‘You Didn’t Get This From Me’: Culture, Community & Cooperation on Bittorrent

26/04/2010 Belindam 15 comments

You Didn’t Get This From Me: Culture, Community & Cooperation on Bittorrent

Belinda Milne

In these days of accessible broadband Internet and rapid file-sharing, BitTorrent, has become the highest-profile peer-to-peer application on the Internet (Thompson. 2005). Recent figures suggest there may be more than 50 million users on BitTorrent each day (Jumpwire Media, 2010). With spread of community-based and Web 2.0 technologies anyone, from university students to bank managers, can download the latest videos, music, games and software with only a limited knowledge of the Internet.

BitTorrent is first and foremost a knowledge-building network founded on the principles of community knowledge-sharing and exchange, which are the founding principles of the Internet (Layshon, p.21). Hoadley and Pea argue such a community is united by shared goals of individual learning and knowledge transfer within the group.’ (Hoadley and Pea, p.324.) This can be seen within Bittorrent as users actively cooperate and support each other to achieve mutually desired goals.

In this paper, I will argue Bittorrent is a virtual community, which is defined by interconnected principles of mutual cooperation and self-interest involving the sharing and acquisition of knowledge. These principles define the user experience and are the key to understanding the culture of Bittorrent.

To examine these principles, I will look at ways users share and maintain knowledge within the community. I will also examine the appeal of Bittorrent and examine ways users negotiate social conflicts between individual interests and community expectations, in order to feed and maintain torrents. I will discuss ways user experiences shape and are shaped by community-accepted practices and behaviours and, in particular, I will look at ways users employ social-networking technologies to acquire information to protect themselves.

Defining the Appeal of Bittorrent.

BitTorrent can best be described as a knowledge-sharing community. It is essentially a community of ‘like-minded’ individuals who contribute and share information, within the group. ‘Unlike other virtual networks, where members communicate to build closer ties, the primary purpose of file-sharing networks, such as BitTorrent, is generally file exchange rather than interaction. (Cenite, Wang, Chong & Chan, p.210)

Before discussing Bittorrent community and its user-driven culture in more detail, it is perhaps helpful to first offer a brief overview of Bittorrent itself.

BitTorrent is the brainchild of Bram Cohen. It is a file-sharing protacol, which allows users to download very large files very quickly. Designed as a system to allow rapid file sharing, Bittorrent has long been used to distribute open source software including Linux Operating System and to distribute legal video games. (Thompson, 2005)

Users access BitTorrent by downloading a dedicated BitTorrent client program, which users to search for specific files anywhere on the BitTorrent network. The client automatically determines which pieces are needed and makes the necessary connections, making it possible to download very large files, such as videos and television programs, much faster than is possible with other protocols.’ (Carmack, 2005)

Carmack suggests, unlike other download methods, Bittorrent maximizes transfer speed by gathering pieces of the file you want and downloading these pieces simultaneously from people who already have them. (Carmack, 2005.) Instead of uploading and downloading whole files from one computer to another (a very slow process which means very large files can take many hours to transfer) BitTorrent works by breaking the file in to smaller pieces and scattering them amongst user’s computers. For this reason, the computer sending the file is known as the ‘seed’ or ‘seeder’, while those simultaneously sending and receiving pieces of a file are known as the ‘swarm’ (Carmack, 2005).

While BitTorrent has many legal uses, including the distribution of open-source software such as Linux, it is used to access media of all kinds. For its legion of users, the attraction of BitTorrent lies in the ability to rapidly access an endless stream of music, games, TV and films, all with the click of a mouse. Thompson argues (2005), ‘the real audience turns out to be TV and movie fanatics. It takes hours to download a ripped episode of Alias or Monk off Kazaa, but BitTorrent can do it in minutes.’

BitTorrent, file-sharing means users no longer have to wait months to see the latest episodes (Thompson, 2005). Vaidhyanathan (2004, p.28) argues ‘cyberspace offers none of the friction, delay, and inconvenience that the analogue world imposes on the information ecosystem.’ Unlike a brick-and-mortar store, downloading offers immediate access to media of their choice, with none of the limitations associated with legally purchased media such as DRM (Digital Rights Management).

