Slashdot Mirror
Judge Rules that Kazaa can be Sued
scubacuda writes "According to this News.com article, U.S. District Judge Stephen Wilson said a lawsuit against Sharman Networks (the makers of Kazaa) could proceed, since Kazaa software had been downloaded and used by millions of Californians. (The Australia-/Vanuatu-based company had filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing it was not bound by U.S. laws since it did not have substantial contacts with California.)"
Use Direct Connect--it's a little more complicated, but worth it. http://dcplusplus.sourceforge.net/.
a EULA is a contract, not a law. Illegal terms cannot be rendered legal merely by contract.
EULA's are written *generically* to attempt to claim every term of contract that *might* be legal anywere.
Haven't you ever seen the term on generic legal documents "Void where prohibited"?
Just because it's in the EULA doesn't inherently mean it binds you, although the writers would like to *believe* that it does. Since most people do, it works.
Don't be afraid to dissent or even disregard terms of your EULA where you have the legal right to do so.
KFG
You must be from California.
It's this little thing called Gnutella, works like a charm
Banaaaana!
The ruling in the court was (from the summary above) that the company "did business in California" due to the downloads of their software. If you do business in any country, you are subject to the laws of that country...(see the Yahoo France case). Kazaa could prohibit downloads in California or the US and then they would probably not be reachable by a US court.
This is NOT new law. It's very long-standing and settled law.
p3
How old are you, 14 or something?
If the Hague treaty becomes ratified, the UK would be required to enforce a Uzbekistan court rule against you.
If and when Kazaa gets an appeal, it'll go straight to the Cal Supreme Court who will knock it down again on jurisdictional issues.
This is incorrect. The Kazaa case is being heard in Federal District Court in Los Angeles. The first appeal would be to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
This court is generally considered to be liberal, but in fact there are a large number of conservative justices on the 9th Circuit. Decisions in the 9th Circuit often depend on exactly which 3 judges (out of 25 or so) get chosen to hear the appeal.
After the 9th Circuit makes its ruling, the losing party is allowed to petition the US Supreme Court (not the California Supreme Court) to take the case. The US Supreme Court does not have to take the appeal from the 9th Circuit if they do not want to. It takes a vote of 4 justices (out of 9) to "grant cert", which means that the case is taken by the US Supreme Court.
Of course, this part of the case will never get that far. You may not like the law, but it's pretty clear that Kazaa does have "substantial contacts" with California. Judge Wilson applied the facts correctly on this issue.
The real question is whether Kazaa will win or lose on the merits of the case, not just this jurisdictional issue. It's not open and shut. Judge Wilson has a good reputation as being a fair judge. He won't automatically rule for the bad guys.
"If I could live to be several hundred
I could take a walk and really wander, really wonder."
Of course the US has something of a history of invading foreign nations to execute arrest warrants.
It's funny to see this story, while riaa.org's webserver has been cracked yet again, and the crackers provided nice links to download kazaa. ohh the irony...
[dunno how fast they'll patch it. as of 4:41pm EST, it still shows the cracked page]
--- d'oh
IIRC, I believe a US judge ruled that the France vs Yahoo ruling didn't stand.
:)
What the US judge ruled was that he / the US legal system were not going to enforce France's ruling. That doesn't make France's ruling on their own laws any more or less valid, just pretty much irrelevant
Same here, the US is perfectly entitled to try anyone it likes in accordance with its laws and hand down verdicts. If Kazaa has no assets in the USA then officials elsewhere are entitled to roll their eyes / laugh/ politely decline (in accordance with local established practice) when asked to enforce the verdicts. If Australia (or wherever) thinks that the USA has jurisdiction then they might even enforce whatever judgment the court reaches. Or maybe not.
I agree with you, but U.S. District Judge Stephen Wilson doesn't. He said the cases were similar, but different enough that the Pavlovich case doesn't apply to this one.
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.