The many legal proceedings relating to the controversial use of peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing networks being presently carried out in the United States of America can be attributed to various interpretations of what constitutes as [Intellectual_Property | intellectual property]] according to copyright law. This contention for both sides is well summarised by Flew stating that:

On the one hand, information is the lifeblood of democracy, commerce, and the development of further knowledge... On the other hand, copyright presumes that forms of creative expression can belong to individuals, that it can be their intellectual property, whose use by others should be subject to the laws of free and fair exchange, adequate compensation for use, and safeguards against misuse.� (Flew 2004 pp.154-155)

With P2P software supporters arguing that an overzealous implementation of copyright law “would pretty much end technological innovation in America� (Bray 2004) and sections of the media industry, particularly the music industry, insisting that “file sharing is a simple case of copyright infringement and theft� (Wade 2004) an arduous legal battle in the States was inevitable. The most vocal critic of P2P file sharing networks is almost certainly the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) who has a long history of legal proceedings against developers of P2P software. Their first notable legal action began in December 1999 when they attempted to sue Napster for alleged copyright infringements. This resulted in a victory for the RIAA when Napster was ordered to shut down its operation late in July 2000.
This initial triumph over the most notorious of file sharing networks opened the flood gates for other legal proceedings to go ahead. In October 2001 both the RIAA and the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) attempted to sue the companies behind the file sharing networks Grokster, Morpheus and Kazaa. In May 2002 the recording industry sues a music web site called Audiogalaxy and in June 2003 takes legal action against Verizon Communications.
Although courts in America have ruled that Grokster, Morpheus and Kazaa aren’t liable for the illegal use of their software because “it’s unwise to alter copyright laws in a way that could stifle innovation just to suit well-established players in a market� (Vance 2004), the action against Audiogalaxy resulted in the company settling to pay for perceived damages done to the record industry and Verizon Communications to was forced to reveal the names of its clients who were allegedly offering illegal music downloads on their network. This significantly opened up a new avenue for which the RIAA to pursue its claimed lost revenue - through the individual users.
In September 2003 the RIAA sued for the first time 261 individuals they accused of copyright violations. Controversially, among these individuals was a 12 year old girl living with her mother in a city housing authority apartment. This particular lawsuit was later settled with the family for $2000.
By July 2004 the RIAA had filed over 3000 lawsuits against individual users of P2P software.

References

Bray, H. (2004) “For Geeks It’s a Big Misunderstanding�, Boston Globe, 28 June, retrieved August 11.

Flew, T. (2004) “Digital Media� in New Media: An introduction, New York: Oxford University Press.

Vance, A. (2004) "Court tells RIAA and Congress to let P2P software thrive", The Register, August 19, retrieved October 9, 2004, from http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/08/19/p2p_lives_on/

Wade, J. (2004) “The Music Industry’s War on Piracy�, Risk Management Vol. 51, Iss. 2, retrieved August 11.

Marcial Christians 08:01, 29 Oct 2004 (EST)