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.
Can this ruling in a foreign court be used as a reference for cases here in the US/UK? More importantly, can Kazaa be brought to court in the US, or does this ruling afford it some type of protection?
I am wondering if the judge in this case was in some manner technically savy, since he noted Kazaa didn't depend on a central server and thus the user network is out of its control, thus Kazaa was just considered a software provider and did not directly break any laws.
We will have to see how this affects other court cases surrounding p2p in other countries.
"I'll just chip in a bit for RedHat: I actually have that installed on my university machine." - Linus, '95
I don't know much about US law makers (although I read a lot about them on /.) but from what I've gathered in the past, they are NOT going to be happy about this. It seems the US have placed themselves as superCop of the Internet, and if they say it's not OK, then you better beleive it is'nt, be that in Russia, Holland or Nigeria... can't wait to see what kind of loophole some highly placed american lawmakers are gonna come up with to counter this news...
how does one change his
"In a setback for efforts to halt copyright abuse, a Dutch appeals court on Thursday told a technology firm it could distribute a software program that is designed to let users share music and films on the Internet."
Nice spin. Yes, there wasn't anything else at stake other than "copyright abuse". Nothing at all. And the efforts to halt copyright abuse? That's all they're trying to do - just halt abuse.
Sure.
It's a victory for efforts to halt copyright abuse.
Best Slashdot Co
FINALLY someone realises that hey, it's not the software that's doing the pirating. The software has actual legal (albeit underutilized) applications.
The users on the other hand, are the ones who take the tool and turn it to evil (insert diabolical music track here), depriving the MPAA of their hard-earned money. Except well, most of the 'bad users' buy a lot more music than the 'good users' anyway.. and the MPAA execs don't actually create the music they sell.. hrmm...
It'll be interesting to see what impact, if any, this will have on filesharing software in North America. Given the typical 'Our laws apply to you but yours don't apply to us' view of the US legal system, I'd say not much. Eh, at best it might give the software producers a safe haven in which to register their businesses. Go global village.
Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo - H. G. Wells
Your analogy is flawed. If you're going to compare the Kazaa issue to gun control, the proper statement would be "Kazaa doesn't steal music, people do."
There's a Mercedes gap too. I want one and can't afford one, but it's not government's job to do anything about it.
I am proud to live in the Netherlands, where laws are made on principles of justice, not on how much the industry is willing to pay. (Senator Hollings, best Senator money can buy!)
slightly off topic, but does the u.s. frowning on those issues stop them from happening with its borders??
if you smile at them, you can monitor and contorl them - not to mention tax them.
and the dutch *love* their money. 8^)
morgan
There currently isn't, and I'm **EXTREMELY** happy to see it that way... Why? Simply because then all the stupid US laws would then apply to me and my fellow european citizen. There's no death penalty here, no DMCA and generally less (none that I know of) corporate-bought laws.
Keep the US laws in the US, thank you...
One shall speak only if what one has to say is more beautiful than silence
How can you reconcile being pro-Kazaa, then? This is a legitimate query, especially considering the flood of support for Google on here when they decided to ban gun shops from advertising. Every crime is the fault of the criminal, so why should the instrument ever be banned, whether it's Kazaa, or paraphernelia, or guns? Can someone resolve this seeming contradiction?
This judge couldn't have said it better. The program by itself doesn't violate anything besides interface aesthetics. I'm glad to see that there's still some common sense left. The Dutch tend to be very 'nuchter' (down to earth would be appropriate translation) towards the grey area of law and order. This prevented our (yes, I'm Dutch myself) society from becoming corporate-driven and claim oriented like American society. Kazaa itself did nothing wrong, so you can't punish them.
And instead of refocussing on the users of Kazaa who do illegal things (almost all users) all that corporate power should be spent building a system where people can legally obtain music. If the downloads are fast, the available tracks are 'what the people want' and the quality is good there is some serious money to be made. And the musicbusiness can have their precious profits back.