While for some users Bittorrent offers convenience and freedom from the artificial marketing constraints of the media industry, for most, Cenite, Wang, Chong & Chan found, ‘P2P downloading is being used in arguably positive ways to fulfill file sharers’ needs that the content industries have not met.’ They argue ‘while downloading as a substitute for purchasing can harm the content industries, downloading to sample could lead to eventual purchase, and accessing otherwise unavailable content is unlikely to harm artists, since the works would not otherwise have been purchased (Cenite et. al. p.208).

Uncovering the BitTorrent Community.

‘BitTorrent is not the individual transmissions, it is the swarm.’

(Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Limited, 2010, p. 89.)

Rheingold theorised ‘a virtual community … is a group of people who may or may not meet one another face to face, and who exchange words and ideas through the mediation of computer bulletin boards and networks.’ (Rheingold, 1988) This is certainly true of BitTorrent. Members of the community communicate through comments on torrent trackers. Any member can leave messages and share their personal experiences accessing specific torrents, allowing them to communicate and build connections within the group.

Perhaps the most important feature of Bittorrent is its ‘user-defined’ culture. Rheingold argues, ‘the ultimate social potential of the network, however, lies not solely in its utility as an information market, but in the individual and group relationships that can happen over time’ (Rheingold, 1988). BitTorrent users build social networks by making use various technologies such as blogs and various dedicated websites to communicate, provide information and build connections within the community.

Peer-to-peer file-sharing therefore, relies on the free exchange of knowledge between members. Layshon points out (2006 p.281), ‘exchange is one of the founding principles of the internet.’ Instead of controlling or maintaining a list of files, individual files are held across thousands of individual computers to be freely exchanged and shared as needed.

Bittorrent is an online community, based around the gathering of swarms. The swarm is a knowledge sharing network that depends on the cooperation of each member to maintain the connection by making files available to other users. BitTorrent differs from other peer-to-peer services in that file directories (known as .torrents) are not held on a central server. (Wang. 2004, p.243) As O’Reilly (2010) points out, ‘BitTorrent, takes a radical approach to internet decentralization. Every client is also a server; files are broken up into fragments that can be served from multiple locations, transparently harnessing the network of downloaders.’

Members of the swarm are united by a common purpose: the maintenance and sharing of knowledge that is, the acquisition and sharing of files. Community membership is thus defined by the act of sharing information within the community. In a process known as ‘handshaking’- members of the swarm trade their pieces with others in the swarm, uploading and downloading, until they each have the completed file.

As Bittorrent is a decentralized system .torrents only exist while they are being downloaded or shared with other users. While the swarm is active, torrents remain viable. In order for torrents to continue, members of the swarm must continue to share the file, after they have finished downloading, thereby becoming seeds themselves.

This reciprocity leads us to the most important difference between BitTorrent and other file-sharing networks, the principle designed by Cohen, called tit-for-tat. Tit-for-Tat requires that users download and upload at the same time. This principal means that in order to receive files, you must first give them (Carmack, 2005). In order to fulfil the individual goal of obtain a desired file, users must agree to collaborate with others and meet the immediate needs of the swarm and thereby fufilling as needs of the community itself.

Within any such community, whether offline or online, ‘members create their own vocabularies and modes of discourse that are accepted as normal for communication amongst themselves.’ (Haythornthwaite, 2002, p.162.) Unlike other peer-to-peer clients, using Bittorrent it is not possible to download without uploading, as both occur at the same time, therefore, membership within the community can be defined by reciprocal and altruistic act of sharing files with the community.

As members of the swarm, individuals enact an unspoken contract with the group ‘by making new content available; by contributing bandwidth while they download a file; or by contributing bandwidth after they have obtained the whole file.’ (Ripeanu, Mowbray, Andrade & Lima, 2006). This prevents people from leeching, which can be a problem on P2P networks.

Leaching Thompson explains, occurs when people download files but refuse to upload or make files available to others. Freeloading reduces the risk of detection; however, as Thompson argues, if all users were to follow suit, torrents would soon disappear (Thompson, 2005). This is often the case with file-sharing networks.

Skågeby & Pargman argue ‘within the online file-sharing networks there are … users who provide material – in fact, the activity of giving is a fundamental aspect of file-sharing networks.’ They point out a small percentage of the population of a file-sharing networks provide a major part of the available digital goods’ (Skågeby & Pargman, 2005).

