2 replies to this topic

[tnctx02]

Each country has its own set of unique laws and policies. What may be legal or acceptable in one country may constitute a capital crime in another. Relevant to this article, developing a file-sharing client, network, index or search engine in the United States has become a highly taboo and near-criminal affair. And to think it began oh so innocently.

File-sharing of course is nothing new. P2P networks are not ground breaking innovations either. Both these concepts existed well before Napster brought them mainstream attention, yet this once King of file-sharing is often given credit.

Napster’s ability to bring mainstream attention to P2P sparked a chain of events that would lead to a protracted online conflict – one between copyright holders and developers of this technology. Nearly seven years after this conflict began P2P development (in whichever capacity) has ground to a virtual halt in the United States.

The clincher for this circumstance came in June 2005, when the Supreme Court of the United States remanded the MGM vs. Grokster case to the lower courts. The Supreme Court decided that Grokster could be sued inducing copyright infringement as a result of turning a blind eye to the infringing activities of its users.

This decision gave the entertainment industries the ammunition they desperately needed stomp out commercial P2P developers. Until this time, the entertainment industries, represented by the RIAA and MPAA had been waging an unsuccessful war against commercial developers. Two Federal Courts in 2003 and 2004 both ruled that P2P developers were not responsible for the infringing activities of their users. In actuality, the Supreme Court didn’t rule on the legality of Grokster or file-sharing, rather they can be sued for inducing copyright infringement. That was all the entertainment industry needed however, as the domino effect on P2P development in the United States began to tumble.

One by one commercial developers began to fall. The RIAA stepped up its campaign in September, by sending cease and desist letters to several major developers. This brought the downfall of the WinMX, while eDonkey, BearShare, and LimeWire’s future is currently in limbo. It is suspected the entertainment industry has recently submitted a request for a summary judgment against these developers, pending compliance with September’s cease and desist letters.

While being thorough in exterminating commercial developers, the movie industry has successfully ridden the United States of virtually all indexing or tracking servers. LokiTorrents and EliteTorrents, the last of the American BitTorrent trackers, were successfully eliminated last year. As more trackers began setting up overseas and outside the jurisdiction of the United States, the movie industry then targeted indexing sites. Although these indexing sites do not have tracking responsibilities or do they host any media files, they act as an interface to the tracker’s database.

Faced with seemingly insurmountable odds, few developers or indexing administrators have challenged the entertainment industry’s claim of copyright infringement. The exception to this is StreamCast Networks, which remains the only commercial developer countering these claims. Grokster capitulated, as is expected with the remaining P2P developers. isoHunt and TorrentSpy have also stated their intentions to fight the movie industry’s lawsuit also, yet their financial ability to do so is questionable.

Whether or not an official court ruling has been made in the United States is immaterial. The bottom line remains the Supreme Court stated Grokster “induced” copyright infringement. Yet the definition of this term remains a bit of a mystery. During a Senate Judiciary Committee meeting in 2005, the entertainment industry argued that further definition and clarification of this term is not necessary. Basically the term means whatever copyright enforcement entities want it to mean.

With that, the environment in the United States has grown stone cold for P2P development. One could argue Mainline BitTorrent is still being processed; however they too have been subjugated by the movie industry. Most of the innovative features now being developed for BitTorrent are coming from over seas resources, from such programmers as microTorrent and Azureus. Indeed, no new P2P networks of any relevance have been developed or distributed in the United States in the last year.

But that’s just the United States, as a whole world exists outside the North American continent. The pursuit of Sharman Networks in Australia has proven incompetent, while FrostWire, Ares, KCeasy, eMule and many other open source projects show no signs of abating. The same can’t be said about the United States, where the venture into any large scale P2P development is asking for legal trouble. The online copyright wars have been ongoing since 1999; however 2006 will likely be the final year of meaningful conflict. 2006 will determined if overseas development can overcome the entertainment industry’s efforts, or whether the remnants are finally swept away and yield the MPAA and RIAA a final victory.

[patman174]

yeah, all of that sucks. I do not download movies, but if I hear a song on the radio and I like it, yeah im going to download it. If the whole album is good enough, I may go buy it. I dont think its hurting the music industry that bad. They are just greedy b**tards, and will not give up till they can get all the money possible.

[ShadowFox]

That much is true however the newer bands coming out are encouraging people to download thier songs, they like being able to be heard without ever playing a live show! One band I recently discovered actuallyy were found on the internet and signed before ever playing a live show... some bands like the publicity.