Lakhasly

based on peer-to-peer (P2P) technologies developed by Gnutella. As P2P file-sharing sites have evolved, they have become increasingly decentralized.
Spinello (2008) notes that the methods for indexing the files that are exchanged in P2P systems comprise three categories: (a) a centralized indexing system (such as in the original Napster site), (b) a decentralized indexing system, and (c) a supernode system (where a group of computers can act as indexing servers). Another P2P protocol is Bit Torrent, which enables large files, such entire music CDs, to be exchanged more efficiently through a system of networked computers designated as “peers” and “seeds.” Whereas KaZaA used the supernode system, the Pirate Bay service used the Bit Torrent protocol. (We briefly examined the outcome of the trial involving the Pirate Bay site in Chapter 7.)
The recording industry, in its effort to crack down on illicit file sharing, has not been deterred by the fact that later P2P systems were able to avoid the legal pitfalls surrounding the centralized indexing method used by Napster. Alternatively, the recording industry employed some new strategies and techniques in the ongoing battle with file-sharing sites. For example, it began to track down individuals that it suspected of exchanging proprietary music online. In 2003, the recording industry issued court subpoenas to Internet service providers (ISPs) such as Comcast and Verizon, as well as to major universities, for the names of users who it suspected of downloading and exchanging large volumes of copyrighted music via those online services. While many ISPs and universities complied with the recording industry’s request, Verizon challenged the RIAA in court on the grounds that complying with such requests violated specific articles of the U.S. Constitution (Verizon v. RIAA, 2003). Since that time, most universities have developed strict policies that prohibit the use of their networks to exchange copyrighted music; some have even disabled their P2P file-sharing systems altogether.12
The recording industry has also taken other tacks in its efforts to deter the unauthorized sharing of copyrighted music files online. For example, one way it fought back was by uploading “corrupted” music files onto the popular P2P sites, so that users downloading these files would be discouraged from using those sites again. And in what could be viewed as an even more aggressive attempt to prevent students from freely downloading copyrighted music on university campuses, the RIAA tried to tie the unauthorized downloading of files by college students to a loss of financial aid. Legisla- tion introduced in 2007 to amend and extend the Higher Education Bill of 1965 included the controversial Section 494, entitled Campus-based digital theft prevention. Kalara (2007) points out that under this controversial section of the bill, eligible institutions that participate in the federal aid program would be required to provide “annual disclosure/ warnings to the students applying for or receiving financial aid,” which inform them that “P2P file sharing may subject them to civil and criminal liability.” The bill also would require that the universities offer subscription services to their student bodies, giving them an alternative to illegal file sharing. This legislation was opposed by the American Association of Universities, who worried that many innocent students could be deprived of financial aid, if universities did not comply.13
The debate over sharing copyrighted material in P2P systems has not been limited to copyrighted music files. The motion picture industry has also been concerned about the ease with which copyrighted movies can be freely exchanged in file-sharing systems. In 2003, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM) Studies Inc. sued two P2P file-sharing services.