Slashdot Mirror
Kazaa Fights Back
Cracula writes "CNET is reporting that tonight Kazaa filed a lawsuit against the major record labels and Hollywood studios, asserting that they are attempting to stifle a legitimate and potentially profit-cutting business model. Sharman Networks (owner of Kazaa) says that their model is fundmentally different than Napster because their major goal is to make money off their companion program Altnet that delivers authorized, paid content. While this may sound like a shot in the dark, last year a federal judge actually ruled that the record labels' current efforts to provide online access to their music may run afoul of anti-trust laws. Kazaa may actually have a hope."
I thought Kazaa was just for p0rn?
so....they want to say that their operation of sharing files that are a violation of a copyright is legal because they intend to make money off of it? that makes no sense. either im as dumb as i sound, or they missed something when thinking up this model. oh well, perhaps that is why i am a student of ancient languages and not a business man.
xao
xao
http://TheHillforum.hopto.org
KHAAAAAAAAAAAAN!.....yelled the angry MPAA while Kazaa laughed and said, "From hell's heart, I stab at thee".
(er, "KAZAAAAA" I meant...)
> Kazaa may actually have a hope.
How's that? Did someone actually find some good music to steal?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I always thought sabotaging a company's network was illegal. But what, a week ago, there was an artical on /. about a company devoted only to doing that. I'm glad Kazaa is standing up for itself, even though I hate them for their spyware.
....part of me wishes he'd win everything he's going for just to really screw the music industry in a way they could not imagine (that is, lose the right to enforce any of their copyrights). Yes, I'm aware this will cause quite a bit of chaos, but still, I can't help feeling that they almost deserve a swift kick in the balls like this.
i mean, they're working very closely with Sharman, a company named after toilet paper.
www.charmin.com
Now, If only they would give the option of removing the add-on ware from the installer so we wouldn't have to resort to "illegal" means of removing it ourselves. (Kazza-Lite).
But I think i'll just stick to my old wireless set for the moment until the poor old vacume tube burns out.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Isn't kazaa not supposed to be responsible for the content, but only for the software which was "intended" to distribute legal paid content?
Perhaps they should go the porn route and freedom of speech or art approach.
If they went the porn route they could possibly get the help of the porn industry which according to Diane Sawyer is a $10 bill / year industry.
Saying they make their money from pop ups and spyware is kinda hokey and just makes people more irritated with them.
Where's Kazaa getting all this money to throw around lawsuits? And dont tell me that Ad's fully support clusters of multi-homed high speed machines...
This is not a college-project-turned-into-corporation deal, like Napster was. **AA can go fuck itself for all Sharman cares.
I mean, look her in the eyes. Does she look like someone who would lie down and take from multinational media pimps?
I'm not a Kazaa user, but I'm with them all the way. If the opportunity cost of getting our freedoms taken away is few more sales of Billboard top 40 albums, then I'm all for piracy.
If Kazaa wins, the record industry will probably just get more primed for industry-standard DRM.
If the record industry wins, another 5 Kazaa's will pop up.
It seems to me that this argument basically admits what the music industry is getting at: that Kazaa enables and almost condones the illegal music trade. I'm speaking straightly from a legal perspective. I know better than to try to get into the philosophical debate. :)
But just take a look at the issue. Let's say an auto parts store opens its doors. One department is legit. It buys new parts and sells them to customers. The second department is a kind of swap meet where enthusiasts may come and trade their wares. Some of the enthusiasts in this second department trade stolen car parts.
So some organization sues the auto parts store. Maybe they're an organization of car owners that are sick of their bumpers and headlights getting stolen by car punks. They bring a case to the courts and say, "We're sick of this auto store making an environment conducive to stealing."
Kazaa, and the auto parts store, reply that their major goal is to make money off their legitimate department. They reply that their business model is being impaired by such an atrocious lawsuit.
Is this fair? I'm not sure. I'm not a lawyer. Something seems fishy about it to me though...
Kazaa will never win for a simple fact: the RIAA/MPAA will spend any amount of money they have to on this case, and there's no chance that Kazaa can even come close to matching the legal spending of these two giants. The *AAs can't allow Kazaa to win this, because they've always painted P2P as a technology that soley revolves around illegal fileswapping.
Lets face it - 9 out of 10 times in America, it's not who's right and who's wrong, it's who's got more money to spend on lawyers.
--
http://nemilar.net - Not your grandmother's soup kitchen
This is fine as long as Kazaa tracks songs on a per download basis (which means a far more napster like server), otherwise all revenue will go to major labels, which from talking to the people I know is NOT what most downloads are. Once people become used to a model of getting music via the internet and think of as no different from going to the store to buy a CD, they will no longer think of actually going out and buying CDs. Thus potentially turning what is helping smaller bands into their own death sentence.
Not to mention, I highly doubt any money from downloads will actually go to artists (much like ASCAP).
Burn Hollywood Burn
Years ago, many warned Hilary Rosen that killing off Napster ( a company that WANTED to do business with them) would lead to the Hydra-effect: an emergence of multiple, more difficult to control services that would fill the Napster void. This was, of course, exactly what happened.
With the announcement of even greater antifilesharing efforts by the labels and the brick and mortar dealers trying to get into the digital game, one must wonder when the music industry will finally realize that the days of sellling copies of Intellectual Property are fast fading, and that directing resources and effort into palatable alternatives (hardware please, that streams any record ever recorded to my stereo rack) is the only alternative?
If they succeed in killing Kazaa, a thousand more services will pop up in its place. iCommune is already connecting iTunes users via P2P.
Legal control over culture has never worked before, what makes the RIAA and labels think it will work this time?
"The pie shall be cut in half and each man shall receive.....death. I'll eat the pie."
Maybe I'm high. That made a lot of sense, even though it didn't answer any questions.
Philosophy sucks like that.
~D:
The pot sheds its
In a lawsuit filed late Monday in federal court in Los Angeles, Sharman claims that major entertainment companies have colluded to drive potential online rivals out of business.
Please. No legal leg to stand on. You want the legal protection of being considered a "business entity" under United States Law, you need to have no blood on your hands. Anotherwards, your business can't be illegal. You will not be awarded jack shit in court if you can't prove that your business is legal.
So, question: Is Kazaa (as a business) legal?
The conduct should preclude the industry from being able to defend its copyrights in court, at least until the behavior is corrected, Sharman contends.
Again: this is makes no sense whatsoever. Anyone who owns a copyright is entitled under copyright law to legally defend that copyright, music (monopoly) / industry included...especially if the distributor doesn't legally have permission (from the copyright owner) to distribute the music...permission would include ownership of the distributed media or rights granted by the owner to distribute the copyrighted material. Neither case exists for Kazaa.
"What the industry is incapable of doing is realizing that Kazaa is different," said Sharman attorney Rod Dorman. "Now (they) have got to face the legal consequences."
