Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

KaZaA Collapses

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it dept.

MikeKD writes "according to SFGate, KaZaA has announced that it will fold due to the cost of defending itself against the RIAA & MPAA. The timing is notable since on Monday, Altnet (owned by Brillant Digital) announced plans for "sponsored listings in peer-to-peer search" on its "separate [and] secure P2P resource-sharing network"."

22 of 359 comments (clear)

  1. Newsflash! by ObviousGuy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Being on the Internet does not make one immune to copyright laws!

    --
    I have been pwned because my /. password was too easy to guess.
    1. Re:Newsflash! by cyborch · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'd prefer the country where the copyright holder resides. Otherwise people who stole from me ought to have their hands cut off (some middle eastern law)...

      Why should copyright holders have the right to go against the laws of their country and use the laws of any foreign country? The fact that their copyrighted material is available internationally should hardly make the copyright holder choose which law to use...

    2. Re:Newsflash! by ranulf · · Score: 2, Insightful
      But whose copyright laws do you have to obey?

      This new idea of being able to choose where to sue for copyright infringement seems very wrong to me. Surely the idea is that every citizen in any country should be responsible to keep to the laws in their country, and suffer the penalties imposed by their country when they break them.

      Ralf.

    3. Re:Newsflash! by Weh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is not about copyright laws, this is about injustice. However you might feel about Kazaa doesn't change the fact that they claim not to violate any copyright law, so they must be presumed innocent until found guilty by court of law. The reason they are folding is not because they admit they are guilty, but because they cannot afford to pay for al the legal costs of lawsuits. It is really sad that in this case someone with a lot of money can prssure someone poorer in not having an honest court of law. It's really the law of the jungle, nothing new of course but still sad to see.

    4. Re:Newsflash! by Beliskner · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Being on the Internet does not make one immune to copyright laws!
      Copyright is an artifical concept. Many lawyers think intellectual *property*. Property being 90% of the law. In actuality it should be *intellectual* <font size=-3>property</font> which is completely seperate.

      Copyright laws can change tomorrow. Some artists and all record companies will want 100% control of their product - the DVD regions system is racist as it discriminates against people in other countries and thus inhibits free trade, violating WTO regulations, even if you're willing to pay full price for the product, they still want to control who buys it, where and when. This shows me there's no middle ground with these people - it's CDBPPTA or nothing, and they'll use the most expensive lawyers available. The outcome of legal action is a combination of Poker (cheaper to fold instead of raise, even if your own hand is better), luck and who's right and wrong.

      Everybody that I know that went to court "on principle" has lost their house, car and life savings as a result, despite the fact they were right. Losing everything to lawyer fees when you are 60 years old is NOT funny. This system is just plain wrong.

      I wish binLaden smashed planes into the Supreme court instead of WTC. Amen.

      Honestly, when I look at Sharia law I can see why the Middle East supports it, looked at objectively it as a whole at least gives the impression of love and caring for the average citizen, together with the accruing of large amounts of money being an abominational and disgusting act of selfishness. I dunno man, I can't help feeling that there's something there that we've lost.

      Sharman networks should move to Dubai in UAE, Towry Law is based there and it's a beautiful place, everybody has a Mercedes. The servers can be housed in Saudi Arabia, they have no IP laws there, but they'll need one big air conditioning unit. Why don't people locate server farms in Greenland, Norway or in the Arctic? No air conditioning costs whatsoever, just a few fans.

      Cheapest model in IT:
      Servers in cold countries (e.g. Norway)
      Coders in cheap countries (e.g. India, China)
      Consumers in rich countries (e.g. America)

      --
      A caveman dreams of being us, the incalculable power and riches. We dream of being Q, then what?
    5. Re:Newsflash! by ranulf · · Score: 4, Insightful
      So, since I live in China, I'm immune to any kiddie porn laws.. neyya neyya.

      Absolutely. I don't condone any kind of porn, that said, I think people in China should be immune to US laws.

      For instance, should a Dutch citizen be prosecuted in the US for smoking drugs, even though his country has de-criminalized it? No?

