Slashdot Mirror
Kazaa Betamax Defense, Reports From The Courtroom
The Hobo writes "CBC is reporting that Kazaa, mentioned in a previous Slashdot story has mounted the 'Betamax defence.' The prosecution claims Sharman Networks does not enforce their agreement which stipulates users cannot share copyrighted material." Also following the case, Dan Warne writes "Australia's APC magazine is publishing a daily blog from the Kazaa trial proceedings in Sydney's Federal Court. It has some details not reported elsewhere, like the music industry piracy investigation chief apparently losing a $100 bet on the first day of the trial. More seriously, blogging journalist Garth Montgomery says the court heard evidence that Kazaa's software already had the ability to block copyrighted tracks built in, despite Sharman's protestations to the contrary."
Then it's on to plan B... The Chewbacca Defense.
But Speck's hundo was the smallest coin exchanged on this day. With 5 legal teams in total, the amount being spent is inconceivable. Some QCs are on as much as $10000 a day and Dispatch hears that Bannon alone is on $6000 a day, but his performance is said to be worth it.
If only the MPAA would realize how worthwhile this could be for them! They could take these "actors" who are charging such low rates as $6000 a day and use a prewritten, sensationalist script already available in electronic form, and go ahead and produce this "movie" for everyone to see.
It's already funny, full of fictionalized reality, and cheap! They can take it right now off of the Internet and reproduce it for their own personal use! People might actually go and see this remake. It would certainly be better than the recent remake of Walking Tall with The Rock. I'm sure he charges more than $6000 a day to carry around a huge cedar 4x6 in the bed of a pickup truck.
Just a thought.
You mean they're claiming that it doesn't matter 'cos they'll lose the format war to an inferior product?
Ultra high speed transfers, closed college network.. what more can you ask for?
Because the copies being shared cannot legally BE shared.
The betamax defense should work for DVD ripping software and DVD-Rs/PVR devices.
Kazaa does not qualify for this kind of protection.
"Garth Montgomery says the court heard evidence that Kazaa's software already had the ability to block copyrighted tracks built in"
Really. I thought it was illegal to lie in court. Perjury I think its called. How the bleep would kazaa know which group of bits are copyrighted and which bits are not...
No.
Only old people USE betamax.
They're not discussing the legality of what is shared, but whether Kazaa CAN be used for legitimate purposes. It can be. You can share lots of things, like Linux ISOs, some freeware/shareware apps, old books/music, your own creations, etc.
but it bears repeating here. The entertainment industry treats it customers like criminals, and then they wonder why they are resented. I do not pirate multimedia files. I buy what I watch, listen to, and play. While I certainly don't agree with someone saying, "Well, they treat me like a criminal, so screw em, I'm stealing it" I can understand it.
Piracy sucks. People who copy files and use them forever under the guise of "deciding if I want to buy it" are wrong. But the people who make file sharing and file copying software aren't wrong and need to be left alone.
"Wow. Now THAT'S a lot of angry Indians." - Lt. Col. George Armstrong Custer
As long as you share only non-copyrighted material.
Which, for 99.9% Kazaa users, is not the case.
Same for bittorrent or other P2P apps: the apps should not be sued for "providing the infrastructure to potentially share copyrighted material".
Instead, the USERS which share that material should be sued for copyright infringment, and so on.
my 2 cents
Yeah, in Soviet^H^H^H^H^H^H Korea anyways!
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
Isn't the Betamax Defense not applicable to this situation? I thought it only applied to physical media... Could someone clarify for me and anyone else who thinks similarly?
-b0lt
got sig?
The Chewbacca Defense is a satirical term for any legal strategy that seeks to overwhelm its audience with nonsensical arguments and thus confuse them into failing to take account of the opposing arguments and, ultimately, to reject them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_Defense
I prefer the Betamax Player defense; it involves indefinitely hitting the *AA over their arrogant heads with an industrial Betamax Player
... must ... resist ... urge to make an "In Korea" joke ...
The enemy of my enemy is still a piece of shit.
