![Music Music](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/music_64.png)
![Media Media](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/media_64.png)
![Government Government](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/government_64.png)
![The Courts The Courts](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/court_64.png)
![Your Rights Online Your Rights Online](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/yro_64.png)
![News News](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/news_64.png)
Kazaa Trial In Australia Underway 177
wadiwood writes "Five record companies are suing the makers of Kazaa. Sharman (moved to vanuatu in Feb 2004) say they are not responsible for what their users do with the software.
Personally I don't get what Sony is doing selling MP3 players for all your "favourite tunes" and then selling music which they say you are not allowed to copy to their MP3 players, but that's another story."
I tried Kazaa, too (Score:2, Funny)
Re:I tried Kazaa, too (Score:2)
First Post (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:First Post (Score:5, Interesting)
In fact, they're trying the opposite tactic. They have essentially missed the whole MP3 player market - entering the field late, and with a product that was both indistinguishable from a dozen also-rans and rendered lame by copyright restrictions. So they are endeavoring to propagate the "repeat media sale" model to these new devices. They sell you one copy of the CD for your home computer, another copy for your car, a third for your MP3 player...
This is perhaps the greatest threat of the P2P/open-media frontier: the big media gravy train is coming to an end, as the public realizes it should only have to buy content once.
- David Stein
Mod parent up! (Score:2)
Yes! Both interesting and insightful.
More info here .. (Score:5, Informative)
Why not from the source? (Score:1, Informative)
Re:More info here .. (Score:2, Informative)
Hopefully, the defendant will raise the issue of trivial and vexacious litigation, as well as forum shopping. Given the US has already decided this one , it is plainly another speculative bid, with the tantrum thrower trying another parent after being told no the first time.
There is ample precedent in Australia, that Beer company's are not liable if the user/driver has an accident - the guilt - association
"I don't get what Sony is doing..." (Score:5, Informative)
Re:"I don't get what Sony is doing..." (Score:2, Interesting)
Even if it circumvents a copyprotection system?
Re:"I don't get what Sony is doing..." (Score:2)
Re:"I don't get what Sony is doing..." (Score:2)
No, the DMCA would prohibit that. Thank your Congressman today!
Re:"I don't get what Sony is doing..." (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"I don't get what Sony is doing..." (Score:5, Funny)
Re:"I don't get what Sony is doing..." (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:"I don't get what Sony is doing..." (Score:4, Funny)
Only if you know its there (Score:2, Funny)
Case dismissed.
case dismissed-Re:Only if you know its there (Score:3, Interesting)
good luck with your theory.
some people PAID MONEY for kazaa ?gold? and were still sued by the Riaa
and how free do you think it is to get to the point where you get to espouse your theory to the judge?
Re:"I don't get what Sony is doing..." (Score:5, Informative)
Read the text of the DMCA carefully. Pay particularly attention to section 1201, subsection c (Sorry, I don't have a link handy). There is a specific exemption in it that says that it shall not infringe on fair use.
So really, the only time the DMCA can be applied to someone is when they were breaking the law already anyways (even if the DMCA weren't law), which makes the DMCA redundant at best, and a waste of everyone's time at worst.
Re:"I don't get what Sony is doing..." (Score:5, Insightful)
This kind of makes the fair use exception of the DMCA useless.
Re:"I don't get what Sony is doing..." (Score:5, Insightful)
The DMCA is contradictory on this point. It does state that it won't be construed to change fair use concepts. But it also states, quite clearly, that copyright measures cannot be circumvented. It's not clear which section controls. One would hope the rules of statutory construction (particularly, a bias toward non-contradictory interpretation) would favor the former - i.e., implicitly, one may break copyright enforcement measures in furtherance of fair use - but this is not at all clear.
