Kazaa Outed Over 'Trust Fund' for Red Cross

ObLinus by SinaSa · 2005-03-12 20:17 · Score: 4, Funny

"The music industry alleged in court that it was a tactic by Kazaa parent company Sharman Networks to park money out of the reach of the music industry if it loses the case and is left with a huge damages bill."

Real men don't scam citizens for stash-money! They zip it up, call it goat porn and upload it to Kazaa! Oh wait...

--
--
The last digit of pi is four.

Hurray! by sgant · 2005-03-12 20:18 · Score: 3, Insightful

The RIAA is about to shut down another service that no one uses anymore! Way to go!

Glad to see them wasting their money by pissing it away like this. The people that download music/movies will always be about 10 steps ahead of them.

--

"Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith

Re:Hurray! by mlk · 2005-03-12 20:19 · Score: 1

I'm guesssing if the RIAA win, they will not be "pissing money away" as KaZaA will foot the bill.

--
Wow, I should not post when knackered.
Re:Hurray! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-12 20:21 · Score: 1, Funny

They might as well just go wail on AudioGalaxy some more, one of the many dead horses of music sharing.
Re:Hurray! by Olix · 2005-03-12 20:30 · Score: 5, Interesting

(Olix uses knowledge gained in GCSE buisness lessons) does Kazza actually have money then? Where do they earn it from? I would have thought, if the company is private limited, then they would just declare the comapny bankrupt and start again...
Re:Hurray! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-12 20:48 · Score: 1, Insightful

Kazaa earns their money from advertisements (both the ads within the program, and the spyware/adware that comes bundled with it). Apparently their earnings are substantial enough to pay their server costs and any development costs (not that Kazaa bothered developing any new technologies that didn't hurt the user in some new way).

I agree though, it seems unlikely that Kazaa will actually be able to pay all the money the RIAA will squeeze out of them. None of the people they sew manage to pay either, they just pay a large fine which is agreed to out of court and (if neccessary) declare bankruptcy afterwards. I really don't think a group of greedy criminals (Kazaa) is going to pony up any more money than they absolutely have to.
Re:Hurray! by Sinus0idal · 2005-03-12 21:03 · Score: 2, Funny

Yep, but once they are finished with Kazaa, who is next? Hopefully not the edonkey network...
Re:Hurray! by m50d · 2005-03-12 22:35 · Score: 3, Interesting

They earn it from all the bundled spyware. So they do have quite a bit, and the RIAA will get as much of it as they can. But the execs are probably safe, yes.

--
I am trolling
Re:Hurray! by MosesJones · 2005-03-12 23:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

The people that download music/movies will always be about 10 steps ahead of them.

Quick summary of what you said

"Run run as fast as you can, you can't catch me I'm the gingerbread man"

I'm assuming in this downloading that you are making direct contributions to the artists that made the films/music rather than just ripping it off ? Didn't think so.

In my book that makes you an equal git with the RIAA. They might be over-zealous, but you are a plain and simple thief.

--
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
Re:Hurray! by AtariAmarok · 2005-03-13 00:21 · Score: 1

["The people that download music/movies will always be about 10 steps ahead of them.]Quick summary of what you said"Run run as fast as you can, you can't catch me I'm the gingerbread man"
Does this mean that the sordid tale will end when Rupert Murdoch's "Fox" company eats up Kazaa?

--
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Re:Hurray! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-13 00:37 · Score: 0

I think it has more to do with precedence than anything, if Kaaza goes down that sets the way for other networks to go down

AC
Re:Hurray! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-13 00:45 · Score: 0

sew?
Re:Hurray! by TykeClone · 2005-03-13 02:01 · Score: 0, Troll

sew?
If you loose in court, RIAA comes after you with a needle and thread!

--
A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
Re:Hurray! by 0siris · 2005-03-13 02:23 · Score: 1

No-one uses it? Tell that to the 2,742,680 people sharing 914,064,273 files on there riiight now...
Re:Hurray! by Qzukk · 2005-03-13 03:06 · Score: 1

You say that, but once they have this victory under their belt, they have a precedent: People who write software whose purpose is for sharing files can be sued for the behavior of their users.

Everyone should switch to using microsoft netmeeting's sharing capability to distribute their warez and pirated music.

--
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Re:Hurray! by sgant · 2005-03-13 03:07 · Score: 1

Did I say that I was downloading anything? I said "the people that download". I get my music either through CD's or iTunes. Mainly iTunes.

Did I say anything about where I even stand on the issue? I was pointing out the obvious.

The music industry is changing, for the better I belive, and the power of an artists music is going BACK to where it belongs: with the artists. How many times do we have to hear about the recording industry ripping off artists? Almost all of the money should go to the artists with the record company getting a small stake in it. But as it stands now it's the other way around. But times are changing. The RIAA knows this and their fighting to their last breath to not have this change because all their free, easy money goes with it.

But again, before you go around calling people "a plain and simple thief" make sure you know who you're talking about.

--

"Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
Re:Hurray! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-13 04:22 · Score: 0

*yawn* I hope you die of cancer or AIDS. Fucking troll. And yes, I am a plain and simple thief, and goddamn proud of it. And ya know what? NOBODY can stop me. They could shut down the whole goddamn internet today, and I would still be renting movies and copying them, and buying secondhand CDs from pawn shops and copying them, not to mention what I borrow from my friends and copy. In other words, fuck you, you self-righteous goat-buggering asshole.
Re:Hurray! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-13 05:14 · Score: 0

The doctor uses a needle and thread to repair your you-know-what after the RIAA is done with you.
Re:Hurray! by Peaceful_Patriot · 2005-03-13 05:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

Just because the music industry has changed the copyright rules to their advantage, doesn't mean downloaders are thieves. Unless I am copying the material and selling it for a profit, or claiming I am the artist, they have no leg to stand on!

People have been sharing music for as long as I remember. In the 60's My sister used a reel to reel to tape songs off the radio and make copies for her friends. I had a casetter recorder/player with two tape drives in the 70s which was specifically for copying tapes. The 80's brought us VCRs which were ruled as legal despite the attempt of the movie insustry to outlaw them. The 90s brought us file sharing and the RIAA.

You might buy the line that unless you pay for the music you are a pirate, but I remember the history, and I'm not doing anything that hasn't been done for the last 40 years and I don't feel guilty about it.

--
There is nothing so powerful as an idea whose time has come.
Re:Hurray! by ltbarcly · 2005-03-13 09:26 · Score: 1

Most of the money would go to the artists IF the artists made most of the contribution, they don't.

Artists can't make it big without recording companies. They don't have the know how or the access. You might say that this is because recording companies have set things up this way. That is specious. As a band starting out, how do you distribute your cd so that radio stations play it? Do you think DJ's will actually sit there and listen to the 10,000 shit bands that are out there just to find the one single from one band that isn't total crap? That is basically what record companies do, along with promotion and distribution.

Face it, most bands are crap, and your favorite band sucks. It is quite ironic that the people who are angry with the RIAA for stopping file sharing make these convoluted and specious arguments about who deserves the money, and these same downloaders are motivated by the desire to download for free the very music the recording companies have been spoon feeding them. This MUST be the case, since unsigned bands aren't protected by the RIAA, and aren't losing a cut to recording companies.

So here is the message from slashdot Recording Companies, "Please keep picking out music for us to like, but don't take a cut."

Sheeple.
Re:Hurray! by gwiner · 2005-03-13 10:20 · Score: 1

I think the lesson here is, you get greedy, you go down. Look for the P2Ps that are generating profit to be the losers.
Re:Hurray! by mcrbids · 2005-03-13 12:03 · Score: 1

Just because the music industry has changed the copyright rules to their advantage, doesn't mean downloaders are thieves. Unless I am copying the material and selling it for a profit, or claiming I am the artist, they have no leg to stand on!

Really? Tell that to the judges and lawyers... If you'd said "I don't think they have..." first, I might have bought it. But, they definitely have a leg to stand on...

