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.

Comments

Amazing.

[sllort]

"The Judge ruled that even if the users violated copyright, Kazaa did not."

"Duh" added the Judge.

Re:Amazing.

[yatest5]

"The Judge ruled that even if the users violated copyright, Kazaa did not."

In other news - guns are not illegal, since it is the users who break the law in shooting someone.

Apart from in most civilised countries ;-).

Re:Amazing.

[Jondor]

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.

Re:Amazing.

[dachshund]

In other news - guns are not illegal, since it is the users who break the law in shooting someone.

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.

Re:Amazing.

[Peyna]

Last I checked guns were used for hunting, and sporting activities apart from killing other people.

Re:Amazing.

[snake_dad]

since it is the users who break the law in shooting someone.

No, it's the BOFH who makes the users shoot themselves. Get your facts right. :P

Re:Amazing.

[swillden]

You're a vegetarian, I presume?

People who think nothing of eating a chicken sandwich but are horrified by hunting are just stupid.

I should also point out that guns are used for things besides killing animals and people. I really like using mine to poke holes in pieces of paper. Shooting is challenging and fun. Like golf, skiing and many other individual sports it's a skill that can never be mastered.

Re:Amazing.

[Drakantus]

Do you really think that gangs would quit useing guns if they were illegal? Oh yeah, look at drugs. Making marijuana illegal sure did a great job, it's pretty much completely gone from the streets, right?

Re:Amazing.

[SlamMan]

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.

Re:Amazing.

[Pussy Is Money]

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.

Re:Amazing.

[NanoGator]

"a gun has only one rather specific specific use."

You mean killing? What about turning off the TV, scaring off the neighbor's cat, and settling arguments?

Sounds more like a Swiss Army Knife to me!!

Re:Amazing.

[Bullschmidt]

I don't honestly believe that outlawing guns would get them off the street, but there is one difference from your example - manufacturing guns takes a lot more work than growing some marijuana in your closet. Of course, it would just mean guns would be illegally imported on a blackmarket, but still, comparing it to marijuana isn't that legit.

Re:Amazing.

[swillden]

I'm by no means a vegetarin (just got back from lunch at Outback), but making a sport out of killing bothers me.

So you have no problem with killing animals as long as you don't have to see it.

Regarding "making a sport out of it", um, there's no "making" required. Hunting is a pretty deeply ingrained behavior in humans. It's been a significant pleasure for people for as long as there have been people. You probably like to think of yourself as too "civilized" to hunt. You're not. You kill animals daily. You're just too squeamish to do it yourself.

Same reason I don't go kicking small animals for the fun of it.

Why would anyone want to be cruel to animals, small or large? Hunting is involves killing, of course (well, actually only the last little bit of the hunt has anything to do with killing), but that is not where the pleasure comes from and hunters try to make that part as quick and painless as possible. Good hunters, for example, will pass on a shot that is likely to wound an animal, and will go to great lengths to find and finish an animal they have injured, passing on other opportunities in the meantime. Doing otherwise is considered irresponsible and, in many cases, downright despicable.

The point of hunting is the thrill of the chase and the simple pleasure of being close to nature; good hunters get closer to and know more about nature than nearly anyone. Hunting requires many kinds of outdoor skills, knowledge of the game and other wildlife, tracking, stalking, shooting (not a trivial skill in itself), cleaning, butchering and, of course, cooking.

The taste of meat that never saw the inside of a plastic wrapper is a good part of it as well. Fresh pheasant, killed an hour before and grilled with lemon pepper sauce... mmmmm.

For geeks, I highly recommend bowhunting. Not only do you get a highly challenging hunt but there are all kinds of interesting high-tech goodies to play with. No electronics, but plenty of toys nonetheless. The is a certain toy-factor with firearms as well, but citizens are pretty much limited to early 20th-century weaponry so unless you're into gunsmithing or rebuilding antiques the opportunities are more limited. I've recently started playing with muzzleloaders and there's lots of toyness to be had there.

Re:Amazing.

[ncc74656]

But then again, a gun has only one rather specific specific use.

...and that would be what, exactly? (While a Glock 23 makes a fairly nice defensive weapon, a Ruger Mk. II is better suited to plinking and target shooting.)

(You'd think I'd know better by now than to respond to an anti-gun Euro-troll...oh well, it's only karma. Fat lot of good victim disarmament did the French the other day...)

Re:Amazing.

[ncc74656]

The people shaped targets are mainly going to be used by people who have to shoot at people for their job, such as police and bodyguards.

I went shooting last weekend...half of the other lanes had people plinking at Osama bin Laden targets with anything from .38s or .357s on up to a machine gun of some sort that someone had rented.

(As for me, I made up a simple bullseye pattern in Publisher and printed a bunch of copies. So I'm cheap...sue me. :-) I had a new .22 target pistol to try out and didn't feel like shelling out 35 each (or whatever) for enough of the standard bullseye targets to take 200 rounds.)

Re:Amazing.

[Drakantus]

You fail to consider a few things.

Don't you think legal concealed weapons can act as a crime deterrent?

If criminals don't need to worry about ordinary citizens having weapons, they can rob/murder/rape without fear of retaliation.

"Well, thats what the police are for", you might say. Unless every person has a 24/7 police bodyguard, they can not protect everyone all the time. The funniest thing is all the celebritys who are opposed to guns, who have armed bodyguards. They really are just opposed to *other*people* having guns, as long as they keep their own guards.

Re:Amazing.

[Peyna]

Hunting is actually quite a dilemna for me. (Qualifier = I am a vegetarian and animal activist or whatever you want to call me). Anyway, 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, as well as many farms across the midwest. (It's our fault it got this way anyway.). So, I think killing an animal is wrong, but in this case, what other options do we have? So it is hard for me to say that I am entirely against hunting, when I recognize that it needs to exist in some cases.

Also, I'm all for the entire bill of rights of the United States Constitution, 1-10, every one of them. People that think we should get rid of the 2nd amendment need to really think about it. Because then you probably still have firepower in the hands of the police and the government, but not 99% of private citizens. Doesn't seem like a good idea to me.

Re:Amazing.

[swillden]

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.

Re:Amazing.

[swillden]

Argumentation by absurd and offensive analogy.

Good one.

Come back when you learn to debate like an adult, rather than a six-year old.