When Dutch museums feature paintings - many of them showing lustful, drinking, music-playing, partying people - the tags on the wall most often explain how the painting was done to illustrate that people should not live that way! The way life is actually lived and appreciated by the Dutch has long been at odds with what they say about it. This positive use of hypocrisy, once used to lead happy lives while paying lip service to Christian injunctions against happy behavior, is now used to allow not just pot but storefronts throughout the country selling organic psychedelics, while claiming, "Oh yes, this is illegal, we are in keeping with the broader European norms on that!"
Now, how does this fit with file sharing? Well, here creative hypocrisy isn't even needed, since it's clearly within the letter of the law. It's American courts which are going beyond both law and common sense, embracing monopolistic behavior as an extension of the puritan self-constraint we too often perversely pleasure ourselves by.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
... and Sanity gets the puck, takes it across the blue line... passes to the Netherlands... he shoots HE SCORES!!! And in the first period the score is now Insanity 27, Sanity 1...
-"One machine can do the work of fifty ordinary men. No machine can do the work of one extraordinary man." -EH
Courts in Holland are not to keen on handing out high damages, and lawyers are paid by the hour, not with a cut of the loot. The term "American Situation" is accepted Dutch vocabulary for the frivolities of the US legal system, which shows how many Dutchmen think of it. (They're weary of it; paying lawyers just clogs the economy). Countersuing will clog the system only more.
Han-Wen Nienhuys -- LilyPond
Do we charge gun manufacturers with murder?
The sad truth is that in America, many cities are suing the gun industry for "problems" caused by their "defective products." What a great way to spend taxpayer money. Fortunately, state governments are stepping in to stop this nonsense, but in some cases it is too late, the cities find themselves losing badly in these cases, and the money that could have been spent to hire more police and build more prisons has instead been wasted on litigation.
Do hold car manufacturers responsible for allowing people to operate their cars will intoxicated?
Considering that people sue the cigarette industry for their self-inflicted problems caused by voluntarily smoking, I think it is only a matter of time before we see this BS as well.
However, this same kind of ruling in the Dutch court can happen in the USA as well. VCRs and tape recorders (and most recently, the Diamond Rio) were once "illegal" because of industry objections, however, because it was shown that these devices were shown to have legitimate, non-infringing uses, they could not be banned simply because people would use them for infringing purposes. The problem with Napster was that its creators could not prove its whole raison-d'etre was not for infringing copyrights (that system being tied down to MP3s, along with the central-server architecture contributed big time to this).
In essence then, there is a significant legal precedent in the USA which should keep the developers of P2P software safe for the time being, even if laws were enacted to prevent such things, they would most likely be struck down because of precedent.
In case of fire, do not use elevator. Use water!
While this is a happy moment for common sense, this is just going to play into the hands of the CBDTPA supporters. The arugment will be that, given that piracy is rampant, the economics of prosecuting each and every infringer is overwhelming. The more economically efficient solution is to impose a technological lock on hardware to block such economic losses
We still need to get the argument away from the question of copyright infringement and onto the subject of copyright itself - why it exists, who and what it is supposed to protect, etc. This is not easy, but the public policy debate is misdirected now and we have to get it changed. Otherwise, this is going to just make things easier for Hollings
Diskcopy.com allowed me to duplicate all my buddies' games (back in the day). A few years later, Subst.exe allowed me to run cd-based games off my hard drive, fooling the primitive cd protection schemes of the day.
Does that mean that MS-Dos was illegal software because it allowed me to pirate games ?
It's frightening to think that these lawyers have gone through university, yet are so incredibly short-sighted.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
I was watching a news clip on T.V. where a British judge said McDonalds isn't liable if there isn't a "Hot" label on coffee, and ruled against someone who wanted, I think around 1 million from McDonalds, and in American a Judge awarded some person money from Starbucks because the person didn't know the coffee was hot.My point is, I think Judges outside of America have more sense in cases like these including Kazaa because the answer is so obvious. Meaning of course it's not Kaza fault that users are sharing MP3's or whatever, Kazas could be used in anyway. It's the users who are shaping what Kazaa is.
But then again, a gun has only one rather specific specific use. Most modern p2p exchange programs can be used for legal and illegal purposes. Nobody ever claimed that all files swapped are illegal copies. It's just that killing the medium is easier than killing the messenger.
Imho a beter analogy would be knifes. While it is usualy illegal to kill people with knifes, no-one will blame the manufacturer for making them.
