What is Peer-to-Peer?
You know a technology is a big deal when the Supreme Court writes about it. The first two pages of the MGM v Grokster decision read like “What is Peer-to-Peer?” as written by Justice Souter:
Respondents, Grokster, Ltd., and StreamCast Networks,
Inc., defendants in the trial court, distribute free software
products that allow computer users to share electronic
files through peer-to-peer networks, so called because
users’ computers communicate directly with each other,
not through central servers. The advantage of peer-to-peer networks over information networks of other types
shows up in their substantial and growing popularity.
Because they need no central computer server to mediate
the exchange of information or files among users, the high-bandwidth communications capacity for a server may be
dispensed with, and the need for costly server storage
space is eliminated. Since copies of a file (particularly a
popular one) are available on many users’ computers, file
requests and retrievals may be faster than on other types
of networks, and since file exchanges do not travel through
a server, communications can take place between any
computers that remain connected to the network without
risk that a glitch in the server will disable the network in
its entirety. Given these benefits in security, cost, and
efficiency, peer-to-peer networks are employed to store
and distribute electronic files by universities, government
agencies, corporations, and libraries, among others. 1Footnote 1: Peer-to-peer networks have disadvantages as well. Searches on
peer-to-peer networks may not reach and uncover all available files
because search requests may not be transmitted to every computer on
the network. There may be redundant copies of popular files. The
creator of the software has no incentive to minimize storage or band-
width consumption, the costs of which are borne by every user of the
network. Most relevant here, it is more difficult to control the content
of files available for retrieval and the behavior of users.
If you’re looking to find out why SCOTUS came down so hard (unanimously!) on MGM’s side, read no further than pp. 5-6:
Grokster and StreamCast are not, however, merely
passive recipients of information about infringing use.
The record is replete with evidence that from the moment
Grokster and StreamCast began to distribute their free
software, each one clearly voiced the objective that recipients use it to download copyrighted works, and each took
active steps to encourage infringement.
Further eluicidation of the difference between the Sony decision and Grokster follows on page 19:
For the same reasons that Sony took the staple-article
doctrine of patent law as a model for its copyright safe-harbor rule, the inducement rule, too, is a sensible one for
copyright. We adopt it here, holding that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other
affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for
the resulting acts of infringement by third parties. We
are, of course, mindful of the need to keep from trenching
on regular commerce or discouraging the development of
technologies with lawful and unlawful potential. Accordingly, just as Sony did not find intentional inducement
despite the knowledge of the VCR manufacturer that its
device could be used to infringe, 464 U. S., at 439, n. 19,
mere knowledge of infringing potential or of actual infringing uses would not be enough here to subject a distributor
to liability. Nor would ordinary acts incident to product
distribution, such as offering customers technical support
or product updates, support liability in themselves. The
inducement rule, instead, premises liability on purposeful,
culpable expression and conduct, and thus does nothing to
compromise legitimate commerce or discourage innovation
having a lawful promise.
And don’t miss the excellent quote of archaic “coöperate” on page 18! (The text is from 1896, when apparently this liberal use of the diaeresis to identify pronounced vowels was a lot more common.)