Still, I'll address the few half-baked points you did make:

Hunting is deeply ingrained behavior in humans?

Yep. Has been for a while.

And you need to express that urge?

Need? No, but if you like the outdoors and love a challenge, it's a serious rush. Paintball is even more of a rush, but doesn't really get you close to nature (the wildlife stays far, far away). All of the sports I enjoy (stuff like hiking, mountain biking, skiing, rock climbing, scuba diving, etc. in addition to hunting and fishing) combine interaction with nature and adrenaline. Hunting and fishing are less exciting than the others, but involve the most interaction with nature (and include eating, too!). When I get a little more experience with diving (only have 18 dives in my log, so far, including my cert dives) I intend to give spearfishing a try as well.

Does shooting fish offend you? Bet it doesn't. Why is it that people only seem to care about "protecting" (see the post you replied to for an explanation of why protection isn't the same as "not hunting") furry animals?

Then why use a gun?

Where a gun makes the hunt too easy, I don't. I only hunted deer with a rifle twice, then I switched to a bow (I'm going to try a muzzleloader this year). Occasionally, I want to hunt but don't want any meat, so I use a camera, although that's usually not as fun because it's too easy and you can't eat your pictures.

Or are you too "squeamish" to tackle an animal with your bare hands?

My hands are rather small, weak and lacking in functional claws. People hunt with their brains because, physically, we're outclassed in some way by pretty much everything out there, land, sea or air.

Jeez, all this talk is making me anxious to get outside. The weather's nice... I wonder if the snow has melted off enough to make a hike up the canyon fun? I think I'll find out at lunch. Guess I'd better get some work done now, instead of wasting my time potting naive, city-bred, vegan slashdotters with flabby guts, weak stomachs and a complete inability to think for themselves.

Re:Amazing.

[swillden]

LOL So now you change the subject and claim I'm missing the point?

You really suck at this, don't you.

You said absolutely nothing about being interested in limiting access to guns in your previous post. You tried to claim that I'm uncivilized for enjoying hunting (and used a rather stupid analogy to "support" your point, I might add, hoping that you could cover your complete lack of debating skill and rather shallow thought process by being crude). I responded in a sincere attempt to help you understand what it is that's enjoyable about hunting; hoping to broaden your narrow little mind.

It's okay, though, I knew I was wasting my time. Not much time, at least. I type fast.

If you want to change the topic to gun control, fine. My question to you is "What does it matter to you if I have firearms?" In your other post you seemed to be trying (rather lamely) to convince me that hunting is a bad thing, because it's bad for me, or because it's bad for the wildlife, I'm not sure. What is it that you're trying to do now? You don't care what I do, so why should you care what I own?

Further, why is it that you think I should have to justify my right to have them to you or anyone else? Gun control advocates are the ones bearing the burden of proof here, since your ilk are the ones trying to invade my privacy and my life, and take my possessions from me. And how is that different from the RIAA who wants to take away your computer so that you can't rip or share music? And the right you want to take from me isn't even some obscure thing; it's explicitly granted in the Bill of Rights!

Don't get on a high horse about guns being dangerous and music just being entertainment, either. *My* guns are not and never will be a danger to you, for a multitude of reasons. There is actually a small, but non-zero, probability that my guns may *save* you at some point.

Want to reduce crime committed with guns? Go after criminals and leave me the hell alone.

Re:Amazing.

[swillden]

Wait a minute. I jumped into a discussion on gun control, then you started waxing lyrically on the pleasures of hunting

Okay, point granted. Sort of. I was uninterested in the gun control discussion and the only reason I jumped in was when hunting was brought up. Except for one sentence near the top of the thread (and my reply to your apparent change of topic) all of my posts have been related to hunting, not gun control. From my point of view, you changed the subject. From yours, you just brought it back.

Explain to me how it can be that gun control advocates should "bear the burden of proof", when in fact none of us are born with the natural (or "ingrained") capacity to actually fire bullets.

Explain why we should have the right to own microwave ovens when none of us are born with the natural (or "ingrained") capacity to heat food with high-frequency radiation? Your argument would justify banning absolutely any technology that has any possibility for misuse. Automobiles, perhaps?

The point is that gun control advocates are arguing for removing rights and confiscating possessions that people already have. Therefore, you have to justify why this change should be made, rather than requiring others to justify why it should not.

Explain to me also how it can be that your country espouses the right to bear arms, yet will go to war on countries that arm themselves.

(1) Red Herring. (2) You're exaggerating. I'm familiar with the incidents you're referring to, but you're generalizing inappropriately. (3) Who says I agree with my government's actions? I very frequently do not.

Just look at you. You don't know shit about what is going on in the world (you have admitted as much by your contemptuous characterization of various people here as "city-bred", ignoring the fact that over half the world's population lives in same), yet you maintain that the human deaths and sorrow caused by gun-related violence is a fair trade if it means you get to satisfy your indulgence of shooting a deer ONCE or TWICE in your LIFE. Bah.

I don't care to look up actual statistics at the moment, but yes, I believe you're right that approximately half of the world's population lives in cities (actually I believe it's a tiny bit less than half, but that doesn't really matter). What you and most other urbanites conveniently forget is that means that roughly half of humanity does *not* live in cities. The trend in the U.S. is increasingly towards deurbanization, as well.

The problem for those us of who don't live in cities, is that those who do live in cities seem to frequently push laws that make sense for them on all of us. I have little problem with the New York City ordinances that ban guns, for example. The occasions on which one could legitimately use a gun in New York are small, and limited to defending oneself against a gun-wielding criminal. (I'm intentionally ignoring the issue of whether people should own guns in order to be able to overthrow a corrupt government -- I addressed that in another post).

Those laws, however, do not make one bit of sense where I live. Guns are a normal part of life here, and there are plenty of good reasons why that is, none of which have anything to do with shooting people (and only some of which are related to hunting or recreational shooting).

Get out of the woods or whereever it is that you live your rustic life and get some perspective.

I travel quite a bit, and spend roughly a quarter of my time in large cities. Last year I spent time in Paris, Taipei, Beijing, Tel Aviv and Frankfurt, plus a few other cities around the world and too many to mention in the U.S. I talk to people from all walks of life and have always been interested in understanding as many different points of view as I can. That's a large part of the reason why I debate things on /. and in other fora, to broaden my perspective.

