Kazaa Sues Record Labels

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."

Suddenly

[keesh]

I wish I was a lawyer, not an engineer...

Re:Suddenly

[EvilTwinSkippy]

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.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

It's obvious...

[Eric_Cartman_South_P]

Yeah, but the computer code has to eventually compile. :-)

It's obvious you never worked for a .com before :)

Re:It's obvious...

[poot_rootbeer]

Yeah, but the computer code has to eventually compile. :-)

It's obvious you never worked for a .com before :) .com, .exe... whatever. They both have to compile. :)

Re:Suddenly

[NanoGator]

"Yeah, but the computer code has to eventually compile. :-)"

I use interpreted languages you insensitive clod.

Re:Suddenly

[Monkelectric]

Legal code and computer code have a lot in common

I know you're kidding, but there's a book about the subject written by slashdots patron saint, lawrence lessig, Code and Other Lws of Cyberspace [amazon.com]

I bought it when it came out and stayed up all night reading it... not groundbreaking material but alot to think about, and defiantley worth 12$

Re:Suddenly

[EvilTwinSkippy]

Have you actually read an act of congress? Talk about security through obscurity!

Re:Suddenly

[SatanicPuppy]

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

[queequeg1]

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

[Paradise Pete]

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

[Alien Being]

If these lawyers were engineers, there designs would look like this [rube-goldberg.com].

Re:Suddenly

[homer_ca]

Oh there's a debate in government alright. Where were you when the Senate held hearings last week on the RIAA lawsuits? The RIAA might have Congress bought and paid for, but the file sharers still have sheer numbers on its side. When you have millions of otherwise law-abiding citizens engaging in illegal activity something has to give. You can't sue 50 million people each for $150,000 per song. The closest analogy in the past would be the AHRA of 1992 that decriminalized home taping.

Re:Suddenly

[nanojath]

When you have millions of otherwise law-abiding citizens engaging in illegal activity something has to give.

In the U.S.A., at least, it hasn't happened with marijuana yet.

The difference between file sharing and home taping is largely one of scale and centralization. Home taping is by nature a small scale, decentralized activity. I borrow an LP from my brother, tape it, that's the end of it. If someone tried to open a "home taping center" where any and all could come browse thousands of record collections and make cassette dupes, leaving behind a paper trail of their activities, you would quickly find out just how "decriminalized" home taping was.

Re:Suddenly

[Angram]

Why would they debate these issues? The population that cares is so small that even if 100% of it voted by it alone, it wouldn't be a fraction of a percent worth considering. Democracy is ruled by the majority - if you're in the minority (in this case people who understand or care about computers), you don't matter. If 51% of a the US (or substantially less, if there are at least 3 major candidates for political offices) wants to enslave the other 49%, they can. That's what's wrong with democracy on this scale - you have ~290 million people in the country, and 144 million wouldn't matter if they all voted (assuming the majority all voted as well). If there were 5 major parties (or just 5 real candidates) for every office, you could easily have a quarter of the population subjugate the rest, so long as the population was consistant in its ideological breakdown.

Democracy only works in small units with free movement between - small areas make rules, and if you don't like them you go somewhere more in line with your views.

The US is big and bloated - corporations control because there are political parties, which exist because so many offices and positions have to work together to get anything done. Like it or not, democracy is doomed to fail when it gets too large (not that other systems are better - anything on such a scale will die the same). The more people you please, the more you anger- evidence of this has been piling up as far back as you can look in human history.

If you want a country where computers are the top priority, the entire poluation has to be content with every larger issue, or else their crusade to fix computers will result in the minority overthrowing them on major issues.

Re:Suddenly

[blue_collar_man]

To be honest, our forefathers were brilliant.
They created a system that was inherently impossible to do anything. With so many different people from so many different backgrounds, how in heck could they agree on anything? Thats why they made it the way they did.

Unfortunatly, they forgot about the power of money and now we all have a system where anything is possible if enough cash is at stake.

Re:Suddenly

[Sleetan]

I think alot more people get interested when they start reporting about a 12 yr old in public housing being sued.

I was standing outside my local Wal-Mart talking with some friends about this whole ordeal and a crowd of strangers started joining in talking about their fears and how they were offended by being threatened with these lawsuits because of how much music they purchased legally.

As for your knock on democracy, actually 51% of the country could vote for a candidate and still lose. My god man, where were you last election? That's the whole point of the electoral college, to allow more people to matter. That and to keep California from electing the President.

Re:Suddenly

[once1er]

oh my god no! This isn't how the system works. My Political Science teacher used this _exact_ same example. 51% of the population could never enslave the other 49%. First off, on this perticular issue, you'd have to pass a constitutional amendment voiding another one (Thirteenth Amendment - Slavery And Involuntary Servitude), which would require two thirds to pass! Second, we have minority rights. Which are vigorously fought for by (strangely) the majority of the people. And to be the billionth person to br

Re:Suddenly

[Malcontent]

I don't know about slavery but consider this.

