The Legal Aspect Of File-Sharing

ursula · #61 (**permalink**) February 25th, 2004

LeeWare, is it not important to note that Gnutella Network is not a server-based p2p 'system' ?

There are no LimeWire or BearShare or Shareaza or Gnucleus, etc., etc. central servers.

Litigation against LimeWire, or any of the other Gnutella Network based clients, for facilitating acts of copyright infringement would be akin to Adobe being sued because some individuals use Photoshop and/or Acrobat Reader for creating paedophilic and/or pornographic material. Or, the somewhat well-worn analogy of suing a gun manufacturer because their products were used in the commission of a crime.

?

LeeWare · #62 (**permalink**) February 25th, 2004

Of course it is important to argue the decentralized aspect of technology.
However those argument over look a fundamental fact which is increasing becoming the issue and that is. If you create a product then you have influence over the design. The industry is requesting that mechanisms be built into the technology to protect content from blatant piracy. Although every industry could argue that they are not responsible for the uses of their products. Everyday more and more industries are showing a good-faith effort to build into their product features which protect or in some way twart blatant piracy.

Since you mentioned Adobe -- you also realize that their products support and honor security restrictions placed on the document at creation time. Therefore if the author says user cannot alter document the product supports this. It has other restrictions. Some computers and operating systems won't copy some medi and at a bare minimum will display a message that must e acknowledged by the user.

The fact that a network is decentralized doesn't change the fact that the providers of the technology have the ability to influence the basic functionality of their products. Therefore the legal question is .. whether they can be made to do it? Personally i think not. Can they make a good-faith effort to do something absolutely.

The real question is would it be in the P2P operators best interest to do something like this?

Yes - in that they [P2P operators] could reach an agreement with the RIAA and MPAA that states we will and can do A B & C If you will do X Y & Z.Indemification

No - in that anyone closely connected to the P2P community knows that doing this can lead to backlash form all of those opportunistic pirates.

We also know that staying alive in the P2P world is about maintaining a sizable user community you do something like this and you are likely to lose a significant portion of your userbase and this would make your efforts in P2P futile.

Finally, I think that this puts P2P operators in a difficult position in which non of their options look good.

ursula · #63 (**permalink**) February 25th, 2004

OK, and thanks again...

But, there is something that you mention that I feel stills needs to be clarified... And, no, I am not merely making a gesture towards some 'game' of semantics...

With Gnutella Network, there are no p2p operators as far as clients such as LimeWire et al are concerned.

In Gnutella Network, p2p operators could only refer to each and every individual participating within the Network (i.e. 'users'). There is no owner or operator of Gnutella Network.

Last, I cannot state the following in regards to all of the Gnutella Network based clients, but those I am aware of do have documentation (as a part of the installaton process) which attempts to absolve them from responsibility in terms of users' illegal activities while using said client.

?

LeeWare · #64 (**permalink**) February 25th, 2004

I could se how you might mis-understand what I mean when I talk about "p2p operators"

p2p operators = companies that make p2p software.

end users = the average person that installs and runs the software.

ursula · #65 (**permalink**) February 25th, 2004

Quote:

Originally posted by LeeWare
I could se how you might mis-understand what I mean when I talk about "p2p operators"

p2p operators = companies that make p2p software.

end users = the average person that installs and runs the software.

"Yes, but, no !"

(The philosophers chant !)

Keeping the topic now strictly related to Gnutella Network only, groups or organisations which produce/create/distribute software for use with the Gnutella Network are not 'operating' anything.
They are 'providing' software for the purposes of facilitating the use of Gnutella Network in order that individuals may more easily exchange files on a person to person basis. What the 'end user' does in regards to any possible infringemant of copyright or other possible 'restrictions' is not the responsibility of the 'makers' of p2p software intended for use with the Gnutella Network.

They, the 'makers', not only do not provide 'servers' specific to the operation of 'their' software but, Gnutella Network does not function with 'central servers'. This fact makes Gnutella Network, and the 'status' of those who 'produce' software for use with Gnutella Network, very much different from that of the numerous 'central server' based p2p applications.

I make the above comments not with any desire to be argumentative, but to encourage clarification of the position vis a vis Gnutella Network.

LeeWare · #66 (**permalink**) February 25th, 2004

Don't get me wrong I totally understand where you're coming from. Try to think of it this way. P2P software basically creates an overlay network. This virtual network only exists "within the software" therefore it you are not running "the software then you are not a part of this overlay network." If this specialized network doesn't exist without the software. Where is the distinction?