Different in what way? That you've established yourself in at least six different countries?
Kazaa made two crucial mistake:
1) Establishing itself (at least in part...even a part as small as an office building) as a business in the United States.
2) Suing the recording industry. I mean, a corporation can get sued and move all its operatios to Morocco to protect its dubious legality and continue operations. You sue in the United States, you're a legal target in the United States, plain and simple.
The facts in this case are the same as in Napster / AudioGalaxy / et. al.:
1) Your software is being used to distribute music without the permission of the copyright owner (doesn't matter if 1% or 99% of it is legal, at least not to the RIAA).
2) You admit that your software is being used to distribute such music.
So, let's take bids now on the remaining lifetime of Kazaa. I say: 9 months.
I would recommend that you not hand anybody your dick or they may have to chop it off and beat you with a sack of your own hardened feces. You'll feel a lot worse, but everyone else will feel a lot better. Then we can all download pictures of midgets and fake nudes of Dan Rather and masturbate like normal people.
From Wired:
It's no wonder they are fighting for all they're worth.Pirating porn is just as annoying to the porn industry as pirating music is to the music industry, I'm sure.... I don't think kazaa will get much help from them if it tried to ask for assistance.
For me this situation kind of hammers home the point that today there is no right and wrong, and there are no principles. Their are only winners and losers. Our current version of having faith in the system amounts to hoping that your favorite side has smarter and sleazier lawyers than the other side. I would like to think that Congress and the courts might actually try to figure out what kind of world the public wants to live in and make it so, kind of like government of the people, by the people and for the people. I don't want to jump up and cheer because OJ's lawyers are on my team. But oh well, we have what we have. Our democracy and our legal system are both about as real and meaningful as pro wrestling.
Look, I'll be honest. I, like most other people here, have downloaded pirated music from the internet. Its seductively easy, and if you have a nice broadband connection, really quick. The sound quality on the 128k MP3 format may not be "audiophile" quality but for those of us using regular computer speakers, and not $6000 Bose systems, its just fine. Just like with gay sex and open-source software, its easy to think that just because its fun and enjoyable, pirating music is okay, and should be permitted. But thats the wrong answer. Despite all the half-baked rationalizations cooked up by piracy advocates, no one can really refute the truth spoken by the recording industry: Sooner or later, the widespread distribution of near-perfect digital copies will destroy the market for commercial recordings, and make the production of the very product consumers seem so eager to pirate impossible.
Just take a look at the music you download now. Sure, you may occasionally and self-righteously download the occasional legitimate "teaser" track released legally, or some free songs from no-talent "independent" artists who are giving away their wares because no one in their right mind would pay for them. But you know that almost all of what you download was recorded, produced, distributed, and marketed by the very recording companies you claim to despise, and would never have been committed to disc were there not the possibility of profiting from exclusive distribution rights to their product. Every time you download their songs illegally, you are decreasing the probability that such things will be available in the future.
Anybody who cares about the system of intellectual property which has made the american entertainment and information technology industries so dynamic, and enjoys their fine products, from Windows XP to the "Lord of the Rings" movies to your new cell phone with built-in games and internet access, should understand the necessity of crushing Kazaa once and for all. We know that what they are doing is reprehensible, and moreover, as the Napster case and every successive suit against online piracy services has shown, illegal.
But Kazaa is worse than that. They have deliberately created an organizational structure, similar to the front organizations used by organized crime, to continue to operate and profit from their misdeeds in spite of legal sanction from every civilized country in which they have been sued. And like any crime ring, they have gone to great length to extract as much money from their "customers" as possible, using the enticing lure of pirated music to force paid advertising and virus-like spyware on the computers of their users. But in this modern era of international trade agreements such as the WTO, no one is beyond the reach of the law, and I believe that Kazaa can be crushed. They can be submerged beneath a tidal wave of litigation, until one day no internet provider will dare risk allowing them access. Any country which offers them safe haven should be considered a rogue nation and isolated internationally, and considered a sponsor of terrorism. If the world can beat Kazaa, it will send a strong message that theft is wrong, and allow the content producers to lead the way into the beginning of the true information age.
It may be all well and noble that Sharman never intended a bunch of naughty people to bypass US copyright, but their goal of legality is based on a system fraught with infringment. You might as well be pimp running a hospital in a crack house, in the eyes of the law. No matter how noble and legal your goals are, the hospital doesn't belong there. Just do a Bonzi Buddy, or send spam like all the other honest jerks.
This should be fun to watch, just like the "Alliance for Digital Progess" vs. the RIAA article that was front page a few days ago.
;)
I know which side I'm rooting for in this fight (unlike in the interception-bowl last Sunday
- "Nobody came out that night, not one was ever seen. But Old Man Stauf is waiting there, crazy sick and mean!"
Actually, if you look at the word actually, it actually is never actually necessary.
I know, OT -5, but I really wish people wouldn't use that stupid word.
There's 2 ways to kill Kazaa. One is to get rid of the beast itself... This is what they're trying. The other, to scare off all the users offering files.
I doubt the former will work. Kazaa seems to me like it's got its ducks in a row well enough that they won't be touched legally. The latter seems far more likely. Unfortunately for its users, if it is proven that Kazaa itself is legal but is being used by the users for illegal purposes, guess who's going to be the next target for legal action... The users offering large amounts of shared files.
You have to remember, Kazaa isn't fighting for the legal rights of its users, it is fighting to be able to keep running as a business.
Someone once made an analogy on here about unauthorized sharing of copyrighted material over P2P networks to people breaking the speed limits on the highways. To expand that analogy further... You can't ALWAYS break the speed limit on the highway. Sure, you may be able to do 70MPH in a 55MPH zone if it's what everyone else is doing, but you can be damn sure that everyone else is going to slow down once a cop decides to catch whoever is in the lead. You can't break the speed limit when there's a cop in the next lane and you certainly can't do it when it's 3:00AM and you're the only car left on the road.
Hearing about someone sharing files on Kazaa being busted will most certainly have the same effect as the cop busting the person in the lead on the highway. Everyone who gives a rats ass about not being the NEXT example is going to disable sharing or get off Kazaa altogether.
With a major drop in files, it will cause many users to just leave. Then you'll be left with the 3:00AM highway situation - they'll be so few users actually sharing content on Kazaa that busting them all could be realistically done.
Kazaa surviving isn't a win for the users, it's just the first battle in an ensuing war.
---
DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
Freedom as in Fair Use, dipshit. I never claimed I used Kazaa or any other P2P.
