Slashdot Mirror
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."
In the US it is perfectly legal to rip purchased CDs into MP3 format for non-commerical use.
Even if it circumvents a copyprotection system?
Except there is no Fair Use clause in Aussie copyright law. So they can't do this legally in Austrialia, hence why the submitter said this.
if it's so obvious, why is it hard to prove in court?
if i was working for the suer, i'd argue that creating p2p software is like writing a virus... while the virus maker is not necessarily the person who distributes it, he is still liable for the damages caused.
but if i was working for the sued, i'd argue that Microsoft does not get sued for crimes committed by people using Windows as a facilitating tool.
but IANAL, so...
What is this "shift key" of which you speak? I'm breaking the law simply by using an OS that doesn't support their precious DRM system. All us *nix users (including those with that "mainstream" BSD-based Apple thing) are criminals for putting DRMed CDs in our computers without being willing or able to run their RIAA virus.
Only in a Slashdot fantasy can a Slackware install turn into several hours of sex . . . . .
Yes, there is a Fair Use clause in Australian copyright law, it just isn't identical to the one in the US. (and unfortunately while it does cover photocopying parts of books, it doesn't cover copying music from one medium to another).
However, there is also case law, some of which may be helpful. One example was when an Australian cable network was sued by a free-to-air network because the cable network was rebroadcasting the free-to-air signal (including ads) over cable without permission. Seems like an obvious breach of copyright law - copying the entire network content. But the cable network won, partly on the grounds that they were rebroadcasting the signal to people who were already entitled to receive it, and the free-to-air network couldn't actually prove it had caused any financial loss to them.
As such, a law suit to stop someone copying their CDs to their own media player might prove difficult, despite it not being covered by fair use.
But your milage may vary and I am not a lawyer...
In fact, they're trying the opposite tactic. They have essentially missed the whole MP3 player market - entering the field late, and with a product that was both indistinguishable from a dozen also-rans and rendered lame by copyright restrictions. So they are endeavoring to propagate the "repeat media sale" model to these new devices. They sell you one copy of the CD for your home computer, another copy for your car, a third for your MP3 player...
This is perhaps the greatest threat of the P2P/open-media frontier: the big media gravy train is coming to an end, as the public realizes it should only have to buy content once.
- David Stein
Computer over. Virus = very yes.
That was in the Netherlands.
They might move back there again if they lose here, or get into too much difficulty.
good luck with your theory.
some people PAID MONEY for kazaa ?gold? and were still sued by the Riaa
and how free do you think it is to get to the point where you get to espouse your theory to the judge?
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
On a side-note...
In fact when Kazaa would have stayed in Dutch hands, then Kazaa would have stayed a legal p2p program.
And prosecuters from other countries would not have been able to convict it in court as illegal software.
As the case in The Netherlands against Kazaa was already won by the creators of Kazaa.
Furthermore p2p software in itself in The Netherlands by law in itself cannot be prosecuted as being illegal...because p2p software in itself does not cause the illegal act.
Also downloading of copyrighted media and software is considered legal in The Netherlands, this is because downloading is not considered as the actual act of infringing the copyright, that is done by the people who crack and rip media and software.
A license is a grant of privileges. These 'licenses' on the other hand purport to grant no privileges, but rather to take away those that the purchaser already has.
I agree with don't buy it - and I don't buy these things. I think it's important not to give money to people that are clearly planning to spend it to corrupt the legal system. But at the same time, I'm not about to take the position that you seem to be taking, that those who do purchase these things must follow the letter of 'licenses' that grant no license and 'agreements' that are not agreed upon.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Remember the laws of the USA != the laws of other countries and this is, sadly, where your argument falls flat on its face.
Here in the UK (and other countries) when you purchase a CD, you purchase a licence to listen to the music on that medium only.
Therefore you cannot rip your music to MP3 and use it on your portable player without permission from the copyright holder. So buying a CD and dumping the contents onto your iPod is actually illegal.
Having said that I'd hope no music company would be silly enough to try and get the law enforced, but you never know ...
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
So its legal to rip but not to distribute? That is fine and I think that if ripping is the ONLY thing the end-users were doing that organizations like the MPAA and RIAA would have no problem with it. In all honesty, their problems stem from the millions of files that are traded *DAILY* without any money going to the companies that produced this material. It does not matter if we disagree with the price, their marketing, or if we should be able to share it or not....we did not create it and we do not hold any copyright's over it - they do.
So some of these rules they setup with their EULA's, laws, etc are valid because they are sueing people and winning.
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.