Issues+in+Peer-to-Peer+(P2P)

=Peer-to-Peer (P2P)=

Peer-to-Peer (P2P) is a type of file-sharing software that enables users to share any digital file including images, audio, videos, reports and documents, between groups of people who are part of a specific network. Some examples of peer-to-peer software include [|Napster,] [|Morpheus,] [|Kazaa.] [|Limewire] and [|Ares]

=How it Works=

toc Once peer-to-peer software is installed, a user may share certain files located on his or her computer, including music files, motion picture files, software applications, e-books and text files with other users. The application software installed on a user’s computer automatically connects to a peer-to-peer network and makes any shared files available for transfer to any other user on the same peer-to-peer network.

The process for obtaining a file over the netword is as simple as selecting the type of file to search and then entering a keyword. To obtain the desired file the user then clicks on the specific listing in order to initiate a direct file transfer from the source computer to the requesting user's computer. When the transfer is complete, the requesting user and source user have identical copies of the file, and the requesting user may also start sharing the file with others.

=**Issues**=

The advent of the Internet and its ability to deliver content to a global audience has spurred recurring conflict between the respective values of supporting the creative genius of individuals by providing statutory copyright protection of their original works and promoting technological innovation by limiting successful prosecutions of copyright infringement. In recent years, the recording industry has taken issue with the use of P2P programs due to the software's ability to distribute copyrighted music and video files without authorization. The list of issues includes, but is not limited to financial issues and copyright infringement.

The recording industry claims the sudden and rapid increase in file sharing using peer-to-peer software has caused a great deal of financial harm to those involved in the production of music material, especially to those who are entitled to the copyrights. The recording industry claims that users of peer-to-peer software are essentially infringing on the copyrights owned by the recording studios. They further claim that such activities are burdening the livelihood of the music artist.

=**The Industry Fights Back**=

Over the past few years, North American recording industries have actively tried to cut down on illegal file sharing activities. There have also been new software created to help aid this. For example, iTunes charges a minimal fee to download music. In addition, there are now 'written codes' in CDs to prevent people from being able to burn or copy music at home.

Recently, another tool that the music industry has utilized is the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, which enables music labels to prosecute music downloaders on the grounds of copyright infringment or intellectual theft.

In the recent Sony Rootkit scandal, which made it possible for users to listen to Sony music CDs when they installed a media player that came with the disc. This media player installed the Rootkit, allowing Sony to track the behaviour of consumers. At the same time, the Rootkit made users' computers to vulnerable to viruses and hackers via the Internet.

Music downloading on programs such as Napster and Kazaa is infringing copyright because it is not protected under the Fair Use Doctrine of the Copyright Act. However, using programs such as iTunes is legitimate because music is still being paid for per song. Free downloading is infringing copyright and intellectual property theft because it is effecting the potential profits musicians and artists can be making had the fans paid for CDs and movies. Free downloading is not considered fair use because it is used for a commericial nature and has an impact on the potential market value of the product being downloaded.

=**Peer-to-Peer Benefits**=

As a benefit from a commercial perspective, P2P software can help artists who may not be in the mainstream. This is done by building a fanbase through electronic distribution. Another popular argument is that downloading songs individually makes more sense than buying an entire disc to listen to one track.

In an article from //Computer and Internet Lawyer (2005)//, benefits of P2P technology are seen in the ability to allows users to communicate and share and data files efficiently with other users. Also, P2P makes electronic communication more efficient by creating faster file transfers, cutting down on bandwidth usage, and reducing the need for online storage.

=Court Cases=

A monumental legal case involving MGM Studios Inc. v. Grokster Ltd. proceeded from a District Court decision for summary judgment for Grokster, through appeal at the Ninth Circuit, to the Supreme Court of the United States which eventually overturned the lower court’s ruling.

MGM Studios Inc. was the lead plaintiff in a legal action filed that sought injunctive relief and damages against Grokster Ltd. for copyright infringement. Grokster distributed peer-to-peer file-sharing software that enabled users to share any digital file including images, audio, reports and documents, including copyrighted music and video files without authorization. Although Grokster did not participate in the illegal sharing of copyrighted media, and it was the users of Grokster’s system who shared copyrighted works, MGM considered it impractical to sue individual users for copyright violation and sued Grokster for their users’ copyright violations. MGM alleged Grokster knowingly and intentionally distributed their software to enable users to reproduce and distribute the copyrighted works in violation of the Copyright Act. Grokster’s revenue was earned not by the distribution of its software to users but instead from advertisers who paid the company a fee in exchange for presenting its advertising messages through the software. Grokster’s revenue was estimated at approximately $5 million.

The History of the Case
The lawsuit against Grokster was for secondary liability arising from Grokster’s alleged participation in the unauthorized distribution and reproduction of copyrighted works by users of their software downloaded from its facilities, as well as Grokster’s provision of the means, facilities, and encouragement to engage in the reproduction of copyrighted works. The plaintiffs therefore sought injunctive relief and damages.

At the District Court of California, each party originally sought summary judgment based on the facts they alleged and the evidence the parties put forward to support their facts. Based on such evidence, the District Court granted summary judgment to Grokster and denied summary judgment to MGM.

MGM refused to accept defeat, and in August of 2004 MGM appealed the District Court’s ruling in the Ninth Circuit Court of California. However, the appeals court affirmed the District Court’s ruling, and Grokster was victorious once again.

However, Grokster’s victory would be short lived. On June 27th of 2005, the Supreme Court of the United States put the case back to the District Court for reconsideration of its ruling granting summary judgment to Grokster. The appeals courts affirmation was overturned and MGM had finally defeated the peer-to-peer software developer. The Supreme Court held that a distributor who distributes a product with the objective of promoting copyright infringement, as shown by clear evidence, and where there is evidence that it possesses more than passive knowledge of third party infringement is liable for the infringing acts of third parties.

Consequences
Opponents of the music industry claim the Supreme Court’s decision will hinder technological innovation and thus will harm the music industry in the future. Edward Black, president of the Computer and Communications Industry Association states "This is a very dangerous decision for technology and for innovation". Siva Vaidhyanathan, editor at Salon.com, agrees that Monday's ruling against Grokster will do little to prevent illicit downloading of copyrighted works, but believes it “may well stifle technology innovation.” (Salon.com)

Donald Verrilli, lead lawyer for the entertainment industry, disagrees, calling such claims "fear-mongering." He believes the Supreme Court merely verified a "common sense" principle, stating "it can't be written under this nation's laws that you can build a business on the basis of taking somebody else's property." (CNN Money) President of the Motion Picture Association of America, Dan Glickman, asserts that the ruling by the Supreme Court marks a “historic victory for intellectual property in the digital age, and is good news for consumers, artists, innovation and lawful Internet businesses." (Wired News)

Effect on Music Sharers
As to the effect of the decision on individual consumers of music, Grokster’s former president, Wayne Rosso, believes that this decision’s implications mean consumers will soon have to purchase their music legally, and stresses the importance of further technological innovation to facilitate the legal downloading of copyrighted works. Rosso states "The bottom line is that consumers are going to have to get used to paying for their music, Period." (CNN Money)

Effects on Music Services
Providers of services such as iTunes who already have legal systems in place which allow consumers to purchase and legally download copyrighted works are also affected by the Supreme Courts decision, and may benefit from this ruling. Previous users of Grokster and StreamCast products may flee to such legal methods of downloading music once the slowed performance of current peer-to-peer networks become intolerable, which due to the lack of updates being offered for P2P software, many agree is inevitable.

Effects on Creative Artists
Creative artists have expressed mixed feelings. For the more fortunate, well - established artists, this ruling has protected their intellectual work and is seen as an unprecedented victory. Nichole Nordeman, an artist currently signed with Sparrow Records, states “The Supreme Court has given a voice to countless individuals like me who make their living in the creative arts, and are constantly jeopardized by the epidemic of illegal downloading. Their decision is an important victory for us....and a clear warning for many others." (CCM)

However, for those less fortunate artists currently looking for their big break, peer-to-peer networks were the primary method in which they could utilize to send out their work. Many such artists saw innovations in technology and high-speed internet as a method of sharing their intellectual creativity directly with the worldwide audience, without the need of large media conglomerates. This decision in effect may strip them of their ability to share their music so widely and freely.

However, supporters of the entertainment industries victory are quick to point out such music can still be easily distributed online via websites, and some up-and-coming artists even praise the Supreme Courts decision. TobyMac of ForeFront Records asserts: "This is a big victory for young artists that are coming up. It is getting harder and harder to break new artists and without decisions like this that protect them, we may lose some of the artistic voices of the next generation." (CCM)

see also Peer-to-Peer(P2P) and Peer-to-Peer Networks