I find it really hillarious how you call me a coward and post as an AC. You've got to see the irony there, chief.
i say 5 weeks
The RIAA isn't going to understand the changing face of the music business until it's too late for them. Their methods of attempting to stop online file sharing is parallel to that of what was happening around the turn of the century with the automobile. Buggy whip manufactures were trying to get laws passed that stated if a carraige didn't have a horse infront of it, it was illegal. For obvious reasons, they did this to avoid being pushed to bankruptcy. The same is happening right now in the RIAA and the music business in general. Instead of cheapening CDs and focusing more on other products that can't be downloaded off of the internet, such as T-Shirts, Concerts, etc., they're attempting to stop the inevitable.
...cause we all know about all the piracy that goes on there. You know what I'm taking about...all those ads for channels with "0 DAY WAITZ FULL RIPPED LINUX ISOS 24/7 DISTRO"
Okay, I Am Not A Lawyer, buuuut... Wouldn't the judge just say: "Okay, if this is true, you should restrict trading to only those kinds of files." This might not be the be course of action to take. Can anybody that's more knowledgable of the law clear this up?
translation:
blah bla-blah blah blah
If Kazza is just a vehicle that allows the transferring of copyrighted material, and they are being attacked, why stop there?
What about the ISPs that make the access possible?
What about the companies that produce the operating systems that make the storage and swapping of copyrighted material possible?
What about the electric company that produces power to feed these money stealing machines we call computers???
"says that their model is fundmentally different than Napster because their major goal is to make money off their companion program Altnet that delivers authorized, paid content."
And basing their reason for existance around this singular Altnet software is beside the point entirely. THE POINT is whether Kazaa is facilitating piracy, not if they can make money off some ambiguous subscription service. Simply making money doesn't magically give them legitimacy.
Hopefully, they won't try to justify themselves through Altnet when they should be trying to push the case that they are a FILE sharing program. Not just MP3s or pirated goods. And FORCE the record company to start going after the guilty individual commiting the crime. Right now, their actions are like the FBI shutting down an ENTIRE ISP to take down a guy who collect child porn. It just doesn't happen like that.
Once again, I ask these people-- are they going to take out Google because the results it displays can potentially contain MP3 sites and warez? Are they ultimately responsible for how the person uses those search results? Didn't think so. Be that as it may, I have no illusions of Kazaa's chances of survival, especially when 90% if not more of it's traffic is violating some sort of copyright or another. It's like a crack house and crack houses get raided. With a case like this, i wouldn't step foot in the US either...
You need a FREE iPod Nano
if kazaa goes down, another file sharing app will pop up, the next one even harder to kill than napster or kazaa. an arms race no music company can win.
music companies are an economic distribution model. supply and demand. the internet is an information distribution model. infinite supply, infinite demand. there is no economic model in it, so there is no money in it.
not all discoveries mean good things for everyone. just ask the aztecs or incans. internet= music nirvana for everyone, a BETTER distribution model for music. it is the death of music companies, who make money pushing cds, an inferior distribution model.
yawn. big deal. next story.
where is it written in the bible or the constitution that someone, somewhere, has to make money off music? where is it written?
i think that before the vinyl recording, people enjoyed music and made music just fine. artists will make music whether they are promised a penny or a billion. the passion for music, to create it, does not depend upon how much money you will make. no one said that somebody standing between the artist and me, the listener, needs to turn a buck. radio will tell me who i might want to listen to, and they will make money promoting concerts and selling ads. artisits will still get known, word of mouth will still spread. you don't need a music company for that.
you can't kill the internet.
you can kill a company.
music companies pumping millions into legal actions is just the death throes of a dying dinosaur.
good riddance.
they can scream all they want. they can't fight historical obsolescence.
"video killed the radio star" 1980
"internet killed tommy motola" 2000
scream copyright, scream intellectual property. who gives a shit. none of that beats a worldwide millions strong force of music hungry pimply teenagers with no money to burn and an internet connection.
the gears of historical forces no one can control are turning.
death to music.
long live music.
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
"Don't squeeze the Sharman".
Sigs are bad for your health.
The nuts going to get smashed, and nothing useful will come of it.
Seriously though:
"Sharman is asking the judge to declare the copyright holders guilty of antitrust and related violations, and to bar them from enforcing any of their copyrights."
You dont think the *AAs are going to go absolutely all out to get this thrown out of court? I mean forcing all their works into the public domain might do wonders for the 'information wants to be free crowd'... but realistically the *AAs will fight tooth and nail!
The *AAs would be prepared to blow all their money in lawyers and bribes to avoid a verdict like that... which would really obliterate their business.
I think theyre asking for too much... and because of this they may end up with nothing. Kazzza was an example of semi-legitimate peer to peer, and was a good example to show off legal p2p working. (As like its *cough* only a small minority sharing illegal stuff *cough*)...
But with claims like "bar them from enforcing any of their copyrights"... i mean for fucks sake, they only make profit out of holding copyrights.. im finding this difficult to explain.. but like i say, the *aas will pay anything to stop that verdict.
Maybe a slightly less inflamatory suit wouldve done more good for p2p imho.
those who control the past, control the future. those who control the present, control the past.
and I'm sure some of you are... but I find it interesting how everyone likes to go on about the legalities of this lawsuit as if it's a really idiotic move...
Like I said, I'm not a lawyer... but I'm pretty sure the good folks at Sharman Networks aren't idiots either... and I'm sure this lawsuit was well thought out...
Perhaps their motives dig deeper than most of us are looking?
Just a thought...
(either way, it'll be interesting to see how this plays out)
I don't know. It's highly dubious that Kazaa will be able to actually pull it off, but it might tie up the litigation long enough for them to keep making money. And, of course, while the RIAA is busy suing Kazaa and its current ilk, other developers will continue to create new P2P software. Is it just me, or is this going to be one of those things when one side is constantly one step ahead of the other? It just seems that it's a lot faster to write a program and get it out on the net than go through the long, expensive, and tedious legal process in order to make said company shut down.
"The power of accurate observation is frequently called cynicism by those who don't have it." - G.B. Shaw
While Napster isn't anything special, its still fighting a war started during the internet bubble.
As inovative companies started producing ideas such as music distribution over the internet the traditional (regressive) industry said under no uncertain terms that they would kill it.
Well the regressive companies are about done killing inovation. Wouldn't it be something to see them reinvent those ideas over the next two years.
Bet they wont even say thank you for the 3 years they just wasted.
That whole comment made absolutely no sense. Apparently all you need to do to get modded to +5 is to string a couple of buzzwords together into a message that goes over everyone's head.
Seriously, if anyone would like to translate, jump in.
-a
Freedom to get music and videos for free
Yes. If I heard it on the radio or saw it on TV, why can I not use a P2P application to get my own archive of it? Because it's not funded by ads? Bullshit - if I recorded it myself, I'd remove the ads as well. As long as I can get it by other means (recording off the air or TV), I see nothing wrong about downloading it via P2P networks.