Frankly I don't care who wins, so long as they both blow lots and lots of money on this case.
I guess I'd rather have KaZaA obliterated so its users would move to a more sane, less spyware-laden application (Shareaza comes to mind).
The US Army: promoting democracy through unquestioned obedience
Sony v. Universal, more commonly known as the Betamax decision. The key points of the Betamax decision are:
1. [The] noncommercial home use recording of material broadcast over the public airwaves [is] fair use of copyrighted works and [does] not constitute copyright infringement
2. [The law] does not support [...] theory that supplying the "means" to accomplish an infringing activity and encouraging that activity through advertisement are sufficient to establish liability for copyright infringement
3. The sale of copying equipment, like the sale of other articles of commerce, does not constitute contributory infringement if the product is widely used for legitimate, unobjectionable purposes, or, indeed, is merely capable of substantial noninfringing uses.
4. [U]nauthorized home time-shifting of [television] programs is legitimate fair use
The last point is the key one here: EVEN IF the copyright holder does not authorize you to make a copy for your personal use, you are STILL legally entitled to do so.
Copyright is NOT an absolute monopoly on the duplication of a published work -- no matter how they whine, the copyright cartels cannot deny you your LEGAL fair use rights.
At the end of the day Kazza has probably done more good work for the music industry than damage. Most of the people downloading music on kazza would be sub 24. And more often than not the music isnt of the best quality encoding.. often taking several downloads to find the righ copy. I know that all of my fellow users download the music they like then go and buy it from itunes or whatever other music service they choose. That way they are supporting the artists without having to buy a crap cd with 10 tracks you dont want for the one song you do.
In the UK its been shown that record sales are actually UP.. so what is all the waste of time about? battle of the corporate greed.
There are tons of documents in the public domain, or which have been released under licence which allows them to be freely redistributed. And of course there are documents that cannot legally be shared. The point of the betamax case is that the manufacture is not liable for crimes and offenses which the users commit. This is no different frome the betamax case where there were also both legal and illegal uses of the product.
Funny historic fact, Kazaa (the software) "fled the country" to avoid these lawsuits.
In the early days of Kazaa its authors sold it to sherman networks in australia the moment their legal problems got to hot. I recall one of its authors mentioned that he expected to get either get very rich or end up in jail "real soon" in an interview. Quite the imagination considdering it was a civil lawsuit with the recording business bully he was dealing with. Ofcourse the spyware could get him rich... or in jail, as people could think of it as cracking personal computers ;-)
They sold for a ridiculous low figure. Afterwards they won in appeal.
So for everyone in legal trouble with big business out there, not all judges will rule against the smallest purse. It may take time money an patience to get them to understand the issue though.
This is an interesting situation. We all know Sharman networks tried to enforce their spyware upon file sharers, and they shut down Kazaa lite for this. They deserve to be punished...
but if they are... then it could become a legal precedent against file sharing networks (and free speech perhaps?)
Either way, file sharers lose.
But then again, who still uses Kazaa, anyway?
Perhaps you should read this thread for an alternative point of view.
'Denny (FUCKING!) Crane....'
Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
I'm curious about the "not enforcing agreement" charge that the prosecution is making. First, I am wondering what legal basis this agreement falls under. It is not a copyright license. It could be construed as a contract. If so, then that contract would be between kazaa and it's users. Anyone who is sharing music which they do not have legal permission to redistribute would be in breach of contract, and thus kazaa could sue them. But is there anything in the law that says they have to? Why would a third party have any legal weight to require me to enforce a contract? Does anyone know what the law or precident is for something like this?
First, almost everything is copyrighted. We need new terminology, but for now saying "commercial" is better than saying "copyrighted" to describe works for which the author wants payment to allow copying of it.
Second, that the software can do it is not the whole point. There is a business infrastructure that would have to be built around the blocking feature, since someone (or a throng of someones) would have to maintain that information. The feature is worthless without maintenance. I don't think it would work even with a crew maintaining the information ala an antivirus company.
