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.)"
Judge issues injuction against Kazaa
Judge declares Kazaa violated the law
Kazaa out of business
Company X buying Kazaa's assests
Ask Slashdot: Whatever happened to Company X?
Wow, first one maybe?
Seriously, they are not a U.S. company...the ego of this country thinking it can impose its laws on non-citizens!
Swell, I guess I better shut off my web server.
--
There is no hatred more pure and true than that expressed by children.
If kazaa network went down, kazaa lite would be as useless as the gnutella network.
I wonder how long it will be until the next p2p jumps in to take their place. I'm surprised kazaa lasted as long as they did
Actaully, suing an australian company in a US-based court seems pretty reasonable, after the recent libel suit in australian courts against a US-based company...
The question of whether kazaa is, in fact, violating the law should be settled in court somewhere, and somehow it doesn't seem like vanatu is the venue.
What a strange bird is the pelican, his beak can hold more than his belly can.
before the California media moguls will be shipped to Iran to face beheadings for making movies and music that does not conform to the laws of Islam?
Multinational. Multinational.
Yeah, I'm afraid.
We all have ideas about what the future is going to be like. But almost without fail, I am corrected in one direction; Jennifer Government , sprawl and caste.
*sigh
My
Limekiller
I expect kazza will just ignore this. Since they are not Californian they are not subject to the rulings of the court. Californians are mind you so I guess the court needs to throw California users of Kazza into jail.
Perhaps the judge will rule that the kazza servers be firewalled in California. Who knows.
The reaction of Kazza to this ruling will be really intereting. But again - I think there is a high probability that the ruling will just be ignored.
Two years from now we will read: In other news US Appealate Court has rescinded the decision of RIAA v. Kazaa stating that the trial court had no jursidiction to hear the case. RIAA will appeal to the supreme court...
$G
-- $G
As long as there are files to be shared, people will find ways to share them. Napster is down, Scour is down, now Kazaa will probably go down. I guess it's back to using IRC until someone figures out how to make a free, open source P2P network that costs nothing, isn't incorporated, and doesn't rely on a central server so that the courts can't sue any single person. Hopefully it will last longer.
- "Nobody came out that night, not one was ever seen. But Old Man Stauf is waiting there, crazy sick and mean!"
Just don't respond to the lawsuit. Ignore it. They'll lose by default, of course, but it's a civil suit. The court awards RIAA millions of dollars in damages.
But then who enforces that decision?
Feh, I'm soon to be a lawyer, but in this case, Kazaa shouldn't subject itself to the costs of defending itself in this sort of suit if they don't have the resources to make it a good fight. This is terrible legal advice, but it's good practical advice. If RIAA can't enforce a verdict, any victory they have will merely be symbolic. And it won't matter a hill of beans as far as precedent is concerned because a) there's plenty of precedent that what Kazaa is doing is wrong and b) the precedent would only have true practical effect for a Kazaa-like company based in the United States.
Now, if this were a criminal case, it would be a completely different matter, because then there would be a rigorous enforcement system in place.
But Kazaa could reasonably just ignore this suit, take the loss, and stick up their collective middle finger at it.
To blockquote the article
Wilson pthe presiding judge] said the case was different from a similar one involving a Texas man who was sued in California for distributing a DVD-descrambling utility online. The California Supreme Court said in November 2002 that Internet distribution of software did not subject someone to California jurisdiction. The U.S. Supreme Court briefly put that decision on hold, then backed out of the case this month.
Obviously there's already a case on point, so on appeal, jurisidiction will be reversed. But could somebody please tell me how this case is different?
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
The Good: I downloaded well over 2000 mp3's and 10 movies with KazaaLite
The Bad: Kazaa is going down.
The Ugly: Kazaa is spyware.
All things taken into account, hopefully the next p2p network won't have the spyware built in.
ANYWAY...I thought Kazaa was a self-supporting network, i.e. people act as super-nodes who hold a list of files for others to search, and there's no centralized server. What control does Sharman have over whether or not the Kazaa network is still around, sure, they can stop the downloads of the client, but if the client can also act as a server...meh, it's unstoppable!
Sig & Below
Yuck Fou
It seems to me that what happens to Kazaa the client doesn't matter so much as long as the FastTrack network, which Kazaa connects to, remains running. Since FastTrack is administered by a Dutch organization, and not by the makers of the Kazaa Media Desktop software, it seems like this suit is unlikely to affect anybody's ability to get files of the larger network.
This is hardly a surprise, and not simply limited to 1) the US or 2) Internet issues. If any business has significant contacts with a state, that business may be sued in that state. Of course, it might be difficult to get at the assets of that business located in another country, but that's a different issue.
Italy and Australia have both issued recent high profile opinions that allow US businesses on the Internet to be sued in their respective countries. This is hardly a new thing.
Unless of course you're a slashdotter who doesn't know a damn thing about the law.
My brother in law tried to sue someone in a Vanatue small claims court and wound up in a caldron of boiling water with a bunch of chopped carrots and onions.
Even if the case came to court and the judge ruled in favour of the media companies, would Sharman Networks have to pay?
There is a precedent for cases like this. Yahoo! did not have to comply with the French order because Yahoo! has their servers in the US and they are a US company.
How is this any different?
So what if millions of Californians use Kazaa? There are many times that number of Kazaa users who are not Californians. Millions of French people could access the US yahoo.com site - the ruling says:
What laws are the MPAA and RIAA using to sue Sharman Networks? Are they applicable in Australia or Vanuatu
When your phone bill came in, you'd have these charges, that you couldn't have removed, because you accepted the call, and the Government couldn't do anything about it, because it was from over seas, and out of their hands. So now, because the victims are a coropration, suddenly the courts CAN do something about it? That hardly seems fair.
Whom do the courts look out for? Citizens, or Corporations?
0110100100100000011000010110110100100000011000100
Not really. As much as I love Gnutella, the network is fucked up because of open sourced clients being modified in ways which are detrimental to the network (eg Morpheus setting all users as ultrapeers).
It would take time for FT to equal that, seeing as how KL seems to be the only popular alternative (not counting giFT; different network, IIRC).
It makes me wonder if Shareaza, the closed source Gnutella/Gnutella2 client, is doing the right thing by not GPLing the souce until the technology is ready to prevent rogue clients.
Damn AOL! Damn them and their buying-up-software-companies ways! (Refer to the history of Nullsoft for more on this.)
I also note that the US seems to think its justice system applies to the rest of the world. We hear a lot of stories about US judges handing down judgements on foriegners who may not even be present.
The whole attitude seems reflected in US fiction such as Star Trek, StarGate. The US ideas of justice are taken as entirely good, and applicable to even alien races. Notice that the intergalactic federations in these programs are centered around the Earth, and even perhaps around America, and uphold entirely America's ideals.