---
DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
... I thought you said "Wake up and smell the pot"; oh well, back to sleep
I hope this letter finds you well. I remembered the advice you gave me the other day, and I appreciate it. That CNN Article was right on! So, I didn't leave any written evidence of anything. Well, except for this
Sincerely,
Sharman Networks
Webmaster Wanted - Entropic Reactions
"Thank you for downloading your personal advertising delivery system! Please follow the onscreen instructions so that we may deliver customized advertising content to your computer. Any use of this software that is not for the purposes of advertising distribution and delivery is strictly prohibited! Infringing use will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law! [ed note: that is, not prosecuted at all]
Have a nice day!"
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
This happened to Napster because they ran the servers as a central database. Kazaa is peer to peer, Sharman Networks only sells the software to do it, they don't control what is traded by the people who download it.
Similar to the VCR/CD-R analogy.
WTF? Who do you think you are, Dr. Evil? I don't see "Score: 5, Evil."
"I would rather all these P2P file sharing services got together and created an *open source* solution that allowed infrastructure for digital media delivery. I mean we have all the pieces it's just no one has put them together yet. Who wants Microsoft to pull their pieces together first and dominate yet another market?"
What do you think Gnutella and the million derivatives thereof are? How about Freenet? Next, you'll be suggesting we band together to form a "community" where we can share news and ideas. Perhaps we can call it "Slashdot!"
Yarr!
The problem is that copyright confers a monopoly. The RIAA members did get in antitrust trouble over retail price maintenance, but that had to do with illegal marketing practices, involving pressure on retail outlets not to discount. The retail outlets weren't claiming the right to copy the product, just to stick "50% OFF" stickers on it. There was collusion amongst the RIAA members to accomplish this.
But a copyright claim doesn't require collusion. Any individual copyright holder could ask a court to shut Kazaa down. Price maintenance only works if most of the players conspire to keep prices up. That's the difference.
When is someone going to grab their lawyers by the scruff of the neck and say, "Look, asshole! We can't win this by supporting the notion of intellectual property and copyright! We probably can't win at all, since the State and the corporations are running things. But we should by Satan go out fighting! Which means we need to attack the WHOLE NOTION of IP and copyright as wrong from the git-go! Get on it!"
Actually the only NON-waste of time for these people would be to go TOTALLY underground - it would be cheaper to hire some hotshot crypto guys and bribe a few more Third World ratholes to host the servers and just OPERATE...
Works for the Medellin Cartel...
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Quality.
Thats the difference. Yes, media companies made a stink about VHS and Black Cassete Tapes, but they still new that the quality was not poor and many would still flock to get their own original copies. Digital copies have made this a whole new game. I suspect that the number of bootleg music/movies" out there has only increased in digital form. Many of this material never gets tranfered beyond an MP3 player. So I don't think that there is now more bootleg material on the streets or being given to friends or any of that. The numbers are STILL the same. and while were talking numbers, profits have gone up. Thats not me yelling "Oh, look the big bad media companies are still making money". I'm just saying I doubt it hurts them as much as they claim. I'm willing to argue that if anything it helps.
Why is Kazaa/Napster illegal?
Can someone fill me in please?
I mean, I really don't get it why a p2p network would be illegal... Kazaa is not forcing anyone to break laws and steal stuff... There are legitimate uses for Kazaa...
Wouldn't this be the same thing as making CDR's illegal just because you can do illegal stuff with it? Or you could even make the Internet illegal because well it's used for so many illegal things from warez, music pirating, fraud, child pornography, etc... Where does it end?
Kazaa, Napster, or any other P2P network should not be held responsible for some peoples' actions that might be illegal. Those people doing the illegal actions should be held accountable. Just because it's a little harder to track down, that doesn't mean it can't be done, and it doesn't mean anyone should blame P2P networks for it....
On one side, we have the Recording Industry Association of America. On the other side, we have Sharman Networks. Lopsided match, to say the least.
Maybe it's the American in me... but I hope the underdog wins.
Somehow, I feel that the future of computing as we know it is going to be decided in large part due to the outcome of this matchup and I for one am tired of waiting for the outcome. I'm tired of the constant rehashing of the legality of file sharing. I'm tired of the false numbers and statistics spun as proof that P2P is the sole culprit for declining music revenue.
Most of all... I'm tired of the threats of a DRM-enabled world.
I'm a music fanatic. I love all kinds of music. I used to buy music, but when Napster was taken away from me, I stopped.
When I pay to see concerts now, at least I take cautious comfort in the idea that the artists see a larger percentage of my twenty dollars. I hope, anyway.
Next please.
Sorry, but I'm not willing to stand for draconian laws banning new and revolutionary communication tools just so a bunch of executives can continue picking up pretty little girls and boys with the intention of packaging them up as a product. How would you feel if the post office went after e-mail just because it cost them money? Were we happy when they proposed taxing e-mail? How is this any different?
Music is art, not profit.
Well thats what happens when you squeeze the Sharman!
I wonder how long will it be until these companies will specifically restrict US users from downloading the product? in the same way (in that you will have to agree prior to download) that the US bars places like Afghanistan, Iraq etc. from downloading certain products.
I also wonder, if they lose the case, how exactly does the US govt go about shutting them down?
It has been discovered that Microsoft's "Internet Explorer" is being used to download pirate music from the net.
And a device called the "Telephone" can be used for lower-quality instant transmission of aforementioned music.
The creator of the "ear" (client) and the "Voicebox" (server) will also be brought to trial soon, once the Evolution/creation debate is finished, and a defendant can be found.
I surely wouldn't get it from a p2p programm which is a potential security problem. I would pay for http downloads of non-drm, non-watermarked mp3 files which allow me to do everything an red book audio cd allows me to do.
Because, sometimes they just have to touch the stove.
-YY1
Here's a cool vid - needs flash and sound... even has Robin Gross -EFF and mentions OGG is not a crime with an unauthorized cameo by Emmett Plant.
http://electroniclaw.org
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
When you copy something without permission you are not stealing, your infringing into somebody else's copyright.
There is a difference, if you are going to give an opinion then use the correct terms.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Before digital music and p2p we had to pay for music because we did not have the power to distribute or copy music on our own. Copy protection and charging money for copies was reasonable these days.
Now we have the right to copy music because we can easily do so and we cannot easily enforce protection...
We are in the digital age now and we should face it:
digital => no copy protection
Thats like
sun => hot
And who pays those poor musicians, filmmakers and ... ?
I am sure we will find a mean to get good artist paid (or they will find it themselves) but we cannot do it by enforcing unnatural laws.
It's time to die, dinos...
electroniclaw.org
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
Where would Beethoven, Mozart, Bach and all those old sods be without the recording industry?
And where would traditional and folk music of all times and nationalities be without the recording industry?
