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."
....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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
No no, you missed it. It's not the violation of a copyright that they're claiming is legal; it's the Altnet service which "delivers authorized, paid content".
Sony ha
Who ends up getting blown up in the end?
Sure the RIAA might lose its Hillary Rosen (or other beloved long-time character that's quitting,) but she'll just come back in the sequel. The lesson: There's always another Hillary Rosen.
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
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."
That's a good theory, but unfortunately it doesn't work in the world of intellectual property.
There is a huge difference between stealing tangible goods like car parts, and stealing a program executable.
I'm not trying to start a 50+ reply chain where users would debate the morality of downloading a program vs. stealing a candy bar. Just pointing out how the model is flawed when comparing 2 different consumer goods.
Kazaa does sell -a lot- of ads, plus they don't require the same server power as Napster did. Also, companies will pay more for spyware than a simple banner ad.
If Napster made money, Kazaa is making much more.
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.
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.
If Kazaa wins on the grounds that the records companies did indeed colude to stiffle competition, and that renders their copyrights invalid. BAM!!! Kazaa has just killed the RIAA.
Didn't Kazaa cut off access to users of another FastTrack client [Music City thing?]
If they could do that, what's to stop them cutting off access to the free Kazaa, and only allowing the pay Kazaa service to be accessed, at some point?
Is it only me that sees this, or have I missed something?
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
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.
Well, entrepenuers take note: if you profit because of folks conducting illegal business in your workplace, make sure that you make a few legitimate bucks on the side, and you'll be just peachy keen with the feds.
I've never heard of anything so silly. Altnet cannot act as a band-aid for the illegal file swapping that is Kazaa's primary reason for existence, and properity.
Insightful: 76, Off-Topic: 379, Flamebait: 24, Funny: 152, Interesting: 201, Underrated: 55, Troll: 9, Total: 896
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.
In Internetland, several companies started out offering free services, hoping to later entice users into paying for a similar or enhanced service, and some services (*ahem* slashdot) which had planned to be free/hobby activities grew into commercial services. Their argument might go something like this:
The standard Kazaa system was deployed with two goals. In the short term, the network's ad revenues will cover various logistical expenses. In the long term, it will demonstrate to consumers (home users) and producers (independent artists) the value of P2P. However, because Kazaa run by unpaid users and producers, some participants in the system don't perform consistently: There's no guaruntee that a file will be available, or that the version of a file you download today will be available tomorrow. Our for-pay service, Altnet, will provide higher quality, better selection (artists looking for money will be more willing to participate), and better marketing (prioritization in search results). In fact, all value in P2P is the presence of other parties willing to share disk space and bandwidth. If we hadn't deployed Kazaa as a free and pure service before Altnet, we could not have reached the critical mass required to make AltNet viable.
Why would they lose the right to enforce their copyrights? I hope Kazaa wins this, but I don't see any US court saying the RIAA copyrights are invalid as a result.
This is the first well written rebuttal to the 'pirates' among us... However, you fail to address one point... consider the bottled water industry, they compete with the *free* water from the taps, and do quite well... What the RIAA needs to do is to differentiate their products from those you can download... how about the new EMINEM w/DVD features on the CD...that'd be a pain to DL... and remember when album cover art was important...
IF the RIAA wants to compete then make it worth my while to pay for it... I will... all KAZAA et al. represents is 4 million consumers saying that things have to change... that also means that 4 million consumers are a willing market for music that offers something better than 4 minutes of DL and 128kbs or $16.99 @ HMV
_CMK
Bad spellers of the world untie!
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.
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.
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.
I don't know about you, but about half of the non-radio music I listen to is very eclectic. The rest of it is the stuff that the RIAA tends to sponsor.
I also find that when I pay $15 for a CD, I only ever listen to maybe 3 of the 12-20 songs on it (with a few notable exceptions), and most of these songs I have never heard of in the first place - for good reason. I don't like paying that much money to get only a few songs.
- "Nobody came out that night, not one was ever seen. But Old Man Stauf is waiting there, crazy sick and mean!"
translation:
blah bla-blah blah blah
You are actually missing the point. Let me see if I can do better than cnet.com.
Kazaa/Sharman (Kazaa, for simplicity), is *not* trying to argue that the RIAA's (and its members') illegal conduct justifies its own promotion of piracy. This is an entirely separate claim altogether. In essence, they are claiming that they and Altnet *tried* to get licenses to the majors' music catalogs (so that they could *sell* P2P access and/or copy-protected copies), but that they were illegally refused.
Assuming (accurately) that the majors control the vast vast majority of music copyrights, and that they illegally agreed (not yet proven) not to deal with Altnet/Kazaa, but instead only with their own online distribution arms, then a judge can find that they have thereby inhibited legal competition in the online distribution market.
That being said, one common consequence of copyright (or other intellectual property) -related antitrust conduct is that the copyrights are rendered "unenforceable." If that occurred, then even if Kazaa's actions constituted copyright infringement (actual or inducing), they cannot be held liable because the copyrights at issue would be unenforceable.
