It’s an intriguing truth that Copyright law is entwined with the online file shar-ing technologies, both shares an immense relationship whether worse or good.  An early scrimmage between the U.S government and file sharing technologies like Napster (1999), FastTrack/KaZaA, WinMX, LimeWire, and Bit-Torrent (2001) has yielded a lesson to the P2P developers about the legal consequences of the piracy of artistic work of others. With, the emergence of ‘Internet’ valuable digital data can be copied, shared and downloaded over the internet easily. According to a recent survey done by the McKinsey, in the area of impact of the internet on the economies around the globe. The report shows that “the internet account for, on average, 3.4% of GDP across the large economies that make the 70 % of global GDP.”  Not only the large enterprises are using it but the common people are also reaping the benefit of the technology, around 45% of the world population is using the internet according to the report of statistics of the In-ternet World Stats. Hence, it becomes a duty to regulate it. The “IFPI” in a survey found that almost 20 billion songs were illegally downloaded in 2005.

 P2P Sharing Conceptual Approach

 Today, our main concern is not “how we play media files but where it comes from and what we do with it.” Challenges are huge before the lawmakers to legislate and regulate the P2P file sharing over the network. P2P has created a very easy way of sharing files over the internet and downloading without concerning about the incentives and royalties of the creator / owner / publisher / Broadcaster.  P2P enables the user to transfer file, videos and spreadsheet to any part of the world over the internet a ready to easy made transfer infrastructure. And nearly untraceable system makes them, even more, prone to the cyber security and encourages criminal activity. Modern peer to peer network is slightly more advanced than the early one like those of Napster and others. Unlike, today’s network, Napster was not a pure peer-to-peer network since it maintained lists on its central servers of connected systems and the files they had available to share. Todays, networks are highly decentralized than those of its predecessors. Still it works on the same principle.

 Replication: Replica of the file is being made and saved over the wide network and then it is downloaded from the various network. Even if a large network is being taken offline, it will not hamper the files being distributed over the vast network. Redundancy: in this form of network connection are established to many peers over the network. If one peer is removed, then the client can attach to the other peer available online. In this type, the

other peers suggest the newly attached the other source to which they can get attached to replenish the lost peer. Issue Concerning the Problem Today for a copyright lawyer, every unauthorized reproduction, and distribution of file-sharing over the internet systems should create a suspicious from the outset. There is tremendous pressure on the government across the glove to stop piracy over the internet. As free downloading is taking away the market of these big enterprises and putting them into a vulnerable situation. Big enterprises claim to suffer a huge loss due to P2P network downloading. Availability of files has led a very adverse effect on the sales, as the consumers are unwilling to pay the higher prices. To counter this owner slashes down the prices, which in return attract the consumer, earlier who were not ready to buy it, are now will-ingly ready to buy. And it has declined the sale and cost a huge loss to the industry. In P2P file sharing technology, which involves participant providing open access to their data stored on their hard disk and computers. This leads to a very vulnerable position as their personal data can be accessed by anyone from anywhere. The risk includes

• Breach of privacy/loss of personal information. As most of the people store their per-sonal data (bank account details, financial statements etc.) on their personal computers and laptops. Through, P2P network it becomes easily available to others to access their hard drive.
• Spyware. It is used by hackers to install spyware on laptops and computer. This Spy-ware installed monitor’s keystroke activity and let the hackers ascertain passwords.
• Viruses. Viruses are often spread through P2P applications.
• Exposure to legal risk. Imprudent use of P2P file sharing can result in a dreadful situa-tion to its users. users may subject to legal action due to unauthorised downloading or distribution of copyright material (eg. child pornography). Legal Intersection with P2P File-Sharing So, further, in this paper I will focus on two kinds of liability or Infringement

 (1) first one is “Direct Infringement” and (2) The Second one would be “Contributory and Vicarious Infringement”

 1.Direct Infringement So, the real question lies here is whether the sharing of files over the internet is au-thorized by the copyright law or otherwise permitted under copyright Act (as fair use).

 If not, then what is the extent of their liability, are these end-users the one called “direct infringers” as they have directly violated exclusive rights of the copyright owner’s. In a widely-used network structure, it is certain that at least some end-users are engaged in activity that moral rights of the creators and the copyright owners.

2.“Contributory” And “Vicarious” Infringement Why are we shifting the liability on those who develop and distribute peer-to-peer file-sharing tools? After all, the developer has no direct involvement in the whole file shar-ing process. However, the reach of Copyright law is beyond the direct infringers. As it was the developer who provided the platform for the safe distribution of those file over the network, it there won’t be any such platform, then this file sharing would not have taken place.

