Hendrix, Dean. “Peer-to-Peer (P2P) Knowledge, Use, and Attitudes of Academic Librarians.” Libraries and the Academy 7.2 (2007): 191-212.
While this article comes up with similar findings as in previous researched articles it does so by a different method. Through statistical analysis and polling of individuals a common consensus was determined. P2P file sharing was an ironic revolution in the academic circle that was as both potentally beneficial and harmful at the same time. Furthermore, Hendrix provides an elaborate analysis by means of a mailed in questionnaire. Other findings include; an active participation from the librarians to harness this new technology, a more than half percentage ignorance of the significance of this technology, positive responses from users, among others. This article is uniquely researched as compared to previous articles. It was not merely a numerical evaluation but in addition anecdotal evidence found in empty boxes for participants to comment. With this said, the significance does lay in the evaluation of numerical evidence. Revising an earlier statement in which I said the results should speak for themselves, I revise that by saying that the numbers should not speak for themselves because an evaluation of these numbers would of course lead to diverse reactions and opinions of the evaluator. These reactions and opinions are a mixed baggage of subjective and objective frameworks of the mind.
“We could reject the notion that Internet culture must oppose profit, or that profit must destroy Internet culture. But real change will be necessary if this is to be our future- changes in law, and changes in us.” These words spoken by heralded Creative Commons’ co-founder Lawrence Lessig really capture the attitude within which many officials are acting when addressing IPR. Lessig argues that many trials, ranging over Youtube videos to Girl Talk compilations, are responsible for the limitation on creativity of users. Lessig states that the release of the “remix” culture from the shackles of copyright owners could drive extraordinary economic growth. This "create as well as consume" culture can and will inspire a deeper, much more meaningful practice of learning. Lessig further supports that the war in this century is against the pirates and has resulted in a failed effort to get them to stop sharing. His closing statements reveal that it is necessary to decriminalize Generation-X since peer-to-peer sharing has only gotten stronger with technological advances present today.
This article provides a lot of hope for the future of creativity since Lessig addresses that restrictions, such as the ACTA, will inhibit economic advancement. Currently speaking, mashups and compilations of other works appear to be selling well and appeal to the market the most. Lessig’s approach appeared useful in my argument about the future of file sharing since it implied that it is a necessary evil. In contrast to other theorists, this movement towards a more liberalized outlook on copyrighted works can better the economy within reasonable means. Lessig’s article, in addition to being highly engaging, highlights points rarely brought up by other legal system analysts.
NOTE: This article is difficult to find on Lexis-Nexis. You must do a powersearch and specify "UCLA Entertainment Law Review" as your source.
This is a journal article in the UCLA Entertainment Law Review. The article is by Kristy Wiehe, the Editor-in-Chief of the journal. This article examines how the RIAA uses copyright law to sue individuals, and whether or not the RIAA’s interpretation of the law is correct. The author first describes how P2P file-sharing programs work, explaining that most of them scan the user’s computer for media files, and place these files in a “shared” folder that is uploaded to the P2P network. When the files are uploaded to the network, the user is making the files available for other users to download. The RIAA claims that if these files are copyrighted material, then this “making available” is defined as copyright infringement. In the Napster case in 2001, the court agreed with the RIAA’s view. The author, however, disagrees with the RIAA’s interpretation of the law. She contends that copyright law says it is illegal to distribute copies in the form of material objects to the public, and that the RIAA should have to prove that an actual transfer of the copyrighted material took place from one user to another. Parts of copyright law are quoted in the article to make this point. She believes that without a definitive “transfer of ownership,” the RIAA should not be able to sue someone. The RIAA believes that the “making available” of files is considered distribution, and this is the fundamental disagreement between the RIAA and the author.
In addition, the author compares the use of these lawsuits to stop file-sharing to an “effort to rearrange deck chairs on the Titanic.” The problem is so large that suing a few individuals will most likely not fix it. The solution proposed in the article is for the record companies to make it “economically rational” for consumers to pay for music files instead of downloading them illegally. She suggests pricing that asymptotically approaches zero as the number of songs purchased increases. Therefore, if a person downloads thousands of songs, they won’t have to make extremely high payments.