This is also the case in BitTorrent, particularly when seeding complete files. Aguiton & Cardon argue (2007) ‘for the P2P community, the organisation of exchanges doesn’t require the strong involvement of the whole community, but a cluster of very active participants.’ On the other hand, given that one seed can distribute a file to many thousands of users and given that the tit-for-tat principle requires swarms to upload while they are downloading, this doesn’t present a great problem, as one seed can support swarms of many hundreds of users at once. Such exchanges depends on users electing to cooperate for the good of the whole community.

Swarms are not anonymous, therefore, users have access to the IP addresses of each member of the swarm. This means, each user must accept that other members of the swarm will protect their identity as they in turn, are expected to protect the identities of others. Aguiton & Cardon (2007) point out ‘even if everyone is not involved in cooperative activities… the collective effects of cooperation can only be accomplished if there is a lot of individual participation’. It is through these community driven behaviours, that BitTorrent users can protect themselves, by cooperating to protect others. In the face of mounting legal pressure such actions have become vital to the survival of the community.

BitTorrent Community and Control.

Downloading media is nothing new. From the early days of the Internet people have shared music though newsgroups, bulletin boards and email. (Wang, 2004, pp.3-5) The Internet, as Rhiengold (1988) and others have suggested is often envisaged as a ‘gift-economy.’ Rheingold suggests, ‘reciprocity is a key element of any market-based culture, but the arrangement I’m describing feels to me more like a kind of gift economy where people do things for one another out of a spirit of building something between them.’

It is the ongoing conflict between commercial interests and the gift-economy, which lies at the heart of the BitTorrent debate. Vaidhyanathan (2004, p.20) argues, within the community the culture of peer-to-peer carries within it embedded cultural assumptions including the belief that users are ‘untouchable’ He also suggest there is a widespread belief that downloading is a harmless, ‘victimless’ crime.

For the film industry, Bittorrent represents a serious threat to their long-term survival. According to the Intellectual Property Awareness Foundation (n.d) ‘less than 4 out of 10 movies ever recoup their original investment. As Leyshon points out, (2006, p.279) low marginal costs of production mean that the recordings, which are successful, usually earn enough to cover the other 90%. Such is the fickleness and uncertainty in the marketplace, companies are never able to predict which will be the successful 10%. Further, he suggests ‘this low ratio of success to failure explains the industry’s perennial concerns about copyright infringement because the ability of users to obtain illegal copies of material may depress sales.’ (2006, p.279)

In order to combat the culture of illegal downloading on peer-to-peer networks, film studios have banded together to form alliances to pursue their legal interests in court. Unfortunately, following the footsteps of the RIAA and the music industry and suing potential customers clearly hasn’t had the desired effect.

Evidence suggests, instead of slowing down BitTorrent, media publicity has had the opposite effect, attracting more users toward BitTorrent. Bangeman argues ‘the downside to high-profile actions against P2P sites is that they act as free publicity’… He points out the ‘average BitTorrent traffic for the two-month period from mid-January to mid-March was up almost 25 percent.’ (Bangeman 2008, p.1)

As the legal challenge continues, community-based activism from within the Bittorrent community, has become an important tool for users to protect themselves. Social networks, within the community, carry certain expectations of cooperation and support. To support the community, users can participate in individual action by leaving comments and warnings for other users or by creating logs to identify fake torrents. Such actions, while perhaps increasing the risk of detection for an individual, can work to decrease the risk to the community as a whole.

Some members take it upon themselves to provide vital information to support and educate other users. Such information can sometimes take the form of blog posts on activist sites like TorrentFreak. Here, users can find information on topics such as How to Tell a Real Torrent (AliA, n.d), or How To Quickly Investigate A Fake BitTorrent Tracker (Engimax 2010) enabling them to protect themselves and encouraging them to take action for themselves.

For users, community-supported behaviours are the key to successfully avoiding detection and possible legal action. By building networks of trust within the community. This is a basic necessity for anyone who participates in a swarm. Each new member must build trust of the community by sharing files. This act identifies them to other users as genuine users. Furthermore, some torrents identify torrent seeds using coloured coded icons to indicate which ones are trusted and which are not.

