<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>TV-Free .org - Free TV Online &#187; Articles</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.tv-free.org/category/web-links/articles/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.tv-free.org</link>
	<description>TV Free - Watch Free TV online like movies, series, documentaries and live channels - Up to date links to Free TV Online</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 24 Nov 2007 10:59:50 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Rethinking the Commitment to Free, Local Television</title>
		<link>http://www.tv-free.org/rethinking-commitment-free-local-television.htm</link>
		<comments>http://www.tv-free.org/rethinking-commitment-free-local-television.htm#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Jan 2007 16:31:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Free TV</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Articles]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tv-free.org/rethinking-commitment-free-local-television.htm</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[By CHRISTOPHER S. YOO  &#8211; Vanderbilt University &#8211; School of Law 
Go to article
Abstract:

One of the most enduring tenets of U.S. television policy has been the commitment to localism. I suggest that the FCC&#8217;s localism policy can be disaggregated into four, more specific commitments: (1) the preference for locally oriented over nationally oriented programming, [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>By CHRISTOPHER S. YOO  &#8211; Vanderbilt University &#8211; School of Law </p>
<p><a href="http://ssrn.com/abstract=333702">Go to article</a></p>
<p>Abstract:</p>
<ul>
One of the most enduring tenets of U.S. television policy has been the commitment to localism. I suggest that the FCC&#8217;s localism policy can be disaggregated into four, more specific commitments: (1) the preference for locally oriented over nationally oriented programming, (2) the preference for free (i.e., advertising-supported) over pay television, (3) the preference for single-channel over multi-channel television technologies, and (4) the preference for incumbents over new entrants and new technologies. I then analyze each of these commitments in light of what is perhaps the most distinctive feature of the television industry, which is the fact that its cost structure gives television programming many of the qualities of a public good, and conclude that each of these four commitments is fundamentally flawed. I then employ the public goods analysis I develop to critique the manner in which policy makers are regulating conventional television broadcasting, cable television, direct broadcast satellite systems (DBS), digital television, and third-generation wireless devices (3G).
</ul>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.tv-free.org/rethinking-commitment-free-local-television.htm/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Economics of Peer-to-Peer Networks</title>
		<link>http://www.tv-free.org/economics-peer-to-peer-networks.htm</link>
		<comments>http://www.tv-free.org/economics-peer-to-peer-networks.htm#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Jan 2007 16:28:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Free TV</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Articles]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tv-free.org/economics-peer-to-peer-networks.htm</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Krishnan, Ramayya, Smith, Michael D. and Telang, Rahul, &#8220;The Economics of Peer-to-Peer Networks&#8221; (September 2003).   
&#8220;Peer-to-Peer (P2P) networks have emerged as a significant social phenomenon for the distribution of information goods and may become an important alternative to traditional client-server network architectures for knowledge sharing within enterprises. This paper reviews and synthesizes the [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Krishnan, Ramayya, Smith, Michael D. and Telang, Rahul, <a href="http://ssrn.com/abstract=504062">&#8220;The Economics of Peer-to-Peer Networks&#8221;</a> (September 2003).   </p>
<p>&#8220;Peer-to-Peer (P2P) networks have emerged as a significant social phenomenon for the distribution of information goods and may become an important alternative to traditional client-server network architectures for knowledge sharing within enterprises. This paper reviews and synthesizes the relevant computer science and economics literatures as they relate to P2P networks, and raises important questions for researchers interested in studying the behavior of these networks from the perspective of the economics of information technology. </p>
<p>With regard to the economic characteristics of these networks, we show that while the characteristics of services provided over P2P networks are similar to public goods and club goods, they have many important differences and hence there is a need for new theoretical models as well as empirical and experimental analysis to understand P2P user behavior. We then identify several important areas for study with regard to the economics of P2P networks and review recent academic papers in each area.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.tv-free.org/economics-peer-to-peer-networks.htm/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Video</title>
		<link>http://www.tv-free.org/video.htm</link>
		<comments>http://www.tv-free.org/video.htm#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Jan 2007 16:21:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Free TV</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Articles]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tv-free.org/video.htm</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[TO BE CREATED
