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, 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.