Do you? (That's a rhetorical question, but not one that I presume I know the answer to).

*I* suggest you get away from the crowds, spend some time hiking through forests, climbing mountains and canoeing down rivers and get some perspective. I can suggest some fantastic places, if you like. Places where you could camp and hike for weeks without running into another human being.

And, FYI, I'd be a really poor hunter if I only took one or two deer in my life. I can do far better than that with a bow. With a rifle I could pretty much take as many as the law permits. Why does everyone always bring up deer as the canonical game, anyway? I have less interest in hunting deer than just about anything. Elk and moose are much better eating. Birds are my favorite.

Surprise surprise, paranoid to boot.

Of course I'm paranoid. It's my job. People pay me good money to help *them* be paranoid. :-)

Jokes aside, I think gun control advocates are the real paranoiacs. The possibility of a bad thing happening frightens them so badly that they want to take tools away from everyone, including those that have legitimate uses for them. Again I'll ask (since this is /.): can you explain how your point of view is logically different from that of the RIAA and MPAA?

I am not the one invading your privacy, fella. I am just posting messages on a bulletin board.

And I didn't shoot your children. Both of us are posting pointless messages in a forum that will never change anything. I thought that was self-evident, but if you feel the need to point it out, I'll gladly confirm it for you.

You are indicating you would support taking my possessions away and changing my lifestyle for absolutely no good reason, however. You wouldn't do it yourself, of course, you'd just vote for it and feel like you'd done a good thing, because your limited perspective on the world doesn't consider the fact that the way you live your life isn't the only way to live.

No, I'm not the one invading your privacy. All I am doing is telling you that your way of life is going the way of the dodo.

If the population continues to grow as it has, then eventually there may be no wild places left, that's true. It will take quite a long time before that's the case, however, and it's possible that it may never happen. Population growth in the U.S. is declining and is already very close to zero if you discount immigration.

However, I fail to see how that supports your argument at all (well, I can see that it gives you an opportunity to make snide remarks).

You like my sig, don't you?

victory is ours!

[jedie]

wohooow! Long live the Netherlands! first they legalize canabis and now this! *victory dance*

Re:victory is ours!

[MrFredBloggs]

Cannabis is not `legalized` in the Netherlands. Possession of a few grams is tolerated.

Re:victory is ours!

[Tony Hoyle]

Class C does *not* mean possession is legal, just that you won't be arrested for it (you will however be served with a summons to appear in court). After reclassification you can still get 2 years in jail for possession (down from the current 5 years).

Since the police have far too much work dealing with real criminals (and they can't be arsed with the paperwork) you probably won't hear anything though... even now it's pretty much tolerated (over a dozen cannabis cafe's to open in the next couple of months).

Re:victory is ours!

[DrSkwid]

no, that's almost the exact opposite of what I'm saying.

this story goes into some detail.

Of course it was much of the reporting that was irresponsible.

Other news sources summarized it as "cannabis worse for you than cigarettes"

Shock news : smoking unfiltered tobacco is more harmful than filtered, duh!

I want to see a study on pure cannabis because that's what I smoke, tobacco is a disgusting additive to weed. Like adding anti-freeze to a good wine.

Re:victory is ours!

[jilles]

And selling it from coffe shops is allowed. The owners even pay taxes. The only thing is that they can't grow cannabis or buy it in large quantities. They can legally sell but cannot legally buy (yet).

This strange situation exists only to please the US with their paranoid war on drugs (which costs the US tax payer billions of dollars annually and so far has been hugely unsuccessful). We've always been pragmatic in this kind of stuff. Prostitution is legal here too. You know why? Because it's the oldest profession in the world. Making it illegal doesn't make it go away.

Global Implications?

[hyrdra]

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.

Re:Global Implications?

[StudMuffin]

This sounds an awful lot like the arguements against gun companies. Essentially, gun companies don't kill people, they just make guns. Ammo companies don't kill people, they just make bullets.

KaZaa doesn't trade copywritten material, they just make software.

Funny thing is, though, that I see the truth in all these arguements. PEOPLE pull the trigger, PEOPLE swap illegal files.

Since I can use a garden hoe to hack my neighbor to bits, should the hoe company be help liable?

OK, enough rambling.

Re:Global Implications?

[dirk]

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.

I'm wondering how this can be since it has been proven they control who is on the network. They were able to lock Morpheus users out of the Kazaa network, so it MUST depend on a central server, at least for user logins. How exactly can Kazaa kick people off their network, but still claim they have no control over the network?

Re:Global Implications?

[axlrosen]

The real questions, in my mind, are, what are the possible legal and illegal uses of the product, what is the likely ratio of legal to illegal uses, and how is the product pitched? Here's how I would rate these products, in order of having the most reasonably legal uses to having the least reasonably legal uses:

garden hoe
kitchen knife
VCR
...
CD burner (because currently it's much easier for most people to copy a CD than a VCR tape)
rifle
handgun
...
Kazaa
Napster (because it can only swap music files, unlike Kazaa)

I draw these lines in between because I think that, currently, the vast majority of the uses of the first group are legal, while the vast majority of the uses of the last group are illegal (according to the copyright laws of most countries). Not sure about the middle group, but there are certainly at least a large minority of legal uses for the products in the second group, while I would guess that the ratio of legal to illegal MP3s swapped over Napster-like products is somewhere around 1%.

Then the only remaining question is, where do you draw the line of legality of the product?

Re:Global Implications?

[Aapje]

Shouldn't you consider the harm that a product can cause as well? I'd rather face an angry man carrying a laptop with Napster than a agressive guy with a gun.

Besides that, a product can also be made partially legal. In the Netherlands, you may only buy a gun if you've been an active member of a shooting club for a year or so. That keeps guns available to those who which to use it for legal means, while providing substantial barriers to weirdo's/criminals/angry people.

Re:Global Implications?

[StudMuffin]

No, guns are designed to shoot little lead pellets a long way really, really fast. How is killing people involved in this equation? What about killing deer? Gophers? Cows? Watermelons?

What you CHOOSE to do with a gun is up to you. In fact, in the owners manual, most handguns state that you specifically SHOULDN'T shoot people with it.

I use them to shoot at targets at the pistol range. For me, gun control means not missing your target.

