Slashdot Mirror
Kazaa Ruled Legal in The Netherlands
DreamerFi writes "Developers of Kazaa cannot be held liable for the way people use their software, the Dutch Supreme Court has ruled. The dutch version of the RIAA, BUMA Stemra is now expected to start lawsuits against individuals, following the american lead, according to dutch news channels."
Because of all this shit over music I have stoped buying. I use to try out stuff on the old napster (tells you how long ago that was) and if I liked I would get the CD, but now that the RIAA (and co.) has made it clear they don't want my busness, I have stoped, stoped listening and stoped buying. And the radio music stations have way to many comercials to be enjoyable. I have moved on to talk radio, and I have to say I think I enjoy talk radio more, and there seams to be far less comercials then music radio. Good by music, hello talk.
Ah, it's refreshing to see some sanity in the courts, even if it is on another continent. If the courts blame kazaa for what its users do, it would logically follow that we'd have to blame gun manufacturers for the actions of bank robbers, blame car manufacturers for the crimes of people involved in hit-and-run accidents, and blame alcohol manufacturers for the stupid things drunk people do.
WARNING: If accidentally read, induce vomiting.
A couple of months or so, Buma/Stemra's spokesman had a media interview, in which he said that they would not be suing consumers until there was a good commercial music download option for consumers in the Netherlands. Apparently, at that time they felt (correctly) that the country would be in an uproar if they started suing consumers over trading.
So if they started suing now, that would be in direct contradiction of their earlier statements (and it would be extremely unpopular, I could even see it leading to a law that makes music sharing over the Internet explicitly legal). In current law, downloading is legal, uploading is not.
And anyway, all they could get in a lawsuit is an order for the person to stop sharing, I think, as long as there's no commercial piracy involved.
I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
This is obviously off topic, but I need help...
As a retail store owner of a punk rock music shop, I really want to open a section (and eventually make it my only section) of "Non RIAA Punk Rock music." It should be bands of national scale, doesn't have to be popular bands, and definitely shouldn't be radio or MTV bands.
Does anyone have a link or knowledge of which labels are not RIAA linked? The distributors have no idea...
I'm not sure how much difference there is between 'decriminalise' and 'turn a blind eye', because the laws still forbid those decriminalised things.
Pretty big difference. In the first case, you can not be prosecuted no matter what; in the second, it is ultimately up to the mood and whim of the police, prosecutor and court whether you will be punished.
THe difference between decriminalisation and allowability is, if I understand it - and I may not as I am not a legal professional - illustrated well by Swedish road crossing light rules.
In Sweden, it is indeed illegal to cross the road on foot when the light is red for pedestrians. It is, however, not a prosecutable offense. You can walk to and fro the light all day long, in front of a whole conference of traffic police with nothing happening. If, however, you get hit by a car while doing this, the fault is yours, not the driver's. You were doing something wrong, and it is your fault. You (or rather your insurance company) will even be required to pay for the damages to the front of the car.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
This just in:
From The Associated Press:
Dec 19, 10:45 AM EST
Record Industry May Not Subpoena Providers
By TED BRIDIS
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A federal appeals court on Friday rejected efforts by the recording industry to compel the nation's Internet providers to identify subscribers accused of illegally distributing music online.
In a substantial setback for the industry's controversial anti-piracy campaign, the three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia overturned a ruling by the trial judge to enforce a copyright subpoena.
U.S. District Judge John D. Bates had approved use of the subpoenas, forcing Verizon Communications Inc. to turn over names and addresses for at least four Internet subscribers. Since then, Verizon has identified dozens of its other subscribers to music industry lawyers.
The appeals court said one of the arguments by the Recording Industry Association of America "borders upon the silly," rejecting the trade group's claims that Verizon was responsible for downloaded music because such data files traverse its network.
Verizon had challenged the constitutionality of the subpoenas under the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
The law, passed years before downloading music over peer-to-peer Internet services became popular, compels Internet providers to turn over the names of suspected pirates upon subpoena from any U.S. District Court clerk's office. A judge's signature is not required. Critics contend judges ought to be more directly involved.
Verizon had argued at its trial that Internet providers should only be compelled to respond to such subpoenas when pirated music is stored on computers that providers directly control, such as a Web site, rather than on a subscriber's personal computer.
In his ruling, the trial judge wrote that Verizon's interpretation "makes little sense from a policy standpoint," and warned that it "would create a huge loophole in Congress' effort to prevent copyright infringement on the Internet."
(This sig intentionally left blank)