Also: The DMCA criminalizes some activity that isn't fair use, but that must fairly be permitted. For instance, reverse-engineering for commercial purposes is not typically regarded as fair use, but has been tolerated in the interest of market competition. Lexmark comes to mind here, in its attempt to assert the DMCA against a company that reverse-engineered its printer hardware in order to produce non-Lexmark-branded (and infinitely cheaper) toner cartridges. Of course, Lexmark lost that suit, but the ruling was quite limited to the field of access/lockout codes.
- David Stein
Re:"I don't get what Sony is doing..." (Score:5, Informative)
Read the text of the DMCA carefully. Pay particularly attention to section 1201, subsection c (Sorry, I don't have a link handy). There is a specific exemption in it that says that it shall not infringe on fair use.
This is essentially correct.
So really, the only time the DMCA can be applied to someone is when they were breaking the law already anyways (even if the DMCA weren't law), which makes the DMCA redundant at best, and a waste of everyone's time at worst.
Incorrect.
The DMCA does not restrict fair use of any copyrighted materials: you may legally bypass any DRM in your way and make non-commercial copies to your heart's content. BUT, the DMCA also makes it (civilly and criminally) illegal to distribute "circumvention devices", free software or otherwise.
Essentially, you can break the DRM, but you can't ever tell anyone how you did it. You can legally reclaim fair use only if you are technically saavy enough. This is why the EFF wants to mount a challenge to this act: it is a restriction on free speech.
Re:"I don't get what Sony is doing..." (Score:3, Insightful)
INCORRECT! (Score:2)
INCORRECT!
Parent post: The DMCA does not restrict fair use of any copyrighted materials: you may legally bypass any DRM in your way and make non-commercial copies to your heart's content.
INCORRECT!
That clause of the DMCA [cornell.edu] actually says:
(c) Other Rights, Etc., Not Affected.--(1) Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, in
Re:INCORRECT! (Score:2)
You're right in that the clause you quoted seems to essentially useless. However, the part that is made illegal in the DMCA is the "manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof" of any "technological measures" to defeat copy protection schemes. Translation: You may not distribute anything that will allow others to bypass the DRM. T
Re:INCORRECT! (Score:2)
1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems [cornell.edu]
(a) Violations Regarding Circumvention of Technological Measures.--
(1)(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
So first of all the act of c
Re:INCORRECT! (Score:2)
So... follow the chain here, If the DMCA is the only thing making decrypting criminal, and the DMCA says that it shall not affect fair use rights, then if a person decrypts a work within the limits of what would have without the DMCA been considered fair use, then they cannot b
Re:INCORRECT! (Score:2)
The DMCA says:
(1) Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement
Decrypting a DVD is NOT copyright infringment. Decrypting a DVD is however a violation of the DMCA. There is no fair use defence.
To avoid entirely repeating myself, go read my post here [slashdot.org] were I cite judges and new congressional bills to explicitly DECRIMINALIZE non-infringing circumvention. The congressional record when the DMC
Re:INCORRECT! (Score:2)
Re:INCORRECT! (Score:2)
The DMCA does not alter fair use defences to copyright infringment. That is a far cry from saying the DMCA has no effect on engaging in fair use.
it logically follows directly from this that decrypting a DVD cannot be criminal
False.
the reason why decrypting a DVD isn't a violation of the DMCA is because there's no way that any law enforcement agency would ever find out
(1) Your "because" is false. Some forms of fair use are quite public.
(2)
Re:INCORRECT! (Score:2)
Re:INCORRECT! (Score:2)
What is this? And Abbot and Costello routine?
The original legislative record when the DMCA was first passed, at least two judges, and at least two dozen congressmen attempting to amend the DMCA, they all say you are reading 1201(c)(1) wrong. You did read the post I linked to earlier, right?
1201(c)(1) is NOT an exemption or defence to the DMCA. What it says is that the DMCA should not be misinterprested as altering OLD law for prosecuting or defending COPYRIGHT I
Re:INCORRECT! (Score:2)
That argument is specious, Alsee. As my law school contracts professor used to say: "That dog won't hunt."
