Slashdot Mirror
Kazaa to Sue Movie, Record Companies
darwin writes "According to a (brief) story at yahoo, Sherman Networks (A.K.A Kazaa) just got the go ahead to sue the studios and record companies for copyright infringement. 'Studios and record companies had asked the court to throw out Sharman's countersuit, but U.S. District Judge Stephen Wilson in Los Angeles declined to do so.'"
but bravo to Sharman Networks for making they effort!
Forecast for tomorrow: A few sprinklings of genius with a chance of DOOM!
RIAA/MPAA: "You're infringing on copyrights!"
Kazaa: "No, you are!"
Sounds like playground banter to me.
The anti-salmon
They are suing for copyright infringement. The article is sparse on details.
Does anyone have any idea what part of Sherman's IP was redistributed?
1. create assembly-line copyright infringement tool 2. sue media owners for copyright infringement 3. ??? 4. Profit!!!
I this a more humane version of SCO, perhaps?
"You mortals are so obtuse." -Q
I RTFA, but I don't see how what the RIAA did is copyright infringement. Putting fake files on a network is not copyright infringement, it just decreases the S/N ratio.
Oh wait...
"They're, like, totally eating too much!" one frustrated McDonalds manager said. "If they don't stop eating our Big Macs... they'll, you know, explode!"
The Fat Customers Association of America (FCAA) could not be reached for comment.
Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
Judge OKs file-sharing software maker's bid to sue entertainment companies
Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do.
I can see Kazaa suing, but under copyright infringement? Other than their actual software, what do they have that's copyrighted? It makes no sense to me (and yes, I did read the article).
-S
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
I think that all of the people who were sued by RIAA/MPAA should make a counter suit for invading their computers.
what is that all about? is it good, or is it wack?
Is very unVanuatusian! Or something.
+5:offtopic,but anti-American
Pot says to Kettle: You're Black.
-
Tech News, Reviews and Tutorials
Kazaa sues the Media Conglomerates. No, wait....
Phil
what is that all about? is it good, or is whack?
On the whole, though, I'm not sure this is a good idea. If the courts find that Kazaa can assume legal responsibility in matters done TO their users, that puts them a step closer to being responsible for things done BY their users.
Bush: He's Liberal in all the wrong ways.
What copyrights has Sherman violated?
The *IAA, however, are threatening people based on their IP addresses, and I believe you can't get confirmed IPs from Kazaa without using a DMCA breaking modified version (all IIRC, I don't personally use Kazaa).
Like, twenty seconds?
Honey, I shrunk the Cygwin
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
"Sharman Networks, the company behind the Kazaa file-sharing software, filed a federal lawsuit in September accusing the entertainment companies of using unauthorized versions of its software in their efforts to snoop out users who were downloading copyright music files from others on the network.
Sharman said the companies used Kazaa Lite, an ad-less replica of its software, to get onto the network, and that they violated its own software's license agreement by sending warning messages to people on its network."
There's the answer; the RIAA/MPAA used an _illegally modified_ version of Kazaa Media Desktop in order to connect to the network. When you install Kazaa Lite (not saying that I have, despite what's copy/pasted next), it states:
"Please note that installing this software is ILLEGAL and is in violation of the Kazaa Media Desktop Terms of Use. If you do, however, install the software contained in this package, you agree to take ALL responsibility for your actions."
In this case, it's a big-ass lawsuit against you. The RIAA/MPAA violated the Sharman Networks EULA for Kazaa, and as such, opened themselves to legal action.
Ironic, isn't it?
(And to think that they could have used dummy machines to get around the Cydoor, P2P networking, and Gator that was in Kazaa...)
Striking fear in the authors of godawful fanfiction, I am here, appearing in darkness, Tuxedo Jack!
to the man who said they will never win; what a foolish thing to say. If you have learnt one thing over the past few years it should be to never ever attempt to pre-judge the american (or for that matter any) legal system. The fact is that these trials have a strange habbit of coming out in favour of the group you least expect.
I wish kazaa the best of luck. I hope it gives the studios a wake up call to the real world.
