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?"
you should always keep your money in Swiss banks...
Windows has detected an undetectable error.
Well, DUH! Just move to the next p2p software. Kazaa was shit anyway.
I'd say this is the end of the beginning of the end.
I mean even if they did win. They'd have to install alot of spyware to pay for all the court costs.
"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.
Using BitTorrent doesn't make it "harder" for you to get caught than using KaZaa and whatnot. I deal with cease and desist letters involving BitTorrent files all day.
or use HYMN :)
actually i meant napster.. i think there will be a new music store called kazaa soon
am I the only one who has a problem with songs that excercise control over the comp I paid 3 grand for? Its my comp and it should not hide stuff (the decrypted song) from its owner.
All the RIAA is doing is trying to protect their property. They try to protect their tracks for the same reason car dealers don't leave keys in the cars on the lot. The fact is, when you illegally download copyrighted material you _are_ breaking the law. Whether or not you think this law is correct is one thing, but a company cannot be faulted for trying to protect the rights afforded to them by law.
-py
Like we really didn't see that one coming.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
12345
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
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 ----
I use iTMS quite frequently to buy music - both tracks and albums. On the other hand, I also download files illegally from sources such as Bittorrent and IRC.
While I know it's illegal, I class it on the same scale as driving over the speed limit on a road which I would consider it not life-endangering to do so. However, it's a risk I take in that generally there isn't much chance of me getting caught speeding on a road where everyone else is speeding, and similarly with filesharing and downloading files illegally I class it as an acceptable risk.
Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (P)anic
Since most of the music from the RIAA is imported from america why would the australian government try to stop people getting the music for free? and possibly increase the amount of money leaving the country to america to pay for music? even though we all know most people will just get it for free elsewhere or simply not bother getting it. Why are people so chronically against themselves these days? "support the industry" "support the economy" "give them your money they need it" they think walmart is a damn charity.
ahh but then they will put you in the gas chamber. those barbaric industry worshipping morons. unless you choose "humane" and they will put you down like an animal.
I *do* buy the stuff, if it's worth buying.
That's the problem. Most of the time, it isn't, and I delete it.
The creators of Kazaa? I think not. They are the current owners of Kazaa maybe, but it seems that a Swedish guy together with two Estonians created the application, while the P2P protocol came from Amsterdam. It was sold to Sharman Networks later on. The Australian software company then messed it up big time - but that is history (it seems).
Source: various articles on Google found by searching for "creators of kazaa".
I dont buy stuff because I do not have the money, I dont have the space for it and I can get it free so I do. Get over it, things will NEVER change.
IF we CAN we WILL. Im reducing my "paid" software regulary once they become viable alternatives, ie openoffice instead of Office, tbird instead of outlook and so on. I dont do that out of morality, I do that because I like those products. I still use pirated copies of VMware Photoshop etc because there are no other alternatives that suit my needs and I cannot afford them and I dont make money from them, TOUGH SHIT. BITE ME.
Anyway, this is like blaming Smith & Wesson for people shooting each other in the street.
"The trial primarily focused on the authorization of copyright infringement. Lawyers representing the music industry say Sharman can prevent the transfer of illegal material. It doesnt, it says, because the primary activity of Kazaa users is to infringe copyright."
This is interesting though - can you really tell the difference between "illegal" and "legal" material to be shared on P2P? Other than DRM, that is.
Wasn't Skype created by the same people? Will Skype be affected by this?
With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?
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?
down there.
They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
Bullshit.
Current DRM is the equivalent of the dealership keeping the keys AFTER I buy the car, and having to ask their permission and borrow the keys whenever I want to drive it, which they grant only if I'm going to drive on roads they approve of, to destinations they approve of, with passengers they approve of.
Its not 'corporate *america*' that is the problem.
Its corporations in general, *world wide*, who now have more power then small countries.
This of course doesnt mean governments are also an issue, but today it looks like the corporations are a much larger threat in general.
Dont blame the USA for a systemic world problem.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
"...assets frozen in the country of Australia"
Australia is a country now?
I thought Australia was a penal colony of the British Empire. This is very disturbing news indeed.
I fear what will happen if this news spreads to other parts of the Empire. What if the barbarians of the American colonies want to govern themselves?
The mere thought almost makes me feel nauseous enough to skip high tea.
Most likely not on DC++... most of those morons find it too confusing to figure out and don't have large enough shares to get in.
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.
ISPs can't be forced to give up who used ISP address by corporations.
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.
I just took a walk outside, here in Canada, and my assets are frozen too!
I don't thik it would be possible to freeze my assets in Australia.
Does it make you happy you're so strange?
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
This is not a current problem, but you have hit the nail on the head. Within 20 years we'll have full-blown nanotechnology and copying any physical good will be trivial.
The coolest part is to be able to keep inventory in its original form: dirt and sunlight. When you need a new part (or hamburger), just load the appropriate blueprint, and the device will pull in enough dirt and sunlight (and perhaps resize itself, if the object is a car or a house or something), and produce it for you. For free.
GM and Ford will be up in arms when people start trading exact blueprints for cars over P2P networks. But they will be powerless to stop it.
I think it's very interesting to be watching **AA et al go through the same issues, just a few years earlier.
And it really doesn't matter how they screw up the law, morality, economy, country, world; we'll be going off-planet soon enough and "they" won't be able to control us. (I liked the idea posted here a few days ago about taking apart the planets, because it's much more difficult to move around the solar system when you have large gravity wells.)
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
Kazaa's Australian Assets Frozen
- I'd have told them it was a bad idea to keep their money in a PayPal account, but they never thought to ask me I guess.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
Yes it can, if they're being nasty about it. I blame people who insist on bad laws, why not companies?
I am trolling
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.
- Sell DRM-free files direct from the record companies, cheaply because of minimal individual production costs (bandwidth instead of stamping and transporting a CD).
-
Sue everyone still stealing files.
The problem with Bittorrent at the moment, now that eXeem has fixed the centralisation problem (no torrent websites, because they can be shut down), is that it isn't anonymous. You need to know the IP address of other people in the torrent in order to connect to them, so even if the IP address is sent encrypted, the peer it is sent to could be a representative of the copyright-holder (e.g. the MPAA, the RIAA). A solution would be to route communications through an anonymous relay, but this causes a bandwidth problem. What is needed is for everyone (not just on that specific torrent, or indeed on any torrent) to act as anonymous relays. It would slow everything down by half, but would solve the anonymity problem. And bandwidth isn't a problem, or won't be. If someone did develop an anonymous P2P torrent system, then the RIAA and the MPAA wouldn't be able to sue anyone (as in Point 2). But they'd still have to do Point 1 in order to compete. (I wouldn't buy from them if there was no way I could be sued. But some people would.) In the same way, Encyclopædia Brittanica have had to release their content for free on their website and be advertising-supported. If they charge even a penny for it, people simply go to other web-based encyclopedias. Brittanica have to use their brand to get used. And it isn't much on the web compared to Wikipedia. They only get bought as a book by mad librarians who haven't caught up yet, and like to waste paper as libraries. Unfortunately, the represents a whole new phase of the "Tragedy of the Commons", where resources are not scarce (i.e. files can be copied infinitely), and the price mechanism ceases to operate as a throttle. Ultimately, if no one buys from record companies as soon as a track is available on the internet, anonymously and for free, the record companies won't have enough money to produce albums of the high standard we expect. I've been using PeerGuardian2 recently. It's alarming how often I get queried by companies keeping track of P2P users. 30 queries an hour, on various ports (P2P) that I don't use. Use it if you don't want to get sued.Look what' happening to the torrent sites. The same thing MPAA has been going after each of the them . supernova.org, lokitorrents.com all are essentially shut down.
That'd be all well and good if people weren't potentially settling despite being innocent. As RIAA has sued dead grandmothers who never had computers, there are probably at least a couple people who settled instead of going through a long and expensive legal process.
The RIAA can't know who they are suing before they get started, now can they?
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
They don't put DRM on CDs, and it didn't damage CD sales.
What scares the industry is the lack of degeneration from copy to copy. They also don't like one copy providing thousands of duplicates.
When CD's came out ther was no such thing as a consumer CD burner. The only way to copy a CD was to copy it to tape. This is done one copy at a time. A one hour CD takes an hour to make a single copy (most people only had one cassette deck) and the copy was degenerated from the original. A copy of the copy is even worse. It's like getting a copy of a movie years ago that has been copied from VHS to VHS to VHS. Not a nice copy by any stretch.
Things have changed. Computers can now RIP a CD. That involves a one generation loss. After that a copy of a copy of a copy is the same as the original copy and is good enough. The RIAA hates that. If the file is posted, then one copy can make thousands all the same as the original with no loss. This is even worse for the RIAA.
They don't put DRM on CDs, and it didn't damage CD sales.
It didn't until everyone and their brother got a CD burner and blanks were $0.25 each. Be honest. Do you have a burnded copy of a friends CD? The first copy is like a tape copy. Now, did you get a copy of an original or a copy of a copy? There is the problem. Even worse, is the copy from KaZa? That's the worst offence to the RIAA. There is no DRM on CD's because at first the tools to rip them didn't exist. Neither did the tools for anyone to burn a CD.
The truth shall set you free!
The RIAA can't know who they are suing before they get started, now can they?
One does wonder how they get the names and addresses of people who've never owned a computer, though.
As per last time, that info comes from the ISPs.
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
These idiots are hurting some of my friends. It appears that school kids are now told they aren't allowed to download music since its "illegal" when its not. Its only illegal to download music when its authors didn't put it up. The result is that a great way to promote local bands is now being blocked by the the schools.
I would like to get a transcript of what is being said in this court room because I expect someone is not telling the whole truth.
Because it's the only way to make obscene levels of profit from producing and distributing music now that consumers have cheap and easy access to duplication and distribution facilities.
If you want to know more about how the trial went, please check out apcmag.com's coverage. It's entertaining, descriptive and insightful. It covers each day of the Kazaa et al. trial. For some reason, links to the other 15 or so articles are missing from this URL (I'm certain they were there earlier). Just search for "kazaagate" on the site, and you'll see all the articles.
"What about the freedom to download what is perfectly legal and I have every right to download? That freedom is going away too."
Which is why you should be angry at those using P2P in an illegal manner: they're screwing it up for everyone with legitimate uses. A freedom abused is a freedom soon lost.
P2P should be about subverting the traditional media...but not by providing (clearly illegal) parallel distribution of the same product. There's no point in this; the major media outlets already have control of television, film, radio and CDs, so we are bombarded continuously with committee-formulated garbage aimed at the lowest common denominator. Unfortunately, P2P networks are crammed with this stuff.
That isn't how it should be. Yes, I believe the media outlets should be able to charge what they like for their products; they are in it for the money, they've never pretended otherwise. But I also believe that audiences should be able to seek alternatives to the mainstream media, and do so without fear of legal threats. And I think that creative individuals (musicians, writers, artists, film makers, programmers) should have an outlet for their work that doesn't force them into restrictive licensing deals or cost a fortune in small print runs (the best price I've found for a run of 500 DVDs is US$1800...and that's just the pressing cost, it doesn't include authoring or content production costs. This is a non-trivial amount of money for individuals).
To me, this is a free speech issue. No part of free speech guarantees you the right to wholesale copy someone else's speech; parrots can speak, but they aren't exercising free speech, and copying files requires significantly less intelligence than a parrot*. However, thanks to illicit file sharing, one of the most significant avenues of free speech is under threat. Napster has already been absorbed by BMG; I would be very surprised if the media sharks weren't circling Kazaa waiting for the right moment to offer a cheap buy-out deal. This is exactly what the mainstream media outlets want: extend, embrace, own, but most importantly, exclude others.
And this is the point: file "sharing" in itself isn't a major threat to the profitability of big media. The real danger for them is that P2P threatens the exclusive promotion and distribution channels they rely on by fragmenting the audience. They will do what they can to protect the existing cartel, and copyright violation just happens to be a convenient excuse to absorb or eliminate the potential competition.
So ask yourself: are you willing to sacrifice your opportunities for free speech in exchange for a few free tunes and crappy DivX rips? That doesn't seem like a worthwhile trade off to me.
*The parrot family are quite intelligent birds, with sometimes astonishing problem solving skills. Computers, on the other hand, are high speed idiots with little to no adaptive ability, and unless you're reading and writing every bit with an electron microscope, the computer is doing the actual work of copying. You're just issuing a command; parrots can also respond to commands, but they can also exercise the option not to if they don't feel like it, which in my book makes them more intelligent than computers.
Blank until
"why'd u write "country of Australia". most ppl know Australia is a country right?"
It isn't obvious, even Australians mistake Australia for an extra state of the US, including our Prime Minister...
Blank until
...people who get caught are mostly choosing to settle...
Well hell, some of those other cases, including rape, are settled, too. That means nothing. The point is that if one chooses to maintain his innocence or his rights, the penalty can be harsher than an assault charge. What you call settlement in the ??AA cases, I call blackmail. People are being blackmailed into not standing up for their rights. It happens all the time in drug cases, too. If you "cooperate", we'll let you off light. Maybe if enough people can stand up and fight, we can beat this thing back and put Pandora back into her box...or put the needle back into the haystack...or something like that. It would be so cool to see somebody get a good lawyer and actually win.
What?
The RIAA can't know who they are suing before they get started, now can they?
YES!! They can and should. They don't have any right to go around netting up everybody just to catch a few. This whole pressing charges against an object(a la RICO) thing is outrageous and shouldn't be allowed. This the same as some redneck sheriff using RICO to steal your Suburban if he finds a roach in the ashtray.
What?
"- assylum seekers STILL in detention centers"
That does suck. Unfortunately our government has had no trouble appealing to the petty, bigoted side of the national character, and so keep managing to get re-elected (a useless opposition doesn't help)
"- non-profits NOT required to show donors how they use the money collected (eg, how much they pay to fundraise)"
Again, true. However, having inside information from some of the board members of Oxfam/CAA and various other NGO aid organizations, I can tell you that roughly one third of money raised goes into promotion, and that figure is pretty standard across the board. Charity is a very competitive business.
"- NO "better business bureau's here" because people fear legal ramifications"
No, we just have the ACCC, and the state departments of Fair Trading, which do an excellent job (I have a complaint pending at the moment, in fact, it's due to be heard next Monday). Can a "better business bureau" issue fines and order restitution with the same powers as a court?
"- limits to damages claims in court ("to help keep down the cost of insurance")"
Dude, you don't want to know how much my meagre $5 million public liability insurance costs every year, but I'm out of business without it.
"- still under UK, ie not a republic (Aussies pay heaps each year to house & feed "governor generals" & travelling British royalty, last week: Prince Chas)"
Yeah, that's so much more expensive than a Presidential election every four years (When was Chuck out here last? I can't remember). And replacing the governer general with an elected head of state would yield no saving, so it's a redundant point. However, Australia is not "under the UK"; yes, technically QEII is our head of state, however her only official administrative role is to approve the selection of governor general; apart from that, she has no executive powers. In fact, if given a royal command, an Australian citizen is well within their rights to say "get stuffed, your majesty". (disclaimer: I am actually a republican, but I'd much rather people understand what needs fixing rather than try to scare them with glib, inaccurate over-simplifications; that's a really good way to lose a referendum. BTW, and I know it's nitpicking, but the correct plural term is "governors general"; they aren't governing military generals, they are the general governors, it's just archaic English. Besides, there's only one at any time, the rest are state governors. That concludes today's lesson in royal etiquette.)
" - rather than train Aussies (eg make more adult education or affordable uni places available), the gov't prefers to IMPORT trained foreign workers... most recently discussing a Guest Worker scheme."
You're sounding a little xenophobic there (though I'm sure you don't mean to). But your point is valid: our government, in it's infinite wisdom, gutted a very good vocational training system (TAFE) that had wide support from industry, and has given us the "New Apprenticeship" scheme, which is starved of resources. However, importing skilled foreign labour is not new to Australia; the Snowy mountains hydro-electric scheme, for example, relied heavily on migrants. The difference this time, of course, is that they're not seeking permanent residents (who I welcome), but temporary workers; the global experience in this matter is not good, and I am pragmatic enough to see that Australian businesses would be just as willing to exploit loopholes in regulations as companies elsewhere.
"South Australia sucks worse: [etc]"
Yeah, but with marijuana decriminalized, who cares?
Blank until
"NGO aid organizations..."
Yes, the word "organizations" was redundant, I know...
Blank until
Yeah, but with marijuana decriminalized, who cares?
We've decriminalised it? Sweet!
How many times must it be said...
- copying is not stealing, there is a difference
- sharing music is not illegal, much less files, as long as you don't violate copyright
Please remember to separate these, as they are quite different.Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. -- Susan Ertz
When Sony released the original Playstation, they advertised in the university bars with postcards that were pre-perforated so you could easily tear off segments for roaches. Novel marketing, but effective!
But really, if you hadn't noticed the law changed, you should probably cut down...
Blank until
The Wired story is wrong. There has been no freeze. See: http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/5002/wrong.html
http://p2pnet.net/story/4123
Wonder if the retraction (if and when we see one!) gets as much publicity as the "Kazaa's Australian Assets Frozen" headline. Bet it doesnt!
I'm still in school, they don't put a lot of emphasis on how it's legal...in fact, since i was about 7 they've been trying to drill it into my head that all drugs are evil and extremely dangerous, and are all illegal for that reason.
/me sighes...they don't seem to realise how pointless it is
Careful there, it isn't actually legal as such (you can still be arrested for trafficable quantities), but small amounts for personal use and a few plants are overlooked. Usually.
But they aren't wrong about drugs being dangerous (and I'm including alcohol as a drug), it's a question of how you use them. If you're wasted 24/7, you're going downhill, doesn't matter if it's heroin, pot, alcohol or anything. The biggest danger here is that most illegal drugs don't have the social restrictions attached to alcohol (that is, there is no socially acceptable time and place, so any time is as good as any other). And the greatest evil from drugs is as a source of revenue for organized crime, which, ironically, wouldn't be the case if they weren't illegal. Most of the other problems are health related, and these stem largely from the high price and irresponsible use.
What gets me is the hysteria involved in the war-on-certain-drugs, which might scare a few, but largely adds to the mystique. The fact that you don't instantly drop stone dead from having a toke on a spliff just reinforces the impression that someone's been lying...
Blank until
I'm not saying drugs are not dangerous, I'm just saying that schools seem to portray them as "come within line-of-sight and you're gonna die", which is taking things just a little overboard.
I'm agree, but I was just being a long-winded jerk. I'm good at that, and I think people should go with their strengths...
Blank until