P2P infringement cases are fascinating for several reasons. They are the essence of my argument the intersection of law and technology is going to be a significant one in the future once courts become more widely cognizant of the difference between abstraction and implementation. A case I am keeping tabs on now ACHTE/NEUNTE v DOES 1-2,094 is interesting because of the argument advanced regarding the BitTorrent protocol.
To review, with BitTorrent and most modern P2P protocols an individual offers to share a file. Various users locate files of interest to them. Traditionally, in the BitTorrent model the users locate a torrent file from a search engine or some other source, the torrent file points to a tracker which delivers a list of contacts to the program who have portions of the desired file. The program requests parts of the file from a variety of sources and reassembles the file once all the parts are downloaded.
Continue reading →
P2P lawsuits examined with graph theory
P2P infringement cases are fascinating for several reasons. They are the essence of my argument the intersection of law and technology is going to be a significant one in the future once courts become more widely cognizant of the difference between abstraction and implementation. A case I am keeping tabs on now ACHTE/NEUNTE v DOES 1-2,094 is interesting because of the argument advanced regarding the BitTorrent protocol.
To review, with BitTorrent and most modern P2P protocols an individual offers to share a file. Various users locate files of interest to them. Traditionally, in the BitTorrent model the users locate a torrent file from a search engine or some other source, the torrent file points to a tracker which delivers a list of contacts to the program who have portions of the desired file. The program requests parts of the file from a variety of sources and reassembles the file once all the parts are downloaded.
Continue reading →