Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Government Software News

Kazaa Sues Record Labels 528

Posted by simoniker
from the litigation-fun-for-everyone dept.
dannyp writes "CNN is reporting that Kazaa is suing the record companies, claiming that they used an illegal client to log in to the P2P network - an interesting twist." The lawsuit also claims "...efforts to combat piracy on Kazaa violated terms for using the network."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Kazaa Sues Record Labels

Comments Filter:
  • Suddenly (Score:5, Funny)

    by keesh (202812) * on Wednesday September 24, 2003 @06:31PM (#7050071) Homepage
    I wish I was a lawyer, not an engineer...
    • Re:Suddenly (Score:5, Funny)

      by EvilTwinSkippy (112490) <yoda&etoyoc,com> on Wednesday September 24, 2003 @06:57PM (#7050328) Homepage Journal
      Legal code and computer code have a lot in common. They are incomprehensible to the common man, riddled with logical errors, and open to exploitation an abuse by hacks.
    • Re:Suddenly (Score:5, Insightful)

      by SatanicPuppy (611928) <`Satanicpuppy' `at' `gmail.com'> on Wednesday September 24, 2003 @07:01PM (#7050363) Journal
      Heh. I wish I was a lawyer AND an Engineer. You know the first person who's going to be able to both make a rational argument in court AND understand what the hell he's talking about is going to make a mint.
    • Re:Suddenly (Score:5, Funny)

      by queequeg1 (180099) on Wednesday September 24, 2003 @07:24PM (#7050554)
      Way offtopic, but something to think about if you consider becoming an attorney . . .

      Every once in awhile I run into someone who graduated from law school and, for some unknown reason decided to take up writing, or start a new business, or something else that has nothing to do with law. Despite my favorable experiences practicing law for the past six years, whenever I run into one of these people, I have this disturbing feeling that I'm talking to someone who managed to resist a great and horrible temptation and do something meaningful and worthwhile with their lives. I'm not quite sure what to make of this. The closest analogy (because we lawyers only think in analogies) is that it is like those moments of lucidity that senile elderly people sometimes have, when they suddenly remember everything and don't demonstrate the symptoms of memory loss. Perhaps I'm remembering that I once had a well anchored perception of common sense, decency, and respect for my fellow man.

      oh well, gotta get back to writing that brief.
      • Re:Suddenly (Score:5, Funny)

        by Paradise Pete (33184) on Wednesday September 24, 2003 @08:25PM (#7050941) Journal
        I have this disturbing feeling that I'm talking to someone who managed to resist a great and horrible temptation and do something meaningful and worthwhile with their lives.

        Here we have a sentence which can be parsed as either saying practicing law is a bad thing, or not practicing law is a bad thing. Clearly you are a great lawyer.

    • Re:Suddenly (Score:3, Funny)

      by Alien Being (18488)
      If these lawyers were engineers, there designs would look like this [rube-goldberg.com].
  • Its about fucking time.

    I'm glad there's some legal action going the other way for once.

  • Hmmmm.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by El Pollo Loco (562236) on Wednesday September 24, 2003 @06:33PM (#7050090)
    This is probably a futile move. But yet I can't stop grinning thinking about someone standing up to those people for once. DirecTV being sued as well.....I think perhaps people are tired of being pushed around. That and Kazza stands to lose money.
    • Re:Hmmmm.. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by gl4ss (559668) on Wednesday September 24, 2003 @06:47PM (#7050232) Homepage Journal
      yeah.. well.. i kinda thought that the riaa would have had the sense to not use pirated/cracked/illeagal bytes to hunt for pirated/cracked/illeagal bytes on the internet. it's like bsa using software illeagally from some software company they busted last week.

      heck, if they can do it surely it is okay for me(to gain access to pirated material)...

      • Re:Hmmmm.. (Score:3, Funny)

        by wastaz (634441)
        Yeah, you should check out the secret ftp running on 127.0.0.1, thats where BSA stores all the l33t w4r3z that they take from their busts. It's great! Fast download, has nearly everything, really awesome!
  • by cr@ckwhore (165454) on Wednesday September 24, 2003 @06:33PM (#7050091) Homepage
    must... resist... urge... to ... post.... cliches!

    resisting.... what goes... around... comes around... aaaah... pot... kettle... black... force is stronger... glass houses... AAAAH.

    heh
  • RIAA != Gov (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TwistedSquare (650445) on Wednesday September 24, 2003 @06:34PM (#7050098) Homepage
    I know that a lot of the general public confused the RIAA with the Government in recent lawsuits brought about by the RIAA and this is an interesting case where the RIAA are shown the difference... I imagine an investigating Government body could have ignored Kazaa's terms or got a "search warrant" equivalent.

