Slashdot Mirror
Kazaa Sues Record Labels
dannyp writes "CNN is reporting that Kazaa is suing the record companies, claiming that they used an illegal client to log in to the P2P network - an interesting twist." The lawsuit also claims "...efforts to combat piracy on Kazaa violated terms for using the network."
I wish I was a lawyer, not an engineer...
I'm glad there's some legal action going the other way for once.
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
This is probably a futile move. But yet I can't stop grinning thinking about someone standing up to those people for once. DirecTV being sued as well.....I think perhaps people are tired of being pushed around. That and Kazza stands to lose money.
must... resist... urge... to ... post.... cliches!
resisting.... what goes... around... comes around... aaaah... pot... kettle... black... force is stronger... glass houses... AAAAH.
heh
Skiers and Riders -- http://www.snowjournal.com
But the RIAA have no such powers... Oh except the ones where they can buy really expensive lawyers and win the case anyway. Yeah, those are handy.
if they promise not make any more CDs
New year Resolution: Don't change sig this year
Kazaa recently withdrew their suit after they realized they were suing a 60 year old woman with an iMac. This follows the current trend of trying to give a random old lady a heart attack.
... that Kazaa started fighting back. I knew those tactics that the RIAA was using (clients that messed up the network, clients that introducted viruses, etc) were on the border of legality - I had almost forgotten that Kazaa (unlike gnutella) is a privately owned network... or protocol... or something. Kudos to Kazaa... now if they only got rid of their spyware...
Heck, no, individuals don't have enough money to have rights.
I have always felt that a P2P network could protect itself by requiring in a license to use said network that no users will use the service to collect IP addresses. In that case they could go after the RIAA for either theft of network services or even DMCA abuse for using an illegal client.
This would not protect network users if law enforcement were to request valid subpoenas for the job, but it would stop non-law enforcement bodies like the RIAA from doing what they are doing now.
This is using our enemies methods against them, which makes it sweet.
The lawsuit also claims "...efforts to combat piracy on Kazaa violated terms for using the network."
This is kinda like claiming improper search and seizure for drug cases. I wonder if there is precedent in electronic law.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
There's some weird language in the DMCA that enables the RIAA to directly subpoena suspected infringers' information from their ISP. Supposedly, it only takes a court clerk signature... Not even a judge has to review the subpoena...
Does KaZaA really have the financial resources to launch a successful legal attack on the RIAA? I mean, the media conglomerates are rolling in dough. I've never really understood KaZaA's business model and find it hard to believe that they stand a chance. Regardless of merit, the RIAA have got to have some killer lawyers.
Much as I'd like to see KaZaA fight back, I just don't see this being a fair fight. I suspect KaZaA will withdraw their legal challenge pretty soon.
GMD
watch this
I want in on the action! Who can I sue!?
Look it's a joke about my sig IN MY SIG! LOL!
The article seems to imply that this came as a complete surprise to the RIAA. Talk about an organization that can dish it out, but not take it. They were (allegedly) using unlicensed software. Oh jeez, I'm shocked!
Then again, its kinda like those "stupid news" stories about the burgler sueing the owners of the house he broke into, because the stairs weren't up to code, causing him to trip and break an arm.
Children in the backseats don't cause accidents. Accidents in the back seats cause children.
...AOL sued *you* for accessing their network with Gaim.
If using Kazaa Lite on their network is illegal, I'm sure anybody using mlDonkey/giFT to connect to Kazaa could be in trouble, hypothetically.
The Recording Industry Association of America called Sharman's "newfound admiration for the importance of copyright law" ironic and "self-serving."
I must have missunderstood the purpose of copyright, if it isn't self-serving, what is it for?
i wonder if previous settlements can be overturned if it's proven that RIAA used illegal means to track offenders. after all, incriminating evidence is regularly thrown out of the criminal courts if it was obtained by unlawful search and seizure, through illegal wire taps, botched confessions, etc.
They should encrypt the Kazaa network and sue the RIAA for DMCA violations...
I think that Kazaa will lose. But could this be a rare win-win situation for most people?
If Kazaa wins, the RIAA gets screwed. If Kazaa loses, it harms ridiculous "click here to agree" buttons and it hurts the DMCA?
This is a good thing, but Kazaa people might not see it that way.
Why do I have this? I don't smoke.
...how long until they demand Google pull all R**A links?
