filesharing
for a list of resources on this topic, see the technology policy bibliography
by Paul Tylkin
I. The Issue and its Social Significance
File sharing[1] is the exchange of files over the Internet. It is one of the most heavily-litigated areas of technology policy, with thousands of lawsuits for unauthorized file sharing having been filed. In this paper, we will examine the mechanisms and history of file sharing, the theoretical underpinnings of various current legal opinions on the matter, and discuss where we are heading. File sharing is an immensely rich subject: it can be implemented for commercial, recreational, political, and academic purposes. It can range from the uncontroversial sharing of academic papers, initiated by their authors, to the free sharing of commercial software worth thousands of dollars (e.g. Microsoft Windows, Adobe Photoshop, etc.).
Information exchange has always been an ostensible purpose of the Internet; on the most basic level, this consists of the exchange of collections of 0s and 1s, which are called "bits". Bits are units of information, and, by themselves, do not contain much meaning. But through agglomeration, they can become everything from text to sound to video to a computer program (software). Naturally, the more complex and multi-dimensional the medium, the greater the amount of bits required to encode it[2]. A "file" is a collection of bits that forms some coherent whole, but it does not necessarily need to correspond to a "whole" work in real life. For instance, if the file is a piece of a television episode, it can be anything from a short clip to many episodes.
It is useful to lend perspective by considering relative file sizes: the text for an average size novel may be 150 kilobytes (with 8 bits to a byte, or roughly 1,228,800 bits), the average low-quality photo may be 1 megabyte (or roughly 8,388,608 bits), and the average hour of low-quality video might be 300 megabytes (or roughly 2,516,582,400 bits). Therefore, there is an immediate practical component to file sharing, namely the channel capacity of information exchange[3].
In the early 1990s, for instance, it might have been challenging for the average Internet user (who was demographically characterized quite differently from the modern average Internet user) to exchange more than text, a few pictures, and perhaps some spreadsheets. Currently, with the prevalence of broadband (high-speed/channel capacity) connections, it is theoretically possible to exchange even high-definition full-length movies with relative ease, especially if split into several parts. And here, we come to the crux of the legal issue. By itself, the mechanism of the exchange of files (file sharing) does not violate law any more than, say, the existence of a photocopier. But the photocopier may be used to make unauthorized reproductions, violating intellectual property laws, just as the file sharing process may be used to exchange files containing information protected by copyright and other intellectual property.
There are several possibilities for the exchange of files that seem legally problematic. First, files may contain copyrighted content, such as text, music, or video, and be legally available to users only for a fee. This fee is broken down into paying for the producing company's costs (and supplying it profits), as well as paying royalties to the authors of the work. Hence, if copyrighted files are shared for free, none of the individuals or groups involved in the production of the work would receive any payment. The other potentially problematic scenario is the exchange of files containing trade secrets or other sensitive information, which could have material financial implications (as well as potential privacy and security implications).
Of course, it was possible to exchange all of the same information before the Internet existed; it was possible to make a copy of a videotape and give it to a friend. But there were greater fixed costs, such as the cost of the videotapes and recorder equipment, and an immensely smaller channel capacity for this exchange. It would scarcely be conceivable for the average individual to be able to disseminate unauthorized copies of movies to thousands of people he/she did not know; with file sharing, this is a plausible reality. The question of intent is a difficult one, and one that we shall discuss at greater length below. Simply put, if the user with minimal knowledge of computers is able to procure materials that violate copyright without much (if any) difficulty, does this signify fault in the system or fault of the user?
Having now discussed, from a bird's eye view, some of the potential legal issues involved with file sharing, we now turn to the history of its development and additional details regarding its implementation. The primordial forms of file sharing were BBSes (Bulletin Board Systems), popular from the 1970s to the 1990s, which allowed for the posting and downloading of files on some central location. Technological restrictions on channel capacity prevented anything larger than pictures to be exchanged. Some of these images were pornographic in nature, and the 1995 case R.v.Pecciarich, which was tried in a provincial division of the Ontario Court in Canada, held that the defendant was guilty of distributing child pornography using a BBS.
