Technology

The internet has been a huge boon for most people as it opened new doors of cooperation and sharing of information of all people from all countries. However, the increased access to the same near unlimited sources are also causing new problems to surface, like breach of privacy, newer and arguably more dangerous delivery methods of criminal activity, the glorification and objectification of senseless violence and perversion to name a few. But this fast, free and flowing exchange of information has brought havoc to the music and movie industries in the form of copyright infringement. The fast pace of the improvements of computer and internet technology has given people more options to deal with entertainment, from music to movies. One of these technologies is what people and IT experts call Peer-to-Peer file sharing protocol, and one of the most common and prevalent is BitTorrent, which is used to activate Peer-to-Peer (P2P) file sharing protocols when large files are concerned. In 2009, it is estimated that in 43 of all internet traffic, BitTorrent is involved directly or indirectly (torrentfreak.com, 2009).

In Australia, a recent case involving Internet Service Provider (ISP) iiNet is directly responsible for copyright infringement of all its users, according to a coalition of 34 applicants (which includes media giants Warner Bros., Disney, Universal, Paramount, Roadshow, Sony, and 20th Century Fox) led and represented by the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT). AFACTs role was primarily to collect evidence, but their relationship with their high-profile is unclear. AFACT claimed that in using the internet services offered by iiNet, people are committing acts of copyright infringement (crikey.com, 2010) The case did show some truths about the internet users of Australia, as people are committing copyright infringement, but the numbers are lower than expected nor claimed by AFACT. In addition, the case dismissed the claim made by AFACT that the ISP iiNet is directly responsible for the transfer of copyrighted material, as the court found out that the P2P file sharing protocols are mainly being done via BitTorrent, wherein iiNet is just a means where BitTorrent can be used, hence the junking of the case against iiNet. The court said that iiNet is a legitimate facility for communication, and being a facility for communication, is not primarily designed and created to break copyright.
 
Who are the people behind the scenes of this case, what were their perspectives and what were they fighting for What interests do they have in this case Beginning with the policy problem, from one perspective this can look like a run-off-the-mill copyright infringement case, but this can have a global impact and significance, as it can determine the kind of internet that people use. Internet users around the world enjoy a near-unlimited amount of freedom in their internet access, and any form of repression and censorship is a major debate. China actively censors websites, which conflicts with search engine Googles ethos of freedom (the companys motto is Dont be evil.) that led to the companys pull out of the Chinese market just recently. Its more of a question that should the internet be restrained, controlled, and at times censored or should the vast sources of information be kept open and free to all

First among the stakeholders of the iiNet case is of course the ISP, iiNet. The ISP is Australias third largest, and is, from the courts words A legitimate communication facility (Australian Federal Court, 2010). They are mainly motivated by profit and the continuation of their services to the people in the form of internet. This is a primary stakeholder, as the result of the case can directly lead to a positive or a negative outcome. If iiNet lost, this can mean a termination of their operations, and could have a domino effect on the ISPs present in Australia. A victory (which ultimately happened) can ensure the continued operation of the ISP, as well as the continuation of their service as a means of communication via the internet. Their role in information policy is mainly on feedback to policymakers, as ISPs tend to maximize their offerings to the paying public by offering higher bandwith, easier, more reliable connections, and of course a freer environment for internet users to do their business. A heavily moderated ISP would not have as much customers (and profits) compared to a more open, full-speed-ahead ISP.

The next stakeholder would definitely be the AFACT and the people behind the lawsuit. Much like the ISP, the AFACT represents the interests of the entertainment and media companies that chose to side with AFACT to pursue a legal case against iiNet. They are also wary of the profits they lose due to copyright infringement, and in this case instead of going after individuals who practice infringement, decided to go for the source the ISP. Both stakeholders are primarily driven by profit, but both have different means AFACTs backers offer goods and services mainly for entertainment, like music and movies, while iiNets profits are driven by people who use the internet as a means of communication and information exchange. Like the ISP, its contribution to information policy is on feedback, with the addition of initiatives to protect their interests and intellectual properties by the force of law.

The next stakeholder is the people behind the technology BitTorrent. Primarily known as a file sharing protocol over the internet, people are using BitTorrent technology to circumvent the traditional means of enjoying entertainment like going to record bars or going to movie theaters. People will defend BitTorrent as a legitimate information-sharing tool, while the industries will denounce it as a pirates best friend. The implications to policy will be to how will the developers of BitTorrent handle the situation, will they comply to the rule of law or exploit more loopholes in the existing policies. BitTorrent is distributed for free, and in a way it embodies the spirit of the internet a huge ocean of information that one can freely fish.

The last stakeholder is the internet user. It is the person who uses the internet that really matters. Whether the person uses the internet to study or copy movies and music for free, the internet user always has the last say. The internet user has the capability to influence policy by the way the user uses the internet. A heavily regulated internet can bring users together to find loopholes, much like what BitTorrent is claimed to do by AFACT and their supporters. The internet user has many interpretations of the use of the internet, and its by their interpretation that dictates how they use it. A user has the capability to influence providers and companies by desiring better and cheaper services. They have the capability to push internet technology and the  freedom to go whatever site they use. The individual interest of the individual user of the internet is a potent force in policy.