    But the RIAA have no such powers... Oh except the ones where they can buy really expensive lawyers and win the case anyway. Yeah, those are handy.

    • Yes. So far as the Federal Government is concerned, you can only sue them under certain conditions and only if they let you. Fortunately, the RIAA isn't an arm of the Federal Government, yet.

      I'll get worried when the new Bureau of Homeland Music Security is instituted.
  • by civilengineer (669209) on Wednesday September 24, 2003 @06:34PM (#7050100) Homepage Journal
    if they promise not make any more CDs
  • by bobbabemagnet (247383) on Wednesday September 24, 2003 @06:34PM (#7050101)
    Kazaa recently withdrew their suit after they realized they were suing a 60 year old woman with an iMac. This follows the current trend of trying to give a random old lady a heart attack.
  • It's about time... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Kujah (630784) on Wednesday September 24, 2003 @06:34PM (#7050107) Homepage
    ... that Kazaa started fighting back. I knew those tactics that the RIAA was using (clients that messed up the network, clients that introducted viruses, etc) were on the border of legality - I had almost forgotten that Kazaa (unlike gnutella) is a privately owned network... or protocol... or something. Kudos to Kazaa... now if they only got rid of their spyware...
    • by NanoGator (522640) on Wednesday September 24, 2003 @08:55PM (#7051159) Homepage Journal
      " I had almost forgotten that Kazaa (unlike gnutella) is a privately owned network... or protocol... or something. Kudos to Kazaa... now if they only got rid of their spyware..."

      Hooray for proprietary proto.... hey... put the pitchforks down.
  • by Henry V .009 (518000) on Wednesday September 24, 2003 @06:36PM (#7050121) Journal
    I have always felt that a P2P network could protect itself by requiring in a license to use said network that no users will use the service to collect IP addresses. In that case they could go after the RIAA for either theft of network services or even DMCA abuse for using an illegal client.

    This would not protect network users if law enforcement were to request valid subpoenas for the job, but it would stop non-law enforcement bodies like the RIAA from doing what they are doing now.

    This is using our enemies methods against them, which makes it sweet.
    • Don't mind, the RIAA and similar organisations have more than enough money to get law enforement after suspected pirates.
    • Pyrrhic Victory (Score:2, Interesting)

      by chadjg (615827)
      I think that Kazaa will lose. But could this be a rare win-win situation for most people?

      If Kazaa wins, the RIAA gets screwed. If Kazaa loses, it harms ridiculous "click here to agree" buttons and it hurts the DMCA?

      This is a good thing, but Kazaa people might not see it that way.
      • Re:Pyrrhic Victory (Score:5, Insightful)

        by El (94934) on Wednesday September 24, 2003 @06:59PM (#7050346)
        Problem is, they didn't click on the Kazaa EULA; they used a reverse-engineered version of Kazaa. Nevertheless, it appears the DMCA may apply here. Companies attempting to protect their copyrights should not be allowed to violate the copyrights of others.
        • Re:Pyrrhic Victory (Score:3, Interesting)

          by ruiner13 (527499)
          "Problem is, they didn't click on the Kazaa EULA; they used a reverse-engineered version of Kazaa. Nevertheless, it appears the DMCA may apply here. Companies attempting to protect their copyrights should not be allowed to violate the copyrights of others."

          Hmmm good point. I think they will effectively be killing two birds with one stone here. They get to point out to the court the illegal KaZaa clones out there AND may perhaps get the RIAA feces-throwing chimp of their backs. Not a bad move on their p

    • by way2trivial (601132) on Wednesday September 24, 2003 @06:51PM (#7050288) Homepage Journal
      read the kazaa lite eula, it's specified.

      you may not use the service to collect personally identifiable information about users.

  • Interesting (Score:5, Interesting)

    by BWJones (18351) on Wednesday September 24, 2003 @06:36PM (#7050126) Homepage Journal
    The lawsuit also claims "...efforts to combat piracy on Kazaa violated terms for using the network."