To conclude, BitTorrent has the potential to change the way people use and consume media. The challenge facing media companies lies in the increasing numbers of people turning to illegal file sharing as a primary means of acquiring media as it means the industry no longer has total control over media access, acquisition and use. This has led to strong legal challenges against torrent providers and more recently against ISPs them selves. (Roadshow Films Vs iinet Ltd)

For individuals, the need to avoid detection and legal action requires the cooperation of the community. ‘As individuals we act on different levels simultaneously, e.g. both as individuals and as members of various groups. This can create tensions between needs and concerns of the individual and needs and concerns of the individual-as-part-of-a-group’ (Skågeby & Pargman, 2005). This means community behaviours and social contracts, including mutual cooperation, reciprocation and agreement and ties of trust between users, become an important tool to build community support and allow users to access and share information, while offering a level of protection.

While individual members continually protect themselves by incorporating community accepted modes of behaviour, BitTorrent will continue to thrive, in spite of all efforts to close it down through legal action and economic restraint. As the battle rages in the courts, for the moment, it seems as if corporations may end up winning the legal battle, only to end up losing the battle for the hearts and minds of consumers.

Should companies continue on their current course and fail to take notice of their customers, Wang warns (2005, p.258), ‘the question isn’t whether file sharing will put today’s corporate powerhouses out of business. The question is when.’ Should companies fail to recognise the risks and refuse to adapt to meet consumer’s changing needs and by continuing to place restrictive and punitive access controls on legal downloads, media conglomerates will continue to feed the growing appetite for illegal downloads.

References & Bibliography.

Aguiton, C. & Cardon, D. (2007). The Strength of Weak Cooperation: An Attempt to Understand the Meaning of Web 2.0. Communications & Strategies, 65(1). Retrieved 17 April 2010 IDATE Consulting & Research. http://www.idate.fr/

‘AliA’. (n.d). How to Tell a Real Torrent. Ehow.com. Retrieved 30 March 2010 from http://www.ehow.com

Barger, R. N. (2008). Computer Ethics: A Case Based Approach. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Bangeman, E. (2008 April). Bittorrent Use Soars As MPAA Fights On Against P2P Sites In Ars Technica. Retrieved 16 March 2008 http://arstechnica.com/

Burnett, R. & Marshall, P. David. (2003). Web Theory: An Introduction.
London & New York: Routledge.

Carmack, C. (2005). How BitTorrent Works. [web] Retrieved 15 March 2010 from http://computer.howstuffworks.com

Cenite. M., Wang, M. W., Chong P. & Chan, G. S. (2009). More Than Just Free Content: Motivations of Peer-to-Peer File Sharers. In Journal of Communication Inquiry. 33(3). 206–221. Retrieve http://jci.sagepub.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/

‘Engimax’. (2010, February 20) How To Quickly Investigate A Fake BitTorrent Tracker. TorrentFreak. Retrieved 30 March 2010 from http://torrentfreak.com

Haythornthwaite, C. (2002). Building Social Networks Via Computer Networks: Creating and Sustaining Distributed Learning Communities. In K. Ann Renninger & Wesley Shumar (Eds). Building Virtual Communities: Learning and Change in Cyberspace. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. (pp.159-190).

Hoadley, C. & Pea, R. D. (2002) Tools for a Knowledge Building Community. In K. Ann Renninger & Wesley Shumar. (Ed.) Building Virtual Communities: Learning and Change in Cyberspace. (pp.321-354). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Jobs, S. (2007). Thoughts On Music. Apple.com. Retrieved 29 March 2010 from

http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/

Jumpwire Media. (2010, April 13). Jumpwire Media Launches Torrent Tracker Reports. [Press Release]. New York: Jumpwire Media. Retrieved 25 April 2010 http://jumpwiremedia.com

Kember, S. (2006). Network Identities. In David Bell. (Ed). Cybercultures: Critical Concepts in Media and Cultural Studies. (Vol. 4, pp. 326-58). London & New York: Routledge.

Kurz, A. N. (n.d.). How To Tell A Fake Torrent. Retrieved 30 March 2010 from http://www.ehow.com

Intellectual Property Awareness Foundation. (n.d). Piracy – The Facts.
Retrieved 1 April 2010 from http://www.ipawareness.com.au

Leyshon, A. (2006) Scary Monsters: Software formats, Peer-to-Peer Networks and the Spectre of the Gift. In David Bell. (Ed). Cybercultures: Critical Concepts in Media and Cultural Studies. (Vol. 4, 326-58). London & New York: Routledge.

