[Ecommerce] The Register: P2P suppliers to fight RIAA... AND piracy

[Manon Anne Ress]

Right on time before tomorrow Senate's hearing:
http://www.senate.gov/~gov_affairs/index.cfm?Fuseaction=3DHearings.Detail&H=
earingID=3D120

P2P United 's presse release:
www.p2punited.org <http://www.p2punited.org>
http://www.p2punited.org/modules.php?op=3Dmodload&name=3DSections&file=3Din=
dex&req=3Dviewarticle&artid=3D9&page=3D1

Story in The Register:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/33104.html
P2P software suppliers team to fight RIAA /and/ piracy
By Tony Smith <mailto:tony.smith@theregister.co.uk>
Posted: 29/09/2003 at 16:27 GMT
Six P2P software companies today came together to demand an end to the
Recording Industry Ass. of America's hostilities toward US file sharers
- by legislative action, if necessary.

Grokster, Morpheus provider Streamcast, Limewire and three lesser lights
of the P2P stage also unveiled a code of conduct by which they and (they
hope) other P2P software providers - Kazaa is notable by its absence -
will follow the better to demonstrate that they take the issue of
copyright infringement seriously.

The code states, for example, that "the user [of their software] shall
be prominently informed that the use of the software for illegal
activities, including particularly infringement of intellectual property
laws, is strictly forbidden and may subject the user to civil and/or
criminal penalties".

Surely, then, the six members of P2P United <http://www.p2punited.org> -
the name of their joint organisation - agree with the RIAA's moves to
penalise people who /do/ offer material they have not been authorised to
share?

No, because the RIAA's action is disproportionate, said P2P United
Executive Director Adam Eisgau. Indeed, the organisation is openly
hostile to the RIAA's approach. "All sense of fairness, all sense of
proportion has left the debate," he said.

"It's about time [Congress] heard both sides of the story, and that's
really why our group was assembled," added Streamcast chief Michael Weiss.

There are solutions to beating copyright infringement, he said, and they
have to be better than "suing 12-year-olds and suing your own
customers". Alas, he said, the RIAA is "refusing to look for solutions"
and would rather "criminalise" the 63 million Americans P2P United
reckons are engaged in file sharing. That refusal is why Congressional
help is needed - to force the RIAA to "bring other stakeholders to the
table", said Eisgau.

"Congress has to step in and put an end to this," added Grokster's CEO,
Wayne Rosso. "We're going to do everything we possibly can to garner and
organise the American public and show them what they can do."

Congress shouldn't forget that those 63 million file sharers are also
voters, said Rosso.

True, but many of them are also breaking the law. P2P software may not
be illegal - as the victory of Streamcast and Grokster over the RIAA and
Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) proved - but distributing
content without the permission of the copyright holder certainly is. The
RIAA's action might be incredibly heavy-handed, but what has that to do
with P2P United's members? By their own admission, they are not
responsible for what their users do with their software. And - also by
their own admission - they are opposed to copyright infringement.

The dilemma P2P United members face is that they benefit (albeit
indirectly) from copyright infringement. No member wants to block the
sharing of copyright material. True, that's an almost impossible task
with today's de-centralised services, but no P2P member has said they
would implement copyright protection mechanisms if they were able to.

In part, that's because their software can be used to share not only
music and movies but other documents and binaries. The trouble is, the
vast majority of what is trafficked using P2P software are illegal
copies of content, and without the millions of users using their
software for that purpose, they'd be deprived of much of the advertising
and software sales revenue their business models are based upon.

To be fair, the same is true of VCR manufacturers, CD-R vendors and the
like, but you don't hear them complaining to Congress. Unlike P2P
Unlimited, they appreciate that the best way to avoid confronting the
morally fine line between providing equipment for both legitimate usage
and illegal uses is not to draw attention it. True, they're not faced
with the ultra-extreme behaviour exhibited by the RIAA, and to that
extent P2P United's concern - and Congressional investigation - is
justified.

And the organisation's members aren't claiming to have the solution to
the problem - they merely want the right to participate in the process
that will define such a solution.

To the RIAA, however, they are part of the problem. That organisation's
motives are by no means pure - it represents big multinational
businesses, not the artists, even though it likes to style itself that
way - but P2P United members aren't entirely spotless either. If those
63 million Americans suddenly decide to obey P2P United's call to cease
offering content to which they have no right to share, what happens to
its members' incomes? It's not entirely out of a sense of fair play that
they are opposed to the RIAA's disproportionate behaviour. =AE