Kazaa Fights Back 390
Cracula writes "CNET is reporting that tonight Kazaa filed a lawsuit against the major record labels and Hollywood studios, asserting that they are attempting to stifle a legitimate and potentially profit-cutting business model. Sharman Networks (owner of Kazaa) says that their model is fundmentally different than Napster because their major goal is to make money off their companion program Altnet that delivers authorized, paid content. While this may sound like a shot in the dark, last year a federal judge actually ruled that the record labels' current efforts to provide online access to their music may run afoul of anti-trust laws. Kazaa may actually have a hope."
Music? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Music? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Music? (Score:5, Funny)
Until I saw a porno where this guy "picked up" this chick in a grocery store, with John Lennon's 'Imagine' playing in the background.
'Hey, he made some good music after the Beeatles didn't he?' Since then I've downloaded several Lennon solo songs (I recommend "Look At Me" "Hold On" "Cold Turkey" "Nobody Loves You (When You're Down and Out)"), and have since purchased his _Plastic Ono Band_ album, _Walls and Brigdes_, and tommorrow I'm probably going to down to the record shop to get _Imagine_.
So no joke, I seriously got into John Lennon through watching a porno movie I downloaded off of Kazaa. I love the internet...
Kazaa? (Score:5, Funny)
(er, "KAZAAAAA" I meant...)
Re:Kazaa? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure the RIAA might lose its Hillary Rosen (or other beloved long-time character that's quitting,) but she'll just come back in the sequel. The lesson: There's always another Hillary Rosen.
Huh? (Score:5, Funny)
> Kazaa may actually have a hope.
How's that? Did someone actually find some good music to steal?
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Interesting)
There are people who use Kazaa without ever downloading mp3 files. I don't download music, but Kazaa is useful to me, and I hope it becomes an important stepping stone towards easy distribution of free (whether beer or coffee or whatever kind of free you care about) software in the future.
My life will be so much better when I can download those operating system ISO images without having to wrestle an ftp server into the ground.
-JC
PS: I do admit that I may have helped my sister download mp3 files in the past. But her unhealthy addiction, much like someone's addiction to an illegal drug, must be weaned out of her gradually; I'm certainly not going to call the police on her, as that would obviously ruin her life without causing benefit to anyone.
Illegal (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Illegal (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Illegal (Score:3, Interesting)
True, but up until this point, no one's said squat about the RIAA overtly polluting P2P networks. It's nice to know someone out there is actively fighting the RIAA, rather than passively/reactively altering their network design to compensate for the abuse.
The legality of the content is irrespective of the case of network sabotage, and should not be considered. Tangent: correct me if I'm wrong, but a copyrighted material may be hosted on a network, only if it's the only copy one owns. Then, it's permissible for other owners of the same material to download it. I don't recall what the new laws WRT the transfer of such material have to say, but I believe they'd have to first collect evidence that one has possession of the material, and then prove you don't own the respective licenses. The first part of which is nearly impossible, short of breaking down one's door with a warrant. Transfer logs I don't think would be sufficient, since one may be providing a workstation for someone with said licenses. For that matter, one may be providing remote storage for such a person. It's a tricky matter at best.
As outlandish as Sharman's desires may seem... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:As outlandish as Sharman's desires may seem... (Score:3, Funny)
Chuckle. That makes me picture a couple of SouthPark kids fighting over an MP3 collection and Cartman says:
I'll Ro-Sham-Bo you for them!
-
Re:As outlandish as Sharman's desires may seem... (Score:4, Interesting)
LOL, are you trying to be funny? You know that the artist will see little of these royalties. It would probably be similar to the amount they get per-CD, that is, not much.
Didn't the Terms and Conditions say ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Didn't the Terms and Conditions say ... (Score:5, Insightful)
However, with Kazaa there are way too many users to prosecute that way, so I don't think I'd liken Kazaa to the gun argument. Instead, I think Kazaa is more similar to state-owned roads. The intended use of the roads is clearly stated (er, well usually at least
Because of this, I believe a similar approach ought to be taken with Kazaa and other filesharing networks. There's no way in hell the media warlords will be able to catch everyone, nor will they be able to put down filesharing completely (we've seen this hydra-like behavior happen before -- shut down one network, several others appear in its place). Their best bet would be to allow these networks to continue exist, and use the resources they would otherwise spend on shutting them down on 'policing' the networks like traffic cops.
Re:Didn't the Terms and Conditions say ... (Score:3, Interesting)
It's more like a great big mall. What Kazaa argues is that they designed their mall so that transactions could take place and nothing more, then added legitimate businesses into their mall when they were told that it had become a haven of thieves. Their suit is based on the thought that they now have millions of potential customers in their mall and even when they point that fact out to the big music industry sorts they get dismissed as the mall that has thieves in it.
I think it's probably true that the music idustry has been less than forthcoming in any talks that might lead to releasing copyright licences for any use other than what they control with their dirty, money-grubbing fists. I think it's also true that you'd have to be an imbecile not to realize and take into account that Kazaa profits from illegal filesharing.
The question is, if a cartel of music industry companies refuses outright to let a potential retail store sell it's product in favor of their own retail stores is that anti-trust? It might be if you can successfully argue that there is no business model that could succeed in music retail without access to those catalogs. They're squashing competition by maintaining a stranglehold on the copyrights, just like Disney might be preventing new Disney's by buying their copyright extensions.
Kazaa's case would be easier if they were in a physical sense a mall, since there is no safety issue I fail to see how a mall should be liable for the actions of it's customers no matter how much it profits from those customers. In a real mall the retailers don't try and arrest the mall when customers shoplift. Even if the mall had no security it wouldn't be about arresting the mall for failure to provide a lawful environment. Maybe they should try to condemn Kazaa...
