IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/telpol/v38y2014i1p66-85.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Policy implications of technology for detecting P2P and copyright violations

Author

Listed:
  • Peha, Jon M.
  • Mateus, Alexandre M.

Abstract

The effectiveness of many proposed policies regarding both online copyright protection and network neutrality depend on the extent to which it is technically possible to detect peer-to-peer file sharing (P2P), the transfer of copyrighted files, or both. There are many detection approaches, some performed primarily by network operators and some by application-layer agents. This paper describes capabilities, limitations, privacy issues, and policy implications of detection technologies and their countermeasures, in part through quantitative analysis of empirical data. Different approaches are better for different purposes. Network operators are well-positioned to estimate how widespread copyright violations are, but application-layer detection from outside entities has important advantages when the purpose is punishment. Detection is also imperfect, so policies should require more transparency regarding how it is done than we see today. It is shown that, although network operators may not detect every transfer, and they typically miss more video than audio, they can identify most individuals who share copyrighted files via P2P after several weeks of monitoring provided that traffic is unencrypted, which is useful for some purposes. However, it is also shown that encryption is already in use, and it effectively prevents network operators from detecting transfers of copyrighted content. Thus, if network operators are held responsible for monitoring illegal file sharing, there is a tension between using detection to identify violators of copyright law for punishment, which may motivate even greater use of encryption, and using detection for other purposes such as creating fair compensation schemes for copyright-holders, warning users that they may be violating copyright law, or allocating network resources. Alternatively, there are forms of detection that are not evaded through encryption, and application-layer agents rather than network operators are primarily responsible for these. These copyright policy issues are intertwined with network neutrality policy in subtle ways. Network neutrality rules do not protect illegal transfers of copyrighted content, but if network operators are responsible for enforcement (as in “graduated response”) then regulators must determine when it is reasonable to terminate or degrade service based on allegations of copyright violation given the limitations of detection technology to prove those allegations. Allegations of copyright violation should be considered invalid unless they are accompanied with information about how detection was performed and an opportunity for rebuttal. Such transparency has been routinely lacking in both laws and industry agreements.

Suggested Citation

  • Peha, Jon M. & Mateus, Alexandre M., 2014. "Policy implications of technology for detecting P2P and copyright violations," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 66-85.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:telpol:v:38:y:2014:i:1:p:66-85
    DOI: 10.1016/j.telpol.2013.04.007
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308596113000669
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.telpol.2013.04.007?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mueller, Milton L. & Asghari, Hadi, 2012. "Deep packet inspection and bandwidth management: Battles over BitTorrent in Canada and the United States," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 462-475.
    2. Posner, Richard A, 1992. "When Is Parody Fair Use?," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 21(1), pages 67-78, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Steven James Watson & Daniel John Zizzo & Piers Fleming, 2015. "Determinants of Unlawful File Sharing: A Scoping Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-23, June.
    2. Steven J. Watson & Daniel J. Zizzo & Piers Fleming, 2017. "Risk, Benefit, and Moderators of the Affect Heuristic in a Widespread Unlawful Activity: Evidence from a Survey of Unlawful File‐Sharing Behavior," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(6), pages 1146-1156, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Alexander Cuntz & Matthias Sahli, 2024. "Intermediary liability and trade in follow-on innovation," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 48(1), pages 1-42, March.
    2. Stan J. Liebowitz & Richard Watt, 2006. "How To Best Ensure Remuneration For Creators In The Market For Music? Copyright And Its Alternatives," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(4), pages 513-545, September.
    3. Miceli, Thomas J. & Adelstein, Richard P., 2006. "An economic model of fair use," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 359-373, November.
    4. Michael Rushton, 2011. "Artistic Freedom," Chapters, in: Ruth Towse (ed.), A Handbook of Cultural Economics, Second Edition, chapter 6, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    5. Sedlmeir, Joachim & Hopf, Stefan & Neuburger, Rahild & Picot, Arnold, 2017. "Convergent Digital Infrastructures and the Role of (Net-)Neutrality," 28th European Regional ITS Conference, Passau 2017 169497, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    6. Robert F. Easley & Hong Guo & Jan Krämer, 2018. "Research Commentary—From Net Neutrality to Data Neutrality: A Techno-Economic Framework and Research Agenda," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 29(2), pages 253-272, June.
    7. Michael Rushton, 2011. "Artists’ Rights," Chapters, in: Ruth Towse (ed.), A Handbook of Cultural Economics, Second Edition, chapter 8, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    8. William M Landes, 2011. "Copyright," Chapters, in: Ruth Towse (ed.), A Handbook of Cultural Economics, Second Edition, chapter 14, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    9. Michael Rushton, 1997. "When in Rome ... Amending Canada's Copyright Act," Canadian Public Policy, University of Toronto Press, vol. 23(3), pages 317-330, September.
    10. Julia Bauer & Nikolaus Franke & Philipp Tuertscher, 2016. "Intellectual Property Norms in Online Communities: How User-Organized Intellectual Property Regulation Supports Innovation," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 27(4), pages 724-750, December.
    11. Wagner, Ben, 2012. "Push-button-autocracy in Tunisia: Analysing the role of Internet infrastructure, institutions and international markets in creating a Tunisian censorship regime," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 484-492.
    12. Grove, Nico & Agic, Damir & Sedlmeir, Joachim, 2013. "Reporting policies of ISPs: Do general terms and conditions (GTCs) match with the reality?," 24th European Regional ITS Conference, Florence 2013 88473, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:telpol:v:38:y:2014:i:1:p:66-85. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/30471/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.