I strongly agree with the author’s interpretation of copyright law, and I believe that the record companies should have to present more proof than a file being in a “shared folder” in order to file a lawsuit. Also, the P2P programs should eliminate their scanning programs because there is a significant chance that they could incriminate an unknowing person who has legally obtained copyrighted work and stored it on his or her computer. Proof of a transfer should be necessary for a lawsuit, and it is also questionable whether or not an mp3 file is a “material object.” People are being sued without concrete proof of infringement, and the RIAA needs to be stopped from abusing the law to gain money. This argument will be part of my contention that these suits are unfair.
The author’s suggested business solution may be unfair to the record companies, but these companies certainly need to focus on making large-scale changes to their sales techniques.
This is a newspaper article by Amy Brittain that appeared in the Christian Science Monitor on June 18, 2007. The article provides basic statistics about the RIAA’s file sharing lawsuits, makes an argument in support of the RIAA, and gives examples of solutions being implemented at some universities. The article says that since 1999, physical music sales have declined 30 percent, and that two-thirds of college students’ music was illegally obtained. Recording companies have suffered millions of dollars in losses, and the author reminds us that, “For every one Justin Timberlake, there are hundreds of sound-technicians, backup singers, and retail workers who are hurt by illegal downloading.” As a result of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act in 1998, universities are protected from file-sharing lawsuits, and this is why individual students are being sued.
Some universities have tried to solve the problem by forcing students to install programs that block the use of P2P programs, and others have started to use campus-wide filters that “stop the flow” of copyrighted material.
This article is important to my paper because it gives examples of possible solutions that, in my opinion, are completely unfair to the students. These solutions are the exact WRONG way to solve the file-sharing problem. Blocking P2P programs is unfair because they can be used in many legal ways. Students should be allowed to share non-copyrighted material over the internet as much as they please. That is one of the basic functions of the internet. This right should not be taken away because the RIAA is unhappy. Also, where would these types of restrictions end? Would universities eventually block email programs because copyrighted music files can be distributed by email? Filters that block the distribution of copyrighted material are a better idea. But what if the student has a fair use for the copyrighted material? Shouldn’t he or she have access to this material to use in projects or presentations for media studies classes?
This article’s argument in favor of the RIAA goes against my thesis, but it does make sense. There are many people who are hurt by copyright infringement, which is unfortunate, but a FAIR solution must be implemented to help these people.
This is a journal article in a journal called Popular Music, and it is by Eamonn Forde. It was written in 2004. This article gives information about the state of file-sharing in 2004, and explains that record companies shouldn’t worry so much about it. The article’s argument is that record companies will still be able to sell a large amount of CDs despite file sharing, and that there are other forms of media from which they can profit.
The film and TV industries are also becoming upset about the use of P2P networks to share files, because many of them are video files. In other countries, the government has tried to help these industries with the use of levies. In Germany, there are levies on PCs and CD-Rs that go to record companies. And all over the world, record companies are flooding P2P networks with fake versions of songs to frustrate the users. This is called “spoofing.”
I doubt the “spoofing” tactic works very well, and the levy idea seems unfair to the consumer, who would be forced to pay higher prices for goods. This article is important to my research because it suggests it might be best for the record companies to ignore P2P file-sharing. In France, CD sales have been going up by 5 percent every year, and they also have P2P networks. It is possible that the record companies may just need more creative marketing schemes to attract more customers. Also, they need to take advantage of the market for music on cell phones, because that market is less likely to be affected by file sharing. As the author says, “Online delivery is not the death knell for record companies. It should be seen, ideally, as the wake up call they so dearly needed.” If record sales are still increasing in countries that face the same file-sharing problems, American record companies need to try to emulate some of these other companies’ strategies. They claim that their lawsuits are necessary, but maybe if they are more creative, they can avoid angering their customers and causing additional damage to their industry.
This is a document called RIAA v. The People: Two Years Later, which is on the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s website. It was written in 2005, which is two years after the file sharing lawsuits started. The article provides information about the legality of the lawsuits along with their results, and it also shares personal stories about individuals who have been sued. One interesting note is that the RIAA used to offer amnesty to anyone who deleted their copyrighted files and signed an agreement to stop file sharing, but some of these people were sued anyway. The RIAA was sued for false advertising.