Kazaa argues that their product is just a machine like a copier, a VCR, or a knife. It only does what its user has it do. The other side says they are more like Kinko's or a publisher, with a legal responsibility to monitor what they copy.
It's obvious to me that Kazaa is just a machine, but you never know what will happen in a court room.
sigs, as if you care.
It's certainly possible for me to distribute my resume, my own recorded music or artwork, live band recordings (provided the artist gives the OK), or other freely distributable materials through Kazaa.
No, you may not distribute your own recorded music, because how can you verify that the underlying musical work is actually original and not subconsciously copied from an existing copyrighted work?
Once you've got a fair mp3 collection and a USB/Firewire external drive case with a 40gb HDD in it, P2P becomes pointless... you get far better results from swapping mp3 collections with friends.
A Ford saloon car carrying a hard drive with 15,000 mp3 tracks in high-quality bitrate on it both has more bandwidth than most p2p systems and is undetectable to the RIAA....
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
Distributing copyrighted material is not illegal. *Unauthorized* distribution of copyrighted material is illegal. There is a big difference. The Linux kernel, for example, is copyrighted, but you are allowed to distribute it. You can't expect the music and movie industry organizations to care about this distinction, but at least we should.
Babelfish link anyone? I can't figure out what a "spiv" is, QC versus SC (something counsel?), etc. The only Australian I know I learned from Foster's commercials...
I think the major difference really lies in the fidelity of copies. No one worries about you recording movies on TV because the tape wears out and the verison you're getting is often crippled with commercials, pan-and-scan cutting, formatted-to-fit-available-time cuts, broadcast logos... and if you're making copies of copies (essentially what Kazaa winds up being), you're losing a bit of quality each time. Look at the fansub community and their talks of "first-generation" and "second-generation" copies. In fact, it's one of the bones of contention in that community, as regards digital fansubbing, as the old tape method ensured that the fansubs had a limitted lifespan and that if/when an official version came out, the average fan would jump at the chance to get a full and valid copy.
That said, Kazaa sort of has this... while there are occasionally full movies, games, and such, in general, the movies have glitches, bad compression rates, advertisements by the people who ripped the movie. The games are often missing music, sound, and movie resources or, again, have lossy compression used for resource files. Meh... Six of one and half a dozen of the other, perhaps.
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
>Kazaa's software already had the ability to block copyrighted tracks built in, despite Sharman's protestations to the contrary.
Damn, you've got to wonder how stupid Sharman really is. Did they really think they could: (1) insert "stealth" blocking, (2) sell it to the labels as a viable DRM mechanism, (3) hope the users wouldn't notice, and (4) profit?
Was Sharman paying any attention at all to the way Napster collapsed when they added their blocking 4 years ago?
And now Sharman is still stupid enough to lie about it? Don't they know that the truth always comes out in the end?
They're ignoring a fundamenal truth here: you can't play both sides of this game. The demands of the labels and the demands of the P2P community are fundamentally incompatible, and the gulf is far too wide for anyone to bridge. People who claim otherwise are just beginners who haven't gotten burned yet.
when you buy music, movies in any format, it says you are not allowed to distribute it without consent from whoever produced it. why is that so hard to understand? just like i can not distribute GPL software without the source code. well, can i just distribute a binary, call it "sharing" and then claim it is my bits, and i can do what i want with it? no, because the bits in those order are under a license. if you are against controlled distribution, than your are against the GPL. it's just that one protects the commercial interests and another protects the intellectual interests. either way, the produces of the product, bits, whatever have a right to be able to dictate how the creations are distributed, regardless if you personally do not like, or you think you have to spend to much money to buy it. and if you do not like the license, then do not buy it. but do not steal it under some flag of freedom just because you think the MPAA or RIAA is making to much money.
From the articke:
Lawyers for the file-swapping service Kazaa argued in an Australian court Monday that its software is analogous to the old Betamax videocassette recorders.
Lawyer Tony Meagher drew on a 1984 ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court...
Any lawyers here that can explain how a precedent from a US court has any bearing in Australia??
C - the footgun of programming languages
Hope Kazaa can defend itself with that... ... meanwhile...
