Legal Music Download.

Peer-to-peer applications (P2P) that enable users to share media content including text, audio and video files have been under strict scrutiny since their run-in with media moguls. Previously, possession and promotion of copyright infringement material was considered a crime under the copyright laws. This was when the definition of the terms possession, promotion, copyrighted and public domain were clear. With the evolution of technology, however, these definitions have become blurred. Who do you hold liable for copyrights violations? The technology which enables one to pirate copyrighted content, or the pirates themselves?

When the crackdown against individuals violating copyright regulations was at its height, people were being sued left, right and centre. Benign (and some not-so benign) coders who wrote the application were dragged into the battle. Companies hosting peer-to-peer discovery servers and their open source derivatives at locations that fell within jurisdiction were threatened. BitTorrent websites hosting the torrent files of copyrighted material came under fire. Techies and non-techies alike gaped at the absurdity of it all. Suing teenage music enthusiasts for downloading copyrighted music using P2P applications scared some into reverting to legal music downloading, but it failed to deter die-hard pirates.

With technology emerging as rapidly as it is, it is not difficult for pirates to adapt in order to survive. BitTorrent is a perfect example of this as it has eliminated the dependency on the central server, which often became the point of attack. Using the swarming technique and torrent files for tracking information that can be distributed throughout the web mitigates the risk of having a single point of attack. Ironically, websites publishing these torrent files became its Achilles' heels. But as always, pirates found ways to manipulate the system.

In June 2005, when the US Supreme court was about to give its verdict in the much anticipated MGM vs. Grokster and Morpheous P2P case, everyone was holding their breath. The copyright cartel played the "active inducement" card stating that the root of all evil is not the technology or peer-to-peer application itself, rather it is. the use of technology for copyright infringement purposes for which peer-to peer companies such as Grokster and Morpheous should be held liable.
The defenders argued that their software has non-piracy uses as well and can be used for sharing files that are in the public domains. The main point of the defender's argument was that someone making general purpose software shouldn't have to fear that some, users might misuse the product and commit infringement, leaving the software manufacturer on the hook for copyright violations. Instead, the infringers themselves should be held liable for their actions. One must give credence to the prosecution's stance in the case, as it clearly didn't blame the technology itself. There are pirated prints of newly released movies available in the local market, complete with sound effects from the audience and dark shadows walking in front of the screen.

This does not mean that Handycam companies can be held liable for people misusing their product. The case of BetaMax in the 80s has already set precedence for that. The US Supreme court had ruled that BetaMax could not be held liable for the actions of its users since their product has substantial non-infringing uses. The same rules now apply to peer-to-peer applications with the notable exception of those that "actively induce" piracy, Unfortunately, the US Supreme Court on finding ample evidence of active inducement by Grokster and Morpheous ruled in favor of MGM. The court ruled that "one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright ... is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties using the device, regardless of the device's lawful uses:' It added that the intent behind creating technology that can be used for copyright infringement is a decisive factor in such cases. While this ruling logically follows the proceeding of this particular case, it has created a new set of problems such as determining the intent of a company. How can the intent of the company be determined, especially when it can easily be camouflaged in legalese? Recently BitTorrent's creator Bram Cohen was put on the spot regarding an old 1999 post on his website that read, "I am a technological activist. I have a political agenda. I am in favor of basic human rights: to free speech, to use any information and technology, to purchase and use recreational drugs, to enjoy and purchase so-called 'vices', to be free of intruders, and to privacy. I further my goals with technology. I build systems to disseminate information, commit digital piracy, synthesise drugs, maintain untrusted (sic) contacts, purchase anonymously, and secure machines and homes. I release my code and writings freely, and publish all of my ideas early to make them unpatentable (sic)."

Cohen now claims that the post is being quoted out of context and was simply a parody of the Cyberpunk's Manifesto written two year prior to the developrpent of BitTorrent. Whether the music industry is convinced of this or not is yet to be seen. Techies and other enthusiasts who are blogging these days should be very careful what they write, lest they too end up facing the wrath of media sharks. Jus as Shawn Fanning was the target during the Napster days, Bram Cohen has beer under fire since this evidence of his alleged intent regarding file-sharing has been discovered. But it remains unclear what good a potential lawsuit against Cohen would do because as Cohen has said in his manifesto, he will "publish all of [his] ideas early to make them unpatentable". If not BitTorrent then perhaps a slightly modified version of it under a different name will appear to haunt. the copyright cartel. After all, how can one fight a piece of code? The milk has been spilt so there's no use crying now. Once it becomes clear to the cartel that suing all and sundry is futile in curbing rampant piracy, they will have to make amends with P2P.

After all, what better way to skin the cat than by luring it with catnip? A steep rise in legal music downloading has prompted industry analysts to predict a new era for peer-to-peer file-sharing. A retail entertainment. information company called Nielsen Soundscan has reported that in the US, paid music downloads through the internet have tripled in the first half of this year as compared to the same period in 2004. 158 million individual songs were downloaded compared with 55 million in the first half of 2004. In the UK, the number of legally downloaded songs for the first half of 2005 has reached 10 million, double the number for all of 2004. The popularity of the iPod, through which users can legally download songs from Apple's website, has even spurred the sales of Macintosh computers. According to Apple more than one million Macs were sold for three consecutive quarters following iPod's arrival on the scene.

Enter Microsoft Avalanche P2P. Whether we like it or not, when Microsoft takes a product into its fold we can be assured that it is here to stay. Though P2P needs no endorsement, it just might do P2P's case good to dissociate itself from infringers and establish its credibility as a cheap, easy and convenient medium for dissemination content. Politically correct Microsoft has emphasised that Avalanche will allow only legal media to be downloaded. According to researchers' estimate the download time of Avalanche is between 20 to 30 per cent faster than BitTorrent. There is, however, one problem. Avalanche currently exists only on paper. So given the heterogeneous nature of the internet, which often behaves in unpredi9table ways and requires iterations in the algorithm to refine the application, it remains to be seen how well Avalanche's algorithms will work in practice. The Grokster case may yet prove to be only a small defeat. P2P communications and business models can easily be redesigned so that no proof of "active inducement" exists while still providing the means for lawful file downloading. BitTorrent (and its potential derivatives) are the litmus test as they provide a powerful platform to copyright infringers and legal users alike. If BitTorrent is defeated it would be a great loss for technology, but if the technical and legal lessons learnt from it are properly utilised, downloaders will be come one step closer to hitting the (legitimate) music jackpot.

_{source Spider Mag.}