Yes man, tell me where should we raise the monument to those cultural heroes, I for once am ready to go and provide free slave labour to help build their monumental thank you memorial.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I want music, not commercial recordings. And i am lucky, because:
### timeline ###
(past) ...
music - music - music - music and industry (present) - music - music - music ...(future)
First they came for the music swappers and I did nothing; then they came for the movie swappers and I did nothing; then they came for the kiddie pr0n swappers and there I was.
-- Pete Townshend
What does that mean?
can't say which is which in much of this corepirate dinosaur sauna.
/.confused about that word just yet, although we curiously accept the -1 for using it) values. that's important when we're facing deletion buy known high evildooers, & it's NOT just the mad bombers whoare trying to .controll yOUR boilerplate.
no matter dough, the motive ALWAYS affects the results.
best of intentions, have more likelihood of 'success', when attached to spiritual (don't get
minor kudos to robbIE for continuing to sprinkle some of the good gnus in betwixt the whoreabull payper liesense stock markup fraud pandering.
other words to ponder: conscience. trust. future.
KaZaa is a tool for sharing information of different kinds. So is mail, ftp, http and other protocols. You can't outlaw the tool, but you can outlaw some of the things you do with the tool. One can't outlaw something because it can be used in a bad way, everything can be used in a bad way, even an ordinary tool.
...the guy that broke into your house so you shot him in the ass.
So, it's not a violation of anti-trust laws to have a near-complete monopoly of this content offline, but if they put it online it's suddenly an anti-trust case? I'm not saying it shouldn't be, but I am wondering how they avoid anti-trust laws offline to begin with. How many Congressman does the RIAA own now?
"Music is art, not profit. "
..
Yeah, so I will fucking declare your salary to be an art and not profit and therefore it must be shared among all of us.
Why are you upset about US having these laws around?
Perhaps because majority of content you are interested in comes from that place?
Fucking freeloader
Thank god you are completely powerless idiot whose only way to make any sort of mark or anything is to whine on a thrid rate site.
I stopped following all the P2P news stories a long time ago. Zeropaid.com got boring - the same arguments over and over again. I actually see Slashdot heading the same way.
Kazza, as I understand it, doesn't deliver customized ads. It is the job of Altnet to do that and even Altnet doesn't actually deliver those ads. Ads are sent in true P2P fashion, from one user to another. How many people would still use it if they knew that they were supplying ads to other users by means of their paid-for-bandwidth?
This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
That's one of the funniest things i've read on Slashdot in a while, and I used all my mod points yesterday!
Not while there are lawyers using oxygen in LA and New York. The music industry can bury Kazaa in legal costs and settle out of court.
If you aren't part of the solution, there is good money to be made prolonging the problem
They will most likely prove their case and continue to exist, perhaps in reduced form.
The problem is that now the RIAA/etc are planning on going after users.. who will be brave enogh to use kazaa, etc.
Once the first high profile case produces jail time for some average joe downloader, useage will drop off the map.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
This does make sense because in Europe the same thing happened with the car makers. Once a car's warrenty ran out people used to take their car to "non approved" mechanics. The mechanics used "illegal" computers to access the car computer and perform the maintenance necessary.
The car makers took the "non-approved" mechanics to court to stop them working on the cars. Result, they lost. The EU courts said that choice cannot be innibited by using a lock in. The car makers now has to provide all mechanics with the codes necessary to do maintenance.
The point of this story is that Kaaza does distribute legal content. However, if Kaaza cannot get access to this content, then copyright holders are abusing the copyright law. Kaaza has no choice, but distribute whatever content they can get their hands on. In effect Kaaza does have an anti-trust and monopoly issue with the big labels.
This will be a really interesting case to follow.
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
the record companies rights, thereby it should be stopped.
We gotta buy you a proverbs book or something, because this mix and match 5h1+5 gotta go.
Seriously everyone, KaZaA is a very handy tool for getting stuff quickly. You just need to fix it out of the box, kinda like win98 :).
Get DietK a spyware/ad blocker. Then you just need an anon proxy and you're good to go...
Sigs pose an operational security risk and help the baddies aggregate data. I guess commenting does too, oops.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Don't squeeze the Sharman!
~Idarubicin
If there are any NRA members here, you should take note. If the government can hold Sharman legally responsible for what people trade with their software, how is this in any way different from holding Smith & Wesson, Ruger, et. al. responsible for what people do with the guns they manufacture? As you no doubt know, groups like HCI (Handgun Control, Inc.) have been trying to sue manufacturers for years in this way. If Sharman loses this fight, it can set a very dangerous precedent: that manufacturers are responsible for all uses of their products.
You are right on your points, but you fail to recognize other points.
By the launch of their own services, the *AA have all but conceded that there is a legitimate market in the electronic distribution of their holdings.
As such, they *cannot* limit the legal distribution to only their own services. They have to allow *any* legitimate competitor the same access to their holdings as they themselves have.
Paramount, et al, tried this and got spanked (forced to liquidate their theater holdings). Remember, *AA members have been found guilty of anti-competitive actions in the past. Some might even call it a "propensity" to behave in an anti-competitive manner.
I doubt the copyrights will be vioded, as others have mentioned, and Kazaa will probably get in hot water for knowingly assisting copyright violation (however ineffective that would be to a non-US entity).
However, I *do* expect the ruling to force the *AA to cooperate with legitimate competitiors in the electronic distribution market.
Mark
and after that maybe you'll learn to spell
Yes, but I think that the new issue here is the Recording Industry's attempts to promote its own download services in competition to things like Kazaa. It's one thing for the major labels to protect their copyrights, it's another for them to use their copyrights as a lever to put companies out of business so they'll have no competition in a business area that they've already entered.
The hotel case didn't pack the same argument. Even Napster didn't have the same case, because at that time the music industry hadn't clearly demonstrated its desire to control the music download business. The situation is different now; for instance, six major labels just announced that they're collaborating on a music download service, which creates a much more compelling case that the labels are leveraging their copyrights to advance their own distribution businesses. This is further evidenced by the fact that many of these label-controlled download businesses have failed to pay royalties and yet the music industry has neglected to use its legal powers against them.
I doubt that the conservative court system is going to buy it, but I do think that Kazaa has a valid argument in this case. It's an argument that's going to become increasingly valid until it's obvious to even the most skeptical among us.