      Should he prosecuted for smoking drugs in the US? Yes?

      Now, perhaps more interesting... Should a US citizen be prosecuted in the US if he smokes drugs whilst on holiday in Asterdam? This is the grey area, as things like espionage, treason, murder all probably would cause him to be prosecuted by the US.

      Now, back to this Chinese guy with his kiddie porn... If he physically sends mail to the US, he clearly has intent to break US obscenity laws. If US people take things withouy his knowledge from his server (which remember, it is legal for him to have running), how has he broken any US laws? For a start, there is absolutely no intent.

      If the US has problems with this, the correct approach is for the US to impose sanctions, e.g. creating laws requiring the firewalling of offending machines out of existance. Something hard to achieve? Not really - if it starts being hard to maintain, it's easy to employ a draconian firewall everything. If this upsets China's economy at all, then it'll in turn start having a good reason to implement obscenity laws of its own. Welcome to the world of trade sanctions.

      A final note. Given that China is fairly keen to stop pretty much all internet traffic to and from China anyway, I don't think this is a great example.

      And there goes my karma for replying to my own posts...

    6. Re:Newsflash! by cyborch · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The question you are asking is not as hard to answer as you may think it is... Being that you sell your software in taiwan and someone from taiwan steals it, maybe he should be trialed by taiwaneese (sp?) law. Were you to sell it in any other country and someone from that country would steal it, then they should be trialed according to the laws of the country where they commited the crime (given that stealing software is a crime in that country).

      Basically, take a moment to think logically, it isn't really that hard...

      I may not have explained myself clearly (excuse me but english is not my first language), but surely you can see that it's not very hard to know which laws apply.

    7. Re:Newsflash! by DarkZero · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So by that same token, you should be executed for criticizing China's laws, and whatever country you are in should immediately agree with China to let them punish you under their laws and their standards, regardless of where you live.

      Different countries have different moral bases and aspirations. If the Chinese should not be exempt from your country's laws that based on your country's morality, then you should not be free from China's laws that are based on China's morality. This is why we have multiple countries in the world, and also the reason why most countries don't put up with their citizens being harassed by other nation for "committing a crime" while on their home soil, where that "crime" is perfectly legal. If something that's legal in one country happens to cross the internet and ends up in a country where it's not, then that's just too damn bad. There's nothing that can be done about it, because the only other alternative is to hold absolutely everyone on the internet, regardless of what country they live in, to the combined laws of all of the strictest countries on Earth, which would make it illegal to not only upload kiddie porn, but also to speak for or against democracy, for or against communism, for or against bigotry, for or against any religion, etc. It would put so many people in jail that the entire idea is an impossibility.

  2. Re:Try to catch me ... by spacefight · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Which servers? The supernodes (which holds up the net IIRC) are the users themself. Or are you talking about the DRM stuff (which nobody is interested in..)?

  3. Truly Amazing by matrim99 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It never ceases to amaze me that the major record companies don't see *free advertising* when it's in front of their faces. Those folks who pirate content and don't end up buying that content wouldn't have purchased it in the first place, so there is no net loss. Those who would have purchased the content that they download can access a wider variety of content online, and will end up purchasing more. MP3 quality is a far cry from CD quality, afterall.

    Just look at what videotapes did for the movie industry (and when VHS/Beta first came out, the movie industry feared that these would kill the movie industry). They took the technology that they feared, ran with it, and ended up making MORE $ from video sales than from the box office.

    --
    Right. No, your other right. No, the other other right.
    1. Re:Truly Amazing by TheAJofOZ · · Score: 5, Insightful
      MP3 quality is a far cry from CD quality, afterall.

      Well, not really. On a good quality sound system, MP3 is a far cry from CD quality - on an average sound system to average people, it's pretty much the same. I suspect that a very large majority of people would fail blind tests judging between MP3s and CDs playing on their own sound system. Heck, most people would fail when played on a top quality sound system - they listen to Britney Spears for goodness sake! :)

  4. It's a shame... by DarkDust · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...that "organizations" (they act more like companies like MS, don't they ?) like RIAA and MPAA are able to force other companies out of business simply by filing lawsuits until the company in question is running out of money.