Sharman, targeted by studios and record companies because its software is used to trade music and video files, has sought to turn the tables on the industry, accusing it of misusing Kazaa software to invade users' privacy and send corrupt files and threatening messages.
stop me if i'm wrong, but isn't "invading users' privacy" half the reason (the profitable half) that Sharman made Kazaa? Oh wait, now i see where the "infringement" lies...
Today the pot and kettle met at a local kitchen. Both attempted to play the race card.
I remember reading an article recently (Wired maybe?) about a company that sells download statistics to record companies and radio broadcasters all over the world. They have software that monitors p2p networks, tracks what people are downloading, determines what general area of the country a person is in (by IP, guess) and puts all this in a nice fat database.
Who cares, right? Well, the music companies are paying these guys for the statistics. The very people that are suing kazaa and their ilk for a piece of software that supposedly only has the major function of piracy are using the same software for a very legitimate and profitable purpose. They love to know that some new song that is the number one download in Omaha isn't even being touched by the radio stations and should thus be put into heavy rotation. When asked about using such data, the radio stations and record companies of course vehemently deny any such affiliation.
I'm really curious as to whether or not kazaa's suit includes any information on this usage to help them along...
Worst. Case. Ever. Way to go anyway
wrt to getting IP addresses of kazaa users: kazaa is just a product which runs on the network called fasttrack. there are many other implementations of fasttrack. you can easily use one of those to harvest ip addresses. or just use 'netstat' while downloading from the person...
I really appreciate their actions.
Owner of a Mensa membership card.
Copyright infringement for threatening kazaa users. Wtf, do they own a patent for "A method for threatening customers, allowing the sales of inferior quality products to the scared to the death victims" ?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Sharman Networks is headquartered in the island nation of Vanuatu, which has several advantages.
they were wary of the infamous /. effect
Game Overdrive - Gaming News
Of course some people never grow up form the naive idea of a perfect world, where things make sense, but most of us now understand there is no black and there is no white. There are only shades of gray in between. From the petty little thefts, adultery and child molestation up to genocidial torture and murder it all is washed up along the river of time. Thousands of years from now no-one will remember who Hitler, Stalin or Saddam Hussein were.
My belief is that our concept of morality (as a species) is limited by our short lifespan. In a sense we're still children believing in absolutes. Therefore, when we're discussing what the moral values imposed by the society should be, we should be extremely careful to avoid the "Lord of the Flies"-syndrome. Why can't we just extrapolate from the present adult sense of morality towards a more liberal view?
So can we now submit endless DMCA subpoenas to them, then threaten to sue and get outrageous settlements for their invasions of our privacy via usage of illegal software?
Striking fear in the authors of godawful fanfiction, I am here, appearing in darkness, Tuxedo Jack!
If Kazaa loses, wouldn't it be funny if this case establishes that the terms of EULAs are worthless and unenforceable?
Of what, exactly?
Sounds like either a stupid lawsuit or piss poor reporting, to me...
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
Why does someone keep posting this? If you are trying to start a new catch phrase you would have better luck if you actually came up with one that is catchy.
This article has way more details than the parent post. Sharman is suing because the RIAA used Kazaa Lite, an illegal replica of Kazaa without the ads, and for violating the license agreement by sending warnings to Kazaa users. Unlike the Recording and Movie industries, which allege that Kazaa is illegal because it could be used as a tool in copyright infringement, Sharman is alleging that the RIAA is using software which directly violates copyrights. Kazaa Lite explicitly states in the license agreement that it is illegal.
"It is better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt." Mark Twain
I still don't understand anyone needing court approval to sue someone. If I believe you've wronged me, I should be able to sue you. If I lose, I should have to pay for your defense costs as well as court costs. Enough said there.
We're in a crises in this country. Laws are so convoluted, so full of holes and stops, that no one can understand them. Tort law has been thrown out and instead has been replaced with protections for those well connected. In the past, if you wronged someone, you had to pay for the consequences. Today, private property is all but gone, and the person or group with the most money controls what used to be your property, through the courts.
Sherman Networks should be able to sue a user for abusing its license. When you use software, you agree to the license of the owner of that software. Why is it that slashdotters gripe about Microsoft's crazy license (and yet go on and use the software), but its now fine for SN to use the same protection? Kazaa is their software. You use it under a license, and they can revoke it if you break their rules. It is their property.