This is exactly the situation with ISPs who created walled version of the Internet i.e. AOL. or cable internet providers. They control a significant portion of the resources that make your communications possible. Therefore they are not only providing access they are providing a service.

http://news.com.com/2010-1027_3-1023...ml?tag=fd_nc_1

ursula · #67 (**permalink**) February 25th, 2004

Here is an excerpt from one of the popular Gnutella clients.
It is a part of the agreement the 'user' undertakes as a part of agreeing to accepting the terms of use as stated by those 'responsible' for creating and making available the software.
(I have removed the client's name and replaced it with 'xxxx'.)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Blah, blah, blah and blah... The user...

... respects the rights of copyright owners to control commercial uses of their material. The Software enables users to connect to, download files from and share files over public and private Gnutella networks. By using the Software you acknowledge that you are responsible for complying with all federal and state laws applicable to the content you download and share using the Software, including copyright laws. Unauthorized copying, distribution, modification, public display, or public performance of copyrighted works may be an infringement of the copyright holders' rights in certain circumstances. You acknowledge that any liability for such infringement lies solely with you. You agree to indemnify and hold xxxx, its parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, successors, officers, directors and employees, harmless from any claim, demand, or damage, including reasonable attorneys' fees, asserted by any third party due to or arising out of your use of the Software.

By using the Software you acknowledge that you are aware that some files available on the public or private Gnutella networks accessible through the Software may have been created or distributed without the authorization of the copyright owner or as authorized by law. As a condition to the license granted under this Agreement, you agree that you will not use the Software to infringe the copyrights or other intellectual property rights of others in any way. xxxx reserves the right to terminate the license granted under this Agreement in appropriate circumstances upon any single infringement of the rights of others in conjunction with use of the Software or if xxxx believes the your conduct is harmful to the interests of xxxx, its affiliates, or other users; or for any other reason in xxxx's sole discretion, with or without cause.

As a condition to your use of the Software, you agree that you will not use the Software (i) to invade the privacy of, obtain the identity of, or obtain any personal information about (including but not limited to IP addresses of) any other user of the Software, or to modify, erase or damage any information contained on the computer of any other user of the Software; (ii) to infringe the intellectual property rights of others in any way (iii) to "stalk" or otherwise harass others; (iv) to collect or distribute child pornography or other obscene or illegal material; or (v) promote or provide instructional information about illegal activities, promote physical harm or injury against any group or individual, or promote any act of cruelty to animals or (vi) to engage in any other illegal activities such as treason or terrorism (this may include, but is not limited to, providing instructions on how to assemble bombs, grenades and other weapons).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A Gnutella Network client can be protected by insisting that such a proviso be accepted by the 'user' prior to commiting to the installation of the 'software'. If the 'user' does not accept the terms, the 'software' does not install. Standard practice.

Any 'central server' based p2p client cannot be protected by the above or similar.

Yes ?

ursula · #68 (**permalink**) February 25th, 2004

... or promote any act of cruelty to animals...

As Moderators here, this line is a great relief to Morgwen and me !!!

It means at least one client out there is trying to protect us !

LeeWare · #69 (**permalink**) February 25th, 2004

LOL

ursula · #70 (**permalink**) February 26th, 2004

The following may be of interest...
You can find this article (with responses) and many more items of interest in *GNUTELLA NEWS*... Click on it in my sig below...

EFF Breaktrough: Let The Music Play White Paper
Posted by Tom Barger on February 25, 2004 at 11:28 PM EST
February 24, 2004

A Better Way Forward:
Voluntary Collective Licensing of Music File Sharing
"Let the Music Play" White Paper

Download PDF (51k) here: http://www.eff.org/share/collective_lic_wp.pdf

The current battles surrounding peer-to-peer file sharing are a losing proposition for everyone. The record labels continue to face lackluster sales, while the tens of millions of American file sharers -- American music fans -- are made to feel like criminals. Every day the collateral damage mounts -- privacy at risk, innovation stymied, economic growth suppressed, and a few unlucky individuals singled out for legal action by the recording industry. And the litigation campaign against music fans has not put a penny into the pockets of artists.

We need a better way forward.

The Premises

First, artists and copyright holders deserve to be fairly compensated.

