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?
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
The betamax defense basically argues that just because a product CAN be used for infringing uses, it doesn't mean it WILL always be, or that the tool should be outlawed. The American court system, for instance, found betamax had substantial non-infringing uses, so the technology couldn't be banned.
The same holds true of Kazaa. 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. It just provides the peer-to-peer connection -- just like any other internet technology. E-mail lets me send files, copywritten and protected or otherwise, to other users. Newsgroups let me do the same thing. So does having a Web site. So do most IM clients. Kazaa makes it easier to distribute media en masse (or at least to find it) but its not inherently different than any other technology that lets you move bits from one place to another.
The only real difference is that the popular culture around P2P is dominated by illicit use. But the technology itself can't be blamed for that.
If anything, the *AA could argue Kazaa's business model and marketing strategy are dependent on that illicit use and promote it, but that wouldn't be an argument against the technology itself, just the business. And even so, that's a hard argument to make. I'm reasonably sure Shaman has "don't be a criminal" type warnings all over its software, site and promotional materials.
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.
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.