Today, I discuss BitTorrents, and a particular case in California challenging the copyright validity of what one service provider is doing. BitTorrent has been in the (copyright) news lately – and not surprisingly – after the movie studios set their sites on bringing down yet the latest iteration of file-sharing technology.
Some of the issues I discuss are these:
- What is the BitTorrent file sharing technology? And how is it different from Napster and its peer-to-peer progeny?
- What are the 2 biggest distinctions between BitTorrent and peer-to-peer and, in particular, BitTorrent’s distributive approach to file-sharing?
- Why is bitTorrent in the (copyright) news? I will particularly discuss a case in federal court in California, involving Columbia Pictures and other film studios who sued a bitTorrent company called isoHunt, together with its founder, Gary Fung.
- What were the relevant legal issues in this case? Several important copyright arguments were made, but of most significance were 2 particular issues: inducement of copyright infringement, and the safe harbor for providers of “information location tools” under Section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (the DMCA).
- Why did Google get involved? I discuss how this case was an unusual instance where a court ruled that DMCA safe harbor protection was not available to a provider of “information location tools” who knew or should have known about potential or actual copyright infringement happening on its service.
Please click below for the podcast.
Add Comment