This country needs to get out of its American System of Mercantilism as invented by Henry Clay and move towards a system of capitalism where private property protects you from the greed and wealth of others.
This is actually good news, because If the RIAA wins, it effectively destroys the credibility of click through or shrinkwrapped contracts. That means that suddenly everything you've ever clicked yes too becomes null and void.
I actually hope the RIAA wins this one, it'll mean the end of all the stupid crap that I have to deal with when i have to reinstall a friends windows box.
From the article:
:-)
"[...] accusing it of misusing Kazaa software to invade users' privacy and send corrupt files and threatening messages." (emphasis added)
That's piracy, mind you.
Although I have no idea what the big deal with this movie is, the guy was living like your average /.er.
Between the spyware, RIAA problems, plethora of viruses, corrupt files, mislabelled files, lack of corruption handling, inability to block shared file viewing, leechers, child porn, static filled songs, low quality mp3s and avis and security flaws I'm surprised anyone is still using it
+1, Insightful
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
I suspect they're accusing the recording and movie industry of doing (effectively) what the Kazaa light group did. Making custom version of the Kazaa client to suit their own needs. It's a clear violation of the DMCA and of Kazaa's copyrights.
The RIAA and MPAA have employed very secretive companies like Bay TSP to develop systems designed to disrupt the P2P networks. Bay TSP has apparently authored specialized version of the Kazaa client to do just this. Which of course, because of the DMCA, is an act of illegal reverse engineering. In addition, this work had the clear intention of disrupting a network, a probable criminal violation.
There are probably a number of cyber crime laws that Bay TSP regularly violates as well. Because what Bay TSP is doing for the RIAA and MPAA is nothing more than serving as a paid vigilante.
While it is the duty of the RIAA and MPAA to report instances of copyright violation to law enforcement, they have gone far beyond that. They're now actively subverting the computer systems of those they assume to be guilty. There is no trial, there isn't even any official accusation. They are their own judge, jury and executioner. This is why vigilantism is illegal in most forms, just as it is in this one.
And if this means Bay TSP and their ilk are knocked down a notch and forced to act within the law, I applaud Kazaa for this action.
And why sue for copyright infringement of all things, besides the irony factor?
Perhaps they want to give these organisations reason to limit the powers of these laws that they have bought?
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
You should always be careful when you squeeze the Sharman!
Ba-dum-psshh.. thanks, I'll be here all evening. Tip your waitresses and try the buffet.
Cryptic Allusion - New Mac and Dreamcast Games!
However, once you file a suit, it can be thrown out if it is frivilous. Like, say I sue for something really stupid, like I think you are ugly so you owe me money for that. SHould you be required to spend the money to defend yourself form that? No, it should be thrown out because the lawsuit has no merit. Well what happened here is that the judge said that Kaazaa's case DID have merit, and it will therefore proceed.
We actually need to strengthen this, as there are way too many frivilous suits these days.
Does this complex of countersuits resolve more clearly a consumer's right to duplicate the CDs they bought? If I make a few copies of a CD I bought, can't I play one at home, one in the car, one in the office, and another in the closet as backup, for reduplication when those other copies are too scratched to play any more? If I give a copy to someone else, that seems like a violation, but if I keep all my copies for my own use, is that OK?
--
make install -not war
The US army can find Iraq on a map, but where the FUCK is Vanuatu?!
The RIAA used an altered version of their Kazaa client to find all those people that they then subpeonaed, which Sherman Networks feels violates their rights.
So wait just a minute. On the one hand, we have the record companies trying to shut down P2P. On the other hand, we have Kazaa trying to enforce an EULA. Which do you want to win?
Somewhere in an underground lair deep beneath the Hollywood hills, a deranged genius is stroking a cat and laughing maniacally.
Seriously now. This sounds like a lose-lose scenario.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
The license for Kazaa is the only thing that affords you permission to make your own copy. It's analogous the GPL. There is no software sale, and you must know about this license in order to legally copy the software (Again, same as the GPL). Without the license you have no right to use the kazaa software.
The EULA that ships with most commercial software is a totally different situation, where you legally obtain the copyright to the software by sale, and then are later confronted with an additional license that has no legal basis (You already have a right to use the software under copyright law because you paid for it)
Apples and oranges.
can't go 5 minutes without someone saying some racist remark.
