Legal aspects of file sharing

v. Rapidshare AG in Germany (Legal case: OLG Düsseldorf, Judgement of 22 March 2010, Az I-20 U 166/09 dated 22 March 2010) the Düsseldorf higher regional court examined claims related to alleged infringing activity and reached the conclusion on appeal that "most people utilize RapidShare for legal use cases"[2] and that to assume otherwise was equivalent to inviting "a general suspicion against shared hosting services and their users which is not justified".

[4] In January 2012 the United States Department of Justice seized and shut down the file hosting site Megaupload.com and commenced criminal cases against its owners and others.

Their indictment concluded that Megaupload differed from other online file storage businesses, suggesting a number of design features of its operating model as being evidence showing a criminal intent and venture.

The case did not, however, create a clear precedent that Australian ISPs could never be held liable for the copyright infringement of their users by virtue of providing an internet connection.

It was shut down by the State Administration of Radio Film and Television for not obtaining a license to legally distribute media such as audio and video files.

The European Parliament passed a non-binding resolution in April 2008 admonishing laws that would require ISPs to disconnect their users and would prevent individuals from acquiring access to broadband.

[15][16] In a number of European countries attempts to implement a graduated response have led to court cases to establish under which circumstances an ISP may provide subscriber data to the content industry.

Internet service providers routinely transmit the identity of IP address owners to private lawyer firms who are then able to send "cease and desist" letters often demanding the offender to pay €1,000 fines or more.

[20] In May 2010, Irish internet provider Eircom have announced they will cut off the broadband connection of subscribers suspected of copyright infringement on peer-to-peer file sharing networks.

Since 2018, following a decision by the Ministry of Justice, there is an organization which guarantees that artists and rights holders get a compensation for copies of their works made for private use.

File sharing in North Korea is done by hand with physical transport devices such as computer disk drives, due to lack of access to the Internet.

[30] Because official channels are heavily dominated by government propaganda and outside media is banned, illegally traded files are a unique view into the outside world for North Koreans.

[29] In March 2009, South Korea passed legislation that gave internet users a form of three strikes for unlawful file sharing with the intention of curbing online theft.

With help from local internet service providers, the CCSTB&C have gained access and formed communication channels to specific file sharing users.

In 2006, the record industry's attempts to criminalize file sharing were thwarted when Judge Paz Aldecoa declared it legal to download indiscriminately in Spain, if done for private use and without any intent to profit,[34][35] and the head of the police's technology squad has publicly said "No pasa nada.

[38][39][40][41][42] In another decision from May 2009,[43] a judge ruled in favor of a person engaged in the private, non-commercial file-sharing of thousands of movies, even though the copying was done without the consent of the copyright owners.

The Spanish Supreme Court has ruled that personal data associated with an IP address may only be disclosed in the course of a criminal investigation or for public safety reasons.

The judge responsible for the court ruling stated that "P2P networks are mere conduits for the transmission of data between Internet users, and on this basis they do not infringe rights protected by Intellectual Property laws".

The approved legislation will mean that website owners who are earning "direct or indirect profit," such as via advertising links, from pirated content can be imprisoned for up to six years.

[53] The Digital Economy Bill proposed that internet service providers (ISPs) issue warnings by sending letters to those downloading copyrighted files without authorization.

The Digital Economy Bill incorporated a graduated response policy despite the alleged file sharer not necessarily having to be convicted of copyright offences.

Conversely, the Liberal Democrat party spokesman for Culture and Media claimed the bill was reckless and dangerous stating that children could unwittingly be file sharing causing an entire family to lose their internet connection.

[64] In October 2009 TalkTalk launched its Don't Disconnect Us campaign asking people to sign a petition against the proposal to cut off the internet connections of those accused of unauthorized file sharing.

Formed in 2009 and intending to enter candidates in the 2010 UK general election, the Pirate Party advocates reform to copyright and patent laws and a reduction in government surveillance.

"[71] The court found that Napster did receive a financial benefit, and had the right and ability to supervise the activity, meaning that the plaintiffs demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim of vicarious infringement.

In summary, these exclusive rights cover the reproduction, adaptation, publication, performance, and display of a copyrighted work (subject to limitations such as fair use).

On remand, the lower court found Streamcast, the maker of Morpheus software, to be liable for its customers' copyright infringements, based upon the specific facts of that case.

[104] Under US law "the Betamax decision" (Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.), holds that copying "technologies" are not inherently illegal, if substantial non-infringing use can be made of them.

Although this decision predated the widespread use of the Internet, in MGM v. Grokster, the U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged the applicability of the Betamax case to peer-to-peer file sharing, and held that the networks could not be liable for merely providing the technology, absent proof that they had engaged in "inducement."

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) seeks to protect and expand digital rights through litigation, political lobbying, and public awareness campaigns.