America not only seems to overstep the mark, but seems to do it acting entirely in its own selfish interests. Acceptance of American software patents would cripple foriegn software industries as America grabs what it terms "intellectual property rights" over our ideas - without a chance for us to compete as we don't yet have the ability to create such patents for ourselves. It would be like invading a foreign country and claiming ownership of all of its land for American exploitation.
I wonder if Microsoft would be treated so leniently if they were not an American company. I wonder, in this case, if the country that they were based in would come under similar political pressures as Iraq.
- Richard
You shut down one, its replaced by more.
Even if they are ordered to shut down, are they not out of the country?
Does a California judge really have that much authority or ability to dictate policy in an other country, with different laws and practices?
Even if they can, of course there is always non-centralized P2P alternatives like Gnutella.. Resistance is futile.. ( and only breeds further discontent )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
While they may rule in California that they can sue them, does not California's jurisdiction stop at the California border? Say they ignore the suit, the judge rules against them, and just don't pay up. What does California do then? The worst they could ever do it seems to me is prevent them from ever visiting California for fear of being arrested... not too much to worry about if you ask me. Its not like a ruling by a California court would allow then to expropriate funds from a foreign bank.
This decision by your judges has now made it possible for anyone in your country that does not like my instructions (which should be protected as Free Speech, something which your country is supposedly so proud of) to sue me. Not that I'd be responding or something but it's just stupid. I urge you all to actively do something about this aggresive act of world-domination which should even be illegal under in your constitution. You guys aren't making any friends this way.
0x or or snor perron?!
You can kill me, but I will only grow stronger...
Is get the judge to issue an order pulling kazaa.com's domain registration as well as ordering Global Crossing to block their traffic.
Going after Kazaaa makes about as much sense as suing Panasonic because one of it's phones was used to phone in a bomb threat. Duh.
3000 dead over past 2 years, still no free Palestinians, still
This whole P2P issue will be over when Microsoft finally creates their own P2P program and distributes it along with their OS. It would be completely distributed to the mass markets. The average joe, not just the computer geeks who uses KaZaA now. With their lawyers they'd find the perfect way to get around all these silly laws. MS also has the brainpower to re-do Gnutella correctly so that it has no centralized servers and no one can get sued. And when someone does try to sue them, and if they are forced to stop distributing the application, then they can simply open source the application. I know many of you /. people are anti-MS for your own reasons. But sometimes MS can be cool. They do have a few open source applications out there. And they try to find any way they can to dominate in every market. So often they do come out with the best software. Especially when some other company already has a working product out. They'll take the concept and improve it to perfection.
Very true... in fact there was a case a few years ago, Zippo v Zippo.com, where Zippo (the lighter company, based in PA) sued a dot.com called Zippo.com (an "information delivery" company) for trademark violations in PA court. .com claimed that they never did any physical buisiness in PA so PA shouldn't have jurisdiction. Lighter company showed they did have subscribers in PA, hence were doing business there, hence they could be sued in PA.
Same idea - jusisdiction of a court over a company that provided purely electronic product, in a different place, can be sued in a place where that product was used, even without physical presence. Difference is one is a state, the other a country.
I have blog like everyone else
As long as there are files to be shared, people will find ways to share them. Napster is down, Scour is down, now Kazaa will probably go down. I guess it's back to using IRC until someone figures out how to make a free, open source P2P network that costs nothing, isn't incorporated, and doesn't rely on a central server so that the courts can't sue any single person. Hopefully it will last longer.
You mean like Freenet? The freepages don't have everything, but they are often completely anonymous.
Remember "Bring 'em on"? *sigh
From the article posting:
U.S. District Judge Stephen Wilson said a lawsuit against Sharman Networks (the makers of Kazaa) could proceed.
(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.)"
Wow... Why isn't this a surprise. The Americans decide that people outside their own country are bound by their laws.
If the RIAA wants to take on Kazaa, take them on in Australia. Oh wait, no that wouldn't work, because the Australian justice system wouldn't waste their time on this.
Someone need to go let the states know that they don't own the world, yet, and until they do, companies from other countries do not lie under their jurisdiction.
~ kjrose
I suppose one could only call this fair play if one thought that US laws should be applied everywhere in the entire world.
Kazaa may have been downloaded to the US, but the company, its programmers, and its owners have never had a presence here. That means, guess what, you can't sue it here. The supreme court of california has already ruled on this and even if the little judge of the case says "These cases aren't the same like that" 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.
If KaZaa had an office in California, it'd be different, but they don't. When the US steps on little countries' soverignty to regulate their buisnesses themselves all it does is get those countries pissed off at us.
Win or lose, until any of those buisnessmen from that company get on a jet and come here, the MPAA will gain nothing but at most a hollow and ineffective paper victory.
The problem I had with Kazaa is that they took out ads on Yahoo bragging on how you could download the latest Britney Spears and Eminem for free. That's not exactly the way to keep the powers that be off of your back. They're obviously centralized enough as an entity to organize an ad campaign and anyone stupid enough to advertise illegal activity deserves whatever happens to them.
So, a judge has ruled that California may squeeze the Sharman. Does Mr. Whipple know about this?
How ya like dat?
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
Kazza and all the P2P places should move to Sealand http://www.sealandgov.com/
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
Most of those patches are being distributed illegally as well. I'm pretty sure if you read the licensing agreement, you have to download it from their site or from an authorized mirror. And if you don't like it, that's just too damn bad -- that's the license agreement.
Porn, as well, is freely available in some places without Kazaa, and most of the Kazaa porn is pirated as well. (I'm sure all those ripped porno DVDs were public domain, right?)
HTML is just a language. You can use English to say something illegally too.
Firstly, FTP has greater accountability. You can't open a Warez FTP site to the public and not get caught. And secondly, FTP was created to transfer files, not to transfer files *AND* mask identities *AND* advertise to pirates.
Kazaa knows that a ton of people are using their network to illegally traffic things, and so they can get money by advertising to them. They know that illegal activity is rampant on their network, and they don't monitor it or report it, which is basically aiding and abetting. So I guess if you wanted to get really technical, we could make a federal case out of this...?
But, going strictly on intent, they are knowingly aiding pirates, which means less money is making it into the hands of the people that are supposed to be getting paid for their work, which means civil suit, and a completely justified one in my opinion.
evil adrian
It's this little thing called Gnutella, works like a charm
Banaaaana!
Why is it that without visible policing most people will steal like this? If you were in a shop and nobody was looking would you really steal food and clothes and walk away? Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.
That just raises the issue of accountability again. Modern P2P networks are designed to mask identity, to aid people in obtaining what they want, when they want, without having to pay for it (and to find it easily). In a store, people would see you, remember your face in case you got away, attempt to detain you, and call the police to throw you in prison.
evil adrian
U.S. District Judge Stephen Wilson said a lawsuit against Sharman Networks (the makers of Kazaa) could proceed.
(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.)"