The DMCA comprises an expansion of copyright. Its central purpose is to broaden the definition of copyright infringement - e.g., to encompass circumventing anti-piracy controls are designed (at least superficially) t
Re:INCORRECT! (Score:2)
According to the congressional record at the time, according to current bills floating around congress, and according to at least two judges, you are wrong.
Judge Kaplan in the DeCSS case: "as the legislative history demonstrates, the decision not to make fair use a defense to a claim under Section 1201(a) was quite deliberate".
Judge Whyte in the 321 Studios case effectively said the same, in an admittedly reverse construction. He said that 1201(b) was distinguished from
Re:INCORRECT! (Score:2)
- David Stein
Re:"I don't get what Sony is doing..." (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:"I don't get what Sony is doing..." (Score:2)
Re:"I don't get what Sony is doing..." (Score:2)
It is not the same in Australia. Rippng and encoding a legitimately purchased CD is LEGAL in the US, but is ILLEGAL in Australia.
Oh... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Oh... (Score:3, Interesting)
if i was working for the suer, i'd argue that creating p2p software is like writing a virus... while the virus maker is not necessarily the person who distributes it, he is still liable for the damages caused.
but if i was working for the sued, i'd argue that Microsoft does not get sued for crimes committed by people using Windows as a facilitating tool.
but IANAL, so...
Sigh. Is the idea of licensing so hard to grasp? (Score:3, Insightful)
This would seem to be inconsistent.. unless, you know, you actually took a moment to think about it.
Sony has some online music service where they do not allow you (vis a vis the linked to licensing agreemnet) to copy the songs to other players. Fine. If you dont like that, DONT USE THE SERVICE. The consequences of this licensing proviso has been factored in to the "supply and demand" equation for the service offering.
On the other hand, it has been shown that you are welcome to take your purchased sony CD-ROMs and make Mp3s for them for your personal use on your sony MP3 players or whatnot. It has been pretty much universally acknowledged that as long as its for your own personal use, this is a privilege that you get with your physical CD purchase and this has likewise been "supply / demanded" in to the price offering.
Why is it so hard to understand that one company might offer two different levels of service / product at different prices?
Re:Sigh. Is the idea of licensing so hard to grasp (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Sigh. Is the idea of licensing so hard to grasp (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, there is a Fair Use clause in Australian copyright law, it just isn't identical to the one in the US. (and unfortunately while it does cover photocopying parts of books, it doesn't cover copying music from one medium to another).
However, there is also case law, some of which may be helpful. One example was when an Australian cable network was sued by a free-to-air network because the cable network was rebroadcasting the free-to-air signal (including ads) over cable without permission. Seems like an obvious breach of copyright law - copying the entire network content. But the cable network won, partly on the grounds that they were rebroadcasting the signal to people who were already entitled to receive it, and the free-to-air network couldn't actually prove it had caused any financial loss to them.
As such, a law suit to stop someone copying their CDs to their own media player might prove difficult, despite it not being covered by fair use.
But your milage may vary and I am not a lawyer...
Re:Sigh. Is the idea of licensing so hard to grasp (Score:2)
You just restored my faith in human nature. (Was this in the same part of Oz where the happy-herb is legal too?)
Sigh. Is the idea of parity so hard to grasp (Score:3, Insightful)
No. If they don't like it, they don't have to sell it. I am tired of being an unpaid enforcer of their policies. Fact of the mater is they are introducing a product with an immature technology for protecting their interests. So they impose upon mine. Licensing be damned: I don't tell them how to spend the money used to purchase their product, so quit telling me how to use the product. If you don't like what I am going to do with a product
Re:Sigh. Is the idea of parity so hard to grasp (Score:2, Flamebait)
However, as a responder, do you not feel at all any obligation to be coherent, much less logical?
Forever time with this "If you don't like it, don't buy it" argument.
Does not parse.
If they don't like it, they don't have to sell it.
Makes zero logical sense.
