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 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.
Isn't kazaa not supposed to be responsible for the content, but only for the software which was "intended" to distribute legal paid content?
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...
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...
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
So the courts are just there as a place to convene the high-priced lawyers?
I'd like to think that if the plaintiff has a 100% legitimate case, or the defendant has a 100% air tight defence then either will win on that alone. And the judges also like to make themselves relevant. Call it a 'personal pride' thingy.
The world is what you make it.
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.
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.
Can't they just say people in the US are not permitted to download or use their software, and by that claim that US infringers are not lawfully their customers, and so evade prosecution alltogether?
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
"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."
When I used Kazaa, I ran across some sponsored content that they promoted. If memory serves, it was a music video, but I can't remember the band. (Wasn't my thing)
They got me to download it and authorize a license etc. Though I didn't like the music, I thought it was kinda cool. If they could get movies to me this way, I would have no problem spending money on it.
Is the corollary to this that both sides will be willing to concede that there is no legal use for KaZaa lite? Both sides squeezing the middle out?
"You're never ready, just less unprepared."
You need to spend more time talking to philosophers and/or logicians. You will soon find out that a lot can be made out the distinction between the actual and the possible - the distinction between what is and what might have been.
Although philosophers have a very technical use for the term, it does corespond roughly to the common use, which is to indicate a greater degree of reality or probability of occurance. So for example the difference between "this post might be off topic" and "this post might actually be off topic" is that the second suggests more than a mere possibility - it suggests something that has a good chance of being true.
I've got the feeling the artists signed to their respective lables will still end up loosing out, ragardless of the outcome. If Kazaa win, I hope they start paying some royalty to the starving artists...
Hey relax fella, you need a rest, guy.
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.
This does make sense in fact. You are not allowed to use intellectual property rights to protect a monopoly (other than the monopoly expressly granted by the ip-right obviously). So for example, IBM was not allowed to use its BIOS copyrights to defend a monoply on PC hardware. Courts can infact void intellectual property rights which are misused in this way.
It sounds like Kazaa is arguing that copyright owners are in fact a monopoly (presumably Kazaa is arguing that the Music industry is trying to maintain a monopoly in the online retail market), and that they are using their ip to defend this monopoly (that is they are suing anyone who tries to compete in the online retail market for copyright infringement), which would in fact be illegal.
An interesting feature of this strategy is that it may force any copyright infringement cases to be put on hold until after the anti-trust case is resolved - which may well take 10 years or more (the IBM case it was not reolved until long after it had ceased to matter).
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.
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.
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?
Wrong. What they want is money. What they have initiated is a defensive action against someting they were expecting to come, since they have probably watched Napster go down and learned from it.
Say this action can keep them in activities for another six months, by spending $1000000 in legal costs. If in the same time they earn $2000000 by ads on their servers etc, they have won. Then they will happily close shop, having squeazed all the possible money from the situation.
The question is, who is paying all the money for the lawyers? Let's see.
- Kazaa money comes mostly from ads; ads money comes from the companies selling the advertised goods, that will recover it by adding 2 cents to every product they sell to us.
- RIAA money comes from the record companies, which recover it adding 2 cents for each CD they are selling to us.
In other words, you (and me) are paying lawyers to go against other lawyers also payed by you (and me). So, I hope you are enjoying the show.Ciao
----
FB
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...
Nope, it won't do anything. The same thought was behind harsh anti-drug sentancing, and it made no difference. Anyone can still get pot, anytime.
Just like the war on drugs, it's not so much a tactic to stop piracy outright as it is to make the general public think twice about it. Those who insist on pirating without getting caught will still find ways to do it.
Right now, the situation on P2P networks is like being able to go to a crowded shopping mall, shouting "I want to buy pot!" and many dealers come running over to you, eager to sell with no notice whatsoever by any members of law enforcement.
Dealing drugs and casual (for private use) music/video/software piracy cannot really be compared. The man selling drugs on the street is most likely well aware of the situation he's putting himself in and is willing to risk capture because he needs the money he's making for one reason or another (addiction, debt, etc.). The man with an open file share has a lot more to lose by being jailed and gains nothing of value by keeping his shared directory open.
---
DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
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.
Unless the suit is totally baseless then there is a real chance the RIAA will fail to get it thrown out no matter how much they spend on laywers. Spending a billion dollars on laywers is certainly an advantage, but it doesn't guarentee a win *if* Kazaa has a real case.
I think theyre asking for too much
We all know the penalties for violating copyright law are severe. Well, if Kazaa prooves the RIAA violated copyright law in the way they claim then that's the legally mandated penalty.
Can can Kazaa prove their case? I have no idea. But even if they can't then it can still be effective leverage against the RIAA lawsuit. The RIAA may negotiate a settlement to drop both lawsuits.
The RIAA is filing lawsuits and threatening lawsuits left and right and driving people out of bussiness. I have no sympathy for the RIAA defending themselves against a lawsuit that threatens to do the same to them.
It would be poetic justice for the RIAA to be wiped out for violating copyright law.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
LOL, are you trying to be funny? You know that the artist will see little of these royalties. It would probably be similar to the amount they get per-CD, that is, not much.
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?
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 ----
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~
> How's that? Did someone actually find some good music to steal?
There are people who use Kazaa without ever downloading mp3 files. I don't download music, but Kazaa is useful to me, and I hope it becomes an important stepping stone towards easy distribution of free (whether beer or coffee or whatever kind of free you care about) software in the future.
My life will be so much better when I can download those operating system ISO images without having to wrestle an ftp server into the ground.
-JC
PS: I do admit that I may have helped my sister download mp3 files in the past. But her unhealthy addiction, much like someone's addiction to an illegal drug, must be weaned out of her gradually; I'm certainly not going to call the police on her, as that would obviously ruin her life without causing benefit to anyone.
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.