Nobody expects the spanish inquisition!
An american judge is not going to buy Kazaa's defense if they merely say "we cant control what people do with our software". He/She's just not going to buy it. Kazaa is going to have to bring NUMEROUS ..and I mean as many as possible WINTESSES that claim they are swapping files that are not copyrighted. I recommend they get at least 100 people to testify they are using the software for legitimate purposes. The point that has to be stressed and proven in our courts is the fact that there is actually a large number of "legitimate" kazaa and p2p users.
A lot of people would like to hold the manufacturers of p2p software responsible, but are prevented from doing so by the need to protect strong freedom of speech rights (including software distribution.)
Other people would like to hold gun manufacturers responsible, but are prevented from doing so by the need to protect the people's strong right to arm themselves.
I'm not going to say which right is more important-- that's up to the people of the various nations involved. But let's not munge two different sets of rights together.
Not so fast.
Don't be too overjoyed about this ruling. For a second, pretend that the U.S. Supreme Court makes a similar in favor of Napster, ruling that the company is not responsible for individual copyright violations. So, take this to its logical conclusion: In such a world, whats to stop the RIAA, MPAA, etc. from forming a BSA-like organization to go after individual file traders? Ever lookup the cost of copyright violations? Heck, the legal fees alone could sink anyone. Using some sinister methods, targeted lawsuits could do a lot of damage. The EFF couldn't possibly afford to step in.
For the book says, "We may be through with the past, but the past ain't through with us."
I expect the RIAA will fall back and punt, suing the company in the US, claiming US juristiction because the software is available in the USA.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I fail to see a practical implication of this decision beyond the legal precedent. Kazaa BV, developer of Kazaa, sold the rights of the program to an obscure Australian company, Sharman Networks. This way, they could evade Dutch jurisdiction after the first trial. Niklas Zennstrom, original developer of Kazaa, seems to be the only one directly afected by the decision. Only if higher courts upheld the decision it would have a practical effect: Holland would turn into a haven for P2P companies and developers.
This is one of those Yaeh!!! the good guys finally one one. But i wounder how are the MPAA & RIAA (I think Ill name them "AE" for access of Evil (along with M$) to save typing going to react to this?
... how can big money allow the internet not to be controlled by them. Can any one here imagine cable or TV not being controlled and allowing idividals to post content either not owned by or in opposition to BIG Money? ..... No .. this would be silly.
I think they will put some fire under their pet senators (Fritz Hollings D-Disney) for example to push even harder to shove the re-made SSSCA (what ever it is called now) down our throats.
And since M$ has a patent on DRM, it will be a double boon to the evil cabal because it will end this pesky monipoly business at the same time of giving total control to big media/software.
Just think about this
So, this Kazaa victory will end up as the battle cry of the "AE" to make sure they will take total control of this medium as have for all others
* Carthago Delenda Est *
I've always liked Europe and the UK, but never thought much of living there.
But increasingly, it appears that the US can't get out of the political-corporate complex that is eating away at civil liberties.
And so Europe is looking more attractive every day as a place to emigrate to.
Now, I realize that Europe isn't without its own problems. But it seems much more free and reasonable than the US.
What the hell is it going to take before something is done about this weird codependency between the US government and corporations? It's scary when you think about IP law and corporate monopolies and the US government.
Consider all the legal cases at hand and the status of many of them: the MS trial, the many patent cases, the bill formerly known as the SSSCA, DMCA, the deCSS (?) trial, etc.
I'm frankly scared as hell. What will it take for the government to start saying no to corporations? I'm amazed that things like the SSSCA even get past a handshake, to say the least of committee hearings. I'm tired of feeling like me, the individual person, doesn't have the same clout as a corporation. I'm tired of feeling like I always have to be fighting against corporate interests trying to force me to give them money by legislation.
It's gotten so out of hand that I almost feel there has to be a constitutional amendment or something that establishes the fact that no corporation has any natural right to everyone's money.
