Objective: Define P2P technology (types, uses, cultural impact). Identify common collective and individual ideas about P2P technology. Continue to clarify the difference between legitimate creative uses versus infringement of copyrighted material by accurately identifying the scope and limits of copyright law.

Bellwork: Name 5 ways you may legally use copyrighted material.

The use of peer-to-peer networks to share music and movies has sparked tremendous controversy in recent years.

The recording industry blames P2P file sharing for declining music sales and has responded with extensive advertising, lobbying campaigns, lawsuits against file-sharing companies, and, until recently, lawsuits against individual users of P2P software. After years of negotiation, authorized downloading sites have also emerged, such as iTunes.

However, unauthorized file-sharing remains extremely popular. For example, one study found that one third of

PCs in the world have Limewire (a popular file-sharing technology that has been targeted in lawsuits) installed.

Users of P2P networks argue that the world has changed, that they should be able to use and share music without restriction, and that the recording industry needs to adapt its business models to new technologies.

A 12-year-old girl in Toledo, Ohio, receives an email from her Internet provider regarding a subpoena. She doesn't understand it, so she ignores it. One year later, her family is formally served with a lawsuit naming her mom as a defendant. The suit alleges that the mother, who was the ISP account holder, illegally downloaded 10 copyrighted music files from a file-sharing network and seeks damages for each song. The plaintiff record companies offer to settle for $6,000.

The 12-year-old girl downloaded the songs, but she didn't know she was doing anything illegal. She found the files on a site that was free to access, but there were no warning signs that the bands didn't authorize the site. She's a huge fan of these bands – she owns all of their CDs and just wanted to hear the new songs.

The Mom doesn't believe that she should be sued. She can't afford to pay the $6,000 settlement fee, and she can't afford to hire an attorney to fight the case in court. (The attorney she spoke with asked for a $10,000 retainer just to get started.)

The plaintiff record companies claim that this is theft from their hardworking artists and that making the mother pay the settlement fee will deter others from illegally downloading copyrighted music from the Internet.

Popular Music Artist/Band A, whose music the girl copied, says that band members should be paid for their creative works; fans should buy their CDs and not get away with piracy. Making music is the band's job, and musicians need to be compensated; they're losing money when fans illegally download their music.

Popular Music Artist/Band B, whose music the girl copied, has a different perspective and supports music file-sharing technology, even encouraging fans to download its latest album of MP3s for free or for whatever they want to pay. Band B believes P2P file-sharing helps promote its music and encourages an even wider spectrum of music to be heard. Band B also allows its fans to remix its songs as long as the use is noncommercial.

Could this scenario be true? Which of the stakeholders is right, if anyone?

Why? Are the views of the other stakeholders

legitimate? Why or why not? How do the students feel about P2P file-sharing

technologies? Is P2P technology itself illegal? Is P2P technology just for music and movie file-

sharing? NASA is using BitTorrent to distribute massive

photographs; BitTorrent is used to cheaply distribute the Linux operating systems that are free to users.

Obama ‘Hope’ Copyright

This may be one of the most famous copyright infringement cases in history. Napster was a file sharing site that allowed people the world over to download music from all genres and parts of the planet. Launched in 1999, Napster became a popular site among many music lovers. However, in 2001 there was a case that involved a joint lawsuit filed by various record companies. This case was ruled in favor of the plaintiff and Napster was forced to shut down their site, but not before making a public apology and paying off damages to the tune of $26 million dollars.

J.K Rowling, the author famous for the ‘Harry Potter’ series of books sued Mr. Vander Ark for attempting to publish a Harry Potter encyclopedia. Ark was attempting to write an encyclopedia known as ‘Harry Potter Lexicon’ which was a collection of works that could bring more insight into the world of Harry Potter but he did not add any commentary of his own. It was however noted that this was not the only publication of its kind but this was done to protect the original works of authors the world over, according to Rowling. The presiding judge ordered damages of about $6750 by Ark to Rowling and also banned the publication which would have been done under Warner Bros.

Famous Google site that holds some of the world’s largest collection of video clips, YouTube, was sued by big firm Viacom for allowing the upload and viewing of Viacom-based content which included television and film clips. Viacom sued for $1 billion but the judge ruled in favor of YouTube. The site nowadays flag content that is not uploaded by the copyright holder. The site is used by every other internet user and YouTube does not always have control over the videos posted by the public.

Other interesting cases include the numerous ones by Warner Bros. for the unlawful use of the ‘Happy birthday to you’ song in music, films, television shows and by other corporations. This is because they have the right to charge $30,000 each time this age-old song is used. This is the reason why companies like entertainment spots have their own variation of the song instead of paying Warner for each use.

Copyright infringement cases can be filed if outside parties copy, reproduce, distribute and display any protected works without express permission and also gain financially from it. These rights are only open to the parties that hold the copyrights to any of these works.