In other, more simple words, the counterclaim doesn't attempt to justify Kazaa'a purported wrongs based on bad conduct by the record companies... it's just a really lovely side effect.
In all likelihood, such a draconian remedy would never be issued by a judge (imagine if all of the copyrights of all the majors were summarily rendered unenforceable.... anarchy!). Having worked for the lawyer in question, though, the likely intent is to gain negotiating leverage by the simple possibility of a "death sentence," however remote.
Glad to see them fighting back.
No, really! I'm one of the *good* lawyers!
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
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)
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.
m e-to-obtain-more-commercial-power to me...
You are also speaking from a United States legal perspective. From a non-US perspective, what gives the US the right to dictate world-wide commercial and legal jurisdiction? I know that a lot of people believe that might-makes-right (considering the fact that we can nuke anybody we don't like)... but I'm not sure that I believe nukes justify the superiority of US legal code over UN legal code or another country's legal code. But, I'm not a laywer either... Something seems fishy about the US practice of global-superpower-throws-weight-around-all-the-ti
Right, as with all other filesharing networks. This poses a serious question (one that will be answered in the courts): if a product clearly states its intended use yet a consumer abuses it anyway, who should be held liable? The consumer, or the one who created the product? If we liken this to the "guns don't kill people; people do" argument, then obviously the answer is "the consumer". Also, since there are laws which you break when you kill someone with a gun, you are actually prosecuted for it (assuming they find you), but the gun manufacturer or the gun shop that sold it does not.
:) yet drivers frequently violate the rules by making illegal U-turns, speeding, tailgating, etc. Obviously the local police force can't go after every single person who breaks the law, since they'd spread themselves too thin enforcing something is relatively trivial compared to more important issues (like saving people's lives), so they catch whoever they can when they can.
However, with Kazaa there are way too many users to prosecute that way, so I don't think I'd liken Kazaa to the gun argument. Instead, I think Kazaa is more similar to state-owned roads. The intended use of the roads is clearly stated (er, well usually at least
Because of this, I believe a similar approach ought to be taken with Kazaa and other filesharing networks. There's no way in hell the media warlords will be able to catch everyone, nor will they be able to put down filesharing completely (we've seen this hydra-like behavior happen before -- shut down one network, several others appear in its place). Their best bet would be to allow these networks to continue exist, and use the resources they would otherwise spend on shutting them down on 'policing' the networks like traffic cops.
. However, you fail to address one point... consider the bottled water industry, they compete with the *free* water from the taps, and do quite well...
This is really a bad analogy, and I think its telling that its the only one anyone has been able to come up with on this point. Water is considered a vital public need, and the centralized water supply system exists both for public health reasons, and for industrial needs. Popular entertainment is not, it is a pure luxury and not something anyone needs in order to live. Moreover (excepting the fake bottled tap water which I believe is a special case since its sold alongside coke/pepsi in vending machines, etc.), its not the same water. Most bottled water brands have a separate proprietary source of water which offers a distinctive market advantage over tap water...whereas the tracks you get from kazaa are the exact same thing on CD. What you have with Kazaa is more like someone running a wildcat pipeline off of the Evian spring, bottling the water themselves, and selling it for half the price. Just like pirating music, this would be illegal unless they had a prior agreement with the property owner.
If there is no law passed, only pressure from the industry, that won't work. The people who do implement it will lose their business to those who don't implement it. And remember, the Tech industry dwarfs the music industry. Will Sony risk its $40 billion electronics division to help out it's 'slice of $20 billion' music division?
if they do try to get legislation, the tech industry will fight back. It will be like the Jananese attacking pearl harbor all over again. A small defiant attack will bring hell upon them.
That's like claiming that your Heroin trading outfit is legal because now and then, you DO deliver pizzas.
Besides, I see this lawsuit as a double edged sword. By filing this lawsuit, Kazaa kind of admits that they do conduct business in the U.S., while simultaneously they go to great lengths to assert that they are incorporated in Vanatu.
Now that is one, brilliant, troll. Artwork. A masterwork. I blush to offer but a single criticism, you tipped your hand early by writing "Just like with gay sex and open-source software..." so soon in this opus. Easily offset by the $6000 Bose system howler, daring and audacious, truly the work of a superior wordsmith.
This humble acolyte looks eagerly towards future pearls dropped from your hand.
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....
Ummm... I see that a lot of people miss the point by far. Kazaa itself is not illegal. It is just a tool for P2P sharing of files. It never said it is for sharing illegal stuff (copyrighted material). The fact that the users use it for illegal stuff is a complete different stuff and please keep that in mind. Also according to the laws in most countries the fact that the users "missuse" it, doesn't make the tool itself illegal. It is like trying to interdict knifes cause they can also be used to kill someone beside their intended domestic use.
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.
Because, sometimes they just have to touch the stove.
-YY1
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.
Comparing file trading to deadly drugs of abuse. Nice straw man.
How ya like dat?
It has everything to do with legality in the case of Anti-Trust.