Wow... Why isn't this a surprise. The Americans decide that people outside their own country are bound by their laws.
If the RIAA wants to take on Kazaa, take them on in Australia. Oh wait, no that wouldn't work, because the Australian justice system wouldn't waste their time on this.
Someone need to go let the states know that they don't own the world, yet, and until they do, companies from other countries do not lie under their jurisdiction.
Your disgust is founded in ignorance.
Anyone in a common law system (USA, Australia, UK, etc.) can sue anyone else. There are only two considerations: a) whether it can be heard in a particular court and b) whether there is anything practical to be gained by it.
Question B is not so much a question of law as a question of strategy. A court which would issue a decision can enforce its will only so far as the person losing is present within their jurisdiction (either they live there, or have assets there). People have sued the government of Iran in US federal court, and have won, and have collected their judgments out of funds belonging to Iran which are present in US banks. But if you were to sue North Korea and win (probably because nobody showed up to represent North Korea), there'd be little you could do to collect your judgment, because there wouldn't be any assets of North Korea within the jurisdiction of the court.
So, setting aside question A for a moment, the RIAA can sue Kazaa in federal court in California. The question is whether they have anything to gain by winning. As a previous poster pointed out, Kazaa could just ignore the whole thing and take a loss, if they don't have anything *in* the US that a judgment could seize. (The RIAA probably wants an injunction of some kind, but even still it's questionable how useful it would be for the US to order Kazaa not to do business here anymore.)
Question A has a lot more to do with the law, and jurisdictional questions are quite complicated. The basic idea is that you can only bring suit against someone in a place if that someone has had something substantial to do with the place. (Lives there, does business there, has assets located there, committed an act there, etc.)
The decision referred to in the headline is that the judge decided that the fact that many people had downloaded Kazaa software in California was a sufficient contact with California that Kazaa could be sued there. He reached this decision after examining the law of California. If Kazaa appeals, the court of appeals will either confirm that this is the law, or will overturn the judge and not permit him to hear the case.
In light of the above, your rant is more than a little silly. Every nation is willing to submit every person to their own laws - the only question is whether it will do the plaintiff any good, and whether the courts of that nation will let such a lawsuit go forwards. The US is no different from anyone else in this respect. "Companies from other countries" do lie under US jurisdiction, insofar as they have ever had anything to do with the United States.
All employees must wash hands before seeking equitable relief.
When will the lawyers and courts in this country realize that the USA isn't the ONLY country on earth? First they pulled this crap with Elcomsoft, now Kazaa! HEY (pinhead) JUDGE...they aren't from America! Is our country so arrogant that we honestly believe our laws and rules apply to everyone in the world? Kazaa was founded in The Netherlands, and now originates from Vanatu. Last time I checked, neither of these places were U.S. states or possessions. Unlike Elcomsoft, Kazaa never sold anything in the USA nor is their software hosted by them on US servers.
This is just California power-grabbing. In the last couple years, CA judges have, for the most part, being taking every opportunity to try to expand their jurisdiction, whether it's legal, logical, or even feasible. As has been pointed out, even IF Kazaa was successfully sued, it's absolutely unenforcible. All of its business offices are located out of country, and the servers are pretty much decentralized. So, let's say the trial proceeds, and Kazaa is fined millions of dollars in a court order. Kazaa says 'Neener neener, we're in Austrailia' and ignores it. Since ignoring a court order is a felony, Federal charges would be filed. Kazaa ignores those as well. At which point the US government might try to tell Austrailia to send them to us, and Austrailia would tell us to piss off. At which point the matter is ended. If the people who made Kazaa never step foot in the US, nothing else happens. (and given what happened to Skylarov, I highly doubt they planned to EVER come to the US) End of story.
Bush: He's Liberal in all the wrong ways.
Ok here is what is going to happen.
Judge finds Kazza guilty. Judge can only dictate on terms for California.
Kazza adds clause that only non-Californian's can use this service.
Result? Whoever runs Kazza is legal because the law is only applies to Californians. Therefore anybody from Kazza can show up in California for whatever reason they want.
Would you do it? Not likely...
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
I wonder whether that judge thinks it's ok for Voice of America to be sued in China or Iraq or wherever else the local laws don't approve of it, since people are listening to it there. The whole point of VOA is to get information to people that their governments don't want them to have. Well, Kazaa is now trying to get software to us that our government doesn't want us to have. It's ironic to see what happens when the shoe is on the other foot.
That are going to create the New World Order. I don't agree that California has any rights over anyone not in the state, otherwise we become subject to laws where we may never have been. However, I believe that cases like this will push for more international standardization of laws through the United Nations. You cut off this head, and another will appear. The true problem isn't Kazaa, but the byzantine practices of the recording industry. They refuse to adapt and change. Isn't it ironic that a DVD movie costs less than it's soundtrack? Movie companies are worried, but at least the business is still thiving. I hear, on the news, how the music industry sales are down 8% last year. Great! Maybe they will come up with some compelling music this year I will buy. I have a large CD collection but I also download music. The difference between what I buy and what I download? The stuff I download is not compelling enough to purchase. In fact, some stuff I have downloaded has led me to purchase stuff. When will they get it?
U.S. law still applies...just ask Adobe!
Enjoy your job, make lots of money, work within the law. Choose any two.
No, my friend, you are wrong! You should be very careful to avoid doiong to others as you'd do to yourself.
In the days that gun manufacturers can be sued for what gun owners do, this is not a surprise.
Personal responsibility is out the window, and I don't see it ever coming back.
-- Note: If you don't agree with me, don't bother replying. I won't read it.
Not all U.S.-published science fiction is centered around America. Babylon 5, for example, was relatively Euro-centric, and pulled a lot of its Earth background from Russia and Israel, among other places.
I don't see this as being simply an American power-grab. The Supreme Court tends to be a little more reserved when it comes to international issues, and this is more than likely a political ploy by this judge in particular (quid pro quo, perhaps?).
There wil always be SOME countries who claim jurisdiction over whatever you do. But some time soon this will HAVE to be settled by treaty. Until then the question is how far one's country decides to go, or any country one visits or have assets in.
I guarantee the U.S. will not stretch jurisdiction are far as did the Australia Dow Jones decision, but it will go farther then some would like. We must have jurisdiction over actions of people in other countries with significant domestic effects; just how much is the question, esp. the relevance of intent.
The answers will introduce some very interesting refinements in the current law of jurisdiction. The internet presents really the ultimate test of "effects" jurisdiction.
YMMV -- who knows, this is a brave new world, with such wonderful people in it.
P2P networks serve no legitimate purpose. They only exist to mask the identities of software pirates, and to make it easier for people to find whatever copyrighted warez/mp3s/videos/etc. they are trying to steal.
Bullshit.