Another means of file sharing is ftp (file transfer protocol), which allows someone with a server (which can basically be anything from a personal computer with an internet connection to an enormous structure, such as that used to host a major corporation's website) to have files available for public access. One accesses the files by typing ftp://<server address> into a web browser. Although this allows for mass distribution, one needs to know (or be able to find) the address of the server, and the server needs to have the capacity to cater to the individuals who want to access files on it. Also, there is no possibility for built-in encryption for ftp: with minimal difficulty, anyone can read anything sent or received. (An additional file sharing method, now worth only a parenthetical remark, is gopher://, which was heralded in the early to mid-1990s as the successor to ftp, and is now essentially dead.)
The first file sharing application to draw severe legal and ethical concerns was Napster, a file sharing program specifically for music. Created by 18-year-old hacker Shawn Fanning (and financed/run by his uncle) in 1998, Napster was a centralized peer-to-peer (P2P) system. A user installed the Napster application on his/her computer and logged on; this application connected to the central Napster server which contained a list of all users and the files that they had available to share.[4] A user would search for a specific song title or artist, and would receive a list of users who had that those files available. Structurally, there was no reason why Napster should be used for the transmission and sharing of copyrighted music - it could equally well allow individuals to share their original songs or their own performances of non-copyrighted works (e.g. classical music). However, Napster was sued by a number of record companies, and shut down in 2001.
The next generation of file sharing applications, built on the Gnutella[5] model (e.g. Bearshare and Limewire), the FastTrack model (e.g. Kazaa, Kazaa Lite, Grokster, iMesh, and the eDonkey2000 model, were decentralized peer-to-peer systems. File sharing on these systems was no longer limited to just music, but had a wide variety of file formats. These three models essentially accomplished the same thing, with some technical differences: the application would connect to a nearby computer, called a node, also using the application. By establishing the connection, the user's computer became a node as well. The network of nodes would allow the user to find other nodes containing the desired files, and then share them. Users with especially fast connections could become so-called supernodes, acting as the connecting node for many others. The key difference from Napster and other centralized peer-to-peer systems is that there is no central server capable of recording or monitoring all of the file sharing activity that transpires. The closest thing to a central server are the supernodes, who are, in terms of volume, more implicated in file sharing than any node.
After extensive litigation, often initiated by the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) and many settlement agreements, file sharing under the decentralized model attempted to build in features to promote anonymity and encryption. Currently, more anonymous[6] systems include BitTorrent, which works by transmitting parts of files to users and having significant redundancy, so that there is not just a single individual with a given file, but many individuals with (at least) parts of that file. A search for file sharing applications yields the following list: Ares, Azureus, BearShare, BitComet, DC++, eMule, iMesh, Limewire, Shareaza, and uTorrent.[7]
Another current file sharing method are darknets[8], which are built according to a decentralized peer-to-peer framework, but are available only to those personally acquainted with a member of the network. There are file sharing applications or add-ons that allow the transmission of files over popular social networks such as Facebook[9] between contacts or "friends". Finally, there are commercial networks, such as iTunes[10], Napster[11] (bought after it declared bankruptcy and reincarnated), and Ruckus[12] that offer files (predominantly music, as well as some video) with the full support of the copyright holders.
