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."
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
Besides, no one's going to download your creations. What everyone wants is the popular crap. And that's what's traded on Kazaa.
I fail to see how that matters. Just because something *CAN* and *IS* used for something illegal does not mean that was its original intent.
No matter what Kazaa does to "stop" the piracy from going on it's going to continue because the users will always find a way around it.
Just because you have "adult protection" and it removes words that contain "adult words" does not mean that the users won't just circumvent that (like when Napster started doing it and people just went ahead and encoded full albums to MP3).
It's a transmission medium just like any other and it should be treated as such. Case closed.
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.
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
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.