3.Key elements for proving liability i.Contributory infringement It is somewhat similar to “aiding and abetting” in the criminal activity: “one who, with knowledge of the infringing activity, induces, causes, or materially contributes to the infringing conduct of another, may be held liable as a contributory infringer.” In or-der to prove contributory infringement, a copyright owner must have to prove:

• Direct Infringement by someone.
• Knowledge: about the activity, at least, a little info about the activity being done.
• Material Contribution: if the accused induces, causes, or materially contributed to the underlying activity. Then merely providing such evidence may make the accused an infringer of the copyright violation.

 ii.Vicarious Infringement

 In P2P network sharing of files, a person is said to be liable for vicarious infringe-ment if he supervenes the activity of the

direct infringer or financedthe activities of the developers.

Thus, copyright owner must prove the following: Direct Infringement: by someone. Right and Ability to Supervene: The accused vicarious supervene and control the ac-tivity of the developer. Direct Financial Benefit: The accused vicariously derives a “direct financial benefit” from the underlying activity of P2P file sharing over the network. Even if you remain ignorant of the activities, but, a financial assistance has been done by you and you enjoy a control over the actives you will be liable.

Indian Law Combating P2P Network

 Sharing Copyright is the set of exclusive rights granted to the author or creator of an original work, including the right to copy, distribute and adapt the work. It gives protection for the expression of the ideas. In INDIA copyright is governed by The Copyright Act of 1957, The Copyright Rules, 1958 and the International Copyright Order, 1999. Section 14 of the copyright Act defines the term “copyright”. Section 13 talks about the area in which copyright will subsists. Provided that the author dead or alive should be citizen of India, at the time of first publication whether in India or outside. In case of un-published work, he should be citizen of India. Moreover, Section 51 talks about when an act is said to infringe the copyright. In the present case downloading will fall under 51 a (i). However, there is an exception to this clause as given under 51 b (iv) which says that when any person imports/downloads one copy for private and domestic use then it is a valid use of that downloading. This clause is a valid defence with downloaders across the globe as they are downloading the material stored in the servers outside India. Hence, it’s a kind of importing, the work protected under copyright. Also, the downloader does not download the same thing more than twice and hence it will be a single copy of that work that is being use and download by him, which is allowed under Section 51 b (iv). Section 2 dd defines broadcast and 39 (a) talks about when making the audio/video recording for the private use with bona-fide intention then no case of broadcast reproduction right or performer’s right is said to be infringed. If we to use this section, then the downloading done is a recording being uploaded on the servers and it’s is being downloaded for private use for teaching or research work with bona-fide intention. Hence, it qualifies to be a valid downloading.

is an exception to this clause as given under 51 b (iv) which says that when any person imports/downloads one copy for private and domestic use then it is a valid use of that downloading. This clause is a valid defence with downloaders across the globe as they are downloading the material stored in the servers outside India. Hence, it’s a kind of importing, the work protected under copyright. Also, the downloader does not download the same thing more than twice and hence it will be a single copy of that work that is being use and download by him, which is allowed under Section 51 b (iv). Section 2 dd defines broadcast and 39 (a) talks about when making the audio/video recording for the private use with bona-fide intention then no case of broadcast reproduction right or performer’s right is said to be infringed. If we to use this section, then the downloading done is a recording being uploaded on the servers and it’s is being downloaded for private use for teaching or research work with bona-fide intention. Hence, it qualifies to be a valid downloading.

Global Countries Combating P2P

Files Sharing The United States of America, the most advanced country of all. Earlier they had a different perspective as to the P2P sharing but after Napster and several other cas-es they started making these developers vicariously liable for the copyright infringement.

Canada is the only developed country, where it is legal to share a file over the “internet”. As in the case of BMG Canada Inc. v John Doe, “the court decided that both downloading music audio and videos do not infringe the copyright of the right holder. It led to harsh criticism from other countries and organization.  The United Kingdom is also not so from the rest of the world, according to Digital Economy Act, 2010, any act of illegally downloading and sharing will have serious repercussions for both website host and technological proprietor.

Solution to the Problem

• A centralized policy should be adopted to deal with the problem.
• Give up EULA, instead, a local vendor should be given little autonomy to decide the terms and condition as they are the ultimate sellers.
• Legalizing the file sharing could prevent further loss and taxing the activity would generate some revenue and minimise some loss.
• Prohibiting from open source network as this could lead to huge loss and would promote the illegal hacking of private info fro

Conclusion .

When stakes are high you cannot simply ignore the caveat. With great benefit, it has brought with us, has brought many vulnerabilities to its users. Security risk has been risen to an alarming situation, due to a continuous access to personal information from our computers. The widely popularising trend has made the thinkers and legislators to ponder on the growing concerns. Certainly, it was developed with a vision of benefiting the common people, but it has shifted from its vision and started harming people. Thought, harm is not to such extend as it is benefiting it. But we should never forget that every mad dog across the street is lethal to the people moving across the streets. As of now, the best we can do is to stay away from the P2P technology, to further slacken our damage.

-Askahsnh VIshvakarma