--
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
Re:Hurray! by penix1 · 2005-03-13 14:19 · Score: 1

"None of the people they sew manage to pay either, they just pay a large fine which is agreed to out of court and (if neccessary) declare bankruptcy afterwards."

Not any more in the US since the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2005 passed...

In either event, court ordered settlements and student loans have always been exempt from bankruptcy consideration. In short, the government always gets its cut first.

B.

--
This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
Re:Hurray! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-14 02:29 · Score: 0

Australian court, Australian law. US bankruptcy reform act means precisley JFA.

Journalism by kureido · 2005-03-12 20:19 · Score: 5, Insightful

The Red Cross wouldn't lie. Certainly my-main-man at the Cross, Jean-Jacques, was nothing but totally upfront during our interview. And I've interviewed plenty of spivs. My spivometre didn't move a nanometre while I was talking to him. Jean-Jacques was a straight up bro.

What in the holy name of hell is passing for journalism these days? I might as well be reading my little brother's blog.

Re:Journalism by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-12 20:41 · Score: 0

I dun didn't notice anydin' wrong wid it, but ah' guess dat's plum me. Nobody uses Kazaa anymo'e anyway. Slap mah fro!
Re:Journalism by h4rm0ny · 2005-03-12 21:54 · Score: 5, Informative

Seconded! Who approved this piece of crap! I quote from the beginning of the article:

them on attracting the world's most downloaded program in history as a contributor to its coffers. With three billion files downloaded each month on Kazaa, the Red Cross could almost rebuild Asia single-handedly from what must be a generous pool of dollars from Sharman

Most downloaded program in the world? Rebuild Asia singe-handedly? This isn't hyperbole, this pure Improbability-Drive-A-Bole! The editor only needed to read three short paragraphs in to reach this rubbish! So either no-one read the article, or else they didn't understand what they were reading.
My two pence!

--

Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
Re:Journalism by h4rm0ny · 2005-03-12 22:18 · Score: 1

Sorry to answer my own question - probably bad form and all, but following the editor's link to his home page, I found this adorable quote:

I post on Slashdot as "timothy," to great wailing and gnashing of teeth.

So it's deliberate then, is it? If /. wants to be taken seriously, then the editors need to take it more seriously themselves and filter out badly written and self-contradictory articles like this one. There is plenty going on in the world of science that can be discussed and would be of interest to the /. audience. I was previously a subscriber, and I Meta-Moderate (usually upwards) to do my bit. But with editorial attitudes like this, what's the point? I'll look elsewhere.

--

Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
Re:Journalism by shark72 · 2005-03-12 22:23 · Score: 2, Insightful

"Most downloaded program in the world? Rebuild Asia singe-handedly? This isn't hyperbole, this pure Improbability-Drive-A-Bole! The editor only needed to read three short paragraphs in to reach this rubbish! So either no-one read the article, or else they didn't understand what they were reading."

Many journalists and correspondents write in a colloquial style; it's part of their appeal. Google on "Hunter S. Thompson" or "Ann Coulter" or "Dominick Dunne" to see some more examples.

To your credit (and to the credit of others who are boggled by the correspondent's writing style), I understand that many Slashdotters are of the New Media generation, and simply did not grow up in the day when print medium was king and many correspondents had a trademark style.

Perhaps an appreciation of Dispatch's style is better suited toward non-Slashdot types. Many Slashdotters are coders; a 0 is a 0 and a 1 is a 1 and there's just no room for flexibility. The rest of us know that Dispatch isn't being literal when he says that the Red Cross could have "rebuilt Asia" with Sharman's riches, and we don't mind at all. But I can certainly understand that those who live in the land of ones and zeros would be upset by his rhetorical style.

--
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
Re:Journalism by shark72 · 2005-03-12 22:32 · Score: 1

Garth Montgomery's Dispatch pieces on Kazaagate have been posted to Slashdot regularly since the trial began.

They have been quite interesting, and since they cover Kazaa, they're of direct relevance to Slashdot readers. I know of no other regular coverage of Kazaagate, but if you do, why not submit it?

"great wailing and gnashing of teeth" is a common phrase. Timothy was making a joke and using a light-hearted writing style, similar to the approach used by Garth at the Dispatch. I wouldn't take it too seriously.

--
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
Re:Journalism by 1u3hr · 2005-03-12 22:43 · Score: 1

Seconded! Who approved this piece of crap!
The editors have admittedly been completely bereft of actual editing skills or judgement (for say, at least the last 2 years), but in this case, the style of the story is not a sign of lack of veracity, just playfulness. The writer actually knows how to write and behind the gonzo facade, he seems to have a solid story.
Re:Journalism by camcloud1 · 2005-03-12 23:19 · Score: 0

That is why the article it titled 'Opinion'. It's meant to be read like someones thoughts. Not necessarily like a journalistic piece.
Re:Journalism by cerebis · 2005-03-12 23:24 · Score: 1

There is colloquial style, and then there are cheesy attempts to affect a voice which is entertainment in and of itself. Whether it accomplishes its primary reason to exist -- successfully informing the reader -- becomes less and less important.
Sort of like there was Donahue, and now there is Springer.
Re:Journalism by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-13 01:39 · Score: 1, Funny

The problem is that this writer adopts the style of an 8 yrear old girl.
Re:Journalism by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-13 02:48 · Score: 0

My spivometre didn't move a nanometre

Oh my... *runs*
Re:Journalism by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-13 03:02 · Score: 0

Google on "Hunter S. Thompson" or "Ann Coulter" or "Dominick Dunne" to see some more examples.

I'm still waiting for you to list at least one.
Re:Journalism by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-13 03:11 · Score: 0

RESTECP to my-main-man, Ali G, for writing this excellent article. Booyakasha!
Re:Journalism by Qzukk · 2005-03-13 03:13 · Score: 2

Style or not, the article drips with flagrant wrongness. Implying that because billions of files are traded on kazaa every day means kazaa has money... why? Does the author of the article think that Kazaa takes a few cents off the top of every copyright infringing file sent for free?

--
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Re:Journalism by d34thm0nk3y · 2005-03-13 06:00 · Score: 1

Why would the editors read the articles when most of the users don't even bother?
Re:Journalism by Karma+Farmer · 2005-03-13 06:06 · Score: 1

To your credit (and to the credit of others who are boggled by the correspondent's writing style), I understand that many Slashdotters are of the New Media generation, and simply did not grow up in the day when print medium was king and many correspondents had a trademark style.

To your credit (and to the credit of others who appreciate the correspondent's poor writing), I understand many older people have had strokes or other medical problems that have cut off the oxygen to large parts of their brain for long periods of tim, and simply did not grow up in the day when modern medecine was king and many hospitals had access to drugs to mitigate the effects of strokes.
Re:Journalism by bayvult · 2005-03-13 07:43 · Score: 2, Interesting

Anyone who takes a PR's comments at face value and calls him a "straight up bro" should have rocks thrown at him, yes.
But this couldn't be a blog, because it contains news I hadn't read someplace else. It would be disqualified from the blog-o-sphere.
Re:Journalism by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-13 09:17 · Score: 0

Ann Coulter is a journalist?

Could have surprised me. I think were Goebbels alive, he'd be telling her to tone it down a notch.
Re:Journalism by Davorama · 2005-03-13 09:39 · Score: 1

> If /. wants to be taken seriously, ....

There's your problem right there. If you don't take this place seriously then it's not such a bad place to hang out.

--
Davo -- Free speech, free software, AND free beer.
Re:Journalism by HermanAB · 2005-03-13 12:33 · Score: 1

The Red Cross wouldn't lie huh?
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2002/11/20/blood02 1120

The Red Cross is just as susceptible to corruption as the Catholic Church...

--
Oh well, what the hell...
Re:Journalism by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-13 15:11 · Score: 0

What's worse is that APC mag is proud of this.

