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."
Yeah, I wouldn't have believed this myself, but according to a recent wired article on Kazaa, they are making money from ad revenue. I quote the article here.
m l?pg=1&topic=&topic_set=
"In the last six months alone, PC users have downloaded more than 90 million copies. Kazaa has 60 million users around the world and 22 million in the US - an irresistible audience to marketers. Last year, Sharman raked in millions from US advertisers like Netflix and DirecTV, without spending a penny on content. The chase could have gone on forever."
-Wired
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.02/kazaa.ht
The article also mentions their side-business model of teaming up with Altnet, by providing access to Altnet products (paid downloads, supposedly). They, I believe, will use the side-business model to argue that the existence of the company depends on a valid, legal method of generating revenue.
Of course, according to the article only 600 files are offered from Altnet. I think this makes Sharman's countersuit quite flimsy- the bulk of their revenue is derived from ads that sit piggy-back on top illegal activity. I don't think they'll be able to show convincingly that they actually have a viable business model with respect to Altnet.
Then again, if Altnet and Sharman can spit out a convincingly story of RIAA MPAA etc etc conspiracy to monopolize and deprive, the judges might listen.
Because kazaalite isn't developed from source. They "crack" kazaa to remove spyware and add some functionality in very specefic ways. They don't have the source to KaZaA and i seriously doubt the KaZaA-lite guys know the protocol well enough to develope and add features to a full fledged client.
Why not fork?
Not exactly right...if it is determined that the RIAA has colluded and attempted to illegally control the distribution end of digital music (termed 'overreaching' in the article), their copyrights are not valid. Therefore, Kazaa is conducting "legal business" in files which have no copyright!
Also consider that previous attempts were made to secure authorization "in good faith" by others who were later sued into the ground....the RIAA has really set themselves up for this....read this month's wired too...their collusion to control this distribution is well known.
The best possible defense is a strong offense, and if the people at Sharman have even ONE smoking gun from the RIAA, they're toast.
The US Senate has already looked into this collusion angle too, it's well known...all they gotta do is prove that they "were not allowed to conduct lawfull business" by the RIAA and it's over.
This could potentially be the biggest damage to the RIAA of all....think what would happen if they lost copyright on their entire catalogs?....
This is VERY much down with the Khan quote above "from hell's heart I stab at thee".....go 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."
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
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.
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.
RIAA's hands are pretty bloody. They are guilty of anti-trust violations. Illegal cartel activities. Try googling for it.
Anyone who owns a copyright is entitled under copyright law to legally defend that copyright
Unless a court rules you have abused that copyright. In that case the court has the power to revoke your right to protect that copyright.
P.S.
I phrased it as "revoking your right to protect a copyright" because that's the way I originally saw it written. IANAL, but as far as I know it is essentially the same thing as revoking the copyright itself.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
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"