Finally! Someone with half a chance at being heard is making the point that needs to be made. We're all focusing on the wrong part here. What immeadiately caught my eye was the attempting to stifle a legitimate and potentially profit-cutting business model. I'm no legal expert, but it seems that this is exactly what the RIAA has been doing for the past 5, 10 years. We all know they're not here because of some moral objection to file sharing. They done't give a rats ass about the morality of anything. Their only concern is the money their making and for some reason, they're stupid enough to think that filesharing is threatening them. So they'll do everything in their considerable power to destroy this threat. We'll just ignore the fact that RIAA revenues, on a per-copy basis (none of this bull about not releasing as many copies to artificially drop gross sales) has increased each year that a filesharing program has been in the mainstream should tell them something. It says to me that they missed the boat and should've been in the filesharing business themselves a long time ago. But they're hell-bent on clinging to an aging business model, which will eventually become obsolete anyway as home-production and mastering equipment becomes cheaper. Eventually, someone will come up with a good way to distribute completely digitally, bypassing the need for expensive distribution. I personally am very willing to pay for MP3s. I'd be even more willing (as bandwidth allows) to pay for uncompressed audio which I can download. And I'd be willing to guess, that reasonably priced, it would be pretty successful. And since there would be no need for a physical product, the costs would be very low. Now, if only I could make some worthwhile music so that I could try and prove this model!
~i = an imaginary being~
Amen Brother! I am not on Kazaa(have Gnutella on my Mandrake OS) at the moment, but I am going to start sharing tons of "legal" files like linux distros and do searches on the files later to see how far it gets :). Research papers etc would also be good things to share out...assuming you got a good score on them.
.
As far as movies/music goes, I have found the bulk of that content to be unreliable ( different
volume, bitrates, and missing files from albums/movies ), so I go to better sources for those (IRC,FTP, anyone?)
Then point being, as stated above, P2P apps are just tools that can be used for good or bad ( sharing Spears/Timberlake is bad!). It's up to us to choose which way we are going to use them.
F0rt0r
Signature Impaired
I can't afford a sig!
They're fighting for their right to spam.
I can't imagine most users actually opting in for advertisement in a file-sharing system, unless it's through some obscure click-through.
All I want is a kind word, a warm bed and unlimited power.
...but not Haha funny.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
God hates fags... and open source developers?! Is it some kind of new pact between Microsoft and the Catholic Church? Am I missing something?
Read the Dr. Evil reply. Right on. You're a fucking dirty.
I was also talking BSA and MPAA too.. I doubt many people that have downloaded mega-amounts of applications ( or movies ) over the last few years could run out and buy them all as an insurance policy.
Who knows how long they have been keeping records of users... or how far back they will be allowed to go. or how long the ISP has records.. etc etc etc.
But the net result its much bigger potential then a few 'pirated' songs.. It could have wide spread ramifications..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
The reason that P2P is so prolific is because it made it so easy and so efficient to download and share. Piracy of software and music was around long before Napster, but it was a minority of technologically literate people and primarily young people with lots of free time on their hands. The reason that it didn't catch on was that it took time to learn how to do it (e.g., operate FTP, IRC, etc), to make the right "friends", to develop trust, to acquire the software, and so on. Efforts by industry to make sharing a risky behavior would essentially force piracy back to where it was. When sharers, whether explicit or not, have a significant fear and virtually no incentive to share, they will alter their behavior to minimize their risk, i.e., stop sharing. The more idealistic ones might attempt to go to some different framework that employs a model of trust of what have you, but this will inevitably raise the barriers to entry and increase the transaction costs back to where they were. It will lessen the numbers and make those few sharers that persist that much more likely to be prosecuted, which will in turn lessen the numbers further. The few that remain could not support the vast demand for sharing and the excess demand would make sharing impossible for most users.
Note: This prosecution or punishment need not be a cumbersome legal process. For instance, they could require the ISP to investigate claims of piracy within 24 hours (providing some form of official log and channel); any user accused of piracy would be checked for P2P services and the sharing of illegal files the following day, any significant number of pirated files would result in the instant revokation or suspension of service. It could in many cases simply involve the prompt denial of internet service and maybe even the blackballing of that user from all services. This might be negotiated privately between RIAA et. al and the various ISPs or it might be effectively mandated by Congress. It would be sufficient disincentive for most sharers as their broadband options are few and far between and the loss of broadband would certainly be a significant loss for most anyone that shares. Unlike with drugs and with most crimes, the high probability of prosecution and the low mean time till punishment would serve, in many ways, as a stronger deterrent than drug sentencing (most research shows that it is the probability and immediacy of punishment, not the severity, that really counts).
Fight da Powah!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I can't help feeling that they almost deserve a swift kick in the balls like this.
what's the point?
I don't create music, nor any other art. I provide a service to my company. Most true musicians are not in it for the money, many have a message that they'd like to get through to people and choose music as the medium. Those who dream of having hit singles and being filthy rich are trapped in a system that simply doesn't exist and this dilusion belongs in the past.
Why are you upset about US having these laws around?
Because they are anti-progress laws. When the printing press was invented, the scribes and the church had laws passed against it. When the motorcar was invented, some countries had a human walk 60 yards in front with a red flag. The horse industry was behind that.
So, where are you going to stand in the next 5 years when the telcos start to attack IP telephony? Because it's no different to this debate.
"Objection, your honour. Why?. Because it's damning to my business model."
Perhaps because majority of content you are interested in comes from that place?
Nope, most of the music I listen to comes from small UK bands/groups that have no illusions of getting rich from it. They enjoy the creative process, and take pleasure from the pleasure that their fans have while listening to it.
Fucking freeloader
p2p is about sharing. You missed the point it seems. If anything, the music industry are the only freeloaders in this argument. There is no need for them. Get over it.
Thank god you are completely powerless idiot whose only way to make any sort of mark or anything is to whine on a thrid rate site.
You know nothing about me, besides the intentionally anonymous name I hide behind. Surely it is you who is the idiot...making assumptions about someone you don't know?
Anyways, what are you doing reading a "third rate site"? If you don't like it, leave. If you disagree, post an inteligent response reasoning your thinking.
Or, perhaps you have no satisfying interests in the real world, so you manifest your feelings of hate and rejection on the web? Ahh, shame.
The problem with piracy can be debated by; ethicists "Piracy hurts the consumer of the non-pirated good.", by economists "Piracy provides an unfair advantage to the pirates over the industry. Piracy causes market failure over sustained periods of pirate activity.", by business "Pirates no longer make it possible for businesses to operate for profit.", and also by government "Piracy is illegal and should not be allowed to continue.". There is a general, social agreement that piracy is bad in any form. It was not good for the shipping industry or product producers when pirates of the Caribbean siezed cargo and killed sailors. It isn't good now for the shipping industry or product producers when pirates sieze the goods.
While I am an outspoken opponent of the RIAA, it is not because I condone piracy. I sympathize with the individual producers and distributors who are members of the RIAA and are victims of piracy. Rather, I am an opponent of the RIAA because I do not agree with its methods. I do not agree with its collusion with the MPAA to suffer the consumer for its bloated payrolls and static tendencies with regards to there business model. However, that is for another post.
