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?
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.
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?
Two years from now we will read: In other news US Appealate Court has rescinded the decision of RIAA v. Kazaa stating that the trial court had no jursidiction to hear the case.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
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.
As far as a (ad free) replacement for Kazaa goes, though, check out WinMX.
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
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.
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
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.
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?!
Is get the judge to issue an order pulling kazaa.com's domain registration as well as ordering Global Crossing to block their traffic.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.