    And it's a shame that no one stops those a******s at RIAA and MPAA. They both have far too much power at their hands and play us consumers for a sucker...

    Their pricy hands even reach us here in Europe... scary thing.

  5. It's not really about free ads, though by e-gold · · Score: 2, Insightful

    And IMO it's not even about their experience with VHS time-shifting and video sales making them more money after they complained, as you correctly pointed out. (Of course, they also get a tax on blank media, still, for some reason...)

    I think the real conflict is about control. Control of artists, users, and any possible bottlenecks between them are therefore a GOOD thing, to the RIAA, because that's control and they fear losing control even more than losing money -- even if it would lead to a better product for consumers (or better compensation-levels for musicians, who must also be controlled).
    JMR

    (My opinions only, nobody else wants 'em anyway.)

    --
    Try e-gold - (contact me). I'm NOT e-
  6. How far do you want to extend this argument? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Ok, how about I create a website which allows people to submit houses that are worth breaking into and also lets other people search for those houses in their area. It'll provide the address, approximate value of stealable goods, what the security is like and times when the occupants aren't home. And because it's submitted by the users, the company isn't liable by your logic.

    Would YOU like YOUR house on there? No? Didn't think so.

    The law is being infringed and the buck has to stop somewhere, either the company is punished or the users are punished. I say the people who are profiting from the theft of intellectual property (through banners) should be punished. This is similar to the police targetting drug dealers instead of users.

    And yes I am aware that legitimate artists use P2P to distribute their work ... perhaps they should try mp3.com

    And no, I'm not a troll, but I suspect that the illegal-mp3-downloading moderators will think otherwise.

    1. Re:How far do you want to extend this argument? by jukal · · Score: 3, Insightful

      >Ok, how about I create a website which allows people to submit houses that are worth breaking into and also lets other people

      Yes, go ahead, I think you should have all the right to do it. Your system could be used to post anything, for example the best clip from your porn collection. It could be also used to post stolen credit card IDs, or a picture of you and your dog doing something kinky.

      Still. THE SOFTWARE IS NOT TO BLAME. Software does NOT know whether the data posted there is criminal or not. The people who post it do know it. People are to blame, the people who break into houses, sell the goods, or other stolen information such as credit card data, or house key info.

      Even how hard it is to catch these individuals, you cannot start blaming sunpoints for stealing you copyright.

      Your argument is void.

    2. Re:How far do you want to extend this argument? by CodeMonky · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Using your logic here are RIAA's next targets:

      Every web server creator since they allow people to post listings of songs they have

      Sue wc3 for their html that allowed you create the html used on the formentioned web server

      Perhaps IEEE and IETF and whoever else is responsible for tcp/ip without which these web servers couldn't run so we must stop the use of tcp/ip

      Come to think of it, the cable companies and phone companies and every ISP in the world for providing the physical transport for these evil p2p networks, yes I realize that some people actually use the internet for real work, sucks for them we have people stealing songs here people.

      You have to go after the users, its the only way that anythign will be accomplished. YOu shut down one p2p network, 3 more will spring up.

      --
      --"Karma is justice without the satisfaction"
    3. Re:How far do you want to extend this argument? by r_barchetta · · Score: 2, Insightful


      Questions/points of interest:

      1) If you buy a CD when did you get the right to distribute copies of the contents?

      2) Granted, making a copy of a song for yourself or even a friend is one thing. But is it not something else to make the entire contents of a CD available for who knows how many people to download? The scale on which this happens changes the perspective. It may be a simple act to copy a song but that act does not exist in a vacuum.

      3) Perhaps someone should copy your credit card number, SSN, name, birthday etc etc. After all, it's just a copy and you've lost nothing. So it doesn't hurt anyone if other people use that information too. Yes, this is an extreme example and not exactly the same thing. My point is that just having a copy of something is not always harmless. When you say no one loses anything when a song is copied it seems as though you forget what's lost is the artist's power to decide how their music should be distributed. If they don't want to give it away for free why do you get to decide that they should? (Keep in mind that format/space-shifting or a copy for a friend is not the same thing as en masse file-sharing.)

