[IP] more on Ohio University announces changes in file-sharing policies

[David Farber <dave@farber.net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Victor Marks <victormarks@gmail.com>
Date: April 27, 2007 8:43:59 AM EDT
To: dave@farber.net
Subject: Re: [IP] more on Ohio University announces changes in file- 
sharing policies

Hi Dave,

For IP if you wish.


> From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.net>
> Date: April 26, 2007 1:33:20 PM EDT
> To: dave@farber.net, ip@v2.listbox.com
> Subject: Re: [IP] more on Ohio University announces changes in file- 
> sharing policies

Brett Glass wrote:

> Media
> piracy software (sometimes called "P2P" software by people who wish
> to conflate it with legitimate software that operates in a peer to
> peer mode) abuses the network, often without the consent of the user
> who installed it. Universities have the right, and in fact an  
> obligation,
> to prohibit crimes on campus. And any ISP -- especially a University,
> where much network abuse occurs -- is therefore fully within its  
> rights
> to prohibit abuse of the network.
>
> --Brett Glass

Professor James Gibson of the Richmond Law Intellectual Property  
Institute approves of distributing the Institute's movies via p2p  
software, specifically bittorrent compliant clients.

He specifically told me so in http://podcasts.macnn.com/ 
041406podcast.m4a . I forget at what time in the conversation.

He asked for help in doing so, even.

Another legitimate use was the example set by Swarthmore students:

"
After students at Swarthmore College posted the files, Diebold made a  
demand under the DMCA that the college remove the materials or face  
suit for contributory copyright infringement.
The students were therefore forced to remove the materials.
However, in order keep the materials available, the students asked  
students at other institutions to mirror the files, and injected them  
into the eDonkey, BitTorrent, and FreeNet file-sharing and  
publication networks.
Ultimately, a court held that the unauthorized publication of files  
that were not intended for sale and carried such high public value  
was a fair use.
" -- http://www.congo-education.net/wealth-of-networks/ch-11.htm

Not all p2p clients are created equally. Few attempt to share all  
your media. Most attempt to share only what is in a specific shared  
directory, which is coincidentally where they download as well. In  
the case of bittorrent, only that which is downloaded through the  
client is ever uploaded.

Can bittorrent really be said to be a media piracy software when its  
parent bittorrent.com has made deals with content providers to "rent  
movies for a 24-hour viewing period for $3.99 for new titles and  
$2.99 for older films, but the site has decided not to sell films for  
now because the prices demanded by the studios were too high"


Rather than forbid the application which has legitimate uses, forbid  
the bad uses.

Is it overbroad to suggest that calling all p2p clients media piracy  
software is akin to calling VCRs media piracy devices because pirated  
tapes were/are widely available?

Should institutions ban VCRs? Or is the difference only in that  
bittorrent and the network enable greater numbers?

Victor Marks



-------------------------------------------