Re:Global Implications?

[Liza]

Sure, this ruling can be used as a reference for cases in the US or UK, or anywhere else in the world for that matter.

The real question that you were asking is will anyone in a US court (or elsewhere) listen.

That is far less likely. Especially in the US. Elsewhere in the world, courts are more likely to look at examples of how other countries have grappled with a legal issue and craft laws carefully to ensure the same or a different result. But this happens very seldom in the US.

You *can* cite to international precedent in a US court, just like in court in Kansas you *can* cite examples of what courts in California did under similar circumstances or with similar laws. And if you are really in new ground and the laws really are similar, they might decide to do the same thing. Or they might decide that Those People Over There have nothing to do with Us so who cares what they did or think?

What will also be interesting is to watch how this case and its international implications and developments compare to the Yahoo/LICRA case moving forward in parallel in France and in California.

Liza

Re:Global Implications?

[issachar]

protection doesn't count, since if _everyone_ was like you, the threat your gun would present would be nullified

Since I don't own a handgun, I may be speaking out of turn, but you're missing the point of a handgun. The purpose of carrying a handgun for protection is not to give you an advantage. (That would require an assumption that the criminals don't have guns...) Instead the purpose is to level the playing field. If a burly rapist meets a 5'5" petite woman on the street, gets who has the advantage. Give the woman a handgun, and you level the playing field as much as possible.

Also, the guns also favour whoever is most numerous. A man walking attempting to take hostages in a grocery store will run into serious problems if a substantial number of his victims are carrying guns. As soon as he turns his back on one of them...

I believe the expression is... "God created all men, Smith&Wesson made them equal"

Re:Global Implications?

[Darren Winsper]

Are you by any chance a fan of the Hitch-Hiker's series? I'm reminded of the man who decided the whole world was mad and built a house to keep the world IN, and him OUT. The incident that set him off was finding usage instructions that came with some toothpicks.

Re:Global Implications?

[Aapje]

You don't decide whether or not something is illegal based on the harm it causes.

Yes, you do. A good example is alcohol. It certainly causes harm, but we allow it for regulating does less harm to society than banning it totally (the US has proven that in the '20's). Most countries have made a different choice for harddrugs because the harm is much greater. They believe that more harm is prevented than is caused by the crimes that junkies, dealers and the mafia commit.

How can you be an active member of a shooting club if you don't own a gun?

The club owns guns that you can shoot with. Just like a dart club owns darts ;)

Oh, and there's a much simpler way to put up a barrier against criminals purchasing legal guns. (Do a criminal record check...)

I was not simply talking about direct purchases. The illegal guns that criminals purchase come from somewhere. That can be sell-through, theft or other ways to 'convert' legal guns into illegal ones. The less restrictive gun laws in the US have made it easier for criminals to get guns, just check the percentage of crimes committed with a gun. The ratio is much higher in the US.

Re:Global Implications?

[Aapje]

You also have to register before you can buy a baseball bat.

No, you have to register before you troll.

But you can pay someone to kill you legally (assisted suicide)!

No, only a doctor may perform euthanasia after consulting with another doctor. The procedure may only be performed if someone is terminally ill and must be verified by an ethical board. This is in contrast to other countries where euthanasia happens about as often as in the Netherlands, but there are no clear rules. In those countries doctors make the decision in secret, usually without consulting another doctor or even the patient.

oooooooooh the US is not going to like this one

[sdflkgfljdqshgjkqsfg]

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...

Nice spin by Reuters

[rossjudson]

"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.

Re:Nice spin by Reuters

[Junta]

Not only is it a "spin", but completely wrong.

Now if they were refering to user's sharing music illegally, the term would be "copyright violation".

Now the way the MPAA and RIAA are trying to wield copyright and destroy fair use, *that* is what I would call copyright abuse. Maybe Reuters meant to say "victory" instead of setback, then they would be right.. :)

Good News

[jaavaaguru]

So this will be good news for anyone who writes software that gets round e-book encryption. After all, its the user that's instructing the software to do it, just like the user is instructing Kazaa to download the pirated music.

Also, it'll be good news for the writers of Back Orifice, who can now publish their software quite freely, or sell it in PC World, since it's the *user* that's doing something wrong.

Re:Good News

[Ioldanach]

So this will be good news for anyone who writes software that gets round e-book encryption. After all, its the user that's instructing the software to do it, just like the user is instructing Kazaa to download the pirated music.

If the only use of the software is to get around legally protected encryption, then the software is intended to perform an illegal act, and the software programmer intended it as such. (Yes, I agree that making it illegal is stupid, personally.) The Kazaa software, however, is not restricted solely to performing an illegal act, therefore it is the users that direct it to perform the illegal act, not the programmer.

Re:Good News

[Junta]

As far as ebook decryption, decss, and the like, those are considered to be "circumvention devices" and are illegal by the DMCA. Kazaa simply shares data. Now if Kazaa had some weird built in support for, say decrpyting a DVD and sharing it, or to mess with a WMA's licensing some how to allow it to be easier to distribute than creator intended, then they would face trouble if they were in the U.S....

First hand story?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Actually

[wiredog]

It's a victory for efforts to halt copyright abuse.

Why do they want damages?

[Marx_Mrvelous]

I don't get it.. why would they sue to get back lost damages? Wouldn't they want to sue to get back lost earnings? *confused*

What about the Terms & Conditions ?

[MagicFab]

When looking at the Terms & Conditions of use, it's clear Kazaa provided for this (from the beginning ?).

What part of responsibility or role do the hosting companies hold in this ? We provide an Acceptable Use Policy and I think if we had a Kazaa user as customer, trading MP3s, and we get a court order to cancel service, we'd have to.

Has anybody had such experiences/similar scenarios they'd share ? What are the implications of such a judgement on current AUPs legal documents in the hosting industry ?

Well...

[wiredog]

Admiralty law (law of the sea) cases are international. Courts in different countries cite each other's rulings frequently. But I think that is because of various treaties. Is there a treaty that both the US and the Netherlands have signed that would allow a US lawyer to cite the Dutch ruling?

Re:Well...

[the_2nd_coming]

I think that the US tried to get a lot of European nations to sign an international copyright treaty that basicly stated that each nation would enforce eachothers laws. if the netherlands were in this, I would think that it could be brought up in court.