If you actually read the KazaaLite license agreement, it specifically states that using the product is illegal (I would install just so I could get the exact wording but I'm at work and would rather not lose my job). I guess the RIAA neglected to read it before installing... Haha!
I swear to God it's like 1984-esque Newspeak. Think one thing. OK, now think the other.
Kazaa sues Google because of Kazaa Lite! Kazaa evil!
Kazaa sues recording industry because they improperly accessed the network! Kazaa good!
Somebody please give me a chart or visual reference for when Kazaa is bad and when the RIAA is bad.
(Alternatively, it's fun to see two evil corporations duking it out, because either way a badguy's going to lose. But that's just my inner optimist.)
We recently had heard in the office over one of the Yellow Machine that's made by Anthology Solutions.
The Recording Industry Association of America called Sharman's "newfound admiration for the importance of copyright law" ironic and "self-serving."
And to that Kazaa replied that the RIAA's newfound disrespect for the legal system ironic and self-serving.
-Sean
Kazaa will be offering an amnesty to the RIAA provided they send in a notorized confession and promise never to monitor the Kazaa network again!
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
man I'd love to wake up one morning to discover both of them blew up in a puff of legal arguments...
No RIAA means no more BS from the record industry.
No Kazaa means my network will be FREE OF CRAP (well except for Windows worms and stuff).
Here's hopin'.
The Verizon case found that the RIAA has the right to get the identities of users who they allege are violating copyright laws by sharing copyrighted music.
... and if the RIAA didn't have more lawyers than quality musicians, the person could do the country a world of good by suing the RIAA.
This finding is still being appealed by Verizon, and Congress is discussing whether this should be allowed to continue. Where the RIAA should get in trouble is with the recent subponea issued for the wrong person. They essentially deprived this person of their right to privacy by wrongfully requesting that the person's ISP reveal their identity. This was in clear violation of their rights
I noticed in an earlier article that the EFF was working with a few of the people that the RIAA was suing. CNN doesn't mention anything about the EFF working with Sharman Networks Ltd. Now IANAL, more of a law & order watcher;) But wouldn't it make sense for the EFF to work with a company that, even though might not be doing so well, still has more resources with which to fight?
Or maybe the EFF doesn't see merit to the case?
Chaos is Divine *
...Service if you are a copyright holder of infringing works traded with our Product or Service, if you are a law enforcement officer active in a jurisdiction which recognizes this copyright, or if your use of our Product or Service will otherwise lead to charges of infringement against any of our Users.
If you do not agree to these terms then you must immediately terminate use of our Service and must destroy all copies of our Product or face prosecution to the fullest extent of the law.
Do you agree to these terms? Yes[ ] No [ ]
.sig Realistic fines for copyright in
You mean Morpheus. They were based on the FastTrack network and then changed to Gnutella. Using Gnucleus, IIRC.
Kazaa OTOH still use the FastTrack network. This network runs over centralized servers, so a third party client could indeed be "stealing" their resources.
If Kazaa wins, could this mean that all "evidence" presented against people that they have been illegally sharing copyrighted music must be thrown out?
Where have you been all this time? DMCA actually obligates ISPs to disclose subscriber information at RIAA's (or other copyright owners' request). So it would be illegal for ISPs not to supply subscribers' information. RIAA can do this without any judicial oversight, let alone having to file a suit first to obtain a subpoena. RIAA has more power than police or FBI themselves!
And it's about time!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I'm rooting for Kazaa just like everyone else on this one, but seriously... this stands about as much chance as the old FTP servers I used to frequent that displayed a banner claiming "If you are a member of a government agency, including law enforcement, you must disconnect now."
----- sXe
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/ECPA2701_ 2712.htm
n d_ CSEA.htm
2701. Unlawful access to stored communications
(a) Offense.--Except as provided in subsection (c) of this section whoever--
(1) intentionally accesses without authorization a facility through which an electronic communication service is provided; or
(2) intentionally exceeds an authorization to access that facility;
and thereby obtains, alters, or prevents authorized access to a wire or electronic communication while it is in electronic storage in such system shall be punished as provided in subsection (b) of this section.
and the CYBER SECURITY ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2002 can be used against them..
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/homela
and the Patriot Act can used against them..
http://www.cybercrime.gov/PatriotAct.htm
Section 212 Emergency Disclosures by Communications Providers
Section 217 Intercepting the Communications of Computer Trespassers
so, by the way that the current computer laws are written, the RIAA could be prosecuted for Hacking under the "Terror Laws"..
the blade cuts BOTH ways..
i hate microsoft.
