NY Times on the Regulation of P2P Technology

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Peter D. Junger" <junger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: August 30, 2004 8:50:49 AM EDT
To: David Farber <dave@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: junger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: NY Times on the Regulation of P2P Technology


Here's an unsigned editorial in today's New York Times that may
interest, and perhaps irritate, some subsribers to IP.


   T  he legal battles over file-sharing are usually construed as a 
fight
   over  intellectual  property rights, plain and simple. On one side 
are
   copyright  owners,  including  songwriters  and artists as well as 
the
   major  recording  companies  and  movie  studios. On the other side, 
a
   handful  of  advocacy  groups  and  a  legion  of file-sharers bent 
on
   nothing  more than outright theft of copyrighted music and movies. 
The
   short   title   of   a   recent   appeals   decision   says   it  
all:
   Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer v. Grokster.

   But  the  broader  issue  is the distribution of information. 
Software
   like  Grokster creates a network of independent Internet users who 
can
   access  one  another's  computer files without going through a 
central
   server.  (Napster  maintained  a central server, which made it 
legally
   liable in very different ways.) Grokster can certainly be used to 
swap
   music illegally. But it can also be used to exchange electronic 
copies
   of  books  already  in the public domain, transcripts of 
Congressional
   hearings  or any number of other legitimate types of information. 
Much
   like  a  VCR  that does not distinguish between a pirated tape and 
one
   legally  acquired,  the technology does not care what is shared. It 
is
   impossible  to  strike  down  software  like  Grokster  for its use 
in
   illegal  file-sharing  without  also destroying its capacity for 
legal
   and socially beneficial activities.

   This  distinction  lies at the heart of a recent Ninth Circuit 
appeals
   court decision, which upheld a ruling in favor of Grokster and 
against
   an  army  of  corporate  copyright owners. This decision does not 
make
   illegal  file-sharing  legal.  But  it  implicitly  raises  a 
question
   central  to  most  copyright  battles.  Is  society  better  served 
by
   restricting or even prohibiting new technologies to protect the 
rights
   of  copyright owners or is there a greater good in the widest 
possible
   exchange  of information? The resolution lies somewhere in the 
middle.
   Finding it, as the court acknowledges, is properly left to Congress.

   These  are thorny issues indeed. Freedom of information is at the 
root
   of  American  democracy,  and  yet every day we see that freedom 
being
   compromised, controlled and limited. The Grokster decision is a 
ruling
   in  favor  of keeping our bets open about which technologies will 
turn
   out to serve our freedoms best.

--
Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, 
OH
 EMAIL: junger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    URL:  http://samsara.law.cwru.edu
     NOTE: junger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx no longer exists