The person who posted it to Slashdot, Dan Warne, is an APC 'journalist'.
Re:Journalism by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-13 15:19 · Score: 0

pcworld.idg.com.au has pretty good coverage
Re:Journalism by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-13 16:49 · Score: 0

Ann Coulter is definitely not a journalist.
She's an intelligent--cunning even--woman whose primary product is selling sensationalism to people that hate her.

I really can't name any actual contemporary journalists. Journalism seems to be largely dead in the U.S. Today what passes as journalists regurgitate press briefings from offical organizations, rebrand AP information, and stalk celebrities. At their best they're roaming cameras, and at their worst they're just making shit up.
Re:Journalism by gnomes · 2005-03-14 01:47 · Score: 1

"What in the holy name of hell is passing for journalism these days? I might as well be reading my little brother's blog."

Well! There it is. The truth. A question that needs to be asked and a statement that needs to be made. I think they should start and end every news cast with that quote. I admire your way with words.

"I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore."
Re:Journalism by squiggleslash · 2005-03-14 02:04 · Score: 1

Ann Coulter is not a journalist, she's a columnist/commentator. Never heard of Dunne. Thompson is generally considered a journalist but not necessarily a respectable one or one to emulate ("gonzo journalism" involves making yourself a part of the story, which is counter to usual journalistic ethics.)
FYI, and all that.

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Re:Journalism by bedessen · 2005-03-21 17:19 · Score: 1

Transfering billions of files every day implies that the program has been downloaded many times (it has) and is left running or used often by lots of people (it is.) Sharman makes their money from the adware that gets installed when someone installs kazaa, and from the subsequent popups and other crapware that the software presentes to the user when it's running. Therefore that the program is so widely used implies that Sharman is making a great deal of money off those ads.

p2p not synonymous w/ kazaa by dirvish · 2005-03-12 20:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

Those wankers at Kazaa have hurt the p2p cause quite a bit. They knew they were doing shady stuff (adware, etc.) and now they are rightfully paying the price. For every step that people like the EFF make to make government realize it shouldn't over-regulate technology, shysters like Kazaa force things a step back to make a quick buck.

--
FoundNews.com - get paid to blog.,

Re:p2p not synonymous w/ kazaa by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-12 21:30 · Score: 0

how about the eff shut the **** up?
Well if you care about the issue so much why don't you shut the eff up?
Re:p2p not synonymous w/ kazaa by bayvult · 2005-03-13 07:49 · Score: 1

If shysters like Kazaa were defending themselves in a US court the EFF would be helping them. Go see - MGM v Grokster.
What was your point again - that the EFF should only defend fragrant and sweet-smelling defendents? The law isn't a beauty contest - sometimes you have hold to your nose.
Re:p2p not synonymous w/ kazaa by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-13 15:24 · Score: 0

more like three steps back...

Upsides? by ElVaquero · 2005-03-12 20:25 · Score: 2, Funny

Maybe if the RIAA wins they'll think they've actually stopped something and forget about Soulseek.

Re:Upsides? by BackInIraq · 2005-03-12 20:32 · Score: 3, Funny

First rule of Soulseek:

Never, ever talk about Soulseek.

Shizzle my nizzle? by Chas · 2005-03-12 20:26 · Score: 1

What in the holy name of hell is passing for journalism these days? I might as well be reading my little brother's blog.

Maybe it was a bad 'fish translation. What? It was written in English from the get-go? You couldn't prove that by me!

--

Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!

Re:Shizzle my nizzle? by J.+Random+Luser · 2005-03-12 20:55 · Score: 1

What? It was written in English from the get-go?

Nah mate, 'swritten in Strine. Groklaw it ain't, and while I was gigglin' I wondered what would happen when it hit the eastern shore of the Pacific...

Priorities by prdallan · 2005-03-12 20:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

Don't know about the law in Autralia or even in the US, but in certain countries actions similar to some of the described above could have as consequence people doing some time in jail...

At least here where I am, before performing this kind of actions better one should really better consult with criminal lawyers and be very carefull with it; One should be more worried with the penal consequences than with financial assets....

Re:Priorities by pcmanjon · 2005-03-12 20:32 · Score: 1

"At least here where I am, before performing this kind of actions better one should really better consult with criminal lawyers and be very carefull with it; One should be more worried with the penal consequences than with financial assets...."

Like the guys from Enron? Like martha stewart?

6 months in jail... peice of cake, you can't win them all.

Corporate Bigheads always walk with the money, they always have.
Re:Priorities by ElVaquero · 2005-03-12 20:51 · Score: 1

The real question is... what happens to the house?
Re:Priorities by mattyrobinson69 · 2005-03-13 02:38 · Score: 1

nothing, the execs keep it. they cant lose a house which is why they bought them
Re:Priorities by verus+vorago · 2005-03-13 03:25 · Score: 1

They most certainly can if they themselves are found liable for damages and/or a fine. If company directors/officers break the law then they are responsible not just the company.

Yes they often get away with things by hiding money but their houses aren't protected. If the house is not actually owned by them or by a company they own/control then it would be much harder to get to.

So houses aren't explicitly protected but putting it in someone else's name (e.g. spouse, other family member) can make it much harder for someone to take it away.

YMMV, IANAL
Re:Priorities by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-13 16:54 · Score: 0

If I managed to steal say 10-20 million dollars, how long would I be willing to spend in prison to keep it, if the alternative is to be broke?

Well, probably a few years at least. Most financial criminals don't even do that much time, and all of that money could be earning you more money while you're in jail. You get out, you leave the country, and you start enjoying your riches. It sure beats working for a living and having nothing to show for it.

Java applet by RobotPanda · 2005-03-12 20:30 · Score: 0, Interesting

Anyone know what the applet on that site's page might be doing? My Java console has a ton of these messages: liveconnect: JavaScript: UniversalBrowserRead enabled liveconnect: JavaScript: UniversalJavaPermission enabled

Re:Java applet by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-12 21:53 · Score: 0

It could just mean that the applet is manipulating the HTML in a similar manner to javascript.

Hopefully you aren't running unpatched Java 1.42 or you might be owned.

Not suprised... by ImaLamer · 2005-03-12 20:32 · Score: 4, Interesting

Considering this company makes money off of bootlegging and piracy it makes sense.

But before you fly off the handle, look at it this way: They took software for trading files and turned it and it's abilities into a profit machine, stooping so far as to load users with spyware to further that profit (remember: Kazaa Lite has no connection to Sharman). All the time we all knew that Kazaa was used 99% of the time for retrieving copyrighted works people had no rights to. This isn't Bittorrent where many files are free.

After they had cashflow they had one of two responsiblities: Either filter owned works or pay up for those works. They made information trade their business and they didn't own the information they were "brokering".

I don't know how people can be suprised or offended when Kazaa or Napster gets sued. I don't work for the **AA, and am not Dr. Dre, just not suprised at this. I'm not suprised if they get there asses handed to them. (I'm not counting on them getting off on any technicalities, I'm just saying they have it coming.)

Napster and Kazaa with websites is tantamount to a drug dealer on the corner with a sign and them turning a profit is as disgusting as it gets. I've bootleged and pirated quite a few things but I nor anyone else should be making money off of that.

That is the point isn't it?

--
Get your Unix fortune now!

Re:Not suprised... by mark-t · 2005-03-12 20:42 · Score: 1

Copyright law states that nobody may copy a work protected by copyright without permission from the copyright holder (fair and personal use notwithstanding).
There is no clause permitting copying if it's not done for profit, or any portion of copyright infringement that would seem to limit its scope to commercial endeavors only. These factors only affect the amount of liability the infringer may face, they do not change whether or not an infringement occurs.
You can try to rationalize not-for-profit piracy all you want, but it's still illegal... the only smaller thing about it is as opposed to commercial piracy endeavors are that the fines are only several thousand dollars instead of several million.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Re:Not suprised... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-12 20:44 · Score: 0

You are delusional, since it went mainstream bit torrent is practically all piracy. Besides, I think your 99% number isn't right. I know a lot of the stuff on Kazza was short porn movies made free by the websites to attract visitors. You know that website at the bottom of the screen when you're jacking off, that's advertising.
Re:Not suprised... by Doc+Ruby · 2005-03-12 21:01 · Score: 3, Insightful

Actually, it's more like in the 1980s, when a very high percentage of pager users were drug dealers; a very high percentage of pages were illegal drug transactions. Were the telcos liable for filtering those pages?