The vast majority of the country are heterosexual. The homosexual minority is not allowed to marry or serve in the military which are two rights that the homosexuals have but deny to others.

So clearly a majority can and does deny rights to a minority. You can't say "it can't happen" when it is happening right before your eyes.

Re:Suddenly

[thefirelane]

Except neither of those things are Rights [cornell.edu]. Be careful on your language.... people throw around that word to carelessly.

Even the other night, in the recall debate... Huffington was describing those who wanted to stop the drivers licenses for illegal immigrants as "wanting to stop their right to drive".... huh?


---Lane

Re:Suddenly

[ergo98]

Democracy is ruled by the majority - if you're in the minority (in this case people who understand or care about computers), you don't matter. If 51% of a the US (or substantially less, if there are at least 3 major candidates for political offices) wants to enslave the other 49%, they can.

This is logical if 51% of the people had exactly the same opinions and views, and the other 49% held opposing opinions. In reality, though, we're all a complex mesh of opinions and perspectives. Everyone is a minority i

Re:Suddenly

[Durandal64]

Yeah, the Iraqi people had the right to bear arms and overthrew Saddam very quickly. Oh, wait ...

When has force of arms ever led to the respect of minority rights legislatively in the United States?

Re:Suddenly

[Malcontent]

Tell that to the palestenians.

Re:Suddenly

[Angram]

Democrats and Republicans have relatively minor differences - they have a few key issues they squabble over, but are essentially the same when you get down to the basics. Think of it like humans and bonobos (closest species) - we look different, but nearly all of our DNA is the same. We've got the same kidneys as chimps (and rats, etc.), just as both parties both listen to lobbying groups with big pockets, not "ordinary" people. Just as both use polls to determine their stance on "minor" issues. Just as both make big promises to get into office, then forget all about what they said. Just as both consistantly break every moral and legal standard to further their careers (don't call me cynical, call me realistic - it's not all of them, but it's most as far as I can tell, from villiage mayors and appointed traffic court judges up to congressmen and presidents). Just as both fall into line with the party to keep the funds flowing. Just as both squelch out independents from debates. Just as both manipulate the media. The list goes on. I don't like it one bit - I won't vote for any of them, because I think they're all terrible. The whole "lesser of two evils" deal is a waste - you're still voting evil.

On election day, I go down to the polls and register a "protest vote" - I pull up the write in for any position, leave it blank, and pull the level. I make my point simply - I take voting seriously, and always take the time to do it, but I don't see anyone worth voting for. The Republicans are cutting down trees, the Democrats are censoring CDs, I don't trust the Greens with a war or the Conservatives with taxes.

Whatever the case, voting based on computer issues is a poor choice for anyone to make, since it would require overlooking every other issue, and voting against your own beliefs (unless you happen to completely agree with some candidate, in which case the computer issue probably didn't change anything).

Re:Suddenly

[sinserve]

Yes, definetly. America shouldn't tollerate adulterers.

All I can say is.....

[Lord_Dweomer]

Its about fucking time.

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

Hmmmm..

[El Pollo Loco]

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..

[gl4ss]

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..

[wastaz]

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!

resisting cliche urge

[cr@ckwhore]

must... resist... urge... to ... post.... cliches!

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

heh

Don't forget...

[Atario]

...about the goose and the gander, there, Batman.

RIAA != Gov

[TwistedSquare]

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.

Re:RIAA != Gov

[ScrewMaster]

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.

grant them amnesty

[civilengineer]

if they promise not make any more CDs

Re:grant them amnesty

[AvantLegion]

If I had mod points, this would get one.

Drop-dead funniest thing I've read on Slashdot in a long time.

Re:grant them amnesty

[Soul-Burn666]

They stopped making CDs... they started to make cup holders that break Macs and Car CD Players, etc.

In other news

[bobbabemagnet]

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.

Re:In other news

[ikkonoishi]

No. No. No. Kazaa dropped the case when it realized that it was really a party magician.

It's about time...

[Kujah]

... 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...

Re:It's about time...

[NanoGator]

" 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.

Re:It's about time...

[captain_craptacular]

Are you kidding? There's no way in hell kazaa is more important than telivision. People use kazaa to download things that they don't want to pay for. Most of these things have no political or sociological significance (Britney for Prez!). The T.V. on the other hand tells people who to vote for (the liberal of course, unless it's the pro media-consolidation republican), where to spend their money, how they should feel about the war, why they should report their suspicious neighbor to America's Most Wante

A Solution from the Dark Side

[Henry V .009]

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.

Re:A Solution from the Dark Side

[Karamchand]

Don't mind, the RIAA and similar organisations have more than enough money to get law enforement after suspected pirates.

