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."
There is more info here: Afterdawn.com
In the US it is perfectly legal to rip purchased CDs into MP3 format for non-commerical use.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
This would seem to be inconsistent.. unless, you know, you actually took a moment to think about it.
Sony has some online music service where they do not allow you (vis a vis the linked to licensing agreemnet) to copy the songs to other players. Fine. If you dont like that, DONT USE THE SERVICE. The consequences of this licensing proviso has been factored in to the "supply and demand" equation for the service offering.
On the other hand, it has been shown that you are welcome to take your purchased sony CD-ROMs and make Mp3s for them for your personal use on your sony MP3 players or whatnot. It has been pretty much universally acknowledged that as long as its for your own personal use, this is a privilege that you get with your physical CD purchase and this has likewise been "supply / demanded" in to the price offering.
Why is it so hard to understand that one company might offer two different levels of service / product at different prices?
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.
As I understand it, a common punishment for criminal offences in Australia is to be kicked with a large boot. Can anyone in the know enlighten me as to whether this is also done in a civil trial? If Kazaa wins, do they get to boot the execs of the record companies? Their lawyers? The artists?
Unknown host pong.
6. Linking to Sony Sites
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.
(to which I say: ok, lets wipe you off the face of the internet)...Oh shit now I've done it too: 2...no part of the content of this site may be reproduced in any form without the written consent of Sony...
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!"
Ok, what the hell does that have to do with the stated news article about suing Shaman Networks? More news, less uninformed opinion please? Nah - too much to ask.
KaZaa is about to get voted off the island.
sorry.
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.
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.
Forever time with this "If you don't like it, don't buy it" argument.
No. If they don't like it, they don't have to sell it. I am tired of being an unpaid enforcer of their policies. Fact of the mater is they are introducing a product with an immature technology for protecting their interests. So they impose upon mine. Licensing be damned: I don't tell them how to spend the money used to purchase their product, so quit telling me how to use the product. If you don't like what I am going to do with a product, perhaps you shouldn't have sold it to me. Why should the onus be strictly upon me?
I have to imagine basic piracy is also factored into the equation of their product offering (as well as buying off members of congress to pass legislation favorable to them). And for all the rampart piracy, they still continue to bring products to the market (albeit in crippled form). The terms of the licensing is just a means for them to keep collecting revenue while crying foul all-the-while. If I stopped payment on a check until they agreed to all of my terms of use, I doubt you'd be as sympathetic.
EULAs, Steam, RIAAA; perhaps they should have researched to whom they are selling to instead of taking the money and bitching about it afterwards.
This just in... the President signed into law the latest anti-piracy bill banning the sale of Sharpie pens. With puppet strings visible the President remarked "Piracy of entertainment is a terrorist threat to our nation and must be confronted with swift decisive action" although his southern twang was curiously replaced with a heavy Austrian accent. The bill also retroactively forces all computer keyboards to have their shift keys removed.
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10