BTW IANAL

Re:Well...

[Saib0t]

Is there a treaty that both the US and the Netherlands have signed that would allow a US lawyer to cite the Dutch ruling?

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...

Re:Well...

[radja]

so the US is going to support this.
Excuse me if I dont believe this, the US has a history of unilaterally changing things previously agreed on.

//rdj

Re:Well...

[Saib0t]

You know, I'd be more than happy to have uniform laws throughout the world, or at least in what 'we' call "western countries".

The problem comes with agreeing on them. I like the *original* US constitution quite a lot, not its current implementation though. There are a couple of things I don't like about european laws though (especially those that constraint the freedom of speech) although I can very much understand the reason behind these laws, coming from a part of the world that suffered 2 world wars and massive killing of citizens. *MY* favourite combination would take a bit of the US laws and the majority of european laws.

Seeing the direction the USA is headed to these days, if I was asked whether I'm in favor of global laws, I'd vote NO with both hands. Until countries (and people ruling these countries) stop acting selfishly but instead act for the greater common good, I don't think we'll ever be able to achieve anything remotely close to uniform global laws that are worth something. Alas, I don't know if this civilization is ever going to be able to achieve that... The naive side of me wishes so, there is still hope, but I'm getting more and more disgusted with the world as a whole.

Score one for sanity.

[ari{Dal}]

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.

Re:Score one for sanity.

[ari{Dal}]

heh. yah i know.. i posted a reply to my own comment when i'd realised what i'd done...
gee.. how i managed to confuse two power-hungry money-grubbing entertainment entities just baffles me... but yah it was a dumb mistake *grins* which i realised just after i hit "submit" of course.

Re:Score one for sanity.

[ari{Dal}]

K yah. swap in RIAA for MPAA *slaps forehead*. I forgot to proofread. How on earth did i confuse one huge, money grubbing entity for another huge, money grubbing entity? Bad me.
and sometimes that 2 minute posting delay is a huge PITA :P

Proud

[pigeon]

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!)

Re:Proud

[Peyna]

I'm not sure if it applies to government or not, but there are no laws against nepotism, and quite frankly, would you complain if you were offered a job by your rich and powerful grandfather? (yeah it would depend what the job was, but hey..)

Re:Proud

[EFGearman]

What Kierthos refers to is the fact that Jr. only got the job because of who he is related to. He's not terribly well qualified for it. Neither am I, but I don't want the job. I'm perfectly happy making the 0's and 1's march to my own little tune.

EFGearman

Re:Proud

[Peyna]

Yeah, exactly like I said, "I'm not sure if it applies to government." That specific law applies to public offices & employees, or people employed by the government. It's also just south carolina from what you showed, anyone know if this applies on a federal level?

Re:Proud

[Rogerborg]

• Senator Hollings, best Senator money can buy!

Hey! Hollings is an honest politician. When he's bought, he stays bought.

Re:Absolutely they should countersue...

[psicE]

Where's the "if" come from? Absolutely they should sue for damages (I mean, if they can afford to countersue, of course).

Where's the if come from, you say? I think you just answered your own question.

Yes, it's sad that the government wastes money on frivolous lawsuits, and the only companies who can countersue are the ones who actually committed illegal acts (tobacco in the US with advertising-to-minors, for example). Unfortunately, I think the only way to stop that is by voting the offending people out of office.

Re:Guns dont kill people...

[Sabalon]

The bullets do the killing, unless of course you bludgeon them with the actual gun itself.

But all the same - take away everything capable of committing a crime, and the world would be pretty boring.

Can this ruling help us in American courts?

[LM741N]

This is great news for the Dutch. I am wondering if rulings like this can help any cases in the US? Lawyers always cite case law, but do foreign decisions carry any weight in the US? You would think that a thorough logical analysis of a situation would be persuasive anywhere. I am assuming the laws of logic apply everywhere, kind of like the laws of physics. Or am I being naive?

Makes no sense

[Neil Watson]

I don't understand how a judges can even consider hearing trials on P2P file sharing.

• Do we charge gun manufacturers with murder?
• Do hold car manufacturers responsible for allowing people to operate their cars will intoxicated?

Yet for some reason people feel that those who provide the means to illegally copy software or music should be responsible for the actions of others.

Re:Makes no sense

[dj28]

No, but in both cases just about every government in the world regulates them. Here in the US, people have to go through a background check. In some countries, it's very hard to obtain a gun. Also, every country that I can think of has safety regulations on cars. They have to have a crash resistant frame, seat belts, and a lot of other regulations. How does this apply to P2P? Well, by using your analogy, shouldn't the government regulate it like they regulate all those other markets to protect the consumer (in the case of P2P, the copyright holder) from being shafted? I sure think so.

Re:Makes no sense

[gclef]

"Do we charge gun manufacturers with murder?"

Ummm...yes. We do. See: http://www.ncpa.org/studies/s223.html

Now, whether that's a Good Thing (tm) or not is a totally different question.

Re:Makes no sense

[Kamel Jockey]

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.

Re:Makes no sense

[Russ Nelson]

Boston just dropped their lawsuit against gun manufacturers.
-russ

Re:Makes no sense

[Stonehand]

Not in all cases; there are people who picked up suing after the compulsory warning labels were added. Between a government-required warning essentially saying "this product will quite possibly give you a slow, lingering death via lung cancer" and a business saying "trust us, our products are fine"... one of the two is considerably less objective than the other.

Once again common sense prevails...

[decarelbitter]

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.

Re:Once again common sense prevails...

[pjrc]

The program by itself doesn't violate anything besides interface aesthetics.

... and its users' privacy...

The Reuters summary.

[CaptIronfist]

It can also be found here:

http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=int ernetnews&StoryID=753053

heh

[zapfie]

I got out of bed and checked Slashdot. For some reason, I read the headline as "Karma illegal, Dutch Appeals Court Rules"..
At that point, I started wondering if I needed more sleep.

Translation

[Vapula]

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.

The Dutch attitude towards laws

[wytcld]

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.

Sanity: 1 Insanity: 27

[Man In Black]

... 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...

Human translation :-)

[Nemosoft Unv.]

(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.

Re:Human translation :-)

[einTier]

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.

