Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Copyright infringement and users of P2P networks in multimedia applications: The case of the U.S. Copyright regime

  • Published:
Peer-to-Peer Networking and Applications Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper discusses certain copyright infringement issues regarding the liabilities of P2P network users. These issues are applicable to most P2P multimedia transmissions, as multimedia works are increasingly generating copyright disputes. The discussions will focus on the liabilities of both the distributors and end-users of P2P software via copyright law. The reason why the operations of P2P networks conflict with the regulations of copyright law is not complicated; the current copyright law evaluates infringement responsibilities via a simple copyrighted works distribution and usage dichotomy classification, and the application of P2P networks exceeds this classification. However, the copyright law was written during an analog era, and the interpretations of infringement were designed to target those who were making copies of cassettes and compact disks. A new regulation concerning digital file transactions is required; without it, due to the vagueness of the copyright law, more and more “innocent infringers” will be trapped by this pitfall called copyright protection and industries applying P2P network operations are directly threatened by trends of copyright impetus.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The issue of growing crimes concerning portable electronic communication devices has been highlighted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) of U.S.A. Nowadays, portable devices are broadly applied to the information technologies, including accessing the e-mail and web sites, dealing instant messages, access the web sites, downloading data or even placing a VoIP via P2P networks.

  2. The term ‘innocent infringers’ was defined in the case of Whitney Harper, the litigation was brought by many major record companies to against Whitney Harper, who shared music files via P2P platforms. Harper claimed that she was an ‘innocent infringer’, saying that ‘in her early teen years she had thought P2P use to be just like listening to free music on the radio.’

  3. The format often can be recognized as[Artist] - [Song title].mp3. Numerous variations, most involving additional information, exist: One may find, for instance, [Decade]- [Artist] - [Song title].mp3, [Decade]- [Artist] - [Song title]- [Album title].mp3, or any additional remarks.

  4. BitTorrent protocols and software do not provide search function, they would require other information source (e.g. Internet forums) to get the source file protocol and link.

References

  1. Chu H, Deng D, Chao H (2011) The digital forensics of portable electronic communication devices based on a Skype IM session of a pocket PC for NGC. Wirel Commun Mob Comput 11(2):211–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. House Judiciary Committee (200) Piracy of intellectual property on peer-to-peer networks, hearing before the house judiciary committee’s subcommittee on courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property (Sept. 26, 2002) (statement of Gigi B. Sohn, President, Public Knowledge), at http://www.house.gov/judiciary/sohn092602.htm; see also Brief of Amici Curiae Computer and Communications Industry Association and Internet Archive at 13–17, MGM v. Grokster, 324 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir.), cert. granted, 73 U.S.L.W. 3350 (U.S. Dec. 10, 2004) (No. 04–480)

  3. Miles E (2004) Note, In re Aimster & MGM, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.: Peer-to-peer and the Sony doctrine, Berkeley Tech. L.J. 19(21):25–26

  4. A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc (2000) 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001), aff’g in part and rev’g in part, 114 F.Supp. 2d 896 (N.D. Cal. 2000)

  5. Kalker T (2004) Music2Share - copyright-compliant music sharing in P2P systems. Proc IEEE 92(6):961–970

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Maverick Recording Company UMG Recordings Inc. Arista Records LLC Warner Brothers Records Inc. Sony BMG Music Entertainment V. Whitney Harper Case: 08-51194, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

  7. H.R.3261Stop Online Piracy Act (Introduced in House - IH), available at Library of Congress Website: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:1:./temp/~c112aDLdDz:e3470

  8. BBC, Megaupload file-sharing site shut down, BBC news, 20 Jan 2012, available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16642369

  9. Lou X (2009) Collusive piracy prevention in p2p content delivery networks. IEEE Trans Comput 58(7):970–983

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  10. Kelion L, SOPA: Sites go dark as part of anti-piracy law protests, BBC News, 18 Jan 2012, available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16612628

  11. Nesson C, Maverick Records v Harper (Amicus Brief Re Innocent Infringement) No. 10–94

  12. Buck v. Jewell-LaSalle Realty Co (1931) 283 U.S. 191

  13. Williams & Wilkins v. United States (1975) 487 F.2d 1345 (Ct. Cl. 1973), aff’d by an equally divided Court, 420 U.S. 376

  14. Teleprompter Corp. v. Columbia broadcasting system (1974) 415 U.S. 394

  15. Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios (1984) 464 U.S. 417, 447

