BitTorrent: Digital River of the Hacker Culture

Bittorrent is a peer-to-peer protocol designed for the distribution of large digital files across a network of decentralized peer nodes. BitTorrent relies on mutual peer cooperation to ensure success and dominance as a preferred method for the sharing of digital data. BitTorrent is a form of peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing, which has generated much interest in popular culture. Created, released and refined on a free software model the BitTorrent protocol is an evolutionary P2P design internalizing the very foundations of hacker culture. While most academic study of Bittorrent is concentrated in the computer science field, there are many other interesting angles to examine. The protocol's implications for libraries in the digital age are enormous. In this paper we will explore the BitTorrent revolution and consider this disruptor technology from a socio-technical perspective

Defense Against the Dark Arts of Copyright Trolling

In this Article, we offer both a legal and a pragmatic framework for defending against copyright trolls. Lawsuits alleging online copyright infringement by John Doe defendants have accounted for roughly half of all copyright cases filed in the United States over the past three years. In the typical case, the plaintiff\u27s claims of infringement rely on a poorly substantiated form pleading and are targeted indiscriminately at noninfringers as well as infringers. This practice is a subset of the broader problem of opportunistic litigation, but it persists due to certain unique features of copyright law and the technical complexity of Internet technology. The plaintiffs bringing these cases target hundreds or thousands of defendants nationwide and seek quick settlements priced just low enough that it is less expensive for the defendant to pay rather than to defend the claim, regardless of the claim\u27s merits. We report new empirical data on the continued growth of this form of copyright trolling in the United States. We also undertake a detailed analysis of the legal and factual underpinnings of these cases. Despite their underlying weakness, plaintiffs have exploited information asymmetries, the high cost of federal court litigation, and the extravagant threat of statutory damages for copyright infringement to leverage settlements from the guilty and the innocent alike. We analyze the weaknesses of the typical plaintiff\u27s case and integrate that analysis into a strategy roadmap for both defense lawyers and pro se defendants. In short, as our title suggests, we provide a useful guide to the defense against the dark arts of copyright trolling

The Future of Internet Regulation

Policymakers are at a precipice with regard to Internet regulation. The Federal Communications Commission\u27s ( FCC ) self-styled adjudication of a complaint that Comcast violated the agency\u27s Internet policy principles (requiring reasonable network management, among other things) clarified that the era of the non-regulation of the Internet is over. Equally clear is that the agency has yet to develop a model of regulation for a new era. As explained in this Article, the old models of regulation - reliance on command-and-control regulation or market forces subject only to antitrust law - are doomed to fail in a dynamic environment where cooperation is necessary to promote effective competition and continued Internet connectivity. Thus, this Article calls for a new model of regulation built around the concept of co-regulation - a self-regulatory body subject to public agency oversight - as the best strategy for Internet regulation going forward. This Article outlines a three-part strategy for the FCC, or any other authorized agency, to oversee Internet connectivity disputes such as those involving network management practices by broadband providers or Internet backbone interconnection. First, it calls on the FCC to act as a norm entrepreneur, identifying areas where cooperation is essential and setting forth the broad terms that should govern that cooperation. Second, it explains how the FCC could use a model of co-regulation, with a private sector collaborative body operating under its oversight. Third, it recommends that the FCC should exercise ex post adjudicative authority (rather than ex ante rulemaking authority), in tandem with the role played by the private body, to address breakdowns in cooperation and any departures from announced norms. This model, while of particular relevance to the future of Internet regulation, can be applied more broadly, thereby meriting the attention of policymakers and scholars interested in the future of the administrative state

Resistance commons : file-sharing litigation and the social system of commoning

textThis dissertation is an investigation into the practice of peer-to-peer file-sharing and the litigation campaign targeting individual file-sharers carried out by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) from 2003 to 2008. The competing conceptualizations of social relations which motivate the conflict over peer-to-peer file-sharing are explored using a combination of Autonomist Marxist theory and structuration theory. Peer-to-peer file-sharing is framed as part of the social system of commoning stemming from the recent ascendancy of immaterial labor within that sector of the economy dedicated to the production and distribution of informational and cultural goods. The RIAA litigation campaign is framed as a reaction to the emergence of new forms of social relations which are seen by the content-producing industries as subversive of revenue streams premised on commodity exchange in informational and cultural goods. The history of the RIAA litigation campaign is presented in detail with careful attention given to those instances in which defendants and other interested parties fought back against RIAA legal actions. The acts of resistance within the legal arena affected the ultimate potential of the litigation campaign to control the spread of file-sharing activities. Subsequent legal campaigns which have been based on the RIAA litigation model are also examined. These later file-sharing cases have been met with similar forms of resistance which have likewise mitigated the impact of legal efforts to combat file-sharing. In addition, a survey of file-sharers is included in this research as part of an attempt to understand the relationship between legal actions targeting peer-to-peer systems and individual file-sharers and the technological and social development of peer-to-peer systems. This research argues that file-sharing litigation has proven ineffective in turning back the flood of file-sharing and may have increased the technological sophistication and community ties among file-sharers. In the end, the conflict over peer-to-peer file-sharing is cast as a manifestation of a larger dynamic of capitalist crisis as content-producing industries attempt to come to terms with the contradictory tendencies of immaterial labor and the production of common pools of digital resources.Radio-Television-Fil

Copyright Freeconomics

Innovation has wreaked creative destruction on traditional content platforms. During the decade following Napster\u27s rise and fall, industry organizations launched litigation campaigns to combat the dramatic downward pricing pressure created by the advent of zero-price, copyright-infringing content. These campaigns attracted a torrent of debate among scholars and stakeholders regarding the proper scope and role of copyright law-but this ongoing debate has missed the forest for the trees. Industry organizations have abandoned litigation efforts, and many copyright owners now compete directly with infringing products by offering legitimate content at a price of $0.00. This sea change has ushered in an era of copyright freeconomics. Drawing on an emerging body of behavioral- economics and consumer-psychology literature, this Article demonstrates that, when faced with the magic of zero prices, the neoclassical economic model underpinning modern U.S. copyright law collapses. As a result, the shift to a freeconomic model threatens entrenched tenets that lie at the very heart of copyright law and theory. This Article argues that the traditional dichotomies separating use from ownership and utilitarian rights from moral rights have been seriously eroded, if not outright destroyed. If copyright law does not evolve to face these changes, it will run the risk of extinction through irrelevance. Accordingly, this Article both identifies responsive policy prescriptions and, perhaps more importantly, establishes a set of structured, coherent, and efficient analytical frameworks to aid in their implementation