Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Almighty Buck Government The Courts The Internet News

Kazaa Outed Over 'Trust Fund' for Red Cross 234

Posted by timothy from the let's-call-it-darliction dept.
danwarne writes "In one of the most bizarre twists in the court action against Kazaa yet, documents have been tendered in Australian Federal Court court that showed that Kazaa claimed to have set up a trust fund for donations to the Red Cross (at about the time the tsunami hit), but the Red Cross has confirmed in writing it has never heard from them about it. The music industry alleged in court that it was a tactic by Kazaa parent company Sharman Networks to park money out of the reach of the music industry if it loses the case and is left with a huge damages bill. This in the same week that it came out in court that top Sharman/BDE execs offloaded their multi-million dollar homes. Sounds like Kazaa's lawyers might be telling them to prepare for the worst..."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Kazaa Outed Over 'Trust Fund' for Red Cross More

Kazaa Outed Over 'Trust Fund' for Red Cross

Comments Filter:

  • ObLinus (Score:5, Funny)

    by SinaSa ( 709393 ) on Sunday March 13, 2005 @03:17AM (#11924810) Homepage
    "The music industry alleged in court that it was a tactic by Kazaa parent company Sharman Networks to park money out of the reach of the music industry if it loses the case and is left with a huge damages bill."

    Real men don't scam citizens for stash-money! They zip it up, call it goat porn and upload it to Kazaa! Oh wait...

  • Hurray! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by sgant ( 178166 ) on Sunday March 13, 2005 @03:18AM (#11924814) Homepage Journal
    The RIAA is about to shut down another service that no one uses anymore! Way to go!

    Glad to see them wasting their money by pissing it away like this. The people that download music/movies will always be about 10 steps ahead of them.

    • Re:Hurray! (Score:3, Funny)

      by Sinus0idal ( 546109 )
      Yep, but once they are finished with Kazaa, who is next? Hopefully not the edonkey network...

    • Not so (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Nik13 ( 837926 ) on Sunday March 13, 2005 @04:24AM (#11924958) Homepage
      You make it sound like they're only attacking networks/means that nobody uses anymore, but they've done quite a lot of damage to BitTorrent and eDonkey/eMule "communities" too. I wouldn't exactly say that nobody uses those anymore. Granted, they haven't shut down those 2 yet, but it's not like they aren't trying or not doing anything about them either. (Mind you I'm quite happy to see this crapzaa plague go away)

      • Re:Not so (Score:4, Insightful)

        by sgant ( 178166 ) on Sunday March 13, 2005 @07:54AM (#11925393) Homepage Journal
        They won't shut down BitTorrent. They can't shut something down unless it's a central entity.

        I mean, they could try to go after the original programmer of Bittorrent or something, though the source out in the world protected by the MIT licence...so the RIAA would also have to challenge that if they want to "shut it down".

        They close a tracker site down, 10 more pop up. Bittorrent isn't going anywhere and in fact will become better and better.

        The RIAA are fighting a losing battle...do they have a right to fight it, sure. But I still belive they should instead try to find a better solution then what they're attempting, because as you can see, it doesn't really stop anyone from trading music. They shut down Napster, people still trade, they shut down Kaaza people still trade. In fact, I'm willing to bet that more people trade music today then they EVER did when Napster was around. I have no facts to back that up, it's just a hunch.

        Of course, I could be totally wrong.
        • Bittorrent isn't going anywhere and in fact will become better and better.

          Isn't that what people said about all the other p2p pirating scams? Of course they are all toast.

          • Re:Not so (Score:4, Insightful)

            by m50d ( 797211 ) on Sunday March 13, 2005 @01:14PM (#11926824) Homepage Journal
            They weren't open source is why they went under. Gnutella is still out there and going strong while other networks from the same era are collapsing, because the source is available. Napster and Kazaa both got in trouble when they started filtering things, because that showed they could have filtered out copyright infringing stuff. That can't happen with bittorrent, because the software is open source and there is no central server.
          • How are they going to shut down something that has no central server...and is open source?