    This is kinda like claiming improper search and seizure for drug cases. I wonder if there is precedent in electronic law.

    • Re:Interesting (Score:5, Interesting)

      by dissy (172727) on Wednesday September 24, 2003 @06:48PM (#7050242)
      > This is kinda like claiming improper search and seizure for drug cases.

      But the RIAA is not law enforcement.
      Actually its more like claiming improper search and seizure -by the guy that lives two doors down that is not a cop or has anything to do with law enforcement-

      In real life this would be called breaking and entering, and tresspass.

      If it was law enforcement that connected to kazaa to do this, kazaa could not make such claims, just as in the drug cases where cops perform the bust.

      Also they have the benifit that kazaa and/or sharmen networks is NOT the target of any lawsuits from the RIAA. So its not like kazaa is doing anything wrong.
      Only kazaa's users are. This is seconded by the fact that only kazaa's users are the target of the lawsuits.

      So with that, its more like the guy down the street breaking into your house because he suspects one of the many people you usually have over for family cookouts used/bought/etc drugs.

      Its more like you suing guy down the street for breaking into your house because you have some relation with a 3rd person that does drugs.

      I think kazaa has a chance on this one. Heres to hoping anyways.

      • Great analogy! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by El (94934) on Wednesday September 24, 2003 @07:18PM (#7050496)
        Because in fact using somebody's network without permission is regarded as criminal tresspass! Kazaa should be filing supoena's to the RIAA to get the identities of the people who trespassed on their network (at the behest of the RIAA) so they can file criminal charges against them... and by the way, doesn't hiring somebody to break the law constitute racketeering? Does RICO apply here?
  • Money? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by GuyMannDude (574364) on Wednesday September 24, 2003 @06:37PM (#7050143) Journal

    Does KaZaA really have the financial resources to launch a successful legal attack on the RIAA? I mean, the media conglomerates are rolling in dough. I've never really understood KaZaA's business model and find it hard to believe that they stand a chance. Regardless of merit, the RIAA have got to have some killer lawyers.

    Much as I'd like to see KaZaA fight back, I just don't see this being a fair fight. I suspect KaZaA will withdraw their legal challenge pretty soon.

    GMD

    • Kazaa's business model is quite simpel: Get some money with a cool-sounding name and concept, buy a ticket to the beautiful pacific island Vanuato, release a press release now and then from this island.
    • Re:Money? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by AvantLegion (595806) on Wednesday September 24, 2003 @06:45PM (#7050213) Journal
      Does KaZaA really have the financial resources to launch a successful legal attack on the RIAA? I mean, the media conglomerates are rolling in dough. I've never really understood KaZaA's business model and find it hard to believe that they stand a chance. Regardless of merit, the RIAA have got to have some killer lawyers.

      I don't think it's even about winning, necessarily.

      When one side goes around suing, completely unopposed, there's a mindset in the public that their claims might be valid. After all, nobody's opposing them. People curling up into a ball and taking it doesn't help.

      However, when two camps sue each other, it's more often seen as squabbling, and the kind of thing that tends to end rather unceremonially.

      The idea, I would think, is to tarnish the public view of the RIAA's efforts and perhaps get people to see that the RIAA is NOT operating on fair and solid ground here. Hopefully consumers won't just continue to take it up the ass like 12-year-old girls (oooops...)

  • by _Sexy_Pants_ (703751) on Wednesday September 24, 2003 @06:37PM (#7050145)
    I want in on the action! Who can I sue!?
  • by NumLk (709027) on Wednesday September 24, 2003 @06:38PM (#7050147)
    The article seems to imply that this came as a complete surprise to the RIAA. Talk about an organization that can dish it out, but not take it. They were (allegedly) using unlicensed software. Oh jeez, I'm shocked!

    Then again, its kinda like those "stupid news" stories about the burgler sueing the owners of the house he broke into, because the stairs weren't up to code, causing him to trip and break an arm.

  • Imagine... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dtrent (448055) on Wednesday September 24, 2003 @06:38PM (#7050149)
    ...AOL sued *you* for accessing their network with Gaim.
  • Illegal client? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Quobobo (709437) on Wednesday September 24, 2003 @06:39PM (#7050155)
    If using Kazaa Lite on their network is illegal, I'm sure anybody using mlDonkey/giFT to connect to Kazaa could be in trouble, hypothetically.
  • Self Service? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tarquin_fim_bim (649994) on Wednesday September 24, 2003 @06:39PM (#7050157)
    The Recording Industry Association of America called Sharman's "newfound admiration for the importance of copyright law" ironic and "self-serving."

