Filesharing traffic continues to dominate

According to a Macworld UK report

A new study that looks at the impact of peer-to-peer (P2P) traffic on service provider networks shows file swapping forges on unabated.

CacheLogic of Cambridge, England says the practice shows no sign of slowing down despite court rulings that have shut down some popular sites such as Suprnova, a BitTorrent tracking service that offered links to pilfered television and movie content.

CacheLogic’s global monitoring network shows 60 per cent of all Internet traffic is the result of peer-to-peer file-sharing platforms, with eDonkey taking over the top spot from BitTorrent.

“The Whack-A-Mole game continues,” says Andrew Parker, CacheLogic’s CTO. “The authorities go after one [peer-to-peer] system and another one pops up.”

At the end of 2004, BitTorrent accounted for 30 per cent of all Internet traffic. But after the Motion Picture Association of America’s moves to shut down BitTorrent tracking sites, centralized servers for locating distributed content, swappers began moving to other less-publicized services. Today, eDonkey, a system that uses no centralized servers or tracking sites, consumes the most bandwidth of any application on the Internet, particularly overseas, according to Parker. In the US, Gnutella has seen resurgence in popularity among swappers.

Of the files being swapped on the four major file-sharing systems (eDonkey, BitTorrent, FastTrack and Gnutella) 62 per cent is video and 11 per cent is audio, with the rest being miscellaneous file types, according to the study.

Gillmor on Google’s “Unnecessary Arrogance”

Google is a great company, but a layer of hubris threatens to encrust the excellence. It was exemplified most recently by the childish banning of contact with CNET journalists after the news site did a story highlighting what can be done to invade privacy using the company’s own tools.

The attitude problem has been evident for a while now. While I support the company’s refusal to offer “guidance” to Wall Street — a game used by public corporations to game the stock market — the utter opacity of the operation is disconcerting. It’s one thing to stick to principle, but another to rub people’s faces in it, such as when Google held an open house and had the CFO — the chief food officer, not the chief financial officer — give a presentatinon. Cute, but that stunt will be remembered by people whom Google will someday need.
Right now, Google needs no one’s special good will, and acts that way. This is reminiscent in some ways of Microsoft, a company that had public support and industry allies, but almost no tech-world friends. Google is no Microsoft, yet, certainly not in the willingness to flout the law. But Google’s willingness to flout other norms — in particular, its grossly insufficient privacy stance, which amounts to “trust us” — will eventually rebound in ways the company may not appreciate today.

I attribute much of Google’s arrogance as the missteps of a young company. (It’s baffling, however, that someone like Eric Schmidt, a seasoned executive, could have such a tin ear.) The public still thinks of Google as a hero, and the good it does still far outweighs the bad. The well isn’t bottomless, though; it never is.

Amen. [link]

Digital Rights Manag…, er, obliteration

An often-overlooked downside of DRM. This from a column by Oren Sreebny of the University of Washington:

It’s very important to universities that the recorded record of human history remain accessible to students, teachers, and researchers – and remain accessible for the long run. Who’s willing to bet that we’ll have the tools to read files encoded with Windows Plays For Sure (speaking of irony) a hundred years from now? Chances are good we’ll still be able to play mp3 files then. The industry’s current drive to lock that content away in proprietary formats is a pressing matter of concern to all of us. We are very interested in new distributors (like Audio Lunchbox and Mindawn) that are using open formats such as ogg vorbis and flac as well as mp3.

Update: Thoughtful email from Bill Thompson, pointing out that I missed

one important point, which is that none of the proprietary schemes are in fact very good, and that’s why they have to be protected by laws like the DMCA/EU Copyright Directive. I doubt that archivists in a hundred years will respect (or even be aware of) these laws just as we disregard the laws which would stop us plundering ancient burial grounds or reprinting sacred texts. So unless someone comes up with an unbreakable DRM scheme we should be ok – just as long as we have enough hackers working in the area :-)