Slashdot this:
http://www.gooddealsplus.info/
and help lycos... lol
I don't like the trend in litigation lately. It's begging for judicial activism...asking point blank for the courts to neglect their duty to the law.
So many suits these days are not about someone doing something illegal, but rather about someone doing something you really really wish was illegal. This case is a prime example -- it's clear to anyone who's had first year Con Law that Kazaa is totally safe. But here we have some people who really wish it wasn't true, so they get their day in court and a chance, however slim, to write new law in the courts instead of the legislature.
The SCO case comes to mind, too. People get an idea of how they wish the law was, and sue based on that. Not just evil people, either: I seem to remember a recent case where a duly enacted law extending copyright protection was challenged in a court, not a legislature.
Of course, it would be easy to say that these people are just wrong, wrong, wrong for abusing the judicial system this way, but I think the problem goes a little deeper. People feel disenfranchised in the legislature. As soon as they elect someone, they're whisked away by the highest bidder and don't have to listen to you again for another few years. Once every few years isn't enough time to get your representative/senator's ear. The courts always have to listen to you, right now, and make a decision based on the merits of your case. That seems like a pretty attractive alternative.
Politicians are often said to have a social "contract" with their constituents. But we all know what verbal contracts are worth. I want it in writing next time. What are you promising me? What are you promising not to do?
And, when / if the time comes, I want to be able to sue you for specific performance.
adam b.
Hit 'em with the Morpheus Defense, Lazlo!
--
make install -not war
Let's abolish copyright!
Problem solved.
No, seriously. Let's suppose copyright was abolished tomorrow.
What do you suppose would happen to the various entertainment industries?
I can't help it - I'm a sucker for thought experiments.
+++ATH0
What's all the commotion about Betamax? Here in Korea, only old people use Betamax.
"No, officer, those papers are for tobacco use only! And so is that bong that looks like a skull. I'm tellin' you, it's for tobacco!"
"Was it a millionaire who said 'Imagine No Posessions?'" -- Elvis Costello
Aren't you the enemy of your enemy?
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
I don't actually think anyone is contesting this. The sharers of copyrighted works who live in areas where the copyrights in question apply are committing a crime, no question.
The questions we are positing are:
adam b.
the 'Chewbacca Defense' is? It appears to be some sort of Intarweb cliche' that has escaped my notice.
They would have better luck pursuing the case in the United States alleging that the profits and the business model rely on the in-direct benefit of criminal copyright violations. Since their ad revenue is driven by the number of users and their users are largerly there for illegal music and videos this criminal case could work. Jail Time Fines Treble Civil Penalties 18 USC 96
Considering some RIAA tractics I don't think they want any mention of RICO flying around.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
Queen's Counsel.
I usually prefer not to support artists which only have one listen-able track on their albums. It usually means they're a fabricated band that doesn't actually have any talent.
I've found over the years that if I'm not likely to enjoy the whole album, the first song is a piece of fluff that in two years will have become hackneyed and overplayed.
But I'm not bitter.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
I didn't have TV over the summer so wasn't able to see the new series Stargate Atlantis first episodes. Once I turned TV back on I decided to go catch up.
I think we can agree it's their show, right? So, why don't they get to say when you can watch it, or more plainly, what gives you the right to download it via BitTorrent? Atlantis has been in reruns all fall.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Portman grits (tm)
What have they done in a criminal way or one that is particularly described in the definitions of the statue?
I feel like I'm watching the presidential election again. Do I vote for the giant douche? Or the turd Sandwich? John Kerry? or G.W.? Spyware-ridden-kazaa? or the evil RIAA? Quite frankly, this case just makes my skin crawl. Someone else posted something to the effect of the old cliche': "My enemy of my enemy". In this case, it really doesn't work. The RIAA isn't our friend for taking down a spyware-ridden file-sharing network, because if they take down one, they have the precedent to take them all down. On the other hand, while CA has merely labeled Kazaa as one of their "pests" (a.k.a. spyware), what's to stop Sherman from trying to make up for their court costs in Australia, and use Gator's precedent? If you ask me, we should just exile them both from the planet, let them kick each other in the nuts for eternity, and go back to our happy, simple, file-sharing-without-spyware lives.
