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.'"
RIAA/MPAA: "You're infringing on copyrights!"
Kazaa: "No, you are!"
Sounds like playground banter to me.
The anti-salmon
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.
Pot says to Kettle: You're Black.
-
Tech News, Reviews and Tutorials
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.
I thought it was because the recording studios violated the license Kazaa is distributed under, which I guess counts as a copyright violation.
I wish them the best of luck.
Is this truly the only Earth I can live on?
The article is extremely light on details, but I can think of one way in which they may be able to sue for copyright infringement.
*If* the Kazaa licence explicitly forbids using it for such purposes, then the RIAA's agents are in violation of the licence agreement. That means that, as I understand copyright law, they have no right to have even installed the software, and so are infringing on Sharman Network's copyright.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
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!
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...
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 defendants merely asked the judge to throw the case out on the basis of the allegations set forth in the counterclaim being "too vague".
Think of it of a text book pre-trail motion; it doesn't really have anything to do with the material case at hand. Plus, the lawsuit is going to get (at least partly) suspended until all the appeals of the Grokster case are sorted out. At least, Judge Wilson doesn't seem to a man who bows down to pressure.
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.
This is so great. all of the studio execs and movie moguls/ riaa payroll members were so stoked when they got the DMCA passed, little did they know it was going to be the beginning of their downfall.
The irony of the situation amuses me to no end.
Surfing is religion
you are silly
I Hack You! - Ninja Fish
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.
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!
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