P2P serves many legitimate purposes, including:
* Finding non-copyrighted music from rare sources
* Finding music that has been specifically authorized to be shared
* Cheap, easy distribution for budding artists
* Better distribution for legally tradable software
* A more reliable way to download (free|share)ware because of the network model involved
* Others
Sure, there are many many people out there who are using P2P for "illegitimate" purposes, but there are also plenty of people who are using it for legitimate, legal purposes. Your post is mere FUD.
I pledge allegiance to the flag...
of the Corporate States of America...
What about those millions of criminal Californians who download and actually *use* the software??? Seems to me that's a high enough percentage that you could just pick anyubody off the street and have a good chance of nabbing one.
Australia: Um... I'm sorry, guys, I don't know what's gotten into us lately.
Kazaa (ISPs) knows that a ton of people are using their network (Internet) to illegally traffic things, and so they can get money by advertising (selling bandwidth) to them. They know that illegal activity is rampant on their network, and they don't monitor it or report it, which is basically aiding and abetting. So I guess if you wanted to get really technical, we could make a federal case out of this...?
P2P might have more illegal stuff than Internet in general, but I'm pretty sure those mp3s/divxs add up to quite a bit of the total Internet traffic too. You want to ban "Internet" too, reducing it to "approved services"? Or have your ISP monitor everything you do?
Your blurb about how FTPs are more "accountable" doesn't make any sense to me. Do you know how many "public" (ie. you don't know who the other person is in real life) FTP sites (or for that matter, HTTP sites) you can find with warez, of which about 0.000000001% ever get caught?
As the recent action in Denmark shows, where lots of people were fined for illegally downloading stuff from KaZaA, it can be done. It's just that there are litterally millions of people blatantly breaking the law. And the legal system was never made to be able to deal with "everybody" breaking the law. Kinda like minor speeding. At least here, you could pull everybody off the road and fine them for driving 3MPH over the limit. They don't though, they take the drunk drivers and the road bullies. Same goes for copyright infringement, the police won't give a rats ass about small stuff. The RIAA might try to create a few examples, but it won't really work.
The only thing that could happen is that a real distributed P2P network would take over, like gnutella or similar. No central server, no software company "in control" of the program, just users. At which point I'm sure they'll try to ban it altogether, like that South-American country that wanted to ban VoIP (by banning UDP).
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Luck is on the makers of Kazaa's side. California doesn't have a millitary, so they can't do anything. Personally I'd take it as a compliment if California didn't want me, it would mean I'm on the right track.
Any state where they let OJ go for murder, but rule he is responsible in civil court, is so messed up, I can't understand why most people haven't left.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
The answer to the question "Have websites/internet-related companies from country X to obbey laws from country Y if people from Y visit them/use their service? is a pretty hard one...
Here is a summary of four possible solutions I can see, and why they all have very serious problems:
Solution #1: Laws from the visitor's country applies to whatever he visit. It gives the legal authority stop websites providing pedophilia, incitations to racial hatred or instructions on bomb-making, even if they are located on some remote pacific island or in remote African despotisms.
Problem: As the author of the parent post points out, China can use it to shut down Free Tibet websites, Saudi Arabia any non-islamic websites, ect. In fact, strict application would basicly dstroy the web.
Solution #2: Only the laws of the country providing the website/service applies. Fine, but then we basicly agree that a Roge State can provide infos on bomb-making and that if a country legalise pedophilia, we won't do a thing to stop the website being there. True, it's always possible for western govs to try and forbid access to the website in question, but its makes it all the harder. Obviously, this works better than solution #1, but it's far from perfect.
Solution #3: No general rules, but western countries use economic/diplomatic pressure to inforce their laws. The most likely solution, this basicly means that while most things are allowed, things that westerns countries -or even just the US- condemn are effictively forbidden, since any country hosting them will face strong pressures to comply. Pedophilia, criminal or blatantly terrorist activity is stopped, under pressure by the RIAA/MPAA piracy is curbed, but things that despotic/islamic/simply non-western countries do not approve of are not. In practice, probably the best/only solution. But since this basicly impose western countries' standards on what is supposed to be an International network, it's a dangerous idea.
Solution 4: Every country is free to set its own rules, but the Internet is seperated in "country zones". Each country then decide to authorize, forbid or regulate communications with other zones. While this makes the most sense legaly IMHO, in practice it's the end of the free web. No easy choice there...
What do you know about World Politic? Find out in this quiz
P2P networks serve no legitimate purpose.
Just so I understand exactly what you're trying to say (in this and other posts on the same topic), I'm going to rephrase your argument:
Things which serve no legitimate purpose should not be allowed to exist.
P2P networks serve no legitimate purpose.
Therefore, P2P networks should not be allowed to exist.
This conclusion follows logically from your premises; however, the argument is not valid because, aside from the spurious notion that things which serve no legitimate purpose should not be allowed to exist (a premise which, while not explicitly stated, is a necessary part of your argument), you assume P2P Networks serve no legitimate purpose. If even one legitimate purpose for a P2P network can be shown to exist, then your entire argument, while logically sound, is false.
If I write a story under an open copyright license (http://www.creativecommons.org), then make my story freely available via a P2P network, have I not utilized that network for a legitimate purpose? The fact that something (anything) can be used, even primarily, for illegal or illegitimate purposes, does not necessarily mean it should be outlawed, dismantled, prohibited, or otherwise removed from existence.
You should be more careful making such generalized statements. It's fairly obvious you feel very strongly about the prohibition of P2P networks, and presumably any other means by which copyright may be violated, but your ideological stance would be better served with more sound reasoning and fewer inflammatory and untrue generalized statments.
From the article:
:-) does not have jurisdiction over the world. Not that they'd have any trouble getting an Australian court to bend over for the US.
Sharman Networks...should be held accountable by U.S. laws.
Bzzzt! Wrong! They should be held accountable by Autralian and Vanuatan laws. The United States (Je naait 't steeds
If I owned a company and got a summons from a US court I would RSVP that I am declining the invitation (and contact a lawyer to prepare for any possible extradition hearing).
I don't think my government would send me over there unless the US told them I'd killed someone or something like that.
You make the mistake of thinking you can educate the fundamental stupidity out of people. You can't.
Great site, mod parent Informative. Thanks for the link.
--K
Sig: Bad people happen. Try to avoid being one of them.
Note that it is contacts instead of contracts. The idea is that if you have contacts with people in a given state (customers--say you sell millions of units of a product in Hawaii) then you have a legal obligation to follow the laws of that state.
There is nothing that gives FTP accountability. First, you can't open a warez P2P collection to the public and not get caught either - the instant you start downloading it, you can pull an IP address - exactly as much information as FTP provides. But the analogy is flawed - FTP as a protocol is designed to efficiently transfer files. P2P's design is more of a high-availabilty, low capacity system - hence the massively parallel searching, and consequent slow downloads. P2P's ability to transfer files is an add-on - just like HTTP's ability to send cookies is really an add-on. And finally, the advertising is entirely a separate entity. There is no practical reason P2P clients need advertising, there simply hasn't been a popular non-advertising client yet. Advertising provides a source of income for the development of easy-to-use P2P clients - it's no more a part of the network than the ads you see on TV are a part of the show you're watching.