Alternative approach (Score:2)
If they went the porn route they could possibly get the help of the porn industry which according to Diane Sawyer is a $10 bill / year industry.
Saying they make their money from pop ups and spyware is kinda hokey and just makes people more irritated with them.
Money question (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Money question (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Money question (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Money question (Score:5, Insightful)
If Napster made money, Kazaa is making much more.
Re:Money question (Score:3, Insightful)
But the "companies" that sell black market satellite dishes would target their demographic nicely!
Re:Money question (Score:5, Informative)
"In the last six months alone, PC users have downloaded more than 90 million copies. Kazaa has 60 million users around the world and 22 million in the US - an irresistible audience to marketers. Last year, Sharman raked in millions from US advertisers like Netflix and DirecTV, without spending a penny on content. The chase could have gone on forever."
-Wired
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.02/kazaa.ht
The article also mentions their side-business model of teaming up with Altnet, by providing access to Altnet products (paid downloads, supposedly). They, I believe, will use the side-business model to argue that the existence of the company depends on a valid, legal method of generating revenue.
Of course, according to the article only 600 files are offered from Altnet. I think this makes Sharman's countersuit quite flimsy- the bulk of their revenue is derived from ads that sit piggy-back on top illegal activity. I don't think they'll be able to show convincingly that they actually have a viable business model with respect to Altnet.
Then again, if Altnet and Sharman can spit out a convincingly story of RIAA MPAA etc etc conspiracy to monopolize and deprive, the judges might listen.
Re:Money question (Score:5, Interesting)
Hmm, where have I seen the phrase "viable business model" before?
Oh yeah, it was the Microsoft anti-trust settlement.
Can someone please explain to me since when does the "viability" of a bussiness model have ANYTHING to do with legal/illegal or your rights?
Someone can have a bussiness model of planting quarters and hoping to harvest dollars when they grow into trees. He has a right to go on planting quarters until he runs out of quarters and goes broke.
Courts can consider the legality of planting quarters, but they have no place considering whether a bussiness model is viable.
-
Re:Money question (Score:5, Insightful)
The monopoly has to prove that they are engaging in a practice for reasons other than undermining potential competition. Generally, this can include selling things at a loss, locking out distribution channels (like the **AA is being accused of here) or any other practice that normally wouldn't make sense unless you had a monopoly-type advantage and were trying to keep competition at a minimal level.
Kazaa folks are not dumb (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, look her [wired.com] in the eyes. Does she look like someone who would lie down and take from multinational media pimps?
I'm not a Kazaa user, but I'm with them all the way. If the opportunity cost of getting our freedoms taken away is few more sales of Billboard top 40 albums, then I'm all for piracy.
Re:Kazaa folks are not dumb (Score:3, Insightful)
Dude, she'd take DVDA from "multinational media pimps" if they paid her enough.
Sorry to break it to you, but capitalism basically breakes down to whoring yourself to the highest bidder for whomever can offer the mad bling-bling, "principles" be damned!
Re:WHAT FREEDOM? (Score:5, Insightful)
Freedom as in Fair Use [eff.org], dipshit. I never claimed I used Kazaa or any other P2P.
I find it really hillarious how you call me a coward and post as an AC. You've got to see the irony there, chief.
Re:WHAT FREEDOM? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, but I'm not willing to stand for draconian laws banning new and revolutionary communication tools just so a bunch of executives can continue picking up pretty little girls and boys with the intention of packaging them up as a product. How would you feel if the post office went after e-mail just because it cost them money? Were we happy when they proposed taxing e-mail? How is this any different?
Music is art, not profit.
Re:WHAT FREEDOM? (Score:3)
I don't create music, nor any other art. I provide a service to my company. Most true musicians are not in it for the money, many have a message that they'd like to get through to people and choose music as the medium. Those who dream of having hit singles and being filthy rich are trapped in a system that simply doesn't exist and this dilusion belongs in the past.
Why are you upset about US having these laws around?
Because they are anti-progress laws. When the printing press was invented, the scribes and the church had laws passed against it. When the motorcar was invented, some countries had a human walk 60 yards in front with a red flag. The horse industry was behind that.
So, where are you going to stand in the next 5 years when the telcos start to attack IP telephony? Because it's no different to this debate.
"Objection, your honour. Why?. Because it's damning to my business model."
Perhaps because majority of content you are interested in comes from that place?
Nope, most of the music I listen to comes from small UK bands/groups that have no illusions of getting rich from it. They enjoy the creative process, and take pleasure from the pleasure that their fans have while listening to it.
Fucking freeloader
p2p is about sharing. You missed the point it seems. If anything, the music industry are the only freeloaders in this argument. There is no need for them. Get over it.
Thank god you are completely powerless idiot whose only way to make any sort of mark or anything is to whine on a thrid rate site.
You know nothing about me, besides the intentionally anonymous name I hide behind. Surely it is you who is the idiot...making assumptions about someone you don't know?
Anyways, what are you doing reading a "third rate site"? If you don't like it, leave. If you disagree, post an inteligent response reasoning your thinking.
Or, perhaps you have no satisfying interests in the real world, so you manifest your feelings of hate and rejection on the web? Ahh, shame.
Either way... (Score:5, Interesting)
If Kazaa wins, the record industry will probably just get more primed for industry-standard DRM.
If the record industry wins, another 5 Kazaa's will pop up.
