Copyright 2005 1 P2P Technology and Its Legal and Policy Implications Roger Clarke Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd, Canberra Visiting Professor at U.N.S.W.,

Copyright2005

1

P2P Technologyand Its Legal and Policy Implications

Roger ClarkeXamax Consultancy Pty Ltd, Canberra

Visiting Professor at U.N.S.W., A.N.U., Uni. of Hong Kong

http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/...

.../II/P2P-LegPol-0507 {.html, .ppt}

Baker & McKenzie Cyberspace Law & Policy Centre

U.N.S.W., 27 July 2005

Copyright2005

2

P2P Technologyand Its Legal and Policy

Implications

Themes

• Where It Came From; and What It Is

• How It’s Different• What It Can Be Used For• What It Is Used For• Its Implications• Copyright-Owner Adaptation

Copyright2005

3

Star Topology / Master-Slave Architecture

1950s Onwards

HubDumb

Terminal

Copyright2005

4

The ARPANet’s Peer-to-Peer Topology

1969 Onwards Multi-Organisational

Copyright2005

5

Client-Server Architecture1980s Onwards

Intra-OrganisationalServer

Softwarein

LargeCentral

Host

ClientSoftware

inSmall

RemotePC

PCsin

LocalArea

Network

Copyright2005

6

Client-Server Architecturemid-1980s Onwards, esp. mid-1990s

Onwards Internet-Mediated

Serverin

Host

Clientin

Workstation

Clientin

Workstation

Clientin

Workstation

Clientin

Workstation

Clientin

Workstation

Clientin

Workstation

Serverin

Host

Serverin

Host

Copyright2005

7

Key Developments Since the Mid-1990s

• Workstation Capacity (now rivals Hosts)• Workstation Diversity

desktops, laptops, handhelds, smartcards, ...phones, PDAs, cameras, ...fridges, carburettors, ... RFID tags, ...

• Broadband Connectivity (now widespread)This enables dispersion and replicationof devices capable of providing services

• Wireless Connectivity (rapidly increasing)This enables Mobilitywhich means Devices change networkswhich means their IP-addresses change

Copyright2005

8

Wireless Comms Using Electromagnetic Radiation

• Wide Area Networks – Satellite (Geosynch, Low)GS is Large footprint, very high latency (c. 2 secs)

• Wide Area Networks – Cellular (to 20km per cell)1 – Analogue Cellular, e.g. AMPS, TACS2 – Digital Cellular, e.g. GSM, CDMA3 – ‘3G’, e.g. GSM/GPRS and W-CDMA

• Wide Area Networks – ‘WiMax’, IEEE 802.16• Local Area Networks – ‘WiFi’ (10-100 m radius)

e.g. IEEE 802.11x esp. 11b,g / Apple Airport• Personal Area Networks (1-10 metres)

e.g. Bluetooth (or beamed infra-red)

Copyright2005

9

P2P – The Motivation

• “P2P is class of applications that take advantage of resources (storage, processing capacity, content, human presence) available at the edges of the Internet”

• A program is both Client and Server:• a workstation provide services to others

e.g. a music playstation can be a mixer too• So Workstations also acts as Hosts

Copyright2005

10

Multiply-Connected Topology / P2P Architecture

1970s but esp. Late 1990s Onwards Internet-Mediated

Copyright2005

11

P2P – Towards a Technical Definition

P2P is a network architecture in which each node

is capable of performing each of the functions

necessary to support the network

and in practice many nodes do perform many of the functions

Copyright2005

12

The Essential Nature of P2P• In principle, Every Device is a Client and a Server• In practice, Many Devices perform Server-functions• Collaboration is inherent• Clients can find Servers• ‘Single Points-of-Failure’ / Bottlenecks / Chokepoints

are avoided by means of networking dynamics • Enough Devices with Enough Resources participate as

Servers for discovery, and as Servers for services• 'Free-Riding' / 'Over-Grazing' of the 'Commons'

is restrained through software and psych. features

Copyright2005

13

Why P2P Is Attractive• Much-Reduced Dependence on individual devices

and sub-networks (no central servers)• Robustness not Fragility (no single point-of-failure)• Resilience / Quick Recovery (inbuilt redundancy)• Much-Improved Scalability (proportionality)• Improved Servicing of Highly-Peaked Demand

(more devices on the demand-side implies there are also more server-resources)

• Resistance to Denial of Service (D)DOS attacks (no central servers)

Copyright2005

14

P2P Applications1. Of Long Standing

• ARPANET services generally, from 1969, which were built over a peer-to-peer architecture

• message transfer agents, since 1972 (SMTP), which perform both server and client functions

