Slashdot Mirror
Kazaa Is Legal, Dutch Appeals Court Rules
Killjoy_b writes "
First, the courts in the Netherlands rule against Kazaa, in a higher appeal, the courts rule in favour of Kazaa saying "The software itself doesn't commit any illegal acts, it's the users that could do that, therefore the software is legal" Read the Dutch article on Webwereld
I like the way this turned out :)" Another Dutch reader wrote with this: " The Judge ruled that even if the users violated copyright, Kazaa did not. Important in the ruling were the facts that Kazaa does not rely on a central server, and that it is not bound to music or video files alone.
According to Webwereld (in Dutch) Kazaa is pondering if they should sue back for lost damages. After the first court ruling against Kazaa, they were forced to sell part of their business, for supposedly a too low prize. " And despite the the fact that both Taco and I are from Holland, MI, no, neither of us can speak/read Dutch - so don't ask us to translate. Update: 03/28 14:39 GMT by M : Reuters has an English summary.
Cannabis is not `legalized` in the Netherlands. Possession of a few grams is tolerated.
Zembla( look under "volgende week" ), will do a documentory on the people behind kazaa on friday (nederland 3, in dutch (duh)), it will feature interviews and is likely to have some comments on these developments.
It can also be found here:
t ernetnews&StoryID=753053
http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=in
Thursday, 28 march 2002 - The music-exchange-service KaZaA is not responsible for violation of author-rights by the users of the program.
The Court of Amsterdam has decided so this morning. The court has broken the decision from judge R Oribio de Castro in the affair that Buma/Stemra had against KaZaA.
Following the Buma/Stemra, KaZaA make it easier with it's software to break author-rights. The software was mostly used for music-swapping, with the authors NOT being retributed.
Oribio de Castro decided that KaZaA should take measure to prevent the breaking of author-rights. If KaZaA didn't take there in account, should the company get a big fine. The people from KaZaA decided then to sell the software to the australian company Sharman.
As it can be seen now, thuis was not needed. The court of Amsterdam decided in het higher appeal that KaZaA was right agaisnt the ruling of Oribio de Castro and can not be held responsible for the breaking of author-rights of the users of the program. "As far as author rights are concerned, the infrigements are done by the users of the computer progam and not by KaZaA".
Christiaan Alberdingk Thijm is happy with the ruling but find the whole way the affair went "a little [zuur---acid ?]". The CEO Niklas Zennström got the ruling with mitigated feelings too. "For KaZaA, the ruling came too late. I hope that music-organisations like Buma/Stemra will now be ready to come to speak instead of going to the court", said Zennström.
The court has seen the difference between Napster and KaZaA as said Alberdingk Thijm. "With Napster, there is a central server, with KaZaA, not. To go further, KaZaA is not only about sharing of music files".
"What must still be seen is the meaning of the arrest for KaZaA" said KaZaA in a press declaration. The sharing diesnt said that they were forced to end their worldwide company activity by the earlier court ruling and have thus sold the most important company-parts.
This was acknowledged by the court too [Sorry, can't translate this]
This means that Buma had applied a ruling that was not valid, said Alberdingk Thijm. "In theory, Buma is responsible for the selling at a value much lower than it would have been otherwise". It is still unknown if there will be step taken against the athor-rights organization.
Buma/Stemra was unavailable for comments.
(Note: my English legal vocabulary is limited... but you'll get the gist)
Court: exchange service KaZaA is legal
Thursday, March 28 2002 The music exchange server KaZaA is not responsible for the copyright violations of the users of the program.
This is the decision of the court in Amsterdam. The Court nullified the decision of Judge R. Oribio de Castro in the case that Buma/Stemra [the Dutch copyright and royalties collector organisation] had set up against KaZaA.
According to Buma/Stemra KaZaA encourages with its program copyright violations The software is mainly being used to exchange music, without paying any royalty fees.
Oribio de Castro therefor declared that KaZaA should take countermeasures to end these violations of copyright. If KaZaA failed to comply, it would face severe fines. The founders of KaZaA then decided to sell the software to the Australian based Sharman company.