Warez sites with such a "license" don't exempt themselves from prosecution. It's just some idiotic ploy someone thought up long ago.
There's a big difference between government authorities prosecuting someone who is breaking the law, and a private organization violating one law to see if someone else is breaking another.
If I flagrantly violate the Windows EULA by decompiling, reverse engineering, benchmarking, and doing who-knows-what else to it, could I then absolve myself of this by telling them, "I just did it to see if you guys were up to anything illegal"?
This case is interesting because it pits one private organizations's pseudo-law-enforcement powers against another's ability to make up whatever terms of service they feel like. Whether the RIAA or EULAs get taken down a notch by this, the public stand to win.
If Kazaa loses, wouldn't this set precedent that stupid Software License Agreements are not enforceable?
-IOVAR Web Dev Platform
They claimed that the RIAA was using Kazaa Lite K++, which they also claim is a unauthorized modified version of Kazaa. Still using Kazaa in any form is subject to EULA of Kazaa, and using their network is subject to their TOS. I guess they saw the subpoenas being issued as harassing, or a violation of privacy or something else.
Still many use Kazaa Lite K++ for file sharing, are they too in violation of the license agreement?
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
Because in fact using somebody's network without permission is regarded as criminal tresspass! Kazaa should be filing supoena's to the RIAA to get the identities of the people who trespassed on their network (at the behest of the RIAA) so they can file criminal charges against them... and by the way, doesn't hiring somebody to break the law constitute racketeering? Does RICO apply here?
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The EULA is the weaker law. If you wrote a virus that destroyed computers you couldn't sue someone under the DMCA for reverse engineering it to see what it does in order to track down who wrote it and to keep it off of systems. Damaging other people's property over rules your "right" to privacy.
You cannot use a weak law to protect yourself from a higher law.
The higher law is the laws of copyright. The weak law is the EULA. And it's no secret that illegal MP3's and everything else are being traded on P2P.
The is suffienct 3rd party evidence that laws are being broken on P2P to warrent any legal body having a look-see. You don't have to use Kazaa to know what's going on with it.
This is why EULA's only hold up when a crime isn't being committed. A EULA will never hold up in a case where it's being used to hide a crime.
Ben
Work Safe Porn
Great now il get sued by Kazaa for using Kazaa Lite, and the RIAA for copy-right theft and SunnComm for circumnavigation. Does anyone else want in? Come round to mine for super-hot coffee burns and violent video games!
(Good thing i dont live in America)
Disclaimer: This post is not a legal confession.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
The RIAA used to be a non-profit organization.
I found this out by looking on the back of an old record jacket.
Bort.
Free, Anonymous surfing: Pagewash.com.
If the RIAA is the one being directly issued subpoenas and executing the subpoenas, then are they not, in fact, and agent of the state and should be held accountable to the same standards?
[RIAA] says its concern is artists. That's true, in just the sense that a cattle rancher is concerned about its cattle.
But this doesn't really mean much. Kazaa's best argument is that the RIAA used illegal software with Kazaa lite. Maybe they could even win on that. That only helps the Kazaa company. The RIAA only needs to use Kazaa proper or raid other networks to continue precisely what they've been doing this whole time. Sorry, but it looks like Joe P2P doesn't stand to gain anything from this.
I doubt the courts will rule in Kazaa's favor. Imagine the precedent, provide a way for massive piracy and by means of a "Terms of Services" restrict the legal beneficiaries of the pirated material from having access to see what and who is pirating, and you very quickly our IP system will crumble.
Yeah yeah, I know, File sharing networks have legitimate uses, too. But 90% of them aren't being used "ligitimately".
Thanks,
Leabre
Suing the record labels for not letting people get away with illegal activities involving the RIAA's property is just idiotic.
Police aren't legally allowed to beat a confession out of a suspect. The DEA can't force you to snort some cocaine to get an indictment. An undercover(pardon the pun) police woman can't strip naked in front of you and demand money for sex in order to arrest you.
The point is this. You can't break one law (presumably contract law in this case) in order ot enforce another law.
What the RIAA is doing with their specialized client is nothing that can't be done with the "official" client. The RIAA just has it easier with their custom software. And we all know about Kazaa Lite and I don't see them bitching about that.
So if the police kick in your grandmother's front door and torture her with a stun gun to get information about you, they're not doing anything that they can't with a warrant, but they're just doing it the easy way. Is that ok with you?
