The development of P2P technologies has been hindered by a number of legal issues. The newer companies, such as Morpheus, are seeking to learn from Napster's mistakes and get legal protection.

They are arguing that they are not responsible for any illegal activity perpetrated using their software. There are clearly a number of legitimate legal uses for P2P and this should safeguard its future. The only problem is how to stop illegal file sharing (movies, music etc.). At the moment no one has the answer, but the search is ongoing.

Since they are most at risk, record companies are currently looking at ways of deterring people from using copyright-busting file-sharing networks. The open nature of these systems allows record companies to attack them from withiwithin - creating their own fake users who provide bad quality or confusingly-named data, or overloading the network with queries of their own. This technique was put forward by two students from Washington University (2), who outlined it in a white paper. However, the legality of this process is itself being questioned.

The students also suggested that users be randomly sued, or that heavy users, P2Ps equivalent of dealers, be targeted. It seems, at present, this would be the best way to deter people from illegally sharing files.

It's hard to know what the future of P2P is until the legal situation becomes clear. Companies will have to expend significant resources to protect themselves against lawsuits. There will always be illegal file-sharing and copyright infringement, but these will be at the periphery.

Any one system that gets too large will presumably suffer the same fate as Napster, unless it is so decentralised and anarchic that no one can be held accountable. A lot depends on the legislation drawn up by governments in response to P2P. Whether the burden of preventing copyright infringement falls on the developers of P2P systems, or the users, will be vital. P2P will also expand from PCs to PDAs and Internet-enabled phones.

One of the issues, which will have to be dealt with in the future, is that of freeloaders - people who consume resources in the P2P network, but do not contribute. According to researchers at Xerox PARC (1), "70% of the users in such systems provide no resources, leaving 1% of the peers to carry 50% of the load."

In a free, open system with no obligation to contribute, there will always be users who take and take, and give nothing back.

Such concerns, however, may be misplaced - computer files can be repeatedly copied. If I share a file with someone, I don't lose out - the original copy of the file remains on my hard disk, unchanged. In the case of sharing bandwidth over a P2P network, traditional models of resource management don't necessarily apply because bandwidth is replenished over time and unused bandwidth cannot be stored. So unless the system overloads, freeloaders cost other users nothing.

There may be a positive externality here; I buy a computer with a lot of processing power, or keep MP3s, for my own benefit. And assuming it costs me nothing to leave my computer on (imagine un-metered net access and cheap electricity), then it costs me nothing for freeloaders to use my resources. See Clay Shirky "In Praise of freeloaders

A proposed system for P2P is the use of digital currency to reward stalwart users and guard against freeloading ones. In the case of MojoNation (3), a digital marketplace is created where users who contribute are rewarded with 'mojo' - an internal incentive - while consuming resources uses up 'mojo', so you get what you give. If resources are overloaded, 'mojo' is given for switching to less requested resources.

Want more Training and Videos on this subject? We have a current database of over 127,470 Mobile Cloud Training Modules....all related to Mobile Cloud Computing Concepts....with FREE Videos...and growing daily. Take 1 or 2 seconds to fill out form below.....then we'll immediately respond...thanks Clear-Cloud Training VP Trent Daley

Your email address:

Whether this system works or not remains to be seen. There will always be technological ways of getting something without paying. Such systems also require faith in the currency itself, and a critical mass of users, which MojoNation has yet to achieve.

Furthermore, by dissuading freeloaders you could discourage growth and potentially dissuade frequent users.

Another problem to be faced is that of trust: the nefarious elements of the Internet community - spammers, crackers and the like - will target P2P networks.

Their open nature makes them easy targets. Anyone can join and if users feel they cannot trust their peers on the network, they will not use it. Even if such concerns are unjustified, the perception that such dangers exist may be enough. Allowing strangers access to your home computer may prove to be a bad idea.

Searching is a definite area in which P2P will prosper in the future. P2P allows queries to be sent to a number of machines.

If the initial search is unsuccessful, the query is passed on by each of the original machines to a number of further machines. Thus the search area increases exponentially until a result is found. This eliminates the need for a huge central search engine.

The big guns such as Intel, Microsoft and Xerox have recently stressed the potential of P2P and the likelihood is that P2P will continue to be adopted by big business as a cheaper way of storing and sharing files internally. It is likely that traditional companies will "embrace and enhance" P2P rather than try (in vain) to smother it. The future of P2P may also be determined by fluke, a simple idea may start off small and grow just like Napster did.

However, this is now less likely due to the presence of the larger companies who will explore every possible avenue in search for the slightest chance for an advantage over their nearest rivals. Either way, if there is a future for P2P it will be found and exhausted A.S.A.P.

Peer-to-peer computing started out of nothing. It became very big very quickly, but once Big Business realised the threat, P2P got knocked on the head. But the genie is out of the bottle and the battle now is for the 'killer app' - the application of P2P that does take advantage of the collective power and content, of the millions of individual PCs worldwide.

The application that doesn't fall foul of the legal system, or alienate a market primed by Napster to expect something for nothing. Or more accurately, something for nothing I haven't already paid for.

Various pretenders to Napster's crown have emerged, but as yet none have captured the public imagination. In a way, P2P has retreated to the poorly-lit realm of the nerds.

But in another, more accurate way, P2P is quietly being refined and experimented with. It has been adopted by large corporations, and brought under the aegis of the legal system. It has become respectable. Most importantly, the desktop PCs that linked up to give Napster its moment in the sun are still there.

They now have even more spare memory, processor power and bandwidth, and hold ever more MP3s. P2P recognises the untapped potential of these peripheral machines. It has to be good for something.