It's a mess, a big mess, that is undermining our government, and the scary thing is that so many people seem to be completely oblivious to the fact that it's going on. It's as if people have this attitude "Well, it's not the government that's taking my money, so it's okay, right? The government is just protecting the individual rights of people to obtain their due." The problem is, these are not people, they're corporations, and these corporations have no inherent right to my money beyond the fact that I am freely willing to pay them for a service. The problem is that corporations support the government in a big way, and so the government feels obliged to support them. It's becoming the case that the government is "by the people who support us financially, and for the people who support us financially", and therefore, by extension "by the corporations and for the corporations". It's like this weird system where the government represents corporations and not individuals. It's as if the government is indirectly establishing tyranny by mandating policies that support the corporpations who support them. Individuals become seen as the means to support the corporations who support the government. Somewhere along the line, we forgot that it is the case that the government should be seen as the means of supporting individuals.
Recent campaign finance reform doesn't go far enough. I dare say that we need to eliminate all sources of private support for campaigning, and make campaigns entirely supported by public funds and support. FCC licences, for example, should mandate campaign coverage as part of licensing privledges. I just don't buy the argument that monetary donation is a form of free speech. It's not. That very premise is the thing that's eating away at our freedoms vis-a-vis corporate interests. The minute you suggest that any monetary donations by anyone is free speech, then monetary donations anywhere become free speech, which leads to corporate government because corporations have the most money.
I guess I'm just afraid that soon I won't have any recourse but to vote with my airline ticket to move to a different country. Maybe I don't know what's going on, though, and maybe this is a problem everywhere. But it's a major problem, and one I don't think people fully appreciate.
Actually, dutch prostitution laws have a dark side as well. The reason is that prostution is now a legal business, which forces the owners to pay taxes, provide healthcare, have labor agreements, pay attention to municipal hygiene rules etc. Sounds nice doesn't it?
The reality is that prices for `legal' prostitution are going up, due to the legalization, and illegal immigrants (from outside of the EC) are taking over the market. Needless to say, these immigrants are often extorted, traded, threatened, abused and sometimes even murdered by their criminal pimps.
Sometimes, it's better not to legalize morally murky matters, such as prostitution. FWIW, marijuana is still illegal. Coffeeshops (where it is sold) have to buy it illegally, while they can sell it legally.
Han-Wen Nienhuys -- LilyPond
Unfortunately, Reuters is giving this a pure "MP3 and music" spin. The headline they are running is: Dutch Court Clears Web Music Swapping. Which is only part of the issue. They are only reporting this in terms of MP3 sharing. I think that this issue is much deeper than that. What the court is saying is that KaZaa (as a software company) is not responsible for its user's actions. Regardless of whether they are sharing MP3s, movies, sounds, Word documents, or pictures of Natalie Portman. It pisses me off to see the mainstream media put their editorial slant on a story and change the entire meaning. This way Joe Sixpack has no clue what the real core issues are.
Well, usually, the US tend to try to EXPORT their rules, not import them.
This ruling happened in Holland, meaning I could use in the EU to defend myself.
I'm quite sure an US court will be delighted, when you try to use a foreign precedent...
It takes 40+ muscles to frown, but only four to extend your arm and bitchslap the motherfucker
In effect, the dutch court displayed uncommon intelligence, rarely seen in in the Spin before, during and after passing legislation which strangles citizens in the US, and forces US courts to side with venal 'entertainment interests'.
The Hollywood Way:
Here's a new offering, enjoy!
How DARE you enjoy in a manner not in keeping with our wishes!
Here's a law we bought which does one or more of the following: Makes you a criminal, Makes you pay more, Makes it impossible to enjoy our offerings
Oh, and by the way, since the US always knows what's best for the world, we'll have the federal government employ economic and diplomatic pressure (extortion) to make other countries accept our way, too.
Have a nice day!
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Take it up with the White House. "[The mujahideen, from whence sprange the taliban] are the moral equivalents of our founding fathers,", by a Mr R. Reagan.
Try and remember that Reuters are writing for the record, and that the definitions are always changing. Look at Arafat: terrorist, freedom fighter, or inspired statesman? Depends on whether a peace deal can be brokered, right?
