Decentralised P2P technology: Can the unruly be ruled?

Abstract

Decentralised Peer to Peer (P2P) technology has added a significant challenge to the copyright domain. To address the problem the US court has added a third theory; namely inducement theory into the genre of secondary infringement. The aim of the article is to examine the prospect of implementing inducement theory into the UK context. However, after examining the current scenario this paper suggests that instead of adding a new theory into the domain of secondary infringement, the challenge of decentralised P2P technology should be addressed by way of device protection.

Keywords:

• decentralised P2P technology
• inducement theory3
• device protection

Notes

Paul Ganley, ‘Surviving Grokster: Innovation and the Future of Peer to Peer’, European Intellectural Property Review 28, no. 1 (2006): 15–25.

Brief of Computer Science Professors Suggesting Affirmance of the Judgment at p 15, cf Ganley, Surviving Grokster. In a brief filed with the court, several distinguished computer science professors raised the spectre of filtering and expressed their doubt about its utility in the P2P context.

Niva Elkin-Koren, ‘Making Technology Visible: Liability of Internet Service Providers for Peer to Peer Traffic’, New York University Journal of Legislation and Public Policy 9 (2006): 15.

Hasina Haque, ‘Is the Time Ripe for Yet Another Exclusive Right? A Proposal’, European Intellectural Property Review 30, no. 9 (2008) 374, see also Okechukwu Benjamin Vincents, ‘Secondary Liability for Copyright Infringement in the BitTorrent Platform: Placing the Blame Where It Belongs’, European Intellectural Property Review 30 (2008): 7: ‘It is highly unlikely that a claim based on “authorising Infringement” will succeed against these BitTorrent operators’.

Vincents, ‘Secondary Liability’, 2.

OiNK.cd, OiNK.cd Servers Raided, 23 October 2007, Middlesbrough, http://by106w.bay106.mail.live.com (accessed June 6, 2008).

Elkin-Koren, ‘Making Technology Visible’, 15.

Sverker K. Hogberg, ‘The Search for Intent Based Doctrines of Secondary Liability in Copyright Law’, Columbia Law Review 106 (2006): 909, at 912.

Rebecca Giblin-Chen, ‘On Sony, Streamcast and Smoking Guns’, European Intellectural Property Review 29, no. 6 (2007): 215–226.

Bryan H. Choi, ‘The Grokster Dead End’, Harvard Journal of Law and Technology 19, no. 2 (2006): 407.

Michael Hart, ‘Infringement and Remedies Under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988’, European Intellectural Property Review 11, no. 4 (1989): 113–118.

Maureen Daly, ‘Life after Grokster: Analysis of US and European Approaches to File-sharing’, European Intellectural Property Review 29, no. 8 (2007): 319–324. Specific works means photographic negatives, moulds and the like.

Philips Domestic Appliances & Personal Care BV v. Salton Europe Ltd, Salton Hong Kong Ltd and Electrical & Electronics Ltd [2004] EWHC 2092 9(Ch), cf. Daly, ‘Life after Grokster’.