• USENET since 1979, now Internet Netnews• Fidonet file / message transfer system, since 1984• Domain Name System (DNS), since 1984,

a collaborative scheme, each server also a client

Copyright2005

15

Recently-Emerged P2P Applications2. Processing Services (cf. Grid

Computing)• Pattern-Searching of Data (e.g. SETI@home)• Data-Space Searching, in particular as part

of a collaborative key-discovery process (e.g. EFF's DES cracking project)

• Numerical Methods, large-scale / brute-force(e.g. fluid dynamics experiments, meteorology)

• Gaming, multi-player, networked• Message Transfer:

• conferencing/chat/instant messaging• cooperative publishing

Copyright2005

16

Recently-Emerged P2P Applications

3. Access to Digital Objects• Software fixes/patches• Software releases• Virus Signatures• Announcements, e.g. of

technical and business information, entertainment, sports results, promotional messages, advertisements

• News Reports, by news organisations, and by members of the public

• Emergency Services traffic• Backup and Recovery• Games Data, e.g. scenes

and battle configurations• Archived Messages, for

conferencing/chat/IM, and cooperative publishing

• Learning Materials, in various formats

• Entertainment Materials, in various formats

Copyright2005

17

The Predominant Use 1998-2005

• Consumer sharing of entertainment materials:

• recorded music, in MP3 and other formats

• video, as bandwidths increase

• Copyright-owning corporations assert, with substantial evidence, that a large proportion of those file-transfers is being performed in breach of copyright law

Copyright2005

18

Indicators of Scale• In Sep 2002, 31m Americans used P2P to share music• In 2003, FastTrack peaked at 5.5m users and 60% of

the market, then fell due to publicity about lawsuits• By 2004:

• P2P data volumes estimated at 10% of traffic (Web 50%, all email incl. spam 3%)

• simultaneous users c. 10m• c. 50 m searches per day• FastTrack still had 4m users (40% of market)

and enabled access to 2m files, >10 terabytes• 50% of files audio, 25% video, 25% other

Copyright2005

19

P2P Networks and Protocols

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer-to-peer#Networks.2C_protocols_and_applications

BitTorrent network: ABC, Azureus, BitAnarch, BitComet, BitSpirit, BitTornado, BitTorrent, BitTorrent++, BitTorrent.Net, G3 Torrent, mlMac, MLDonkey, QTorrent, SimpleBT, Shareaza, TomatoTorrent (Mac OS X) [2], TorrentStormeDonkey network: aMule (Linux, Mac OS X, others), eDonkey2000, eMule, LMule, MindGem, MLDonkey, mlMac, Shareaza, xMule, iMesh Light, ed2k (eDonkey 2000 protocol)FastTrack protocol: giFT, Grokster, iMesh (and its variants stripped of adware including iMesh Light), Kazaa by Sharman Networks (and its variants stripped of adware including: Kazaa Lite, K++, Diet Kaza and CleanKazaa), KCeasy, Mammoth, MLDonkey, mlMac, PoisonedFreenet network: Entropy (on its own network), Freenet, FrostGnutella network: Acquisitionx (Mac OS X), BearShare, BetBug, Cabos, CocoGnut (RISC OS) [3], Gnucleus Grokster, iMesh, gtk-gnutella (Unix), LimeWire (Java), MLDonkey, mlMac, Morpheus, Phex Poisoned, Swapper, Shareaza, XoloXGnutella2 network: Adagio, Caribou, Gnucleus, iMesh, MLDonkey, mlMac, Morpheus, Shareaza, TrustyFilesJoltid PeerEnabler: Altnet, Bullguard, Joltid, Kazaa, Kazaa LiteNapster network: Napigator, OpenNap, WinMX

Applejuice network: Applejuice Client, Avalanche, CAKE network: BirthdayCAKE the reference implementation of CAKE, Direct Connect network: BCDC++, CZDC++, DC++, NeoModus Direct Connect, JavaDC, DCGUI-QT, HyperCast [4], Kad Network (using Kademila protocol): eMule, MindGem, MLDonkey, LUSerNet (using LUSerNet protocol): LUSerNet, MANOLITO/MP2P network: Blubster, Piolet, RockItNet, TVP2P type networks: CoolStreaming, Cybersky-TV, WPNP network: WinMXOther networks: Akamai, Alpine, ANts P2P, Ares Galaxy, Audiogalaxy network, Carracho, Chord, The Circle, Coral[5], Dexter, Diet-Agents, EarthStation 5 network, Evernet, FileTopia, GNUnet, Grapevine, Groove, Hotwire, iFolder[6], konspire2b, Madster/Aimster, MUTE, Napshare, OpenFT (Poisoned), P-Grid[7], IRC @find and XDCC, used by IRC clients including: mIRC and Trillian, JXTA, Peersites [8], MojoNation, Mnet, Overnet network, Peercasting type networks: PeerCast, IceShare - P2P implementation of IceCast, Freecast, Scour, Scribe, Skype, Solipsis a massively multi-participant virtual world, SongSpy network, Soulseek, SPIN, SpinXpress, SquidCam [9], Swarmcast, WASTE, Warez P2P, Winny, AsagumoWeb, OpenExt, Tesla, soribada, fileswapping, XSC