      4) Copying a song and not watching TV ads aren't exactly the same thing either. The tv networks sell spots to advertisers. The advertisers only make their money back if the product is good and people buy it. I feel this has little to do with whether or not I see an ad on TV. It has more to do with the quality of the product. If it turns out to be something I need I'll buy it but it won't be due to some stupid ad. Conversely, I see lots of ads on TV for things I'll never buy. Am I still stealing the TV broadcast? Nope. The difference here is doing without. If I don't buy something adverstised on TV (whether I see the ad or not) I'm doing without the product. When someone copies a song and doesn't pay for it they get to enjoy the song without rewarding the creator.

      5) What is so strange about this: Product exists. See/hear product. Pay money for product. Have product. That's been the basis of our economy for how long now?

      6) It's worth repeating the radio stations pay by the bucketful to get to air songs for us to hear. That's how the RIAA justifies your ability to tape songs off the air. As well, blank cassettes cost what they do because some of that money goes back to the labels to make up for supposed lost sales due to copying. Your cassette recorder has a charge like this buried in its cost too. And, the quality of taping a song of the radio is nothing like buying a CD or even a cassette. Sound quality is low for radio broadcasts anyway, plus you have to listen to dumbass DJs talk over the songs.

      7) How many people would use P2P file-sharing systems if they had always been on a few-cents-per-song-downloaded fee system?

      Of course, I'll get ripped to shreds for "being on their side" even though I am not. I just think this is a sensitive issue. And because some people want to just download songs and not reward the artists the rest of us have to make up for it. The more people engage in what the RIAA feels is illegal behavior the less they will feel we have anything valid to say.

      -r

      --
      Just because something is free does not mean you have to take it.
    4. Re:How far do you want to extend this argument? by Loki_1929 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You have to go after the users, its the only way that anythign will be accomplished.

      And this got a score of 4 for insightful?

      Think about this for a moment, we had roughly what, 50, 60 million people worldwide using Napster at its height? At any given time, Kazaa has a couple million on, so we can assume their average daily user list is somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 - 30 million people. Morpheus/gnutella has good numbers, as do several other networks. Then we factor in IRC, usenet, etc.

      So you, a large corporation, are going to begin suing some 20 - 60 million people? Ok, let's assume the RIAA and MPAA join up in some joint venture created specifically to pool all their resources for this.

      Lawyers needed? Somewhere between 40 - 100 million. Assuming they'll work for a sum of $75/hr (a bargain) on average, that brings us to an approxamate cost of $5,250,000,000/hr. (yes, that's billion with a B) The newest star wars installment made about $130million on the first weekend, and that would cover your legal fees for about 9 minutes. So then you say, "well, silly, they wouldn't sue them all at once, they'd spread it out!" What a great idea. Assuming 70,000,000 lawsuits at 100 lawsuits filed each month, you would spend the next 58,000+ years prosecuting people. Now, I'm no doctor, but I don't think people live that long. In any event, the cost in legal fees for suing even 1% of the users is so astonomical that not even Bill Gates could fathom doing it in his wildest dreams. But there's more.

      Two problems relating to one another: 1) Consumer backlash, 2) government backlash.

      Now, when you and about half your friends are being sued by a major corporation, I don't think you'll be jumping to buy their product. The roughly 70 million people (a good 40 - 50 million are US citizens) that you're suing are going to be pretty pissed, and will start organizing to fight you. This brings us to our next problem. If I were running for office, (let's say... President?), I could get myself somewhere in the neighborhood of 30 million votes simply by taking a strong stance against "the evil corporate empires" of the entertainment industry. And if I were going for re-election, I'd start issuing EO's (executive orders) like they were candy effectively putting an end to major media companies. But just in case you thought that might not do it, next we move to Congress. Same thing, they all want re-election, and with millions being sued, this becomes a major issue. Now, do you go to your district and tell people that it's all their fault and they shouldn't have been stealing content? Well sure, if you don't like your job. What will really happen? They'll take a firm stance against the media companies and legislation will be passed 10 times faster than the laws passed following Sept 11. The entertainment industry will be so incredibly screwed by the new laws that they won't be in business for long. No amount of money talks to a congressman when their constituents are up in arms about something.

