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?
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.
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.
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
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
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
"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
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)
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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"
Comparing file trading to deadly drugs of abuse. Nice straw man.
How ya like dat?
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.