The EFF wants the public to know that the people being sued are chosen randomly, and there is no end in sight to the flood of lawsuits. The lawsuits have not worked at all, and “Today, downloading from P2P networks is more popular than ever, despite the widespread public awareness of the lawsuits.” The number of P2P users increases every month. 89 percent of high school students reported that they knew file-sharing was against the law, and that they would continue doing it anyway. The EFF suggests cutting the prices of songs on iTunes (because there are 35 times as many songs downloaded illegally as there are downloaded on iTunes), or having the record companies collectively license music to individuals for a flat fee of around five dollars a month.
The EFF shares the stories of many people who have been sued and are in terrible financial situations, to elicit the sympathy of the public. For example, a 71 year-old grandfather was sued, along with a 12 year-old girl who had a single mother.
This document is extremely useful to my argument because it provides statistical evidence that the lawsuits have not slowed down file sharing, which was their goal. The RIAA wanted to use the lawsuits to educate people, but people clearly don’t care about the legality of their downloading. P2P programs are extremely easy to design, and even if they add filters to the popular ones, other unfiltered applications will be created eventually. The RIAA needs to take drastic action in the form of large-scale licensing, or their problems will never be solved.
While I agree with the EFF on most accounts, I strongly disagree with their use of sob-stories to promote their views. It is unfortunate that some people with very little income were sued by the RIAA, but a person’s financial situation should not affect whether or not they are sued. If the RIAA is going to file lawsuits, they should sue the users with the most copyrighted material, regardless of their income. The whole strategy of using lawsuits to stop file sharing, however, just doesn’t seem like it will ever work. And hopefully, ISPs and universities will do their best to protect the identities of their users.
This is a publication by The Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, which explains and discusses the two theories of indirect copyright infringement liability: Contributory infringement and Vicarious infringement at the same time offering an economic perspective. Contributory infringement is when a company that produces a product or service is liable for indirect infringement as a result of a third party user committing infringement by using the product or service. Vicarious infringement has to do with an employee committing infringement and the employer is then liable for that infringement because he had "knowledge" of that infringement. Throughout the article, the authors make use of two examples illustrating two extremes: a flea market example, in which a property owner provides a service to individual sellers, and some of these seller sell copyrighted material; and a photocopier example, in which the use of the copier can have both infringing uses and legitimate ones. The article also discusses several important issues surrounding these two theories, such as the Sony v. Universal case, the napster case, and the DMCA law. It provides analysis on why the court rejected Napster's claim that it was "only a service like the VCR." Essentially, the artical says that Napster could have prevented the copyright infringement without harming the legitimate uses. Ultimately the article makes the conclusion that "every mechanism for rewarding authors inevitably introduces some form of inefficiency, and thus the only way to determine the proper scope for indirect liability is to weigh its costs and benefits against the costs and benefits associated with other plausible mechanisms for rewarding authors."
This is a very valuable source for my research paper for a number of reasons. Many site operators such as Gary Fung (owner of www.IsoHunt.com), claim that they are only providing a "service" like the "sony VCR". The article provides valuable analysis of the napster case, specifically that the court said that even though napster provided a "service" if it had "knowledge" and "could effectively prevent" copyright infringement it is liable for indirect infringement. I plan to utilize this point in favor of my argument that government, specifically the judicial branch, can shut down sites like isoHunt if it proves them to be indirectly liable for copyright infringement. The artical is also important for my research paper because it raises issues such as that "the costs in terms of unavoidable interference with legitimate products might be too high, and society would therefore be better off forcing copyright holders to rely on other mechanisms."