    I must have missunderstood the purpose of copyright, if it isn't self-serving, what is it for?
    • Re:Self Service? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by fishbowl (7759) on Wednesday September 24, 2003 @11:34PM (#7052082)

      "I must have missunderstood the purpose of copyright, if it isn't self-serving, what is it for?"

      The purpose of copyright is to stimulate creative people to publish works of art in order to ultimately benefit society as those works enter the public domain. The incentive for them to do so is supposed to be provided by offering a period of time where the creator has exclusive rights to his creation. Some people seem to have the idea that the main purpose of copyright is the period of exclusive rights, but the spirit of the concept has historically been more on the lines of creating and preserving a public domain. The monopoly granted to the creator is a compromise made by the people to ensure a steady supply of works to the public domain.

      The whole notion of copyright has been completely turned on its head in the last fifty years, and the current generation is the first one to really notice the difference. Unfortunately they do not see the change as being worthy of major action, even though some people talk big.

      You already have to go back to the 1920's or so to find any truly public domain works. It hasn't always been this way, and it was never meant to be this way. Some things that I consider classical, are still covered by copyright! Other things that should NOT be covered under copyright, according to either the letter or the spirit of the law, carry copyright notice and under the DMCA might even be encumbered in such a way as to to violate your rights to view a work that is truly within the public domain. I recently watched a Marx Brothers film that has long been free of any copyright... and yet, the media clearly stated that the contents were under copyright. That sort of thing just makes me angry.

      If arts and entertainment were as important to us as sports and sex, we'd have abolished the government already for the DMCA.

  • case, no case (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Spetiam (671180) on Wednesday September 24, 2003 @06:39PM (#7050161) Journal
    i wonder if previous settlements can be overturned if it's proven that RIAA used illegal means to track offenders. after all, incriminating evidence is regularly thrown out of the criminal courts if it was obtained by unlawful search and seizure, through illegal wire taps, botched confessions, etc.
    • Re:case, no case (Score:4, Informative)

      by DavidBrown (177261) on Wednesday September 24, 2003 @07:04PM (#7050395) Journal
      i wonder if previous settlements can be overturned if it's proven that RIAA used illegal means to track offenders. after all, incriminating evidence is regularly thrown out of the criminal courts if it was obtained by unlawful search and seizure, through illegal wire taps, botched confessions, etc.

      Not really. The "exclusionary rule" that prohibits the admission of illegally obtained evidence doesn't apply to civil cases. The trigger of the exclusionary rule is a violation of a person's constitutional rights by a state actor (law enforcement authorities). RIAA is not a state actor.

      • Agent of the state (Score:3, Interesting)

        by charnov (183495)
        If the RIAA is the one being directly issued subpoenas and executing the subpoenas, then are they not, in fact, and agent of the state and should be held accountable to the same standards?
  • HEHEH DMCA (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 24, 2003 @06:41PM (#7050177)
    They should encrypt the Kazaa network and sue the RIAA for DMCA violations...
    • Re:HEHEH DMCA (Score:3, Informative)

      They should encrypt the Kazaa network and sue the RIAA for DMCA violations...

      They did. They pack it into never documented FastTrack TCP/IP packets.

  • yes but... (Score:3, Funny)

    by another misanthrope (688068) on Wednesday September 24, 2003 @06:43PM (#7050193)
    ...how long until they demand Google pull all R**A links?
  • by kUnGf00m45t3r (628515) on Wednesday September 24, 2003 @06:43PM (#7050198)
    If you actually read the KazaaLite license agreement, it specifically states that using the product is illegal (I would install just so I could get the exact wording but I'm at work and would rather not lose my job). I guess the RIAA neglected to read it before installing... Haha!
  • by AEton (654737) on Wednesday September 24, 2003 @06:44PM (#7050202)

    I swear to God it's like 1984-esque Newspeak. Think one thing. OK, now think the other.

    Kazaa sues Google because of Kazaa Lite! Kazaa [slashdot.org] evil!

    Kazaa sues recording industry because they improperly accessed the network! Kazaa good!