"No one is more miserable than the person who wills everything and can do nothing." -Emperor Claudius 10 BC - AD 54
petrified in old korean pants.
Well, here is an interesting issue. Using Firefox 1.0 on Win2K, I had mistakenly left the system set to claim to be IE 6 on XP.
Following the link to the blog gets me a Java NullPointerError, basically hosing all of Firefox. After ending it, I can't restart it without the system complaining "Java Plug-In for Netscape Navigator should not be used in Microsoft Internet Explorer. Please use Java Plug-in for Microsoft Internet Explorer instead."
I can't fix it. Firefox is gone. I uninstalled, rebooted, reinstalled and same error. If started, it consumes 99% CPU and never comes on screen and has to be killed.
I'm posting there HERE because here was the link to the website that triggered the error. Anyone else brave enough to try and reproduce it?
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
http://news.com.com/2100-1027-5161209.html?tag=ale rt
Granted. It's a long stretch but so is sueing Kazaa under the same law.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
A beowulf cluster of old people for encoding movies of Natalie Portman (petrified)..
At least slashdot knows how to spell. Come on BBC spelling is important, stupid british people like to spell stuff wrong.
Good luck to her, but I don't see it working. RIAA was pursuing an action that it had under the law and that is not a violation of RICO. RIAA offering her and others a settlement which in effect results in the RIAA being paid money not to excercise a legal right is at the heart of all settlements. If you crash into my car I can either sue you or settle. And you know that sometimes haggling can be intense, but what I can't do is threaten to break your legs if you don't settle. She may want it to be illegal, but she'll lose, because RICO specifically targets real extortion, bribes, and lots of other crimes (including copyright). Extortion and bribes depend on trying to get or give money to either get or prevent someone from doing something that you have no legal right to. (Like bribing a teacher for a grade would be covered or extortion based on naked or embarassing photo's since you are driven by something that you have no right to use.)
Going after Kazaa under the same law is actually ten times easier than that lady's RICO assertion against the RIAA. RICO works analagous to this: I have a business and I'm bent on making $$. I go to you and say buy my stuff or else! Now that you buy from me -- I profit, but only as the indirect result of my crime. So you can sue me, personally, for the tort of assault and criminally under a terroristic threat statue or similar law in your area (in NJ Title 2C). Now what about my business' ill-gotten profit? That'll either be taken care of via accomplice, accessory charges in crime or possible RICO acts. This assumes my business is a corporation (not partnership or sole prop -- where the owners are directly and personally responsible). That's what this is about -- criminal profits even if in-direct, if beneficial to your corporation can cause the whole thing to come down.
Pretty clear to me. A victory for the RIAA establishes a precedent which they use to go after other P2P networks.
Kazaa is something I never touched with a 10ft pole, but I dont' want to see them lose on principal, because this opens the door for more legitimate networks coming under fire.
If Kazaa wins, they remain the target...
Go Kazaa
Now what about my business' ill-gotten profit? That'll either be taken care of via accomplice, accessory charges in crime or possible RICO acts.
But is it Kazaa's responsibility to monitor the use of their resources? In your case the business owner(s) are aware of the wrong doing (since they're doing it). What if the business was a legal business but people were using it's goods for illegal purposes? It seems to me that it's a completely different situation than what you described. If I own a drugstore and you buy an OTC product and use it in making crystal meth does that make me a trafficker of illegal drugs, an accessory to the production of an illegal drug or simply a guy who sold a product in good faith that was used to a bad end?
Or better yet, is a cable provider an accessory to cable theft if they sell you a legal service such as basic cable and you use a hack device to view channels that are not included in your contract?
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
What's a 'protestation'?
If you crash into my car I can either sue you or settle.
