Introducing: T'Interweb Rhizomatics

'To these centered systems, the authors contrast acentered systems, finite networks of automata in which communication runs from any neighbor to any other, the stems or channels do not preexist, and all individuals are interchangeable, defined only by their state at any given moment - such that the local operations are coordinated and the final global result synchronized without a central agency.'

Deleuze & Guattari A Thousand Plateaus

'eXeem is a new file-sharing application being developed by the folks at SuprNova.org. eXeem is a decentralized BitTorrent network that basically makes everyone a Tracker. Individuals will share Torrents, and seed shared files to the network. At this time, details and the full potential of this project are being kept very quiet. However it appears this P2P application will completely replace SuprNova.org; no more web mirrors, no more bottle necks and no more slow downs.

eXeem will marry the best features of a decentralized network, the easy searchability of an indexing server and the swarming powers of the BitTorrent network into one program. Currently, the network is in beta testing and already has 5,000 users (the beta testing is closed.) Once this program goes public, its potential is enormous.'

'Slyck'

Many of you may know that on December 19th Suprnova was taken down. Suprnova.org was a Bittorrent source where users would be able to find a tracker in order to download files. It also provided statistics such as downloads and seeds to users. Many a happy finding was discovered on suprnova's site, such as the entire series of 'The Prisoner,' 'Twin Peaks', '24' and 'South Park,' (not to mention an abundance of Tarkovsky which remains unwatched). In light of the demise of suprnova and the rise of what looks to be the file sharers (polite) and pirates (impolite) haven, eXeem, I thought I would write something about the rhizomatic nature of filesharing and p2p systems.

Almost everyone knows something about napster; I never particularly used the program since it seemed that the only way to get a decent speed was by using broadband (as is true for all p2p & filesharing programs) and in 1999 I was a young girl living in the country outside Belfast where broadband was not available. The system wasn't quite a p2p service since it required a centralised server that kept lists of files and locations... this was no doubt one of the major reasons that it was so easily sued since there was a direct target for the authorities to attack. But those were back in the dark ages of 1999 when 128mg of RAM was thought to be acceptable and a 52k connection was the norm, we weren't so far along to see that a fully decentralised network made prosecutions more difficult. Yet napster set a precedent and showed that the sharing of files could take place outside places such as IRC and USENET.

Following Napster everyone rushed to Audiogalaxy, a web based p2p that was even more centralised than napster. It didn't last long and in 2002 it followed the same path as napster and started charging users after a series of law-suits. While audiogalazy was fairly reliable it was quickly replaced by the 'heavyweights' of p2p services; Kazaa, Morpheus (which used Gnutella protocol) and emule/edonkey.

Kazaa was a dream while it lasted. Thousands of users sharing millions of files all over the world. It was much more decentralized than napster and audiogalaxy had been but it was infected with various 'viruses' (not in the technical sense) such as spyware and adware, and various companies caught on and started flooding the system with files that appeared to be the file you wanted to download but would actually be eight minutes of complete silence. The lack of regulation also meant that users could rename files as whatever they wanted and a download of say 'The Simpsons,' could end up being a hardcore porn film... useful for some people but not for most. To evade spyware and adware many users shifted to K++ and K-Lite (more recently to Diet-K and Kazaa Lite Resurrection) but improvements in Emule and the emergence of Bittorrent meant that it's shelf life of about two years finally ran out.

The benefits of Morpheus are based on its Gnutella software... each computer acts as a node so unlike Napster, which had a centralised server, as long as a few nodes remain the service will still be going. As well as this the downloader can 'swarm' downloads, downloading different parts of the file from different users to speed up the download. Unfortunately this means that if one node turns itself off the download will stop so speeds can be erratic.

Anyway, that's a bit of history and it's only really to show that as the network developed it became more and more decentralised. There are obviously other programs such as Emule which used ed2k links from sites like ShareReactor (which has been shut down), DC++ (which operates through various hubs) and Soulseek (which I have no experience with but is centralised so vulnerable).

