P2P Software

I downloaded the beta version of Joost to take a look at the license terms that a commercial P2P might use. Joost allows you to watch high quality video for free, in return for watching a commercial or two. Joost uses P2P technology to distribute the video, but locks it up so that it can't be further distributed. I thought two things would be interesting from a legal perspective: how the company protects the content, and how it protects itself from claims that its P2P technology has harmed the user's computer.

The answer to the first question is pretty straight forward - the software used to display videos prevents users from saving the videos to their personal computers. While I didn't look into this in detail, I assume it involves at a minimum some sort of encryption technology. Accordingly, the license agreement prohibits you from taking measures to defeat the copy protection features of the software. Nor are you allowed to reverse engineer it. Terms of this type are fairly common in distribution licenses.

The answer to the second question is interesting. The license specifically disclaims any obligation to protect the contents of user's computers, since, naturally, the resources of your computer will be used to further distribute the content. However, Joost has undertaken an obligation to take measures to protect the privacy of data on a user's computer, and the integrity of their system. Although you agree to release Joost from liability or damages should the software transmit private data, be used by another user to access your personal data, or damage your computer, the fact that they have agreed to take measures to prevent this is instructive.

What this indicates to me is that users of the technology remain wary of how the technology might be used by others. Indeed the fact that this provision is in the license agreement which, I've been told, no one reads, rather than in an FAQ where it would be more prominent, shows how important this reassurance must be to users.

This type of reassurance reminds me of the time when hosts were encouraged to post their "cookie policies" on their websites to reassure privacy sensitive customers. For hosts, it serves as an example of the fact that this technology is not fully accepted by the general public. This fact may make courts less likely to accept the typical, "we're not liable for anything, in any amount, at any time" contract language. As a result, hosts may need to be prepared to make assertions similar to those made by Joost.