    Somebody please give me a chart or visual reference for when Kazaa is bad and when the RIAA is bad.

    (Alternatively, it's fun to see two evil corporations duking it out, because either way a badguy's going to lose. But that's just my inner optimist.)

    • We are at war with Oceana. We have always been at war with Oceana. Eurasia is our ally...
    • by Jherico (39763) <bdavis@s[ ]tandreas.org ['ain' in gap]> on Wednesday September 24, 2003 @06:56PM (#7050320) Homepage
      Don't be obtuse. Good and Evil are not absolute attributes. A person or organization can have both qualities depending on what they're trying to do. Hitler creates paintings in Vienna in the 1930s. Good. Hitler tries to exterminate the jews in the 1940s. Evil.

      Its very difficult to try to pin down a group and say 'Everything they do or have ever done is evil'. There's always going to be a counter argument because of something they did that was at least benign.

      And the comparison you're trying to draw is to doublethink, NOT newspeak. Orwellian doublethink on the other hand is something entirely different. It is the act of holding two mutually exclusive ideas in your head at the same time, or to discard facts if they impede a required belief. Like believing that freedom and slavery are the same thing.

      Newspeak is just a kind of communication, like 'Oldthinkers unbellyfeel ingsoc'.
  • by smoondog (85133) on Wednesday September 24, 2003 @06:46PM (#7050221)
    The Recording Industry Association of America called Sharman's "newfound admiration for the importance of copyright law" ironic and "self-serving."

    And to that Kazaa replied that the RIAA's newfound disrespect for the legal system ironic and self-serving.

    -Sean
  • by El (94934) on Wednesday September 24, 2003 @06:50PM (#7050275)
    Kazaa will be offering an amnesty to the RIAA provided they send in a notorized confession and promise never to monitor the Kazaa network again!
  • EFF? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ErisCalmsme (212887) on Wednesday September 24, 2003 @06:51PM (#7050286) Homepage Journal
    I noticed in an earlier article that the EFF was working with a few of the people that the RIAA was suing. CNN doesn't mention anything about the EFF working with Sharman Networks Ltd. Now IANAL, more of a law & order watcher;) But wouldn't it make sense for the EFF to work with a company that, even though might not be doing so well, still has more resources with which to fight?

    Or maybe the EFF doesn't see merit to the case?
    • Re:EFF? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by gmhowell (26755)
      Or maybe the EFF thinks that the arguments being used by Sharman (unlicensed software, DMCA violation, etc.) are not good arguments (in the good vs. evil sense, not the good vs. uneffective sense).
  • by The Revolutionary (694752) on Wednesday September 24, 2003 @06:51PM (#7050287) Homepage Journal
    ...Service if you are a copyright holder of infringing works traded with our Product or Service, if you are a law enforcement officer active in a jurisdiction which recognizes this copyright, or if your use of our Product or Service will otherwise lead to charges of infringement against any of our Users.

    If you do not agree to these terms then you must immediately terminate use of our Service and must destroy all copies of our Product or face prosecution to the fullest extent of the law.

    Do you agree to these terms? Yes[ ] No [ ]
  • by Transcendent (204992) on Wednesday September 24, 2003 @06:59PM (#7050349)
    If Kazaa wins, could this mean that all "evidence" presented against people that they have been illegally sharing copyrighted music must be thrown out?
  • by Nom du Keyboard (633989) on Wednesday September 24, 2003 @07:03PM (#7050383)
    Live by the DMCA...

    ...Die by the DMCA.

    And it's about time!

  • Yeah, right... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by strAtEdgE (151030) on Wednesday September 24, 2003 @07:04PM (#7050393)
    I'm rooting for Kazaa just like everyone else on this one, but seriously... this stands about as much chance as the old FTP servers I used to frequent that displayed a banner claiming "If you are a member of a government agency, including law enforcement, you must disconnect now."
  • by lannocc (568669) <shawn@lannocc.com> on Wednesday September 24, 2003 @07:16PM (#7050482) Homepage
    If Kazaa loses, wouldn't this set precedent that stupid Software License Agreements are not enforceable?
  • by t_allardyce (48447) on Wednesday September 24, 2003 @07:24PM (#7050562) Journal
    Great now il get sued by Kazaa for using Kazaa Lite, and the RIAA for copy-right theft and SunnComm for circumnavigation. Does anyone else want in? Come round to mine for super-hot coffee burns and violent video games!