This is essentially the plaintiffs' (Columbia Pictures' et. al.) memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Summary Judgement on Liability. Essentially it captures the main arguments of the plaintiffs in Columbia Pictures v. Gary Fung (IsoHunt), a recent development in the bittorrent context. Essentially the plaintiffs claim that the whole purpose of the "Fung websites" is to facilitate and provide users with the ability to search for ".torrent" files which link to trackers hosted on various computers and servers that contain actual content files like movies, etc. Also, plaintiffs maintain that "torrent" files in themselves have no purpose but to link to actual content files. The plaintiffs say that there had been done an "unrebutted" statistical study which showed that "95%" of all the torrents on the "other fung sites", which work hand-in-hand with the main IsoHunt site, are links to copyrighted material. Also important, is the plaintiffs counter to the defendant's (Gary Fung) claim that the Grokster case doesn't apply because unlike in the Groster case IsoHunt does not distribute any product. The plaintiffs' argument is that this claim is invalid because the Grokster case had nothing to do with it being a product as opposed to a service, but rather the fact that the Grokster "induced and promoted" active infringement which thus made Grokster liable for contributory infringement.
This document is crucial to my research paper. It is the only recent legal document, and at the same time a primary source, directly related to my research thesis of whether government can/should shut down sites like www.IsoHunt.com. I plan to use virtually all of the arguments presented by the plaintiffs in my research paper. By weighing these arguments with various other sources (copyright law, DMCA, Grokster case, Fung's Affidavit) I'll be able to reach some kind of a conclusion in regards to my thesis.
tagged bittorrent columbia_pictures_v_fung copyright_culture copyright_infringement engl_105 filesharing gary_fung grokster indirect_liability_copyright_infringement internet_service_providers isohunt napster p2p piracy search_engines by pmekler ...on 24-NOV-08
This is a news article reporting on the recent developments in the campaign against copyright infringement. Specifically it reports on the recent development surrounding isoHunt. Essentially it makes it known that IsoHunt is using the claim that it's "only a search engine" as a defense against copyright infringement. It also makes reference to how the IsoHunt website functions as claimed by Gary Fung, the owner and developer of the website technology (see Affidavit no. 1). The article also exposes the MPAA's strategy in accusing IsoHunt and the like in copyright infringement. According to the artical the MPAA is heavily relying on the MGM v Grokster case. Lastly the artical also provides some significant issues raised by the on-going case. One is that it will probably be difficult for IsoHunt to prove to the judge that the IsoHunt website behaves like Google or Yahoo or any other search engine. It also raises an important point in regards that once settled this case could affect the fate of the whole internet structure specifically for search engines and the filesharing community.
The article is important for my research paper because it is the only article out of those that I looked at that covers the developments of the MPAA v. IsoHunt case in an unbiased way. Furthermore, since there is no official court transcript available as the case is still in progress any recent developments are important for my research paper. Further it provides one significant insight that IsoHunt does not behave in the same way as any other search engine in the sense that google and the like is data-agnostic but isoHunt links to specific type of content. I plan to quote this directly in my paper.
This is a publication by the Virginia Law Review. The section focused upon for the purpose of my research paper is section C: The Kazaa era: 2001 - present. The article provides some unbiased description of the two technologies FastTrack and Gnutella. It focuses on some of the key developments in the filesharing domain after napster specifically the kazaa network. It explains how the technology descriminates between fast connections and slow connections. The article also addresses the issue how lately there appeared an effort by filesharing technology developers to write code that would reflect the copyright law. In the sense that the technology worked in such away as it is hard to place the blame on the developers. It also raises the point that the more files there being shared the better it is for the network performance and in essence for the developer. The other part of the article addresses how the music industries made every effort to stress the similarity between napster and kazaa and the other FastTrack networks. The article goes on to make reference to the Mgm v. Grokster case. Specifically it provides insight to how these technologies may have won out against the recording industries. The article quotes Judge Wilson, who presided over the Grokster case in the ninth district appeals court. The judge said essentially that if the companies were shut down, the users of the network(s) would still be able to do what they were doing.
This article is important for my research paper because it provides basis for an important analysis. For example, it was later seen that the movie industry in fact did win in the supreme court (see Mgm v. Grokster source). So although Judge Wilson ruled in favor of Grokster by saying that the technology was not similar to napster and that even if the company was shut down the users of the software would still be able to do what they were doing, it was later seen in the supreme court that Grokster actually lost. Today it is known that IsoHunt and the like are being sued and so if it is somehow possible to establish the similarity between IsoHunt and Grokster the same strategy may be applied to get IsoHunt shut down. The article also raises a few other important points such as that these networks continue to operate as long as there is more and more content being shared.