Re:Either way... (Score:5, Insightful)
If there is no law passed, only pressure from the industry, that won't work. The people who do implement it will lose their business to those who don't implement it. And remember, the Tech industry dwarfs the music industry. Will Sony risk its $40 billion electronics division to help out it's 'slice of $20 billion' music division?
if they do try to get legislation, the tech industry will fight back. It will be like the Jananese attacking pearl harbor all over again. A small defiant attack will bring hell upon them.
Re:Either way... (Score:4, Insightful)
If they could do that, what's to stop them cutting off access to the free Kazaa, and only allowing the pay Kazaa service to be accessed, at some point?
Is it only me that sees this, or have I missed something?
Re:Either way... (Score:3, Insightful)
My feeling (Score:4, Interesting)
It seems to me that this argument basically admits what the music industry is getting at: that Kazaa enables and almost condones the illegal music trade. I'm speaking straightly from a legal perspective. I know better than to try to get into the philosophical debate. :)
But just take a look at the issue. Let's say an auto parts store opens its doors. One department is legit. It buys new parts and sells them to customers. The second department is a kind of swap meet where enthusiasts may come and trade their wares. Some of the enthusiasts in this second department trade stolen car parts.
So some organization sues the auto parts store. Maybe they're an organization of car owners that are sick of their bumpers and headlights getting stolen by car punks. They bring a case to the courts and say, "We're sick of this auto store making an environment conducive to stealing."
Kazaa, and the auto parts store, reply that their major goal is to make money off their legitimate department. They reply that their business model is being impaired by such an atrocious lawsuit.
Is this fair? I'm not sure. I'm not a lawyer. Something seems fishy about it to me though...
Re:My feeling (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a huge difference between stealing tangible goods like car parts, and stealing a program executable.
I'm not trying to start a 50+ reply chain where users would debate the morality of downloading a program vs. stealing a candy bar. Just pointing out how the model is flawed when comparing 2 different consumer goods.
Re:My feeling (Score:4, Insightful)
You are also speaking from a United States legal perspective. From a non-US perspective, what gives the US the right to dictate world-wide commercial and legal jurisdiction? I know that a lot of people believe that might-makes-right (considering the fact that we can nuke anybody we don't like)... but I'm not sure that I believe nukes justify the superiority of US legal code over UN legal code or another country's legal code. But, I'm not a laywer either... Something seems fishy about the US practice of global-superpower-throws-weight-around-all-the-ti
Re:My feeling (Score:3, Insightful)
Instead of:"Kazaa, and the auto parts store, reply that their major goal is to make money off their legitimate department. They reply that their business model is being impaired by such an atrocious lawsuit."
How about: "Kazaa, and the auto parts store, reply that they are only sponsoring the swap meet to generate foot traffic for their legitimate business. Their goal is to grow the legitimate business and stop sponsoring the swap meet, and they would have succeeded already if the auto makers' {who have a monopoly on auto-parts in our example) would make them a fair deal on wholesaling. But the Monopolists only want parts sold through their own channels."
According to Kazaa, the RIAA members should not be allowed to enforce their government-granted copyright/monopoly until they stop abusing their monopoly by extending it to distribution channels. I don't think the judge will buy it, and I don't think Kazaa was trying to convince the judge so much as mounting a PR campaign. But what do I know.
They'll never win - Legal fees (Score:5, Insightful)
Lets face it - 9 out of 10 times in America, it's not who's right and who's wrong, it's who's got more money to spend on lawyers.
Re:They'll never win - Legal fees (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:They'll never win - Legal fees (Score:4, Insightful)
But then there goes their availability on download.com, and there goes their visibility to US users, and eventually their installed base won't seem so attractive to advertisers. They might remain viable that way, but they'd certainly be less profitable. Also, iirc, they already tried to argue that they didn't do substantial business in the US, so they shouldn't be held accountable to US law. I haven't looked into the specifics, but apparently that hasn't kept them safe.
Re:They'll never win - Legal fees (Score:3, Insightful)
Things like Kazaa get passed around by word of mouth. I doubt losing their listing on download.com is going to make any difference. Becoming legally untouchable in the USA, homeland of the *AA will do a hell of a lot of difference to their circulation.
Also, iirc, they already tried to argue that they didn't do substantial business in the US, so they shouldn't be held accountable to US law.
Yes, this was on Slashdot at the time. It's a crazy idea, holding you accountable to the entire worlds laws. How would you feel if a country like China was to pursue you legally for saying Mao was misguided? It's on their law books, and Chinese people on the net could read your comment.
I don't know (Score:3, Interesting)
Not to mention, I highly doubt any money from downloads will actually go to artists (much like ASCAP).
Hasn't the Hydra been proven? (Score:5, Insightful)
With the announcement of even greater antifilesharing efforts by the labels and the brick and mortar [yahoo.com] dealers trying to get into the digital game, one must wonder when the music industry will finally realize that the days of sellling copies of Intellectual Property are fast fading, and that directing resources and effort into palatable alternatives (hardware please, that streams any record ever recorded to my stereo rack) is the only alternative?
If they succeed in killing Kazaa, a thousand more services will pop up in its place. iCommune [icommune.net] is already connecting iTunes users via P2P.
Legal control over culture has never worked before, what makes the RIAA and labels think it will work this time?
Big legal mistake... (Score:5, Insightful)
Please. No legal leg to stand on. You want the legal protection of being considered a "business entity" under United States Law, you need to have no blood on your hands. Anotherwards, your business can't be illegal. You will not be awarded jack shit in court if you can't prove that your business is legal.
So, question: Is Kazaa (as a business) legal?
