Later this year, the Supreme Court will decide MGM v. Grokster, a lawsuit brought by motion-picture and record producers against Grokster and StreamCast peer-to-peer, or P2P, file-sharing networks. P2P technology allows users to easily share copyrighted movies and songs for free with little risk of being caught. While the case is predominantly about copyright law, we believe that it is critically important for another reason–fighting the battle against child pornography. At stake is the ability of law enforcement to identify and prosecute child pornographers who use P2P networks to traffic illegal images that victimize children. This is why each of our organizations recently joined a diverse coalition in filing an amicus brief in the case.
Disturbingly, P2P networks are emerging as a major conduit for the distribution of child pornography, according to a 2003 study by the U.S. General Accounting Office. In a search of one P2P network, twelve known keywords quickly identified more than 500 child pornography files. In another search by the U.S Customs CyberSmuggling Center, a mere three keywords swiftly produced more than 150 files containing child exploitation.
Similarly, NCMEC has found that P2P technology is increasingly popular for the dissemination of child pornography. Using P2P, pedophiles are able to download larger files–such as graphic child-porn movies with sound–which they cannot easily obtain through websites or E-mail. As one of the amici noted in the brief “peer-to-peer programs have made it more difficult to identify users…. The anonymity of recent peer-to-peer technology has allowed individuals who exploit children to trade images and movies featuring the sexual assault of children with very little fear of detection.”
For example, P2P companies Grokster and StreamCast disabled mechanisms to monitor and control activity on their networks. They deliberately want to know less, not more, about the material they help traffic. By engaging in this head-in-the-sand behavior, the companies have reaped millions in advertising revenues by continuing to facilitate copyright violations and the spread of illegal material. While their profits have climbed, law enforcement’s job of apprehending Internet criminals has become much more difficult.
In its decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals blessed this irresponsible business strategy, and found that the new P2P companies were not liable for copyright violations because they had intentionally surrendered control over their networks. The decision to endorse this evasive strategy has implications far beyond copyright law. If allowed to stand, the Ninth Circuit’s ruling would encourage P2P companies to deliberately avoid knowledge of or control over any illegal conduct on their networks, whether it be copyright infringement or the trafficking in images of sexual assaults of children.
–Penny Nance is president of the Kids First Coalition. Ernie Allen is CEO of the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children. Chuck Canterbury is president of the National Fraternal Order of Police.