Not only do these platforms allow users to share files, but they provide file hosting and management from anywhere, on any device.
These cloud storage options are so convenient that employees eschew email, FTP servers and other more traditional means of sending files internally and externally. Businesses have to deal with unsecured documents, file sprawl and possible data breaches. As a result, it becomes apparent to companies that a secure way to share and manage files is necessary.
In , SmartFile creates a cloud-based business file sharing and management solution that lets organizations set granular rules and permissions for users, maintain audit logs and use an interface that consumer cloud storage users are familiar with. Still, some companies find that they need these features behind their own firewall. From the filing cabinets to the burgeoning cloud, the simple file folder has seen its home transform in stunning ways.
What do you think is next for file management and file sharing? What features are missing from current offerings? Let me know in the comments below. Oh, and if you want to try out our file sharing and management solution, check out the free trial , no credit card required. Your email address will not be published.
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. Access your files from anywhere, on any browser, or any FTP client. An easy-to-use web interface with security for business. Secure file management behind your firewall.
Layer SmartFile on top of existing storage or host your own private environment. Strictly API based no interface file management tools for agile developers that need a quick way to send, share, and host. Toggle navigation MENU. Want more content like this? But in the case of Kazaa and FastTrack, this distinction has a lot of significance.
The letter A is di-dah, the letter B is dah-di-di-dit and so on. But the beeps themselves could be transmitted in different ways. I could build a flashlight that transmits Morse code by flashing light signals; I could build a telegraph that would transmit the signals as electric pulses, or even create small and large clouds of smoke over a bonfire.
In other words, there are many ways a protocol could be implemented. It is important to remember that the same way in which a telegraph could be replaced with a flashlight in order to use Morse code, Kazaa could have been replaced with other software that would implement the FastTrack protocol, and in fact — that is what actually happened.
This abundance of software allowed each user to find the software that suited them the most—this was the most significant advantage of FastTrack over Napster. Furthermore, it had another advantage over the previous generation of file sharing: FastTrack allowed sharing not only MP3 files but all sorts of files, including movies and software. It was clear to everyone that with such success it was just a matter of time until the record labels and movie studios would drag FastTrack to court and try to take the technology down just as they did to Napster.
Even though Grokster was just one of many similar programs, this case was especially interesting since it was seen as a test of the legality of the entire FastTrack protocol. If the record labels could prove that Grokster could be held responsible for the infringements of its users, its fate would be identical to the one of Napster, four years earlier. And if Grokster falls, the other software companies would probably follow. So, how did Zennstrom and Friis hope to avoid the same fate suffered by Napster?
The server hosted a list of all the songs that different users stored on their computers. And if the server located the song on its list It sent user A the contact information of user B who had the song. Now user A communicated directly with user B, and the two exchanged files. Remember, the fact that Napster hosted the list that contained all the songs, turned out to be their downfall since the court ruled that Napster had the theoretical and practical capability to prevent infringement.
That is why FastTrack protocol did not include a central server at all! But having said that, an obvious question arises. How could file searchers and file holders find each other? The supernodes received their distinguished title if they had a fast internet connection. Imagine a crowd at a football stadium, where some of the people that happen to be tall and strong receive yellow vests and hats and now they are both watching the game, and ushering. In other words, the supernodes are both sharing files just like any other user, but, in addition, they are responsible for creating connections between users.
It contacts the nearest supernode and sends a query with the name of the song. The supernode hosts a list of files, but only the files of users near it. So it knows what is happening only on its side of the stadium, but has no idea what is happening on the other side.
It scans the list and searches for the song, but cannot find it. It then refers the query to another supernode. The second supernode scans its list, and if the file cannot be found, this supernode too refers the query to the next supernode, and so on…. Now, knowing the IP address of the user that holds the desired file, user A contacts user B and they exchange the file. This elegant solution removed any direct responsibility from the operators of Kazaa and the other software companies since they had no control over the supernodes.
The supernodes usher on their own, completely independently; they communicate with each other and their users. Users could exchange, for example, a copyright protected file of a Metallica song or a perfectly legal copy of the bible — and no one would know any better.
Imagine a new highway — does anybody at police station know which vehicles drive on it? And this is exactly the Betamax protection we mentioned in the last episode— Grokster supplies the technology but has no control over the actions of its users.
The judge agreed with this argument and ruled in favor of Grokster. The record labels appealed, and lost that as well. But then the case was brought in front of the Supreme Court — and there the outcome was completely different.
If you look at it outcome-dependant, all they are really saying is that Grokster should not have won, we need a fuller record to determine what is actually happening here. In other words, they are sending the case back down to the lower court, saying it should investigate the lawsuit deeper, and find out all the facts.
But the Supreme Court does more than that. The background here is that most people were using this product to infringe on copyright.
They are saying that by being the person who creates the device, you actually have a liability. As Brett says, Grokster realized that it was probably going to lose the next legal battle — and it folded. In the company ceased all activity. In , when Napster disappeared, its frustrated users had to find other solutions and other technologies for file sharing.
But in , Grokster was just one of many file sharing alternatives! It is just like the difference between hunting an elephant or destroying an ant hill: an elephant is a giant animal that can be taken down with a few bullets.
It is a lot harder to get rid of many, many ants that quickly spread in many directions. Similarly, Napster was shot once — a lawsuit took down the software. But getting rid of FastTrack and all its various software implementations was a much harder task. Many in the music industry felt that these sort of lawsuits were becoming irrelevant: despite the efforts to block file sharing, every year more and more users joined file sharing networks.
Imagine that you are at a store and shopping for a certain item. When you get home, excited to open the box, you realize that the item is missing! Instead of the toaster or television you just bought, inside the box, there is a small dumbbell. This is exactly what record labels decided to do to FastTrack.