*notes that probably five people caught that on "The Apprentice"*
Ben
Work Safe Porn
This was, in fact, going to a question to Slashdot. But here goes anyway:
The FastTrack network (KaZaa), supports multisourced downloading. This cannot be changed in the settings. So, here's the problem: When the RIAA goes to court, how are they proving that the downloads haven't been multisourced from different people? Because if they are, at worst they're only proving that the client had SOME of A FILE which happened to come together into the song in the end. For instance, let's say I had a song that began as a sample from an RIAA-copyrighted song but then broke into a song that I created. If they're using multiple sources, how can they prove that the song they have isn't the beginning of their song with a middle and end that belong to me?
But what if, to avoid the above legal problem, the RIAA made their own client that did not support multisourced downloads, which is what I believe they have done. Wouldn't this require them to reverse-engineer the KaZaa client, and wouldn't THAT put them in violation of the DMCA AND general software copyright law since they are using it to make a profit?
What's more, I'm interested in how they are proving how many songs somebody is hosting. Are they, for instance, downloading one MD5-hashed song and then using the shared list to infer that the rest are legitimate RIAA-copyrighted songs? Or are they downloading every song and then comparing the MD5-hashes? And if the latter is the case, can it be implemented in the peer-to-peer protocols to keep individual users from uploading to the same people? That way, any lawsuit could be limited to say 5 songs or so?
What do you guys think?-Grym
I've always thought it was funny that the government can tax illegal gambling winnings. It just means that two wrongs don't make a right. In this case, despite the fact that there was illegal traffic in copyrighted materials, doesnt' waive the right to all other protections under the law. Otherwise, why didnt' the RIAA storm into Sharman's office and take baseball bats to them.
M
OK, the article has basically no details on the (possibly) pending suit, so I'm going to have to go with what other slashdotters are saying: that the clients used by the entertainment industries are violating the EULA and/or the TOS for Kazza's networks and IP. Someone please correct me if this is wrong.
;) But, this is really not something I want to support.
Seemingly, this would seem to go along great with what most on Slashdot want. (Well, besides the ones that wish to see the RIAA HQ violently explode on national TV.
If Sherman Networks wins, what exactly will be so great? We get a better S/N ratio on Kazaa? We get to stick it to the industries with a taste of their own medicine and say "neener neener neeeener!"? OK, I suppose that sounds good, at least to some. But, doesn't this also just strengthen the EULA and other such frivolous legal mumbo-jumbo? Wouldn't that just prove that the EULA is a real and binding contract?
Assuming I've understood the suit (which as I pointed out up top, I'm not sure I have), it seems many people are being hasty and blinded by their wish to see the entertainment industry falter. I mean this would amount to nothing more than thinking that it's OK to use Gestapo tactics, but only if they're used on criminals. Slashdot is quick to fall in love with this battle only to lose the war.
Of course, I could be wrong.
TSage
Here's a good way to avoid getting sued by the RIAA: Don't rip off other people's stuff.
Look, this is the problem in this country: The courts have been turned into a lottery. Everyone, including immigrants, has the right to sue. The plaintiff doesn't have to pay ANY LEGAL FEES unless they win, whereas the defense attorneys are paid whether they win or lose. Thus, as a defendant, either way you are hosed financially. Counter suing for legal costs is also very difficult due to the tremendous lobbying power trial attorneys have amassed over the years. I know this because I am currently in a lawsuit.
When did I get to Bizzaro-World?
Jaysyn
There is a war going on for your mind.
They invaded it by actively going after an IP address through the ISP. There should be a reasonable expectation of privacy through these services; yet they lost in recent court battles. Either way...I think it would be ironic to 'snoop' the RIAA's web surfing habits and see what it turns up. They're probably the sickest of the sick and the worst of the worst when it comes to the web.
[SIG] Remember Mattel handheld games?
It's SHARMAN Networks not Sherman Networks....
If their client was GPL, the RIAA could modify the source code all they want to make whatever evil program they wanted, and they would not be violating the GPL or copyright. It has been shown many times that the GPL allows you to modify code for your own use. This is because the GPL only grants some additional rights that copyright does not allow, and copyright already allows you to do this. Thus the GPL cannot stop it.