The conduct should preclude the industry from being able to defend its copyrights in court, at least until the behavior is corrected, Sharman contends.
Again: this is makes no sense whatsoever. Anyone who owns a copyright is entitled under copyright law to legally defend that copyright, music (monopoly) / industry included...especially if the distributor doesn't legally have permission (from the copyright owner) to distribute the music...permission would include ownership of the distributed media or rights granted by the owner to distribute the copyrighted material. Neither case exists for Kazaa.
"What the industry is incapable of doing is realizing that Kazaa is different," said Sharman attorney Rod Dorman. "Now (they) have got to face the legal consequences."
Different in what way? That you've established yourself in at least six different countries?
Kazaa made two crucial mistake:
1) Establishing itself (at least in part...even a part as small as an office building) as a business in the United States.
2) Suing the recording industry. I mean, a corporation can get sued and move all its operatios to Morocco to protect its dubious legality and continue operations. You sue in the United States, you're a legal target in the United States, plain and simple.
The facts in this case are the same as in Napster / AudioGalaxy / et. al.:
1) Your software is being used to distribute music without the permission of the copyright owner (doesn't matter if 1% or 99% of it is legal, at least not to the RIAA).
2) You admit that your software is being used to distribute such music.
So, let's take bids now on the remaining lifetime of Kazaa. I say: 9 months.
Re:Big legal mistake... (Score:4, Insightful)
Unless you're an oil company.
Re:Big legal mistake... (Score:5, Informative)
Also consider that previous attempts were made to secure authorization "in good faith" by others who were later sued into the ground....the RIAA has really set themselves up for this....read this month's wired too...their collusion to control this distribution is well known.
The best possible defense is a strong offense, and if the people at Sharman have even ONE smoking gun from the RIAA, they're toast.
The US Senate has already looked into this collusion angle too, it's well known...all they gotta do is prove that they "were not allowed to conduct lawfull business" by the RIAA and it's over.
This could potentially be the biggest damage to the RIAA of all....think what would happen if they lost copyright on their entire catalogs?....
This is VERY much down with the Khan quote above "from hell's heart I stab at thee".....go Kazaa
Re:Big legal mistake... (Score:5, Interesting)
This does make sense in fact. You are not allowed to use intellectual property rights to protect a monopoly (other than the monopoly expressly granted by the ip-right obviously). So for example, IBM was not allowed to use its BIOS copyrights to defend a monoply on PC hardware. Courts can infact void intellectual property rights which are misused in this way.
It sounds like Kazaa is arguing that copyright owners are in fact a monopoly (presumably Kazaa is arguing that the Music industry is trying to maintain a monopoly in the online retail market), and that they are using their ip to defend this monopoly (that is they are suing anyone who tries to compete in the online retail market for copyright infringement), which would in fact be illegal.
An interesting feature of this strategy is that it may force any copyright infringement cases to be put on hold until after the anti-trust case is resolved - which may well take 10 years or more (the IBM case it was not reolved until long after it had ceased to matter).
Re:Big legal mistake... (Score:5, Funny)
Mate, I don't know how old you are, but for your entire life to date, you've been mishearing people when they say 'in other words'.
Re:Big legal mistake... (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, AFAIK, Kazaa does not have and has not had any part of its business in the United States. A judge in the RIAA vs. Kazaa suit ruled, however, that because Kazaa's software was "available in the United States" (translation: available on the internet, regardless of where in the world the business or server is), it can be sued in the United States.
Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if they could eventually find a sympathetic judge to overturn that. That's a rather disturbing precedent, especially if it works both ways, because if everyone that uses the internet is subject to all of the laws of planet Earth, then everyone that's even touched a computer is probably a candidate for execution somewhere.
Re:Big legal mistake... (Score:5, Insightful)
Please. Oil companies? Monsanto? Microsoft? Meat Packing? It's not blood, a little green wipes the red right out. It's green. I don't want to be one more person that cries out about big business owning our government, but you realize that Enron is still around, don't you?
Again: this is makes no sense whatsoever. Anyone who owns a copyright is entitled under copyright law to legally defend that copyright, music (monopoly) / industry included...especially if the distributor doesn't legally have permission (from the copyright owner) to distribute the music...permission would include ownership of the distributed media or rights granted by the owner to distribute the copyrighted material. Neither case exists for Kazaa.
You (and a lot of other people) are misreading here. Because of the special status afforded music in this culture, and the blanket licensing terms for radio and other playback, there are certain circumstances under which a company cannot legally refuse to license music. They cannot refuse to wholesale CD's to anyone but BMG record stores, for example. The labels arguably have done this, as exampled by the many online music ventures that failed to receive licenses for music while the industry was plotting its own services.
1) Establishing itself (at least in part...even a part as small as an office building) as a business in the United States...You sue in the United States, you're a legal target in the United States, plain and simple.
What part of the Sklyarov / Abode E-books thing did you miss? You are already falling under US jurisdiction if you do a portion of your business with US customers. Now, the US can rule all it wants, but it can't put the equivalent of a lien on a bank in Morocco without approval of the Moroccan court system. They could take the American office, but I'm sure that's rented.
If you had read the article, you would know that they are suing not for the right to illegally distribute content, but that they are suing because the RIAA had illegally prevented Kazaa from licensing content.
In Go, this would be called a KO fight. This does not preclude or even reference the legal challenge against Kazaa's network, but in response to that it challenges an illegal practice of the music industry which could shut it down. One could destroy the other, or vice versa. The industry would seem to have the upper hand with more lawyers, but if you read the wired article (now mysteriously down) Kazaa has an amazing network of cross-border legal hurdles necessary for the music industry to jump before cutting off the company that produces the software, at which point the software will still be functional and loose in the wild. They have an amazingly large number of liberties (again, GO), and both sides are vulnerable.