But onto my personal favorite... Bittorrent. Initially I didn't like using the program as you have to get a link to a tracker from a website which starts the download. Like a normal download if you turn your computer off the download stops and you have to find the link again. But the emergence of various clients such as ABC meant that the link to the tracker was stored on your PC and all the hassle vanished. Although the program relies on trackers it is arguably one of the most rhizomatic of file sharing software. Users share different parts of files, allowing people to download files without slowing down other people downloads. Within the network there is no 'beginning' but only a series of middles with users simultaneously downloading and uploading parts of a file to different parts of the network. Unfortunately the need for websites such as Suprnova for users to find files means that the owners of these websites can come under attack from the authorities and sites are forced to shut down. But the newest, and not yet available client, eXeem, seems like it will go further towards decentralisation. There will no longer be a need for centralised trackers so the network will become increasingly difficult to shut down. The mentality of 'it will never happen to me' means that there will always be an abundance of users who want to share files so if one person gets shut down the network will remain open. Of course, eXeem will have it's own problems; the code (unlike a lot of p2p and file sharing services) will be closed source and it is likely that it will include some form of adware. In any case, it is interesting to see how p2p services have evolved from the dark ages of napster to its current incarnation.


So... one might ask, '"Why glueboot, as you currently play handmaiden to the 'traitor' and the 'spider,' have you become so interested in the working and movements of p2p systems?" I think that movements is the operative word in that question since it's the dynamic movement, speed and ability to adapt quickly to change that is so interesting; it is a subterranean network that is permanently under siege yet continues to persist as different nodes/tubers are hacked off by the global hegemony. I believe that as a model for resistance it is rarely matched (I can't think of any right now so please point some out to me).

The movement from Napster through Morpheus (et al) to Bittorrent/eXeem is an interesting one to chart as the network shifts increasingly from the more centralized (arborescent?) system to the decentralized rhizome. As each client/site/server was taken down a new one sprang up within a month or two that was usually better than the previous; and this looks like it shall continue to be the case. The speed and the growth of the network means that it is impossible to wipe out; an ever pulsating virus who's morphology remains undefined and changeable.

This is what the internet in its very nature offers us. The inability of anyone to police such an infinite space (unsure as to infinite but where does it start and where does it end? I doubt anyone knows) means that modes of resistance can spring up and 'follow a line of flight.' The lines between what is virtual and actual become blurred in a cutthroat world where a few well placed codes out in cyberspace can bring down the computer system of a global company. When it comes to filesharing a global network exists which undermines the music market allowing the free and egalitarian sharing of flows. It is a network within which no one is autonomous and resists as a network should resist. The lack of autonomy amongst the participants makes its destruction impossible. One cannot 'take down the leader' as one did with Napster, and to follow every tracker would be an impossible task. Its success implies that in order for a system of resistance to work there can be no autonomy amongst members, no heroes who stand gloriously for a cause; to be a success there must be a subterranean pulsation of a network of agents who are defined by a dynamic changability. The autonomy of one agent who might be held up as leader could jeopardize the integrity of the entire system.

Of course there are people who say that filesharing is destroying the music industry. I would reply that the very nature of the album/single charts was destroying it already by forcing music into a system based on popularity, a popularity based on the accumulation of capital. That system is broken and undermined by the increase in filesharing; it is impossible to know who is the most popular now since there is no way for the music industry to track how many people have downloaded the song. There are the download charts but they only rate downloads through legal sites and I've never met anyone who uses one of those. The vast amount of the sharing of files goes on underground and in doing so allows music to be listened to, movies watched, programs installed, without contributing to ceaseless drive of global corporations to grossly over-accumulate capital.

No doubt the constant chase that takes place between the developers and the prosecutors will continue ad infinitum. The developers are learning quickly the network must be decentralised in order to protect themselves; conversely it looks as though the prosecutors are having more and more trouble taking down the system, for as long as two computers exist the network can continue but with millions it flourishes. The stagnant nature of laws that have existed for decades makes prosecution incredibly slow and when faced with the novelty and speed of the system (the entire system) it finds itself sorely lacking.

|