Slashdot Mirror
KaZaa Ignores Court Order to Shut Down
An anonymous reader submitted that "The Amsterdam district court ruled two weeks ago that the KaZaa P2P program is acting unlawfully by making software available that allows users to download music files and must shut down. The court gave the company 14 days to do this or face $40,000 US a day in fines. KaZaa has chosen to ignore the shutdown order."
Even if the corp shut down, we'd all still be able to use the clients, right?
It seems to me this isn't the brightest of moves. They're trying to use it as negotiating power, yet ticking off a judge is a really bad idea- keep in mind the judge (at least in the US) gets the final approval on any deal that's worked out during a case.
Also, what do they think this will gain them? While I don't like the DMCAA et al, I think we can all agree there are flat out illegal pirates out there amongst the legal users. Because of this, they're an accomplist to theft/copyright infringement/whatever you want to call it. Plus whatever other legal teeth those provide for sinking into the owners of KaZaa.
Sigh. If the music industry would just quit fighting, start providing MP3 format cds with a couple of extra songs/what have you, I bet they'd find that their piracy issues would go down more than they expect. I won't even try to argue financial benefit, since it's no one really seems to know (RIAA: OH, we lost MONEY! Stores: NO, you sold more! People: Hey, we're getting f*cked!)
We don't need no Net Explorer We don't need no Thought control
This sort of reminds me when I believe it was Andrew Jackson was president and the Supreme Court made a ruling he didn't like, and he said something to the effect of "The Court has made their ruling, now let them enforce it". Because the Supreme Court only has judicial powers, all they can do is decide the outcome of the case, but they have no enforcement powers, and at the time, Andrew Jackson had the power and popularity to enforce his ideas instead of those of the court.
That sort of reminds me of what Kazaa is doing, to the effect of "The Dutch court made their decision, now lets see them try to enforce shutting us down."
Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?
The reason they aren't shutting down isn't just because they want to be rebels or something. While KaZaa does state that there's nothing they can do now that their software's out there and being used, they say they're not shutting down in order to comply with a different court order. In a different case with Buma/Stemra (the Dutch licensing body that's also suing them to shut down), KaZaa won an injunction forcing Buma/Stemra to continue to negotiate with them about a streaming-on-demand service. KaZaa says that if their current sevice isn't up and running, they can't negotiate well with Buma/Stemra.
I'm personally of the same opinion as the author of the article. I think that as soon as they get shut down, they go to a much weaker position to negotiate from. Why negotiate with KaZaa to make money fromthe music they're distributing when they aren't distributing music anymore?
Mr. Spey
Cover your butt. Bernard is watching.
As you can tell by reading the article, and as you certainly wouldn't be led to believe by reading CmdrTaco's summary, they are refusing to shut down in order to comply with a previous court order. This is more a case of conflicting orders in the judicial system than anything else.
Is your company running tools written by ma
True dat...
:), that is easy, downloading music has nothign to do with what music I buy. If anything, it allows me to hear a wider variety of music and probably influences me to buy more CDs (cuz I don't buy it unless I know it's good, except for zappa).
But I don't particularly support music companies because they regularly screw over artists. This is not justification for stealing music, just an interesting fact that no one is suing the recording industry for the theft they've done...
As far as justifying the music I steal
Yes, that's exactly how it's supposed to work - just ask any civil rights marchers from the Deep South, for instance. Once the government realizes that they can't throw everyone in jail, the laws get changed. Or sometimes you get a new government.
Really, you're taking a gamble that enough other people will join your civil disobedience that the government can't ignore you.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
A system like this only works if all the users keep their P2P agents running 24/7, so that others can access their shared files. But when the agent is running, you get a stream of annoying popups. So people only run they agent when there's something to download. So they boast a huge database of stuff that's mostly unavailable.
For one thing, most people wouldn't consider it worthwhile. This isn't about basic human rights, it's about consumer rights, and that's a whole different-- and less urgent-- ballgame.
No, the client has to connect to a central server to login to the network..
>Take this out of the "Slashdot, info/music wants to be free" world and explain to me how this law is unjust.
:)
Ok, lets also take KaZaa out of the IT world and put it IRL then.
KaZaa is a music sharing network that depends on its users to ensure they only distribute free music. KaZaa is no more at fault for your personal failure to use your own judgement than the city is at fault when people use city roads to traffic drugs.
Using a road to commit crimes is no harder (actually its easier -- notice how much easier it is to break the speed limits) than using KaZaa to break copyright. And, normally, the law punishes the guilty (copyright violators) and upholds the rights of the innocent (the people building the infrastructure who never broke the law doing it).