I am tired of being an unpaid enforcer of their policies
What made up world are you living in, again?
Fa
Re:Sigh. Is the idea of parity so hard to grasp (Score:4, Insightful)
While I agree that that post wasn't as clear as it might have been, it made some good points.
Makes great sense, actually. What he's saying is that they can't have their cake and eat it too. They want to sell things - they want our money - but then they don't want to accept all the consequences of that sale. When you say, "if you don't like it, you don't have to buy it" you're certainly making no more sense than this poster was when he reversed it on you and said "if they don't like it, then they don't have to sell it."
The rest of your responses (Hooked on phonics for instance) really come off as being quite trollish, I must say. If an argument is "old and busted" fine, but it's not readily apparent that it is, and you need to back that assessment up with some sort of argument if you want it to be taken seriously.
Re:Sigh. Is the idea of parity so hard to grasp (Score:2)
It seems to be you who has difficulty grasping... (Score:3, Interesting)
A license is a grant of privileges. These 'licenses' on the other hand purport to grant no privileges, but rather to take away those that the purchaser already has.
I agree with don't buy it - and I don't buy these things. I think it's important not to give money to people that are clearly planning to spend it to corrupt the legal system. But at the same time, I'm not about to take the position that you seem to be taking, that those who do purchase these things must follow the letter of 'licenses' that gra
Re:Sigh. Is the idea of licensing so hard to grasp (Score:3, Interesting)
Remember the laws of the USA != the laws of other countries and this is, sadly, where your argument falls flat on its face.
Here in the UK (and other countries) when you purchase a CD, you purchase a licence to listen to the music on that medium only.
Therefore you cannot rip your music to MP3 and use it on your portable player wit
Re:Sigh. Is the idea of licensing so hard to grasp (Score:2)
That's actually what led to Canada bringing in its current copyright laws. We used to be under that system but copying from record to cassette tape wasn't legal. This seemed incredibly stupid so a law was brought in that allows transfer between mediums and allows copying music for personal use no matter the source of that music.
Of course, it also brought in a levy on such things
Re:Sigh. Is the idea of licensing so hard to grasp (Score:2)
>purchase a CD, you purchase a licence to listen
>to the music on that medium only.
Hmm, is that actually the law? If not, what makes you believe it is so? If it is, do you happens to know were to find it? WHat other countries do you refer to by the way?
Re:Sigh. Is the idea of licensing so hard to grasp (Score:2)
Sp you mean the law actually says you can't buy music, and if you enter a shop to buy aCD, you end up with a license to listen to it instead and doesn't own is as with every thing else you buy?? Is that part of purchase laws or somewere else?
In answer to the Sony question... (Score:5, Insightful)
As for the rest of it...it's just a fight for the few remaining profits in a changing industry. Once there's no profit left in the standard model or there is more in the digital music distribution models Sony and everyone else will adapt to the new environment. If you want it to happen faster don't buy any music. If you're comfortable with the general level of silliness proceed...either way it's only a matter of time be for the distribution of artistic media changes dramatically.
The boot (Score:4, Funny)
Re:The boot (Score:1)
Re:The boot (Score:1)
Re:The boot (Score:5, Funny)
Did you get permission to use that link? (Score:5, Funny)
You must not link to any Sony Site without first obtaining the prior written consent of Sony and such consent must be signed by Sony's Director of Business Affairs to be valid.
(to which I say: ok, lets wipe you off the face of the internet)...Oh shit now I've done it too: 2...no part of the content of this site may be reproduced in any form without the written consent of Sony...
Re:Did you get permission to use that link? (Score:2)
(The other reason is that EVERYTHING I or my friends have bought from Sony has broken within a year of it going out of warranty. And the one thing that broke in warranty? They told us to "buy a new one, they're not that expensive". Fuck you, Sony.)