Second, file sharing is here to stay. Killing Napster only spawned more decentralized networks. Most evidence suggests that file sharing is at least as popular today as it was before the lawsuits began.

Third, the fans do a better job making music available than the labels. Apple's iTunes Music Store brags about its inventory of over 500,000 songs. Sounds pretty good, until you realize that the fans have made millions of songs available on KaZaA. If the legal clouds were lifted, the peer-to-peer networks would quickly improve.

Fourth, any solution should minimize government intervention in favor of market forces.

The Proposal: Voluntary Collective Licensing

EFF has spent the past year evaluating alternatives that get artists paid while making file sharing legal. One solution has emerged as the favorite: voluntary collective licensing.

The concept is simple: the music industry forms a collecting society, which then offers file-sharing music fans the opportunity to "get legit" in exchange for a reasonable regular payment, say $5 per month. So long as they pay, the fans are free to keep doing what they are going to do anyway -- share the music they love using whatever software they like on whatever computer platform they prefer -- without fear of lawsuits. The money collected gets divided among rights-holders based on the popularity of their music.

In exchange, file-sharing music fans will be free to download whatever they like, using whatever software works best for them. The more people share, the more money goes to rights-holders. The more competition in applications, the more rapid the innovation and improvement. The more freedom to fans to publish what they care about, the deeper the catalog.

The Precedent: Broadcast Radio

It has been done before.

Voluntarily creating collecting societies like ASCAP, BMI and SESAC was how songwriters brought broadcast radio in from the copyright cold in the first half of the twentieth century.

Songwriters originally viewed radio exactly the way the music industry today views KaZaA users -- as pirates. After trying to sue radio out of existence, the songwriters ultimately got together to form ASCAP (and later BMI and SESAC). Radio stations interested in broadcasting music stepped up, paid a fee, and in return got to play whatever music they liked, using whatever equipment worked best. Today, the performing-rights societies ASCAP and BMI collect money and pay out millions annually to their artists. Even though these collecting societies get a fair bit of criticism, there's no question that the system that has evolved for radio is preferable to one based on trying to sue radio out of existence one broadcaster at a time.

Copyright lawyers call this voluntary collective licensing. The same could happen today for file sharing: Copyright holders could get together to offer their music in an easy-to-pay, all-you-can-eat set. We could get there without the need for changes to copyright law and with minimal government intervention.

The Money: Collecting It

Starting with just the 60 million Americans who have been using file-sharing software, $5 a month would net over $3 billion of pure profit annually to the music industry -- no CDs to ship, no online retailers to cut in on the deal, no payola to radio conglomerates, no percentage to KaZaA or anyone else. Best of all, it's an evergreen revenue stream -- money that just keeps coming, during good times and bad, so long as fans want digital music online. The pie grows with the growth of music sharing on the Internet, instead of shrinking. The total annual gross revenues of the music industry today are estimated at $11 billion. But that's gross revenues. A collective licensing regime for file-sharing can promise $3 billion in annual profits to the record labels -- more than they've ever made.

How do we get filesharers to pay up? That's where the market comes in -- those who today are under legal threat will have ample incentive to opt for a simple $5 per month fee. There should be as many mechanisms for payment as the market will support. Some fans could buy it directly through a website (after all, this was what the RIAA had in mind with its "amnesty" program). ISPs could bundle the fee into their price of their broadband services for customers who are interested in music downloading. After all, ISPs would love to be able to advertise a broadband package that includes "downloads of all the music you want." Universities could make it part of the cost of providing network services to students. P2P file-sharing software vendors could bundle the fee into a subscription model for their software, which would neatly remove the cloud of legal uncertainty that has inhibited investment in the P2P software field.

The Money: Dividing It Up

The money collected would then be divided between artists and rights-holders based on the relative popularity of their music.

Figuring out what is popular can be accomplished through a mix of anonymously monitoring what people are sharing (something companies like Big Champagne and BayTSP are already doing) and recruiting volunteers to serve as the digital music equivalent of Nielsen families. Billions in television advertising dollars are divided up today using systems like this. In a digital environment, a mix of these approaches should strike the right balance between preserving privacy and accurately estimating popularity.

The Advantages

The advantages of this approach are clear:

Artists and rights holders get paid. What's more, the more broadband grows, the more they get paid, which means that the entertainment industry's powerful lobby will be working for a big, open, and innovative Internet, instead of against it.

