a truce with the file sharers. The music industry together with Shawn Fanning, the
creator of the original Napster, Snocap technology has been developed. This software combines the
benefits of P2P software with a system for paying a fee to the music industry. They work similarly to the
current P2P application but charge the small user a small fee per download which can then be collected
by the copyright holders. In return for this the software is kept free of bogus files and the music
industry is willing to give substantial funding to these developments. This will results it pay P2P
application advancing quicker and providing more features than the current P2P applications.

So, as the music industry finally embraces the benefits of P2P, and P2P succumbs to the necessities of
the music industry a way forward has been found. Whilst it is likely that free P2P services will be around
for a long time and both the industries i.e music as well as movie industries will have to work accordingly
and will have to try to keep themselves ahead of their rivals either by collaborating or going against
them.