And the people who make guns are aiding and abetting murdurers and the people who make CD burners are aiding and abetting pirates (never mind me who uses it to make off-computer backups of important data). This is an old argument. A while ago, I read a news report about a carjacker who had the bad idea of stealing a car from a group of judo students on their way to a tournament. A bad choice for him... the police, though, were very careful to note that they recommended people NOT attempt to stop carjackers - it's the police's job, they have the training and responsibility to stop carjackings, and everyone else doesn't. This is a similar situation - there is no law demanding that Kazaa take responsibility to police it's own network. Now, they could voluntarily, but it's not their responsibility - nor is it within their capabilities. The difference from Napster? Napster decided to attempt to filter their network, and essentially took responsibility - then failed to succeed. Admittedly Kazaa is being actively hostile to the idea of policing their network - but it's not their job. It's the job of the government - and probably some as-yet-uncreated federal agency. (I wouldn't be happy about such an agency, but I think it's inevitable.)
Conceeded. Deliberately avoiding a resolution to the problem is exactly in keeping with a civil suit. But only a civil suit - this line couldn't go to a criminal case (perhaps that is why the lawyers are making it a civil case?). AND the court has to have the jurisdiction over BOTH parties to institute a resolution to the problem. My opinion is that I doubt the ruling will stand on appeal, but even if it does, the rest of the posters in this thread are exactly correct - the California judge can't do a thing to the company. It's not like there are assets to freeze, a company charter from the state to revoke, or any such matters - the judge's abilities will be restricted to banning future business dealings and throwing around contempt warrents, and will be completely ineffective at actually stopping abuses.
I may be rare among the Slashdot crowd for agreeing (for the most part) with copyright law (my qualms are about overpricing only - which means I actually DO buy much of the stuff I've downloaded in the past. Which amounted to about one movie and a dozen songs). But I really hate how the MPAA/RIAA goes for a publicity-stunt, slap-on-the-wrist lawsuit instead of doing something constructive.
A witty [sig] proves nothing. --Voltaire
Kazaa, and all the 'proprietary' applications which are using open peer to peer technology (protocols) that can be used for ligitimate reasons, should counter sue for damages. Yes, it would cost a fortune to fight, but it could be a lawsuit worth millions.
/. wrote thier senator on the issue.
Laurence Lessig, you should start getting on this end of the business, fighting for freedoms through counter suits, because when there is money involved people may actually listen. Otherwise nobody really seems to care about our ever diminishing freedoms.
Why do we all think Microsoft is incorporating DRM (ie: WMP and Paladium) into future OS, because if they don't, in this world they will eventually be sued and lose for providing the software to trade files. So if you can't beat em' join em'. Bill Gates, you really should have stood up to the media co's, bought up all these basket case lawsuit losing companies, and counter sued the RIAA and MPAA and California for that sake.
After all, that is all we are talking about here, PROVIDING SOFTWARE TO TRADE FILES. How that can be construed to be illegal is beyond me. Why can't judges grasp that, or do they and they have some hidden agenda........probably they do but I won't go there.
The articles on the subject (cnet is now for the marginalized masses, only giving white facts), do not even mention gnutella or explain how the P2P programs work. Instead, they focus on the "rogue" activity of these companies undermining the media industry. Further, they do not even argue the legal implications of such bogus precedents. Why? Because the media is being used as scare tactics by the media companies.....DUH!
Unfortunately, probably not one person commenting on this issue on
Real men don't need signitures!!!
The California Supreme Court has ruled against Kazaa and has declared that 20 million dollars in damages be paid. All bills sent to Kazaa's headquarters were marked "Return to sender"
In other related news, the California Supreme Court has ruled that all public libraries are a direct infringement of copyright laws, since they contain large volumes of books and at least one copying machine, used for the exlicit purpose of copying books, without paying for them.
The World's Worst Webcomic!
Good question! Answer: I have no idea. I know very little about private international law, that is, private entities suing each other.
It appears to be a question in flux -- this symposium looks specifically at jurisdiction (the ability to bring cases) and enforcement (the ability to get another country to help you collect).
Here is WIPO commentary on digital rights issues, mentioning 2 recent "Internet treaties." In April WIPO will have a Summit on Intellectual Property and the Knowledge Economy in Beijing.
As for best/worst case scenarios, the US is the 800-lb. gorilla here, and has a ton of intellectual property. The US will have to decide what it thinks the rules should be, then twist arms to get others to sign or or else go it alone. The flip side is that countries like China have not cared much about enforcing IP rights; piracy is a regular business there. This will be a hot issue between the world's have and have-nots, as well as between those on each side of the intellectual property debate.
Make a program. Have it downloaded by the Americans, and suddenly the feel their laws should govern you... (and if you object.. what, they'll send in the army?)
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
At the bottom of my sig, you'll see the mag I donate my webmastering skills too. We're a local zine for the silicon valley music scene.
.5 owner of the zine. When we went to the different bay area wherehouse music stores today, we found out some alarming news.
Before ppl ask "SV has a music scene?" remember, bands like green day come out of here. Our music scene is totally different than that of L.A.'s a.k.a. Hollywood. I can't describe it, because I see everything as data, but I can tell you what the musicians are fearing.
So yesterday, i'm riding around delivering the latest issue of Zero with one of our big bosses. Boss delivering zines you ask? It's hard times, everyone is pulling double effort.
Anyways, this cat is a musician, and
All Wherehouse music stores around our area are shutting down... We have noticed a trend too, less people in other music stores.
So who's to blame? Napster? The economy? Pirates?
Well, my partner started asking questions about the technology. He's what I would call a reforming luddite (yeah strong words but he'd agree with me) "Isn't there some way they could make a CD so it's uncopyable?" he asked. I explained to him as long as there was some sort of digital, to a speaker coil coversion, the RIAA will never be able to stamp out piracy.
"Well who the fuck would want to download a shitty copy of a song then!" he chirped.
"The same fucks that would bring a camera into AOTC's, compress it to mpeg and share it over kazaa" I replied.
Stumped, he went back to his first question. After repeating that there had to be some way of doing it 3 times I answered..
"Yeah, if they could convince everyone to replace their ears with DRM enabled digital implants, then yeah the RIAA has a chance"
Well, he got the point after that. So he moved onto "How do you stamp out P2P?"
I put it into another analogy for him. Napster with it's central peer topology is much like a football team with 1 quarterback. You sack the quarterback.. You sack the network.
"So the RIAA can just sack kazaa right?"