The monopoly has to prove that they are engaging in a practice for reasons other than undermining potential competition. Generally, this can include selling things at a loss, locking out distribution channels (like the **AA is being accused of here) or any other practice that normally wouldn't make sense unless you had a monopoly-type advantage and were trying to keep competition at a minimal level.
Dissolve... Resolve... Evolve...
At first, I thought this was a really well thought-out response. At reading 5, however, it began to break down. The last paragraph really stole the credibity, for me.
I'd like to preface my response with an assumption. It's a pretty safe one, that I think everyone will agree with. Here 'tis:
THE RIAA IS (for all intents and purposes, if not technically) A MONOPOLY.
Here's the rub: arguments about competition, economics, market dynamics, etc. get severely skewed when you realize that one of the organizations in question is a monopoly. What's the reality of that? They have 90%+ market share, they hold all the cards, all the money, all the lawyers, all the Congressman, all the power. Barriers to entry are obscenely high. Supply, price, and availability are at their whim. They can eliminate competition with a twitch of their shoulder. In short: They rule the roost, and there's little room for another rooster.
So. You've got a company that's been wildly successful, probably built a lot of cool stuff, and played the game with uncommon saavy. Congratlations. Unfortunately, here's the bottom line, and the catch: there is *zero* incentive for a monopoly to innovate or price products fairly in that particular market. None. Zero. Nada. Consumers don't have a choice, so why the hell should they waste cash on R&D when they can pump out yesterday's crap at today's inflation-adjusted price? Don't like the pricing? Tough. Buy it somewhere else. Oh, whoops, no where else to get it. Sorry.
Napster/Aimster/Kazaa et al. have given the RIAA severe pause. They've scrambled to get Congress to litigate the hell out of their market, while at the same time showing some signs of reacting to demands from their market (fledgling on-line music delivery). Artists are finally getting vocal about their experiences with the RIAA, and once in a while look like they might do something about it. The RIAA is scared. And when companies are scared, and fighting for their survival, and have a competitor who poses a real threat, markets evolve. Consumers benefit. Things change.
That's the real reason I support all of the P2P networks: for possibly bringing change to the industry. Oh, sure, I like it 'cause I can grab Led Zepplin's 'Tangerine' without paying $18 for a 25-year-old album, but there's more to it. The P2P networks are forcing old consortiums to take a look at their practices, no matter what the motivation, and waking up consumers to the realities of what's going on in a particular space. And that's why you, Mr. AC, as a supposed defender of IP, should rethink your Bush-esque philosophy on hunting down the bastards at Kazaa. They might finally bring change to a stagnate, notably vicious organization. And I may see my dream of paying less for the 'Almost Famous' soundtrack than I did for the DVD.
Here's to you, Sherman Networks: for giving the RIAA a giant headache, for employing lawyers around the globe, and for giving me singles I would never buy. I don't think you'll win, frankly, but it'll be a helluva fight, and I look forward to the aftermath. Rock on, and good luck.
Footnote: a 40oz. of OE for my homies at Napster. I'll wager you had no idea what you'd start.
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.
Keep in mind, they are selling to a lot of skinflint music stealers - not exactly big money-spenders. I wonder if advertisers consider that?
But the "companies" that sell black market satellite dishes would target their demographic nicely!
From hell's heart I fstab at /dev/hdc
No, thats not quite right. Kazaa lite has legal uses in the form of legitimate sharing of appropriately licensed material. For example, if I'm a musician, I can upload my own music. Similarly, you can acquire copyrighted material for fair-use purposes (i.e. searching for a specific image for a school project, etc.). The presence of legal uses for a peice of equipment was all you needed, until recently, to guarentee the right to produce it. This was essentially Sony's argument ages ago in the home VCR disputes, and was supported by the courts.
Kazaa's new argument is seperate from this: they claim that the sister-app to Kazaa, Altnet, is an entirely legal (i.e. no illegal purposes possible) means of profit-making for Kazaa. Moreover, they claim that it offers a means to directly cut the profits of those companies which are suing Kazaa. These two points together mean that they're able to claim that the suing companies (i.e. rcaa, etc.) are not out to protect their copyrights legally, but are instead attempting to act as an illegal trust seeking to protect their monopoly.
Its quite ballsy, in my opinion, but it just might work.
"Stumble before you crawl"
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I'd like to offer a bit of a tweak to your analogy, if you don't mind.
Instead of:"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."
How about: "Kazaa, and the auto parts store, reply that they are only sponsoring the swap meet to generate foot traffic for their legitimate business. Their goal is to grow the legitimate business and stop sponsoring the swap meet, and they would have succeeded already if the auto makers' {who have a monopoly on auto-parts in our example) would make them a fair deal on wholesaling. But the Monopolists only want parts sold through their own channels."
According to Kazaa, the RIAA members should not be allowed to enforce their government-granted copyright/monopoly until they stop abusing their monopoly by extending it to distribution channels. I don't think the judge will buy it, and I don't think Kazaa was trying to convince the judge so much as mounting a PR campaign. But what do I know.
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
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.