What if I was drunk? Wouldn't asking money from me to let the criminal charges slide be a form of extortion? The RIAA was (and may still be) offering to not file criminal charges for a dollar amount. It certainly sounds like extortion to me.
http://news.com.com/2100-1027-5129687.html
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
The question is not whether unauthorized distribution of copyrighted works is illegal. The question is whether Kazaa, because it is often used as a vector for said distribution, is illegal. Which is the same question as whether VHS being used to make illegal copies makes VHS illegal, or if playing copyrighted songs over the phone makes your phone illegal, or if bashing someone's head in with a crowbar makes crowbars illegal: NO, because some thing being used for an illegal purpose does not make that thing illegal in all other cases.
You're saying that unauthorized copying is illegal, which nobody disagrees with because it's what the law says. What the ??AA is doing is extending that to say that therefore having the capacity to make unauthorized copies is also illegal. This is crazy-stupid, but it gets play time because the ??AA has the $$$$.
The enemies of Democracy are
If we somehow got everyone to agree to post torrents of (non-premium cable) TV shows including commercials, would that make the "we're not harming anyone" defense stronger and maybe get the studios to let up with their legal attacks?
So, why don't they get to say when you can watch it, or more plainly, what gives you the right to download it via BitTorrent?
What gives them the right to say when you can watch it? In general in the USA you can do anything you want to do unless it is explictly prohibited.
In this case, the relevant law is copyright, which includes exceptions for fair use. So, now the question is whether he was exercising fair use. The studio doesn't get to define fair use, by the way, it is a legal concept defined by Cogress and the courts.
There really is no concrete definition of fair use - it tends to be "if it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck..." kind of argument.
If you copied two episodes that you missed so that you can keep up with the advertising-supported TV series, that would probably fall under fair use. If you downloaded every episode as a substitute for watching the ad-supported TV series, then that would probably not fall under fair use. The uploader did not bother to find out which you're doing, so they can potentially be found liable. If, on the other hand, the uploader just sent files directly to email contacts that he first checked were just trying to obtain a show or two, they probably would not be able to be held liable in practice. Of course, this is why MPAA is going after large-scale sharers - not people sending lone files by email. P2P is littered with gray areas, and of course the ??AA are going to fight their battles against defendants who are more likely to lose. If they went after somebody who downloaded a single MP3 file from an out-of-print record to complete their full collection of Beetles songs, then they'd probably lose. Instead, they go after somebody hosting 500 Brittany Spears recordings for anyone to download...
Copyright isn't just about what you copy - it is also about why you are copying it. In some cases, copying is perfectly legal.
Technology, the cause of and solution to all of life's problems.
Say I created a program that served as a directory to locate files on other machines connected to the internet BUT used Microsoft's built in FTP program to both serve and retrieve the files, and I stored the directory on many small servers that I had no ownership stake in scattered around the internet (to participate in the file exchange program people would have to host pieces of the directory too).
Now let's say that to piece all of this together, everything I used was Microsoft tools. In essence, what I've coded is all Microsoft. All I did was "string the beads" with a little creative coding.
Now let's imagine the RIAA or MPAA or some other organization suing because of this program. What would their chances be against Microsoft. IANAL but I'd bet it would be pretty close to zip. Their chance would be much greater against me. Even if I have a license agreement clause that stipulated that the user should not use this software to copy copyrighted programs. Still if they came after me, I would defend myself by saying that my license prohibited such use and Microsoft's product facilitated the process.
I'd probably also argue that I was no more a facilitator than the ISP! I'd try to claim that once the product leaves my hand, I am no more responsible for it's use than Ford is responsible for the way a driver uses a car. Can you really expect Ford to be sued because their car was used in a bank robbery? Or than it was raced at well above the speed limit?
I really don't think that it is an open and shut case. I'm not even convinced that Kazaa is playing a shell game with it's corporate structure (although the press coverage makes that seem likely).
When do you think RIAA will start sueing the US Postal Service because people send cds full of pirated music thought it? Is it really differant? People sending pirated music though a medium that was not intended to be used for that purpose and does not check for pirated music.
...o wait...
Although, going by this logic, the US postal service should have been shutdown after the anthrax attacks, because it was obviously their fault that they did not check well enough for the anthrax.