    (Good thing i dont live in America)

    Disclaimer: This post is not a legal confession.
  • by bort27 (261557) on Wednesday September 24, 2003 @07:29PM (#7050588)
    The RIAA used to be a non-profit organization.

    I found this out by looking on the back of an old record jacket.

    Bort.
  • Doubt (Score:3, Insightful)

    by leabre (304234) on Wednesday September 24, 2003 @07:47PM (#7050694)
    I doubt the courts will rule in Kazaa's favor. Imagine the precedent, provide a way for massive piracy and by means of a "Terms of Services" restrict the legal beneficiaries of the pirated material from having access to see what and who is pirating, and you very quickly our IP system will crumble.

    Yeah yeah, I know, File sharing networks have legitimate uses, too. But 90% of them aren't being used "ligitimately".

    Thanks,
    Leabre
    • Re:Doubt (Score:3, Informative)

      by Pofy (471469)
      Ehhh, RIAA (in this case) are not the police. Huge difference. Imagine you have a "party", you even make an announcement, and you will do mass copying (by xerox machine or something) of books. Does that mean that a book ppublisher automatically should have some right to enter my home (assuming that is where the party is), just to see what is going on and who is there? What if I don't announce the party, I just hold it at times. Basically, should they always at any time have the right to come visiting and se
  • Real evidence? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by scaife (654891) on Wednesday September 24, 2003 @08:05PM (#7050818) Homepage
    OK, suppose this: The RIAA does a search and comes up that JoeBob1900 has some particular song on his computer, obtains a subpoena, and sends it along the legal pipeline. Supposing this person challenges this subpoena and eventually winds up in court, does the RIAA have any substantial evidence to support that he actually *does* have that song? It sounds to me like if they don't physically have a computer to show to the court, they've got nothing on him. For all they know, he could have simply had a file by whatever name they were looking for. Unless they've got an MD5SUM or something based on the actual contents of what they're looking for, do they really have much of a case? Just my .02
  • I wonder (Score:3, Interesting)

    by inkswamp (233692) on Wednesday September 24, 2003 @08:09PM (#7050844)
    If a person is sharing files directly off their hard drive and they have a "read me" or "terms of service" file posted with the file collection, can a person legally specify the usage of their machine to protect their property and machine from similar RIAA abuses? I don't suppose one has to be an organization or business to establish a terms of service by which one must abide before using any services or information the machines has available. This is very curious. If there are any posters here at Slashdot with a better than passing understanding of how all this works, please share your insights about this. I love the irony that the same TOS shenanigans that so many companies use to fuck over their customers can also be employed to protect people from the RIAA.
  • Wait...EULA? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MobyDisk (75490) on Wednesday September 24, 2003 @09:41PM (#7051461) Homepage
    Are we now all hoping that EULAs are enforceable? Nonono! This is the exact opposite standpoint the Slashdot public claims to hold. Don't make a 180 on the principle just because it could serve you well here. Kazaa better lose this case or all our souls are belong to them after the next click-through license you see.
  • By the way, (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ilyag (572316) on Wednesday September 24, 2003 @09:42PM (#7051477)
    I just searched for "Kazza Lite" on Google [google.com], and no results were censored [slashdot.org]! Does anyone know what has changed?
  • I read the EULA (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Quila (201335) on Wednesday September 24, 2003 @11:50PM (#7052164)
    Looks interesting. When the RIAA used the program, they agreed to some things. Some of these are privacy based: not to "Monitor traffic or make search requests in order to accumulate information about individual users," or " Collect or store personal data about other users."

    Plus, if one person downloaded once and installed it on multiple computers in order to do their big search, he's breaking the license just as I would be if I bought a copy of Windows and installed it on all 50 computers in a company: "This Licence does not permit you to install the Software on more than one computer at a time"

    And the one that wraps it up: "It is you responsibility to comply with the terms of this Licence...Your rights under this Licence will terminate immediately and without prior notice if : you violate any term of this License..."

    So they did one of the things in the first two paragraphs, they violate the terms of the license and are no longer legal to run Kazaa -- they might as well be caught with a pirate copy of Windows. And KazaaLite, if they were using it, says absolutely no commercial use allowed.

"How to make a million dollars: First, get a million dollars." -- Steve Martin

Working...