  16. Nimmer M & Nimmer D (2001) 2 Nimmer on copyright, § 8B.01[C], at 8B-7 (2001)

  17. 17 U.S.C. § 107 (2001) Copyright Act

  18. 17 U.S.C (2000) § 1008, Audio Home Recording Act of 1992, Pub. L. No. 102–563, 106 Stat. 4237 (codified as amended at 17 U.S.C. §§ 1001–1010)

  19. Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music (1994) 510 U.S. 569, 579, 584–85

    Google Scholar 

  20. Hoehling v. Universal City Studios, Inc (1986) 618 F.2d 972, 978 (2d Cir. 1986)

  21. Worldwide Church of God v. Philadelphia Church of God, Inc (2000) 227 F.3d 1110, 1118 (9th Cir. 2000)

  22. Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters (1985) 471 U.S. 539, 566–67

  23. Sasabe M, Wakamiya N, Murata M (2010) User selfishness vs. file availability in P2P file-sharing systems: Evolutionary game theoretic approach. Peer-to-Peer Networking Applications 3:17–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Gummadi K, Dunn R, Saroiu S, Gribble S, Levy M, and Zahorjan J (2003) Measurement, modeling, and analysis of a peer-to-peer file-sharing workload. In: Proceedings of SOSP 2003. ACM, New York, pp 314–329

  25. Rowstron A, Druschel P (2001), Storage management and caching in PAST, a large-scale, persistent peer-to-peer storage utility. In: Proceedings of SOSP 2001. ACM, New York, pp 188–201

  26. Gershwin Publishing Corp. v. Columbia Artists Mgmt., Inc (1971) 443 F.2d 1159, 1162 (2d Cir. 1971)

  27. Stern R (2004) Vicarious liability for infringement. IEEE Micro 24(56):79–82

    Google Scholar 

  28. M. Witmark & Sons v. Calloway, 22 F. 2d 412, 415

  29. Dreamland Ball Room v. Shapiro, Bernstein & Co (1929) 36 F. 2d 354 (7th Cir. 1929)

  30. Deutsch v. Arnold (1938) 98 F. 2d 686

  31. Fonovisa v. Cherry Auction (1996) 76 F. 3d 259 (9th Cir. 1996)

  32. Cohen J, Loren L, Okediji R, O’ Rourke M (2006) Copyright in a global information economy. Aspen Publishers, New York, p 481

    Google Scholar 

  33. Gershwin Publ’g Corp. v. Columbia Artists Mgmt (1971) 443 F. 2d 1159 (2d Cir. 1971)

  34. MGM Studios Inc v Grokster Ltd 518 F.Supp.2d 1197

  35. MGM Studios Inc v Grokster Ltd 545 U.S. 125 S.Ct. 2764

  36. Giblin-Chen R (2005) Rewinding Sony: An inducement theory of secondary liability, [2005] E.I.P.R. 428

  37. Ginsburg J, Ricketson S (2006) Inducers and authorisers: A comparison of the US Supreme Court’s Grokster decision and the Australian Federal Court’s KaZaa ruling. Media & Arts Law Review 11(1):1

    Google Scholar 

  38. Austin G (2006) Importing kazaa–exporting Grokster. Santa Clara Computer & High Technology Law Journal 22:577–621

    Google Scholar 

  39. Kleis M, Radier B, Elmoumouhi S, Carle G, Salaün M (2010) A decentralised service composition approach for peer-to-peer video delivery, peer-to-peer. Netw Appl 3:222–236

    Google Scholar 

  40. Ding J, Wu G and Deng D (2009) Optimal rate allocation and admission control policy for P2P On-Demand Streaming Systems, the Fifth International Conference on Intelligent Information Hiding and Multimedia Signal Processing (IIHMSP 2009), Kyoto, Japan, Sep. 12–14, 2009

  41. Gheorghe G, Lo R, Alberto C (2011) Montresor security and privacy issues in P2P streaming systems: A survey, peer-to-peer. Netw Appl 4:75–91

    Google Scholar 

  42. Kleis M (2010) A decentralised service composition approach for peer-to-peer video delivery, peer-to-peer. Netw Appl 3:222–236

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Fine Arts, College of Fine Arts, National Taiwan Normal University, 162, HePing East Road, Section 1, Taipei, Taiwan

    Chunhsien Sung

  2. Jen-Teh College of Medicine, Nursing & Management, 79-9, Sha- Luen Hu, Xi-Zhou Li, Houlong Township, Miaoli County, Taiwan

    Po-Hsian Huang

Authors
  1. Chunhsien Sung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Po-Hsian Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Po-Hsian Huang.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sung, C., Huang, PH. Copyright infringement and users of P2P networks in multimedia applications: The case of the U.S. Copyright regime. Peer-to-Peer Netw. Appl. 7, 31–40 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12083-012-0160-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12083-012-0160-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation