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."
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
....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.
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.
Horny housewife sluts paid for my college education. Don't you tell me ads don't pay off!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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).
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....
Well, this one time I downloaded a porn and it had some pretty sweet rock in the background.
I am a viral sig. Please copy me and help me spread. Thank you.
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.
I don't think they'll be able to show convincingly that they actually have a viable business model
Hmm, where have I seen the phrase "viable business model" before?
Oh yeah, it was the Microsoft anti-trust settlement.
Can someone please explain to me since when does the "viability" of a bussiness model have ANYTHING to do with legal/illegal or your rights?
Someone can have a bussiness model of planting quarters and hoping to harvest dollars when they grow into trees. He has a right to go on planting quarters until he runs out of quarters and goes broke.
Courts can consider the legality of planting quarters, but they have no place considering whether a bussiness model is viable.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
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.