P2P File Sharing
About a month ago, the Supreme Court made a landmark decision in the Grokster vs. MGM case. For those who are unaware of what Grokster is, it is a peer-to-peer file sharing service that offers similar services to the old Napster. The difference between the old Napster and Grokster, though, is that Napster coordinated the file sharing by maintaining a centralized index of the files being shared on the network. Users searching for files or songs simply queried the central server which ran a search through its index and returned the results to the user. Users would then directly contact the individual owners of the files for downloading. Thus the courts ruled that Napster is liable for what files were shared over the network because it had direct control over the indexed servers that maintained the file lists.
Grokster, on the other hand, works differently than the original Napster. Instead of maintaining a centralized file list of all files being shared on the network, the individual users of the network all collectively contribute to the file index. Some users with more capable bandwidth functionality are designated Supernodes that keep a partial index of the files on a subset of nodes. When a user wants to search for a file, it contacts its Supernode which then contacts other Supernodes to get the file information. Thus once users have downloaded and installed Grokster, Grokster itself has no control over the file index or what files are being shared on the network. Thus their stance was that they could not be held liable for any illegal activity that is being performed over their network because they had no control over it.
The final ruling of the courts, however, suggested otherwise. By a 9-0 margin, the Supreme Court ruled that the makers of file sharing software are liable for the activity that it is being used for if use of this activity is known and used as part of its marketing strategy. On the one hand, I think the ruling has some legitimate reasons. It is true that Grokster developed its software almost exclusively to attract the illegal music swapping audience that was lost by Napster when it was originally shut down. Thus it is because of its intentions and marketing techniques that it should be held liable for what it is used for. However, there are a few problems that I have with the ruling as it stands
- The first is that lifts the blame right off of the shoulders of the actual lawbreakers. People who use Grokster for illegal music swapping purposes are ultimately the guilty perpetrators. However, with this ruling, the entertainment industry can directly bypass the lawbreakers and aim their lawsuits directly at the innovators in the software industry.
- Speaking of innovation, the ruling creates a gray area for software makers and p2p technology researchers. Even though Grokster’s intentions were clearly to promote music swapping and attract the original Napster community, contrary to what many people think, there are definite legitimate uses for p2p technology upon which Grokster and other services operate. Not only that, but there are legitimate uses within the music industry itself. Consider the many unknown and non-mainstream artists that exist today. Many of them embrace these file sharing networks because of their ability to spread their music and make themselves be known. Many of them would gladly give away their songs for free if it means increasing their popularity and ultimately their marketability and profitability. Thus an immediate legimitate use of these services would be to share songs from artists that are willing to share their songs for free. Thus consider a p2p software maker that attempts to restrict the actual files that can be shared on the network. Files and songs can only be shared if they have been explicitly designated by artists as “shareable.” Should the software makers be held liable if their software is not bulletproof and bugs and workarounds are exploited to use the software for illegal purposes? This is the gray area that I’m talking about and it discourages people to innovate and slows the advancement in technology.
- With this new Grokster decision, there is now a clear-cut need for the introduction of fair use laws. Specifically, we need laws that protect users of the legitimate rights that they have in terms of using and manipulating digital material that they own. This includes things like copying media for backup and personal use, and other non-infringing uses.
Even though the Grokster case has legitimate reasoning, more needs to be done to level the playing field for all parties involved, and to make sure that both consumers and producers of media, as well as software innovators are protected of the rights that they are entitled.
