The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) vs. P2P Essay

The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) vs. P2P It began with the sacking of Napster, and has steadily grown to become an all-out offensive against participants of on-line Peer-2-Peer (P2P) file sharing networks. While the Recording Industry, (RIAA), may have fired the first salvo, the Film Industry, represented by the Motion Picture Association of America, (MPAA), from recently jumping into the litigious fray. On November 16th, 2004, the MPAA announced it would begin launching lawsuits against a select group of P2P users accused of possessing and/or transmitting copyrighted films. These lawsuits, in the same vain as the RIAA’s ongoing legal offensive, are meant to intimidate other P2P users to cease and desist any illegal activities involving movies[1]. From a distance, this recent crack down appears to be not only acceptable, but also morally unquestionable. Upon closer inspection of the issue, it becomes readily apparent that scapgoating P2P networks is not only an unnecessary and ‘unwinable’ battle, (as the RIAA can attest), but also a waste of anti-piracy resource away from real piracy threats. Before any discussion on the actions of MPAA can be broached, it is necessary to deliver a brief historical primer on the intellectual property laws, in particular copyrights. To begin with, a copyright is used to protect creative rather than industrial forms. No formal registration is required to gain protection of a creation. The only requirement is that creation must be expressed, that is, an idea or knowledge in and of itself is not copyrightable, only the expression of the idea.[2] The first form of international intellectual property protection came in 1886 ... ... Accessed on November 16th, 2004 Taylor, Chris. â€Å"Invasion of the Movie Snatchers†. Time Online Edition. November 2004. http://www.time.com/time/insidebiz/article/0,9171,1101041011-709042,00.html . accessed on November 16th, 2004 Jardin, Xeni. â€Å"P2P in the Legal Crosshairs†. WIRED March, 2004. http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,62665,00.html . accessed on November 16th 2004 Dean, Katie. â€Å"Film Piracy Steals the Show†. WIRED. December 2003 http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,61673,00.html . accessed Nov. 16, 2004 [1] MSNBC, November 16th/2004 [2] Attallah, Shade. 2002 [3] Attallah, Shade. 2002 [4] Attallah, Shade. 2002 [5] Chris Taylor, TIME Oct. 2004 [6] Taylor, 2004 [7] Xeni Jardin, WIRED, may 2004 [8] Taylor, 2004 [9] Straubhaar, Media Now, 2002 [10] Seradini, Video Age International, 2002 [11] Dean, Wired, 2003 The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) vs. P2P Essay The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) vs. P2P It began with the sacking of Napster, and has steadily grown to become an all-out offensive against participants of on-line Peer-2-Peer (P2P) file sharing networks. While the Recording Industry, (RIAA), may have fired the first salvo, the Film Industry, represented by the Motion Picture Association of America, (MPAA), from recently jumping into the litigious fray. On November 16th, 2004, the MPAA announced it would begin launching lawsuits against a select group of P2P users accused of possessing and/or transmitting copyrighted films. These lawsuits, in the same vain as the RIAA’s ongoing legal offensive, are meant to intimidate other P2P users to cease and desist any illegal activities involving movies[1]. From a distance, this recent crack down appears to be not only acceptable, but also morally unquestionable. Upon closer inspection of the issue, it becomes readily apparent that scapgoating P2P networks is not only an unnecessary and ‘unwinable’ battle, (as the RIAA can attest), but also a waste of anti-piracy resource away from real piracy threats. Before any discussion on the actions of MPAA can be broached, it is necessary to deliver a brief historical primer on the intellectual property laws, in particular copyrights. To begin with, a copyright is used to protect creative rather than industrial forms. No formal registration is required to gain protection of a creation. The only requirement is that creation must be expressed, that is, an idea or knowledge in and of itself is not copyrightable, only the expression of the idea.[2] The first form of international intellectual property protection came in 1886 ... ... Accessed on November 16th, 2004 Taylor, Chris. â€Å"Invasion of the Movie Snatchers†. Time Online Edition. November 2004. http://www.time.com/time/insidebiz/article/0,9171,1101041011-709042,00.html . accessed on November 16th, 2004 Jardin, Xeni. â€Å"P2P in the Legal Crosshairs†. WIRED March, 2004. http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,62665,00.html . accessed on November 16th 2004 Dean, Katie. â€Å"Film Piracy Steals the Show†. WIRED. December 2003 http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,61673,00.html . accessed Nov. 16, 2004 [1] MSNBC, November 16th/2004 [2] Attallah, Shade. 2002 [3] Attallah, Shade. 2002 [4] Attallah, Shade. 2002 [5] Chris Taylor, TIME Oct. 2004 [6] Taylor, 2004 [7] Xeni Jardin, WIRED, may 2004 [8] Taylor, 2004 [9] Straubhaar, Media Now, 2002 [10] Seradini, Video Age International, 2002 [11] Dean, Wired, 2003