Peer to peer liability for copyright infringement

Peer to peer liability for copyright infringement

Order Description

(Peer to peer liability for copyright infringement: a critical analysis of how copyright law has been applied to p2p networks the impact has had on the interests of rightsholders and users).

illustrate the cases in this issue which is UMG v Grokster cases and their influence upon users and right holder.

1

LAW-M622: Current Issues in IP/IT Law 2014-15

Class 3: Downloading and digital technologies

In this class, we will be analysing both the technologies

involved, and the important case law surrounding peer-to-peer (p2p)

downloading and copyright infringement with a view to establishing how both

technology and the law itself has been altered following the main p2p cases.

Group 1: Digital technology and the ‘threat’ to copyright

Robbie, Chuba & Chan

Issues to consider:

· How and when did the perceived threat to copyright law (resulting from

digital technology) arise?

· How did the Internet, MP3 format and p2p technology combine to affect

the position of rightsholders and their exclusive rights under copyright

law?

· What was the legislative response to digital technology and do you

think it was necessary? (I.e. the WIPO Treaties prior to the Napster

and subsequent p2p case law)

Suggested readings:

PG Leonard, ‘New communications technologies and the music industry’

(1991) Ent LR 2(3) 73-78

A Christie, ‘Reconceptualising copyright in the digital era’ (1995) EIPR 17(11)

522-530

S Perlmutter, ‘Convergence and the future of copyright’ (2001) EIPR 23(2)

111-117

G Davies, ‘A technical solution to private copying: the case of the digital audio

tape’ (1987) EIPR 9(6) 155-158

N Higham, ‘The new challenges of digitisation’ (1993) EIPR 15(10)

WIPO Copyright and WIPO Performances and Phonograms treaties (WCT

and WPPT): http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/

2

Group 2: Napster and the ‘limitations’ of the technology

Hannah, Claudia, Mohammed & Hossein

Issues to consider:

· On what grounds were proceedings brought against Napster and what

defences did they raise?

· Explain the grounds that ultimately rendered Napster liable for

infringement?

· How did the judgement on copyright grounds correspond to the

technology concerned?

Suggested readings:

A&M Records Inc. v. Napster Inc., 114 F.Supp.2d 896 (2000)

SD Chapman, Pushing the Limits of Copyright Law and Upping the Ante in

the Digital World: The Strange Case of A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.’

(2000) 89 Kentucky Law Journal 793-834

SD Glasebrook, ‘“Sharing’s only fun when it’s not your stuff”: Napster.com

pushes the envelope of indirect copyright infringement’, (2000) 69 University

of Missouri-Kansas City Law Review 811-843

Group 3: Grokster

Rick, Metas, Tawanrat & Montawan

Issues to consider:

· How did the technology of the Grokster p2p network differ from that of

Napster?

· What impact did this then have on the decisions of the lower courts?

· Explain the reasoning of the Supreme Court in overturning these and

what effect do you think this has had on copyright law?

Suggested readings:

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster Ltd., 545 US 913 (2005)

(Supreme Court)

A Stokes and J Rudkin-Binks, ‘Online music – P2P aftershocks’ (2003) Ent LR

14(6) 127-131