- II. The Conflicting Positions: Economic, Moral, and Relational Arguments
The two sides of the issue are those taken by the RIAA and the architects of file sharing networks. The former hold that "Music theft can take various forms: individuals who illegally upload or download music online, online companies who build businesses based on theft and encourage users to break the law....One credible analysis by the Institute for Policy Innovation concludes that global music piracy causes $12.5 billion of economic losses every year, 71,060 U.S. jobs lost, a loss of $2.7 billion in workers' earnings, and a loss of $422 million in tax revenues, $291 million in personal income tax and $131 million in lost corporate income and production taxes."[13] The latter claim that their file sharing applications are not made, by design, for illegal activity, and that there should be presumption that they promote this activity. An extreme viewpoint is that copyright should not extend to digital media in the same way that it does to traditional media, and that free exchange of any materials should be allowed on the Internet; however, this is definitely illegal, by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
The crucial economic question is what effect file sharing has on the sales of products. One possibility is that it directly competes with sales: every unit that is downloaded is one that is not sold by stores or through other legitimate means (this is the viewpoint taken by the RIAA). Another viewpoint is that there is no effect on sales, or that the effect is negligible - this implies that the individuals who are sharing files would either never purchase legitimate copies of the files, or are equally likely to do so even with the availability of those files on the Internet. One possible explanation is that users who enjoy a particular musician still want the enjoyment of having a physical CD with his or her creative work. The viewpoint diametrically opposite from the RIAA's is that file sharing of copyrighted materials may actually boost sales in certain cases, similar to the way that hearing a sample of a song might make the listener want to purchase the CD.[14] However, this viewpoint is unlikely to be true for cases where the downloaded product is exactly the same as the one offered for sale, such as illegal copies of downloadable programs (which are offered for sale on the companies' websites) or other software such as Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Office. This is a consequentialist discussion, which effectively states that whether file sharing should be allowed and in what forms should stem from the consequences that arise from its existence.
The moral, or deontological, discussion must rest on whether one believes, in principle, that there is something wrong with file sharing, or if, on the contrary, it is an integral element of a democratic society? One question is whether there is something fundamentally different about two unique aspects of file sharing: electronic transmission and mass transmission. If we believe, in principle, that there is a unique aspect to file sharing, then perhaps the traditional notions of the morality of intellectual property do not apply. Or, as we become more and more involved in the digital world (and traditional society becomes more and more integrated with Internet society), is it remiss to believe it is somehow morally different? For instance, it is not illegal to loan a book or CD to a friend. It is illegal, according to the RIAA[15], to create an electronic version of a book or CD and send it via e-mail to a friend. The key difference, of course, is that in the former, non-electronic case, only the loaner or the friend has possession of the copyrighted item at a given time. However, in the latter case, one is creating a duplicate of the item in question, and both copies can be used simultaneously. If there is a way to allow the equivalent of "loaning" digital media (that is not the obvious solution of physically loaning one's computer to someone), should that be a permissible option? (iTunes has attempted to implement this relatively recently[16].) If companies restrict all digital sharing in principle, even "loaning," they are then impeding a generally agreed-upon market force: word-of-mouth. Additionally, if the government restricts the digital sharing of illegally copied materials, it may also inadvertently impede the sharing of legal files, such as academic papers or home movies.
Relational arguments regarding file sharing have to do with whether legislation that attempts to regulate file sharing can actually be effective. It appears that either the government can ban file sharing in all of its forms - however, this is practically impossible given that one of the pivotal goals of the Internet has been the exchange of information (which includes files) online. The attempt to provide a disincentive to file sharers by both punishing illegal file sharing and promoting lower-cost legal alternatives may be successful, but part of the question lies with whether incentives aimed at residents of the United States will curb illegal file sharing abroad. Since the implementation and prevalence of decentralized peer-to-peer networks, there have been no reliable statistics on the prevalence of file sharing in other countries. We will discuss some of the legal issues pertaining to international file sharing below.
The academic research on the subject of file sharing follows several very distinct paths. One path discusses the economics of file sharing - and attempts to answer a crucial question - does file sharing affect the financial bottom line of record companies and others whose core business depends on the products being shared? If file sharing affects the bottom line negatively, it seems that this provides justification for the enforcement of the RIAA's demands - namely, punitive measures taken towards file sharers. If, on the other hand, it is determined conclusively that there is no negative financial effect, the implication is that no punitive measures are appropriate. Another path is sociological and legal: to what extent does the sociology of the Internet differ from that of the non-digital world, and are the cultural norms of the two different? Is it possible and practicable to base distinct legal standards on cultural norms - i.e. treat the Internet differently? A third avenue of research is concerned with the technical details of file sharing - graph-theoretic (graph theory is a branch of mathematics) results about most-efficient paths through peer-to-peer networks, compression algorithms, and so forth. This direction of research about file sharing will not be further discussed here[17].