OverPeer developed a technology that allowed spamming file sharing networks with fake and corrupted files. And fake music files turned out to be a collection of static noises or music fragments repeating themselves in a loop every thirty seconds.
According to media reports, OverPeer flooded file sharing networks with hundreds of millions of files, and at a certain point, about half! File Sharing was rapidly becoming an unpleasant experience for users. But did the record labels ultimately succeed? Well, you be the judge: in , when OverPeer was established, there were three million active users in FastTrack.
In , three years later, there were ten million. It is no wonder that in record labels decided to abandon this strategy. Each year millions of new users joined the internet, the bandwidth improved, and data storage technologies got better, too. It was this new technological world that welcomed the birth of a technology that took file sharing to new heights: BitTorrent. Cohen was inspired by his work at Mojo Nation and came up with a new file-sharing protocol that was less secure than the one developed at Mojo Nation but allowed downloading files or uploading them at a high speed.
Cohen left his job in order to develop his ideas independently and In July he released the first version of BitTorrent. The first innovation is a built-in separation between the mechanism of file discovery and file transfer.
Imagine a highway used by all types of vehicles including sports cars, big trucks, horses, bikes, and so on. Slow vehicles block faster ones, so fast cars are still forced to drive slowly. When it comes to file sharing, queries and other messages related to the mechanism of file discovery — slow down the traffic related to the actual transfer of movies, songs and so on. BitTorrent was built differently. Searching for files took place on the regular internet, using ordinary websites: it is not a part of the file sharing network itself.
All the bandwidth available to the file sharing network is used for purely file transfer. Following our previous analogy, slow moving vehicles are forced to use side streets — while fast moving ones are allowed to use the highway.
Another significant innovation was in the way files were being shared. In all the other networks we mentioned, file sharing took place between one user and another: User A transferred a file to user B. But the transfer speed between those two users was dictated by the side who had the lowest bandwidth. In BitTorrent, a file is being shared by several sources at the same time. The impact on the file download speed is dramatic! Instead of one trickling hose — now several hoses are pouring water into the bucket at the same time.
With all faucets open, the bucket fills more quickly, or in other words — the file downloads faster. But the truth was that, for Napster, terminal rot had set in. Sean Parker had been quietly, hurtfully ousted from the company after an email was unearthed in which he referred to file-sharers as pirates, something Napster's lawyers were always careful to deny. Shown the door, Parker asked Fanning for help, but his friend was so weary and disillusioned that he only said: "You're lucky.
You can go and do something else. Napster had lost its zest. Rudderless and haemorrhaging relevance, it began a series of doomed manoeuvres. After the court-ordered shutdown, bosses flirted with the idea of reinstating free sharing, but with music that had the lo-fi quality of radio. They gave away free MP3 players. A UK collaboration was announced with Dixons, never the sexiest brand, and by the time Apple was ready to launch its slick iTunes Store in Britain, Napster had a new tie-up — with the Post Office.
As iTunes grew in stature, there was some hope, says Winter, that Napster might hang around as "Pepsi to iTunes' Coke". To that end, the brand was bought up by a succession of different corporations, each hoping to recapture some of its original cachet. By the numbers were no longer made public.
An intriguing hint is floated in Downloaded that Napster was not only a sinkhole for investors' cash; it only ever generated proper revenue by selling T-shirts.
Fanning and Parker don't seem to have made any money from it, and were left with big legal debts to go with long-lasting frustrations. Latterly they have thrived. Parker partnered with Mark Zuckerberg in the early days of Facebook and then invested in the music-streaming service Spotify. He is now a billionaire , and in was portrayed as a quick-witted lady's man by Justin Timberlake in David Fincher's Facebook movie The Social Network. Not so bad.
But both Fanning and Parker were incredibly smart. What they created at 17, 18 — they were visionaries. Selfishly, I'm glad Napster faded when it did. Though copycat software rose up afterwards, downloading music never again felt cloudless.
By the time Napster turned off the tap, I'd left home for university, and had got to know a record shop in my new area. Just how pervasive Napster was, for a particular generational slice, became clear to me a few years later. There were three Americans in the car, and when Steppenwolf's grand road-trip anthem, Magic Carpet Ride , came on we all sang along — sang along, too, when a mechanical blip interrupted the chorus.
Nobody could believe it. Years before, on computers thousands of miles apart, we'd all downloaded the same corrupted MP3 and got to know Steppenwolf with blip included. Napster had weightier legacies. Facebook, iTunes and other towering digital giants have flourished using elements first teased or pioneered by Fanning's software. And Winter's documentary makes clear an authentic regret, these days, from inside the music industry that Napster was not embraced.
Even while one executive remembers it as "an ambush… Pearl Harbour", others are damning of the hurry to crush such a thriving online community. Island Records' founder, Chris Blackwell, laments the fact that there wasn't a formal move to reach out to its 50 million users at a time when CD sales were tumbling. The industry might be belatedly wrestling a business model into shape in the online age, but an opportunity to do so a decade ago was probably missed.
Napster, I was surprised to find, lingers on in If you visit its website, you'll learn that it was acquired two years ago by the music subscription service Rhapsody. Prospective users are sunnily advised that file-sharing is fun, easy and possible on a variety of payment plans. Parker and Fanning, meanwhile, have reunited.
They're now at work on a fresh venture, a video-conferencing application called Airtime , which seeks to pair up strangers who have similar interests.
An online advert imagines two models, brought together because they're both fans of Skrillex and the film Inception , becoming great friends.
Other new acquaintances are shown solving Rubik's cubes together, and duetting on the violin. Well would it really be stranger than two teenagers, across a few hectic months, teaching the internet to share? Napster: the day the music was set free.
The digital music revolution started with Napster — the file-sharing service dreamt up by two teenagers in
0コメント