Re:Did you get permission to use that link? (Score:2)
Re:Did you get permission to use that link? (Score:2)
Re:Did you get permission to use that link? (Score:2)
Re:Did you get permission to use that link? (Score:5, Informative)
2600 Magazine has already taken this to court against Ford Motor Company and won. A website cannot legally prevent someone from linking to them. Here's a link [2600.com] to the article. The World Wide Web cannot exist in it's present form without the ability to link to anyone you choose. Take Slashdot as example. What if all the websites in these stories didn't want to be linked to? No more Slashdot.. Linking is the premise that the World Wide Web is built on.
Aero
Re:Did you get permission to use that link? (Score:4, Informative)
This is basically the same argument the music companies are using. "Take BMI as an example. What if all of those customers chose to copy their music from their friends? No more BMI. Copyright is the premise that the music industry is built on." A much better argument would talk about how a link is just an address, which is public knowledge, and there is no law that prohibits dissemination of them.
Re:Did you get permission to use that link? (Score:2)
No, they are not demanding copyright enforcement. They are demanding *DRM* enforcement. DRM enforcement does not equal copyright enforcment. They have absolutely no right to expect or receive laws criminalizing non-infringing activities.
-
The statistics of being sued... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The statistics of being sued... (Score:5, Insightful)
Lawsuits are only filed after other thresholds have been met. While I am not privy to all the mechanics of it [1], your chances of being "tagged" by the RIAA in one of their databases as a filesharing IP are quite high. If your IP shows up a lot, you'll make it into a verification stage. If they can verify that you're distributing their stuff, then the lawsuit appears. So the 0.004% of users is just how many have made it into the final, verified stage of (probably massive) copyright infringement. There may be 5-10% who are in process of being verified, or who have not uploaded a sufficient quantity yet to warrant a lawsuit but who are being watched while they do.
[1] Not so long ago I received a friendly note from my ISP that I was being observed (and the ISP was receiving DMCA threats). I got a pretty good look at what was going on that way.
Re:The statistics of being sued... (Score:3, Insightful)
And yet they still somehow managed to tag somebody who doesn't have a computer capable of running Kazaa [sfgate.com]. Good job, music industry.
Re:The statistics of being sued... (Score:2)
I don't know if they are just sueing just to say they "can".
Re:The statistics of being sued... (Score:2)
So: the more you share, the more likely you are to be sued? Very well... how about this:
Have the P2P app index your entire collection - let's say ten gigabytes. However, have it only share one gigabyte, chosen at random. After some time - let's say, 24 hours uptime - have it replace that gigabyte with a different gigabyte, again chosen at random.
The res
Shaman and Sony (Score:3, Insightful)
Ok, what the hell does that have to do with the stated news article about suing Shaman Networks? More news, less uninformed opinion please? Nah - too much to ask.
Re:Shaman and Sony (Score:1)
Just guessing over here but maybe Sony Music or whatever it's called are in this lawsuit also? Also I wouldn't be surprised if Sony owned stocks here and stocks here on other major/less major music companies, by which tieing it to this case.
Not that I read the article.
Re:Shaman and Sony (Score:2, Insightful)
In other words: (Score:5, Funny)
sorry.
Did you get permission? (Score:2, Funny)
Well, if not, then let me join in on the fun! Nothing like a good ole' DDoS [sony.com]
Re:Did you get permission? (Score:1)
Kazaa LEGAL !! (Score:1)
Re:Kazaa LEGAL !! (Score:2, Interesting)
They might move back there again if they lose here, or get into too much difficulty.
Re:Kazaa LEGAL !! (Score:5, Informative)
Sony AU Site /.'ed (Score:3, Funny)
Our servers are currently performing a maintenance function(after melting down) and are temporarily unavailable.
This service outage is not anticipated to take long
and the site should be available within 30 minutes.