O’Reilly, T. (2009). What Is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software. O’Reilly Media. Retrieved http://oreilly.com/

Rheingold, H. (1988). A Slice of Life In My Virtual Community. Whole Earth Review. Retrieved http://www.cs.indiana.edu/docproject/bdgtti/bdgtti_18.html

Ripeanu, M., Mowbray, M., Andrade N. & Lima A. (2006, December) gifting Technologies: A Bittorrent case study in First Monday. Retrieved 23 April 2010, Citeseer. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/

Skågeby, J. & Pargman, D. (2005). File-Sharing Relationships: Conflicts Of Interest In Online Gift-Giving. Peter Van Den Besselaar, Giorgio De Michelis, Jenny Preece and Carla Simone (eds) Communities and Technologies 2005: Proceedings of the Second Communities and Technologies Conference. Milano 2005. Retrieved http://springerlink.metapress.com.

Soghoian, C. (2007, September 13). TV Torrents: When ‘Piracy’ Is Easier Than Legal Purchase. Cnet. Retrieved from http://news.cnet.com

Spinello, R. A. (2003). CyberEthics: Morality and Law in Cyberspace. (2^nd Ed). Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Publishers.

Thompson, C. (2005). The Torrent Effect. Wired Magazine. 13(1). Retrieved 29 March 2010 from http://www.wired.com/

Vaidhyanathan, S. (2004). The Anarchist in the Library: How Clash Between the Freedom and Control is Hacking the Real World and Crashing the System.
New York, NY: Basic Books.

Wang, W. (2004). Steal This File Sharing Book: What They Won’t Tell You About File Sharing. San Francisco, CA: No Starch Press Inc

Wellman, B & Gulia, M. (1997). Netsurfers Don’t Ride Alone: Virtual Communities As Communities. In P. Kollock, & M. Smith (Eds.), Communities and Cyberspace. New York: Routledge. Retrieved http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman/publications/netsurfers/netsurfers.pdf

LEGISLATION

Australian Copyright Council. (2007) 2006 Copyright Amendments: A Practical Guide. (B129v01). Strawberry Hills, NSW: Australian Copyright Council.

Roadshow Films Vs Iinet Ltd –Judgement. (2010 February 4). Federal Court Of Australia. Australasian Legal Information Institute. Retrieved http://www.iinet.net.au/press/iinet-afact-judgement.pdf

Communities and Web 2.0 none

Edit in Admin

Comments

Written by Jarrad Long about 2 years ago. Reply

Hi Belinda

Your paper touches on the altruistic and reciprocal nature of the bittorrent community – something that’s always intrigued me, considering the amount of effort required on the part of the first seeder of a particular file.

If it’s a TV show they intend to share, they need to record it, cut the ads out (that’s the norm anyway), and ensure it’s in an appropriate format. If it’s a movie, they need to convert the copy-protected DVD to a compressed digital format of a manageable size, which can be difficult. If it’s commercial software they’re sharing, they need to ‘crack’ the password protection and usually include a password generator with the torrent.

Why do they go to these lengths? As someone who frequently uses bittorrent, I’m forever grateful, but have never understood why someone would go to the lengths they do, to make files available to a community of people they’ve probably never met, and probably never even chatted to online (as bittorrent is simply a file sharing protocol). Am I just too cynical for my own good?
- Written by Belindam about 2 years ago. Reply
  
  I was also surprised to learn the extent of ‘gifting’ on Bittorrent as I’d previously assumed it was just a way of downloading files. If you are interested in ‘gifting’ and the reasons why people choose to upload files, I recommend reading:
  
  Ripeanu, M., Mowbray, M., Andrade N. & Lima A. (2006, December) Gifting Technologies: A Bittorrent case study in First Monday. (see Citeseer at http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu)
  
  Also, Skågeby, J. & Pargman, D. (2005). File-Sharing Relationships: Conflicts Of Interest In Online Gift-Giving. (on Springerlink).
  - Written by zomboy about 2 years ago. Reply
    
    interesting point Jarrad,
    
    ‘gifting’ has always intrigued me as well. I personally love bittorrent, and I mean LOVE it!! such a great thing. I was just eating this paper up. I personally believe that bittorrent could well be the most ‘honest’ form of social networking out there, because it is purely ‘information’ that is being dealt with. There are no people pretending to be ‘friends’ and there is no market researching going on in there (as far as I know, although it could well be an untapped source?). Great article Belinda
Written by Lee-Ann Khoh about 2 years ago. Reply

BitTorrent exists because it meets a demand:
1. People like getting things for cheaply or for free.
2. People like getting things quickly and easily.

