Slashdot Mirror
Kazaa Going to Court
msim writes "According to the The Sydney Morning Herald" Kazaa will be going to court after their appeal to the Federal Court was dismissed. The case will be going ahead on March 23rd"
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
More like facing the Disk industry am I right?
You know that's not so much funny as it is interesting. They want to crack down on all this evil P2P stuff but, it CAN be used for legal means. I have a telephone but it doesn't mean I make prank calls all day long.
I dunno, just liked the comment and have no mod points.
Der Tod ist der einzige Weg hier raus!
Kinda like CD-R manufacturers are making no attempt to curb illegal activities using their products. Or car manufacturers. Or gun manufacturers. Or knife manufacturers. Or chainsaw manufacturers. Or computer manufacturers. Or ... oh, I give up. How about all manufacturers of products that can be used for illegal activities, which is just about everything.
And a massive loss for zit-faced Slashdot nerds who want to steal things for free
It is technically, legally, and morally impossible to steal a thing using KazAa or any other p2p software.
And that's exactly the problem, the latest CD I bought says on the cover something like : Copyright(C) 2004 $RECORDLABEL instead of Copyright(C) 2004 $ARTIST.
They are always babbling about the artist not getting paid bla bla, while their only concern is their own bank account.
The fact is, tools like KaZaa have shown we don't need record companies anymore, and it has them scared shitless.
Regarding the artists not getting paid and this whining about how it 'hurts' music: there is no need to pay them for download music, for several reasons.
Its a bug numbers game and we win. They may have millions of dollars but they simply can not come after everybody and just as PeaceTank said it, they shut one down, we open 10 more. Warez networks have been up for years and they havn't all been shut down, music has many more users. Good luck but RIAA you are fighting a loosing battle, wake up, try something new.
Burn Bright or Fade Away
...do you think that you should be held liable if you did make prank calls all day long?
Maybe the "prankster" should be, but not the telephone company for providing the technology.
What?
Um, Kazaa is legitimate. I'm not aware of any jursidictions in which it has been ruled illegal, but it certainly has been ruled legal. And common sense would say that just because it can be, or even often is, used illegally doesn't mean it is inherently illegitimate. It does have legitimate legal uses.
However, following your own analogy, do you think that you should be held liable if you did make prank calls all day long?
but I think a better analogy is should the phone comany be held liable if the customer made prank calls ?
Save a Life. Donate Blood. Please.
but I think a better analogy is should the phone comany be held liable if the customer made prank calls ?
and following this analogy, if 99% of all calls were prank calls, should the phone company be required to do something about it?
If would be funny if it wasn't so sad.
The music industry is still using the Luddite network distribution of redundant labor. They still put music on archaic plastic disks and hire guys to truck them out to music stores, and then expect consumers to drive out to these stores, pay 15 bucks, then drive home only to find there's only one song they like on the whole CD.
When this business model fails, they start suing everyone.
But there is something each and every one of us can do today to stop this : Use gunutella, share everything you have.
Eventually the music industry will realize the error of their ways.
Speaking from a musicians point of view, I cannot understand why the record companies havent used file-sharing , and other internet technologies. Every single illegally downloaded mp3, could be turned into a marketing advantage.
:)
...
Plus, it would give record companies a lot more control over content than they have now.
MP3's should be treated like radio broadcasts, one should have to get a license in order to share the files. Its up to companies to find out how to generate the revenue streams, either charge for downloads, or provide other subscription based benefits that traditional P2P systems dont currently provide. All that is needed is a better product, and by that I dont mean better artists (but that wouldnt be a bad idea) I mean that they should provide a service that pisses all over everything else.
My personal belief is that these days the way to make real money is through real physical products, not through arbitrary file formats such as ogg or mp3. Through not just CD sales, but from the T-Shirts, the posters, the ticket sales for gigs, subscriptions to fanzines etc.
