Knowledge and Information Systems

, Volume 48, Issue 1, pp 111–141 | Cite as

Exploring probabilistic follow relationship to prevent collusive peer-to-peer piracy

  • Wenjia Niu
  • Endong TongEmail author
  • Qian Li
  • Gang LiEmail author
  • Xuemin Wen
  • Jianlong Tan
  • Li Guo
Regular Paper


P2P collusive piracy, where paid P2P clients share the content with unpaid clients, has drawn significant concerns in recent years. Study on the follow relationship provides an emerging track of research in capturing the followee (e.g., paid client) for the blocking of piracy spread from all his followers (e.g., unpaid clients). Unfortunately, existing research efforts on the follow relationship in online social network have largely overlooked the time constraint and the content feedback in sequential behavior analysis. Hence, how to consider these two characteristics for effective P2P collusive piracy prevention remains an open problem. In this paper, we proposed a multi-bloom filter circle to facilitate the time-constraint storage and query of P2P sequential behaviors. Then, a probabilistic follow with content feedback model to fast discover and quantify the probabilistic follow relationship is further developed, and then, the corresponding approach to piracy prevention is designed. The extensive experimental analysis demonstrates the capability of the proposed approach.


P2P piracy Behavior Time constraint Content feedback Bloom filter 



This work was partially supported by the Strategic Priority Research Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences Grant (XDA06030200), the Securing CyberSpaces Research Cluster of Deakin University, Beijing Key Lab of Intelligent Telecommunication Software, Multimedia (No. ITSM201502), Guangxi Key Laboratory of Trusted Software (No. kx201418), and the Major Directionality Project of Chinese Academy of Sciences under Grant (KGZD-EW-102-1)


  1. 1.
    Schollmeier R (2001) A definition of peer-to-peer networking for the classification of peer-to-peer architectures and applications. In: Proceedings of IEEE international conference on peer-to-peer computing, pp 101–102Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lou X, Hwang K (2009) Collusive piracy prevention in P2P content delivery networks. IEEE Trans Comput 58(7):970–983MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Abdullah E, Fujita S (2012) Prevent contents leaking in P2P CDNs with robust and quick detection of colluders. J Inf Process 20(2):378–385Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jung E, Cho S (2006) A robust digital watermarking system adopting 2D barcode against digital piracy on P2P network. Int J Comput Sci Netw Secur 6(10):263–268Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Basamanowicz J, Bouchard M (2012) Overcoming the Warez paradox: online piracy groups and situational crime prevention. Policy Internet 3(2):1–25Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bellare M, Namprempre C et al (2009) Security proofs for identity-based identification and signature schemes. J Cryptol 22(1):1–61MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Yoshida M, Ohzahata S et al. (2010) Controlling file distribution in the share network through content poisoning. In: Proceedings of 24th IEEE international conference on advanced information networking and applications (AINA), pp 1004–1011Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Banerjee A, Faloutsos M et al (2008) The P2P war: someone is monitoring your activities. Comput Netw 52(6):1272–1280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bharambe A, Herley C et al (2006) Analyzing and improving a bittorrent networks performance mechanisms. In: Proceedings of 25th IEEE international conference on computer communications (INFOCOM), pp 1–12Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dugu N, Perez A (2013) Detecting social capitalists on twitter using similarity measures. Complex Netw IV:1–12Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chen J, Nairn R et al (2010) Short and tweet: experiments on recommending content from information streams. In: Proceedings of the 28th ACM international conference on human factors in computing systems, pp 1185–1194Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hannon J, Bennett M et al (2010) Recommending twitter users to follow using content and collaborative filtering approaches. In: Proceedings of the 4th ACM conference on recommender systems, pp 199–206Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kim Y, Shim K et al (2011) A recommendation system for twitter using probabilistic modeling. In: Proceedings of the 11th IEEE international conference on data mining (ICDM), pp 340–349Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Armentano M, Godoy D et al (2012) Topology-based recommendation of users in micro-blogging communities. J Comput Sci Technol 27(2):624–634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yang X, Steck H et al (2012) Circle-based recommendation in online social networks. In: Proceedings of the 18th ACM international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining (SIGKDD), pp 1267–1275Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sandes D, Li W et al (2012) Logical model of relationship for online social networks and performance optimizing of queries. In: Proceedings of 13th international conference on web information systems engineering (WISE), pp 726–736Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Golab L, Özsu MT (2013) Issues in data stream management. ACM Sigmod Rec 32(2):5–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Datar M, Motwani R (2007) The sliding-window computation model and results. Data Streams 149–167Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Braverman V, Ostrovsky R, Zaniolo C (2009) Optimal sampling from sliding windows. In: Proceedings of the twenty-eighth ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGART symposium on principles of database systems, pp 147–156Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Aggarwal CC (2007) Data streams: models and algorithms 1–372Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shavitt Y, Weisberg E et al (2011) Mining music from large-scale, peer-to-peer networks. IEEE Multimed 18(1):14–23Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Koenigstein N, Shavitt Y (2012) Talent scouting in P2P networks. Comput Netw 56(3):970–982CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Koenigstein N, Shavitt Y et al (2012) Measuring the validity of peer-to-peer data for information retrieval applications 56(3):1092–1102Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Broder A, Mitzenmacher M (2004) Network applications of Bloom filters: a survey. Internet Math 1(4):485–509MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rottenstreich O, Kanizo Y, Keslassy I (2012) The variable-increment counting Bloom filter. In: INFOCOM 2012, pp 1880–1888Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Newman M, Girvan M (2002) Community structure in social and biological networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol 99, pp. 7821–7826Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Luxburg U (2007) A tutorial on spectral clustering. Stat Comput 17(4):395–416Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Woess W (2000) Random walks on infinite graphs and groups. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Li Q, Wenjia N et al (2014) Recover fault services via complex service-to-node mappings in wireless sensor networks. J Netw Syst Manag 1–28Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Tong E, Niu W et al (2014) Bloom filter-based workflow management to enable QoS guarantee in wireless sensor networks. J Netw Comput Appl 39:38–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Information EngineeringChinese Academy of ScienceBeijingPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.Institute of MicroelectronicsChinese Academy of SciencesBeijingPeople’s Republic of China
  3. 3.School of Information TechnologyDeakin UniversityGeelongAustralia

Personalised recommendations