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...
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!
...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...
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
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
...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.
Problem is, they didn't click on the Kazaa EULA; they used a reverse-engineered version of Kazaa. Nevertheless, it appears the DMCA may apply here. Companies attempting to protect their copyrights should not be allowed to violate the copyrights of others.
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
And it's about time!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
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
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
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.
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
It's obvious you never worked for a .com before :)
EULA's, although not always, are based on laws. They can defend most of what is in a EULA by referencing it to a law. Why else was the DMCA created? Without the DMCA, there probably was little a company could do to prevent reverse engineering. Thus, the DMCA (very bad move) was created.
" The EULA is the weaker law."
You obviously don't know what your talking about. A EULA is not a law. It is an agreement between the user and provider and is protected (not always) by 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."
Well, since one would be letting his or her program run out in the wild and forcing (basically) it onto someone without any consent or attached notices, then the copyright/DMCA laws don't apply.
"And it's no secret that illegal MP3's and everything else are being traded on P2P."
State the obvious why? Illegal? An mp3 can not be illegal. It is the act of distributing the copyrighted work that is illegal. For a person that is hard on keeping strong copyright laws, you sure need to learn what laws are and their purpose. You also need to learn about the entire subject period.
"A EULA will never hold up in a case where it's being used to hide a crime."
I'm glad your trying to do your part for society, but until you learn about what your talking about, your doing little to actually help. Technicalities aside, there is more important reasons for everything. A law is not moral, good for the economy, or good for society, just because it is a law. When a law that appears good can also be used to do something one would consider evil, then it isn't a good law is it?
Question everything.
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.