One of the most-cited[18] academic papers on the subject, from the first category of research, is by Felix Oberholzer-Gee of Harvard Business School and Koleman Strumpf of the University of Kansas, which states that file sharing's effect on sales is "statistically indistinguishable from zero."[19] Although they looked at 0.01 percent of the world's downloads, this amounted to "1.75 million file transfers,"[20] which is a considerable amount. They linked the evidence pertaining to the file sharing activity of a specific song or album with the legitimate sales of the associated product. Their research consists of the statistical analysis of downloads and music sales, as well as economic reasoning. One example in the latter category is as follows: many students (who comprise a high proportion of file sharers) have high speed internet connections only while in residence at their university. Therefore, if there is a correlation between file sharing and album sales, it would be expected that sales volume would change in the summer months. However, this is not the case statistically. Similarly, sales did not decline more precipitously in the eastern time zone of the United States, where P2P users can more conveniently download files provided by Europeans."[21]
Other research criticizes the findings of Oberholzer-Gee and Strumpf.[22] The author of one critical paper thoroughly analyzes their argument, and shows that the data which they have quoted do not necessarily correspond to the conclusions that they have drawn. Furthermore, the criticism is that they analyze everything too generally: it is not reasonable, he argues, to lump the likes of rap music with musical soundtracks. The listeners of the two widely disparate genres would likely have different downloading behavior, so it is extremely important to carefully make the choice of which genre of music to analyze. The paper does not provide an alternate conclusion using the same data, but rather argues that the use of the data renders the findings and conclusions invalid. Other arguments[23] favor the conclusions of Oberholzer-Gee and Strumpf, but argue for more streaming rather than downloading (i.e. file sharing in which the file is not actually transferred). Although there does not seem to be a consensus on this issue, the record companies (with the RIAA leading the charge) have filed many lawsuits aiming to deter file sharing of copyrighted works.
The second category of research includes one notable paper by Matthew Sag[24], which analyzes data and uses economic reasoning to recommend courses of action for recording companies: namely, to continue filing lawsuits against copyright-infringing file sharers, and to target "typical file sharers" who may evoke sympathy. The first part of his argument proves that suing consumers for file sharing is an economically rational action by record companies, and he shows, by analyzing the economic costs (possibility of punitive measures) and benefits of file sharing (free access to commercial content), that the lawsuits against individual consumers provide an important disincentive against file sharing. Furthermore, he argues that by targeting only "supernodes" or extremely prolific file sharers, companies create the illusion that ordinary file sharers are immune to legal actions. But by targeting the average consumer, average file sharers would have more incentive to stop their behavior.
- IV. Implicated Legal Issues and Law on Point
The majority of file sharing cases have to do with the sharing of media - this makes sense, given that this category comprises the majority of questionably legal file sharing. The most relevant case to the current methodology of file sharing was MGM v. Grokster, argued before the U. S. Supreme Court in 2005[25]. This was an appeal (by the plaintiff - MGM) of the Ninth Circuit[26] Federal court ruling that "Internet-based "file sharing" services Grokster and StreamCast should be immunized from copyright liability for the millions of daily acts of copyright infringement that occur on their services and that constitute at least 90% of the total use of the services."[27] The Supreme Court opinion[28] overturned this ruling, and held that Grokster and StreamCast were liable for illegal file sharing made possible by their networks, even though the networks were not centralized like Napster. However, it did not agree with the plaintiff's request to make all forms of file sharing illegal: as long as there are significant legal uses possible, and the network makes all possible attempts to prevent illegal use, they are not liable.[29] The ruling revisited the landmark Sony v. Universal Studios[30] ruling of the Supreme Court, in which Universal Studios tried to prevent Sony from selling its Betamax video cassettes, which could be used to duplicate copyrighted movies. The ruling held that there were sufficient possible legitimate uses for the technology that it should not be restricted because of potential for misuse.[31] The ruling in MGM v. Grokster did not revisit the precedent set by the Betamax case - it instead only decided that if there was a sufficiently high proportion of illegal use, and encouragement by the network, that constituted illegal activity.[32]
