Lab Exercise #2: P2P, DCMA, and TAMU

1. P2P technology challenges copyright protection because it creates an easy-to-use infrastructure for anyone to distribute any materials, whether or not that person holds the copyright. Previously, often only the corporations which owned copyrighted material had the bandwidth and server space to support downloads of their copyrighted material. However, P2P networks allow everyone to upload and download. Additionally, because P2P networks have no central server, only individual users connected to each other through a "hub," they are hard to prosecute. Copyright holders have to seek out individual users of the system, rather than simply shut one entity down.

2. DMCA regulates the use of P2P technology by creating penalties for people who violate copyrights, either by downloading, sharing, or uploading copyrighted files on a P2P network without the permission of the copyright holder.

3. DMCA was caused by P2P, and its implementation has in turn changed file sharing on the Internet. DMCA was created in response to P2P technology, and its perceived threat to copyright holders. On the other side, P2P post-DMCA is much more decentralized, to make it more difficult to litigate against.

For example, while the original Napster was effectively sued into submission by the RIAA because it had a central server which made an easy target, Grokster, a popular post-Napster P2P application, used a system which only connected users, making each user into an individual server and presumably shifting the responsibility for any infringement to individuals. However, copyright holder MGM still managed to win a lawsuit against Grokster for facilitating copyright infringement (http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/MGM_v_Grokster/). As a result, file sharing has shifted to the further decentralized BitTorrent networks, and other networks which try to escape copyright laws by basing their servers overseas.

While the DMCA was initially a response to P2P, since its inception it has consistently guided the development of the P2P industry. Their relationship is reciprocal to an extent, but DMCA is clearly the superstructure which ultimately determines growth and changes of the P2P substructure.

4. The first law of dialectics is played out in the realtionship between P2P and DMCA in that once DMCA made it riskier for people to download using P2P, the quantity of available materials declined, and only the higher-quality items endured for long periods. The second law is played out in that DMCA both restricts P2P technology and encourages the development of new P2P formats to dodge DMCA, which in turn restricts it. Thesis-antithesis-synthesis is played out through the copyright holders using DMCA to stop downloading, making downloads available themselves but with strong copyright protection in the form of DRM, and now the blend of the two in that you can obtain DRM-free music not only from P2P but from the providers.

5. I think the regulations imposed by the DMCA and TAMU are trying to balance between the rights of the users and the rights of the copyright holders to profit from their work. However, I also think US copyright laws in general are too restrictive and that copyrights last too long. Our culture would benefit if more materials entered the public domain instead of being horded by corporations trying to squeeze every last cent out of them. That said, TAMU is just enforcing the law under DMCA, and if you don't break the law, you don't have anything to worry about. TAMU just needs to be sure every student accused of violating DMCA has a fair disciplinary hearing and no innocent students are punished.

6. The DMCA is protecting the interests of corporate copyright holders by punishing people who distribute their materials without authorization. DMCA overlooks the rights of people who are interested in sampling copyrighted materials under fair use provisions and the ability of artists to draw on each others' creative works for inspiration.

7. I would make P2P policy should be less restrictive. The corporations have a stranglehold on their material and prevent people from downloading it, even for legitimate reasons. For example, I work for a radio station, and I like to download a few tracks from a new band before playing them on the air and getting the station to invest in their album. However, I often run into places where songs have been removed from DMCA takedowns. If the songs had been available, I might have given the artist (and therefore the label) free publicity by playing them on my show. More and more artists are bypassing the record companies and simply offering their music for download on their websites. Independent filmmakers make significant sections of their films available online. Author Cory Doctrow offers free downloads of many of his short stories. DMCA is outdated, and the creators are already moving towards a more open system.


(sorry this is so late! I thought it posted, but it only saved as a draft. Oops.)