Tension is starting to build between copyright holders and Internet service providers over who should police other file-swapping networks poised to step in as Napster's replacement.
Record industry representatives have contacted ISPs in more than a hundred cases over the last few weeks alone, asking them to shut down or otherwise block access to subscribers' computers that are offering Napster-like file-trading facilities.
This is a common practice when a subscriber is offering copyrighted material on a Web page or FTP site hosted by the ISP, for example.
But in a peer-to-peer model, songs and other copyrighted material are located on individual computers, not the host's servers. This has prompted some ISPs to say that the record industry and copyright holders are overstepping their bounds.
"The content community would like ISPs to act as a global police force, and that's not their job," said Dave McClure, chief executive of the United States Internet Industry Association (USIIA), the main ISP trade association.
"It seems to me that ISPs don't have the obligation or even the right to monitor the data on their subscribers' hard drives."
Reluctance by ISPs to pursue alleged copyright violators into their homes could make it costly for content owners to bring infringers to heel. But even if ISPs refused to cooperate fully with copyright holders, it's unlikely they would be able to provide consumers with a perfect shield from enforcement actions.
Nevertheless, policies on peer-to-peer file sharing could hold important consequences for consumer privacy.
Today ISPs do not interfere with the content on subscribers' hard drives. If they accept the role of policing peer-to-peer connections, even at the copyright holders' requests, it will significantly expand the ISPs' power over their subscribers' personal equipment and online actions.
In some cases, they could pull the plug on subscribers who have shared music or operated Napster-like services, a step ISPs say they are loathe to take against peer-to-peer participants.
A grey area?
The points of contention are a few provisions in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), a 1998 law that was passed only after lengthy negotiations between copyright companies, telecommunications giants, and ISPs.
As a part of that law, the ISPs won so-called safe harbours, which shield them from being liable for copyrighted material posted on their networks as long as they take down material when it is identified by the copyright holders.