That fight, sadly, will probably go to the money. But a slap on the wrist by the judge might be enough to require the companies open up to actual licensing of online content, as opposed to shutting down competitors. The justice system is currently terrified of bringing to justice anything large, but Java is now shipping with Windows. Kazaa *might* have enough legal wiggleroom to then license content and have the previous charges thrown out on the grounds that they weren't holding their copyrights properly.
In other words, if they play the game good enough, they can force the music industry into licensing to them, transition to a probably much more profitable paid service, and come out the other side squeaky clean. Whatever lawyer thought this up earned their paycheck.
How did this parent get modded up to 5 insightful? He obviously didn't read the article.
Re:Big legal mistake... (Score:4, Informative)
RIAA's hands are pretty bloody. They are guilty of anti-trust violations. Illegal cartel activities. Try googling for it.
Anyone who owns a copyright is entitled under copyright law to legally defend that copyright
Unless a court rules you have abused that copyright. In that case the court has the power to revoke your right to protect that copyright.
P.S.
I phrased it as "revoking your right to protect a copyright" because that's the way I originally saw it written. IANAL, but as far as I know it is essentially the same thing as revoking the copyright itself.
-
Hello WWF (Score:5, Insightful)
The solution is an iron fist (Score:5, Interesting)
Just take a look at the music you download now. Sure, you may occasionally and self-righteously download the occasional legitimate "teaser" track released legally, or some free songs from no-talent "independent" artists who are giving away their wares because no one in their right mind would pay for them. But you know that almost all of what you download was recorded, produced, distributed, and marketed by the very recording companies you claim to despise, and would never have been committed to disc were there not the possibility of profiting from exclusive distribution rights to their product. Every time you download their songs illegally, you are decreasing the probability that such things will be available in the future.
Anybody who cares about the system of intellectual property which has made the american entertainment and information technology industries so dynamic, and enjoys their fine products, from Windows XP to the "Lord of the Rings" movies to your new cell phone with built-in games and internet access, should understand the necessity of crushing Kazaa once and for all. We know that what they are doing is reprehensible, and moreover, as the Napster case and every successive suit against online piracy services has shown, illegal.
But Kazaa is worse than that. They have deliberately created an organizational structure, similar to the front organizations used by organized crime, to continue to operate and profit from their misdeeds in spite of legal sanction from every civilized country in which they have been sued. And like any crime ring, they have gone to great length to extract as much money from their "customers" as possible, using the enticing lure of pirated music to force paid advertising and virus-like spyware on the computers of their users. But in this modern era of international trade agreements such as the WTO, no one is beyond the reach of the law, and I believe that Kazaa can be crushed. They can be submerged beneath a tidal wave of litigation, until one day no internet provider will dare risk allowing them access. Any country which offers them safe haven should be considered a rogue nation and isolated internationally, and considered a sponsor of terrorism. If the world can beat Kazaa, it will send a strong message that theft is wrong, and allow the content producers to lead the way into the beginning of the true information age.
Re:The solution is an iron fist (Score:5, Insightful)
IF the RIAA wants to compete then make it worth my while to pay for it... I will... all KAZAA et al. represents is 4 million consumers saying that things have to change... that also means that 4 million consumers are a willing market for music that offers something better than 4 minutes of DL and 128kbs or $16.99 @ HMV
_CMK
Re:The solution is an iron fist (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know about you, but about half of the non-radio music I listen to is very eclectic [reference.com]. The rest of it is the stuff that the RIAA tends to sponsor.
I also find that when I pay $15 for a CD, I only ever listen to maybe 3 of the 12-20 songs on it (with a few notable exceptions), and most of these songs I have never heard of in the first place - for good reason. I don't like paying that much money to get only a few songs.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wake up and smell the plot (Score:5, Insightful)
I doubt the former will work. Kazaa seems to me like it's got its ducks in a row well enough that they won't be touched legally. The latter seems far more likely. Unfortunately for its users, if it is proven that Kazaa itself is legal but is being used by the users for illegal purposes, guess who's going to be the next target for legal action... The users offering large amounts of shared files.
You have to remember, Kazaa isn't fighting for the legal rights of its users, it is fighting to be able to keep running as a business.
Someone once made an analogy on here about unauthorized sharing of copyrighted material over P2P networks to people breaking the speed limits on the highways. To expand that analogy further... You can't ALWAYS break the speed limit on the highway. Sure, you may be able to do 70MPH in a 55MPH zone if it's what everyone else is doing, but you can be damn sure that everyone else is going to slow down once a cop decides to catch whoever is in the lead. You can't break the speed limit when there's a cop in the next lane and you certainly can't do it when it's 3:00AM and you're the only car left on the road.
Hearing about someone sharing files on Kazaa being busted will most certainly have the same effect as the cop busting the person in the lead on the highway. Everyone who gives a rats ass about not being the NEXT example is going to disable sharing or get off Kazaa altogether.
With a major drop in files, it will cause many users to just leave. Then you'll be left with the 3:00AM highway situation - they'll be so few users actually sharing content on Kazaa that busting them all could be realistically done.
Kazaa surviving isn't a win for the users, it's just the first battle in an ensuing war.
Re:Wake up and smell the plot (Score:3, Insightful)
Nope, it won't do anything. The same thought was behind harsh anti-drug sentancing, and it made no difference. Anyone can still get pot, anytime.
