1. Current Developments in Peer-to-Peer Mark Luker, EDUCAUSE Bruce Block, RIAA Samuel Haldeman, Penn State Eric G. Ferrin, Penn State

2. P2P File Sharing and Online Music Services Technology Task Force Joint Committee of Higher Education and the Entertainment Industry

3. Joint Committee Graham Spanier, President, Pennsylvania State University John L. Hennessy, President, Stanford University Charles Phelps, Provost, University of Rochester Dorothy K. Robinson, Vice President and General Counsel, Yale University Molly Corbett Broad, President, University of North Carolina Cary Sherman, President, Recording Industry Association of America Jack Valenti, President and CEO, Motion Picture Association of America Roger Ames, Chairman and CEO, Warner Music Group Sherry Lansing, Chairman, Paramount Pictures Matthew T. Gerson, Senior VP, Government Relations, Vivendi-Universal Irwin Robinson, Chairman, National Music Publishers Association Chairman and CEO, Famous Music Three Task Forces in Legal issues and legislation Education Technology

4. Technology Task Force Charge – Educate the community on the technology issues and options related to the illegal distribution of content using P2P Activities RFI #1 – Controlling illegal file sharing RFI #2 – Legal, online content services Share information from pilot projects

5. RFI #1 Charge – Document the range of available products and services for the control of illegal file sharing using P2P RFI organized by 11 criteria 19 responses Reviewed and documented by committees

6. Criteria Network architecture Scalability Protocol identification Granularity of protocols Content identification Examination of network packets or file content Distribution systems Resilience of the technology to countermeasures Testing and installed base Competitive approaches Third-party components

7. www.educause.edu/issues/rfi

8. Wide range of proposals Restrict bandwidth by location, time, … Restrict bandwidth by application Filter “announcements” of available content Filter copyrighted songs and movies Detect songs and movies on disk Detect applications on disk Monitor all activity on PC Automate processing of “cease and desist”

9. Institutional Choices Choice of application is up to institutions Culture and environment Business considerations Individual agreements with vendors Pilot projects In conjunction with efforts in Education Ethics Law

10. Present Implementations Recent surveys 66+% shape bandwidth Location, application, time, … “Top talkers” 89% use policy and education 100% comply with DMCA notices “Homegrown” implementations Block “announcements” of available content Prohibit servers in residence halls

11. Technology Challenges Hard to discriminate violations of law Very large numbers of cases Technology (and policy) issues of privacy Arms race Solutions will require education and policy in addition to technology!

12. Long Term Solutions? Legal, online content New services New business models Disruptive innovations RFI #2 www.educause.edu/issues/rfi

13. Napster/Penn State Initiative Samuel Haldeman Pennsylvania State University

15. What was needed In addition to education and enforcement we also provided a viable, acceptable, legitimate alternative. –Viable: Was it robust enough? –Acceptable: Did it have the features and service students have come to expect –Legitimate: Was it legal, was it fair?

16. The Napster Service Superior song content and access Simple to learn, use, and navigate Tremendous features and amenities Community-like design Adopted Shibboleth Technology

17. First Five Hours Over 4,200 students registered for service Over 10,000 hits to napster.psu.edu 51,000 songs streamed 42,000 songs downloaded Fewer than 10 errors/complaints

18. Since January 12th 7,500 registered users –64% of University Park Students –49% of non-University Park students Averaging more than 100,000 songs streamed or downloaded per day Fewer than 100 errors or complaints

19. Input from napster.psu.edu 41 total suggestions/complaints/questions –6 complained about OS availability –4 suggestions to make it available to alumni –6 questions about registration –12 questions regarding the policy –13 other (include bandwidth limitations, interest from other schools, etc.)

20. Input from focus groups Nice user interface: simple to learn, navigate, and use Plenty of features and amenities –Appreciate streaming and downloading, radio Not enough popular artists –Have to pay for newer albums/tracks Not compatible with Mac OS, Windows ‘98 & ME, and Linux

21. Positives Reactions Students want to use the service Simple, easy to use Features and amenities make a difference “Sharing” is not necessarily important Legal approaches can work –Students are anxious, excited, optimistic

22. Negatives Reactions Not all students can have access Not all students can use the service Newer tracks and albums have to be bought Partnerships seem more like sell-outs

23. What we can learn Circumventing or revolting against the system isn’t what students want OS availability and content are two biggest complaints Access NOT ownership Biggest motivating factor: cost –Plain and simple, if it’s free it’s better

24. Action What should be done, and by whom? –Is it our responsibility? It might be, but in any case we can… –Emphasize to the computer industry that standards would help –Emphasize to artists and labels music can and should be distributed legally electronically –Promote legal, legitimate file sharing on campus –Investigate services that may work for your campus –Enforce the DMCA and university policy