So, this is where I take issue with the RIAA. Profit exists when your revenue exceeds your expenditure. Profit is usually the single most important motivator for big business. Indeed, it is a cornerstone for modern business practices. The RIAA is no different. They are slaved to the marketplace as is any other business. I believe the RIAA in its current form is a collusion of businesses. This strikes me as a violation of anti-competive and anti-trust laws, but that is for another post as well. Because the RIAA is trying to keep costs down, they invariably (and predictably) will choose the most inexpensive and effective method to combat piracy. They will sue the makers of KaZaa to quit selling their product. This will work in the short-term for piracy that is relayed through KaZaa. In the process they will cause to suffer; file-sharing technologies, general consumers, and eventually ISP's, and other businesses.
Piracy will surface again in a different form if not KaZaa. Eventually, the RIAA will attempt to follow the next low-cost (with regards to the RIAA) alternative to combating piracy, and that would be to sue the ISP's for allowing pirated transmissions. They may even file in conjunction with the MPAA and BSA. This will cause all but the largest ISP's to fold or reach a settlement out of court to ban file-sharing (speculation on my part). Piracy will again arise only with a new face, because neither approach will solve the problem of piracy. Rather they act as a treatment for the symptoms of piracy. Again, it isn't necessarily the pirates that suffer. It is the general public and information exchange businesses. Another poster mentioned "throwing the baby out with the bath water" and I am inclined to agree with that statement. This and future attempts to halt piracy, lengthen time limits on copyrights and IP, and force technology companies to include control technologies (macrovision, copy-protection, and DRM) only serve to make example of the fact that the RIAA is unwilling or unable to change their business models to reflect the new marketplace.
So how do we stop piracy? The answer is as complex as it is simple. All "social" problems that plague our world societies are affected by the behavior of its people. Arguably we could attribute the absolute root cause to be a motivational issue that provides the impulse for a behavior. But the problem is enacted by people and therefore we must seek to control it first at that level and then a lower level if possible. If follows then that to stop piracy you target your attempts at the pirate. While it is infinitely easier to remove KaZaa than individual pirates, it does not solve the problem of piracy. Simply taking KaZaa away from pirates is a kin to taking guns from murderers. The murderers will stab, chop, poison, blow-up, run-down, choke, bludgeon, and use other methods to accomplish their goal. However, in the process you would have taken away guns, axes, rat-poison, flammable materials, automobiles, piano-wires, and bats (to name a few) from non-murderers. Additionally, the murderers would still exist in society as a problem.
The RIAA should seek to remove the pirate without harming others. Understand what motivates the pirate and remove their motivation not their tools. A tool cannot on its own enact piracy, it requires direction. A pirate can find new tools and invent new methods of piracy. A pirate cannot invent new motivations. Motivations are created for them by their environment.
To know is to have knowledge....to understand is to be enlightened.
Other systems are more distributed and the open source clients do not contain spyware/advertising this is much more difficult. You can only chase after the users, many of which are in other countries.
Regrettably in some countries such as Germany, lawyers can freelance to protect copyright. A lawyer may approach a user directly and apply a fine, of which he keeps part and forwards the rest to the IP owner. If you want to challenge this in court, you can but that costs money unless you are a lawyer. Some scumbags in Germany have been applying this trick on everything from domain names to kids swapping games.
What we need is a better "Freenet" with anonymity and the ability to transfer files in bulk like ed2k.
How would you feel if the post office went after e-mail just because it cost them money? How is this any different?
I think that would be pretty obvious to most people after about 10 seconds thought.
HINT: it has something to do with who writes the letter/music.
-a
If you have every heard of or used Kazaa you know that it is a tool that is used to steal music. You dont have the music and want it...Hmmm i think ill download kazaa and rip my favorite artists off. If you already own the cd's and are making playlists, YOU are what this medium should be intended for. They should incorporate a "serial password" into each song. If you have a compatible password then you can download it. Otherwise.. nope! They also need to CLEAN OUT THE PORN! Has anybody ever heard of Adult Mart?
kazaa is ad/spyware anyway. not like they are the champion of consumer rights. there are tons of other progs like shareaza, winmx, ares, not to mention newsgroups, ftps etc etc.
record industry is screwed. what are they going to do? tell the government to turn the internet off so they can continue their price fixing on cds'? they are already convicted monopolists (in civil court) and probably felons to boot.
and the idea of going after individual users is laughable. how can they prove the music was downloaded illegally? what if i bought the cassette, cd years ago, but lost it. or i sold the physical cassette/cd as a coaster, but retained the rights to the content. just because i cant produce an official copy of the media does not mean i dont have rights to use it.
even if this type of habeas discus argument does fly, and someone is found to have (gasp) downloaded a file without paying revenue, this is not a criminal action. only civil damages would apply, and how are those assessed? full retail value of the cd? i think not, the record industry is there to distribute, in this case they havent done a lick of work. the cost to them was nothing. they may claim that ppl would otherwise have bought the cd. but that only goes so far. ppl will only spend disposable income on music (fanatics&afficionados aside). therefore damages cant be set at how much music was downloaded. lets say someone downloads 1000 cd's in a year, but has an annual income of 30k. there is no way the record industry will convince any judge this person would have in their right mind spent half their salary on cd's.
just because someone downloaded a file does not meant they still have it. then what? are they still required to pay for a cd?
kazaa will prolly go down because they are making money bootlegging cd's. although they do not charge for the cd itself they make money from the advertising it generates. even their "legit" service thrives on the publicity of their bootlegging operation. If kazaa cant be sued because they have hidden their assets in tax havents, etc, then those who profit from their bootlegging can be instead (read: anyone who advertises with them)
in the end kazaa is not as secure as winmx or shareaza, two very good, FREE, p2p apps. they are decentralized, no spyware, no ads, and no revenue to target. only way to get rid of them is to turn of the internet.
A name you can trust.
Sorry about posting as an AC, firewall issues.
Can someone tell me where it's written that (insert artist's name here) deserves to make 1 kazillion dollars per year on their record sales, while people like teachers, doctors, police have to work their asses off for $50,000 per year! Would it be so bad if Mariah Carey only earned $100,000 next year?
It's these old assumptions that some people have that say "since it's always been this way, it will always be this way". Maybe the record industry needs a market correction like the stock market is getting right now.
When I watch "cribs" on MTV and see some of these artists with 4 homes, 18 cars and an indoor b-ball court, I don't feel as bad d/l'ing the occasional 1 hit-wonder (because I do still buy CD's).
And we all know if the artist's are making 1 kazillion dollars, the Record companies 1 billion kazillion.
Thanks
P.S - the Canadian Gov't is hitting us with a huge tax on CDr's to "cope with illegal copying" - current price for 100 Cd's=$29, current tax=$21, proposed 2nd tax=$59 - total price if new tax in $88 (plus our normal 14% taxes). Bastards.