A bitter pill
Eventually, that hadn't been necessary. The Amsterdam Court ruled in the appeals case that KaZaA had set up against the sentence of Oribio de Casta, that KaZaA can not be held responsible for the copyright violations of the users of the program. "As far as there are any copyright relevant actions, these actions are performed by the users of the program and not by KaZaA"
Christiaan Alberdingk Thijm is very satisfied with the ruling, but still finds the complete proceedings 'a bitter pill'. CEO Niklas Zennström also says he received the ruling 'with mixed feelings'. "It's too late for KaZaA. I hope that music organisations like Buma/Stemra will, in the future, be prepared to make a deal instead of going to court", says Zennström.
Alberdingk Thijm thinks the Court has seen the differences between Napster and KaZaA very well. "Napster has a central server, which is not the case for KaZaA. Plus you could exchange more than just music."
The practice
"It remains to be seen what the practical implications of this ruling are for KaZaA", says KaZaA in a press statement. The exchange service claims that by the previous ruling they had to cease their activities worldwide, after which she sold her most important company assets.
This is, by the way, recognized by the Court: "It is reasonable to assume that she would not have taken these measures if she would have been able to comply in any other way with the president's ruling."
This means that Buma has enforced a sentece that is not valid, explains Alberdingk Thijm. "In theory, Buma is responsible for the sale against a lower price than would otherwise have been the case". It is still unclear if they are going to countersue the copyright organisation.
Buma/Stemra was unavailable for comment.
"Fix it? It has been disintegrated, by definition it cannot be fixed!" - Gru in Despicable Me.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
I'm a little rusty, but here goes... the following is a rough, call it first draft translation of the WebWereld.NL article (c) I suppose on the original site. http://www.webwereld.nl
Courts: Exchange Service KaZaA is Legal
Thurs 28.03.2002 - The music exchange service KaZaA is not responsible for the copyright violations of users of its program.
That was the decision of the Court today in Amsterdam. The Court reversed the decision of Judge R. Oribio de Castro in the matter de Buma/Stemra had raised against KaZaA.
According to de Buma/Stemra KaZaA's program facilitated copyright violation. The software was used primarily for exchanging music without the authors rights being considered.
Oribio De Castro judged therefore that KaZaA had to take measures to stop copyright violation. Failure to do so would result in a heavy fine. The founders of KaZaA then decided to sell the software on the Australian firm Sharman.
A Little Bitter
That seems not to have been necessary. The Amsterdam Court overruled the judgement of Oribio de Castro, deciding that KaZaA was not responsible for the copyright violations perpetrated by its users. "Inasmuch as authors rights are relevant the actions are taken by the users of the software and not by KaZaA".
Christiaan Alberdingk Thijm is very satisfied with the judgement, but was a little bitter about how the whole thing had run its course. Also the CEO Niklas Zennstrom took the judgement "with mixed feelings". "For KaZaA this comes too late. I hope that music organisations [publishers?] like Buma/Stemra will be more amenable to making an agreement rather than just taking it to the courts" according to Zennstrom.
The court clearly distinguished between Napster and KaZaA, according to Alberdingk Thijm "Napster has a central server, which is not the case with KaZaA. Furthermore, fate played to our side in that not just music can be exchanged with KaZaA".
Practical Application
"It remains to be seen what the practical application of this ruling is for KaZaA", said KaZaA in a press release. The exchange service said that the previous judgement forced the shutdown of their world-wide operations, after which they sold their most important business components.
This was recognized by the court: "One may assume that they [KaZaA] would not have taken these measures had they had in their power any other way to obey the [previous] judgement"
This means that Buma forced a judgement to be executed that was not valid, explains Alberdingk Thijm. "In theory, Buma is therefore responsible for the fact that the sale was done at a price much lower than was otherwise the case". It is not yet clear whether steps will be taken against the copyright organisation.
Buma/Stemra could not be reached for comment.
at Yahoo
and CNET
even USAToday
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
Would it hurt to get your facts right? First of all, the suit in America was against McDonalds, not Starbucks. Second, it wasn't decided by a judge, it was decided by a jury, making your entire point moot. If you're going to accuse someone of not being smart, at least get your story straight.
If it ain't broke, you need more software.