Home Page
10.17.2007 (previous | next)
The House Oversight Committee Calls for an FTC Investigation of Inadvertent Filesharing

In a letter released today, Chairmax Waxman, Ranking Member Davis, and 18 other members of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform called for the FTC to investigate the recurring problem of inadvertent filesharing.

As someone who has personally investigated this problem, I suspect that when the FTC does investigate, it will be justly outraged. In fact, I suspect that the FTC will discover that during its 2004 investigation of this issue, distributors' misrepresentations and material ommissions led the FTC to perpetuate--or even exacerbate--the very threat to consumers that it intended to remediate.

In short, I suspect that we will learn that when researchers and Congress identify particular features in filesharing programs as causes of inadvertent sharing, it is a really bad idea for corporations distributing those programs to concoct a self-regulatory Code of Conduct to prevent inadvertent sharing, violate it routinely by deploying equally (or more) aggressive versions of features previously shown to cause inadvertent sharing, and then represent to the Federal Trade Commission that their adherence to their Code had made inadvertent sharing a mere "urban myth."

The letter to the FTC should also lead state attorneys general to renew their investigations of inadvertent sharing. In 2004, at about the same time as the FTC, the National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG) raised its concerns about inadvertent sharing with distributors of filesharing programs. While I have never been able to review the representations that were made to NAAG, it would not be surprising to discover that they were as problematic as some of those made to the FTC.

posted by Thomas Sydnor @ 2:26 PM | Enforcement & Remedies, Free Culture Movement, Internet: P2P, Search Engines..., Privacy and Security

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | Post a Comment(0)









 
IPcentral WebLog

Blog Main

IPcentral Blogosphere Archives

Search the Blog

Recent Posts
  - IP and Marginal Cost
- Academics and Copyright
- More on Jammie Thomas from DOJ
- More Studies of Downloading
- Facebook, MySpace, and Network Externalities
- Copyright and the University: An Academic Symposium
- Tyler Cowan on Chinese Movie Piracy
- More WHO Antics--Roger Bate Reports
- Patents, Meds, and the Developing World: Clips & Links
- Jermaine Dupri's Gripe with iTunes
Archives by Month
  - December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
  - (see all)
Archives by Subject
  - Academia
- Access: Commons, Fair Use, Orphan Works, Public Domain
- Accounting
- Analog Holes
- Antitrust
- Art
- Aspen
- Big Tent
- Biotech
- Books
- Comments from Readers
- Counterfeit
- Digital Americas
- Digital Europe
- Digital Europe 2006
- DMCA
- DRM & Watermarks, etc.
- Economics, Game Theory & Public Choice
- Enforcement & Remedies
- Free Culture Movement
- Games
- General
- Infrastructure
- International
- Internet: P2P, Search Engines...
- Legislation and Legislators
- Liberty and IP
- Markets: Business, Investment & Innovation
- Media: Video, Music...
- Patents
- Pharma
- Physical Property
- Prices, Terms, and Licensing
- Privacy and Security
- Radio
- Software
- Spectrum & Wireless
- Standards
- Supreme Court
- Tax-Funded IP
- Telecom
- Theft of Service
- Universities
Links
 

Site Feed

  - Atom
- RSS 1.0
- RSS 2.0
We welcome comments by email - look for a link to the author's email address in the byline of each post. Please let us know if we may publish your remarks.


 
Home Page