Go back to sueing the users RIAA!
Contrary to the U.S Australia has no fair use laws. In this country it's illegal to copy music from a cd you own to any other medium unless you have permission from the copyright author. In particular I refer to this info sheet, http://www.copyright.org.au/PDF/InfoSheets/G070.pd f.
Depends... I'll run two scenarios, one I call normal and the other extortion. Your drunk and crash into my car. I suffer $20,000 in direct damages - new car, towing, and rental for a reasonable period while I get a new car. Let's assume no one is seriously hurt (otherwise the figures will go up quickly.) I offer you $25,000 to settle the case or even $20,000 -- that's not extortion. That's saying you can buy the legal right for me not to sue you by paying me a fair amount of money. If I tell you give me $50,000 or I will report you to the police for drunk driving now that's extortion, since I have no business with the criminal aspect. Assuming it was a routine crash....You were arrested at the scene, anyway. I have nothing to do with that aspect. In fact, most likely, I will wait until after you are convicted for drunk driving since that will make my civil court case a done deal and will also subject you to punitive damages. If you just crash into me I am only entitled to recovering my damages, but if you crash into me recklessly or intentionally then I can easily demand punitive damages to stop you from your bad actions -- and effectively punish you. All crimes are prosecuted by the state and are committed against the state. The victim is "society". But civil suits are over torts and contracts. Breaking the law sets you up for a tort lawsuit from the property owner/direct victim and criminal prosecution from the government on behalf of society. That's why in a drunk driving case the lawsuits would be: State of NJ vs You (for criminal liability, fines, prison, etc) or People of the State of CA vs You and in the civil liability section will be: Me Vs You
I also like the shopkeeper analogy in this case: You shoplift from me a case of wine, let's say worth $250. I sue you for $250 -- I want my property back, that's all my interest is. But after that I'll turn you into the police and prosecutor and they'll do what they do. Or maybe they'll let you plead to a lesser offense, community service, anything, but I don't care because that's my concern. If you offer me $500 to let me go and condition it on not informing the police that's a bribe since that's not a legal right that can normally be bought and sold -- it's not a property right or a claim to property. (Sort of like buying and selling votes) -and likewise- if I tell you pay me $500 and I won't call the police that would be extortive. It all depends on the facts. Now what the RIAA was doing was invoking their copyright protection which sets up civil damages and suing on that basis. Which is their legally recognized property right. You can either go to court argue about facts or damages or both or settle with them and then they'll drop their case. After that, they don't care if the FBI gets involved. The FBI has jurisdiction for criminal copyright investigations in the United States. But hey if the FBI gets involved that's helpful to the RIAA and if not that's okay, too. The RIAA's own behavior needs to be justified. And I believe this lady is just complaining that the RIAA was asking for too much money to drop the case. But saying pay me or I won't drop the case isn't extortive since that's the essence of out-of-court settlement negotiations.
yes
If your relative is making copies of these phonographs in California and makes, for example, more than 1000 copies of one of them, he could in principle go to prison for 5 years and face a $250,000 fine.
Crazy...
From somebody who has read a lot of this guy's articles, I'd like to point out that this guy is an absolute champion and is, in my opinion, the most consistent IT reporter I've read. For example, he played a very big part in the http://www.whirlpool.net.au/ which has been linked to several times in /. articles.
I slight clarification: Australia _does_ have fair use laws, it's just that they are related to things like being able to photocopy sections of of a book for study and don't extend to being able to copy CDs or timeshift television.
The Australian Supreme Court does *not* recognise US precedent.
In Australia, there is no such thing as fair use. It *is* illegal here to tape a show off the TV. It *is* illegal here to copy your own CD for "backup."
It's quite possible this case could go either way.
There ARE fair use provisions in Australian law (e.g. for academic use, quotation for purpose of critical review, etc) but they are different to US law and "time shifting" and "media shifting" are not provided by Australian laws.
Unless...
If an Australian court did accept Betamax as a legal precedent then suddenly "time shifting" becomes legal. Cool huh?