            Go after the original author? Then what? The source is out there under the MIT licence...so then the RIAA would have to go after the licence and have it rendered null...and would they really want to open up that can-o-worms?
            • How are they going to shut down something that has no central server...and is open source?

              What does "open source" have to do with it? Absolutely nothing. The words "open source" do not have some magical power that renders corporate lawyers impotent.

              What they will do is send out a few thousand subpoenas and sue the shit out of both users and torrent link sites. That is what they will do. Scare tactics can be very effective, this approach has been shown to work very well in the past.

              • when I say "open source" in relation to this it means that the source code for Bittorrent is all over the world. People can see it and modify it and make it better and make it different to where no one can even know where something is coming from or where it's going etc etc...

                Napster shut down back then because it was a central place with closed software that was a huge target. Same with Kaaza.

                Where are the subpoenas going to go for the many people that use Bittorrent...a program that is even used by bigg

        • Re:Not so (Score:2, Insightful)

          by bayvult ( 555108 )
          They can't shut something down unless it's a central entity. ... Of course, I could be totally wrong

          You are totally wrong. BitTorrent was never designed to be anonymous. BitTorrent sites were closed down quicker than the P2P networks because the individuals sharing thier files identified their IP addresses and Torrents were advertized on easy to find websites. Very easy to go after a web site.

          It's weird how people see the word "decentralized" and think it's some kind of magic.

      • I'll miss Kazaa.
        No, really. It's a great word. Like a magic spell - abracadabra or something

        "Kazaa! Your download's fucked!"
        "Kazaa! You've got spyware!"
        "Kazaa! You thought it was Star Wars but it's really goat porn!"
      • Can you point out what they have done to emule? I still use it (although I rarely download anything the mpaa or riaa is interested in) and there's still tons of "their" files on there. In fact I would go as far as to say its stronger and better than ever.

    • Re:Hurray! (Score:3, Insightful)

      by MosesJones ( 55544 )
      The people that download music/movies will always be about 10 steps ahead of them.

      Quick summary of what you said

      "Run run as fast as you can, you can't catch me I'm the gingerbread man"

      I'm assuming in this downloading that you are making direct contributions to the artists that made the films/music rather than just ripping it off ? Didn't think so.

      In my book that makes you an equal git with the RIAA. They might be over-zealous, but you are a plain and simple thief.
      • Did I say that I was downloading anything? I said "the people that download". I get my music either through CD's or iTunes. Mainly iTunes.

        Did I say anything about where I even stand on the issue? I was pointing out the obvious.

        The music industry is changing, for the better I belive, and the power of an artists music is going BACK to where it belongs: with the artists. How many times do we have to hear about the recording industry ripping off artists? Almost all of the money should go to the artists with t

      • Re:Hurray! (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Peaceful_Patriot ( 658116 )
        Just because the music industry has changed the copyright rules to their advantage, doesn't mean downloaders are thieves. Unless I am copying the material and selling it for a profit, or claiming I am the artist, they have no leg to stand on!

        People have been sharing music for as long as I remember. In the 60's My sister used a reel to reel to tape songs off the radio and make copies for her friends. I had a casetter recorder/player with two tape drives in the 70s which was specifically for copying tapes.
        • Just because the music industry has changed the copyright rules to their advantage, doesn't mean downloaders are thieves. Unless I am copying the material and selling it for a profit, or claiming I am the artist, they have no leg to stand on!

          Really? Tell that to the judges and lawyers... If you'd said "I don't think they have..." first, I might have bought it. But, they definitely have a leg to stand on...
    • You say that, but once they have this victory under their belt, they have a precedent: People who write software whose purpose is for sharing files can be sued for the behavior of their users.

      Everyone should switch to using microsoft netmeeting's sharing capability to distribute their warez and pirated music.

