Benjamin Hershkowitz, an intellectual-property attorney at Kenyon & Kenyon in New York said the letters are consistent with an effort to profit from the technology, rather than prevent people from using it. "If you wanted to keep your technology exclusive to you, you try to shut people down by getting an injunction. But if you want to exploit your technology, you do it through licensing. They're trying to collect their tax, if you want to call it that, on what's being done."
Although all peer-to-peer companies are in the midst of fighting off legal and regulatory challenges, Kazaa has declined to join forces with other P2P companies.
At a recent Federal Trade Commission workshop on file sharing, the head of the peer-to-peer industry's main lobbying group -- P2P United -- said Sharman would "never" be a member of that organization. Kazaa retains its own separate lobbyist.
Rosso said Sharman -- which most people in the peer-to-peer community mention in the same breath with Altnet -- has never been interested in collaborating with its smaller peers.
"They're completely non-communicative and if you're able to somehow get in touch with someone, they're extremely arrogant," Rosso said. "They've always tried to force their will on everybody else and this is a problem. They have the big dog syndrome."
"Kazaa is totally self-serving," said P2Pnet's Newton. "Its interests are totally around getting themselves in the best position to exploit users and the market."
Sharman Networks and the Recording Industry Association of America declined to comment for this story.
washingtonpost.com Staff Writer Robert MacMillan contributed to this story.
