This press release, while short, is one of the only legal responses specifically relating to BitTorrent within the world of peer-to-peer file sharing.  This tells of the conviction and sentencing of one of the administrators of a BitTorrent tracker called EliteTorrents.com.  The FBI took down the site in 2005, and then over a year later, Grant T. Stanley was sentenced to 5 months in prison, 5 months house arrest and assessed a fine of $3,000 for copyright infringement and conspiracy to commit copyright infringement. The importance of this case lies in the fact that it destroys what was considered the best defense administrators of torrent trackers had.  It was assumed that, because trackers do not actually house any illegal or infringing files, that those who ran such sites couldn’t be held responsible for the infringement of users of the site.  Basically, the precedent set in MGM v. Grokster was applied to this case, and it was determined that the administrator of EliteTorrents was inducing infringement, by providing files which could only be used for an infringing purpose.
This shows somewhat new tactic in the fight against illegal file sharing. Rather than going after the makers of individual programs such as in Grokster and Napster, they went after those providing access to the infringing content.  This has a great deal to do with the nature of BitTorrent itself, and speaks to the fact that the potential for non-infringing use is so great, that the MPAA likely would not have thought it worth their time to fight what would have almost inevitably been a lost battle against the technology.  The people who run and even use various torrent trackers are likely a bit more worried than they would have been even a month ago, but those using BitTorrent for non-infringing purposes likely need not worry.

    This article is a guide written by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, aimed at Universities to provide a guide for establishing policies on peer-to-peer file sharing.  One of the primary issues that the article tackles is the line between fighting copyright infringement while maintaining a suitable learning environment and protecting the rights and privacy of the students.  The issue of determining where to draw the line in regards to students privacy versus complying with copyright law is a delicate one that has been faced by most institutions of higher education at some point.  The key, according to the article, is discouraging copyright infringement while maintaining student’s privacy and freedom.  Without actively discouraging infringement, they could face potential repercussions from those who support the school financially or even legal repercussions.  Maintaining privacy for students is important in keeping the respect of the students and creating a working academic environment.  
    The article also goes into a fair amount of detail as to the establishment of a school’s network.  One possible solution offered by the article is the establishment of a school sponsored download service.  There are downsides to such a solution, but it can have a major impact on illegal downloading, if a legal alternative is easily available at no additional cost (other than what comes out of tuition to pay for the service).  Peer-to-peer sharing is a major issue on most college campuses, and with programs such as BitTorrent, it’s only going to continue to grow.  If a university can curb illegal file sharing, it lowers the chance of RIAA lawsuits coming into the campus, which would be bad for everyone but the RIAA.  

    This article by Clive Thompson from Wired is essentially an overview of the history and a glimpse at the future of BitTorrent.  The first part of the article discusses BitTorrent’s origins and its creator Bram Cohen.  Cohen created BitTorrent after a string of unsuccessful projects, when he saw the problems with the current generation of peer-to-peer programs such as Kazaa and decided to make something faster and more efficient.  Although it started out slowly, BitTorrent’s popularity grew immensely in the following years.  The article goes on to discuss what the future of BitTorrent, and peer-to-peer file sharing could look like.  The possibilities of a broadcast industry built around BitTorrent looks to be much more convenient, although more volatile at the same time.  If the television industry were based around BitTorrent, for example, trends could change so quickly that a new show could be canceled, or be signed for more shows, within hours after the initial release of an episode.
    The article also compares the reaction of the MPAA to the flood of movie sharing that has come with BitTorrent to the reaction of the RIAA to the music swapping with Napster and Grokster and the like.  The article considers possible outcomes such as the MPAA adopting BitTorrent technology to provide legal movie downloads, such as was seen with Napster 2.0 or the iTunes music store.  This thought in particular is somewhat prophetic, as just recently Bram Cohen and BitTorrent Inc. have struck a deal with the MPAA.  The history of BitTorrent technology has been one of the great success stories of the information technology age, although depending on whom you ask it could be viewed as one of the worst technologies to hit the Internet.  Whatever opinion you have, it seems BitTorrent will be around for a bit longer.