"No, Kazaa would be the equivelent of every player on the team being both QB and reciever"
See, our zine stays alive by record lables having the money to buy adspace from us. If the record lables are losing money from P2P it affects us because they've yet to evolve to the net.
"What should they do?"
Personally, I think the record lables should ditch CD production altogether now. They should make songs freely downloadable. Fuck it, cut their losses.
But rather than look at it like a loss, the record industry should take a Las Vegas approach to it. Just use the music as a "comp" to milk money out of people in other ways.
For instance, that $50 dollar green day ticket, fuck it, if people won't buy the albums anymore, double it. I think people wouldn't care if they had to pay more for live performances. I'm biased because I do get in for free, and don't have any money to pay for tickets anyways. I'm 30 years old in feburary and am perfectly content to staying at home.
The market is really for 14-25 year olds. Those are the people with expendable cash. They live at home, don't have a mortgage, and can afford $100 bucks to see a live performance. With the rate of inflation over the last 10 years, $100 doesn't really seem like a lot to me to see a big headliner band if I had no financial obligations.
I'm the oldest of 6, my youngest siblings are more at home in the computer enviroment than I ever was at their age. The RIAA doesn't realize this yet, but their biggest age group has a huge understanding of internet distribution, and they will never be able to beat it. That's just an unfortunate fact about it.
So to recap the RIAA should...
Cut back CD production,
Raise the price of live performances
Focus on promotion more than CD distribution.
KaZaa and other networks are only like first generation. They exploit the basic internetwork functionality and the Internet itself.
Here is some mail to Sherman Networks, en apropos:
The website does not have an obvious means to send general comments. The matter is press related with the news of the U.S. Courts that try to have jurisdiction in the Austrialian area. For the comment, an obvious delusion of what the global internetwork "is" exists. Such is noticed when the general user population refers to file transfers as "uploads" and "download"; yet, that technology has not been used for about ten years now. The Internet has changed the "upload" and "download" to peer to peer automatically. Kazaa is not a tool the invented peer to peer networks. The ground foundation of the Internet is purely peer to peer networks. I could say that any claim against Kazaa software that exploits file transfers and digital media copyrights is exactly the same claim that should be made to any Internet Service Provider that transfers the data itself. We do not need written laws that try to ban the file transfers or give the chance for bounty hunters to entrap users. What we need is better license validation. For example, Windows Media Player tries to find for encoded "wma" files no matter where the file was transferred from. Kazaa allows people to mirror those files. That is a step forward for digital media. I read the case studies about advertisements found via Kazaa software yet not the "popup" kind. I know why some Courts want to stop that kind of advertisement. Such is a battle between a broadband-subscription-based-oneway-feed network and the real internetwork based on pure peer to peer networks. Good luck.
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
US court rules Kazaa subject to US laws.
US complains that EU is breaking Free Trade agreements by not allowing certain US GMOs into the EU, effectively claiming that it's illegal according to Free Trade agreements, for the EU to have different standards to the US.
I wonder: can the Kazaa program not be considered a tradeable commodity, and therefore claim that if the US does not allow it's importation and use into the US, the US is breaking Free Trade adreements?
Not that the US would ever do that of course. {cough}Steel imports{cough}
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=california+
Just a few weeks ago the Supreme Court reviewed the Pavlovich case to decide jurisdiction (Pavlovich posted his website in Indiana and is now a resident of Texas). The courts ruled that merely posting a website does not give California jurisdiction. The Supreme Court put a stay on that decision for a week and then let the stay expire -- reducing the chances the case would make it on appeal to the high court.
Based on the findings in this case and the Supreme Court's seeming approval, the ruling against Kazaa directly contradicts previous precedents.
The whole attitude seems reflected in US fiction such as Star Trek, StarGate. The US ideas of justice are taken as entirely good, and applicable to even alien races. Notice that the intergalactic federations in these programs are centered around the Earth, and even perhaps around America, and uphold entirely America's ideals.
This shouldn't be that surprising. These are american shows. If you watch Gallipoli or the light horsemen they glorify Australians becasue they are australian movies. Probably the same goes for german and russian movies each highlighting their culture and ideals.
Leaving California
"Great Firewall of the USA"
Makes our government sound like the government of China, doesn't it?
I pledge allegiance to the flag...
of the Corporate States of America...
If the lawsuit succeeds and KaZaA is ordered to be shut down, or fined, how will anyone enforce it? I could see KaZaA saying "We are not obligated by our local laws to recognize your court's ruling" or whatever.
This precedent of nations enforcing their laws outside their juristictions, is the fault of Israel, the US, France, Spain, Belgium & China, & is spreading, even Australia is getting in on the act. Meaning we are now expected to comply with every law of every country on the planet no matter where we are. This syndrome must stop. AFAIC the only laws that should be enforced extra-territorilly are the traditional laws of piracy on the high seas & treason.
There are many examples of this:
The US demanding the extradiction of Columbian & Burmese drug lords for acts committed while they were outside of US juristiction & thus under no compulsion to comply with US laws.
Israel prosecuting a German with Latin American citizenship for war crimes that happened in Europe against people that weren't even Israelis & weren't even nationals of that bit of the planet that ended up becoming Israel.
Belgium prosecuting a Israeli for contravening Belium warcrimes laws in Lebanon
Spain prosecuting Pinochet for acts commited against Spainards outside of Spain. The simple fact is once one becomes an expat one no longer has the protection of their country of citizenship & one must instead accept the protection of their host nation. If a expat doesn't like that they should go home. If Spain doesn't like the fact that Spainish expats in Chile were killed by the Pinochet regime then Spain should use diplomatic avenues, such as a trade embargo, to persuade Chile to prosecute Pinochete. No matter how distastefull it is, the killing of Spainards outside of Spain's juristiction is no concern of the Spainish law courts. If worse comes to the worst & the Chilian justice system refuses to do its duty, the Spanish secret service anti-ETA death squad could be resurrected to target the token Chilian bigwig & a message sent suggesting that the offsprings of Chilan bigwigs could come next.
About 5 years ago or something a freighter from some Arab country smuggled a ship load of hashish to just off Oz's 200 mile economic line where the hashish was loaded onto some waiting Oz yachts & brought ashore. Well the Feds were waiting & cought the Yachties hashed up to the nines. After the freighter unloaded its cargo it headed to New Caledonia, where Oz feds were waiting with extradition warrents. I assume the New Caledonians played along because it's dependent on Oz in many ways, plus the French habitually enforce their laws extra-territorily anyway. So the Arab seamen ended up in a Australian court where the judge promptly threw out the case. He stated that even though they were definitly smuggling hash to Oz, as they never entered Oz juristiction while they were smuggling the hash to Oz, the seamen were under no obligation to comply with Oz laws. IMAO that's a top judge.
Well recently, as in the last year or so, Australia succesfully applied for the extradition of a Yemani people smuggler from Indonesia, who they have prosecuted for breaking Australian people smuggling laws (smuggling Afghans 'n Kurds here) even though he has never been within Oz juristiction & thus IMAO has never been under any obligation to comply with Oz laws.