  • Journalism (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kureido ( 830125 ) on Sunday March 13, 2005 @03:19AM (#11924817)
    The Red Cross wouldn't lie. Certainly my-main-man at the Cross, Jean-Jacques, was nothing but totally upfront during our interview. And I've interviewed plenty of spivs. My spivometre didn't move a nanometre while I was talking to him. Jean-Jacques was a straight up bro.

    What in the holy name of hell is passing for journalism these days? I might as well be reading my little brother's blog.

    • Re:Journalism (Score:5, Informative)

      by h4rm0ny ( 722443 ) on Sunday March 13, 2005 @04:54AM (#11925030) Journal

      Seconded! Who approved this piece of crap! I quote from the beginning of the article:

      them on attracting the world's most downloaded program in history as a contributor to its coffers. With three billion files downloaded each month on Kazaa, the Red Cross could almost rebuild Asia single-handedly from what must be a generous pool of dollars from Sharman

      Most downloaded program in the world? Rebuild Asia singe-handedly? This isn't hyperbole, this pure Improbability-Drive-A-Bole! The editor only needed to read three short paragraphs in to reach this rubbish! So either no-one read the article, or else they didn't understand what they were reading.
      My two pence!

      • Sorry to answer my own question - probably bad form and all, but following the editor's link to his home page, I found this adorable quote:

        I post on Slashdot as "timothy," to great wailing and gnashing of teeth.

        So it's deliberate then, is it? If /. wants to be taken seriously, then the editors need to take it more seriously themselves and filter out badly written and self-contradictory articles like this one. There is plenty going on in the world of science that can be discussed and would be of inter

        • Garth Montgomery's Dispatch pieces on Kazaagate have been posted to Slashdot regularly since the trial began.

          They have been quite interesting, and since they cover Kazaa, they're of direct relevance to Slashdot readers. I know of no other regular coverage of Kazaagate, but if you do, why not submit it?

          "great wailing and gnashing of teeth" is a common phrase. Timothy was making a joke and using a light-hearted writing style, similar to the approach used by Garth at the Dispatch. I wouldn't take it too

        • > If /. wants to be taken seriously, ....

          There's your problem right there. If you don't take this place seriously then it's not such a bad place to hang out.

      • Re:Journalism (Score:2, Insightful)

        by shark72 ( 702619 )

        "Most downloaded program in the world? Rebuild Asia singe-handedly? This isn't hyperbole, this pure Improbability-Drive-A-Bole! The editor only needed to read three short paragraphs in to reach this rubbish! So either no-one read the article, or else they didn't understand what they were reading."

        Many journalists and correspondents write in a colloquial style; it's part of their appeal. Google on "Hunter S. Thompson" or "Ann Coulter" or "Dominick Dunne" to see some more examples.

        To your credit (and t

        • Style or not, the article drips with flagrant wrongness. Implying that because billions of files are traded on kazaa every day means kazaa has money... why? Does the author of the article think that Kazaa takes a few cents off the top of every copyright infringing file sent for free?
        • To your credit (and to the credit of others who are boggled by the correspondent's writing style), I understand that many Slashdotters are of the New Media generation, and simply did not grow up in the day when print medium was king and many correspondents had a trademark style.

          To your credit (and to the credit of others who appreciate the correspondent's poor writing), I understand many older people have had strokes or other medical problems that have cut off the oxygen to large parts of their brain for
      • Seconded! Who approved this piece of crap!

        The editors have admittedly been completely bereft of actual editing skills or judgement (for say, at least the last 2 years), but in this case, the style of the story is not a sign of lack of veracity, just playfulness. The writer actually knows how to write and behind the gonzo facade, he seems to have a solid story.

      • Why would the editors read the articles when most of the users don't even bother?
    • Yo, you need be watch more Ali G [hbo.com] on whatever channel I think it is HBO in the US it will give you more inside dope into how you is writing an article for readers that is hip hop TV generation and knowing the net not for old lamers what don't know nothing.

      Peace, out...