Pyrrhic Victory

[chadjg]

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

[El]

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

[ruiner13]

"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

Re:A Solution from the Dark Side

[way2trivial]

read the kazaa lite eula, it's specified.

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

Re:You were wrong

[Experiment 626]

Warez sites with such a "license" don't exempt themselves from prosecution. It's just some idiotic ploy someone thought up long ago.

There's a big difference between government authorities prosecuting someone who is breaking the law, and a private organization violating one law to see if someone else is breaking another.

If I flagrantly violate the Windows EULA by decompiling, reverse engineering, benchmarking, and doing who-knows-what else to it, could I then absolve myself of this by telling them, "I just did it to see if you guys were up to anything illegal"?

This case is interesting because it pits one private organizations's pseudo-law-enforcement powers against another's ability to make up whatever terms of service they feel like. Whether the RIAA or EULAs get taken down a notch by this, the public stand to win.

Weak laws

[KalvinB]

The EULA is the weaker law. If you wrote a virus that destroyed computers you couldn't sue someone under the DMCA for reverse engineering it to see what it does in order to track down who wrote it and to keep it off of systems. Damaging other people's property over rules your "right" to privacy.

You cannot use a weak law to protect yourself from a higher law.

The higher law is the laws of copyright. The weak law is the EULA. And it's no secret that illegal MP3's and everything else are being traded on P

Re:Weak laws

[rzbx]

EULA's, although not always, are based on laws. They can defend most of what is in a EULA by referencing it to a law. Why else was the DMCA created? Without the DMCA, there probably was little a company could do to prevent reverse engineering. Thus, the DMCA (very bad move) was created.

" The EULA is the weaker law."

You obviously don't know what your talking about. A EULA is not a law. It is an agreement between the user and provider and is protected (not always) by law.

"If you wrote a virus that destroyed computers you couldn't sue someone under the DMCA for reverse engineering it to see what it does in order to track down who wrote it and to keep it off of systems."

Well, since one would be letting his or her program run out in the wild and forcing (basically) it onto someone without any consent or attached notices, then the copyright/DMCA laws don't apply.

"And it's no secret that illegal MP3's and everything else are being traded on P2P."

State the obvious why? Illegal? An mp3 can not be illegal. It is the act of distributing the copyrighted work that is illegal. For a person that is hard on keeping strong copyright laws, you sure need to learn what laws are and their purpose. You also need to learn about the entire subject period.

"A EULA will never hold up in a case where it's being used to hide a crime."

I'm glad your trying to do your part for society, but until you learn about what your talking about, your doing little to actually help. Technicalities aside, there is more important reasons for everything. A law is not moral, good for the economy, or good for society, just because it is a law. When a law that appears good can also be used to do something one would consider evil, then it isn't a good law is it?

Interesting

[BWJones]

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

[dissy]

> 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!

[El]

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?

[GuyMannDude]

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

Re:Money?

[Karamchand]

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?

[AvantLegion]

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...)

Well how about me?

[_Sexy_Pants_]

I want in on the action! Who can I sue!?

RIAA didn't expect this?

[NumLk]

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...

[dtrent]

...AOL sued *you* for accessing their network with Gaim.

Re:Imagine...

[MatthewB79]

I wasn't accessing AOL network for any reason other than to chat. The RIAA accesses KaZaA with intent to crapflood, spread a virus or 2, and spy on KaZaA users. There is a difference..

Illegal client?

[Quobobo]

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?

[tarquin_fim_bim]

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?

[fishbowl]

"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

[Spetiam]

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

[DavidBrown]

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

[charnov]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:HEHEH DMCA

[Nom du Keyboard]

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...

[another misanthrope]

...how long until they demand Google pull all R**A links?

KazaaLite License Agreement

[kUnGf00m45t3r]

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!

Slashdot dualmindedness again

[AEton]

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.)

Re:Slashdot dualmindedness again

[EvilTwinSkippy]

We are at war with Oceana. We have always been at war with Oceana. Eurasia is our ally...

Re:Slashdot dualmindedness again

[Jherico]

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'.

My fave quote

[smoondog]

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

Next thing you know...

[El]

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?

[ErisCalmsme]

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?

[gmhowell]

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).

*Warning* - you may not use this Product or..

[The Revolutionary]

...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 [ ]

Re: Seriously though...

[The Revolutionary]

Concealing or failing to disclose one's status as a law enforcement office is different than endorsing a binding agreement to the effect that one is not. While clearly in the case that there is reasonable suspicion or a warrant has been issued it is acceptable for a law enforcement agent to ignore such an agreement, but I am not aware that RIAA investigators have any such status so as to make this behavior acceptable for them.

So far as I am aware, an officer may not search your car "just because he or she feels like it". There must be some reasoanble suspicion that wrongdoing is afoot.