A landmark earlier case was A&M Records v. Napster, argued before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2001[33]. The ruling essentially shut down Napster, which provided centralized file sharing, and led to the development of the decentralized file sharing networks discussed elsewhere. The plaintiff's case was argued on the basis of contributory copyright infringement. (There are similar rulings in other countries, including Universal Music v. Sharman Networks, which made Kazaa's activity illegal in Australia[34]) Other legal cases dealing with file sharing have predominantly been against consumers - more than 10,000 file sharers, as of 2005, have been the target of lawsuits.[35]
- V. Relationship to Other Technological Policy Issues and Further Implications
File sharing is deeply connected to many other issues dealing with Technological Policy, specifically those that have to do with the electronic exchange of information. Legitimate file sharing is connected to electronic commerce, which may be one of the forms of file sharing that will become both predominant and legally acceptable. One issue is how to separate digital content bought legitimately - legal downloads of music from iTunes or a similar site or downloads of software from their authors - from the illegal redistribution of content. For instance, if unscrupulous Internet users see that they can purchase the same music file for $x or download it for $0, with no punitive measures taken against them, would they prefer to pay or have the exact same file for free? It seems that if there are no repercussions for downloading copyrighted files, including software, video, or music, and easy ways to do so, then rational consumers would always choose to download illegally- after all, why pay for something if it can be had for free? So, assuming the perspective that we want to prevent copyright infringement, what are the possible ways to combat this?
One way is to target the distribution channels. As long as they are difficult to use and navigate, the average computer user will not want to devote the time and energy required to their use. However, there is no way to legislate this - a law can not be made that states that all software applications that may be used for the illegal distribution of files must be extremely user-unfriendly, and require a command prompt interface (typing complicated commands into the program, rather than clicking on icons). Therefore, it can be assumed that, if unregulated, file sharing networks would drift towards greater ease-of-use, and hence greater potential for access by the average individual. Another venue is to target the networks themselves, disallowing all file sharing applications. This may be a viable way - see above for the discussion of the Supreme Court's ruling in MGM v. Grokster.
Essentially, if it can be proven by overwhelming evidence that the file sharing software in question is used predominantly for illegal uses, and the purveyors of the software do not make sufficient efforts to fight illegal file sharing (or even encourage it), then they are liable. The Grokster website now reads: "The United States Supreme Court unanimously confirmed that using this service to trade copyrighted material is illegal. Copying copyrighted motion picture and music files using unauthorized peer-to-peer services is illegal and is prosecuted by copyright owners. There are legal services for downloading music and movies. This service is not one of them. YOUR IP ADDRESS IS xyz AND HAS BEEN LOGGED. Don't think you can't get caught. You are not anonymous."[36] But all that this may do, potentially, is lead to development of zero-knowledge file sharing (bitTorrent is a very rudimentary version of this idea). Theoretically, this works as follows: all information about search queries to the file sharing programs is automatically routed through various anonymity-granting servers, as are the files themselves. At the end of the file sharing process, the only two computers that have a record that a specific file has been transferred are the giver's and the recipient's - however, neither knows (or has any way of finding out) any of the counterparty's identifying information. There is no way to browse, so no legislative authority can estimate the proportion of illegal to legal file sharing activity that goes on. So far, legal precedent implies that if there is no way of determining the extent of illegal activity as a proportion of total activity (as long as there are possible legitimate uses), perhaps nothing can be done about the illegal activity. Another way of looking at it though, might be that legitimate users would not need the kind of anonymity-granting measures offered by zero-knowledge file sharing, and therefore that these programs might be struck down on those grounds.
The other potential path, of course, it to fight the users of the file sharing programs. As long as there exist sufficient amounts of identifying information (an IP - internet protocol - address, combined with possible subpoenas of the Internet Service Provider for the rest of the user's information, is enough), it is possible to trace and subsequently prosecute the individual users. But this may be a terrible idea commercially: using the example of Henry Ford's competitors suing his customers, G. Richard Shell argues that suing one's customers leads to commercial failure.[37] It is also possible to try to make the files more difficult to share. This is the entire field of DRM - digital rights management. DRM technologies are methods to prevent the unauthorized sharing of proprietary software or files containing copyrighted information. Although there exist hacks against some DRM formats, there are so many different ones (and it has evolved sufficiently) that these hacks do not seem particularly common.