Now that is interesting. I'd love to see them sue the hell out of Buma/Stemra, and get their money back, and severely punish B/S. That's the only thing these copyright companies understand -- a very heavy hit in their pocketbook. Otherwise, this is just another lost case. It didn't really hurt the company, but it definately hurt Kaaza. Maybe this would stop all the silly cease and desist letters and frivolous lawsuits.

I hate to think what Napster could sue the RIAA for if it's eventually found legit. No, let me take that back. It puts a big shit-eating grin to think about the RIAA being taken to the cleaners.

Re:Absolutely they should countersue...

[hanwen]

Where's the "if" come from? Absolutely they should sue for damages (I mean, if they can afford to countersue, of course).

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.

Justification for CBDTPA?

[Furd]

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

Who else can we blame?

[qurob]

Khalded and mIRC

Microsoft and Outlook Express (USENET binaries)

GetRight, Internet Explorer, CuteFTP (countless warez have been spread because of these programs)

And the list goes on....

Re:Dutch

[morie]

maar wel terecht...

This has been a 'duh' for ages.

[billcopc]

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.

Re:Can it be appealed again?

[nagora]

The highest court it might get to is the European Court of Human Rights if the copyright holders take the line that their right to reward for their work is under attack by the Dutch decision. At that point anything can happen as the ECoHR is bizarre and arbitary in the extreme in its decisions.

TWW

European Judges are smarter

[Captain Pooh]

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.

Re:European Judges are smarter

[psxndc]

But McDonald's _was_ liable in that case. They were serving their coffe at scalding temperatures, well above what is needed to keep it "hot". Info on the case is here. Many people think this was a bogus lawsuit, but it really wasn't. It actually effected positive change in a corporation benefitting the consumer. The british judge probably didn't bother to read the case.

Re:European Judges are smarter

[elefantstn]

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.

Re:European Judges are smarter

[Zoop]

In America, we have a joke:

"What do you call a lawyer with an IQ of 85?"

"Your Honor."

["Your Honor" is the term used when addressing a Judge in the U.S., for those unfamiliar with the U.S. legal system]

Re:Gnus dont kill people...

[Russ Nelson]

Oh yeah?

How to win here in America

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Guns dont kill people...

[DrSkwid]

of course you're all wrong

guns & bullets don't kill people

blood loss and organ damage kills people

ha!

Translation...

[ssclift]

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.

Machine Translations

[Alien54]

You got to love some machine translations:

Who has the Court house within Amsterdam today private. The Garden which can be canceled the verdict with master R. Oribio the Castrate within the transaction who the Buma / Vote had aangespannen versus KaZaA.

In accordance with the Buma / Vote facility KaZaA with one's platform the violate with the royalties. The software is being principally used until the exchange with music band , without who yonder royalties until turn afgedragen.

Oribio the Castrate sentence therefore who KaZaA steps was obliged to take to the transgression with royalties within stop. When KaZaA yonder sorry, there is no reply would be yield , would be the service one strong penalty sustain.

The erector with KaZaA private upon it the software the Australian service Sharman within sell.

Little tart Who wax not necessary been , thus appears to now. The Amsterdam Garden sentence within the higher vocation who KaZaA versus the verdict with Oribio the Castrate had aangespannen , who KaZaA irresponsible pitcher are being kept until the auteursrechtenschendingen with the consumer with the platform. " so far as talk is with auteursrechtelijk relevance transactions turn who activity performed through the consumer with the program and not through KaZaA.

Christiaan Alberdingk Thijm is sore satisfied with the verdict , solely finds the complete spurt with transactions yet 'een little tart. Too CEO Niklas Zennström suit the verdict 'met mixed opinion within receive. " until KaZaA comes they within tardy.

I pile who muziekorgansiaties when Buma / Vote in future well-being willing will one's to rendezvous within take instead of the master within tread ", thus Zennström The Garden has wholly ranch the differ between Napster and KaZaA started , thus meent Alberdingk Thijm. " towards Napster is yonder talk with one power station server , towards KaZaA is who not the case.

Furthermore was involved the fact with who with KaZaA not solely muziekbestanden may turn uitgewisseld. " Practical significance " inspired stain yet turn what the practical significance with the seizure until KaZaA is ", suit KaZaA within one persverklaring.

The uitwisseldienst zegt who they through the sooner verdict forced their bedrijfsactiviteiten worldwide within terminate , after which they their substantial sections of a company has gone.

This is being otherwise too through the Garden approved : " job- may turn who they for this purpose not would be are promoted in case they the within their might had worn other wise the verdict with the chairman within suffice " This stand for who Buma one verdict has geëxecuteerd who not valid is legt Alberdingk Thijm out of. " within theory is Buma thus responsible until the sale versus one lower worth then the reverse the case would be one's "

It is yet not understandable whether yonder vervolgstappen versus the auteursrechtenorganisatie will turn taken. Buma / Vote wish yet not inhoudelijk worn the verdict respond. " we will the verdict yet study ", thus one spokesman.

Re:Machine Translations

[morie]

Great way to piss of a judge: translate his name into "the Castrate"

RIAA sues Microsoft over illegal music sharing

[CaptainPhong]

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - On March 28th, the RIAA filed suit in Federal court demanding an injunction against software giant Microsoft for alleged distribution of software which allows the copying of music and other protected recordings.

An unnamed RIAA source tells Reuters "Shockingly, the ability to copy these files is built right into their Windows(tm) operating system!"

Though Microsoft claims the "built-in" programs have legitimate uses, the RIAA has doubts. "Really, what other use could there possibly be for programs like 'copy' and 'xcopy'. I mean, the one has 'x' in the name! It must be designed purely for stealing our profits."

The recording industry contends that it's not simply the ability to copy and listen to music that makes this software dangerous, but the fact that it is so easy for any pirate to do. "They can just drag and drop the files onto a disk and give them to their friends. They even have software which allows people to listen to music. If they simply insert a CD they purchased into their CD-ROM drive, Windows will play it automatically. It does this without charging the user or providing us with any personal information."

Our source even claimed that the software in question allows sharing over a network or the Internet. "Another apparent 'feature' of this operating system is the ability to share files over a network. They even make software available that allows users to create and host Internet sites where files can be downloaded by anyone in the world. These 'ftp sites' and 'web sites' are clearly meant only to violate our copyrights."