Government intervention is kept to a minimum: copyright law need not be amended, and the collecting society sets its own prices. The $5 per month figure is a suggestion, not a mandate. At the same time, the market will keep the price reasonable -- collecting societies make more money with a palatable price and a larger base of subscribers, than with a higher price and expensive enforcement efforts.

Broadband deployment gets a real boost as the "killer app" -- music file sharing -- is made legitimate.

Investment dollars pour into the now-legitimized market for digital music file-sharing software and services. Rather than being limited to a handful of "authorized services" like Apple's iTunes and Napster 2.0, you'll see a marketplace filled with competing file-sharing applications and ancillary services. So long as the individual fans are licensed, technology companies can stop worrying about the impossible maze of licensing and instead focus on providing fans with the most attractive products and services in a competitive marketplace.

Music fans finally have completely legal access to the unlimited selection of music that the file-sharing networks have provided since Napster. With the cloud of litigation and "spoofing" eliminated, these networks will rapidly improve.

The distribution bottleneck that has limited the opportunities of independent artists will be eliminated. Artists can choose any road to online popularity -- including, but no longer limited to, a major label contract. So long as their songs are being shared among fans, they will be paid.

Payment will come only from those who are interested in downloading music, only so long as they are interested in downloading.

How does this help artists?

Artists benefit in at least three ways. First, artists will now be paid for the file sharing that has become a fact of digital life.

Second, independent artists no longer need a record deal with a major label to reach large numbers of potential fans -- so long as you have any fans who are sharing your music online, others will be able to access your music on equal footing with major label content. In other words, digital distribution will be equally available to all artists.

Third, when it comes to promotion, artists will be able to use any mechanism they like, rather than having to rely on major labels to push radio play. Anything that makes your works popular among file sharers gets you paid. There would still be a role for the record industry -- many artists will still want help with promotion, talent development, and other supportive services. With more options for artists to choose from, the contracts will be more balanced than the one-sided deals offered to most artists today.

What about antitrust?

Because a collective licensing solution will depend on a single collecting society issuing blanket licenses covering all (or nearly all) music copyrights, there will need to be some antitrust regulation of the collecting society to ensure that it does not abuse its market power. Both ASCAP and BMI, for example, have been subject to a court-administered antitrust consent decree for many decades. The regulation need not be extensive, as the collecting society will essentially be selling only a single product at a single price to all comers. Regulators will keep a close eye on the collecting society to make sure that it deals fairly with artists and copyright holders, most of whom will rely on the collecting society for compensation for noncommercial filesharing.

How do we ensure accurate division of the money?

Transparency will be critical -- the collecting society must hold its books open for artists, copyright holders, and the public to examine. The entity should be a nonprofit, and should strive to keep its administrative costs to a minimum. There are examples of similar collecting societies in the music industry, such as ASCAP and SoundExchange. We should learn from, and improve upon, their example. Giving artists a bigger voice should help ensure that their concerns with the current collecting societies are addressed.

When it comes to actually figuring out relative popularity, we need to balance the desire for perfect "census-like" accuracy with the need to preserve privacy. A system based on sampling strikes a good balance between these goals. On the one hand, in a public P2P network, it is relatively easy to find out what people are sharing. Big Champagne already does this, compiling a "Top 10" for the P2P networks. This kind of monitoring does not compromise user privacy, since this monitoring does not tie songs shared to individually identifiable information. At the same time, this general network monitoring can be complemented by closer monitoring of volunteers who will serve as the "Nielsen families" of P2P.

By combining these two methods, it should be possible to attain a high degree of accuracy, protect privacy, and prevent "cheating."

What if the music industry won't do it?

The music industry is still a long way from admitting that its existing business models are obsolete. But the current effort to sue millions American music fans into submission is destined to fail. After a few more quarters of lackluster sales, with file-sharing networks still going strong and "authorized services" failing to make up for sliding revenues, the music industry will be needing a "Plan B." We hope they will see that voluntary collective licensing is the best way forward.

If, instead, they continue their war against the Internet and continue inflicting collateral damage on privacy, innovation and music fans, then it may be time for Congress to take steps to force their hand. Congress can enact a "compulsory license" and create a collecting society to move us toward a sensible solution. Government involvement, however, should be a last resort -- the music industry has the power to implement a sensible, more flexible solution right now.

What about artists who won't join? How do we gather all the rights?