In theory, the idea of DRM is very positive: DRM should make sure that only the individual who has paid for the use of a copyrighted item has the ability to utilize it. The problem is how to implement this. For instance, it is not a trivial question of how to tell apart the following two scenarios: the legitimate purchaser puts the music file on five iPods, all of which belong to him versus the legitimate purchaser puts the music file on five iPods, all of which belong to his friends. The former scenario is not a violation of copyright: he is simply indulging in extravagant use of iPods. The latter scenario is a violation: now, five people who did not pay for the music file have it in their possession. There are also grey areas: if these other people are family members, is the claim that each must pay for their own copy of the music file? Should digital music be treated analogously to CDs or cassettes, where (without unauthorized duplication) only one person may have it in one place at one time?
Currently, DRM works by inhibiting functionality. Typically, copying to digital music players (e.g. iPod, etc.) is not allowed, except for certain specific brands. Copying to other computers or backing up the files is typically restricted, as is sharing over the Internet. The problem with this is that the user becomes entirely provider-dependent: if they have purchased music files, and their computer crashes, how is that legitimate request for another copy of the music file to be differentiated from a request for another music file sent from a friend's computer? Unless the provider evaluates requests on a case-by-case basis (which is costly and time-consuming), restricting downloads restricts legitimate uses. In inhibiting functionality, it also hurts marketability.[38] Consumers do not want to pay for something that they are not free to use legitimately - therefore, the growing trend has been away from DRM. There have also been some more creative DRM practices, such as that used by eReader[39] which links a credit card number to each purchase of a book in electronic format. In order to view the book on a computer or mobile device, the user needs to enter the credit card number used to purchase the book. So while users could theoretically share the eBook with anyone they want, they would also need to provide them their credit card number (which most users would not want to do, for obvious reasons). Although there have been objections by users[40],[41], This sort of practice might be the future of DRM - it offers users who have legitimately procured the files unlimited freedom, but provides a disincentive from any unauthorized file sharing.
In addition, free speech and online content censorship are implicated in the discussion of what types of files may be shared, and under what circumstances companies have the right to request the intervention of law enforcement. In particular, political or incendiary writing might be illegal in some countries, and file sharers who distribute it might face penalties. However, if file sharers are only contributing to the transmission of a specific file (i.e. their computer is an intermediate step in the sharing process), can they be held liable for the whole process? The case law on international file sharing is underdeveloped, and hence there is a woeful lack of clarity about what constitutes illegal actions on the part of the individual. This generalizes to the issue of using intermediate computers as nodes - if the sender and recipient of a file are both in a place where the file sharing in question is legal, but intermediate nodes lie in countries where it is illegal, can the intermediate nodes be held liable, and, if so, to what extent?
File sharing, and the law governing it, is intimately linked to regulating uses of the Internet in general. At present, there is no unified framework delineating legality, and international enforcement standards vary widely. Ideally, there would be low-cost legal alternatives and innovative DRM implementations to remove the incentive from illegal file sharing, and allowing legitimate file sharing and information exchange to flourish.
[1] In the literature, we see this primarily as two words, i.e. "file sharing," so that is the format which we will adopt, choosing conservatism in orthography. We define it in the intuitive sense as the exchange of files, and the processes and means thereof.
[2] Typically, sizes are reported in bytes, where a byte is defined as 8 bits. Bytes follow the metric (SI) prefixes, e.g. kilobytes, megabytes, etc.
[3] Something else that may be considered are compression technologies, which allow someone to transmit the same, or similar, information with less bits. A naïve example might be transmitting the message "000000000" by sending the message 10 0s. Compression algorithms (methods of compression) may be lossless or lossy. Lossless compression means that we do not lose any details of the original file. An example is the trivial message described above. Lossy compression means that we lose some details, but the final product is still recognizable. Examples include grainier photos and movies with less frames per second than the originals.