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>TO BE CREATED</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.tv-free.org/video.htm/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bittorrent</title>
		<link>http://www.tv-free.org/bittorrent.htm</link>
		<comments>http://www.tv-free.org/bittorrent.htm#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Jan 2007 16:12:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Free TV</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Software]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tv-free.org/bittorrent.htm</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[BitTorrent is the protocol and the name of the peer-to-peer (P2P) file distribution tool written by programmer Bram Cohen and written in Python and is released under the BitTorrent Open Source License (a modified version of the Jabber Open Source License), as of version 4.0. The name &#8220;BitTorrent&#8221; refers to the distribution protocol, the original [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>BitTorrent is the protocol and the name of the peer-to-peer (P2P) file distribution tool written by programmer Bram Cohen and written in Python and is released under the BitTorrent Open Source License (a modified version of the Jabber Open Source License), as of version 4.0. The name &#8220;BitTorrent&#8221; refers to the distribution protocol, the original client application, and the .torrent file type.</p>
<p>With BitTorrent, files are broken into smaller fragments, typically a quarter of a megabyte each. As the fragments are distributed to the peers in a random order, they can be reassembled on a requesting machine. Each peer takes advantage of the best connections to the missing pieces while providing an upload connection to the pieces it already has. This scheme has proven particularly useful in trading large files such as videos and software. In conventional downloading, high demand leads to bottlenecks as demand surges for bandwidth from the host server. With BitTorrent, high demand can actually increase throughput as more bandwidth and additional “seeds” of the completed file become available to the group. Cohen claims that for very popular files, BitTorrent can support about a thousand times as many downloads as HTTP.</p>
<p>Sharing files</p>
<p>To share a file using BitTorrent, a user creates a .torrent file, a small &#8220;pointer&#8221; file that contains:</p>
<li>the filename, size, and the hash of each block in the file (which allows users to make sure they are downloading the real thing)
<li>the address of a &#8220;tracker&#8221; server (which is discussed below)
<li>and some other data (like client instructions).
<p>The torrent file can then be distributed to other users, often via email or placed on a website. The BitTorrent client is then started as a &#8220;seed node&#8221;, allowing other users to connect and commence downloading. When other users finish downloading the entire file, they can optionally &#8220;reseed&#8221; it&#8211;becoming an additional source for the file. One outcome of this approach is that if all seeds are taken offline, the file may no longer be available for download, even if the torrent file is possessed. However, even if there are no seeds, as long as there is at least one distributed copy of the file everyone can eventually get the complete file.</p>
<p>Downloading with BitTorrent is straightforward. Each person who wants to download the file first downloads the torrent and opens it in the BitTorrent client software. The torrent file tells the client the address of the tracker, which, in turn, maintains a log of which users are downloading the file and where the file and its fragments reside. For each available source, the client considers which blocks of the file are available and then requests the rarest block it does not yet have. This makes it more likely that peers will have blocks to exchange. As soon as the client finishes importing a block, it hashes it to make sure that the block matches what the torrent file said it should be. Then it begins looking for someone to upload the block to.</p>
<p>BitTorrent gives the best download performance to the people who upload the most, a property known as &#8220;leech resistance&#8221;, since it discourages &#8220;leechers&#8221; from trying to download the file without uploading it to anyone. (Although, confusingly, when used in opposition to &#8220;seeds&#8221; or &#8220;seeders&#8221; as in &#8220;S/L ratio&#8221; (meaning &#8220;seed/leech ratio&#8221;), &#8220;leecher&#8221; only means someone who hasn&#8217;t downloaded the full file yet.)</p>
<p>Though BitTorrent is a good protocol for a broadband user, it is less effective for dial up connections, where disconnections are common. On the other hand, many HTTP servers drop connections over several hours, while many torrents exist long enough to complete a multi-day download.</p>
<p>Terminology</p>
<li>torrent &#8211; A torrent can mean either a .torrent meta data file or all files described by it, depending on context. The .torrent file contains meta data about shared files. It contains the names of the files, their sizes and the checksums of all blocks in the torrent. It also holds the address of a tracker that hosts the torrent.
<li>peer &#8211; A peer is one instance of a BitTorrent client running on a computer on the Internet that you connect to and transfer data. Usually a peer does not have the complete file, but only parts of it.
<li>seed &#8211; A seed is a peer that has a complete copy of the torrent and still offers it for upload. The more seeds there are, the better the chances are for completion of the file.