Copyright2005

20

P2P Multi-Protocol Applications

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer-to-peer#Networks.2C_protocols_and_applications

eMule (Edonkey Network, Kad Network) (Microsoft Windows, Linux)aMule (eDonkey network) (Linux, Mac OS X, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, Windows and Solaris Op Environmt)Epicea (Epicea, BitTorrent, Edonkey Network, Overnet, FastTrack, Gnutella) (Microsoft Windows)GiFT (own OpenFT protocol, and with plugins - FastTrack, eDonkey and Gnutella)

and xfactor (uses GiFT) (Mac OS X)Gnucleus (Gnutella, Gnutella2) (Microsoft Windows)Hydranode (eDonkey2000) (Microsoft Windows, Linux, Mac OS X)iMesh (Fasttrack, Edonkey Network, Gnutella, Gnutella2) (Microsoft Windows)Kazaa (FastTrack, Joltid PeerEnabler) (Microsoft Windows)Kazaa Lite (FastTrack, Joltid PeerEnabler) (Microsoft Windows)KCeasy (Gnutella, Ares, giFT)MindGem (Edonkey Network, Kademlia)MLDonkey (BitTorrent, eDonkey, FastTrack, Gnutella, Gnutella2, Kademlia)

(MS Windows, Linux, Mac OS X, Palm OS, Java)mlMac (BitTorrent, eDonkey, FastTrack, Gnutella, Gnutella2)Morpheus (Gnutella, Gnutella2) (Microsoft Windows)Poisoned (FastTrack, Gnutella)Shareaza (BitTorrent, eDonkey, Gnutella, Gnutella2) (Microsoft Windows)WinMX (Napster, WPNP) (Microsoft Windows)XNap (OpenNAP, GiFT, Limewire, Overnet, ICQ, IRC) (Java)Zultrax (Gnutella, ZEPP)

Copyright2005

21

Technical Concerns about P2P

• Address Volatility: old addresses may not work(hence trust based on repetitive dealings is difficult)

• Absence of Central Control, hence risk of anarchy

• Security Challenges:• Malware, embedded or infiltrated• Surreptitious Enlistment (at least potential)• Vulnerability to Masquerade• Vulnerability to Pollution Attacks (decoys)

Copyright2005

22

Business and Government Concerns about P2P

• Address Volatility, plus Inadequate Identifiers, hence:

• respondents are difficult to identify and locate• reduction in user accountability

• Absence of Central Control, hence:• reduction in technology-provider accountability• no single point for a denial of service attack

• Challenge to Authority over Users:• to Copyright-Owners• to Censors

Copyright2005

23

The P2P Battleground – 1998-2005

• MP3

• Napster

• Gnutella, KaZaA, et al.

• CD-quality digital soundin files sized 1 MB/minute

• a central catalogue of a distributed database, to facilitate sharing of MP3 files

• a distributed catalogue of a distributed database, to facilitate sharing of (MP3?) files

Copyright2005

24

Use of the Law to Destroy Napster

1999-2002

• Napster was P2P-with-a-chokepoint, because it relied on a central directory of file-names and host-identities

• Court action resulted in closure of the directory, and hence the collapse of the system as a whole

• Many P2P applications have some central facility that can be attacked in such a manner, including AOL Instant Messenger and ICQ

Copyright2005

25

Categories of P2P

Pure• Functions and objects are distributed across many nodes,

so no one node is critical to the network's operation; so control is very difficult – USENET, Fidonet, Freenet, Gnutella(1)

Compromised / ‘Two-Tier’• Functions and objects are distributed; the index is

substantially but not fully distributed – FastTrack, Gnutella(2)

Hybrid• Functions and objects are distributed; the index is

heirarchical (the DNS) or centralised (Napster, BitTorrent)

Copyright2005

26

Use of the Law to Constrain P2P Generally

2002-

• A critical central service is a chokepoint.If it’s within jurisdictional reach (and the US is highly aggressive in extending its laws beyond its territories), then it can be attacked through the courts

• Gnutella, KaZaA and some other P2P services decentralise their directories as well as their storage