    • Re:Journalism (Score:2, Interesting)

      by bayvult ( 555108 )
      Anyone who takes a PR's comments at face value and calls him a "straight up bro" should have rocks thrown at him, yes.

      But this couldn't be a blog, because it contains news I hadn't read someplace else. It would be disqualified from the blog-o-sphere.

  • p2p not synonymous w/ kazaa (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dirvish ( 574948 ) <dirvish&foundnews,com> on Sunday March 13, 2005 @03:19AM (#11924819) Homepage Journal
    Those wankers at Kazaa have hurt the p2p cause quite a bit. They knew they were doing shady stuff (adware, etc.) and now they are rightfully paying the price. For every step that people like the EFF [eff.org] make to make government realize it shouldn't over-regulate technology, shysters like Kazaa force things a step back to make a quick buck.

  • Upsides? (Score:2, Funny)

    by ElVaquero ( 867318 )
    Maybe if the RIAA wins they'll think they've actually stopped something and forget about Soulseek.

  • Priorities (Score:2, Insightful)

    by prdallan ( 847818 )
    Don't know about the law in Autralia or even in the US, but in certain countries actions similar to some of the described above could have as consequence people doing some time in jail...

    At least here where I am, before performing this kind of actions better one should really better consult with criminal lawyers and be very carefull with it; One should be more worried with the penal consequences than with financial assets....

  • Not suprised... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ImaLamer ( 260199 ) <john.lamar@g m a i l . com> on Sunday March 13, 2005 @03:32AM (#11924850) Homepage Journal
    Considering this company makes money off of bootlegging and piracy it makes sense.

    But before you fly off the handle, look at it this way: They took software for trading files and turned it and it's abilities into a profit machine, stooping so far as to load users with spyware to further that profit (remember: Kazaa Lite has no connection to Sharman). All the time we all knew that Kazaa was used 99% of the time for retrieving copyrighted works people had no rights to. This isn't Bittorrent where many files are free [gnu.org].

    After they had cashflow they had one of two responsiblities: Either filter owned works or pay up for those works. They made information trade their business and they didn't own the information they were "brokering".

    I don't know how people can be suprised or offended when Kazaa or Napster gets sued. I don't work for the **AA, and am not Dr. Dre, just not suprised at this. I'm not suprised if they get there asses handed to them. (I'm not counting on them getting off on any technicalities, I'm just saying they have it coming.)

    Napster and Kazaa with websites is tantamount to a drug dealer on the corner with a sign and them turning a profit is as disgusting as it gets. I've bootleged and pirated quite a few things but I nor anyone else should be making money off of that.

    That is the point isn't it?
    • Copyright law states that nobody may copy a work protected by copyright without permission from the copyright holder (fair and personal use notwithstanding).

      There is no clause permitting copying if it's not done for profit, or any portion of copyright infringement that would seem to limit its scope to commercial endeavors only. These factors only affect the amount of liability the infringer may face, they do not change whether or not an infringement occurs.

      You can try to rationalize not-for-profit pira

      • You can try to rationalize not-for-profit piracy all you want, but it's still illegal.

        Prior to 1996 or so, noncommercial infringement was illegal but there weren't any penalties for it. I think there are those who would welcome a return to that state.
        • I think there are those who would welcome a return to that state.

          Of course there is - everyone involved in not-for-profit copyright infringement. Duh.

        • Re:Not suprised... (Score:4, Insightful)

          by mark-t ( 151149 ) <markt AT nerdflat DOT com> on Sunday March 13, 2005 @05:36AM (#11925111) Journal
          The reason why there were no penalties for it before is that until fairly recently, the potential for noncommercial copyright infringement to actually make an impact in the total number of copies out there was virtually nonexistant, and simply not worth the time to pursue. Outside of a few fringe warez BBS's, the most common form of piracy was via sneakernet, where people would physically exchange disks. Ever-improving internetworking technology in the hands of the consumer, however, has made very large scale copy distribution increasingly available to them at virtually no cost at all, presenting an ever-growing threat to what Copyright actually is supposed to be. Copyright holders, and the agents that represent them, are compelled to act (ie, press charges) against infringers in response to the technological changes in order to preserve the value of Copyright.