--
--
make install -not war
Re:Not suprised... by iamacat · 2005-03-12 21:36 · Score: 1

Napster and Kazaa with websites is tantamount to a drug dealer on the corner with a sign

Nope. They are like someone who puts some benches covered with advertisements on a street corner and lets people sit and transact whatever business they might have with each other. They don't either provide "drugs" (illegal copies) or have a sign to encourage drug trading.

When Porsche is forced to limit speed of their cars to 65Mph and US citizens are banned from opening numbered swiss bank accounts, it might be even fair to penalize them. Then again, this wouldn't be a very nice country to live in.
Re:Not suprised... by shark72 · 2005-03-12 21:44 · Score: 2, Interesting

Kazaa went into business because they correctly saw the huge opportunity in the high demand for pirated material. Their very business model is based on this. Anybody who claims that Kazaa thought that it would be used primarily for trading Linux distros is either naive, or deliberately being Kazaa's stooge.

They took the risk, and now they're in hot water. Naturally, they're using feeble excuses to avoid liability. There's nothing to be gained by our ignoring the obvious and pretending that Kazaa isn't complicit.

--
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
Re:Not suprised... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-12 21:50 · Score: 0

Considering this company makes money off of bootlegging and piracy it makes sense.
"Piracy" as in "dumping a megaboss nuke on the seafloor from a ship in order to use the resulting humanitarian catastrophe as a smoke-and-mirrors shield to squirrel away your loot?". Or how else could they have known two days beforehand, if they "didn't do it" ???
Re:Not suprised... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-12 21:51 · Score: 0

The paging companies freely ratted out any customers the cops asked about.
Re:Not suprised... by cduffy · 2005-03-12 22:14 · Score: 1

You can try to rationalize not-for-profit piracy all you want, but it's still illegal.

Prior to 1996 or so, noncommercial infringement was illegal but there weren't any penalties for it. I think there are those who would welcome a return to that state.
Re:Not suprised... by Mycroft_VIII · 2005-03-12 22:16 · Score: 1

Minor thing, but it used to be if there was no money involved, and no harmfull intent (such as deliberatly giving away large numbers of copies for free to drive a competitor out of bussiness), it wasn't illeagle.
IIRC originally copywright ONLY covered comercial use, and ONLY for a few years.
It's expanded to the point were you practically need a specific clause to even READ something without commiting copywright infringement.

Mycroft

--
https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
Re:Not suprised... by Tim+C · 2005-03-12 22:26 · Score: 1

I think there are those who would welcome a return to that state.

Of course there is - everyone involved in not-for-profit copyright infringement. Duh.

--
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Re:Not suprised... by mark-t · 2005-03-12 22:36 · Score: 3, Insightful

The reason why there were no penalties for it before is that until fairly recently, the potential for noncommercial copyright infringement to actually make an impact in the total number of copies out there was virtually nonexistant, and simply not worth the time to pursue. Outside of a few fringe warez BBS's, the most common form of piracy was via sneakernet, where people would physically exchange disks. Ever-improving internetworking technology in the hands of the consumer, however, has made very large scale copy distribution increasingly available to them at virtually no cost at all, presenting an ever-growing threat to what Copyright actually is supposed to be. Copyright holders, and the agents that represent them, are compelled to act (ie, press charges) against infringers in response to the technological changes in order to preserve the value of Copyright.
Unfortunately, a return to the state Copyright was in before 1996 would also necessitate a return to a time where the Internet wasn't what it is now either. Since the latter isn't possible, neither is the former.
Sorry.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Re:Not suprised... by m50d · 2005-03-12 22:39 · Score: 1

Not really. They're equivalent to a guy who will give any brown box you ask to someone else you ask with no questions asked, just charge you a bit for it. They were slimy and evil (they actually had the nerve to takedown Kazaa Lite for copyright infringment) but I don't think they were necessarily doing anything illegal.

--
I am trolling
Re:Not suprised... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-12 23:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

They took software for trading files and turned it and it's abilities into a profit machine

There's nothing inherently wrong with that.

After they had cashflow they had one of two responsiblities: Either filter owned works or pay up for those works.

They have no such responsibility, any more than Microsoft has a responsibility to build filters into IIS to stop people from putting copyrighted works on websites without permission.

I don't know how people can be suprised or offended when Kazaa or Napster gets sued.

Because this software is just another way of copying files. You don't see the Apache Foundation get sued, or Microsoft for Windows file sharing, or AT&T for writing 'cp'.
Re:Not suprised... by khrtt · 2005-03-12 23:53 · Score: 1

everyone involved in not-for-profit copyright infringement.

In other words, everyone and their mother. And 12-year-old granddaughter.
Re:Not suprised... by ph4s3 · 2005-03-13 00:09 · Score: 1

They made information trade their business and they didn't own the information they were "brokering".
So what? That is a perfectly legal business plan according to the US Congress and companies like ChoicePoint and LexisNexis.
Re:Not suprised... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-13 01:17 · Score: 0

turned it and it's abilities

"its abilities".

if they get there asses handed to them

"their asses".

and them turning a profit

"and their turning a profit".

but I nor anyone else

"but neither I nor anyone else".
Re:Not suprised... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-13 01:19 · Score: 0

There is no clause [...] profit, or any portion

"profit, nor any portion".

liability the infringer may face, they do not change

"face; they".
Re:Not suprised... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-13 01:23 · Score: 0

it wasn't illeagle

"illegal".
Re:Not suprised... by shri · 2005-03-13 01:55 · Score: 1

Errr ... keep in mind, they'll soon be controlling significant amount of P2P^2 (peer 2 peer 2 phone 2 peer) traffic also. :)

Would you trust your voip packets to these guys?
Re:Not suprised... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-13 02:10 · Score: 0

and them turning a profit

"and their turning a profit".

Erm, wasn't that right the first time?
Re:Not suprised... by ShieldW0lf · 2005-03-13 02:40 · Score: 1

The law is corrupt. Therefore we don't care about the law.

Has this clicked for any of you "it's illegal" parrots? We don't care!

Fix the laws and we will be law abiding citizens.

--
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
Re:Not suprised... by Qzukk · 2005-03-13 03:16 · Score: 1

And kazaa doesn't freely hand over your (internet) address to anyone who asks? All you have to do is request a file.

--
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Re:Not suprised... by mark-t · 2005-03-13 04:01 · Score: 1

Has it ever occurred to you "it's illegal isn't a valid reason" knee-jerk reactionists that "it's illegal" is actually a perfectly _good_ reason if, in fact, the particular law in question happens to be good?
To use the expression in another example, in the same tone and context I used the expression before, speeding by itself doesn't really hurt anyone either, but it's still illegal.
Does the fact that you or I may be able to come up with half a dozen other valid reasons _why_ speeding may be wrong diminish the fact that "it's illegal" isn't by itself a fairly good reason? Especially if one considers that it's illegality is probably heavily _tied_ to those other reasons?
Copyright infringement, however mild and however innocuous in scope, does exactly what says... it infringes on rights, specifically, those of the author who has been granted the _exclusive_ right to copy his work (others may only legally copy the work by first obtaining permission). Now there can be arguments made that copyrights are too long and whatnot, but there are largely irrellevant to the issue of Copyright infringement itself. I believe Copyright itself is an entirely appropriate thing to grant an author of any work, and it is why I support Copyright Law most steadfastly.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Re:Not suprised... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-13 04:28 · Score: 0

*yawn* I hope you die of cancer or AIDS. Fucking troll.

