The legislation addressing the copyright and intellectual property ownership issues that are associated with file sharing and peer-to-peer technology remains to be infamously murky and confusing, which in recent times has seen extensive litigation and highly publicised court cases involving various content companies and entertainment industry representatives. The ongoing loopholes and legislation amendments in the field are reflective of the rapidly changing and advancing nature of the Internet and broader communication technology, with file sharing and peer-to-peer technology remaining at the forefront of these legal controversies.
One of the first steps taken to cater for arising issues of online copyright infringements occurred in 1998 with the introduction by the US government of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which implemented several previously established copyright laws and also introduced new ones that provided initial guidelines for online copyright legislation and codes of practice in cyber space. One of the main sections of the DMCA aims to provide a limitation to the liability of online service providers in terms of copyright infringements and the breaching of intellectual property ownership laws by the customers and users of those online services. Technically, the early stages of the act also provided protection for file sharing services such as Napster, which is why the initial prosecution of such peer-to-peer services was difficult for organisations such as the Record Industry Association of America.
In 2000 the Australian government introduced a similar act titled the Digital Agenda Act, which essentially was an updated version of the Copyright Act 1968, being altered to include recent developments, namely the Internet. Prior to this act, Australian copyright holders were unable to exercise their rights over the servers and providers of copyright material such as web sites, but those who actually accessed and used the copyright material were able to be held accountable.
Most recent actions taken toward the issue of file sharing occurred in early October of 2004, with the proposal of a new bill titled the Induce Act. The act essentially aims to shift the blame of copyright infringements from the users of file sharing and peer-to-peer technology to the companies themselves. One of the primary grounds of defence that has been employed by the file sharing companies in question refers to the Betamax doctrine, a Supreme Court ruling in 1984 that permitted the sale of Sony Betamax videocassette recorders, despite the fact that they could be used to copy movies illegally. The decision was justified by observing the fact that the recorder had numerous other legal functions. Many file sharing technologies also have numerous legal functions, currently allowing them to be protected by the Betamax doctrine, which is what the Induce Act seeks to change. (Borland, 2004)
The current climate of legal confusion relating to the implications of file sharing and peer-to-peer technology continues to spawn court cases and legislative tug-of-war. The fact remains that this technology has had massive affect on the consumption and distribution of music, with even the major record labels recognising its revolutionary impacts and potential profit opportunities, offering fans legal MP3 files for a price.
REFERENCES
Apollo Hosting Website (2004) "Digital Millennium Copyright Act," retrieved on 12 October 2004, from http://www.apollohosting.com/dmca.php
Borland, J. (2004) "D.C. Showdown Looms Over File Swapping," Z.D. Net, retrieved 12 October 2004, from http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-5400128.html
Borland, J. (2003) "Judge: File Swapping Tools are Legal," Z.D. Net, retrieved 10 October 2004, from http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-998363.html?tag=nl
Menn, J. (2003)"All the Rave: The Rise and Fall of Shawn Fanning's Napster," New York, Crown Business
Vaidhyanathan, S.(2001) "Copyrights and Copywrongs," New York, NYU Press
Cameron Hawes 19:27, 27 Oct 2004 (EST)