          Unfortunately, a return to the state Copyright was in before 1996 would also necessitate a return to a time where the Internet wasn't what it is now either. Since the latter isn't possible, neither is the former.

          Sorry.

          • This line of thinking is EXACTLY what organizations like the SPA and RIAA would *love* you to think.

            But let's stop and think about this one for a minute, shall we?

            Way back when Lotus 1-2-3 for DOS was still the most popular spreadsheet around (pre-1996) - accusations were flying left and right about "there being an illegal copy in use for every single legal one". Similar claims were made about WordPerfect and the early versions of MS Word too.

            Of course, there's never any way to really *prove* any of the
            • The Internet is not the source of all our copyright woes.

              People not respecting Copyright is the source of all our Copyright woes.

              That's it.

              The fact that it takes pirates a lot less time to pirate than it did 10 years ago doesn't change the reason people pirate, but it certainly does affect the frequency.

              They never cared about the reason before, and they don't care about it now... they (rightly) care about the impact on what Copyright actually is, the exclusive _RIGHT_ to _COPY_, which was granted to

      • Minor thing, but it used to be if there was no money involved, and no harmfull intent (such as deliberatly giving away large numbers of copies for free to drive a competitor out of bussiness), it wasn't illeagle.
        IIRC originally copywright ONLY covered comercial use, and ONLY for a few years.
        It's expanded to the point were you practically need a specific clause to even READ something without commiting copywright infringement.

        Mycroft
        • and no harmfull intent (such as deliberatly giving away large numbers of copies for free to drive a competitor out of business), it wasn't illegal.

          Exactly. Today's copier generally has exactly that harmful intent in mind - drive the copyright holder out of business. Microsoft, Adobe, Metallica, and so on. The problem is that it isn't just these folks now. GPL software has started to see the effects of this. How long is PearPC going to withstand the assault of CherryOS?

      • The law is corrupt. Therefore we don't care about the law.

        Has this clicked for any of you "it's illegal" parrots? We don't care!

        Fix the laws and we will be law abiding citizens.
        • Has it ever occurred to you "it's illegal isn't a valid reason" knee-jerk reactionists that "it's illegal" is actually a perfectly _good_ reason if, in fact, the particular law in question happens to be good?

          To use the expression in another example, in the same tone and context I used the expression before, speeding by itself doesn't really hurt anyone either, but it's still illegal.

          Does the fact that you or I may be able to come up with half a dozen other valid reasons _why_ speeding may be wrong dimin

    • Re:Not suprised... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Sunday March 13, 2005 @04:01AM (#11924916) Homepage Journal
      Actually, it's more like in the 1980s, when a very high percentage of pager users were drug dealers; a very high percentage of pages were illegal drug transactions. Were the telcos liable for filtering those pages?
      • Well, let's look at the situation. When the pager companies set up shop they never ran ads that read "Get a pager and never miss a drug deal!!!!".

        Even if it was assumed that many customers were drug dealers none of the messages (in the 1980's) were specific enough to filter out illegal activity. Kazaa has a central server where searches like "Britney Spears - Toxic", or "Pink Floyd - Wish You Were Here" pass through. They made a point where it could be filtered but they didn't use it to protect themselves
        • "none of the messages (in the 1980's) were specific enough to filter out illegal activity"

          No, many of the messages included drug words. I know, because a friend of mine, as late as the late 1990s, was a programmer for an NYC pager company, and he used to grep the streams for interesting words, and then piece together interesting conversations. The carriers are not responsible for policing their infosystems, even when they can, and P2P doesn't change that.
      • No, but schools did filter them. No pagers. Period. Because it was assumed that if someone had a pager, they were selling drugs.
        • That's not a filter - that's a ban on the devices, regardless of the content. If every controller of spaces where pagers had to receive had done that, all the legit traffic would never have had a platform in which to grow. Now "paging" (incl. SMS) is essential to many lives, and driving lots of other innovative services. P2P will go the same way.
    • Napster and Kazaa with websites is tantamount to a drug dealer on the corner with a sign

      Nope. They are like someone who puts some benches covered with advertisements on a street corner and lets people sit and transact whatever business they might have with each other. They don't either provide "drugs" (illegal copies) or have a sign to encourage drug trading.