Traditional industries fail to recognise this:
1. They place barriers to the ease to which people can consume media (e.g. region locking on DVDs, blocking people in some countries from accessing content, overpricing products)
2. They sue potential customers, as you said.

I think the boat was missed in the late 90s; Napster should have alerted the music industry to what the public wanted. Downloading often increases interest in the long term and I believe most people are more than happy to own something legitimately, as long as it’s perceived as being worth it (quick, easy, affordable). Look after the consumers and they will look after you, but the more companies try to tighten their fists, the more people will exercise their power to vote with their computers.

Anyway, despite its implied obligation to give back, I had never really thought of BitTorrent itself as a community until reading this, but I do know of some band/artist bootleg communities that ban you if you leech.

Excellent paper, Belinda.
- Written by Belindam about 2 years ago. Reply
  
  Cenite et. al. (see above) found that people were downloading files for a variety of reasons including convenience and price, access to material that is difficult find by other means, downloading to watch at a more convenient time, as well as sampling.
  
  A recent survey on news.com.au confirmed these findings, suggesting most downloaders are simply looking for convenience. You can check out the results at news.com/technology see http://tinyurl.com/23jvclo
Written by Emily about 2 years ago. Reply

A well structured, informative paper on Bittorent. I was particularly interested on your thoughts how community has arisen from file-sharing, because in the past I have generally thought of torrents as just a means to get files, rather than a a facilitator for social interaction. Even so, I have witnessed the importance of user feedback and participation in regards to torrents – other people’s comments are my main way of assessing the quality of a file.

I was also intrigued by the element of trust involved – you said that users have access to the IP addresses of other members of the swarm. In my own paper, I discuss the factors that prohibit online participants from leaving their ‘real life’ identities behind. This compulsory IP-sharing is one example of how the platform itself makes it mandatory to share a definitive aspect of your identity in the online world. Perhaps this kind of mutual sharing and trust actually encourages more meaningful interaction and strengthens the bond within online communities, such as the Bittorrent community.
Written by Stevie Marshall about 2 years ago. Reply

Bit Torrent’s a brilliant protocol. Very much a community protocol. There’s a real sense of social capital at work in the exchange of information.

In my paper I explore how the basis of most web2.0 social networking is built around commodifying social capital for economic gain. The interesting thing about bit torrent is that due to the whole piracy thing there is very little chance of economic gain for developers. Any money involved sits on the fringes and is distributed widely. The motivation of the creators seems to be just improving the sharing of information, and not to become an acquisition target. Quite admirable really.
Written by Damien C about 2 years ago. Reply

This was an interesting read as it’s something I’ve never really thought about in depth before. Game theory could be easily applied to explain just how the ratio of seeders/leechers comes about, where the risk of being caught for uploading is countered by the ‘knowledge’ that the community dies entirely if some people don’t take these risks.

One thing that leaps to mind on the subject of community within the BitTorent community is this strange idea, especially in regards to music, that the torrent needs to be of a certain ‘quality’ or else the uploader will be flamed. The fact the music is serviceable, if not at the very best quality, and is ‘free’ doesn’t seem to prevent people from putting in some harsh words.

Is there anything in your research that hinted at why this might be? Do you believe it could possibly be because of this culture of reciprocity where people believe that since they’re giving the best that they deserve the best in return or is it simply a case of people complaining about free cake?
- Written by Belindam about 2 years ago. Reply
  
  You make an interesting point.
  
  While it can seem ‘ungrateful’ for downloaders to complain about the quality of the video or music they are downloading for free, I tend to think downloading has costs as well as benefits, which must be weighed against each other by the user. Low res files may well carry a lower perceived benefit, which means they may hold less weight, for users, when compared with the risk of detection. For others, the benefit of obtaining that file may outweigh the ‘cost’ of low quality and potentially decreased enjoyment, particularly if the torrent is a rare one.
  
  At the same time, there is an expectation of community co-operation amongst users, which according to Ripenau et. al. (see ref above) helps to build trust amongst users. It is not easy to determine the quality of the file without downloading it first; for this reason, users can and do use such comments to determine the quality of the downloads (see AliA & Carmack) in which case, such comments may not necessarily be directed at the seeder but rather are posted for the community at large.
Written by atleeit about 2 years ago. Reply

“To support the community, users can participate in individual action by leaving comments and warnings for other users or by creating logs to identify fake torrents. Such actions, while perhaps increasing the risk of detection for an individual, can work to decrease the risk to the community as a whole.” I personally would say as a warning as to not get in trouble but they definitely do warn if a torrent is fake or not.