Only if they "distributed" the resulting program would they be violating the GPL. And certainly they would not be distributing it, since that would allow the enemies of the RIAA to get it and try to figure out how to outwit it's purpose.
So IMHO this is in no way a copyright violation, and KAZAA is completely wrong to even attempt this.
How in the hell is my comment "off topic"?! The article is REALLY only like 20 words! stupid mods.
"Jeremy, you need to get to an internet cafe and cut and paste some appropriate sentiments about me from the world wide
In that case, Microsft should be weighing in on KaZaa's side with lots of money!
We'd better hope to God (or whatever) that violating the EULA that comes with software is not the same thing as copyright infringement!
I am frightened by the apparent lack of awareness that EULA's are on shaky legal ground. They have not really been tested, and it is not at all clear that a software producer can or should be able to impose arbitrary restrictions above those already imposed by copyright law.
People seem to have given up, or never even taken up, the fight against the legitimacy of EULAs! I DON'T THINK THEY ARE BINDING. I wish people would resist! Do this by at the very least insisting on a distinction between copyright infringement and violating an EULA.
We desperately need clarity, not this SCO-style lumping of everything under the sun as "intellectual property"!
A few years ago there was a state that passed a marijuana sales tax so they could hit dealers with tax evasion on top of drug-dealing charges. Funnily enough, a dealer actually paid the tax, which nobody really expected. A court ruled the state couldn't use that as evidence against him, and I think the law was repealed shortly afterwards.
I know this is being run as a 'classical' US copyright thing, but it emphasises my point in that U.S DMCA joke - as a prime example of legislative high-end bullshit - being a perfect tool for severe - as we germans call it - creative nonsense.
Basically you can sue everybody and everything for using anything that you're involved in. Think of the copyrighted Haiku for spam filtering or now this. Which, mind you, actually by law IS a case, imho.
Build a network for OSS projects, with a own protocol, copyright the stuff and add a modified GPL that forbids anyone who ever even thought of issueing a software patent to come nearer to it's code than 500 yards. As soon as Mickeysoft / RIAA or the likewise even twitches, sue them to chunky kibbles.
Really, if you think about it, this DMCA bullshit - which as I understand, even has gotten US Judges and law experts thinking if that was such a good idea - it's a wonderfull hinge & crowbar for seriously harrasing any organisation (RIAA, etc.) that is a major pain in the butt for any honorable US citizen.
I'd say it's time for you folks across the pond to use it to fight back. Maybe we europeans then won't have to go through the same hassle wilst our politicians are trying to pull the same braindead stunt. Mindlessly copying all US bullshit without even thinking twice. Instead of copying, for instance, US speedlimits or something else that would actually make sense.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
WEll Invade is probably incorrect. But if the means by which RIAA collected its evidence was illegal it may allow enough wiggle room for a crafty lawyer to argue a client outta trouble with the RIAA since without the evidence of wrong doing they have no case :) just a thought.
. I love the sound of burning women and screaming rubber....
Leaf says to Grass : You're Green
;)
Much more eco-aware
Scrab
RoseColor red={0, 0xffff, 0x0000, 0x0000};VioletColour blue={0, 0x0000, 0x0000, 0xffff};find / -name *mybase*|chown you
Or could it be that the RIAA used Kazaa-lite simply because they just didn't want to get infected by the spyware-laden Kazaa Media Desktop? ;-)
On the other hand, we have Kazaa trying to enforce an EULA. Which do you want to win?
Be careful there. The GPL is based on the same principle as EULAs are: You have no right to copy this unless you meet <conditions>. With the GPL, the conditions just give more options to the user than a typical EULA does.
If you declare EULAs unenforceable, you declare the GPL unenforceable.
I think I'd root for the EULAs in that case.
Your credit card information wants to be free.
The RIAA was using KaZaA Lite to access the KaZaA network? Do you think they installed the IP blocker software? They wouldn't want to end up sueing themselves on accident ;-)
IPs to sue:
145.34.75.2
216.45.35.43
192.168.1.45...
Yes, since I'm not a follower of the "shoot the messenger" philosophy of RIAA, their suings don't make sense to me. However, I still think "copyright infrigement" is a bit far fetched for Sherman to use as a reason too.