What will happen is that it will be quasi-legal; technically illegal but it's just your own bad luck if you become the one-in-a-million patsy.
Re:Wake up and smell the plot (Score:4, Interesting)
Just like the war on drugs, it's not so much a tactic to stop piracy outright as it is to make the general public think twice about it. Those who insist on pirating without getting caught will still find ways to do it.
Right now, the situation on P2P networks is like being able to go to a crowded shopping mall, shouting "I want to buy pot!" and many dealers come running over to you, eager to sell with no notice whatsoever by any members of law enforcement.
Dealing drugs and casual (for private use) music/video/software piracy cannot really be compared. The man selling drugs on the street is most likely well aware of the situation he's putting himself in and is willing to risk capture because he needs the money he's making for one reason or another (addiction, debt, etc.). The man with an open file share has a lot more to lose by being jailed and gains nothing of value by keeping his shared directory open.
Kazaa, the dumbest company since Napster (Score:5, Funny)
We should start a pool on how long it is before Kazaa is shut down.
89 days.
why do they file in Los Angeles? (Score:3, Interesting)
IANAL, so somebody ponder over this.
They just don't get it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:They just don't get it... (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's suppose that they do realize their business model is doomed. What should they do in response? Answer: milk the old business model for all it is worth until it is well past dead. Simultaneously, prepare for the new one.
They're still making big-B Billions of $/year the old way. They can afford lawsuits and lobbying fees easily. Those expenses are just a cost of doing business to them. And even one more year of profits under the old model is worth having. Likely, it's a minimum of 5 years until the old model is completely dead and probably longer.
Once the old model is completely dead, and not one day before, they can take their accumulated capital and step in to become a dominant player in the new model.
Our hope, if we have one, is to design the new model in such a way that it doesn't have dominant players.
Fine, make IRC illegal too... (Score:4, Funny)
The Excuse that didn't fly... (Score:5, Informative)
And basing their reason for existance around this singular Altnet software is beside the point entirely. THE POINT is whether Kazaa is facilitating piracy, not if they can make money off some ambiguous subscription service. Simply making money doesn't magically give them legitimacy.
Hopefully, they won't try to justify themselves through Altnet when they should be trying to push the case that they are a FILE sharing program. Not just MP3s or pirated goods. And FORCE the record company to start going after the guilty individual commiting the crime. Right now, their actions are like the FBI shutting down an ENTIRE ISP to take down a guy who collect child porn. It just doesn't happen like that.
Once again, I ask these people-- are they going to take out Google because the results it displays can potentially contain MP3 sites and warez? Are they ultimately responsible for how the person uses those search results? Didn't think so. Be that as it may, I have no illusions of Kazaa's chances of survival, especially when 90% if not more of it's traffic is violating some sort of copyright or another. It's like a crack house and crack houses get raided. With a case like this, i wouldn't step foot in the US either...
common sense (Score:5, Insightful)
music companies are an economic distribution model. supply and demand. the internet is an information distribution model. infinite supply, infinite demand. there is no economic model in it, so there is no money in it.
not all discoveries mean good things for everyone. just ask the aztecs or incans. internet= music nirvana for everyone, a BETTER distribution model for music. it is the death of music companies, who make money pushing cds, an inferior distribution model.
yawn. big deal. next story.
where is it written in the bible or the constitution that someone, somewhere, has to make money off music? where is it written?
i think that before the vinyl recording, people enjoyed music and made music just fine. artists will make music whether they are promised a penny or a billion. the passion for music, to create it, does not depend upon how much money you will make. no one said that somebody standing between the artist and me, the listener, needs to turn a buck. radio will tell me who i might want to listen to, and they will make money promoting concerts and selling ads. artisits will still get known, word of mouth will still spread. you don't need a music company for that.
you can't kill the internet.
you can kill a company.
music companies pumping millions into legal actions is just the death throes of a dying dinosaur.
good riddance.
they can scream all they want. they can't fight historical obsolescence.
"video killed the radio star" 1980
"internet killed tommy motola" 2000
scream copyright, scream intellectual property. who gives a shit. none of that beats a worldwide millions strong force of music hungry pimply teenagers with no money to burn and an internet connection.
the gears of historical forces no one can control are turning.
death to music.
long live music.
Kazaa's Lawyers, Whipple & Whiple, Warn Hollyw (Score:4, Funny)
Cracking a nut with a sledgehammer.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously though:
"Sharman is asking the judge to declare the copyright holders guilty of antitrust and related violations, and to bar them from enforcing any of their copyrights."
You dont think the *AAs are going to go absolutely all out to get this thrown out of court? I mean forcing all their works into the public domain might do wonders for the 'information wants to be free crowd'... but realistically the *AAs will fight tooth and nail!
The *AAs would be prepared to blow all their money in lawyers and bribes to avoid a verdict like that... which would really obliterate their business.
I think theyre asking for too much... and because of this they may end up with nothing. Kazzza was an example of semi-legitimate peer to peer, and was a good example to show off legal p2p working. (As like its *cough* only a small minority sharing illegal stuff *cough*)...
But with claims like "bar them from enforcing any of their copyrights"... i mean for fucks sake, they only make profit out of holding copyrights.. im finding this difficult to explain.. but like i say, the *aas will pay anything to stop that verdict.
Maybe a slightly less inflamatory suit wouldve done more good for p2p imho.
Re:Cracking a nut with a sledgehammer.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Unless the suit is totally baseless then there is a real chance the RIAA will fail to get it thrown out no matter how much they spend on laywers. Spending a billion dollars on laywers is certainly an advantage, but it doesn't guarentee a win *if* Kazaa has a real case.
