Slashdot Mirror
Kazaa's Australian Assets Frozen
sandstorming writes "Wired is reporting that Sharman Networks (the creators of Kazaa) and Altnet (which licenses technology to Kazaa) have had their assets frozen in the country of Australia. The verdict comes almost four months after the start of the trial prompted by five record company suits. The Australian federal court will convene on March 22nd for final oral submissions, and the verdict is expected several weeks later. Is this the beginning of the end for Kazaa?"
"I worry about my child and the Internet all the time, even though she's too young to have logged on yet. Here's what I worry about. I worry that 10 or 15 years from now, she will come to me and say 'Daddy, where were you when they took freedom of the press away from the Internet?'"
--Mike Godwin, Electronic Frontier Foundation
Don't balme to tools.
Karma: Bad. Calmer, good.
Is this the beginning of the end for Kazaa?
The beginning of the end for Kazaa came when Cohen released the first Bit Torrent client. The program has gone dangerously downhill since then, with ever-increasing corrupted or misnamed files being uploaded by corporations, a smaller user base with a smaller variety of files, and increased fear by the public of getting sued for downloading illegal MP3s - not to mention slower download speeds and an adware-riddled client.
Hopefully this is closer to the end of the end for Kazaa.
Long live the new age of governance! Our wonderful Wild West internet is just becoming another government approved entity. Sharman sucks balls, but the idea that all the governments of the world are going to be able to reach out and touch the assets of any non-approved internet entities, means the age of innovation and information dissemination is over. Regulation of any behavior that threatens the status quo of any government on this planet will end what makes the internet great.
Where can a person live to escape the influence of corporate america and its legal influence of politicians world wide... I move to australia and this crap happens with the free trade agreement, and now here in the UK on the front of the times there is a threat of prosecution for 'copyright infringement'. I am starting to understand the desire to see the end of my home country in some ways. Yes, I said it. I do not believe in the death of innocent people, but those innocent people have voted to perpetuate the lifestyles they cling to and that involves in many ways (oil, patents, etc) the erosion of other cultures value systems. No longer does morality play a role in the US (has it for some time?), but more it is what can we get and how can we get it. Make my shares climb and I do not care how you do it. Greed is a virus. UGH!!! For those who wish to vilify me for this sentiment, have at it.
Dont try to profit off of copyright infringement.
Until this took place, the industries really didnt notice, or care.. It just increased the market share in the long run.
If things had been kept 'free', with no commercial angle, there would have been no massive lasuits and attacks on our digital rights..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Every single music/dvd buy i did last year was first a download off P2P. Some of them is stuff i'd never given a chance otherwise.
You're right though. You won't see quality performers sales declining because of downloads - but what's the incentive to buy a Ashlee Simpson CD if you know you'll get tired of it in two weeks?
for the same reason car dealers don't leave keys in the cars on the lot.
Oh yeahhh shudder, because someone might come and make a COPY of a car...
It ain't the same thing. Before, people used to tape songs off the radio. Now you can download them off the internet. They used to moan about it then. Now they are prosecuting - why? Because those downloads can be traced. That's the only reason. Their arguments are the same: copyright infringement is costing them money. Still I haven't seen many of their manufactured "stars" in the poorhouse.
If you steal a car you are stealing the money that the dealer invested in the stock and the dealer is also no longer able to get that money back - he doesn't have a car to sell. Plus, he lost his profit (which is the least of his worries at this point).
If you download a song, what exactly are you costing the record company? Lost POTENTIAL profit? As far as I know, potential profit is not the same as potential difference or voltage. It doesn't exist. It's an accounting construct based on "projections" and "estimates". But until you MAKE that profit, it's not yours. In just about every country in the world when you sue someone you have to PROVE that you have been DAMAGED. Only in this business does a court accept that because Joe Pirate downloaded a song, the company lost the POTENTIAL PROFIT from selling the song and has been damaged. There are two mistakes here. First, it has not COST the company anything - their balance sheet is not any different than it was the moment before the "theft". The second is the assumption that the "thief" was actually going to pay for the song in the first place. This assumption is generally incorrect - if you download something it's probably because you won't buy it (for various reasons: price, convenience, etc). So if he wasn't going to buy it - they haven't even lost a sale.
I wish people would stop comparing copyright infringement to stealing because they are not the same at all. To steal is to take something, to pirate is to COPY something.
If you visit other parts of the world you will find salesmen and even whole stores devoted to selling fake CD's - albums they downloaded and printed labels for. They try to sell you these CD's either passing them off as originals in some cases, or at a discount. This is REAL piracy. It is completely wrong - why should someone else make a living off your work, and pass off a product that is (usually) an inferior quality to your original product? THIS is what copyright law was originally designed to prevent. Not litigating against some grandmother who downloads a song for free and listens to it in her own home.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
I'd say the EFF didn't expect our elected representatives to make punishment for file sharing harsher than many rape, fraud, manslaughter etc. sentences.
Kazaa has been a usless network for a long time. Its only saving grace is that the RIAA was obsessed with them. If Kazaa falls they will need a new target.
No, it's more like "How dare these big mean companies claim ownership of something that can't be owned". That we, through our gov't, gave them this power makes no difference. We're going to take it back. Using Kazaa is a little like firing up a joint in the capitol building. It's a stupid program for all the obvious reasons. If I share files, I sure don't broadcast it out to the world in big bright lights, but I do like for it to be known that unless they outlaw uploading, P2P is unstoppable, and we will share what we want whether you like it or not. This arms race has no end in sight until people understand that copyright(and all its IP kin) actually impedes innovation while encouraging speculation.