Now the reason I don't like these concepts is because it sets precedents that's directly responsable for China arresting tourists & business travellers from overseas & throwing them in jail, simply for Besmirching the Reputation of China in foreign publications. You see public attacks on China's reputation are illegal in China. Also under Chinese laws all Chinese are considered within Chinese juristiction no matter where they are on the planet. Ontop of which China does not recognise the right of Chinese to renounce their citizenship. Meaning if say a Chinese person becomes an American & decides he doesn't want to be a dual citizen, & renounces his Chinese citizenship, China won't recognise it & as far as they are concerned he's still Chinese (albit maybe also American too) & still must comply with Chinese laws while in the US (or anywhere else for that matter). This even goes further, if someone has Chinese ancestry (no matter how distant), China reserves the right to consider that person Chinese & thus as far as they're concerned, obliged to comply with Chinese laws, even if that person has never been to China.
This has led to many citizens of the West being arrested while in China on Businees or on holidays, for previously criticising China in western publications & particularly of late, on the web. IMAO the only way the world could stop such incidents is by an international treaty strictly regulating the limits of territorial juristiction. & no matter how much lawyers hate it, this treaty must be so clear & unambiguous that nothing is open to interpritation, no matter how inflexible it is & what the costs are in that regard. If it means people are free to kill each other on unregisted vessels in international waters, then so be it.
The only thing I'd consider is extra-territorial enviromental laws, for example where nations have the right to enforce their enviromental laws on whatever international waters are closer to them than other countries, as long as they don't descriminate in favour of their own nationals in those waters tat are outside of their 12 mile territorial or 200 mile economic zone. The world's oceans are being fished out 7 times faster than they can be replenished, this has to stop. We don't want our oceans to end up as sterile as the North Atlantic cod fisheries.
This precedent of nations enforcing their laws outside their juristictions, is the fault of Israel, the US, France, Spain, Belgium & China, & is spreading, even Australia is getting in on the act. Meaning we are now expected to comply with every law of every country on the planet no matter where we are. This syndrome must stop. AFAIC the only laws that should be enforced extra-territorilly are the traditional laws of piracy on the high seas & treason.
There are many examples of this:
The US demanding the extradiction of Columbian & Burmese drug lords for acts committed while they were outside of US juristiction & thus under no compulsion to comply with US laws.
Israel prosecuting a German with Latin American citizenship for war crimes that happened in Europe against people that weren't even Israelis & weren't even nationals of that bit of the planet that ended up becoming Israel [crwflags.com].
Belgium prosecuting a Israeli for contravening Belium warcrimes laws in Lebanon
Spain prosecuting Pinochet for acts commited against Spainards outside of Spain. The simple fact is once one becomes an expat one no longer has the protection of their country of citizenship & one must instead accept the protection of their host nation. If a expat doesn't like that they should go home. If Spain doesn't like the fact that Spainish expats in Chile were killed by the Pinochet regime then Spain should use diplomatic avenues, such as a trade embargo, to persuade Chile to prosecute Pinochete. No matter how distastefull it is, the killing of Spainards outside of Spain's juristiction is no concern of the Spainish law courts. If worse comes to the worst & the Chilian justice system refuses to do its duty, the Spanish secret service anti-ETA death squad could be resurrected to target the token Chilian bigwig & a message sent suggesting that the offsprings of Chilan bigwigs could come next.
About 5 years ago or something a freighter from some Arab country smuggled a ship load of hashish to just off Oz's 200 mile economic line where the hashish was loaded onto some waiting Oz yachts & brought ashore. Well the Feds were waiting & cought the Yachties hashed up to the nines. After the freighter unloaded its cargo it headed to New Caledonia, where Oz feds were waiting with extradition warrents. I assume the New Caledonians played along because it's dependent on Oz in many ways, plus the French habitually enforce their laws extra-territorily anyway. So the Arab seamen ended up in a Australian court where the judge promptly threw out the case. He stated that even though they were definitly smuggling hash to Oz, as they never entered Oz juristiction while they were smuggling the hash to Oz, the seamen were under no obligation to comply with Oz laws. IMAO that's a top judge.
Well recently, as in the last year or so, Australia succesfully applied for the extradition of a Yemani people smuggler from Indonesia, who they have prosecuted for breaking Australian people smuggling laws (smuggling Afghans 'n Kurds here) even though he has never been within Oz juristiction & thus IMAO has never been under any obligation to comply with Oz laws.
Now the reason I don't like these concepts is because it sets precedents that's directly responsable for China arresting tourists & business travellers from overseas & throwing them in jail, simply for Besmirching the Reputation of China in foreign publications. You see public attacks on China's reputation are illegal in China. Also under Chinese laws all Chinese are considered within Chinese juristiction no matter where they are on the planet. Ontop of which China does not recognise the right of Chinese to renounce their citizenship. Meaning if say a Chinese person becomes an American & decides he doesn't want to be a dual citizen, & renounces his Chinese citizenship, China won't recognise it & as far as they are concerned he's still Chinese (albit maybe also American too) & still must comply with Chinese laws while in the US (or anywhere else for that matter). This even goes further, if someone has Chinese ancestry (no matter how distant), China reserves the right to consider that person Chinese & thus as far as they're concerned, obliged to comply with Chinese laws, even if that person has never been to China.
This has led to many citizens of the West being arrested while in China on Businees or on holidays, for previously criticising China in western publications & particularly of late, on the web. IMAO the only way the world could stop such incidents is by an international treaty strictly regulating the limits of territorial juristiction. & no matter how much lawyers hate it, this treaty must be so clear & unambiguous that nothing is open to interpritation, no matter how inflexible it is & what the costs are in that regard. If it means people are free to kill each other on unregisted vessels in international waters, then so be it.
The only thing I'd consider is extra-territorial enviromental laws, for example where nations have the right to enforce their enviromental laws on whatever international waters are closer to them than other countries, as long as they don't descriminate in favour of their own nationals in those waters tat are outside of their 12 mile territorial or 200 mile economic zone. The world's oceans are being fished out 7 times faster than they can be replenished, this has to stop. We don't want our oceans to end up as sterile as the North Atlantic cod fisheries.
Imagine that the VOA was sued in, say, Iraq for example. Okay, so an Iraqi court decides that it's okay to sue VOA. Then what happens? VOA and America give them the collective middle finger and go on doing it anyway.
It's a matter of force. They don't have the force needed to stop VOA. They can sit there passing laws and judgements all they like, but in the end, you've got to back up those judgements to actually accomplish anything.
Now convert this to the present case. Assume the **AA wins. What do they do then? Where's the necessary force to back up said judgement? What, exactly, is to keep Sherman from giving them the collective middle finger and going on about their business?