>If you made music, you'd want to get paid for your effort, too...
I agree. That's why we must go after the perpetrators (people using the KaZaa network illicitly) and not the builders.
There you go -- no slashdot mumbo jumbo. Just 100% clear laymans terms. You should be able to tell that to just about anyone on the street and they should understand.
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
Your analogy works great if we were refering to the internet, not KaZaa. In your analogy, KaZaa would be the "Drug Store" on the street. They sell legal and illegal drugs.
They claim that they shouldn't be shut down cause they sell "legal" drugs. The illegal drugs they can't control.....
What would a cop do?
Control it, or we'll shut ya down.
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
Alright, I'm tired of hearing the same old arguement over and over again, so here's the reasons I use Kazaa now instead of buying CDs (I own several hundred CDs btw).
First, I'm into trance, a form of eletronic music, that I can't seem to buy ANYWHERE, not even online. Sure I can find some albums every once and awhile, but most of the time the stores have never heard of what I'm looking for, can't get it, or it will take weeks to get, etc...
Second, in the electronic music spectrum, there's alot of stuff I don't like. I used to try buying CDs, then find out they were junk. Waste of money. Sure, I'd buy CDs of artists I liked that I could actually get ahold of, but I'm listening to alot of bootlegs and things from Europe that can't be purchased, at least in the USA...
Third, I'm poor. Now more than ever, it's difficult being a college student. I couldn't buy albums at all (maybe a couple a year) if I even wanted to. I'm sure alot of other people feel the same way. Most of the people who are pirating on Kazaa (including me) I bet would not buy the album of the person they were pirating anyway, either because they don't like it that much, it's just something novelty they wanted, or they're too poor to go out and actually buy it. You can argue then that the person should not have that recording, but the artist still is not losing money anyways and perhaps smaller ones gain from sharing their music to people who would have never heard it otherwise.
Fourth, everywhere I look, record sales are booming. They're having no problems pushing CDs, even though they're generally $3 - $5 more than 5 - 10 years ago when I was in my teen popular artist CD buying phase.
The only thing I can find in my local record stores are asshole employees, limited selection (plenty of the MTV crap), and high prices. I could buy online, but it's more of the same except the salesperson is taken out and replaced by phony reviews.
I'm glad Kazaa exists, it has opened me up to music I would not have found otherwise and allows me to get my hands on things I wouldn't be able to get my hands on.
$6.21 is the number of the beast before sales tax. Meh.
KaZaa "We can not shut down because our product because people cannect to each other, not a server."
Reporter "You have shut down earlier clients..."
KaZaa "But in the newest client, it is impossible to do so..."
Reporter "If it is run by clients connecting to clients, why do you need to be around."
KaZaa "Because the software won't work otherwise."
Reporter "For some reason, this seems like what Microsoft would do..."
Hmm. They are suing KaZaa because they make software that allows file sharing over the internet.
Are RIAA/MPAA et al going to sue Microsoft, too? After all, Microsoft makes software that allows file sharing over the internet with no content control.
Shoot, even WITHOUT all the unintended security holes, it's pretty easy to set up a web server with all your mp3's and get a search engine to list them all.
Give me my freedom, and I'll take care of my own security, thank you.
I say ignore all unjust laws.
It is never appropriate to ignore a law. You can obey it, or you can lobby against it, or you can openly defy it, but you must never ignore it.
The strength of our society (by which I mean the modern judicial society in general, wherever in the world it is found) is based on the authority of the law. We consent to be bound by the authority of law, and in return we live in a prosperous, ordered society. If a law is unjust, you must fight-- within the system when possible-- to overturn it.
But ignoring a law, even an unjust law, trivializes The Law as a whole, which erodes the core pillar of our society.
Disagree or even disobey, but always respect and honor.
First of all, for all of you asking "why Kazaa?", in case its not obvious yes, Kazaa is Dutch, not American. So logically it would be a court in the Netherlands that has to go after it. Napster, as most know, is as American as long stick bombing and apple pie. So it was pursued in an American court.
What is interesting in all of this is the international ramifications. What's to stop a file-swapping service from setting up in a small, easily-influenced island nation with lax laws on such things? Antigua and Barbuda, in the Caribbean, comes to mind (mostly because im in it at the moment) - low/non-existant taxes, a dedicated free trade zone, a FAT pipe back to the US and Europe, (the much-loved Casino-On-Net is here, for example), and a judicial system that is, well, not particularly likely to push through complex technology-based cases anytime soon. With enough other "legitimate" US-linked technology companies here (such as the casinos), any threat to simply unplug the island would be met with serious lobbying and financial pressure... And thus such companies as Kazaa would be in a more solid position to "sell out" - as is the logical outcome for these services: get big, get threatened, then sell out to a record company (Napster, MP3.com, et al).