Just regarding the torrent network hurting the video industry the way I see it if a user downloads a movie and its really good there is a big chance they will either go to the movies to see the real thing or purchase it when it hits on DVD or Blu-ray and this is in regards to movie titles like Avatar and other movies where you need a big screen, good quality release to enjoy every part of the movie and a good example of this argument would be Avatar that was a box office hit that hit 1.3 billion dollars worldwide. (Goodman, D. 2010)

Also there will be many court cases regarding torrents and people trying to be taken down for downloading illegal stuff but thepiratebay.org got done and they are still running strong just because a few people goto Gail it’s the internet so it gets past over to the next people that can run it, IINet had a court case about the downloading of illegal content against the movie industry but it fell through and failed. Long live the torrenting system I say.(Broughall, N. 2010)

I can relate this in someway back to my paper regarding web 2.0 tools and as a community of everyone helping each other out even if they are not face to face but they can still connect, share and work as a group using Ventrillo communication tool. Also regarding torrent ratio that you need to upload to receive well the same can be applied for asking for help in groups in MMORPG games that you need to give to receive.

References:

Broughall, N. (2010). AFACT Appeals iiNet Court Ruling. http://www.gizmodo.com.au. Retrieved April 28, 2010, from http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2010/02/afact-appeals-iinet-court-ruling/
Goodman, D. (2010). “Avatar” box office hits $1.3 billion worldwide. http://www.reuters.com. Retrieved April 28, 2010, from http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60704F20100111
- Written by Belindam about 2 years ago. Reply
  
  You make an interesting points particularly regarding face to face as opposed to virtual (online) communities. Certainly some of the debate, with terms such a ‘weak’ and ’strong’ social networks, tends to privilege face-to-face social ties over that of purely online connections.
  
  History suggests, as soon as one torrent is taken down there are always others to take its place. As Gnutella was brought down by legal action, it was soon replaced by other file-sharing technologies such as BitTorrent (see Wang and others above).
  
  Regarding the BitTorrent debate, both sides have sought to demonise the other as ‘greedy bullies’ or ‘amoral pirates’; however, the real issue , which lies at the heart of the Internet and the ‘gift-economy’ is should users have the right to share legally purchased products with others, as they see fit?
  
  Copyright law says no. Should this be changed and if so, how will artists and musicians be compensated for their work? These argument reflect difference between ’social’ value as opposed to the ‘economic’ value of a cultural product.
  
  You mention Avatar, I read an interesting article this week (Ernesto, 2010) which suggests, Avatar is well on its way to becoming one the most downloaded blu-ray films in history, with over 200,000 downloads in four days. This was blamed on delays in the release on Blu-Ray, which suggests companies need to pay closer attention to the needs of their consumers, as the advent of file-sharing suggests people no longer have to rely on company timetables to meet the demand.(See Soghoian above).
  
  Also, regarding iinet, the case is still pending as AFACT has recently appealed the ruling (Cratchley, 2010). Given the fact that legal action against downloaders has only served to publicise file-sharing (see above), it seems logical to go after ISPs instead. For a start, there are fewer of them and there are more legal avenues available within the bounds of commercial law, as opposed to criminal law.
  
  In these kinds of cases, it is often, the party with the most money who wins in the end (see Wang). This is possibly why they targeted iinet, rather than Telstra (who in all likelihood may have looked to the Government or shareholders for assistance, given they are the only telco in many parts of Regional Australia).
  
  On the other hand, there is a huge risk for both sides, should they loose. For AFACT, should the case go to the High Court, a loss means ISP protection becomes law, in much the same way Sony vs Stephens made it legal for users to modify a game console or DVD player to play out-of-region disks. (Australian Copyright Council, 2005)
  
  Cratchley, D. (2010, February 25). Appeal lodged in iiNet copyright case. Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 30-4-2010 http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/business/appeal-lodged-in-iinet-copyright-case/story-e6frez7r-1225834284298
  
  Australian Copyright Council. (2005, November 22). Recent case: Stevens v Sony. Retrieved 30-4-2010) http://www.copyright.org.au/news/news_items/cases-news/2005-cases/U26150/
  