      When Porsche is forced to limit speed of their cars to 65Mph and US citizens are banned from opening numbered swiss bank accounts, it might be even

      • Re:Not suprised... (Score:3, Interesting)

        by shark72 ( 702619 )

        Kazaa went into business because they correctly saw the huge opportunity in the high demand for pirated material. Their very business model is based on this. Anybody who claims that Kazaa thought that it would be used primarily for trading Linux distros is either naive, or deliberately being Kazaa's stooge.

        They took the risk, and now they're in hot water. Naturally, they're using feeble excuses to avoid liability. There's nothing to be gained by our ignoring the obvious and pretending that Kazaa isn't

      • Well, considering that Kazaa (Sharman) operates out of Vanuatu I wonder why you bring America into it. I mean they moved from Europe because they were breaking the law.

        Considering they log activity they are in big trouble as well:

        http://www.kazaa.com/us/privacy/privacy.htm [kazaa.com]

        They can't say they had no idea.

        Remember "bongs" are illegal now because they help break the law. Tommy Chong can attest to that (not even that I agree with that, but it's precedent).
    • Not really. They're equivalent to a guy who will give any brown box you ask to someone else you ask with no questions asked, just charge you a bit for it. They were slimy and evil (they actually had the nerve to takedown Kazaa Lite for copyright infringment) but I don't think they were necessarily doing anything illegal.

    • Re:Not suprised... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      They took software for trading files and turned it and it's abilities into a profit machine

      There's nothing inherently wrong with that.

      After they had cashflow they had one of two responsiblities: Either filter owned works or pay up for those works.

      They have no such responsibility, any more than Microsoft has a responsibility to build filters into IIS to stop people from putting copyrighted works on websites without permission.

      I don't know how people can be suprised or offended when Kazaa or Naps

      • Bold = me

        After they had cashflow they had one of two responsiblities: Either filter owned works or pay up for those works.

        They have no such responsibility, any more than Microsoft has a responsibility to build filters into IIS to stop people from putting copyrighted works on websites without permission.

        I don't know how people can be suprised or offended when Kazaa or Napster gets sued.

        Because this software is just another way of copying files. You don't see the Apache Foundation get sued, or Micro
    • Errr ... keep in mind, they'll soon be controlling significant amount of P2P^2 (peer 2 peer 2 phone 2 peer) traffic also. :)

      Would you trust your voip packets to these guys?

    • Napster and Kazaa with websites is tantamount to a drug dealer on the corner with a sign and them turning a profit is as disgusting as it gets. I've bootleged and pirated quite a few things but I nor anyone else should be making money off of that.

      Where do you draw the line though? When they come after your ISP for making money off piracy by encouraging massive data caps?

      Noone I know downloads more than 20gb a month of legitimate traffic - the vast majority of users that don't download music/movies/tv s

  • Privatized Court of Public Opinion (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Sunday March 13, 2005 @03:36AM (#11924860) Homepage Journal
    We know that none of these sleazy biz tactics have anything to do with their liability for abuse of their software by some users. I bet these stories are being promoted by the music biz to cover up a Supreme Court decision against Kazaa/Grokster/Morpheus this month, which won't have a legal basis, but is rather just a favor to corporate media which hates P2P. The rest of the corporate media, in the "news" business, will be able to report that the Supremes dealt the "sleazy" P2P corps the justice they deserve, because they run tsunami scams. It will all make sense in the "news", though it won't have any legal merit.

    • "We know that none of these sleazy biz tactics have anything to do with their liability for abuse of their software by some users."