Microsoft contends that they have no control over their user's actions. "We are very serious about piracy, and do all we can to protect ourselves against it. However, the RIAA is going about it all wrong. They should really consider product bundling - it's been quite sucessful in protecting and expanding our own monopoly, it would surely work for theirs."

Re:RIAA sues Microsoft over illegal music sharing

[SuiteSisterMary]

Why do you think they're trying to get Digital Rights Management built into pretty much ANYTHING ELECTRONIC?

Reuters is a laughing stock

[Silverhammer]

Ask anyone in the media business -- the newsfeed that comes out of Reuters has steadily degenerated over the past several years.

They say they apply the spin that they do in order to maintain impartiality and retain access in less friendly countries around the world. A rather infamous quote from them, in response to criticism of their coverage of September 11: "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

However, in the process they have become nothing more than a clearinghouse for press releases. They no longer engage in any real investigative journalism because such investigations must have some angle going in and will always piss someone off. Reuters would rather keep their access and not step on any toes.

Stick to the Associated Press.

Re:Reuters is a laughing stock

[Rogerborg]

• A rather infamous quote from them, in response to criticism of their coverage of September 11: "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

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.

Re:Reuters is a laughing stock

[Silverhammer]

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.

Your quote is from 1982-83. My quote is from last October. Your quote is from a time when Afghanistan was fighting off an unprovoked Soviet invasion. My quote is from a time when Afghanistan was one of the most repressive theocracies in the region, despised even by other Arab nations and harboring the most wanted man in the world. Your quote is by a political figure making a political statement. My quote is by a "news" agency rationalizing the tone of its coverage.

I think there may be a wee bit of difference between the two.

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?

No, it depends on whether you're trying to stay in the good graces of the PLO and the other Arab nations that support it.

Re:Reuters is a laughing stock

[Rogerborg]

• • 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.
  Your quote is from 1982-83. My quote is from last October

Bingo, sparky. My point is that making a judgement on someone often looks idiotic with the benefit of hindsight, which is why news agencies are so keen to blandify everything, even when the situation seems crystal clear at the time.

Which brings us back to why exactly Reuters chose to give this a clear anti-piracy slant. Any ideas?

Re:Reuters is a laughing stock

[Silverhammer]

Which brings us back to why exactly Reuters chose to give this a clear anti-piracy slant. Any ideas?

I already gave you mine, and mine makes perfect sense if you simply substitute "terrorists" with "media corporations." However, you're not interested, so... *shrug*

Re:Wait, aren't most Slashdotters anti-gun?

[Space cowboy]

Yes, it's pretty simple.

A hot-headed moment with Kazaa is highly unlikely to end with a freshly-murdered, bleeding corpse on your hands.

A breach of trust on the part of someone using Kazaa is therefore completely insignificant compared to that of a gun-toting "friend" (do they have "non-friends" ?)

I could go on, but there's no point really. If you can't see it from the above, you never will.

Simon.

Re:Can it be appealed again?

[morie]

It can be brought to supreme court (Hoge Raad der Nederlanden), but they can only judge procedures, not set a sentence themselves.

Hot Damn!

[BlackGriffen]

Leave it to the Dutch, the only people I know of who have sensible laws about marijuana (no worse than alcohol) and prostitution (consenting adults, who just happen to consent for commercial reasons rather than emotional/hormonal ones). That little sub-ocean level country is probably about as close to a libertarian country as we're likely to see. Well, on social issues anyway. Here's hoping the U.$. doesn't get all self-righteous on the Netherlands.

BlackGriffen

Re:Hot Damn!

[radja]

Not been in the netherlands often, have you?

please.. go get informed...

//rdj

Taken to its logical conclusion...

[count_dooku]

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.

Re:Taken to its logical conclusion...

[Stonehand]

Correction: the legal fees alone could sink file traders. Innocent folks are in far less danger. This is bad why?

Re:Taken to its logical conclusion...

[Stonehand]

Nah. Just pick some examples and ruin their lives -- get convictions on their criminal records, make a media splash, post the documentation online so it becomes prominent in a Google search, and so forth.

Re:Taken to its logical conclusion...

[freeweed]

Correction: the legal fees alone could sink file traders. Innocent folks are in far less danger. This is bad why?

You assume that 'file traders' and 'innocent' couldn't be used in the same sentence.

Take someone who has never violated copyright in their life, but trades various public domain/their own files all the time, using damn near any software package. ($corporation)'s lawyer decides to initiate legal proceedings against all users of ($file_sharing_service).

Your innocent user now has thousands of dollars of legal fees, unless they can prove inability to pay for legal representation, and hasn't actually done anything wrong.

And you don't see why this is bad?

Don't expect this to be over

[Greyfox]

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.

Kazaa now is Australian

[Jungle guy]

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.

Re:Wait, aren't most Slashdotters anti-gun?

[Cardinal Biggles]

You cannot use a copy of Kazaa to kill someone.

While in general tools should not be banned for the sole reason that they could be used for evil, there is a limit to that argument.

Even the most gun-loving American Redneck would agree that nuclear missiles for everybody would be a bad idea. Even they draw the line somewhere.

Another difference is that most people are agreed that murder (in whatever degree) is to be avoided. On the subject of copyright infringement there is no such unanimity. Not even close. I for one don't think that it is necessarily bad in all cases.

How will this be spun (used) by the RIAA?

[kurt555gs]

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?

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 ... 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.

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

Non-NYT (no reg need) link, from Yahoo

[Seth Finkelstein]

The Reuter article is now in several places, for example,

at Yahoo

and CNET

even USAToday

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

Re:Non-NYT (no reg need) link, from Yahoo

[GuNgA-DiN]

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.

Re: prostitution

[hanwen]

Leave it to the Dutch, the only people I know of who have sensible laws about marijuana (no worse than alcohol) and prostitution (consenting adults, who just happen to consent for commercial reasons rather than emotional/hormonal ones)

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.

"MIAA screaming all the way from the Netherlands"

[da5idnetlimit.com]

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...

Global Implications

[ackthpt]

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?

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!

Sony v. Betamax, Not Guns

[cozimek]

There's been a lot of comments here about trying to relate this ruling to the gun lobby arguments. Apples and oranges if you ask me.

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.