"misusing Kazaa software to invade users' privacy"
This isn't copyright infrigement imho. Wouldn't RIAA just use a scanner to check what IP addresses it's connecting to and log those? They don't need to invade Sherman's copyrights or use an altered / hacked version of Kazaa at all.
"and send corrupt files and threatening messages."
This isn't copyright infrigement either. However, I agree that it's an awful business model or whatever you'd call it.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
This is a BS suit if I've ever heard one. So wait, Kazaa is arguing that the RIAA used an illegal client, and therefore they are committing copyright infringement?
First off, if a product or service is illegal, then all contracts regarding that service are also illegal. They're null and void. The RIAA acted in "good faith" on the laws in place. They were seeing torts committed against them, and were securing the names of those who've wronged them. Remember, most of what the RIAA/MPAA has been suing for are CIVIL actions. It is no different than them hiring a private investigator.
Which, a private investigator is not a law enforcement entity. They are allowed to obtain evidence in other manners that the normal officers of the courts are not allowed to use. The RIAA just used an "alternative" method. I doubt they are liable for anything on this one.
Finally, it's not copyright infringement to use software without permission. It's violation of license terms and possible theft. The problem is, Kazaa's people KNEW about Kazaalite for a long time. The fact that they did nothing about them could be implied to be a consent. They certainly didn't seek to protect their trademark.
So.. in the end.. I hope Kazaa loses.
magnwa
Thousands of years from now no-one will remember who Hitler, Stalin or Saddam Hussein were. Saddam, you're right. Hitler & Stalin, though... I dunno. It's been about a thousand years since Ghenghiz Khan, and a good number of people would recognize the name. It's been more like two since Nero & Julius Caesar, and although the details might be muddy, we'd still recognize them as not-so-nice people.
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
Same way Mitnik got arrested for accessing information served by computers. Who's to say what's a security hole or a usability feature now days, especially in court, where no one is likely to know any better, and sophistry is the status-quo.
There's two big problems with this. First, they've upheld the legality of p2p networks like Grokster, for the same reason they upheld the legality of the VCR, CD burner, or two-tape deck. They have perfectly legal uses, so the fact that they have illegal uses doesn't make them, as a whole, illegal.
For point two, I'm assuming you've signed some kind of contract before. An apartment lease or a mortgage, a car loan, an insurance agreement, whatever.. they nearly all contain this line, or a line pretty much like it:
Should any portion of this contract be found to be unenforceable, all other portions of this contract will remain in effect.
So we're back to the question of whether or not EULA are some kind of legal contract. I'm not gonna touch that one.
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
I don't consider KaZaA's suit any less legitimate than the RIAA's suits.
Really? Why is that? KaZaA's software is used primarily to steal from the legal holders of the copyright tens of thousands of songs, software, etc.
The RIAA is fighting back by loading the network with bogus versions of the STOLEN works. How can you defend KaZaA's argument, "Hey! You're messing with our users' theft of your material!" RIAA is responding to brazen theft with an imaginative (actually amusing) strategy.
Are you from the Bizarro planet?
When they cracked down on the K-Lite client and website, many people thought they were shooting themselves in the foot, since many of the bigger 'hubs' were probably running K-Lite and wouldn't switch to a spyware-riddled client.
Now it makes sense as a first (necessary) step in their intention to sue the **AA.
Imposing Libertarian views on everyone online since 1992.
Here, I corrected your steps:
1. "steal" copyrights from artists (they actually do compensate the artists. it ain't stealing.)
1.1 Profit.
1.2 Watch profits wane as customer base uses technology to steal the product the record companies legally own.
2. sue customer base for copyright infringement
3.???
4. Regain rightful profit!!!
The real question is what occurs in step 3. If you've been reading the news (or what passes for it on Slashdot), you'd know that the companies are (reluctantly, clumsily) turning to a more reasonable distribution method.
Go back to sleep. Wake up in 5 years (okay, 10) to see how market forces solve this problem.
Now, the question here is whether the RIAA violated a "computer security system" under the DMCA by:
1) Clearly uploading fake files, thus resulting in "unauthorized use" of users' computers to download their fake files.
2) In using a modified version of Kazaa violated a "computer security system" on users' computers in the sense that the Kazaa network was clearly not designed to allow tracking of users in this fashion.