25. Success? Never guaranteed –Failure is. How can we measure the success? –Analytically? –Subjectively? –Ever?

27. The edge of the network is the new frontier It is personal It is social It is nomadic It is connected…

28. The edge of the network is the new frontier It is personal It is social It is nomadic It is connected… … and disconnected

29. Agenda LionShare background Provide an overview of LionShare Discuss Current/Future Efforts

30. LionShare Origins Visual Image User Study (VIUS) Hosted in University Libraries at Penn State A two-year user study sponsored by Mellon Foundation Looking at how fac/staff/students use digital images in teaching, research and service Several prototypes identified –Peer-to-Peer was identified as one possible solution - LionShare prototype

31. VIUS Identified These Problems Need for tools to manage personal collections Rapid movement from analog to digital Difficulty in finding appropriate resources Difficulty merging public/private collections Need for faculty/student/dept’s to manage large collections Need for copyright and access control

32. Why Use P2P for LionShare? Encourages collaboration –Student, faculty members and departments Helps manage the digital media explosion –Digital consumer devices Provides common organizational structure –Metadata and standards Flexible and Scalable –Customizable for different needs

33. LionShare Uses Media organization (offline use) Publish personal media collections Person-to-person collaboration Group projects Departmental collaboration Formation of user communities Publication of academic collections

34. LionShare Design Goals Media management Simple, intuitive interface User-defined sharing Authenticated access to the network Standard descriptive metadata structure Leverage Open Source

35. LionShare Architecture Based on Limewire Open Source project Modified version of the Gnutella protocol –P2P + Client/Server Architecture –Decentralized + Centralized Topology Integrated Authentication with Kerberos

36. LionShare Architecture LionShare adds the concept of a PeerServer PeerServer Local aggregator Adds persistence to P2P Can function as gateway Web interface

37. LionShare Principles The Three A’s Authentication –Kerberos Authorization –Access Control Accountability –Non-anonymous network Userid associated with shared files Activity logging

38. LionShare Topology Private P2P Network Hybrid topology (P2P+Client/Server) –PeerServers Users can publish metadata and/or files to a server to remain shared on the P2P network even though the user is not connected to the network –PeerServer Uses Off-line sharing Remote backup WWW publication possibilities

39. Peer Institution “A” P2P Networks LionShare Conceptual Design

40. PeerServer Peer Institution “A” P2P Networks

41. LionShare Conceptual Design PeerServer Peer Institution “A” Authentication Service P2P Networks

42. Current Development Status Accomplishments to date –Basic architectural design complete –LionShare App Alpha Release MIT Kerberos compatibility XML schemas for learning object description Protocol customization –LionShare PeerServer prototype Alpha pre-release –Mellon development grant just awarded

43. Future Development Plans Hardening the LionShare Application Re-engineering the PeerServer Federation of the LionShare protocol –Shibboleth-like implementation Connecting to Fixed Repositories –IMS DRI Spec/OKI OSIDs –Access to Large Collections

44. LionShare Conceptual Design PeerServer Peer Institution “A” Authentication Service P2P Networks

45. LionShare Conceptual Design PeerServer Peer Institutional Boundary PeerServer Peer Institution “A” Institution “B” Authentication Service Authentication Service P2P Networks Trust fabric [Shibboleth-like]

47. LionShare Conceptual Design PeerServer Peer Institutional Boundary PeerServer Peer Institution “A” Institution “B” Authentication Service Authentication Service P2P Networks Trust fabric [Shibboleth-like]

48. LionShare Conceptual Design PeerServer Peer Institutional Boundary PeerServer Peer Institution “A” Institution “B” Authentication Service Authentication Service P2P Networks Trust fabric [Shibboleth-like] OSID Translator Gateway Fixed Repository (Merlot, Careo, EdNA)

50. Future P2P Directions NomadicP2P networks – wireless hand-helds P2P networks –Personal Learning Management Systems Personal ePortfolio Management Systems Personal Back-up Solution Distributed Academic Resource Systems Security and encryption End-to-end diagnostics

51. Co-development Effort Open Source Project Partnering to develop these ideas Some clearly out of scope for current effort Website will develop some of these ideas Informal community approach

52. LionShare Team Penn State University Internet 2 Middleware and P2P WGs eduSource Canada/Simon Fraser U. MIT - Open Knowledge Initiative (OKI) And others –Dartmouth, Florida, Georgia Tech…

53. Contact Interim LionShare website: –http://lionshare.its.psu.eduhttp://lionshare.its.psu.edu Mike Halm mjh@psu.edumjh@psu.edu Alex Valentine asv108@psu.eduasv108@psu.edu