• Court action intended to preclude such P2P services will need gain injunctions against production, dissemination and use of the tools and/or protocols

Copyright2005

27

Challenges for Copyright-Owners

• Unauthorised Reticulation

• Unauthorised Adaptation

• Identification of copyright objects

• Tracking the movement of objects

• Identifying Devices that store those objects and that traffic in them

• Identifying the Person responsible for a breach, with the device used to perform the act that constitutes the breach

• Location of the responsible Person

• Bringing Suit (e.g. jurisdiction)• Collection and Presentation of

Evidence sufficient to win even civil, let alone criminal cases

• Proposing Interventions that could be awarded by court injunction

Copyright2005

28

P2P Architecture’sResilience and Robustness

• The removal of a device as a result of the execution of a warrant or injunction is indistinguishable from other forms of denial of service attack

• But in John Gilmore’s words:“The Internet treats censorship as damage, and routes around it”

Copyright2005

29

Copyright-Owner Fightback Phases

• Legal – Lawsuits and Publicity• Political – Copyright Expansionism• Technological – Digital Rights

Management• Reduction of the Power at the Edges• New Business Models

Copyright2005

30

What’s Different about Copyright Objects Now, and in the Future

• Digital not physical / Bits not atoms• Copying is intrinsic to transmission• Copying is performed by the consumer

=> Consumers now need a copyright licence

• Copies for personal use are indistinguishablefrom copies for re-sale, and copies for adaptation

• Copiability and Adaptability are intrinsic=> Appropriation is a virtue, but still

a vice

Copyright2005

31

Copyright Expansionism• Accidental extension through buffers, cache• Lawyers’ ‘nastygrams’ and misuse of process• Lobbying for, and Enactment of, Laws:

• extending copyright laws• criminalising hitherto civil law breaches• enlisting law enforcement agency support• transferring enforcement costs to the State

• DMCA-based Gaoling, no bail, delayed charges, charges withdrawn once chilling effect achieved

• Embedment in Marketspace Mechanismsof Existing, Expanded and Imagined Rights

Copyright2005

32

Digital Rights Management Technologies

Passive Technologies

• Object-Protection under the owner's control• Object-Protection while it is in transit• Means of Tracing Rogue Copies:

• 'Watermarking' technology (to uniquely identify the publication)

• 'Fingerprinting' technology (to uniquely identify the particular copy)

• Object-Protection under a licensee’s control

Copyright2005

33

Digital Rights Management Technologies

Active Technologies – 1 of 2

• Notification to the licensee of their rightsat the time that the object is accessed

• Identification of licensees• Authentication of identities• Destruction / Disablement of the data object

in the event of licence expiry or breach(cf. the sterility gene in proprietary GM crops)

Copyright2005

34

Digital Rights Management Technologies

Active Technologies – 2 of 2

• Enforcement Mechanisms, client-side• Prevention, e.g. preclude actions that

breach permissions for printing display• Recording of actions that exercise

permissions under the licence• Recording of (attempts to) breach the

licence, e.g. making copies beyond the limit

• Reporting of (attempts to) breach the licence

Copyright2005

35

Ways to Reduce the Power at the Edge

• Make workstations ‘diskless’ or ‘thin’• Prevent software from being stored, and require

users to download a copy each time it is used (the Application Service Provider – ASP – model)

• Connect remote devices via asymmetric links, high-bandwidth downwards, low upwards (SDSL’s 1:1 ratio cf. ADSL and cable’s 2:1, 4:1 and even 8:1)

• Insert in every consumer-device:• identifiers• location and tracking technology

• Upgrade / Replace the Internet Protocol Suite

Copyright2005

36

A More Constructive Closed Approach

• Identify customers’ price resistance-point(by finding out ‘what the market will bear’)

• Set prices accordingly(and thereby sustain payment morality)

• Discourage and prosecute breaches where the purpose is commercial

• Take no action over breaches by consumers(time-shifting, format-change, sharing?)

• A Case Study:• Apple iTunes charges USD 0.99 per

track!??

Copyright2005

37

Copyright2005

38

Copyright2005

39

Domain Name System (DNS)

• Devised in 1983 to:• separate (domain-)name from

(IP-)address• make it easier for humans, e.g.

xamax.com.au cf. 203.20.62.21 • A dispersed set of interconnected devices

thatmaintains an index of names-and-addresses

Copyright2005

40

Moving Outside the DNS

• The DNS was devised when each Host had a stable IP-address, and was seldom unavailable

• If nodes are unstableor IP-addresses change rapidlythen apps need something other than the DNS

• Workstations aren’t always availableand Mobile Workstations change IP-address

• So many P2P applications don’t use the DNS