And yes, I am a plain and simple thief, and goddamn proud of it. And ya know what? NOBODY can stop me. They could shut down the whole goddamn internet today, and I would still be renting movies and copying them, and buying secondhand CDs from pawn shops and copying them, not to mention what I borrow from my friends and copy.

In other words, fuck you, you self-righteous goat-buggering asshole.

(And no, I don't do it for profit either, because that would go against my own morals)
Re:Not suprised... by kd5ujz · 2005-03-13 05:12 · Score: 1

This was the benifit of a pager. You did not need ID to buy one. Just bogus info. And since the older pagers were passive devices, there was no way of tracking them.

--
-William
God is everything science has yet to explain.
Re:Not suprised... by iamacat · 2005-03-13 05:24 · Score: 1

And Porsche opened stores in California because they wanted to sell some cars to law-abiding individuals who never exceed 65Mph?
Re:Not suprised... by m50d · 2005-03-13 06:16 · Score: 1

So, in another age, were the writers of many of the FTP utilities we use today.

--
I am trolling
Re:Not suprised... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-13 06:35 · Score: 0

Shit! I once got a phone bill with hundreds of pages to a long-distance number. The phone company could not tell me whose pager was being called and since I could not prove I didn't make the calls, I had to pay for them or loose the phone. They sure didn't give me any useful information, but then I'm not the cops, just a peon customer.
Re:Not suprised... by ImaLamer · 2005-03-13 06:57 · Score: 1

Well, let's look at the situation. When the pager companies set up shop they never ran ads that read "Get a pager and never miss a drug deal!!!!".

Even if it was assumed that many customers were drug dealers none of the messages (in the 1980's) were specific enough to filter out illegal activity. Kazaa has a central server where searches like "Britney Spears - Toxic", or "Pink Floyd - Wish You Were Here" pass through. They made a point where it could be filtered but they didn't use it to protect themselves and others.

But alas, as another has pointed out telcos did investigate when asked to.

--
Get your Unix fortune now!
Re:Not suprised... by ImaLamer · 2005-03-13 07:24 · Score: 1

Well, considering that Kazaa (Sharman) operates out of Vanuatu I wonder why you bring America into it. I mean they moved from Europe because they were breaking the law.

Considering they log activity they are in big trouble as well:

http://www.kazaa.com/us/privacy/privacy.htm

They can't say they had no idea.

Remember "bongs" are illegal now because they help break the law. Tommy Chong can attest to that (not even that I agree with that, but it's precedent).

--
Get your Unix fortune now!
Re:Not suprised... by ImaLamer · 2005-03-13 07:30 · Score: 1

Whoa... no one is actually getting down on copyright infringment. We are down on it being in the open.

It ends up giving everyone a bad name and is bad for open and fair business. Because of Kazaa and ilk we now are operating under a guilty until proven innocent system.

I say go back to the days when it wasn't in the open and so easily done. Giving the ability to everyone is what is hurting us all. Now we are going to be legislated back into the stone age.

Please copy but don't promote fucktards like these making a quick buck off of it.

--
Get your Unix fortune now!
Re:Not suprised... by cdrguru · 2005-03-13 07:52 · Score: 1

and no harmfull intent (such as deliberatly giving away large numbers of copies for free to drive a competitor out of business), it wasn't illegal.
Exactly. Today's copier generally has exactly that harmful intent in mind - drive the copyright holder out of business. Microsoft, Adobe, Metallica, and so on. The problem is that it isn't just these folks now. GPL software has started to see the effects of this. How long is PearPC going to withstand the assault of CherryOS?
Re:Not suprised... by ImaLamer · 2005-03-13 07:53 · Score: 1

Bold = me

After they had cashflow they had one of two responsiblities: Either filter owned works or pay up for those works.

They have no such responsibility, any more than Microsoft has a responsibility to build filters into IIS to stop people from putting copyrighted works on websites without permission.

I don't know how people can be suprised or offended when Kazaa or Napster gets sued.

Because this software is just another way of copying files. You don't see the Apache Foundation get sued, or Microsoft for Windows file sharing, or AT&T for writing 'cp'.

Well now that is about as dumb as it gets. First let me say that IIS or Apache running on my server makes me responsible, not Microsoft or the Apache Foundation. If my site was discovered I'd expect to be shut down and sued, if not imprisoned - because I broke the law.

Now, Apache and IIS weren't written to trade media files between millions of users and neither organization operates servers which make it easier to do so. Sharman actually helps you break copyrights by providing indexing and other central services and they track every file traded on their network.

Gnutella is a tool. It is software written to trade files, but no one is sitting in the middle making money off of it. There is no possible way to stop piracy on such a network - but most important someone isn't getting rich off of someone else's work.

Shit, you want to go out on a limb? Well, guns are legal. Tools even. But there are laws that keep you from taking one into the courthouse or a school because the tool can be used for other things than defense and hunting. Felons can't have guns, and so forth. Why? Because we know the potential for harm.

Basically though my problem isn't with the software. It is with the service that a bunch of theives provided. They knew, because they log activity and they operate a central set of servers, that people were using the service to trade in illegal files. Once they collected one dime they had a responsibility to fork over the cash. Even if that would have made them operate at a loss they were bringing in money because someone else produced work which Kazaa/Sharman doesn't own the rights to.

--
Get your Unix fortune now!
Re:Not suprised... by cdrguru · 2005-03-13 07:54 · Score: 1

No, but schools did filter them. No pagers. Period. Because it was assumed that if someone had a pager, they were selling drugs.
Re:Not suprised... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-13 08:59 · Score: 1, Insightful

I won't argue whether or not these people are scum, but...
After they had cashflow they had one of two responsiblities: Either filter owned works or pay up for those works.
I just can't accept that. I'm skeptical that toolmakers are responsible for how their tools are used, and it's virtually impossible for them to control whether the tool will be used for good or evil. If this profit-making company has to add compulsory filtering to Kazaa, then Microsoft has to add compulsory filtering to IE and Outlook. What you are suggesting, would be a tremendous (impractical to the point of impossibility) burden on toolmakers.
And while the anecdotal evidence is that this tool is mostly used for evil, I haven't heard of any technical aspect of how the tool works, that suggest that it is intended for that. Indeed, I just can't think of anything a warez distribution tool would do, that a samizdat distribution tool wouldn't also do.
Re:Not suprised... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-13 09:11 · Score: 0

Kazaa's business model may be based on that perceived demand, but if they get punished for what their tool does then we are all truly fucked. The people getting fucked won't just be those who are involved in piracy, but also just about everyone in the software business.
When I type "COPY FOO.TXT A:" in MSDOS, I don't want to wait for it to have to connect to the internet, submit both the name of the copied file and its hash to a central server, so it can get "this is believed to be legal to copy" approval before it copies the file.
And if doesn't matter if foo.txt is really a pirated Metallica song. Abstaining from copyright violation is a person's responsibility, not a computer's. Leave the computers and the people who write the software, OUT OF THIS!!
Re:Not suprised... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-13 09:20 · Score: 0

Many sports cars are required to have limiters in them, though the top speed is still higher than anything sane for driving in traffic.

Opening numbered accounts *does* get noticed nowadays, due to anti money laundering measures that actually predate the war on terra.
Re:Not suprised... by Doc+Ruby · 2005-03-13 09:28 · Score: 1

"none of the messages (in the 1980's) were specific enough to filter out illegal activity"

No, many of the messages included drug words. I know, because a friend of mine, as late as the late 1990s, was a programmer for an NYC pager company, and he used to grep the streams for interesting words, and then piece together interesting conversations. The carriers are not responsible for policing their infosystems, even when they can, and P2P doesn't change that.

--
--
make install -not war
Re:Not suprised... by Slashdot+is+dead · 2005-03-13 09:53 · Score: 1

I've bootleged and pirated quite a few things but I nor anyone else should be making money off of that.