Whether the RIAA is using bootlegged software or whether many of Kaza's users are illegally trading music is immaterial to the issue. The actions of one do not excuse the actions of the other. Both the RIAA and many of Kaza's users are in the wrong.
See tu quoque for more information.
Also, you will note I wrote "many of Kaza's users" above. If you believe this justifies Kaza as a whole is also guilty (which you seem to be doing), then see also: composition.
HTH
wrong..
. ht ml
whether Kazaa is illegal, or not, does not give the RIAA the right, or entitlement, to HACK Kazaa's network..
there are standing laws against what the RIAA did..
refer to...
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/cclaws
AND..
http://www.rent-a-hacker.com/hacklaw.htm
specifically look at 2(c) on this page..
there is enough precedence to warrant a lawsuit..
the RIAA got caught with their hands in the cookiejar.. plain and simple..
what i am talking about has NOTHING to do with the morals/legalities of downloading music..
it has *everything* to do with _illegally hacking_ a network..
the ends DO NOT JUSTIFY the means..
the RIAA was wrong.. it's vigilantism, and even if what they did was to "protect" what is "theirs", they cannot conduct themselves in this manner without legal reprocussions..
the hacking laws are very defined, in this case..
i hate microsoft.
your statement is false.
"almost nobody reads them" may be true, but i for one, am evidence that your statment is false.
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
They (RIAA) do not sue them for violating the licence agreements on their media. They are suing them for garden variety copyright infringement. I have never seen a licence agreement on a DVD or CD I have purchased covering the media files (There may have been licence agreements for things like DVD Player software, or video players on mixed mode CD's)
This sounds a little too much like the warnings on old-school Pirate BBSes with warnings on login saying that you couldn't use the site if you were a member of a Law Enforcement Agency. Those didn't hold water then, and I doubt this clause of the EULA will hold water now.
Kazaa must think it owns its members-SerfCom
there is a space on federal tax forms somewhere for illegally earned income - i forget the exact phrase.
Tax evasion penalties are far more drakonian than most criminal ones
The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers. Shakespeare, Henry VI, Part 2, Act 4, Scene 2
There is nothing illegal about baiting Kazaa users with empty files. There is nothing illegal about identifying the IP address of a computer that you download a file from. Why they claim copyright infringement is beyond me since they aren't copying anything Kazaa owns a copyright to.
The fact that they are attacking the RIAA is an admission that they want users to share music illegally on Kazaa. I assume they want this because that's more eyeballs looking at their ads. Without music sharing, there isn't much left to share that anyone wants, and Kazaa's revenue goes away. If they didn't want people sharing musi on Kazaa, Sharman wouldn't care what the RIAA was doing.
I make these things. Hashing is for data. CopySense by Audible Magic. They listen to network traffic, identify audio file types, decode them to audio, and compare them with a database of audio fingerprints.
t ml
http://www.audiblemagic.com/copysense_appliance.h
They don't use hashes -- they use fingerprints, which allow for much fuzzier matches. You might also note that they don't check encoded files, they check the audio stream. And though it reduces the capacity, it is possible to scan zipped files.
It can't scan a fully-loaded 1000 Mbit connection, but what is your actual Internet connection speed? 2 Mbits? 10 Mbits? Do you really think that it's unreasonable to scan this much data in real time?
Then again, it runs a FreeBSD, so linux users will probably claim that it doesn't exist.
This tidbit of news was all over my local radio stations this morning. Now I had the impression that the RIAA had the muscle to slap a gag on the news stations if a story wasn't in their best interests. So how come this blurb got all kinds of radio coverage this time?
So basically we have the legality of EULA-based privacy violations pitted against the legality of copyright-based privacy violations.
*slams head repeatedly against a wall*
Maybe if we just let them fight they'll destroy each other like two ancient evils in apocolyptic battle.
Anything you might ever need to say about anything has already been said better by Penny Arcade.
I agree that the moderators were wrong - it was not flamebait, however I felt that it could have been an honest question and I therefore replied with the intention of informing you of why he is suing the RIAA. I simply thought you may have been serious, my intent was not to offend.
More seriously, they don't need a hacked kazaa client to do so.
They could just set up some very stupid firewall rules just when the transfer starts, and allow only traffic with the IP of their victim.