Torrential Debate: BitTorrent and Copyright in Canada
The Canadian Intellectual Property Review (CIPR) is a double-blind peer reviewed journal. It is sent to over 1,800 IPIC members at no cost and can be purchased by non-members for a fee. If you would like to browse the articles included in the CIPR, please consult our database below.
Any author, member or non-member can submit an article for consideration in the CIPR. The CIPR Editorial Board welcomes both short pieces (2,000 to 5,000 words) that may be included in the Notes section of the issue or longer, more in-depth articles. The maximum length of articles, including references, is 20,000 words. Articles may be submitted in French or English. Each article should be accompanied by a 150-word abstract.
All submissions undergo a double-blind review process: the reviewers are not given the authors' identities and the identities of the reviewers are shielded from the authors. Additionally, articles submitted must be original and must not have been previously published elsewhere.
If you would like to submit an article for an upcoming issue of the CIPR please contact admin@ipic.ca.
Canadian Intellectual Property Review
Share
Torrential Debate: BitTorrent and Copyright in Canada
Issue: Volume 25 no 2
Author(s): Thomas Kurys
Abstract:
BitTorrent™ is the latest protocol in a series of peer-to-peer file-sharing programs. As with other Internet file-sharing programs before it, there is great debate surrounding its legality. Copyright owners around the world are demanding that BitTorrent sites be shut down. In response, site owners argue that they are providing a legal service that does not infringe copyright. This paper examines legal opinions and cases in both Canada and abroad to address the legality of BitTorrent under the current copyright regime in Canada. It is argued that the operators of BitTorrent indexing sites and trackers are not liable for copyright infringement if they do not promote the infringement of copyright using their programs. Rather, this paper suggests that copyright is infringed by the leeches who reproduce works and by the seeders who communicate works to the public and authorize reproduction.