That's the real question. There's a lot the **AA's can do, in fact, but in the end, can they *stop* Kazaa, or indeed P2P filesharing? Kazaa, maybe. P2P, not a chance in hell.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
The difference is that Texas is a state in the United States and was considered to have stronger claim of jurisdiction on the case than California did(Texas or the other state which I no longer remember where the man initially put up the web site), but kazaa is based in another country and who has jurisdiction in the matter is bit trickier.
No. The court is not attempting to determine "who has jurisdiction". The court is attempting to determine whether the suit can be brought in that particular court. The question of where would be the best place to bring it has not arisen.
All employees must wash hands before seeking equitable relief.
This shouldn't be that surprising. These are american shows. If you watch Gallipoli or the light horsemen they glorify Australians becasue they are australian movies. Probably the same goes for german and russian movies each highlighting their culture and ideals.
No kidding. Science fiction anime isn't exactly populated with Nebraskan mech pilots.
Why did the Cybermen and Sea-Devils always attack Britain? Because the show was made by the BBC.
All employees must wash hands before seeking equitable relief.
This is just California power-grabbing. In the last couple years, CA judges have, for the most part, being taking every opportunity to try to expand their jurisdiction, whether it's legal, logical, or even feasible.
RTA. Judge Wilson is a United States District Judge in Los Angeles, not a California judge.
All employees must wash hands before seeking equitable relief.
The part about being in violation of "intellectual property rights" without being able to compete in this arena is very telling.
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
I nearly modded this up, but couldn't work out whether to mark it (+1, Informative) or (+1, Funny).
The difference between the US and China on IP issues is probably the single biggest example of the matter at hand.
On the one hand, we have China, where they barely acknowledge the concept of intellectual property, and thus produce a very significant fraction of all the bootleg CDs, DVDs and such we see back here in the West.
On the other hand, we have the US, where money apparently talks more than any sense of justice in major court rulings these days. You have companies like Disney who see the intellectual property world as a mechanism for scoring unbounded profits and nothing else, and will use every means at their disposal to further that end.
Unfortunately, neither of these accepts the simple reality: intellectual property is, in principle, a useful incentive for those who can create to do so, but it should be a fairly short term advantage to guarantee a reasonable return on investment, and nothing more. And as long as the biggest guns are held by arguably the two most extreme groups around, we're never going to get anywhere sensible with legislating to support that idea.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Where do your local bands currently make most of their money? CD sales, concerts or merchandise?
It seems to me that increased availability (read cheaper or even free) of their recorded music would improve the revenue of the other two products, but I'm not in the entertainment industry.
No-one seems to have noticed that, with all the Internet traffic logging major governments want in the name of fighting terrorism, it's a very short jump to "Your Honour, we, the RIAA, have identified an illegally copied version of our copyright protected product XYZ in circulation on the Internet at this point right here, and we request a warrant be issued to have the traffic logs reviewed to identify everyone who has received said version of product in the past seven days. We further request that a fixed penalty of $5 equivalent purchase costs plus $10 punitive damages be awarded against each of the offenders."
Of course, whether there's anything wrong with that idea is a different question. If someone is ripping them off, I'm all outta sympathy, sorry. You don't like their prices, you should vote with your wallet or contact your representative, not break the law.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
"So to recap the RIAA should...Cut back CD production, Raise the price of live performances Focus on promotion more than CD distribution."
I'm less involved than you are with the music scene, so I could be wrong; but I'm pretty sure that the RIAA members don't DO concerts. The labels do the records and get the music on the radio, and the bands do their concerts. The labels get pretty nearly all the money from the records and the bands get pretty much all their money from the concerts (tickets, shirts, etc.)
I also think you should question the assertion that P2P is killing the CD star. I've read that CD prices went up 7% last year, during a recession, and also that the labels have spent proportionately less on promotion. Just because The Labels, who have a vested interest in stamping out any alternative means of distribution (net radio, P2P) that threatens their monopoly, say piracy is the cause of falling sales, doesn't mean it is true.
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
1] The works of project guttenburg (all copyright expired public domain works) can be hosted on PTP. The amount of material without copyrights VASTLY exceeds the amount of material with considering we have the whole of human history to work with. ( http://promo.net/pg/ )
:)
2] Europe's copyright laws aren't as long as those in the US meaning many popular songs, movies, and videos from the 50s and 60s are legal to copy and trade.
3] It's a wonderful life
4] Garage bands and home video enthusiansts can post their own work on the network and try to drum up some publicity.
5] Popular shareware authors who can't handle the crushing bandwidth costs have turned to ptp network.
And the list goes on. The LEGITIMATE uses of ptp networks are considerably larger than the ILLEGITIMATE uses, it's just that the RIAA would have us believe that the only thing kazaa users want to do is download their super-lame, no-skill teen whiner of the month.
Well, I use Direct Connect mainly because of the internal "hub" at my university. I normally get download speeds near 1MB/s.
I think you are confusing criminal law with civil law....
Criminal law has extradition, civil does not...
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
whats extradition got to do with the price of eggs?
Now read my post again, where does it mention civil verses criminal law or extradition treaties?
My beef is simply the fact that many govts are prosecuting people for acts commited outside of their juristiction:
A Israeli being prosecuted in Belgium for acts committed in Lebanon.
Burmese/Columbian drug lords being prosecuted by the US for acts committed while they were outside of the US & thus under no obligation to comply with US laws. Fact is if I smuggle a ton of heroin into the US, as long as I don't enter the US while doing so, I'm under no obligation to comply with US laws. IE US laws against importing heroin only apply to people who are within US juristiction while they are breaking such laws. Well that's the way it should be.
Never the less govts more 'n more are attempting to enforce their laws outside of their juristiction. Now read my 1st post again carefully & then come back & comment.
As he was not within Australian juristiction he was under no obligation to comply with Oz laws.
Whether he was breaking the laws of the country he was residing in is irrilivent. Whether that country was enforcing laws that he was breaking is irrilivent too.
Fact is, if you don't want to be bound by the laws of every country in the world, all countries must recognise the limits of their juritistion (the 12 mile or 200 mile line & locally registed vessels in international seas/air-space).
If that means Yemanis can smuggle Kurds & Afghans with impunity, because the Indonesian justice system is so corrupt, so be it.
If it hypothetically means people on unregisted boats in international waters are free to kill each other, then so be it.
It's better than the alternative (read my paragraph on the actions of China)
How exactly do you get emule to work? Whenever it starts I'm told I don't have a valid server list.
Never mind, I just figured it out.
Can't argue with that but since when did the POTENTIAL to commit a crime become illegal ? I thought we were innocent until proven guilty here but I guess that went out with 9/11. I used to think it took an OVERT act to actually commit a crime but now I guess the mere possesion of an item, even the errant thought seems to be enough. This is so far over the line that I have trouble even beginning to grasp how we let ourselves get here.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?