Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
illegal content in P2P networks:
first cases in Lithuania
Liutauras Ulevičius
Mykolas Romeris University
basic facts

P2P usage – overhelming, most frequent uses:
− file sharing, audiovisual content
− majority of local interne...
cases in Lithuania

closing down torrent server
− dc.meganet.lt

„106“ case
− Kaunas district police vs. S.Bernotas

Mi...
I. legal vs. illegal
theoretical discussion

illegal:
− IPR priority
− no IPR holder consent

legal:
− IPR holders are in charge to create a ...
II. theoretical & pracical problems
theoretical problems - who?

Device is owned by institution vs. employee

free WiFi – user responsibility as contractual...
theoretical problems - why?

A deliberate action or a mistake

ISP & LANVA agreement?

user to prove safe usage?

„Mic...
theoretical problems - why?

6 months to keep data?

Temporary PC copy during www browsing?

Privacy vs. „Linkomanija“ ...
theoretical problems - how?

Factual: a) fake IP/MAC addresses; b) IP
connection <> copying; c) „Windows 7“usage –
PC che...
Illegal content in P2P networks: first cases in Lithuania
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Illegal content in P2P networks: first cases in Lithuania

908

Published on

presented on 2010.11.25 at MRU conference "Social Technologies 2010: Challenges, Opportunities, Solutions"

Published in: Business, Travel, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
908
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
6
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Transcript of "Illegal content in P2P networks: first cases in Lithuania"

  1. 1. illegal content in P2P networks: first cases in Lithuania Liutauras Ulevičius Mykolas Romeris University
  2. 2. basic facts  P2P usage – overhelming, most frequent uses: − file sharing, audiovisual content − majority of local internet users know/use P2P networks − ISP's used to advertise services as „free to get“ audiovisual content
  3. 3. cases in Lithuania  closing down torrent server − dc.meganet.lt  „106“ case − Kaunas district police vs. S.Bernotas  Microsoft vs. linkomanija.net − server taken-down  ...
  4. 4. I. legal vs. illegal
  5. 5. theoretical discussion  illegal: − IPR priority − no IPR holder consent  legal: − IPR holders are in charge to create a new model for remuneration for information exchange − public interest to protect free flow of information, provide opportunity for free creativity
  6. 6. II. theoretical & pracical problems
  7. 7. theoretical problems - who?  Device is owned by institution vs. employee  free WiFi – user responsibility as contractual clause  „dead PCs“ - no owner will  minors  ISP obligation to inform/educate
  8. 8. theoretical problems - why?  A deliberate action or a mistake  ISP & LANVA agreement?  user to prove safe usage?  „Microsoft“ 30 day trial for „Windows 7“  commercial purposes?
  9. 9. theoretical problems - why?  6 months to keep data?  Temporary PC copy during www browsing?  Privacy vs. „Linkomanija“ / LANVA  Pirate party: a) no damage for owner; b) piracy as good for development; c) too high value for low owner activity; d) it's not a theft  partial distribution = responsibility?  some content is legal to distribute via P2P
  10. 10. theoretical problems - how?  Factual: a) fake IP/MAC addresses; b) IP connection <> copying; c) „Windows 7“usage – PC check needed; d) no certification for „utorrent“ data  No formal procedure, regulation for network devices usage (e.g. France)  prosecutor or user to prove data were transfered  How to check closed-circle networks? (e.g. „Linkomanija“)
  1. A particular slide catching your eye?

    Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

×