Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Kazaa Trial In Australia Underway

Posted by Hemos on from the attacking-on-all-fronts dept.

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."

6 of 177 comments (clear)

  1. In answer to the Sony question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Two different departments/subsidiaries/legal companies often have competing interests with competing executives...the old ignorant left hand problem. It's impossible for a large corp to be consistant accross all entities since they have competing interests at various times and are run by different people. Add in your average dose of corporate politics and general large company ineptness and it's shocking that any company of any consequence at all doesn't contradict itself daily.

    As for the rest of it...it's just a fight for the few remaining profits in a changing industry. Once there's no profit left in the standard model or there is more in the digital music distribution models Sony and everyone else will adapt to the new environment. If you want it to happen faster don't buy any music. If you're comfortable with the general level of silliness proceed...either way it's only a matter of time be for the distribution of artistic media changes dramatically.

  2. Re:"I don't get what Sony is doing..." by theparanoidcynic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yes, but it's not legal to circumvent the DRM on the discs to rip them . . . . .

    --
    Only in a Slashdot fantasy can a Slackware install turn into several hours of sex . . . . .
  3. The statistics of being sued... by dep01 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wow.. 100 million people use Kazaa.. I think they've put suits out against approx. 4,000 people now? What percentage of 100 million is 4,000? 00.004%? Yeesh. How unlucky do you have to be to be sued by the RIAA? *cringes*

    --
    "hey, could you pass me a paper towel? er.. I mean... DEPLOY ABSORBTION PANEL!"
    1. Re:The statistics of being sued... by Wylfing · · Score: 4, Insightful
      How unlucky do you have to be to be sued by the RIAA?

      Lawsuits are only filed after other thresholds have been met. While I am not privy to all the mechanics of it [1], your chances of being "tagged" by the RIAA in one of their databases as a filesharing IP are quite high. If your IP shows up a lot, you'll make it into a verification stage. If they can verify that you're distributing their stuff, then the lawsuit appears. So the 0.004% of users is just how many have made it into the final, verified stage of (probably massive) copyright infringement. There may be 5-10% who are in process of being verified, or who have not uploaded a sufficient quantity yet to warrant a lawsuit but who are being watched while they do.

      [1] Not so long ago I received a friendly note from my ISP that I was being observed (and the ISP was receiving DMCA threats). I got a pretty good look at what was going on that way.

      --
      Our intelligent designer has never created an animal that we couldn't improve by strapping a bomb to it.
  4. Re:"I don't get what Sony is doing..." by Yartrebo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That exception doesn't extend to the provisions against distributing software to get around said copy restriction software. It might be legal to use DeCSS for fair use, but it's illegal to give it to others or receive if from others.

    This kind of makes the fair use exception of the DMCA useless.

  5. Re:"I don't get what Sony is doing..." by tambo · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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.

    The DMCA is contradictory on this point. It does state that it won't be construed to change fair use concepts. But it also states, quite clearly, that copyright measures cannot be circumvented. It's not clear which section controls. One would hope the rules of statutory construction (particularly, a bias toward non-contradictory interpretation) would favor the former - i.e., implicitly, one may break copyright enforcement measures in furtherance of fair use - but this is not at all clear.

    Also: The DMCA criminalizes some activity that isn't fair use, but that must fairly be permitted. For instance, reverse-engineering for commercial purposes is not typically regarded as fair use, but has been tolerated in the interest of market competition. Lexmark comes to mind here, in its attempt to assert the DMCA against a company that reverse-engineered its printer hardware in order to produce non-Lexmark-branded (and infinitely cheaper) toner cartridges. Of course, Lexmark lost that suit, but the ruling was quite limited to the field of access/lockout codes.

    - David Stein

    --
    Computer over. Virus = very yes.