<li>leech &#8211; A leech is a peer that does not have a complete copy of the torrent yet. When downloading is complete, it may stay around and seed the file as a seed so that others can complete their download. The term leech is also used for peers that have very poor upload/download ratios or leave the swarm immediately after their downloads are complete. (See Etiquette.) The leeches usually contribute a majority of the bandwidth in a swarm.
<li>swarm &#8211; Together, all peers sharing a torrent are called a swarm. Six leeches and two seeds makes a swarm of eight.
<li>tracker &#8211; A tracker is a broker service that mediates contacts between peers. The tracker is not directly involved in the data transfer and does not have a copy of the file.
<p>Comparison to other file sharing systems</p>
<p>The method used by BitTorrent to distribute files parallels to a large extent the one used by the eDonkey2000 network, but nodes in eDonkey&#8217;s file sharing network usually share and download a much larger number of files, making the bandwidth available to each transfer much smaller. BitTorrent transfers are typically very fast, because all nodes in a group concentrate on transferring a single file or collection of files. While the original eDonkey2000 client provided little &#8220;leech resistance&#8221;, most new clients have some sort of system to encourage uploaders. eMule, for example, has a credits system whereby a client rewards other clients that upload to it by increasing their priority in its queue. However, the nature of the eDonkey2000 concept means download speeds tend to be much more variable, although the number of available files is far greater.</p>
<p>A similar method to BitTorrent was the Participation Level introduced in KaZaA in 2002. The Participation Level would increase when you upload and decrease when you download. Then when you upload a file to someone else the person with the highest Participation Level gets it first, then they upload it on to the person with the next highest Participation Level, and so on. This can be visualised as a pyramid, with the people who have the most upload bandwidth available at the top and people with less bandwidth on progressively lower levels. This is the most efficient way to distribute a file to a large number of users: it is probable that even the people at the bottom of the pyramid will get the file faster than if the file was served by a non-P2P method. Unfortunately, the system adopted by KaZaA is considered by some to be flawed as it relies on the client accurately reporting their Participation Level and therefore it is easy to cheat with the many &#8220;unofficial&#8221; clients.</p>
<p>Legal issues</p>
<p>BitTorrent, like any other file transfer protocol, can be used to distribute files without the permission of the copyright holder. BitTorrent has become famous for its ability to also share copyrighted files. Those who intend to distribute illegitimate files often have no or limited funds available, and BitTorrent&#8217;s efficiency provides a viable distribution method.</p>
<p><font size=1>Source is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/" target=_blank rel="nofollow">Wikipedia</a>, the free encyclopedia.  The text of this article is licensed under the <a href="http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html" target=_blank rel="nofollow">GFDL</a>.</font></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.tv-free.org/bittorrent.htm/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Broadcatching</title>
		<link>http://www.tv-free.org/broadcatching.htm</link>
		<comments>http://www.tv-free.org/broadcatching.htm#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Jan 2007 16:12:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Free TV</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Articles]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tv-free.org/broadcatching.htm</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Broadcatching refers to the use of RSS feeds and BitTorrent peer to peer file sharing as an alternative to distributing multimedia content on the Internet. It is a play on words, in reference to broadcasting.
Broadcatch is a word coined by Fen Labalme in 1983. &#8220;Broadcatch connotes a many to one gathering of information, using a [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Broadcatching refers to the use of RSS feeds and BitTorrent peer to peer file sharing as an alternative to distributing multimedia content on the Internet. It is a play on words, in reference to broadcasting.</p>
<p>Broadcatch is a word coined by Fen Labalme in 1983. &#8220;Broadcatch connotes a many to one gathering of information, using a network of personalized agents to ideally sift through all available information and return just that which is of possible current interest from trusted, authenticatable sources and in a form and style amenable to the user.&#8221;</p>
<p>While potential illegal uses abound (as is the case with any new file-distribution method), this idea lends itself to a great number of ideas that could turn traditional distribution models on their heads, giving smaller operations a new opportunity for content distribution. Similar to Linspire, the system leans on the cost-saving benefit of BitTorrent, where expenses are virtually non-existent; each downloader of a file participates in a portion of the distribution. On the other hand, properly implemented multicasting would provide the same functionality with even smaller amounts of bandwidth.</p>