This is a publication by the Ifo Institute for Economic Research located in Munich. The authors are Martin Peitz and Patrick Waelbroeck. Essentially this is a detailed economic analysis of various models concerning the effects of digital copying and secifically pirated digital copies. The paper specifically looks at filesharing networks and analyzes the economic impact. The authors analyze the common claim by record industries and "affected" industries, that unauthorized copying leads to lost profits. The authors present various articles by other reputable sources, and provide analyses of them. In some situations firms do indeed lose profits either directly attributable to piracy or indirectly. However, the publication also cites situations under which digital copies actually increase firms' profits and social benefit all together. Among other things, the paper also provides specific examples of types of goods and state whether producers of these goods benefit from digital copies.
This source is very important to my research in a number of ways. It provides a third party outlook on the impact of unauthorized digital copies. While some of the issues raised by this publication complicate my research paper, the publication does provide some analyses which provide support for my thesis that government should suspend sites that host/index unauthorized copies of copyrighted content. For example, it mentions that in a certain setup firms do suffer from the existence of copies. Also it talks about how copies limit the monopoly-power of the firm, which in the long run detracts both from the producer surplus and the social surplus as a whole. Careful consideration and analysis of this source will help address my thesis question more fully.
This is the Supreme Court Opinion regarding the MGM et al v. Grokster et al case. The opinion of the court was delivered by Justice Sutter. Essentially what happened was that the decision made by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit was reversed. The question raised before the court was "under what circumstances the distributor of a product capable of both lawful and unlawful use is liable for acts of copyright infringement by third parties using the product." According to the court, there was an error made by the Ninth Circuit Court, in its interpretation of Sony v. Universal City Studios. "The Ninth Circuit has read Sony’s limitation to mean that whenever a product is capable of substantial lawful use, the producer can never be held contributorily liable for third parties’ infringing use of it..." This document includes a description, gathered in the process of litigation, of how the Grokster and StreamCast products worked what technologies they used (Gnutella and FastTrack) and more importantly how the products were used by their users. It is made known that although the products have legitimate uses "90%" are copyright infringement uses. Another important point made by the document is that both Grokster and StreamCast profitted from advertisements that users would see while using the product. Furthermore, it is made known that "the business models employed by Grokster and StreamCast confirm that their principal object was use of their software to download copyrighted works." The decision of MGM v. Grokster essentially made the precedent that the Sony v. Universal decision doesn't leave service providers such as Grokster and StreamCast unliable for copyright infringement made by third parties using their product.
This source is very valuable for my research paper because it is one of the only cases dealing directly with the issue of p2p filesharing. Furthermore it provides support for my contention that government can and should shut down websites involved with/enabling copyright infringement. Many of such service providers use the Sony v. Universal case as defense against being liable for copyright infringement stemming from the use of their service by third party users. This case set a precedent to how future cases involving filesharing and copyright infringement cases are going to be handled in the future. Also, many of the current websites being targeted by the MPAA and RIAA and other agencies, whether in the U.S. or elsewhere, including www.IsoHunt.com among others, function in similar ways as Grokster and StreamCast did. Therefore if Grokster and StreamCast were found liable by the Supreme Court in this case, some of the strategies/analyses from this case can be used to shut down other sites such as IsoHunt.
This is a legal document, specifically an affidavit, filed by Gary Fung, owner of the IsoHunt Website (www.isohunt.com), in the Supreme Court of British Columbia in Canada, on September 5, 2008. After receiving a letter from the Canadian equivalent of RIAA, the CRIA, stating that the IsoHunt website is responsible for copyright infringement and furthermore that Gary Fung must take appropriate action to make sure that the site is deactivated, in other words a cease and desist request. In response Gary Fung filed this document for the purpose of having his rights clarified by the Supreme Court of British Columbia, which will in effect make it easier for Fung in later legal proceedings in regards to CRIA claims. In the document, Fung essentially reveals the nature and purpose of the IsoHunt Website. He explains why it exists, how it operates, and the content that it hosts. He makes it known that the site is essentially a search engine "similar to Google, Yahoo, Windows Live, etc." which exists for the purpose of making the search for dot-torrent files easier for users. He also explains that a user can essentially use Google and obtain similar results that can be obtained on the IsoHunt Website. Furthermore he makes it clear that no "content" is actually hosted by the website but just links to the torrent files are indexed. He also explains what are torrents and the BitTorrent p2p protocol that allow them to operate. He also makes it known that the Website is in no way affiliated with the BitTorrent protocol, the torrents, or the various software needed to download/create the said torrents.Lastly, Fung included eight supporting documents with his Affidavit one of which is a copy of the letter that he recieved from CRIA.