      What, as opposed to the majority of Kazaa users who use it to trade Linux distros? Kazaa's entire business model is based on the popularity of pirated material.

      "The rest of the corporate media, in the "news" business, will be able to report that the Supremes dealt the "sleazy" P2P corps the justice they deserve, because they run tsunami scams. It will all make sense in t

      • Re:Privatized Court of Public Opinion (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Sunday March 13, 2005 @05:40AM (#11925119) Homepage Journal
        It doesn't matter how sleazy they are, when deciding their liability for the actions of users, as being argued in the Supreme Court this month. Even the basest criminals have the rights to exercise their legitimate actions free from liability. It doesn't matter how righteous they are, what their business model is, whether they eat babies in their office - when judging their right to distribute software that is sometimes abused by some of its users. Unless you're so distracted by their other reported abuses, that you've totally ignored that I'm talking about their Supreme Court case deciding only that software liability, you're demonstrating exactly what I'm talking about.
        • I'm all for software as tools and all but they provided a service which enhanced the ability to break the law...

          And they tracked usage which makes them responsible. They were to greedy and it caught up to them.
          • Telephones, bars and most supported technology provide services which enhance the ability to break the law. That's not illegal, unless the operator has specific knowledge of a specific transaction which they specifically aided. The entire point of my subthread is that their greed is distinguished from their right to operate a P2P system which some people abuse.
            • Some people?

              Now we are just getting a little too out of touch. Kazaa was used for the sole purpose of trading copyrighted works! Not linux iso's, not royalty free work, Britney Spears songs...

              Then again, the phone, bars and the such weren't invented for the sole purpose of breaking the law... Kazaa was!

              Anyone who doesn't admit this to themselves is delusional.
    • Yep, the entertainment lobbyists are paying off the media to "manufacture" consent for a crooked kangaroo court to rape the p2p services.

      If they pay to have enough lying, crooked twisted articles in the media, when they fuck them over in court, the public outcry will be muted.

  • "Fraudulent conveyance" (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Beryllium Sphere(tm) ( 193358 ) on Sunday March 13, 2005 @03:37AM (#11924862) Journal
    Normally it's legal to sell your house to your brother for ten dollars. However if you do it to get your property out of the reach of your creditors then Bad Things will happen to you.

    At least that's the way it works in US law.

    The music industry is making grave accusations here.
    • Okay, this is getting off-topic (and I kind of expect to be modded down as such), but how exactly are they supposed to know exactly _why_ you did it? How could they even begin to prove it, even if it _were_ true?

      • "Okay, this is getting off-topic (and I kind of expect to be modded down as such), but how exactly are they supposed to know exactly _why_ you did it? How could they even begin to prove it, even if it _were_ true?"

        There is a term you may have heard on TV shows or movies: "circumstantial evidence." It's a fact that can be inferred from other facts. It's generally admissible in courts.

        For example, if an executive of a company whose business model was based on piracy, and whose said company was headqua

    • Another thing to consider is that when your brother sells it for, well, a LOT more than ten dollars, he has to show that huge profit as income on his taxes.

  • I call bullshit on this story (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ArsenneLupin ( 766289 ) on Sunday March 13, 2005 @04:19AM (#11924949)
    Timing is wrong. How do you compare this:
    The timing of the news coincided with the
    devastating tsunami and the global charity needed all it could get at its greatest time of need.
    ... and ...:
    At the time, Dispatch thought that Red Cross spokesman Jean-Jacques Bovay might have needed more time, just to check and be on the safe side before finally declaring Who the hell is this Sharman of which you speak. It was
    Christmas Eve that we phoned him, afterall.
    So, if I got this right, Dispatch phoned the Red Cross two days before the catastrophe occurred for which the alleged trust fund was set up? What the hell. I smell a rat here.
    • So, if I got this right, Dispatch phoned the Red Cross two days before the catastrophe occurred for which the alleged trust fund was set up? What the hell. I smell a rat here.