<p>RSS feeds layered on top keep track of the content, and because BitTorrent does cryptographic hashing of all data, subscribers to the feed can be sure they&#8217;re getting what they think they&#8217;re getting, whether that winds up being the latest Sopranos episode, or the latest Sveasoft firmware upgrade.</p>
<p>Despite ample discussion, one of the first practical applications of this idea has only surfaced recently. Programmer Andrew Grumet has announced the release of a beta version of an RSS and BitTorrent integration tool for Radio Userland&#8217;s news aggregator, available here.</p>
<p>The source of this article is Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The text of this article is licensed under the GFDL. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.tv-free.org/broadcatching.htm/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Future of Copyright</title>
		<link>http://www.tv-free.org/future-copyright.htm</link>
		<comments>http://www.tv-free.org/future-copyright.htm#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Jan 2007 16:09:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Free TV</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Articles]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tv-free.org/future-copyright.htm</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Future of Copyright
LAWRENCE B. SOLUM 
University of Illinois College of Law 
Texas Law Review, Vol. 83, p. 1137, 2005
Abstract
&#8220;Sometimes technological change is so profound that it rocks the foundations of an entire body of law. Peer-to-peer (P2P) filesharing systems &#8211; Napster, Gnutella, KaZaA, Grokster, and Freenet3 &#8211; are mere symptoms of a set of [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Future of Copyright</p>
<p>LAWRENCE B. SOLUM <br />
University of Illinois College of Law <br />
<a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=698306" rel="nofollow">Texas Law Review, Vol. 83, p. 1137, 2005</a></p>
<p>Abstract</p>
<p>&#8220;Sometimes technological change is so profound that it rocks the foundations of an entire body of law. Peer-to-peer (P2P) filesharing systems &#8211; Napster, Gnutella, KaZaA, Grokster, and Freenet3 &#8211; are mere symptoms of a set of technological innovations that have set in motion an ongoing process of fundamental changes in the nature of copyright law. The video tape recorder begat the Sony substantial noninfringing use defense. The digital cassette recorder begat the Audio Home Recording Act. The internet begat the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Napster begat Napster. We see the law morph right in front of our eyes, but its ultimate form is still obscure. As a consequence, the future of copyright is up for grabs. We live in a magical, exhilarating, and frightening time: Many alternative copyfutures shimmer on the horizon, sometimes coming into sharper focus and sometimes fading away. </p>
<p><center></p>
<p><script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "pub-7892672890047209";
google_ad_width = 468;
google_ad_height = 60;
google_ad_format = "468x60_as";
google_ad_type = "text_image";
google_ad_channel ="";
google_color_border = "FFFFFF";
google_color_bg = "FFFFFF";
google_color_link = "000000";
google_color_url = "000000";
google_color_text = "000000";
//--></script><br />
<script type="text/javascript"
  src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script></p>
<p></center></p>
<p>In this heady atmosphere, the idea slingers are at work. Richard Posner and William Landes have proposed indefinitely renewable copyrights. Neil Netanel, William Fisher, and others propose to legalize P2P filesharing and replace the lost revenues with a tax on hardware and internet service. Joseph Liu suggests that the scope of fair use should grow with time. Mark Lemley is debunking ex post justifications for intellectual property. No surprise, the academics do not have a monopoly on idea slinging. The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) have gone on the offensive, proposing legislation like the Induce Act, targeted at shutting down P2P filesharing services that allow third parties to share copyrighted content. </p>
<p><center></p>
<p><script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "pub-7892672890047209";
google_ad_width = 468;
google_ad_height = 60;
google_ad_format = "468x60_as";
google_ad_type = "text_image";
google_ad_channel ="";
google_color_border = "FFFFFF";
google_color_bg = "FFFFFF";
google_color_link = "000000";
google_color_url = "000000";
google_color_text = "000000";
//--></script><br />
<script type="text/javascript"
  src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script></p>
<p></center></p>
<p>No copywarrior is more prominent and influential than Larry Lessig. Lessig was the brilliant architect of Eric Eldred&#8217;s failed challenge to the CTEA&#8217;s retroactive twenty-year extension of copyright terms &#8211; effectively a twenty-year moratorium on new works entering the public domain. In Free Culture, Lessig has remade himself as a norm entrepreneur &#8211; a public figure with the towering ambition of reshaping copynorms &#8211; the fundamental set of social norms that shape perceptions of the morality of filesharing and the legitimacy of legislation that shrinks the public domain. This essay examines the ideas in Free Culture in the context of current controversies over the future of copyright.&#8221;</p>
<p><a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=698306" rel="nofollow">Get the full article</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.tv-free.org/future-copyright.htm/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