[4] One of the reasons that Napster was so successful was the development of the mp3 (Moving Picture Experts Group - 1 Audio Layer 3) file format, which is an effective lossy compression for music.
[5] Gnutella- A Protocol for a Revolution, available at http://rfc-gnutella.sourceforge.net/
[6] Although in practice, nothing on the Internet is provably anonymous, because with sufficient effort and equipment, it is possible to intercept and break any encryption; perhaps supercomputers may be required, but it is nonetheless theoretically possible.
[7] FileHippo download list, available at http://www.filehippo.com/software/p2p/
[8] "Darknets," Wikipedia, available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darknet
[9] Facebook, available at http://www.facebook.com
[10] Apple iTunes Store, available at http://www.apple.com/itunes/store/
[11] Napster Main Page, available at http://www.napster.com
[12] Ruckus Network Blog, available at http://www.ruckusnetwork.com/
[13] RIAA Website, available at http://www.riaa.com/physicalpiracy.php
[14] Beth Poitier, File Sharing May Boost CD Sales, Harvard Gazette Online (April 15, 2004) available at http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2004/04.15/09-filesharing.html
[15] Therefore, it may at least be ground for litigation.
[16] Kirk McElhearn, "iTunes Sharing Skills," MacWorld Online Magazine, available at http://www.macworld.com/article/52691/2006/09/octoberplaylist.html
[17] Interested readers may want to consult J.A. Bondy's and U.S.R. Murty's Graph Theory (2008), if they would like to pursue this subject further and explore other applications.
[18] Beth Poitier, File Sharing May Boost CD Sales, Harvard Gazette Online (April 15, 2004) available at http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2004/04.15/09-filesharing.html
[19] Felix Oberholzer-Gee and Koleman Strumpf, The Effect of File Sharing on Record Sales: An Empirical Analysis, Vol 115 Journal of Political Economy, No. 2 (2007)
[20] Ibid
[21] Ibid
[22] Stan J. Liebowitz, How Reliable is the Oberholzer-Gee and Strumpf Paper on File-Sharing? (September 2007), available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1014399
[23] Coffee with Peter Fader, FastCompany Blog, available at http://blog.fastcompany.com/archives/2004/02/20/coffee_with_peter_fader.html
[24] Matthew Sag, Piracy: Twelve Year-Olds, Grandmothers, And Other Good Targets For The Recording Industry's File Sharing Litigation, Vol. 4 Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property, No. 2 (Spring 2006).
[25] Supreme Court Rules in MGM v. Grokster, available at http://www.copyright.gov/docs/mgm/index.html
[26] Motion Picture and Recording Studio Petitioners Brief, available at http://www.copyright.gov/docs/mgm/mprs.pdf
[27] Ibid
[28] Supreme Court Opinion: MGM v. Grokster, available at http://www.copyright.gov/docs/mgm/opinion.pdf
[29] Ibid.
[30] Sony v. Universal Studios Supreme Court Opinion, available at http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/464_US_417.htm
[31] Ibid.
[32] Supreme Court Opinion: MGM v. Grokster, available at http://www.copyright.gov/docs/mgm/opinion.pdf
[33] A&M Records v. Napster Opinion, available at http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/239_F3d_1004.htm
[34] Universal Music v. Sharman Networks, available at http://www.copyright.org.au/news/news_items/recentcases/U26147/
[35] 10,000 filesharers have been sued, available at http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/30/1913227&from=rss
[36] Grokster main page, available at http://www.grokster.com
[37] Suing your Customers: A Winning Business Strategy? Knowledge@Wharton (October 22, 2003), available at http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=863
[38] Digital Rights Management: Dead or Just Evolving? Knowledge@Wharton (January 23, 2008), available at http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1882
[39] Mike Violano, Fair Content Access for All, available at http://web.archive.org/web/20060818124431/http://www.localtechwire.com/article.cfm?u=9433
[40] Occasional Solipsism Blog, available at http://occasional-solipsism.blogspot.com/2007/12/ebooks-and-drm.html
[41] MobileRead Forums, available at http://www.mobileread.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2367
|