This source is important to my research project in many ways. First, it is a primary source from the owner of the IsoHunt website, the legality of which is in question by my research. Also it is a very recent source, which is very important in addressing the issue of copyright infringement by filesharing websites. It will be crucial in establishing the key differences and/or similarities between the technology this site uses and previous shut down sites such as Grokster and Napster. Further, the document also raises a complicating issue, that Google search engine technology functions in a similar fashion which implies that if one is not allowed to exist than how can the other be allowed to. The document also illustrates the DMCA Takedown provision in action, which in a way complicate my argument further, since Gary Fung does have all the necessary provisions of the DMCA addressed. Another reason why this is a valueable source for my research is that one of the attached documents is a copy of the letter from CRIA Fung recieved, which will be helpful since it exposes the vew shared by CRIA. Over all this is a valuable primary source that will prove to be valuable in my research.
This essay describes what an MP3 blog is, and how record labels want to capitalize on the promotion that they provide while fighting file sharing at the same time. The essay discusses the types of copyright infringement and fair use and how they apply to MP3 blogs, as well as the factors that cause the court to view MP3 blogs more favorably than peer-to-peer networks. It discusses law suits against Napster and also by the RIAA against peer-to-peer users. The article explains what establishes liability for infringing use, and the different expansions of the Copyright Act which have been brought by copyright owners in addressing new technologies. It then discusses some of these acts and gives some examples of violators. The next section explains the defense used when copyright owners bring suits, which is fair use, and it lists and describes the four factors in deciding fair use on a case by case basis.
This essay incorporates basically every aspect of my research into why copyright holders are willing to waive certain copyright in cases such as MP3 blogs, while they continue to fight against much of new technology such as peer-to-peer services. It describes what MP3 blogs are and how they are used and different sites that can link to the unauthorized music. It shows what the copyright holder needs to look for in order to bring a suit against infringing users, and also explains how the user of the work can try to use fair use as a defense.
This article is written by Cary Sherman, president of the RIAA as a response to a speech by Consumer Electronics CEO Gary Shapiro in which Shapiro stated that downloading off the Web is neither illegal nor immoral. Sherman says that statement is wrong and misleading. Shapiro says that legal downloading from record companies and legitimate online music companies is fine but there is a problem with unauthorized downloading of copyrighted material, and sites Title 17 of the United States Code. Sherman writes that the fair use argument employed by Shapiro makes falsely seem as if copyright owners are against fair use, and that the fair use claim is unsupported when it comes to unauthorized use. Sherman argues against Shapiro's claim that downloading is different from taking a tangible property by writing that both owners have been deprived of something of value. Sherman refutes Shapiro's use of the first amendment and also says that companies are in fact aggressively pursuing a more flexible business model that does take advantage of new technology. Shapiro writes that the industry using technology and the internet is beside the point and that the real issue in what Shapiro is saying is that "digital stealing isn't really stealing" and the last thing we need is more polarizing rhetoric.
For my research on why copyright holders are willing to waive copyright in some instances such as MP3 blogs because the new technology has benefits in promotion, this article is a firm example of the view from the record labels about copyright law and internet uses. It is written by the president of the RIAA, Cary Sherman and gives an argument in favor of strong copyright law, and a rebuttal to a speech by the Consumer Electronics CEO Gary Shapiro in favor of weaker copyright law. It provides the viewpoint of the music industry about downloading, but it is interesting in that it does not mention anything about record companies such as Warner who at times chose to solicit certain independent blogs and will send the bloggers music with the hope that the blog will help promote the record label's artist for free.
