Kazaa Trial In Australia Underway

wadiwood writes "Five record companies are suing the makers of Kazaa. Sharman (moved to vanuatu in Feb 2004) say they are not responsible for what their users do with the software. Personally I don't get what Sony is doing selling MP3 players for all your "favourite tunes" and then selling music which they say you are not allowed to copy to their MP3 players, but that's another story."

Comments

More info here ..

[macaulay805]

There is more info here: Afterdawn.com

Re:More info here ..

[Anonymous Coward]

Will be an attempt to determine whether Sharman can be held liable for Kazaa user's activity or not.

Hopefully, the defendant will raise the issue of trivial and vexacious litigation, as well as forum shopping. Given the US has already decided this one , it is plainly another speculative bid, with the tantrum thrower trying another parent after being told no the first time.

There is ample precedent in Australia, that Beer company's are not liable if the user/driver has an accident - the guilt - association link is just not there.

Sharman should also claim damages - between bittorrent and all the lite versions - these lawsuits have irrevocably damaged their business model, as users drift to alternate solutions, of which they have no control over.

Right minded people will question, why is this case not being contested in Vanuatu, where it belongs.

"I don't get what Sony is doing..."

[Anita Coney]

In the US it is perfectly legal to rip purchased CDs into MP3 format for non-commerical use.

Re:"I don't get what Sony is doing..."

[mark-t]

Actually it is still perfectly legal, regardless of what manufacturers and publishers might think or even want.

Read the text of the DMCA carefully. Pay particularly attention to section 1201, subsection c (Sorry, I don't have a link handy). There is a specific exemption in it that says that it shall not infringe on fair use.

So really, the only time the DMCA can be applied to someone is when they were breaking the law already anyways (even if the DMCA weren't law), which makes the DMCA redundant at best, and a waste of everyone's time at worst.

Re:"I don't get what Sony is doing..."

[debest]

Actually it is still perfectly legal, regardless of what manufacturers and publishers might think or even want.

Read the text of the DMCA carefully. Pay particularly attention to section 1201, subsection c (Sorry, I don't have a link handy). There is a specific exemption in it that says that it shall not infringe on fair use.

This is essentially correct.

So really, the only time the DMCA can be applied to someone is when they were breaking the law already anyways (even if the DMCA weren't law), which makes the DMCA redundant at best, and a waste of everyone's time at worst.

Incorrect.

The DMCA does not restrict fair use of any copyrighted materials: you may legally bypass any DRM in your way and make non-commercial copies to your heart's content. BUT, the DMCA also makes it (civilly and criminally) illegal to distribute "circumvention devices", free software or otherwise.

Essentially, you can break the DRM, but you can't ever tell anyone how you did it. You can legally reclaim fair use only if you are technically saavy enough. This is why the EFF wants to mount a challenge to this act: it is a restriction on free speech.

Re:Did you get permission to use that link?

[aero2600-5]

"You must not link to any Sony Site without first obtaining the prior written consent of Sony and such consent must be signed by Sony's Director of Business Affairs to be valid."

2600 Magazine has already taken this to court against Ford Motor Company and won. A website cannot legally prevent someone from linking to them. Here's a link to the article. The World Wide Web cannot exist in it's present form without the ability to link to anyone you choose. Take Slashdot as example. What if all the websites in these stories didn't want to be linked to? No more Slashdot.. Linking is the premise that the World Wide Web is built on.

Aero

Why not from the source?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Register

Re:Did you get permission to use that link?

[HeghmoH]

The World Wide Web cannot exist in it's present form without the ability to link to anyone you choose. Take Slashdot as example. What if all the websites in these stories didn't want to be linked to? No more Slashdot.. Linking is the premise that the World Wide Web is built on.

This is basically the same argument the music companies are using. "Take BMI as an example. What if all of those customers chose to copy their music from their friends? No more BMI. Copyright is the premise that the music industry is built on." A much better argument would talk about how a link is just an address, which is public knowledge, and there is no law that prohibits dissemination of them.

Re:Kazaa LEGAL !!

[gcaseye6677]

This is in Australia; Kazaa was found to be legal in the United States. Australian judges do not consider these rulings when a suit is filed in their court. The makers of Kazaa are still being sued on a regular basis even in the U.S. whenever the recording industry lawyers come up with a new idea for a suit.

Sharman Networks are not the creators of Kazaa

[Spirit Of Atlantis]

To correct something that the article-poster and article itself implies which is uncorrect... The creators of Kazaa are not Sharman Networks in Australia. Kazaa was created by a team of programmers from The Netherlands(Europe). Eventually Kazaa was bought from them when they were entangled in a lawsuit against them. Because the Dutch creators didn't want to take any risk of losing this case in court and face the consequences of a conviction, they sold Kazaa to Sharman Networks in Australia. Ironically the Dutch creators of Kazaa won the lawsuit, but then it was already to late as they had already sold Kazaa.

Simple explanation for Sony's stance

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally I don't get what Sony is doing selling MP3 players for all your "favourite tunes" and then selling music which they say you are not allowed to copy to their MP3 players...

Then you haven't really put any serious thought into the issue, have you? I imagine that a simplistic explanation would be:

• Download MP3 from "legit" (read: "pay") MP3 distribution service, OR
• Rip MP3 from legally purchased/received CD
• Copy said MP3 to portable player

Notice how KaZaA is not involved?

Furthermore, the "Sony won't let you copy!" link you included, actually says nothing of the sort. It reads:

4. User Licence and Consent
By submitting, posting or placing any information or other material on the Sony Sites (together, "Material") or accessing the Sony Sites, you grant to Sony a perpetual, royalty-free, non-exclusive, irrevocable, unrestricted, worldwide licence to do the following in respect of the Material:

• use, copy, reproduce, adapt, communicate, transmit, broadcast make available, publish, print, publicly perform or display; and
• sublicense to any person the unrestricted right to exercise any of these rights.

In this case, Sony is allowed to use information that you submit. It does not say that you cannot copy MP3s.

Next time, try finding something useful to support your argument.