Archives
Electronic Highways
Sharing or stealing? The peer-to-peer (P2P) controversy
Have you ever used the P2P application, Limewire (http://www.limewire.com/), to download an album before it's been publicly released? Was your DVD of "Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle" copied from a guy on your buddy list you only know as "stankboy28"? Do you wax nostalgic about the good old Napster (http://www.napster.com/< /a>) days? Or have you moved on, and customized your own version of the open-source DC++? (http://dcplusplus. sourceforge.net/)
If you answered "yes" to any of these questions, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) (http://www.riaa.com/) and the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) (http://www.mpaa.org/) would like a word with you—not to mention unrestricted access to your computer's hard drive.
The creators of software, movies and music, disturbed by the snowballing notion that information and entertainment is free, recently adopted a massive legal and public-relations strategy to regain control of their intellectual property. The billions of files shared on a monthly basis have elicited strong, often bellicose, responses from the entertainment industry. In the media, pejorative descriptors such as "thieves," "pirates," "looters," "hackers," "freeloaders," "hijackers" and even "terrorists" are bandied around by copyright owners to describe P2P users. On TV, radio and the Internet, industry representatives broadcast staggering losses in revenues and jobs, blatant misinformation about P2P technologies and the law, and predictions of an anarchical online future.
On the legal front, entertainment industry lawyers sued P2P companies, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and individuals—including several college students—in the interest of their clients. Furthermore, the RIAA and MPAA vigorously lobby both houses of Congress to codify their position, and establish harsh penalties for P2P copyright infringement.
The RIAA maintains an "anti-piracy" Web site (http://www. riaa.com/issues/piracy/default.asp) that elucidates its position, provides the latest news on its fight against copyright infringement and offers rewards to those who report illegal music piracy. Similarly, the MPAA's "anti-piracy" Web page (http://www.mpaa.org/anti -piracy/) discusses the elements of piracy, the economics of P2P file sharing, and their worldwide efforts to curb unauthorized copying and distribution of films.
On the other side of the debate, several civil-liberties groups and file-sharing companies argue that the entertainment industry's crusade against P2P technologies tramples on individual privacy rights, stunts technological innovation, ignores consumer preferences and hurts independent and unsigned artists. These groups contend that P2P, in its essence, is a technology that shares information and data efficiently and anonymously without censorship or spin. Because of that fact, P2P computing architectures will shape the future of information technology, communications, education and commerce.
P2P United (http://www.p2punited.org/), a trade association comprised of P2P companies, lobbies government officials in the United States and abroad. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/), a civil-rights group that advocates for civil rights in the digital realm, provides a comprehensive listing of legal briefs, editorials and other related documents about the P2P controversy.
In March 2005, representatives of 28 of the world's leading entertainment conglomerates and P2P companies presented their arguments to the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of MGM Studios v. Grokster. At issue was the question, "When should the distributor of a multi-purpose tool, like P2P file-sharing applications, be held liable for the infringements that may be committed by end-users of the tool?"
In a 9-0 opinion, the Supreme Court decided that P2P companies are accountable for infringing uses of their software. The justices contended that P2P companies showed themselves to be "aiming to satisfy a known source of demand for copyright infringement," negligent in developing "filtering tools or other mechanisms to diminish the infringing activity using their software," and generating advertising revenue based "on high-volume use, which the record shows is infringing."
To read the ruling and law review commentaries, use LexisNexis Academic from the UB Libraries' database page (< strong>http://ublib.buffalo.edu/libraries/e-resources/lexisnexis.html). Connect to LexisNexis, select "Legal Research," and then "Federal Case Law" to access legal opinions of the Court. Stanford University's Copyright and Fair Use Center provides opinion of the Court online also. (http:// fairuse.stanford.edu/MGM_v_Grokster.pdf).
Want to stay current on P2P news from thousands of international sources? Try p2pnet (http://p2pnet.net/index.php), a nonprofit news clearinghouse on digital media and P2P file sharing whose mission is the exchange of news that hasn't been spun, filtered and pre-digested by vested corporate interests. BigChampagne (http://www.bigchampagne.com/ ), an online media analysis firm, gathers P2P traffic data in much the same way Nielsen Entertainment does for television. Basic information, such as the top downloads in several music genres, is provided for free, though custom industry reports can be obtained for a fee.
Regardless of the Grokster decision, P2P file sharing is here to stay. So when you download the latest Bearshare client, ask yourself:
Am I sharing files with friends or stealing and distributing copyrighted media?
Am I sampling media with the option to buy or gorging on the fat of the entertainment industry?
Am I an idealistic information liberator or a hard-boiled pirate hell bent on sticking it to "The Man?"
Or both?
—Dean Hendrix, University Libraries