With MSN and AIM et all, using a third party client is stealing resources from MS and/or AOL et al. Using a third party client with Kazaa doesn't affect them in the least.
If you used an official client, you'd be utilizing the same resources as you are when you use an unofficial client. What is the difference?
Maybe Gnutella should sue Kazaa off their network. Kazaa is only hurting P2P with this kind of idiocy.
Kazaa uses FastTrack, not Gnutella. Do you know anything about the topic at hand?
LK
-I wrote my sig for people like you.
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
OK, suppose this: The RIAA does a search and comes up that JoeBob1900 has some particular song on his computer, obtains a subpoena, and sends it along the legal pipeline. Supposing this person challenges this subpoena and eventually winds up in court, does the RIAA have any substantial evidence to support that he actually *does* have that song? It sounds to me like if they don't physically have a computer to show to the court, they've got nothing on him. For all they know, he could have simply had a file by whatever name they were looking for. Unless they've got an MD5SUM or something based on the actual contents of what they're looking for, do they really have much of a case? Just my .02
If a person is sharing files directly off their hard drive and they have a "read me" or "terms of service" file posted with the file collection, can a person legally specify the usage of their machine to protect their property and machine from similar RIAA abuses? I don't suppose one has to be an organization or business to establish a terms of service by which one must abide before using any services or information the machines has available. This is very curious. If there are any posters here at Slashdot with a better than passing understanding of how all this works, please share your insights about this. I love the irony that the same TOS shenanigans that so many companies use to fuck over their customers can also be employed to protect people from the RIAA.
--Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
It's obvious you never worked for a .com before :)
Is it just me or is there too much litigation going on these days? It seems that no company can be sued without countersuing, and then a million think tanks have to write position papers on all this shit. When it comes down to it, people on both sides are exploiting weaknesses in our legal code. The only difference is we sympathize with Kazaa because they are 'on our side'. RIAA claims that we infringe on their copyrights by downloading music, and we do; Kazaa says the RIAA violates their network terms of use, and they do. Why can't they call it a draw and go home? ~UltraSkuzzi Will companies go back to innovating, instead of litigating?
~UltraSkuzzi
This comment is liscensed by SCO.
Are we now all hoping that EULAs are enforceable? Nonono! This is the exact opposite standpoint the Slashdot public claims to hold. Don't make a 180 on the principle just because it could serve you well here. Kazaa better lose this case or all our souls are belong to them after the next click-through license you see.
I just searched for "Kazza Lite" on Google, and no results were censored! Does anyone know what has changed?
In a few years when this is all over /. should compile the stories of p2p vs. riaa into a book. No author could write something so twisted and crazy as this.
-Tim Louden
Looks interesting. When the RIAA used the program, they agreed to some things. Some of these are privacy based: not to "Monitor traffic or make search requests in order to accumulate information about individual users," or " Collect or store personal data about other users."
Plus, if one person downloaded once and installed it on multiple computers in order to do their big search, he's breaking the license just as I would be if I bought a copy of Windows and installed it on all 50 computers in a company: "This Licence does not permit you to install the Software on more than one computer at a time"
And the one that wraps it up: "It is you responsibility to comply with the terms of this Licence...Your rights under this Licence will terminate immediately and without prior notice if : you violate any term of this License..."
So they did one of the things in the first two paragraphs, they violate the terms of the license and are no longer legal to run Kazaa -- they might as well be caught with a pirate copy of Windows. And KazaaLite, if they were using it, says absolutely no commercial use allowed.
Concealing or failing to disclose one's status as a law enforcement office is different than endorsing a binding agreement to the effect that one is not. While clearly in the case that there is reasonable suspicion or a warrant has been issued it is acceptable for a law enforcement agent to ignore such an agreement, but I am not aware that RIAA investigators have any such status so as to make this behavior acceptable for them.
So far as I am aware, an officer may not search your car "just because he or she feels like it". There must be some reasoanble suspicion that wrongdoing is afoot.
This may well be in the case of Kazaa, but under no circumstances may the copyright holder take the investigation or execution of justice into his or her own hands and expect not to be liable for any infringements he or she commits in the course of doing so.
The linked article does not address this point.
If I have good reason to believe that my neighbor has stolen my bicycle, and that I can even see it through his window, under no circumstances may I force entry into his house to take back my bicycle.
I fail to see why, for the ordinary citizen, the case should be otherwise for copyright infringement.
.sig Realistic fines for copyright in