This is a report by the Electronic Frontier Foundation on the current state of peer-to-peer file sharing two years after the RIAA first filed lawsuits against its own customers for copyright violation.  The report looks at the effects of the lawsuits, as well as the reactions to the lawsuits from the public.  The report also compares the effects of the various attempts the RIAA has made to curb file sharing over the years.  The first method used was to go after the technology itself, as seen in cases such as A&M v. Napster and MGM v. Grokster.  While these were successful, the file sharers have simply moved elsewhere, most recently to protocols such as BitTorrent and darknet solutions such as swapping music on CD-Rs and iPods.  The second method the RIAA used was to sue students who allegedly gave access to infringing material in the form of search engines which could be used to find and download files.  There were four such lawsuits, and all of them ended in settlement. Following these lawsuits, the RIAA attempted to sue many individual users of peer-to-peer networks by issuing “DMCA subpoenas” which required merely the allegation of infringement to get.  The courts eventually rejected these, due to the efforts of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and other groups.  Finally, the RIAA moved on to the more familiar “John Doe subpoenas” which required them to actually provide evidence of copyright infringement before being able to subpoena for their names from the ISPs.  Despite these many tactics, the results have been the bad for both the public and the RIAA.  Peer-to-peer file sharing has continued to increase and the overall public opinion of the RIAA has been greatly tarnished.  Suing 12 year olds and 74 year olds alike, the RIAA has thus far been unable to curb illegal file sharing.

This paper is the result of a study conducted as a collaborative effort between the University of California Riverside and Cooperative Association for Internet Data Analysis at the University of California, San Diego.  The study was initiated in order to test recent media claims that peer-to-peer file sharing had dropped sharply following the RIAA lawsuits against peer-to-peer users.  This study stands out from previous studies, such as those used by the media to make the aforementioned claims, in that it measured traffic on all known peer-to-peer protocols, rather than focusing only on what the media considered the most popular (Kazaa, Grokster and the like).  In essence, the study is a much more accurate look at peer-to-peer traffic and popularity, and completely refutes the media claims that the RIAA lawsuits had had a cooling effect on file sharing.
The main finding of the study was that contrary to media claims peer-to-peer traffic had never declined.  They claimed that the findings on which the media had based their reports were inaccurate due to the migration within peer-to-peer traffic towards more complicated protocols such as BitTorrent.  The ability to trace and measure peer-to-peer traffic within the more basic protocols, such as those used in Napster, is much simpler than with BitTorrent.  The ability to change ports, and the lack of a centralized server makes it very difficult to get accurate data using outdated methods.  This report is extremely relevant to the topic of BitTorrent within the peer-to-peer world, as it shows the dramatic increase in BitTorrent traffic in the wake of the RIAA’s lawsuits against users.  It shows that the lawsuits seem to have little to no effect other than to give the RIAA a negative reputation among the general public.  

This is an interview of John Hughes and Jennifer Rich of Townsend and Townsend and Crew LLP conducted by FindLaw took place before the Supreme Courts reversal of the original Grokster decision.  In the interview, a proposed congressional bill entitled “Inducing Infringement of Copyright Act of 2004” is discussed.  Senator Orin Hatch, following the initial ruling in favor of Grokster, proposed the bill in question.  The bill would have created a new doctrine of intentional inducement of infringement, making it possible to find the inducer of infringement as guilty of infringement himself.  This was essentially aimed at directly reversing the Grokster decisions, but had the potential to have much more broad and sweeping effects.  FindLaw indicates in the interview that many worried this bill could be used to overturn such landmark cases as Sony v. Universal (1984).  The interviewees admit that, as the bill was written, that was certainly possible, and they suggest possible amendments that could clarify the intent and reach of the bill.
Looking back, it is interesting to note that, while the bill eventually died, the Supreme Court basically applied the bill when they overturned the original Grokster decision.  The Supreme Court’s decision in Grokster was based on this doctrine of inducement of infringement, and just as people worried that this bill would be too broad and reaching, so do people worry that the Grokster decision could be interpreted to negate the Sony decision.  The Grokster decision is of great importance to the future of peer-to-peer file sharing, although there have not been any major movements since the decision.  The fears of broad interpretation have also been, as yet, unrealized.