Lame argument (Score:2)
I realize farmers need hunting rifles and people living in messed up places need small guns for self defence (until effective non/less-lethal weapons are developed). But dealers marketing
Re:Lame argument (Score:2)
Yes, Sharman is sleezy. But the ethics of the law are more complex than "sleezy". If there are legitimate users of a product, and the targeted customers are not themselves victims (like cigarette ads targetting children) then the law MUST protect the rights of the legitimate users.
There is plenty of legitimate content on Kazaa (like shitty porn, public domain e-texts in PDF format). There are plenty of places on the internet where many copyright laws don't apply.
If you want to get ethically ph
Re:Lame argument (Score:2)
Re:Lame argument (Score:2)
On the other hand, I don't think copying song and movies that someone let you buy and bring home should be illegal. You sell me stuff, I use it as I please. If CDs are not profitable without unnatural restrictions on people, let them make mone
Re:Lame argument (Score:2)
Sharman Networks are not the creators of Kazaa (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Sharman Networks are not the creators of Kazaa (Score:2, Interesting)
In fact when Kazaa would have stayed in Dutch hands, then Kazaa would have stayed a legal p2p program.
And prosecuters from other countries would not have been able to convict it in court as illegal software.
As the case in The Netherlands against Kazaa was already won by the creators of Kazaa.
Furthermore p2p software in itself in The Netherlands by law in itself cannot be prosecuted as being illegal...because p2p software in itself does not cause the illegal act.
Also downloading of cop
Re:Sharman Networks are not the creators of Kazaa (Score:2)
>in Australia. Kazaa was created by a team of
>programmers from The Netherlands(Europe).
If I am not mistaken, Kazaa was founded by Niklas Zennström, who is Swedish, and Janus Friis, who is Danish. There might have been dutch programmers involved and perhaps the company was set up in The Netherlands, that I really don't know.
Simple explanation for Sony's stance (Score:2, Informative)
Personally I don't get what Sony is doing selling MP3 players for all your "favourite tunes" and then selling music which they say you are not allowed to copy to their MP3 players...
Then you haven't really put any serious thought into the issue, have you? I imagine that a simplistic explanation would be:
Notice how KaZaA is not involved?
Furthermore, the "Sony
What I dont get.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What I dont get.. (Score:2)
In Other News (Score:4, Funny)
This just in... the President signed into law the latest anti-piracy bill banning the sale of Sharpie pens. With puppet strings visible the President remarked "Piracy of entertainment is a terrorist threat to our nation and must be confronted with swift decisive action" although his southern twang was curiously replaced with a heavy Austrian accent. The bill also retroactively forces all computer keyboards to have their shift keys removed.
Industry-standard Browser (Score:3, Funny)
Share Media (Score:3, Funny)
Then, I'll turn all of these into a new company. I'll call it "Share Media." This company will do three things:
So I've finally figured it out!!!
The only way to make these lawsuits legit... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Another Classic (Score:2)
" This is just another classic example of corporate greed."
Remember that Sharman is a greedy corporation, as well. Sharman's executives do very well and they love their money as much as the executives of any given record company. They know that their software is used primarily for piracy, but greed is what encourages them to keep it running rather than, say, shutting it down until they can come up with a system that's fair to the rightsholders.
Re:Another Classic (Score:2)
Re:Obfuscation... (Score:2)
3 Get ignored by *AA "infringment" engines which are no doubt searching for "*.mp3" and "*.wma" etc. etc.
Better yet:
3a. DDoS and overload "infrigement" engines by putting fake *.mp3 and *.wma files everywhere.
They will soon revert to some kind of SHA or MD5 fingerprinting to identify "their own" files. Of course, toggling a single random bit every now and them within the stream would be all it takes to obfuscate once again...
Re:just funny... (Score:2)
"(even though they're still seeing amazing profits)"
Out of curiosity, what is the typical net profit margin in the record industry? In Canada, it was 12 points in 2000, down from 16 points in 1993 [statcan.ca]. Is it higher elsewhere?
If anybody's wondering if a net margin is 12 points is obscenely high, here are some recently reported net margins for various companies near and dear to our hearts: