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.'"
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.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
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...
Kazaa's network may be proprietary, and the connection algorithms and things may be owned by Kazaa. Distributing a client to record companies (or even making one) for the purpose of uploading files to the network that aren't legit is violation of their EULA.
Also:
2.11 Monitor traffic or make search requests in order to accumulate information about individual users;
2.1 Transmit or communicate any data that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable;
2.13 Modify, delete or damage any information contained on the personal computer of any Kazaa Media Desktop user; or
2.14 Collect or store personal data about other users.
3.2 Except as expressly permitted in this Licence, you agree not to reverse engineer, de-compile, disassemble, alter, duplicate, modify, rent, lease, loan, sublicense, make copies, create derivative works from, distribute or provide others with the Software in whole or part, transmit or communicate the application over a network.
3.3 You may not sell, transfer or communicate the Software to any third party without our prior express written consent.
The only copyright violation would be by the developers of KazaaLite, not the RIAA and at best there is only a license violation here. Interestingly enough, if the RIAA loses this would strengthen the use of EULAs to protect software. But no, license violations are not necessarily copyright violations and in this case specifically.
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.
One problem I see is that they're attempting to sue them for using KazaaLite, in violation of Kazaa's license agreement. Which means they are attempting to enforce an agreement that the RIAA may have never signed. And it would be a whole lot easier to hit KazaaLite with an IP infringement case than users thereof. The argument CAN be made, but it's not a very strong one. (it would be, as I see it, basically equivilent to suing a kid for wearing an unlicensed Simpsons T-shirt - in strict legal terms it might be illegal, but it's very problematic to argue. To begin with, you'd have to establish malicious intent and some sort of knowledge that the product in question was illegitimate)
Also, TOS\EULA violation cases don't have too much legal precedent behind them, and certainly aren't upheld universally. What might be grounds to terminate a user for TOS violations aren't necessarily grounds to sue. Again, it's another hurdle that could be overcome, but not assured. Now, if Kazaa had sent the RIAA a C&D citing TOS violations ordering them to stop using the service, which the RIAA then ignored - then there would be a case. But I don't think this happened.
In the meantime, there are any number of anti-trust \ RICO-style laws under which a far stronger argument could be made. It is almost inarguable that the RIAA is throwing huge amounts of money and resources trying to litigate Kazaa to death. If Kazaa presented itself as legitimate competition, which the RIAA is illegally attempting to destroy rather than facing them on the open market, they'd have a pretty good case. It would come down to a pure verdict on whether the RIAA's actions were anti-competitive.
Bush: He's Liberal in all the wrong ways.
Then it's a violation of Serman Networks TOS, not copyright infringement, unless they copied source straight from Kazaas codebase.
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
Sharman Network are no P2P heros. They took over the disbanded Kazaa (after the Dutch court case), implanted huge amounts of Spyware^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Adware and have ruthlessly ruled over the Fasttrack network, shutting down Kazaa Lite, barring other P2P clients etc. They are in this to keep their quick buck rolling, not for the good of P2P (bittorent, WinMX etc), not to tackle the establishment's copyright encorcement, but purely to extract a few more dollars from Kazaa users.
--
It is not the commies, the government, the nigger, nor the corporates. It is your paranoia.
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.
I appreciate the humorous take on the article, but, seriously, consider the situation.
...)
RIAA: Searches inside people's computers, against their will, for sole purposes of litigation. Sues KaZaA (and consumers, ISPs,
KaZaA: Provides medium for exchange of computer files. Consumers use this to exchange illegal files. Sues RIAA for using illegal, modified copies of their software for purposes against their EULA.
My only point is that I don't consider KaZaA's suit any less legitimate than the RIAA's suits.