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.
"The Judge ruled that even if the users violated copyright, Kazaa did not."
"Duh" added the Judge.
wohooow! Long live the Netherlands! first they legalize canabis and now this! *victory dance*
"The majority is always sane, Louis." -- Nessus
http://slashdot.jp
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
"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
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*
Moderation: Put your hand inside the puppet head!
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
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
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.
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.
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
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.
(Note: my English legal vocabulary is limited... but you'll get the gist)
Court: exchange service KaZaA is legal
Thursday, March 28 2002 The music exchange server KaZaA is not responsible for the copyright violations of the users of the program.
This is the decision of the court in Amsterdam. The Court nullified the decision of Judge R. Oribio de Castro in the case that Buma/Stemra [the Dutch copyright and royalties collector organisation] had set up against KaZaA.
According to Buma/Stemra KaZaA encourages with its program copyright violations The software is mainly being used to exchange music, without paying any royalty fees.
Oribio de Castro therefor declared that KaZaA should take countermeasures to end these violations of copyright. If KaZaA failed to comply, it would face severe fines. The founders of KaZaA then decided to sell the software to the Australian based Sharman company.
A bitter pill
Eventually, that hadn't been necessary. The Amsterdam Court ruled in the appeals case that KaZaA had set up against the sentence of Oribio de Casta, that KaZaA can not be held responsible for the copyright violations of the users of the program. "As far as there are any copyright relevant actions, these actions are performed by the users of the program and not by KaZaA"
Christiaan Alberdingk Thijm is very satisfied with the ruling, but still finds the complete proceedings 'a bitter pill'. CEO Niklas Zennström also says he received the ruling 'with mixed feelings'. "It's too late for KaZaA. I hope that music organisations like Buma/Stemra will, in the future, be prepared to make a deal instead of going to court", says Zennström.
Alberdingk Thijm thinks the Court has seen the differences between Napster and KaZaA very well. "Napster has a central server, which is not the case for KaZaA. Plus you could exchange more than just music."
The practice
"It remains to be seen what the practical implications of this ruling are for KaZaA", says KaZaA in a press statement. The exchange service claims that by the previous ruling they had to cease their activities worldwide, after which she sold her most important company assets.
This is, by the way, recognized by the Court: "It is reasonable to assume that she would not have taken these measures if she would have been able to comply in any other way with the president's ruling."
This means that Buma has enforced a sentece that is not valid, explains Alberdingk Thijm. "In theory, Buma is responsible for the sale against a lower price than would otherwise have been the case". It is still unclear if they are going to countersue the copyright organisation.
Buma/Stemra was unavailable for comment.
"Fix it? It has been disintegrated, by definition it cannot be fixed!" - Gru in Despicable Me.
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
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
of course you're all wrong
guns & bullets don't kill people
blood loss and organ damage kills people
ha!
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
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.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
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."
... "Give me a woman who loves beer and I will conquer the w
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.
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 *
at Yahoo
and CNET
even USAToday
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
Would it hurt to get your facts right? First of all, the suit in America was against McDonalds, not Starbucks. Second, it wasn't decided by a judge, it was decided by a jury, making your entire point moot. If you're going to accuse someone of not being smart, at least get your story straight.
If it ain't broke, you need more software.
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
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.
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.
Best. Comment. Ever. Enjoy!