intellectual property in peer-to-peer networks artsiom yautsiukhin natallia kokash intellectual...
Post on 01-Jan-2016
213 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Intellectual Property in Peer-to-Peer Networks
Artsiom YautsiukhinNatallia Kokash
Intellectual Property Law, 18 October 2005
Contents Introduction Copyright and P2P file sharing
• Copyright Infringement• Betamax defense
Law Cases• A&M Records v. Napster• The Aimster case• MGM v. Grokster• BUMA v. KaZaA• MPAA and RIAA v. The People
Defense strategies Conclusion
Introduction
Peer-to-Peer (P2P) - a network in which each computer shares and uses devices on an equal basis (Ex: Napster, Aimster, Grokster, KaZaA, Scour, Audiogalaxy).
P2P is used for the exchange of text, image, sound and video files. These include works protected by copyright.
Copyright & P2P design
Copyright law concerns:• Users of P2P networks
• Developers of core P2P file-sharing technology (underlying protocols, platform tools, client implementations)
• Developers of ancillary services for P2P (providers of search, security, metadata aggregation)
P2P and Copyright Infringement
The end-users • Direct Infringement
The P2P tool maker ~ ”wheel man”• Contributory infringement
• Direct Infringement
• Knowledge
• Material Contribution
• Vicarious infringement• Direct Infringement
• Rights and Ability to Control
• Direct Financial Benefit
Betamax defense
Sony v. Universal City Studious: Sony Betamax VCR is capable of several non- infringing use (time-shifting of television broadcasts)
“Betamax defense” - to prove capability of non-infringing applications, irrespective of the proportion of infringing to non-infringing uses
The Napster Case Contributory infringement:
• Direct Infringement: (at least) some users
• Knowledge: company e-mails, song titles in promotional screen, experience
• Material Contribution: site and facilities Vicarious infringement:
• Right and Ability to Control: Napster retains the right to block a user’s ability to access its system
• Financial Benefit: Napster’s value is derived from the size of it’s user base
The Aimster Case
The same claims as in the Napster case Aimster prospect: the network traffic was
encrypted allegedly making it impossible to know what files were being shared by end-users
Betamax defense failed because:• Aimster failed to introduce any evidence of non-
infringing uses
• Had clear knowledge of infringing activities (“tutorials” encouraged users to download copyrighted music)
The Grokster Case (+ KaZaA, Morpheus)
Betamax defense: project e-books, promotional music videos, video game demos
Contributory infringement:• Knowledge: decentralized architecture, did not have
knowledge (e.g. Xerox)
• Material contribution: did not provide “site and facilities”, very limited involvement with the network
Vicarious infringement:• Right and Ability to Control: no ability to supervise and
control users
The KaZaA Case
Licensing agreement to listen music within the network without downloading
Negotiations were interrupted by Buma copyright infringement by KaZaA
The Court obliged:• Buma to continue the negotiations
• KaZaA to redesign the system
But KaZaA succeeded in appeal! Decentralized architecture!
MPAA and RIAA v. The People
The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) - lawsuits against individuals using P2P file-sharing software to access movies.
Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) - lawsuits against individuals who use file-sharing software.• 6,000 lawsuits against music file sharers
since September 2003.
Defense strategies
“All my users are innocent”. “Capable of substantial non-infringing uses”. “Safe harbors”
• transitory network transmissions
• caching
• storage of materials on behalf of users (remote file storage, web hosting)
• provision of information location tools (providing links, directories, search engines)
Conclusion
Lessons for Peer-to-Peer developers… Make and store no copies. Your two options: total control or total anarchy. Better to sell stand-alone software products than on-going
services. What are your substantial non-infringing uses? Do not promote infringing uses. Don’t make your money from the infringing activities of
your users. Give up the EULA. No direct customer support. Be open source.
References
Intellectual Property - Peer-to-Peer (P2P) File Sharing, http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P• “IAAL*: What Peer-to-Peer Developers Need to Know
about Copyright Law”
• “The Electronic Frontier Foundation’s (EFF) Efforts to Protect P2P “
• “MGM_v_Grokster”
• “Napster”
• “BUMA_v_Kazaa”
• “MPAA v. The People”
• “RIAA v. The People”
top related