This may well be in the case of Kazaa, but under no circumstances may the copyright holder take the investigation or execution of justice into his or her own hands and expect not to be liable for any infringements he or she commits in the course of doing so.

The linked article does not address this point.

If I have good reason to believe that my neighbor has stolen my bicycle, and that I can even see it through his window, under no circumstances may I force entry into his house to take back my bicycle.

I fail to see why, for the ordinary citizen, the case should be otherwise for copyright infringement.

What about those being sued?

[Transcendent]

If Kazaa wins, could this mean that all "evidence" presented against people that they have been illegally sharing copyrighted music must be thrown out?

Re:What about those being sued?

[El]

Yes, all except for those notarized confessions they've collected as part of their "amnesty" program...

Live by the DMCA...

[Nom du Keyboard]

Live by the DMCA...

...Die by the DMCA.

And it's about time!

Yeah, right...

[strAtEdgE]

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."

Even if Kazaa loses, this could be good

[lannocc]

If Kazaa loses, wouldn't this set precedent that stupid Software License Agreements are not enforceable?

Sue me hoes!

[t_allardyce]

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.

The RIAA used to be a non-profit organization.

[bort27]

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

[leabre]

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

[Pofy]

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?

[scaife]

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

[inkswamp]

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?

[MobyDisk]

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,

[ilyag]

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

[Quila]

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.

Re:Legality

[satyap]

Heck, no, individuals don't have enough money to have rights.

Re:Legality

[HuffMeister]

There's some weird language in the DMCA that enables the RIAA to directly subpoena suspected infringers' information from their ISP. Supposedly, it only takes a court clerk signature... Not even a judge has to review the subpoena...

unfortunately ... yes.

[telstar]

The Verizon case found that the RIAA has the right to get the identities of users who they allege are violating copyright laws by sharing copyrighted music.

This finding is still being appealed by Verizon, and Congress is discussing whether this should be allowed to continue. Where the RIAA should get in trouble is with the recent subponea issued for the wrong person [boston.com]. They essentially deprived this person of their right to privacy by wrongfully requesting that the person's ISP reveal their identity. This was in clear violation of their rights ... and if the RIAA didn't have more lawyers than quality musicians, the person could do the country a world of good by suing the RIAA.

Re:Legality

[zurab]

How is it legal for record companies to obtain information on users from the ISP? Are there no privacy laws regarding ISPs? Just curious...

Where have you been all this time? DMCA actually obligates ISPs to disclose subscriber information at RIAA's (or other copyright owners' request). So it would be illegal for ISPs not to supply subscribers' information. RIAA can do this without any judicial oversight, let alone having to file a suit first to obtain a subpoena. RIAA has more power than police or FBI them

Just get informed.

[Pius II.]

You mean Morpheus. They were based on the FastTrack network and then changed to Gnutella. Using Gnucleus, IIRC.
Kazaa OTOH still use the FastTrack network. This network runs over centralized servers, so a third party client could indeed be "stealing" their resources.

Re:That argument didn't work for warez sites

[Lord Kano]

Suing the record labels for not letting people get away with illegal activities involving the RIAA's property is just idiotic.

Police aren't legally allowed to beat a confession out of a suspect. The DEA can't force you to snort some cocaine to get an indictment. An undercover(pardon the pun) police woman can't strip naked in front of you and demand money for sex in order to arrest you.

The point is this. You can't break one law (presumably contract law in this case) in order ot enforce another law.

What

Re:When will the Drama End?

[Nihilanth]

a countersuit is a bit of a tactical decision...why consign yourself to be completely on the defensive? Why not be proactive?

Many of the people in this thread (i havent worked my way all the way down yet) will probably respond that they should consign themselves to the defensive posture because they're doing something "wrong" and know they're doing it.

In fact, since they're putting so much spirit into this, it is very likely that they beleive that they are doing something right, and that's an opinion I happen to share. For all intents and purposes, the "winner" of this pissing match is going to be decided in a courtroom, so litigation will obviously be a weapon of choice, but don't rule out lobbying, graft, and blowjobs. I mean, we don't really have a history of settling legal matters through combat (-our- legal matters, anyway..overseas we take a different approach obviously), so the courtroom would be a logical place for it to play out in our charming faux-democratic way of doing things.

Of course, if either side said "i dont have to engage in petty litigation because I -know- i'm right!", then they'll be eaten alive and walked all over in seconds.

As long as the popular opinion is that there's nothing wrong with downloading music over the internet (and there really isn't, thats a whole 'nother can of worms that i'm sure has been belaboured to death around here), then logically there should be no legal onus against it, since the perception of the majority of the warm bodies don't have a problem with it. If the state of the music industry declines as a result (like it could get any -worse-), then we'll only have ourselves to blame, just like the music industry has only themselves to blame for not taking advantage of this new medium and gunning it down instead. ::shrug::