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

The social movement provide Association of America (MPAA) vs. P2PIt 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 communion networks. While the Recording Industry, (RIAA), may have fired the first salvo, the lease Industry, represented by the Motion Picture Association of America, (MPAA), from freshly startle into the litigious fray. On November sixteenth, 2004, the MPAA inform it would startle launching lawsuits against a recognize group of P2P users acc utilize of possessing and/or transmitting copyrighted films. These lawsuits, in the said(prenominal) vain as the RIAAs ongoing legal offensive, are meant to trammel other P2P users to cease and end any illegal activities involving movies1. From a distance, this recent crack down appears to be non nevertheless acceptable, notwithstanding in addition morally unquestionable. Upon closer watchfulness of the issue, it becomes readily apparent that scapgoating P2P networks is not only an un undeniable and unwinable battle, (as the RIAA can attest), but also a waste of anti- plagiarism choice away from real piracy threats. Before any discussion on the actions of MPAA can be broached, it is necessary to deliver a brief historic primer on the smart proportion laws, in particular copyrights. To begin with, a copyright is used to protect creative rather than industrial engineers. No formal registration is required to gain protection of a establishment. 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, 2004Taylor, Chris. attack of the Movie Snatchers. Time Online Edition. November 2004. http//www. clock.com/time/insidebiz/article/0,9171,1 101041011-709042,00.html . accessed on November 16th, 2004 Jardin, Xeni. P2P in the sound Crosshairs. WIRED March, 2004. http//www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,62665,00.html . accessed on November 16th 2004Dean, Katie. Film Piracy Steals the fork over. WIRED. December 2003 http//www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,61673,00.html . accessed Nov. 16, 20041 MSNBC, November 16th/20042 Attallah, Shade. 20023 Attallah, Shade. 20024 Attallah, Shade. 20025 Chris Taylor, TIME Oct. 20046 Taylor, 20047 Xeni Jardin, WIRED, may 20048 Taylor, 20049 Straubhaar, Media Now, 200210 Seradini, Video while International, 200211 Dean, Wired, 2003 The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) vs. P2P EssayThe Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) vs. P2PIt 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 s alvo, 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 RIAAs ongoing legal offensive, are meant to intimidate other P2P users to cease and desist any illegal activities involving movies1. 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 intellec tual 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, 2004Taylor, Chris. 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. P2P in the Legal Crosshairs. WIRED March, 2004. http//www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,62665,00.html . accessed on November 16th 2004Dean, Katie. Film Piracy Steals the Show. WIRED. December 2003 http//www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,61673,00.html . accessed Nov. 16, 20041 MSNBC, November 16th/2 0042 Attallah, Shade. 20023 Attallah, Shade. 20024 Attallah, Shade. 20025 Chris Taylor, TIME Oct. 20046 Taylor, 20047 Xeni Jardin, WIRED, may 20048 Taylor, 20049 Straubhaar, Media Now, 200210 Seradini, Video Age International, 200211 Dean, Wired, 2003