So you're saying that you're a drug dealer who grows his own pot and gives it away to anybody who asks?
Re:Not suprised... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-13 10:13 · Score: 0

First let me say that IIS or Apache running on my server makes me responsible, not Microsoft or the Apache Foundation.

By the same logic, Kazaa running on your computer would make you responsible, not Sharman Networks.

If my site was discovered I'd expect to be shut down and sued, if not imprisoned - because I broke the law.

The same applies to the case of you breaking the law with Kazaa.

Now, Apache and IIS weren't written to trade media files between millions of users

Of course they were.

Sharman actually helps you break copyrights by providing indexing and other central services and they track every file traded on their network.

Indexing makes them liable for copyright infringement? It would also nail Google. Being able to track file transfers and not doing anything about it would make ISPs liable.

Well, guns are legal. Tools even. But there are laws that keep you from taking one into the courthouse or a school because the tool can be used for other things than defense and hunting.

The equivalent to Sharman Networks in your analogy would be the gun manufacturers. Gun manufacturers aren't held responsible when somebody uses guns illegally.

It is with the service that a bunch of theives provided.

You are saying that they stole something now? What did they steal?

They knew, because they log activity

Free website providers, e.g. Geocities or ISPs log activity too. Does that make them liable for every time somebody commits copyright infringement using their personal webspace?

and they operate a central set of servers, that people were using the service to trade in illegal files.

There's no such thing as illegal files, only illegal instances of copying.

Once they collected one dime they had a responsibility to fork over the cash.

You haven't shown why. The ISPs that the copyright infringers were using were making money through the copying too. They can monitor the copying too. They can filter just as easily as Sharman Networks can. The only difference is that they didn't write the software, and you've already acknowledged that the software isn't the problem.
Re:Not suprised... by Doc+Ruby · 2005-03-13 10:14 · Score: 1

That's not a filter - that's a ban on the devices, regardless of the content. If every controller of spaces where pagers had to receive had done that, all the legit traffic would never have had a platform in which to grow. Now "paging" (incl. SMS) is essential to many lives, and driving lots of other innovative services. P2P will go the same way.

--
--
make install -not war
Re:Not suprised... by trawg · 2005-03-13 11:26 · Score: 1

Napster and Kazaa with websites is tantamount to a drug dealer on the corner with a sign and them turning a profit is as disgusting as it gets. I've bootleged and pirated quite a few things but I nor anyone else should be making money off of that.
Where do you draw the line though? When they come after your ISP for making money off piracy by encouraging massive data caps?

Noone I know downloads more than 20gb a month of legitimate traffic - the vast majority of users that don't download music/movies/tv shows don't even come CLOSE to this. In Australia with our heavy data caps, the only ones that are REALLY complaining are the people that want do download movies and TV shows.

ISPs here in Australia offer "free p2p" for users on the same networks, and smaller ones have peering deals set up - SPECIFICALLY to encourage users that are heavy p2p users to sign up (in fact, one was raided the other day.

So its already started over here. How long before the RIAA/MPAA start taking on your ISPs for encouraging (if not flat out facilitating!) p2p piracy?

I've never liked Kazaa, but I'm careful about being critical - because I don't want my ISP deciding what data I can and can't download, which seems like it might be possible if the RIAA/MPAA get enough sway with the governments (... which seems inevitable, if not already happening).
Re:Not suprised... by shark72 · 2005-03-13 12:10 · Score: 1

"And Porsche opened stores in California because they wanted to sell some cars to law-abiding individuals who never exceed 65Mph?"

If you're not sure of the difference, you can think of a car like a browser. There are many browser vendors out there, just as there are car makers. Browsers can be used for illegal purposes, and sometimes, people break the law using their car. Browsers might even have special features that might seem to make them better equipped for copyright infringement, such as improved download management; likewise, many car makers advertise the performance capabilities of their product, even though any car can be used to break the law.

The crucial difference is that browser vendors and car makers have not set up business specifically to provide an outlet for illegal activity. Ye olde "substantial non-infringing uses" applies here; most of the time, both browsers and cars (even Porsches) are used in a legal way.

Compare this to Kazaa, the business model of which is dependent on the high demand for pirated materials. The founders of Kazaa correctly understood that there's big money in piracy, which is why they stay in business when they (as well as everybody else) know that 90% of their users use it to make unauthorized copies. This is no "well, Kazaa could be used for piracy" situation or "a small number of Kazaa's users are being naughty" or even "Kazaa is used primarily for piracy but Sharman isn't aware of this, and it wasn't their intent." Sharman knows exactly what they're doing; their livelihoods depend on it.

As somebody has pointed out, Kazaa != P2P. Rushing to Kazaa's defense or playing dumb on their behalf will ultimately hurt our goal of widespread P2P acceptance on both sides of the fence. Instead, we should be embracing those who are running Torrent sites that contain only permission-based content, and those who are developing the next generation of P2P apps in which content is opt-in only.

--
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
Re:Not suprised... by ShieldW0lf · 2005-03-13 15:11 · Score: 1

Has it ever occurred to you "it's illegal isn't a valid reason" knee-jerk reactionists that "it's illegal" is actually a perfectly _good_ reason if, in fact, the particular law in question happens to be good?

To use the expression in another example, in the same tone and context I used the expression before, speeding by itself doesn't really hurt anyone either, but it's still illegal.

Does the fact that you or I may be able to come up with half a dozen other valid reasons _why_ speeding may be wrong diminish the fact that "it's illegal" isn't by itself a fairly good reason? Especially if one considers that it's illegality is probably heavily _tied_ to those other reasons?

Copyright infringement, however mild and however innocuous in scope, does exactly what says... it infringes on rights, specifically, those of the author who has been granted the _exclusive_ right to copy his work (others may only legally copy the work by first obtaining permission). Now there can be arguments made that copyrights are too long and whatnot, but there are largely irrellevant to the issue of Copyright infringement itself. I believe Copyright itself is an entirely appropriate thing to grant an author of any work, and it is why I support Copyright Law most steadfastly.

I could get into a huge debate with you. I could do point and counterpoint all day long about the goodness and badness of the laws. But I don't have to. It's not a human right, or a god-granted right. It's a right granted by all of us to each other because we believe that the advantages outweigh the cost. And it that only lasts when most of us agree that we're better off for it.

So tell me... the way people act, do you believe that the majority of them desire to continue granting copyright?

I personally believe most people don't. And if I'm right, it doesn't make any difference whatsoever what artists or rights holders or politicians think. You can't arrest everyone, and people continue to infringe in ever growing numbers. In the end, it doesn't matter what you say. If most of the people put their thumbs to their noses and say na-na-na-na-na, they win.

Oh, and btw...

Na-na-na-na-na!

--
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
Re:Not suprised... by mark-t · 2005-03-13 16:24 · Score: 1

When they are willing to say "na-na-na-na-na" to a judge's face in court for infringing on Copyright, you know, I just might start taking them a whole lot more seriously. Otherwise all they're saying is something childish like "Lookit me! Lookit what I can get away with!" Eventually, any given person with that attitude may find someday that their luck has run out with regards to evading the law and face charges for their actions. From what I have seen, however, pirates are cowards, unwilling to face the possible repercussions of their actions, regardless of who they affect. I have no qualms whatsoever with harsh penalties being applied to each and every one wherever and whenever charges can be successfully laid.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Re:Not suprised... by iamacat · 2005-03-13 17:36 · Score: 1

Do you honestly believe any meaningful percentage of people buy Porsche for driving the posted speed limit, making safe lane changes and slowing down on turns? I guess you also buy Playboy for articles. The thing is, both articles and decent cars for driving legal speed are available for cheaper, so I don't know why people would bother.
Re:Not suprised... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-13 19:14 · Score: 0

Good for you. You're a real badass, aincha?
Re:Not suprised... by iamacat · 2005-03-13 19:58 · Score: 1

Because they are sued by RIAA, not recording industry of some other country?

big bro by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-12 20:33 · Score: 0

Dumbass, it was my easy-to-read style that got me the reporting gig in the first place. That and they don't check sources...you're just mad noone reads your lj. Maybe if you weren't such a spiv...