As an interesting note, Antigua is building a call center that will house 800+ employees, with the express purpose of delivering outgoing telemarketing to the US and Canada. It's billed here as a wonderful project to provide "high tech" employment (really), with no thought given to how telemarketing is seen by Americans/Canadians. It will be very interesting to see how US telemarketing laws are applied to incoming international calls.
Are these file sharing services just going to hopscotch around the globe, then?
-- "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge." (Charles Darwin)
Um, considering the RIAA is behind the greatest push to remove any possibility of the artists getting paid for downloaded music (of course, the RIAA wants to get paid, but they want to be the only ones getting paid, the artists should get nothing), the choice isnt between the artist getting paid and not, it's between the the artist not getting paid and the artist not getting paid.
Since that is the case, to either through boycott or downloading, deprive the RIAA of its means to retain the stranglehold it has on the music industry isnt an ethical problem.
Once they dont have the clout to trick unsuspecting artists into enslavement and debt contracts, maybe a more healthy online distribution can be set up. Preferably where the artists and writers get the most of the money.
Personally I dont buy any CD's anymore unless from the band itself, and I dont even listen to RIAA crap if I can avoid it.
I've often said that the RIAA/MPAA/LMNOP are working up a great sweat playing the P2P Whack-A-Mole game. Someone, somewhere, should explain to them what NP means in mathematical terms ;-)
I'll go off on a slight tangent, but bear with me. When you need water, you just go to the tap and turn it on (at least in North America, that is). You get what you what when you need it.
What you don't hear is the Water, Gas and Power company screaming about how their rights are being destroyed by people being able to bottle the water and give it freely to a friend or neighbour. (Or derivative uses thereof, such as cooking, flushing, etcetera).
Why? It's commoditized. It's too damn cheap to bother with repackaging or giving it away. It's there. You get charged by the aggregate volume that you use in a month. You want to give a hectaliter to Joe Farmer down the street? Go right ahead, we'll bill you for your use. But why bother? Joe Farmer can get it for himself.
This is what the music industries need to realize. The cat is out of the bag, the genie is out of the lamp and Elvis has left the building. The days of charging $20/cd are gone for good.
This does not have to be a bad thing.
Commoditize the damn thing so that it's too damn cheap to bother with trading music (other than, "Listen to this cool track I downloaded"). Give people high bit-rate, guaranteed quality, do-what-you-want-with it music for pennies on the song, and you'll make more money than you can dream of. And judging by these guys expense accounts, that's a lot of dinero.
Otherwise, die like the dinosaurs did.
What Jackson actually said was, "John Marshall has made his decision; let him enforce it now if he can." Please note that name. Marshall was the first jurist to argue that the Supreme Court could review the actions of other branches of government. In 1830 this concept was still controversial. Now it's universally accepted. Recent presidents ignore the Court at their peril. Eisenhower enforced court orders he empahtically disagreed with. Nixon was forced to obey an order that cost him the Presidency. FDR, probably the most popular President in history, couldn't even get away with adding friendly judges to the court.
And this is why "you in the industry" are in the process of running your insanely profitable businesses into the ground. What you're feeling tightening around your neck is not Napster or Kazaa or Gnutella or whatever -- it's Adam Smith's famous "invisible hand"! Look, it's very simple. When all of your customers feel that you are charging too much for your product, or that your terms of use are too restrictive, or whatever, a black market is going to spring up. Simple as that. It's as true for bread as it is for music -- if every bakery in the US banded together and raised the price universally to $100/loaf, college students would be breaking into grocery stores and selling grey market Wonder Bread out of their dorm rooms. It's the magic of the free market at work.
Now, you say that's dirty pool because people used to think sixteen bucks a CD was a fair price, so they should continue to feel that way. But you've missed the ground shifting underneath your feet. New technologies have devalued your product in the eyes of the public. You need to either reprice it or accept that there's gonna be a certain amount of loss. You can throw out tepid, restrictive alternatives all you want, but why should people buy it? What's your value proposition for the consumer? (That's what businesses are supposed to do, you know -- serve consumers.)
Is grey-market music illegal? Sure. But grey-market bread would be too. Laws that attempt to impose morality on human nature are doomed to failure. Better to figure out how to profit off human nature by providing something useful at a price your audience thinks is fair than to try to ram outdated products and outmoded laws down our throats.
-- Jason Lefkowitz
Read my blog.