This article, by Andrew Leonard of Salon.com, comments on the current state of copyright law, highlighted by two stories that had come out recently.  The first was about a new technology from a digital tracking and security company called BayTSP that claimed to be able to identify the first person to upload infringing materials to a peer-to-peer file-sharing network such as BitTorrent.  The other involves the plight of a documentary called Eyes on the Prize.  At the time the article was written, it was illegal to broadcast or distribute the documentary, due to the fact that the rights to archival footage used in the documentary had expired, and were too expensive for the filmmakers to secure easily.  Despite the important educational nature of the film, copyright law was preventing it from being seen, and thus a group decided to digitize and distribute the film via BitTorrent.
The argument of the article is about the counterintuitive and counterproductive nature of copyright law, and how the copyright holders go to great lengths to ensure that it remains this way.  Leonard also seems to be certain that these measures taken by the likes of the RIAA and MPAA such as employing spiders like the one created by BayTSP will not curb the file sharing and piracy.  The file sharers and pirates seem to be perpetually one step ahead of the copyright holders, and it is hard to feel sympathy for the copyright holders, when those copyrights are preventing important films such as Eyes on the Prize from being seen.  BitTorrent is clearly growing in popularity and prevalence, and this article makes it clear that copyright industry is already working to curb infringing use of the technology, so the question then is: what will be the next move for the file sharers.

This piece is a brief on behalf of a group of computer science professors in support of Grokster in MGM v. Grokster (2005).  Their argument centers on the nature of the Internet, and how peer-to-peer file sharing is essentially just an extension of this basic model.  They argue that the United States Government’s definition of the internet is inherently flawed, and that the ability of any participant in a network to act as a client is both intrinsic in the design of the internet, and the key characteristic of peer-to-peer file sharing networks.  Their second main argument is in regards to what they call the end-to-end principal, and challenges the assertions that regulating and checking for infringement should be built into a network.  They assert that forcing networks, such as peer-to-peer networks, to build filtering into the network itself forces them to build inefficiency into the network.  The best and most efficient networks use the end-to-end principal, which states that most functions should be provided at the ends of a network, rather than in the network itself.  They state that this is one of the most important principals in network design, and one that underlies the internet’s own design.
The arguments presented in this brief provide another way to look at this ever-important case regarding peer-to-peer file sharing.  Rather than focusing on legal or even moral standards, such as in the Creative Commons brief also included in this bibliography, they argue from a technological viewpoint.  The idea that forcing networks to build inefficiency into the networks goes against the design of the internet as a whole is interesting, although perhaps not entirely convincing.  Certainly the Supreme Court did not find it convincing enough, as they ruled against Grokster in the end.  Despite this fact, this brief provides a unique look at the design of the Internet and how peer-to-peer file sharing networks are simply extensions of this basic design.

This piece is a brief written by Lawrence Lessig in his capacity as counsel for Creative Commons in support of Grokster in MGM v. Grokster (2005).  The argument presented in the brief essentially deals with the issue of free speech enabled by peer-to-peer software such as Grokster.  Essentially, it is argued that due to the high costs of traditional file distribution technologies such as FTP, the ability to host large files such as videos is limited to larger corporations that can afford to do such.  Peer-to-peer software, on the other hand, enables individuals and non-profit organizations, for example, to distribute larger files without incurring excessive fees.  Lessig argues that, should Grokster be held responsible for the copyright infringement of its users, it will limit the ability of non-infringing users to engage in this specific type of free speech.  Many examples are given, one such dealing with the aftermath of the Indian Ocean tsunami in 2004.  Many amateur videos were taken following the disaster, and only through peer-to-peer file sharing were these videos able to be made public, as the cost of traditional file distribution would have made distribution infeasible. and Creative Commons worry that such legitimate uses would be jeopardized if the Supreme Court ruled against Grokster.

This brief is of great importance to my topic.  There are currently very few cases dealing with peer-to-peer file sharing, and this gives another look at one of those.  While it seems that the Supreme Court disagreed with Lessig and Creative Commons, as they ruled against Grokster, it is nonetheless an important in insightful brief.  The issue of free speech is not what usually comes to mind in regards to peer-to-peer file sharing.  This brief provides a multitude of examples of the legal uses of peer-to-peer file sharing, including BitTorrent, and how ruling against Grokster could impede and severely limit such uses.