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?
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 think that all of the people who were sued by RIAA/MPAA should make a counter suit for invading their computers.
Pot says to Kettle: You're Black.
-
Tech News, Reviews and Tutorials
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).
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...
Sharman Networks is headquartered in the island nation of Vanuatu, which has several advantages.
If Kazaa loses, wouldn't it be funny if this case establishes that the terms of EULAs are worthless and unenforceable?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
When did I get to Bizzaro-World?
Jaysyn
There is a war going on for your mind.
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.
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
No offense, but you are so wrong.
The GPL applies to distribution rights.
EULA's apply to use rights.
Finding one invalid has no implications for the other.
*sigh* back to work...