How do they intend to turn off Kazaa networking when a: You can send pictures (ie Jupitor flybies) via it as well, and b it's not centralised (Ok it is only if you by some abstract Chaostician theorums.) beyoned that...but the RIAA is still making you it's bitch slashshit
What's the difference? People can still write music. All that's changed is that a bunch of middlemen are no longer going to get fat from the practice. In the real world, it is extremely rare for the band to profit from music sales. The music creators aren't getting harmed, except maybe the talentless ones that rely on heavy promotion and heavy silicon implants to make those sales.
Branching off on this analogy, how about a magazine? The web has cost a lot of magazine sales, as people don't need to pay to read (e.g.) reviews of consumer items. Are they persuing legal claims to score some income by taxation of the web? Are they looking for taxation of the paper that may be used to print out those articles? Of course not, the magazines saw what was happening, adapted, created web-based departments and looked at ways of profiting from that. They come up with advertising, premium content and affliate programs. Good on them!
Why should the music industry get any special breaks because they missed the boat? Welcome to the real world. Evolve or die.
OK, so my earlier comparison wasn't 100% accurate, but when is an analogy ever that complete? My main point was that new technologies come along that render old ones obselete. Some companies have business plans based on those old systems. Why should the legal system offer them any protection?
Ultimatly, the legal system and the government are supposed to look out for the needs of the people. Keeping music expensive and limiting the distribution to a few select companies who already have a history of abusing power is not representing the need of the people.
I was trying to make a joke about their current legal argument. Such a download message might make their court case a lot more convincing.
Everyone would still use it if they knew about the ad network. It's a fantastically useful system, despite the drawbacks. Hopefully they'll get squashed, and eventually one of the hydra heads will have none of the drawbacks.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I wonder if the RIAA would have enough money to file these dumb lawsuits, if people would boycott commercial music altogether. Hit them where they hurt the most boycott all music that you have to pay for to listen to. Many good artists out there share their stuff for free.
Kazaa has a legitimate use in allowing distribution of material that isn't restricted by copyright holders, as well as distributing DRM style files that can be paid for and activated after downloading. The monopoly angle doesn't work, however, since copyright holders are granted a monopoly by law, so legally have the exclusive right to license the material to whomever they want.
Vote for Pedro
Why don't we start a National p2p Association? Group our money together and put it towards lobbing congress. I'd sure feel a lot better spending ten bucks towards something like that in membership dues, than I would giving the RIAA that money via MusicNet and such.
http://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmares
"How would you feel if the post office went after e-mail just because it cost them money?"
That's a terrible analogy. Kazaa has no copyright to the material distributed using its software. Whether the blame is to be put on the end users (my opinion) or Kazaa is the only real issue here.
Vote for Pedro
I think it's a misnomer to say that bands rarely profit from album sales. Without albums, distribution, airplay, and promotion, they would never have had a career to begin with. Still, all these discussions on /. have revealed the fact that the bands are still probably getting a raw deal. If P2P use inspired those discussion then that's great, but two wrongs still don't make a right. Music piracy does little to help artists get a better deal from the labels in the future.
/. when someone reposts the text because the site has been slashdotted). The problem with analogies is that you can choose a comparison that ignores the most salient issue. Like I said before, it all to do with who writes the material.
I don't really like branching off on analogies, but your magazine comparison is yet another red herring. The people who put magazines on the web are either freelancers who use their own material, or print publishers who republish articles they already own. It isn't a case of eZines publishing material they stole from someone else (except on
Frankly, your assertion that "obsolete" industries should "evolve or die" is ridiculous. We don't live in an anarchy. The government has the authority to shut down lucrative industries that are based on illegal acts (e.g. extortion, prostitution, slavery). You seem to forget that the primary product of the music industry is music, not CDs, and music is not obsolete.
Ultimatly, the legal system and the government are supposed to look out for the needs of the people.
Oh, and music industry workers, executives, talent and shareholders aren't people too? Protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority is just as important as protecting the majority from the tyranny of the minority.
-a
...because all that you're saying is not.
I read the article. And I was saying clear cut that Kazaa can't win with that argument.
What part of the Sklyarov / Abode E-books thing did you miss? You are already falling under US jurisdiction if you do a portion of your business with US customers.
Kazaa was not a "business" until a business bought the software. Sure, Sklyarov was punished because he was extradited. There are a lot of countries who will not hand over criminals to the US. But for a business just to waltz right into the US, thinking that they can somehow not play by its legal rules...now that's silly. What I said before, and I'll say again, is that it's much easier for the RIAA to sue a business than a single man on the run.
If you had read the article, you would know that they are suing not for the right to illegally distribute content, but that they are suing because the RIAA had illegally prevented Kazaa from licensing content.
I read the article. I'm also reading exactly what you're saying. And you know what? What you're saying is a joke. I mean, it's actually hilarious. How much sense does it make for me to sue, say, KMart for not providing enough Handicap parking spaces when I'm not even handicapped? Why is Kazaa suing the recording industry for not licensing online content to them when, even if the RIAA DID grant them, almost all the music running through their network would still be pirated?
Because of the special status afforded music in this culture, and the blanket licensing terms for radio and other playback, there are certain circumstances under which a company cannot legally refuse to license music.
Yes, but licensing music to an organization which plans on proliferating said music to the millions without giving any compensation back in return is not one of those circumstances.
Seriously. Get down from your "Internet supersedes Copyright Law" pedistal and look at the simple details. The RIAA will not license music to anyone who does not plan on paying for the license. Kazaa is not going to pay hundreds of millions in royalties just to give away music. And they're certainly not going to win a lawsuit when their only argument boils down to, "We should be able to distribute music for free because the music industry isn't letting us do it for free."
The recording industry is going to lose a lot of money pursuing each and every file sharing service. Every time they knock one down, a new one is going to show up, requiring more lawyers and lawsuits to stop.
Also, what would be nice is if they got some donations off of this lawsuit so they could get better lawyers and pose a real threat to the RIAA. And hell, if they win, it'll usher in a new era of avenging napster...
why would anyone care about kazaa. Kazaa is dead. giFT (using openFT protocol) is the future. However; anything that can hurt the RIAA is good for the people.
I'm in a band on the record label Plutonic Records, and we sell all our cds on the net, and distribute them free on giFT, and we make more than a good enough living, so RIAA, stop saying your protecting the bands, because your not, Your just making an ass of yourself, and need to stop attempting to write damaging virii for linux, its hopeless.
Fuck the RIAA
everyone seems to be making such a big stink of this just like napster.
do you really THINK this will be the end of P2P filesharing programs?
the RIAA will never win. ever.
has anyone been able to truly copy protect cds? i really think this is where the recording industry needs to take control. if this happens they have a great chance for victory.
but they can't and won't do this.
Maybe even having a suit as this is a win for them, even if they can't convince court, people might reconsider their attitude to RIAA.