      So where does this leave the entertainment industry? At an impasse. They have a few options here: 1) continue suing P2P networks, which after a while they'll start losing the cases, but no matter what, it will never end file sharing. 2) Come up with better digital rights management technology, which will cost millions in research and be broken by a 15 year old kid. 3) Sue ISPs, server owners, etc, whose legal teams in many cases match those of the RIAA and MPAA. 4) Lobby for legislation, which is getting less and less likely to work, seeing as tech savvy folks are now mainstream for the most part, and will fight things like the SSSCA whenever they come around. 5) Relinquish all rights to copyrighted works and go into immediate Chapter 13 liquidation, (just kidding). 6) Change their business models to use the internet for their benefit.

      I'd like to take option 6 a little further for a moment. Assume this, the entertainment companies offer reasonable licensing terms to webcasters, somewhere around the middle between CARP's recommendations and what the webcasters asked for. They then set up internet sites with both streaming and downloadable music and movies, offering them in secured formats, but giving the OSS community access to the information about the formats required to build players and ask for their help in building secured players for Linux/*nix's. Offer these movies and music at either pay-per-use prices or as a straight download price. Say a dollar per song downloaded and $3 or $4 per movie downloaded, with the streaming PPV costs being mere fractions of that. Offer a complete linup of music, starting with the most popular and adding music as quickly as possible with easy to use searchs for song names, artists, and lyrics. Do something similar for movies, allowing searchs for movie titles, stars/co-stars, producers, etc. Offer the movie for download before it's even out on DVD, thus steering many people towards the internet service. Offer a simple web interface similar to P2P apps currently out, and use a simple account management system allowing for an easy download/stream of content. (ie. you point, click, watch) You'd instantly see a drop in piracy to the tune of probably 70% or better for music and movies. At the same time, the amount of money coming in would be incredible, and lawsuits against P2P networks etc could be dropped, thereby lowering legal costs. Easy to get, readily available, reasonably priced content is the way to stamp out piracy. Who the hell would search for 20 minutes to find the right version of a song they want to download when it's just $1 to get it from the music company, giving you a legitamate, high quality copy of the music? Who would spend 10 hours downloading a lousy copy of a movie when they can find and get what the want for $4, not have to worry about poor quality, and have it download much faster? Just an idea, but I think it's one that would make billions for the entertainment industry, and would silence most of their P2P-using critics.

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
  7. Re:"In a related story... by Rinikusu · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Um.. how about using FTP?

    --
    If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
  8. Re:Interesting strategy by mshiltonj · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... yet another indicator that if you want to start an innovative business, don't do it inthe USA, or in anywhere with strong treaties with the USA.

    I mostly agree.

    If you clarify by saying "innovative and disruptive" business, then I think you are 100% correct. You can be innovative, but you can't disrupt revenue streams of larger corporations.

    Innovation may be tolerated, depending on circumstances. Disruptive technology will be eliminated at all costs.

    --
    Software Wars
  9. Re:"In a related story... by GutBomb · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ummm, it's called FTP. set up an ftp server, give the address out to your friends, and have them set up ftps and give the address to you. simple. if you want to chat, fire up an icq/irc...

  10. Time to switch yet again... by Juju · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Ok, so after Napster, Morpheus/KaZaA, people will now use Direct Connect...
    Or usenet, or message with FTP upload/downloads.

    When will RIAA and co understand that there is NOTHING they can do about P2P and data exchange!

    Unless they manage to somehow stop the internet as we know it, but I don't think they can get away with that kind of murder...

    --
    Black holes occur when God divides by zero.