I think theyre asking for too much
We all know the penalties for violating copyright law are severe. Well, if Kazaa prooves the RIAA violated copyright law in the way they claim then that's the legally mandated penalty.
Can can Kazaa prove their case? I have no idea. But even if they can't then it can still be effective leverage against the RIAA lawsuit. The RIAA may negotiate a settlement to drop both lawsuits.
The RIAA is filing lawsuits and threatening lawsuits left and right and driving people out of bussiness. I have no sympathy for the RIAA defending themselves against a lawsuit that threatens to do the same to them.
It would be poetic justice for the RIAA to be wiped out for violating copyright law.
-
I Am Not A Lawyer... (Score:4, Insightful)
Like I said, I'm not a lawyer... but I'm pretty sure the good folks at Sharman Networks aren't idiots either... and I'm sure this lawsuit was well thought out...
Perhaps their motives dig deeper than most of us are looking?
Just a thought...
(either way, it'll be interesting to see how this plays out)
Re:I Am Not A Lawyer... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not saying this one was or was not appropriately considered... many many lawsuits by major corporations are not, though.
--
That's weird. I just downloaded Kazaa: (Score:5, Funny)
Have a nice day!"
Re:That's weird. I just downloaded Kazaa: (Score:3, Interesting)
Everyone would still use it if they knew about the ad network. It's a fantastically useful system, despite the drawbacks. Hopefully they'll get squashed, and eventually one of the hydra heads will have none of the drawbacks.
Antitrust immunity probably not a defense here (Score:5, Informative)
The problem is that copyright confers a monopoly. The RIAA members did get in antitrust trouble over retail price maintenance, but that had to do with illegal marketing practices, involving pressure on retail outlets not to discount. The retail outlets weren't claiming the right to copy the product, just to stick "50% OFF" stickers on it. There was collusion amongst the RIAA members to accomplish this.
But a copyright claim doesn't require collusion. Any individual copyright holder could ask a court to shut Kazaa down. Price maintenance only works if most of the players conspire to keep prices up. That's the difference.
A different situation (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, but I think that the new issue here is the Recording Industry's attempts to promote its own download services in competition to things like Kazaa. It's one thing for the major labels to protect their copyrights, it's another for them to use their copyrights as a lever to put companies out of business so they'll have no competition in a business area that they've already entered.
The hotel case didn't pack the same argument. Even Napster didn't have the same case, because at that time the music industry hadn't clearly demonstrated its desire to control the music download business. The situation is different now; for instance, six major labels [slashdot.org] just announced that they're collaborating on a music download service, which creates a much more compelling case that the labels are leveraging their copyrights to advance their own distribution businesses. This is further evidenced by the fact that many of these label-controlled download businesses have failed to pay royalties and yet the music industry has neglected to use its legal powers against them.
I doubt that the conservative court system is going to buy it, but I do think that Kazaa has a valid argument in this case. It's an argument that's going to become increasingly valid until it's obvious to even the most skeptical among us.
Why is Kazaa/Napster illegal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Can someone fill me in please?
I mean, I really don't get it why a p2p network would be illegal... Kazaa is not forcing anyone to break laws and steal stuff... There are legitimate uses for Kazaa...
Wouldn't this be the same thing as making CDR's illegal just because you can do illegal stuff with it? Or you could even make the Internet illegal because well it's used for so many illegal things from warez, music pirating, fraud, child pornography, etc... Where does it end?
Kazaa, Napster, or any other P2P network should not be held responsible for some peoples' actions that might be illegal. Those people doing the illegal actions should be held accountable. Just because it's a little harder to track down, that doesn't mean it can't be done, and it doesn't mean anyone should blame P2P networks for it....
Re:Why is Kazaa/Napster illegal? (Score:4, Insightful)
But then again, look at all the ISP's that are being taken down for things their users do without their knowledge.
Logically, it seems like it wouldn't be illegal. You can't assume that just because illegal activities occur due to something makes that something itself illegal.
By that logic, these following scenarios should follow:
Underage drinkers get into bars illegally. Bars are illegal.
A program leaves a computer vulnerable by default. That program is illegal.
Computers, networking services, and the internet provide a means for illegal activities. They are all illegal.
Ok, so yes, those analogies may not be one hundred percent correct, but you get my drift. Providing a means for illegal activities is not illegal if that is not the original intention.
Why the hell do you think bongs are legal? Yes, they are supposed to be good for smoking tobacco. But what percentage are actually used for tobacco smoking?
Blake
By the way, I am not a lawyer. 95 percent or more of you are not as well. So I may be wrong, and probably am. I'm just speaking from a logical viewpoint. Most of you are probably wrong as well. Slashdot should pay their legal team to tell us what they think.
SuperBowl XXXVIII? (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe it's the American in me... but I hope the underdog wins.
Somehow, I feel that the future of computing as we know it is going to be decided in large part due to the outcome of this matchup and I for one am tired of waiting for the outcome. I'm tired of the constant rehashing of the legality of file sharing. I'm tired of the false numbers and statistics spun as proof that P2P is the sole culprit for declining music revenue.
Most of all... I'm tired of the threats of a DRM-enabled world.
I'm a music fanatic. I love all kinds of music. I used to buy music, but when Napster was taken away from me, I stopped.
When I pay to see concerts now, at least I take cautious comfort in the idea that the artists see a larger percentage of my twenty dollars. I hope, anyway.
It won't just stop at Kazaa.... (Score:5, Funny)
And a device called the "Telephone" can be used for lower-quality instant transmission of aforementioned music.