This is a speech given by Gary Shapiro, the President and CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association about growing tension between copyright owners and new technology. Shapiro speaks about how new reproduction technology and transmission technology has increased the fears of the music and motion picture industries. He draws parallels to new technology in the past such as the VCR, and CD and cassette recording. Today with mass availability of copies of music and movies, the content community has used congress, courts, and the media to challenge new technologies. Shapiro says that he believes that hardware and software companies have an interest in working together to see more products, and that they can misuse source protection and DVD encryption to sell more products while limiting new technologies. Shapiro says that lawsuits have shut down file -sharing services, threaten peer-to-peer networks, challegenged as illegal devices which allow consumers to skip commercials, and has subpoenaed ISPs to identify downloading subscribers. Congress has introduced legislation that will require technology to be shaped by a government-mandated copy protection system. Shapiro comments on the language used by Hollywood and the music industry using words like "piracy" and "stealing" to describe downloading. Shapiro asserts that downloading is neither illegal nor immoral. He says that downloading is not taking away a copy of the product from someone, and in some cases helps promotion. His principles for policymakers to follow ask that a very high amount of evidence be found before restricting technology.
For my research on MP3 blogs and why copyright holders are willing to waive some of their copyrights and allow the blogs to post their music this speech shows a view which is far to the fair-use and weak copyright law. It is clear support for allowing the new technologies and the internet to be created and exist, and for there to be significant evidence of a negative effect on the copyright holder before the technology is restricted. The key line by Shapiro for my project is when he submits that downloading off the Web is neither illegal nor immoral. He sites fair use as being given on a case by case basis and that in many cases of downloading the use has "been shown to be neutral or beneficial to the copyright owners, and have either been tolerated or accepted as fair use." He also discusses how downloading can even lead to further sales, when people buy the whole CD from the song he or she heard on the internet.
The article is short, but gives a very interesting comparison of the music and film industries and a common problem that technology brought. Penenberg shows different approaches to how to solve illegal downloads and piracy, noting the difficulty of the task but giving examples of viable solutions. It is a very informative article and it provides an idea of how the film industry might develop.
This article deals with peer-to-peer (P2P) sharing and the film industry. The ninth circuit court ruled in the case of MGM v. Grokster. The court ruled that some file sharing Internet services are not liable for copyright infringement committed by their users. This is a big blow to both the music and film industries. David Bell and Jeffery Sullivan acknowledge this decision as “legally correct,” but they are also aware of its implications for the entertainment industries. The sellers of copying equipment are not liable for the use of the equipment in copyright infringement, as decided by the Supreme Court in Sony v. Universal. Since Grokster and Streamcast were found to have substantially legitimate uses, they fell under the precedent set by the Sony case.. Next, MGM tried to prove vicarious copyright infringement through direct infringement by a primary party, direct financial benefit by the defendants and the ability of the defendants to supervise the users. This was not proven because the relationship between software provider and user is decentralized and the software provider has no obligation to monitor the actions of its users. This ruling was appealed. The appeal questions if the defendants are responsible for secondary copyright liability because of the large amount of infringement. Here, Bell and Sullivan explain the standards for secondary liability. They argue that the court was to narrow in its definitions for knowledge of infringement and contributions to primary infringement. Next the article deals with pervious rulings on the case and the necessity of proving legitimate uses if one is to use the Sony verdict in its favor. The article deals with if and how the Supreme Court should address and respond to this case. The next part of the article explains existing legislation. It states that copyright holders cannot recover loses from secondary copyright infringement. It also looks at cases of the record industry against Internet Service Providers, noting the protection of software companies and ISPs. The article looks at the Induce act, which was brought up fro review recently and would make software companies liable for encouraging copyright infringement. The article shows the pros and cons of this piece of legislation. Other pieces of legislation brought up in the article are the Piracy Deterrence and Education Act, the Protecting Intellectual Rights Against Theft and Expropriation Act and the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act. The article concludes with an explanation of the possible effects of the Supreme Court’s decision on the case.
The article provides a detailed explanation and example of the copyright issues brought up by P2P technology. There is a good analysis of the case as well as explanations and references to copyright law and how these issues are being dealt with outside of this specific instance. The language is a little legal at times, but the article is very comprehensive and informative.