I am truly surprised that the record companies have not yet realised that instead of turning every 12yr old, boy-band lovin' girl downloading the latest cheesy pop number into a criminal. They should try concentrating on selling more Merchandise.
Record companies should also realise that its the "Proper" bands, who write their own tunes, who innovate and create their own boundaries, that are the ones that are going to be more than a novelty or fad. They are also the ones who will sell more tickets for gigs, and at those gigs people will buy merchandise.
Yep, and it wouldnt be a bad idea not to screw the real artists over when it comes to royalties either. And while im ranting, for gods sake, lets see the end of these dreadful "Pop-Idol" TV shows !
On that note , If you want some free, legal MP3's from an original band.. Please click my sig and download at will, and please god! try not to slashdot my humble computer
Nick
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
Kazza provided a utility for sharing files. Some users chose to use the provided tool illegally. If Kazza designed a tool that could only be used to conduct illegal activities, or if Kazza designed the tool specifically to conduct illegal activities, I would understand. Should we make web browsers and servers illegal because I could host a webpage that provides hyperlinks to illegal content that gives a user with a web browser the ability to download copyrighted materials illegally? This seems like a concept that a child could understand. What am I missing?
- Have you ever noticed that the more you learn about technology, the more stupid you sound trying to explain it?
In a sense, that is exactly what's happening. We're creating a market for bands that distribute their recordings for free and profit from performance. I'm tangentially involved with the local music scene and the ability to download major label music for free doesn't have the slightest impact on the cover charge for the local bar band. People still want to go out, have a drink, and see a performance.
What HAS changed is the fact that this unsigned, unmanaged local band can distribute their recordings to their fans with basically $0 overhead. Everybody talks about this, but very few people place enough emphasis on the fact that this is huge. If you can pack a bar and draw some applause, you probably have 50 people who could download your stuff from P2P and put it on their playlists -- even more so in a college town where the bar scene is filled with younger, computer literate people.
This band-business model builds a solid fanbase that in turn makes you profit. If people are playing your music on the college radio, if you can find 500 people sharing your music on P2P, you can book a night at the local bar and demand $500 instead of $100 or $0. You can show ahead of time that your presence will fill the place to the limits.
You have increased the profitability of your band by using P2P and freely distributing your music. This only hurts major acts, it only helps the small acts. P2P and downloading music does, in a roundabout not-what-you-meant way, support free music.
Pretty amazing that some argue otherwise, eh?
"That's not to say that the Copyright laws don't need to be tweaked to put more power back into the hands of the creators..."
Certainly -- but it gets pretty frustrating to see these guys who also want to take away rights from independent creators, and justify it all with lame anti-RIAA rhetoric. OK, the RIAA sucks, but does that mean that all independent artists should be screwed? NO.
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
god given "right"
God's got nothing to do with it.
especially 75 years afterword
I'm not saying the laws don't need tweaking.
That's a man made concept
No one said it wasn't.
demanding attribution for my work to be simple karma whoring
You didn't finish this thought, but if I get the jist, I'll respond anyway. I don't do it just for the accolades. Paying the bills is good!
I will never respect people who gladly profit from bad laws that ultamtely serve nobody but the lawyers.
If I profit from it and can etch out a living (and I am NOT a lawyer) how is it ultimately serving nobody but the lawyers?
The fact is being an Artist is a profession. We, like the carpenter (and, to a lesser extent, his friend the Walrus) are professionals. We like to get paid for what we do. It's not always easy and sometimes we need protection from thieves (Sometimes, stealing a physical work and reproducing it is both thievery AND Copyright infringement (this is here for the 'It's Not STEALING!' crowd)). If that protection is in the form of the Copyright law, then I will not blindly oppose it.
Instead, I prefer to keep an open mind to all aspects of the law and modify that which doesn't work and reinforce the points that do. That way, we can all better society and move forward into this brave new world!
fs
p.s. Feel free to move on to 'The Next Big Thing' when it gets here. I, as a creator, prefer to bring it about than to wait idly by.