Re:Sony v. Betamax, Not Guns

[StevenMaurer]

You're ignoring the fact that there are legal uses for guns as well. Target shooting (featured in both the Summer and Winter Olympic games), Skeets, not to mention hunting.

Let's face facts. Both Kazaa and Small-Cheap-Saturday-night-specials do not themselves commit illegal acts. But they both are marketed to their intended audience as a means to commit illegal acts.

Gun manufacturers have put ads of gagsta-dressed men touting the concealability of their weapons (wink, wink, nudge, nudge). Kazaa does similar things - although I think we all can agree that distributing a music program isn't quite the same thing as murder.

So while I do agree that Guns/Kazaa aren't covered by existing laws, that doesn't mean they shouldn't be regulated in the future. I'd prefer a happy middle-ground where neither the RIAA nor the copyright thieves get all of what they want.

Who's the government protecting?

[inquis]

I think your argument that the government should regulate P2P because / in the same way that they regulate guns and cars is fallacial.

First of all, a gun is a product. If you regulate guns, you regulate them on the production end (what guns you are allowed to sell) or the retail end (what guns you are allowed to buy). The same thing happens with cars, the government says "you can't produce a car without these safety features".

Now, let's talk about the nebulous "P2P". First, you suggest in your post that P2P is a product; instead, P2P is a storefront through which content (the product) is delivered to the consumer. P2P is equivalent to a gun store or a car lot.

Also, realize that most government controls on markets is to make sure the consumer doesn't get screwed by the producer, not the other way around. Indeed, it is a BAD IDEA to controls on the retail side; the only example of these kinds of controls I can think of is in the gun shop analogy. You don't have to show paperwork to prove you're a responsible lamp-buyer to buy a lamp from Wal-Mart. You shouldn't have to show paperwork (i.e. DRM) to prove you're a responsible music-buyer before you buy a CD from Wal-Mart or download an mp3 from a P2P service.

If you want to impose regulation on a market, first ask who you are protecting and ask yourself if they need your protection. The recording industry doesn't need protection from music downloaders.

-inq

P.S. I downloaded a pile of Opeth tunes the other day. Now I have the irrational urge to buy a pile of Opeth CDs. Am I going to go to piracy hell?

NYT slashdot password

[Bohemoth2]

Whats the slashdot reader login for the new york times? I forgot

Dude.

[gvonk]

Criminals will always use guns. Period. Whether they are illegal or not.
I, for one, will defend myself if they try to kill me. You do what you want. I, however, know what restrictive laws do to my safety:

If gun makers reduce the supply of firearms sold to suburban dealers, the market price of guns will rise. Consumers with the most "elastic" demand -- those who are most sensitive to price changes -- will reduce or eliminate their purchases. And the evidence is clear: Price-sensitive consumers tend to be law-abiding citizens. By contrast, criminals' demand for firearms is highly "inelastic": Crooks are willing to pay inflated black-market prices for their guns. Perversely, by restricting the legal supply of guns and raising their price, plaintiffs would put more weapons in criminals' hands and fewer in the hands of honest citizens. -(Cato Institute Report)

Re:Dude.

[gvonk]

I mean, it's not like as if they'll forbid guns ! You'll just need proper registration and permit.

As you do right now! Why do we need more laws then?

NOT to aboid criminal act by criminals, but to avoid criminal acts by ordinary common peopple who, in a momentary lapse of fury, shoot their wife/husband/kid/neighbour or half of the school.

That's right!!! before guns came about, nobody ever went crazy and killed anybody! what a great time that was!
The fact is, lawfully registered gun owners are responsible for less than one tenth of one percent of gun injuries--and that includes accidental injury!

And the wee silly argument that you'll need to defend yourself against those criminals, which can only be done with a gun... well, that's just plain ridiculous. If that's your reasoning, all kids at school should get a gun with proper instructions on how to frag a schoolmate starts freaking out.


OK. But consider this... Law-abiding citizens in Florida have been able to carry concealed weapons since 1987. During that time, the murder rate in Florida has declined 21% while the national murder rate has increased 12%.

In addition, evidence shows that self-defense with guns is the safest response to violent crime. It results in fewer injuries to the defender (17.4% injury rate) than any other response, including not resisting at all (24.7% injury rate).

Re:Guns dont kill people...

[Aceticon]

You forgot

lead poisoning

Press Bias Confirmed

[smagruder]

From the very beginning, the Reuters article reads "In a setback for efforts to halt copyright abuse..."

Even while we see a success in our favor, the press is already spinning it in the media conglomerates' favor.

All together now: How Dare They!!

Tactical nukes dont kill people...

[freeweed]

... the people firing them do.

Now fulfill my constitutional right to nuke Buckingham Palace, damnit!

Re:"MIAA screaming all the way from the Netherland

[SirFozzie]

"I'm quite sure an US court will be delighted, when you try to use a foreign precedent..."

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

Re:Minor Comment

[Saib0t]

Thanks for the clarification. But the USA law allows it, although some states choose not to apply it, right? Otherwise no state court could order a death sentence or am I wrong? If I'm wrong that would mean that there is not uniformity with regard to law from state to state, and if the supreme court decides something, each state could decide otherwise?

In an unrelated story...

[Lonath]

The Senate today declared war on the Netherlands with the Hon. Fritz Hollings leading the charge. He summed it up like this "It is now clear that the Netherlands has become a haven for pirates, just as the Barbary coast was over 200 years ago when we sent the Marines in to learn 'em a lesson. They have now joined the Axis of Evil since pirates are terrorists, and will pay the ultimate price for their terrorism."

Sen. Hollings was later admitted to the hospital complaining of back pain after attempting to lift a giant sack of money that mysteriously appeared in front of his office door during the vote.

Re:Europe is looking more attractive everyday

[Thing 1]

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.

Let's turn this around to witness a disturbing trend in evolution:

It's as if the human brain is indirectly establishing tyranny by mandating policies that support the actions that support it. Cells become seen as the means to support the actions that support the human brain. Somewhere along the line, we (the cells) forgot that it is the case that the human brain should be seen as the means of supporting cells.

Am I way off base, or does this make some sense? And is there any way for our cells to obtain individuality, apart from our body? Are we becoming no more than "cells" to the government body, which is more concerned with its abstract actions than it is with the cells that support it?

As others have said, I am very close to "voting with my plane ticket."