But given that, it sucks even more that they chose to run this as an inflamatory anti-piracy story. Bear in mind though that it's entirely possible that the person who wrote it simply doesn't understand the issues.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Much better would be to look at the Sony v. Betamax case. In that case, the judge said that VCR (known as VTRs then) manufacturers should be allowed to produce VCRs since the new technology had, "substantial non-infringing uses". Translation: Just because the technology can allow copyright violations, that doesn't mean that it should be outlawed. (copying machines, tape recorders, etc).
Case: Sony v. Betamax
Stick to recording technologies when making intellectual property copying arguements, not guns.
Why? I'm by no means a vegetarin (just got back from lunch at Outback), but making a sport out of killing bothers me. Same reason I don't go kicking small animals for the fun of it.
Mod point free since 2001
Look, the fact that stupid Americans cling to their guns, while they spend millions on a drug war that benefits nobody, just means that Americans are stupid. Enjoy your stupid guns, your stupid death penalty, and your stupid RIAA/MPAA. We'll enjoy our weed and swap some more music.
Pushin' 'n dealin', shovin' 'n stealin'
Funny, if you READ the entire article, the MIAA and RIAA used the prior dutch court decision as part of their argument here in the US. Shoe's on the other foot so to speak now, and I'm sure KaZaA's lawyers are saying.. "If it was good enough for their side when it agreed with them, it's good enough for us when it agrees with us!"
David
People Talking in Movie shows.. people smoking in bed.. people voting republican.. GIVE THEM A BOOT TO THE HEAD!
where I live (Indiana), there is a tremendous deer overpopulation. Numerous studies have been done, and if they were left to their own (and we didn't hunt them), they would continue to overpopulate and spread, and would be a serious problem to the environment
That's a problem in quite a few places. In large part it's a problem that we've created, but it's pretty much inevitable. In order to feed ourselves and protect our livestock (and ourselves!) we eliminate the predators and turn great stretches of land into fields of corn, wheat, alfalfa, etc. As a result, the deer population explodes. Not only does that lead to deer eating all the farm produce and large numbers of deer slaughtered by automobiles it also causes massive deer starvation whenever a slightly harsh winter comes around. And, as you said, the starving deer do a great deal of damage to the flora, ringing trees, shredding bushes, etc.
Since we've artificially eliminated the "natural" predators (the non-human ones, at least; humans have certainly preyed on deer for a long, long time) and boosted the summertime food supply, we really have to control the population as well. Some would say we need to stop causing the problem, but that's not really possible without drastically reducing our population, which is not an option.
Another point to remember is that nearly all of the public funding for the protection and enhancement of both game and non-game wildlife in the U.S. comes from hunters. Hunters don't mind paying for it, either, because we derive a great deal of pleasure from healthy wilderness.
So, I think killing an animal is wrong
Well, we disagree there. You may have made a choice to become an herbivore, but humans, by nature, are omnivorous. We have always been predators and there's nothing wrong with that. Predators are not bad, they're a natural part of the chain of life.
I love nature, but I have a very human-centric view of the world. I think it's important to protect the environment and the wildlife, but not because I think we have any sort of duty to "Gaia". I just want the world to continue being a nice place for me, my children, my grandchildren (someday) and so on. I don't believe in inflicting pain needlessly, but I see no problem with killing and eating animals. Each and every one of them will die eventually anyway. We need to protect the populations and help them thrive, but humane taking of individuals does not harm and often helps.
People that think we should get rid of the 2nd amendment need to really think about it.
I agree. The original purpose of the 2nd amendment was to ensure the citizenry never lost the final recourse against tyranny. Unfortunately, I think it was mostly lost quite some time ago. The most modern weapons that the average citizen is allowed to possess were state of the art in about 1900. Maintaining the spirit of the 2nd amendment would mean that we should be able to privately own fully automatic weapons, tanks, rocket propelled grenades, fighter aircraft and maybe even nuclear weapons. Obviously there are good reasons why we don't want individuals to have that much firepower. If our system of government should break down, however, I have no doubt that while I'd be hopelessly outgunned matching a 1906 era rifle against an M-16A2 or a SAW, I'd still be much better off than if I was facing the M-16 with a knife.
I have no reason to think that we'll need to rebel against our government, but it's a good idea, IMO, to maintain the capacity insofar as we can.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.