-Little Bro.

Re:big bro by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-12 21:22 · Score: 0

You've certainly got a strange idea of "easy to read".

Privatized Court of Public Opinion by Doc+Ruby · 2005-03-12 20:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

We know that none of these sleazy biz tactics have anything to do with their liability for abuse of their software by some users. I bet these stories are being promoted by the music biz to cover up a Supreme Court decision against Kazaa/Grokster/Morpheus this month, which won't have a legal basis, but is rather just a favor to corporate media which hates P2P. The rest of the corporate media, in the "news" business, will be able to report that the Supremes dealt the "sleazy" P2P corps the justice they deserve, because they run tsunami scams. It will all make sense in the "news", though it won't have any legal merit.

--

--
make install -not war

Re:Privatized Court of Public Opinion by shark72 · 2005-03-12 21:25 · Score: 1

"We know that none of these sleazy biz tactics have anything to do with their liability for abuse of their software by some users."

What, as opposed to the majority of Kazaa users who use it to trade Linux distros? Kazaa's entire business model is based on the popularity of pirated material.

"The rest of the corporate media, in the "news" business, will be able to report that the Supremes dealt the "sleazy" P2P corps the justice they deserve, because they run tsunami scams. It will all make sense in the "news", though it won't have any legal merit."

Why do you put "sleazy" in quotes? Do you think Kazaa is some sort of righteous company?

--
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
Re:Privatized Court of Public Opinion by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-12 21:53 · Score: 0

Why do you put "sleazy" in quotes?
Well, the corporate media is just as "sleazy" in this instance, for somehow implying that Sharman set up the fund as a "tsunami scam". The fund was set up at least two days before the catastrophe!
Do you think Kazaa is some sort of righteous company?
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Re:Privatized Court of Public Opinion by Doc+Ruby · 2005-03-12 22:40 · Score: 3, Insightful

It doesn't matter how sleazy they are, when deciding their liability for the actions of users, as being argued in the Supreme Court this month. Even the basest criminals have the rights to exercise their legitimate actions free from liability. It doesn't matter how righteous they are, what their business model is, whether they eat babies in their office - when judging their right to distribute software that is sometimes abused by some of its users. Unless you're so distracted by their other reported abuses, that you've totally ignored that I'm talking about their Supreme Court case deciding only that software liability, you're demonstrating exactly what I'm talking about.

--
--
make install -not war
Re:Privatized Court of Public Opinion by ImaLamer · 2005-03-13 08:49 · Score: 1

I'm all for software as tools and all but they provided a service which enhanced the ability to break the law...

And they tracked usage which makes them responsible. They were to greedy and it caught up to them.

--
Get your Unix fortune now!
Re:Privatized Court of Public Opinion by Doc+Ruby · 2005-03-13 09:36 · Score: 1

Telephones, bars and most supported technology provide services which enhance the ability to break the law. That's not illegal, unless the operator has specific knowledge of a specific transaction which they specifically aided. The entire point of my subthread is that their greed is distinguished from their right to operate a P2P system which some people abuse.

--
--
make install -not war
Re:Privatized Court of Public Opinion by ImaLamer · 2005-03-13 12:06 · Score: 1

Some people?

Now we are just getting a little too out of touch. Kazaa was used for the sole purpose of trading copyrighted works! Not linux iso's, not royalty free work, Britney Spears songs...

Then again, the phone, bars and the such weren't invented for the sole purpose of breaking the law... Kazaa was!

Anyone who doesn't admit this to themselves is delusional.

--
Get your Unix fortune now!
Re:Privatized Court of Public Opinion by Doc+Ruby · 2005-03-13 12:14 · Score: 1

No, actually, that specific fact was an essential element in the lower court's decision that Sharman (Kazaa) wasn't liable for Kazaa's abuse: it had substantial potential, and actual, legitimate use. You might be satisfied to project your perception of Kazaa onto it, without actual data. But Sharman proved in court, with real evidence, that Kazaa is not used, or designed, for the "sole purpose" of breaking the law. You are not a lawyer, you are not familiar with the case or the evidence, and you are not even a shrink, to be throwing around words like "delusional".

--
--
make install -not war

"Fraudulent conveyance" by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · 2005-03-12 20:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

Normally it's legal to sell your house to your brother for ten dollars. However if you do it to get your property out of the reach of your creditors then Bad Things will happen to you.

At least that's the way it works in US law.

The music industry is making grave accusations here.

Re:"Fraudulent conveyance" by mark-t · 2005-03-12 20:49 · Score: 1

Okay, this is getting off-topic (and I kind of expect to be modded down as such), but how exactly are they supposed to know exactly _why_ you did it? How could they even begin to prove it, even if it _were_ true?

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Re:"Fraudulent conveyance" by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-12 21:11 · Score: 0

Doing it, however, because you fear you may have significant creditors IN THE FUTURE is a different matter still.
Re:"Fraudulent conveyance" by shark72 · 2005-03-12 21:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

"Okay, this is getting off-topic (and I kind of expect to be modded down as such), but how exactly are they supposed to know exactly _why_ you did it? How could they even begin to prove it, even if it _were_ true?"

There is a term you may have heard on TV shows or movies: "circumstantial evidence." It's a fact that can be inferred from other facts. It's generally admissible in courts.

For example, if an executive of a company whose business model was based on piracy, and whose said company was headquartered in Vanaatu, and whose headquarters were raided, suddenly sold his multi-million dollar mansion to his brother for $10, the courts would not need to see a signed note stating "I am selling you my house for $10 so the courts don't get it if I lose this case" in order to figure out what's going on. Courts are usually pretty good about identifying ducks if they walk, act and quack like such, and less tolerant of "bad actors" than many people might think.

--
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
Re:"Fraudulent conveyance" by ArsenneLupin · 2005-03-12 21:57 · Score: 1

Doing it, however, because you fear you may have significant creditors IN THE FUTURE is a different matter still.
And setting up a phony relief fund for a significant catastrophe which will occur IN THE FUTURE is another different matter still...
Re:"Fraudulent conveyance" by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-12 22:02 · Score: 0

That's why it's better live in Texas of Florida. Your property (homestead) is outside the reach of creditors, (even if its worth
10,00,000 USD). In every other state they your creditors can take your home and make you homeless.
Re:"Fraudulent conveyance" by shark72 · 2005-03-12 23:19 · Score: 1

Ah, I think I see the source of your confusion. Kazaa claimed to have made the Red Cross their sole beneficiary, but it was not set up as a tsunami relief fund per se (and it couldn't have been -- this all happened before the tsunami). Check the dates on the PDFs to and from the Red Cross in TFA... they're from before Christmas.

The article pointed out that the news of the Red Cross hijinks broke at around the time the tsunami had hit and the Red Cross sprang into action, but nobody claimed that Kazaa had purportedly made the Red Cross their benficiary with tsunami relief in mind. You used the phrase "relief fund" in your post but that phrase is not used in TFA.

If you still believe that something's fishy, and that this isn't just a sad coincidence, let me know.

--
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
Re:"Fraudulent conveyance" by Stevyn · 2005-03-13 04:06 · Score: 1

Another thing to consider is that when your brother sells it for, well, a LOT more than ten dollars, he has to show that huge profit as income on his taxes.

Drug dealers and kazaa by ImaLamer · 2005-03-12 20:42 · Score: 1

Well, I didn't say anything about kids but, Ok!

My point is that you could sell drugs - I'm fine with that. But the system has already made it hard for you being illegal and all. People who want drugs have to know you or someone you know to get them.

It makes breaking the law harder if we don't accept those who do it...

--
Get your Unix fortune now!