  Ernesto. (2010, April 27). Avatar Most Pirated Blu-ray Film Ever. TorrentFreak. Retrieved 30-4-2010 http://torrentfreak.com/avatar-most-pirated-blu-ray-film-ever-100427/
  - Written by Nat about 2 years ago. Reply
    
    Belinda,
    A different perspective to file sharing and preventing the leeches. On that point, I know that on bittorrent you can reduce your upload speed to quite a small amount thus although technically not leeches uses who do this are minimizing their contribution to the ‘gift economy’. This might be a topic for another time however I do think it needs to be included in the discussion of your paper. Your argument that “works would not otherwise be purchased” I believe is strong, from personal experience a whole new world of interesting artists has come to light, that I would never pay $30+ as a trial. Again as suggested by your paper I also do prefer the ‘real deal/legal’ copy.
    
    After reading your paper I do need to look into the copyright law more. I thought copyright was aimed more at stopping individuals/companies from monetary gain using someone else works? Personal use is acceptable. I have a CD player in my car and I don’t have original CDs in there, I have copies so the originals do not get scratched. Would this not be a similar argument for bittorrent users, those who take the effort to make the item in a more bittorrent usable format?
    
    Again I am not surprised that Roadshow has gone after iinet rather than Telstra or Optus, what about AOL? Wait a sec.. didn’t AOL get purchased by Time Warner! Oh out of date already “Three years after a ballyhooed cross-media marriage, Time Warner is considering divorcing America Online, according to The New York Post” (Haley, 2004) ”AOL For Sale” (Blodget, 2008). Well whoever now owns AOL why not them?
    
    In your comments to another commenter “On the other hand, there is a huge risk for both sides, should they loose. For AFACT, should the case go to the High Court, a loss means ISP protection becomes law, in much the same way Sony vs Stephens made it legal for users to modify a game console or DVD player to play out-of-region disks. (Australian Copyright Council, 2005)”
    
    I personally hope the whole process works in iinet favour, business economy thinking and laws just don’t seem to be keeping up with technology.
    
    Ref
    Blodget, H. (2008 July 1). AOL for sale (twx)*. Retrieved May 13, 2010, from http://www.businessinsider.com/2008/7/aol-officially-for-sale-twx-
    
    Haley, C. (2004, March 17). Report: Time warner weights AOL sale. Retrieved May 13, 2010, from http://www.internetnews.com/xSP/article.php/3327381/Report+Time+Warner+Weighs+AOL+Sale.htm
Written by Belindam about 2 years ago. Reply

Thanks for your comments. It’s nice to hear some good feedback.

It was interesting to find out just how strong reciprocity is on BitTorrent.
I’d always thought it was just about downloading too. Having said that, there are different levels of co-operation between users. This is similar to Wikipedia, where most files are provided by a relatively small number of high activity users. Some are happy to stick to the minimum, while others (leeches or freeloaders) don’t upload at all.

The ‘how-to’ guide suggests that users should keep their connections open (‘typically overnight’) after they finish downloading, thereby making their files available to others. According to Carmack (see above) the more users share, the faster their own files will download in the future, so there is incentive to participate.
- Written by Michael N about 2 years ago. Reply
  
  Belinda I just wanted to add in my paper I talk a bit about asserting superiority over others in forums due to knowledge. Based on a cursory glance over bit torrent forums, there does not seem to be as much competition going on. Lots seem to give technical advice but there is not as much abuse and bragging. Would be interesting to do a comparison of both.
Written by Michael N about 2 years ago. Reply

Very interesting paper, you know your subject area well.

It is interesting how it seems to be an opposite type of community to hackers. Hacker communities tend not to demand things in return they are happy to give knowledge out. On the other hand the Bit Torrent communities see the gift economy and reciprocity as mandatory. That’s really interesting to discover for me because I assumed Bit Torrents were simply you get a torrent and just take the stuff.

I cannot see how to improve your arguement you stated it and then presented lots of interesting evidence and examples to discuss the what and how of the community. Well done.

It also amazes me how the Torrent blogs are so open about their activities. Take this URL as an example where in January the top downloaded movies were published:

http://torrentfreak.com/top-10-most-pirated-movies-on-bittorrent-100111/

Torrent Freak. (2010). Top 10 Most Pirated Movies on BitTorrent. Retrieved 27 April, 2010, from http://torrentfreak.com/top-10-most-pirated-movies-on-bittorrent-100111/