The protocols of Napster, Gnutella, & BitTorrent are not illegal; only the user infringing copyright is illegal. ----- COSC4211 - Computer Scientists & Society University of Houston

1. Napster, Gnutella, BitTorrent: Discuss legal and technical aspects By: Kaleb Fulgham

2. Overview History Napster Gnutella BitTorrent Legal issues RIAA & MPAA DMCA & Copyright Act of 1976 Court cases & lawsuits

3. History

4. Napster June 1999: Shawn Fanning, undergraduate at Northeastern University, & Sean Parker released Napster, the first major Peer-to-Peer (P2P) software Napster Faster and less frustrating way to swap MP3s online than HTTP & FTP Inspired by IRC’s easy-to-use format Central servers contained an index of lists of user music files Search box List of usernames & their files

5. Napster Built in C++ and popularized through IRC October 1999: 150,000 registered users trading 3.5 million files February 2001: 26.4 million registered users Hardware Peaked in 2001: 150 index only servers containing IP address info on usernames & their MP3 metadata Similar to a telephone switchboard operator

6. Napster Napster client connects to a central server User queries the NapsterCentral Index Server Central server returns alist of matches Napster client connectswith the computer hosting the file Client drops allowing private transfer Your Computer

7. Gnutella March 2000: Justin Frankel & Tom Peppers of high-tech Nullsoft (an AOL acquisition) published Gnutella. Nullsoft created MP3-player Winamp Gnutella Functionally similar to Napster Key Difference: Did NOT rely on one central server Each user or “node” functioned as their own server Pre-loaded with IP addresses of known nodes g

8. Gnutella Gnutella posted on AOL’s website Slashdot news leak led to increased publicity AOL & Time Warner (Music Group) merger AOL made Nullsoft abandon project Gnutella had spread world-wide Free & open source clones appeared Examples: LimeWire & BearShare g

9. Gnutella Gnutella client knows at least 1 other node User queries 1st node The node sendsrequest to other nodesuntil song is found TTL limited requests Returns file name andmachine IP address Client connects to file owner’s node to transfer g

10. Gnutella Latest Gnutella Version 0.6 Composite network: Leaf nodes and Ultrapeers Leaf nodes connect to ~3 Ultrapeers Ultrapeer connects to >32 other Ultrapeers Max number of “hops” lowered from 7 to 4. g

12. Download pieces of the file(s) simultaneously from multiple peers

13. Tracker servers inform clients of all online active peers

15. BitTorrent User searches for a torrent User downloads & opens itwith a BitTorrent client Client connects to the tracker(s) in the torrent file Receives a list of peers currently transferring thepieces of the file(s) specified in the torrent. Client connects to peers to obtain the various pieces.

16. Legal Issues

17. Legal ISSUES RIAA & MPAA DMCA & Copyright Act of 1976 Court cases & lawsuits A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc. MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. The Pirate Bay (BitTorrent) Raid in Sweden RIAA v. the People MPAA v. TorrentSpy

18. RIAA & MPAA RIAA – Recording Industry Association of America Represents the recording industry Protect intellectual property rights worldwide and the First Amendment rights of artists Perform research about the music industry Monitor and review relevant laws, regulations and policies MPAA – Motion Picture Association of America Advance business interests of movie studios Film rating system & Anti-piracy measures

19. DMCA & Copyright AcT Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 Subpoena To Identify Infringer - 17 U.S.C. § 512(h) Copyright Act of 1976 Liable $750 - $30,000 per song, feature film, etc. illegally traded as the court considers just Up to $150,000 per title if intentional & willful

20. A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc. December 1999: RIAA filed a lawsuit against Napster RIAA argued in District Court Napster users directly infringe on plaintiff’s copyright Napster is liable for contributory & vicarious copyright infringement Internal Napster email from Sean Parker to Shawn Fanning stating that users know they are “exchanging pirated music.”

21. A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc. Napster’s defense Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. Napster similar to Sony Betamax VHS recorder Fair Use Sampling Space-shifting Permissive distribution Audio Home Recording Act

22. A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc. United States District Court ruled in favor of the RIAA United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Napster - Liable for contributory & vicarious infringement Napster users infringe at least two of the copyright holders’ rights the rights of reproduction, § 106(1) distribution, § 106(3)

23. A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc. Ninth Circuit ruling March 5, 2001 Napster capable of commercially significant non-infringing uses Could control the infringing behavior of users Must prevent trading of copyright music Napster paid roughly $36 million to copyright owners

24. MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd June 2005: MGM sued P2P client companies Grokster & Streamcast P2P lost for inducing copyright infringement for acts taken in marketing their file sharing software Both advertised as “Napster alternatives” “[T]he goal is to get in trouble with the law and get sued. It’s the best way to get in the new[s]”– Streamcast chief technology officer MGM statistician revealed that ~90% of all files available on the P2P were copyrighted works

25. The Pirate Bay Raid 2004: MPAA pressured the U.S. and Swedish government to shut down The Pirate Bay May 2006: Police in Sweden raided The Pirate Bay, shut down their website, & confiscated their servers The Pirate Bay BitTorrent search engine & tracker server Launched in November 2003 by Gottfrid Svartholm & Fredrik Neij Down for 3 days Publicity and +1.7 million more users

26. The Pirate Bay Trial January 2008: Criminal & civil prosecution in Sweden for promoting the copyright infringement of others with torrents by the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI). Fredrik Neij, Gottfrid Svartholm, Peter Sunde, and Carl Lundström Found guilty Sentenced to 1 year in prison Pay a fine of $3.5 million

27. RIAA v. the People 2003: RIAA began a litigation campaign against those who infringe copyright law Lawsuits against ~30,000 people Usually settled out of court: $3,500 avg. total Court settlements: $750 - $150,000 per song “Attempted distribution” is NOT in Copyright Act Simply storing copyright material in P2P “share” folders “Infringement of the distribution right requires an actual dissemination of either copies or phonorecords” – cited in Atlantic v. Howell

28. RIAA v. the People October 2008: Harper claimed she did not know she was doing anything illegal She thought downloading music was like the radio Judge ruled $7,400 (37 songs @ $200/song) for “innocent infringement” June 2009: Jamie Thomas-Rasset found liable for infringing 24 songs for $1.92 million July 2009: Joel Tenenbaum found liable for infringing 30 songs for $675,000

29. MPAA v. TorrentSpy February 2006: MPAA sued TorrentSpy.com Facilitating copyright infringement by linking to torrents containing copyright films May 2008: U.S. District Judge ruled Against TorrentSpy.com’s Justin Bunnell & associates Must pay the max $30,000 for “each of the 3,699 infringements shown.” $111 million

30. Conclusion Direct HTTP / FTP downloads strain servers P2P file sharing systems Convenient to search Effectively distribute load Majority of content on BitTorrent & P2P is copyright material Downloading & Sharing copyright information without permission is copyright infringement Public domain file sharing is LEGAL!

31. g Questions?

32. Sources http://howstuffworks.com for diagrams Appetite for Self-Destruction – Steve Knopper All The Rave – Joseph Menn ArsTechnica – http://arstechnica.com EFF – http://eff.org