News 

The movie industry is particularly incensed by Scour Exchange (SX), a program that allows Internet users to trade multimedia files by directly sharing their own hard disks. The MPAA is joined in its lawsuit by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), which recently filed its own suit against Napster, a service that facilitates the exchange of music files in a similar manner. Indeed, MPAA president Jack Valenti claims that, "Scour is Napster with movies" and that it "knowingly and systematically participates in, facilitates and encourages piracy".

According to Valenti, some 25,000 users were logged on to SX when he decided to experience the service for himself. Those people were allegedly exchanging some of the most recent film releases - the MPAA press statement cites The Perfect Storm and Mission: Impossible 2 as examples - that were clearly identifiable as infringing copies. The MPAA claims that, in addition to facilitating this activity, Scour is benefiting financially from the infringement and is doing nothing to stop it, despite being able to do so.

Although Scour is not actually selling the bootleg copies itself, the fact that this material is available on its service makes it more attractive to potential users, argues the MPAA - and therein lies the financial benefit, adding yet another head of

Dan Rodrigues, President of Scour, expressed surprise at the lawsuit, not least because he has been involved in discussions with representatives from the major studios, with a view to developing a royalty-oriented distribution system. "All of our services are legal," he claims, although it would be difficult to argue that SX is not in reality being put to illegal use. One interesting twist to the story is that Michael Ovitz, the Hollywood agent who acts for several of leading names in the industry, owns 25 per cent of Scour. According to Rodrigues, Ovitz holds an "active interest" in Scour and controls two of the six seats on the company's board of directors (although he personally occupies neither).

As ever, the lawsuit is not as clear-cut as either party makes out. While both Scour and Napster are undeniably used by a great many people who engage in flagrant breach of copyright, the companies argue that there is nothing inherently unlawful in allowing people to exchange media files. After all, these services can be used to swap home videos as well as Hollywood blockbusters, and the technologies themselves aren't to blame - it's the insidious freeloaders who want something for nothing that are at fault.

Of course, only the irredeemably na've genuinely believe that infringing copies constitute anything less than 99.9% of the material circulating on the likes of Scour (and especially Napster), and the MPAA and RIAA argue that their operators are well aware that this activity is going on right under their noses. The question is: should they be allowed to carry on turning a blind eye, or should they be forced to do something about it?

What do YOU think?

Joel Harrison