      Yeah, I see what you mean there brother! Now all the pieces fall together: Sharman Networks is behind the Christmas Tsunami disaster! The bastards!
    • Simply through the use of a priori knowledge and precognition:

      >Dispatch: Will KAzza make you the beneficiary of some money in a few days time.

      >Red Cross: I have no recolection of any such person contacting me in two days time.

      Simple!

    • Re:I call bullshit on this story (Score:5, Informative)

      by shark72 ( 702619 ) on Sunday March 13, 2005 @05:10AM (#11925068)

      The timing is sadly coincidental, but not wrong. Kazaa was pulling their hijinks with the Red Cross before Christmas; you can read the dispatch from Christmas eve [apcmag.com] which covered it at the time.

      Yeah, the tsunami happened a few days later. Yes, it was sad, and yes, the Red Cross stepped in to help. But that was a coincidence -- Kazaa could not have known that this would happen. The portion you quoted uses the word "coincided" which is another form of "coincidence." And, sometimes coincidences happen.

  • Skype [skype.com] is bundled with the latest version of Kazaa, and Skype's CEO was a co-creator of Kazaa who jumped ship after [redherring.com] the lawsuits first started. Since Skype is the most popular [bbcworld.com] internet call provider, and there have been some [slashdot.org] attempts [slashdot.org] to hamper the progress of VOIP, will Kazaa's bad reputation affect VOIP in general?
    • will Kazaa's bad reputation affect VOIP in general?

      No, because VOIP is more than Skype. Even if VOIP would equal Skype, I still don't think Kazaa could hurt Skype's reputation. Most people see Kazaa and Skype as different things, and in fact, they are different things. And they don't see Kazaa as a Bad Thing(TM).

      Do you think that John Doe cares that Kazaa comes with spyware? Of course not, he hardly knows what spyware is. All he knows that he wants to download some pr0n and that his daughter wants to d

  • It couldn't have happened... (Score:3)

    by Alioth ( 221270 ) <no@spam> on Sunday March 13, 2005 @05:04AM (#11925054) Journal
    It couldn't have happened to a nicer bunch of charlatans^W people. Why people are so supportive of Kazaa, an ad/spyware peddler, I don't know. It's also obvious their business is built on copyright infringement.

  • Shady folks (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SteelV ( 839704 ) on Sunday March 13, 2005 @05:14AM (#11925077)
    I was on the phone with a Kazaa-exec a few years back (actually, listening in), and couldn't help commenting on the rampant spyware issues. He was not actually at Kazaa, rather at a company that managed their ad-services if I remember correctly, and took a great deal of offense at my comments! He got really upset when I mentioned how Kazaa-Lite was so much better (hehehe).

    He sounded fairly unscrupulous at the time, so I guess he knew what was going on fairly well and was OK with it. This seems like a continuation of past policy. Obviously the higher-ups don't care about users, just about making as much money as they can, any way they can.

    I thought it would completely die years ago (I stopped using it a long time back). Maybe it will soon with all these recent "issues."

  • biggest snake in the grass (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I know Kevin Bermeister personally, and he is the worst snake in the grass you could ever meet. He'd sell his mother for a dollar.

    GO on, ask around. Anyone who has been in contact with him rarely comes out untouched by his filth.

    Yep, I'm staying anonimous. He knows people, you know.

    Kazaa needs to go down just so he does, good enough reason for me.

  • Easy Solution (Score:3, Insightful)

    by kd5ujz ( 640580 ) <william@@@ram-gear...com> on Sunday March 13, 2005 @12:15PM (#11926504)
    If they claim it was a trust fund for the Red Cross, then there is an easy solution, give ALL of the money to the Red Cross.
  • actually a prestigious Australian law firm put out an article on the case saying that the law was essentially on Kazaa's side

Slashdot Top Deals

Put your Nose to the Grindstone! -- Amalgamated Plastic Surgeons and Toolmakers, Ltd.

Close