Betamax fort and won on the defence that they made the device but had no control what a person used it for.
The main fight was over Betamax machines coping copy locked tapes without problems.
Kazza is fighting the same fight.
Note bittorrent that has large amount of legal and illegal content could win the fight because of no central server ie no control.
Note kazza clients are the same no central server.
Note US gun lobby if Kazza lost a case in the US like this it would change the law. Ie the GUN did the crime not the users using it. (many other file sharing programs are developed in the USA and trade in more content.)
The Betamax Defense seems to rely on "fair use" and the fact that the VCR is used to make a "fair use" copy.
Firstly Australia doesn't have "fair use" so how can this defense be used here.
Secondly even if we did have "fair use" Kazaa is not used for making "fair use" copies. Other software does that. Kazaa is used either for publishing copies you have made under the guise of "fair use" OR gaining access to copies that others have made.
Ah yes, the betamax defense. Didn't Fisher use that in his second game against Boris Spasky?
If you're interested, the authority on Australian copyright law is the Australian Copyright Council. However, the current laws will change if the FTA enabling legislature is passed.
'Spiv' is British slang for a con-man. QC (Queen's Counsel) and SC(Senior Counsel) are British terms as well. Yes, we speak English here.
As an aside, Australians hate Foster's. That why we export it, to get it out of the fucking country.
I wash mah-self with a rag on a stick.
This issue has given me food for thought most of the day. Here is my black/white/logical opinion. Flame if you must.
A) You can't take something that doesn't belong to you, period. Not life, liberty, songs, software or Videos. You can't logically debate for taking something that doesn't belong to you.
B) Kazaa is more like the pawn shop who knowingly sells stolen goods. The store owner will get arrested, not the buyer.
C) The Beta-Max decision does not apply to this case. Why? Because in 1984 you couldn't distribute your copy to everyone on the face of the planet. The decision granted you the recorder, permission to time shift. Not the justification to share your recordings with your neighbor. Just because you missed the broadcast, does not give you the right to download and view it for free. You didn't take the extra effort to set your VCR/PVR/Whatever so obviously you don't care.
D) We wouldn't be having this discussion if humans were honest by nature. Were not.
E) Nothing in life is free. Especially at the expense of others. Learn it, Live it, Love it.
F) Western Governments will soon pass more stringent internet usage laws unless we police ourselfs. Say goodbye to anonymous cowards.
G) If even one pedifile picture is passed on a p2p service, 90 percent of the US population will vote to ban p2p.
Food for thought, I may add others to my post later. Enjoy,
It's just the normal noises in here.
When i hear people argue about P2P services, it usually pertains to the legality of downloading copyrighted material. This argument will go on indefinetly, because both sides are vehement, and neither is going to change its mind anytime soon. The fact is, as long as free P2P is available, it will be used. And it will always be available. So the real focal point of the argument should be this: Just how long is it going to take the **AA's to realize that they can't win the battle they're currently pursuing? Eventually they will find someway to get money out of free P2P, because they have to. Be it through advertisments, or through some as-of-yet unrealized method, they will get it. Thats just my take on the matter, do with it what you may.
By the way, yes, I have downloaded copyrighted materials. And yes, it often bugs my concience. But, i'm a poor high school student, and i love music. Whats a guy to do?
In Korea, only old people resist the urge to make "In Korea" jokes.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Did anybody mention handguns in the Betamax defense?
sony invents betamax,sued,sony invents cdr, now sony-BMG are the ones pissed,long live p2p
damn html format, reposted for your viewing pleasure:
:(
I once read a interesting story about the economy of the future.
We had lots of things,
then communism,
then socialism or something,
then democracy, (present day)
and then there is a economy that drives on information (= money),
and is very similar to the open source idea at the same time (at least between consumers)
Eventualy, every consumer wil have a small powerplant in his home,
and shares and takes energy like the P2P model. This goes for telephone networks etcetera.
Does anyone know how this economy was called?
Or a book/website about it? I dont remember.
Hivemind harvest in progress..