The creator of the "ear" (client) and the "Voicebox" (server) will also be brought to trial soon, once the Evolution/creation debate is finished, and a defendant can be found.
Not a chance (Score:3, Interesting)
Not while there are lawyers using oxygen in LA and New York. The music industry can bury Kazaa in legal costs and settle out of court.
Kazaa my win, but users will loose. (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem is that now the RIAA/etc are planning on going after users.. who will be brave enogh to use kazaa, etc.
Once the first high profile case produces jail time for some average joe downloader, useage will drop off the map.
GUNS (Score:5, Insightful)
Kazaa should "keep it simple" (Score:3)
Re:that makes no sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:that makes no sense (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:that makes no sense (Score:3, Insightful)
Kazaa's new argument is seperate from this: they claim that the sister-app to Kazaa, Altnet, is an entirely legal (i.e. no illegal purposes possible) means of profit-making for Kazaa. Moreover, they claim that it offers a means to directly cut the profits of those companies which are suing Kazaa. These two points together mean that they're able to claim that the suing companies (i.e. rcaa, etc.) are not out to protect their copyrights legally, but are instead attempting to act as an illegal trust seeking to protect their monopoly.
Its quite ballsy, in my opinion, but it just might work.
Re:that makes no sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Besides, I see this lawsuit as a double edged sword. By filing this lawsuit, Kazaa kind of admits that they do conduct business in the U.S., while simultaneously they go to great lengths to assert that they are incorporated in Vanatu.
Re:that makes no sense (Score:3, Funny)
Re:that makes no sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:that makes no sense (Score:4, Insightful)
I've never heard of anything so silly. Altnet cannot act as a band-aid for the illegal file swapping that is Kazaa's primary reason for existence, and properity.
Yes it does make sense (Score:5, Informative)
The car makers took the "non-approved" mechanics to court to stop them working on the cars. Result, they lost. The EU courts said that choice cannot be innibited by using a lock in. The car makers now has to provide all mechanics with the codes necessary to do maintenance.
The point of this story is that Kaaza does distribute legal content. However, if Kaaza cannot get access to this content, then copyright holders are abusing the copyright law. Kaaza has no choice, but distribute whatever content they can get their hands on. In effect Kaaza does have an anti-trust and monopoly issue with the big labels.
This will be a really interesting case to follow.
Re:Yes it does make sense (Score:3, Informative)
Re:that makes no sense (Score:5, Insightful)
The standard Kazaa system was deployed with two goals. In the short term, the network's ad revenues will cover various logistical expenses. In the long term, it will demonstrate to consumers (home users) and producers (independent artists) the value of P2P. However, because Kazaa run by unpaid users and producers, some participants in the system don't perform consistently: There's no guaruntee that a file will be available, or that the version of a file you download today will be available tomorrow. Our for-pay service, Altnet, will provide higher quality, better selection (artists looking for money will be more willing to participate), and better marketing (prioritization in search results). In fact, all value in P2P is the presence of other parties willing to share disk space and bandwidth. If we hadn't deployed Kazaa as a free and pure service before Altnet, we could not have reached the critical mass required to make AltNet viable.
Re:that makes no sense (Score:3, Interesting)
When I used Kazaa, I ran across some sponsored content that they promoted. If memory serves, it was a music video, but I can't remember the band. (Wasn't my thing)
They got me to download it and authorize a license etc. Though I didn't like the music, I thought it was kinda cool. If they could get movies to me this way, I would have no problem spending money on it.
Re:that makes no sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Kazaa/Sharman (Kazaa, for simplicity), is *not* trying to argue that the RIAA's (and its members') illegal conduct justifies its own promotion of piracy. This is an entirely separate claim altogether. In essence, they are claiming that they and Altnet *tried* to get licenses to the majors' music catalogs (so that they could *sell* P2P access and/or copy-protected copies), but that they were illegally refused.
Assuming (accurately) that the majors control the vast vast majority of music copyrights, and that they illegally agreed (not yet proven) not to deal with Altnet/Kazaa, but instead only with their own online distribution arms, then a judge can find that they have thereby inhibited legal competition in the online distribution market.
That being said, one common consequence of copyright (or other intellectual property) -related antitrust conduct is that the copyrights are rendered "unenforceable." If that occurred, then even if Kazaa's actions constituted copyright infringement (actual or inducing), they cannot be held liable because the copyrights at issue would be unenforceable.
In other, more simple words, the counterclaim doesn't attempt to justify Kazaa'a purported wrongs based on bad conduct by the record companies... it's just a really lovely side effect.
In all likelihood, such a draconian remedy would never be issued by a judge (imagine if all of the copyrights of all the majors were summarily rendered unenforceable.... anarchy!). Having worked for the lawyer in question, though, the likely intent is to gain negotiating leverage by the simple possibility of a "death sentence," however remote.
Glad to see them fighting back.
Re:that makes no sense (Score:5, Insightful)
This happened to Napster (Score:3, Interesting)
Similar to the VCR/CD-R analogy.
Re:Piracy (Score:3, Funny)
"I would rather all these P2P file sharing services got together and created an *open source* solution that allowed infrastructure for digital media delivery. I mean we have all the pieces it's just no one has put them together yet. Who wants Microsoft to pull their pieces together first and dominate yet another market?"
What do you think Gnutella and the million derivatives thereof are? How about Freenet? Next, you'll be suggesting we band together to form a "community" where we can share news and ideas. Perhaps we can call it "Slashdot!"
Yarr!
Re:What if Kazaa is shut down? (Score:4, Informative)
The supernodes keeps the file lists.
You use them to search for files.