Artists and rights holders would have the choice to join the collecting society, and thereby collect their portion of the fees collected, or to remain outside the society and have no practical way to receive compensation for the file sharing that will inevitably continue. Assuming a critical mass of major music copyright owners joins the collecting society, the vast majority of smaller copyright owners will have a strong incentive to join, just as virtually all professional songwriters opt to join ASCAP, BMI or SESAC.

The complexity of music industry contracts and history make it very difficult for record labels and music publishers to be sure what rights they control. Accordingly, by joining the collecting society, copyright owners will not be asked to itemize rights, but will instead simply covenant not to sue those who pay the blanket license fee. In this way, music fans and innovators are not held back by the internal contractual squabbles that plague the music industry.

What about file sharers who won't pay?

The vast majority of file sharers are willing to pay a reasonable fee for the freedom to download whatever they like, using whatever software suits them. In addition to those who would opt to take a license if given the opportunity, many more will likely have their license fees paid by intermediaries, like ISPs, universities, and software vendors.

So long as the fee is reasonable, effectively invisible to fans, and does not restrict their freedom, the vast majority of file sharers will opt to pay rather than engage in complex evasion efforts. So long as "free-riding" can be limited to a relatively small percentage of file sharers, it should not pose a serious risk to a collective licensing system. After all, today artists and copyright owners are paid nothing for file sharing -- it should be easy to do much better than that with a collective licensing system. Copyright holders (and perhaps the collecting society itself) would continue to be entitled to enforce their rights against "free-loaders." Instead of threatening them with ruinous damages, however, the collecting society can offer stragglers the opportunity to pay a fine and get legal. This is exactly what collecting societies like ASCAP do today.

What about other countries?

Non-U.S. rights holders would, of course, be welcome to join the collecting society for their fair share of the fees collected from American file sharers. As for file sharers in other countries, there is every reason to believe that if a collective licensing approach is successful in the U.S., it will receive a warm welcome and enthusiastic imitation abroad.

A relatively small number of countries today account for almost all of the revenues of the music industry. So establishing a collective licensing system in just a few countries could turn around the downward spiral in music industry revenues. The music industry already has an international "clearing" system for apportioning payments between countries.

What about the authorized music services?

The "authorized music services" like Apple's iTunes and Napster 2.0 would be free to compete against the P2P services, just as they do today. In addition, they could themselves adopt elements of P2P architectures, thereby dramatically expanding the music inventories they could offer music fans.

What's to stop the music industry from charging sky-high fees?

The enforcement costs faced by a collecting society for file sharing will keep prices in line. After all, if the society attempts to charge too much, intermediaries won't be able to bundle the fees into the cost of their products ($5/mo. license on a $50/mo. broadband account makes sense; trying to tack $100/mo. license, in contrast, won't work) and file sharers will likely rebel in droves. For example, when movie studios charged $90 for a VHS movie, they faced widespread piracy. They learned that, by lowering prices, they made more money and eliminated much of the piracy problem. In other words, reasonable pricing makes the system work for everyone.

What about movies, software, video games, and other digital content?

The music industry is the only industry that appears to be unable to adjust their business models to take file sharing into account. And it is the music industry that has been leading the way in suing ISPs, software companies, and individual music fans.

The movie industry, in contrast, is having its most profitable years in history. The software and video game industries also continue to show strong growth and profitability. Each one of these industries has taken steps to adapt their business models to the realities of file sharing.

Of course, if other industries want to form voluntary collecting societies and offer blanket licenses to file sharers, there is nothing to stop them from doing so. Individuals would then be free to purchase the license if they were interested in downloading these materials from the file-sharing networks.

Note: This document is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs license.

------------------------------------------------------

Well ?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Legal or not?-Music sharing and China	Trish #1	General Gnutella / Gnutella Network Discussion	0	February 20th, 2006 09:54 AM
Music sharing: is it legal?	dandaman32	Open Discussion topics	1	January 31st, 2006 10:31 PM
How legal is file sharing from Lime Wire in the U.S.A..	danmartini	Windows	0	April 25th, 2005 02:41 PM
File Sharing in the UK - a legal perspective	lassie	Chat - Open Topics - The Lounge	1	March 21st, 2005 02:45 PM
Legal Music Sharing Program	X_Gamer7	General Gnutella / Gnutella Network Discussion	1	September 16th, 2003 09:46 AM