The sad thing is... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-12 20:44 · Score: 0

The sad thing is that this will reflect poorly on all the legitimate uses of P2P.

No, that doesn't make any sense for someone to conclude anything about a technology like P2P from the behavior of one company, but that doesn't mean people won't do that, especially when many associate Kazaa with P2P.

Me? I'm just sorry the useful technology will likely suffer more than the shady company. Granted, I have no way of knowing if anything in this article is true, but it's hardly the first time Kazaa has done something shady, and I know they bundle spyware.

That is only the beginning ... by gnuber · 2005-03-12 20:52 · Score: 1

Believe it or not, it gets even worse if you read on! He changes tone from gangsta' to haXX0r:

Thanks to our fully 1337 h4X0r developer, you can sign up for alerts proper. Check out the Tools section up at top right in the swanky new box he's built with his zeros and ones.

Pl33z3, sH00t m3 n0w!

Re:That is only the beginning ... by Jugalator · 2005-03-13 02:51 · Score: 2, Funny

Pl33z3, sH00t m3 n0w!

Hmm, this journalist definitely seems like a product of Microsoft's new l337 sp33k... oh, excuse me... "leetspeek" guide.

--
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Re:That is only the beginning ... by Kuro-Bishounen · 2005-03-13 17:59 · Score: 1

Damn, I never knew that even Microsoft would go as far as to explain that teenagers use different slang and emphasis than their parents. What next, warning that parents should warn their children not to jump off bridges? 10/10 for effort 0/10 for solidifying the hold of the American ideal of parental non-intervention in their children's life. The damn parents should already know this stuff, or have a good enough relationship with their kids to ask them what the hell is coming out of their mouths. Thanks Microsoft for allowing parents to escape the responsibility for raising their own kids by releasing an easy to memorise (maybe) list of 'alert words' for them to watch out for, while they've already let their children's education and upbringing get away from them. Know what your kid is doing, don't sit their and wait for them to set your feet on fire before you notice they have matches

--
Evil Space Monkeys could be stealing YOUR bandwidth!

I call bullshit on this story by ArsenneLupin · 2005-03-12 21:19 · Score: 4, Interesting

Timing is wrong. How do you compare this:

The timing of the news coincided with the devastating tsunami and the global charity needed all it could get at its greatest time of need.

... and ...:

At the time, Dispatch thought that Red Cross spokesman Jean-Jacques Bovay might have needed more time, just to check and be on the safe side before finally declaring Who the hell is this Sharman of which you speak. It was Christmas Eve that we phoned him, afterall.

So, if I got this right, Dispatch phoned the Red Cross two days before the catastrophe occurred for which the alleged trust fund was set up? What the hell. I smell a rat here.

Re:I call bullshit on this story by mrsev · 2005-03-12 21:37 · Score: 1

Simply through the use of a priori knowledge and precognition:

>Dispatch: Will KAzza make you the beneficiary of some money in a few days time.

>Red Cross: I have no recolection of any such person contacting me in two days time.

Simple!
Re:I call bullshit on this story by shark72 · 2005-03-12 22:10 · Score: 4, Informative

The timing is sadly coincidental, but not wrong. Kazaa was pulling their hijinks with the Red Cross before Christmas; you can read the dispatch from Christmas eve which covered it at the time.

Yeah, the tsunami happened a few days later. Yes, it was sad, and yes, the Red Cross stepped in to help. But that was a coincidence -- Kazaa could not have known that this would happen. The portion you quoted uses the word "coincided" which is another form of "coincidence." And, sometimes coincidences happen.

--
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
Re:I call bullshit on this story by Ralph+Spoilsport · 2005-03-13 13:35 · Score: 1

So, if I got this right, Dispatch phoned the Red Cross two days before the catastrophe occurred for which the alleged trust fund was set up? What the hell. I smell a rat here.
No rat. It's obvious. (loony theory factor? Check. tin foil hat? check. Capslock disability? CHECK. PUNCTUATION DISABILITY? CHECK!!!)
KAZAA CAUSED THE EARTHQUAKE AND USED THEIR SECRET MINIONS FROM THE MIDDLE EARTH TO DIRECT THE TSUNAMI AWAY FROM AUSTRALIA SO IT WOULD DEVASTATE THE POORER COUNTRIES OF THE INDIAN OCEAN!!! THEY ARE EVIL AND IN LEAGUE WITH THE NAZI HELL CREATURES WHO THREATEN OUR VITAL BODILY FLUIDS AND AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE!!! THEY MUST BE DESTROYED!!! GOD BLESS AMERICA AND REICHSFUEHRER BUSH FOR KEEPING US ON THE ONE TRUE PATH TO SALVATION!!!
(end previous processes)
On other points, I think the story was very badly written and researched, and I'm not surprised by any of the problems. In fact, it may have come across by way of sheer stupidity, so instead of them being one day ahead, the writer might have thought they were one day behind, and compensated in the wrong direction, ending up with the date completely incorrect.
Damn. Now I can't get this tinfoil hat off. Guess I'll have to go see my clients like this tomorrow. No biggie. They've seen worse.
RS

--
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
Re:I call bullshit on this story by shark72 · 2005-03-13 14:31 · Score: 1

"On other points, I think the story was very badly written and researched, and I'm not surprised by any of the problems. In fact, it may have come across by way of sheer stupidity, so instead of them being one day ahead, the writer might have thought they were one day behind, and compensated in the wrong direction, ending up with the date completely incorrect."

The report is one in a series of many, filed by a journalist who's been sitting in the courtroom day after day, following the case. It might be hard to follow out of context; it's a "reporter's notebook" style piece rather than a compleat guide to the Kazaa trial. Anybody who thinks he's being harsh on Kazaa should read some of the earlier reports -- the plaintiffs have taken their lumps, too. Sure, it's written in a colloquial style, but I imagine you have some local columnists of your own whose writing style takes a bit of getting used to. Hunter S. Thompson changed journalism a lot.

Either way, the journalist's potential misunderstanding of time zones is not germaine here. The GP poster incorrectly thought that Kazaa had earmarked funds for tsunami relief (impossible, as the tsunami had not yet occurred), when the reality is that Kazaa simply claimed to have set up the Red Cross as their sole beneficiary. It was a matter of dispute in the courts well before the disaster struck. It was simply a sad coincidence that the tsunami hit later that month. I don't think the GP poster has any serious tinfoil hat issues; it's more one of reading comprehension.

--
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.

Not so by Nik13 · 2005-03-12 21:24 · Score: 4, Insightful

You make it sound like they're only attacking networks/means that nobody uses anymore, but they've done quite a lot of damage to BitTorrent and eDonkey/eMule "communities" too. I wouldn't exactly say that nobody uses those anymore. Granted, they haven't shut down those 2 yet, but it's not like they aren't trying or not doing anything about them either. (Mind you I'm quite happy to see this crapzaa plague go away)

--
///<sig />

Re:Not so by sgant · 2005-03-13 00:54 · Score: 3, Insightful

They won't shut down BitTorrent. They can't shut something down unless it's a central entity.

I mean, they could try to go after the original programmer of Bittorrent or something, though the source out in the world protected by the MIT licence...so the RIAA would also have to challenge that if they want to "shut it down".

They close a tracker site down, 10 more pop up. Bittorrent isn't going anywhere and in fact will become better and better.

The RIAA are fighting a losing battle...do they have a right to fight it, sure. But I still belive they should instead try to find a better solution then what they're attempting, because as you can see, it doesn't really stop anyone from trading music. They shut down Napster, people still trade, they shut down Kaaza people still trade. In fact, I'm willing to bet that more people trade music today then they EVER did when Napster was around. I have no facts to back that up, it's just a hunch.

Of course, I could be totally wrong.

--

"Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
Re:Not so by RichardX · 2005-03-13 04:33 · Score: 1

I'll miss Kazaa.
No, really. It's a great word. Like a magic spell - abracadabra or something

"Kazaa! Your download's fucked!"
"Kazaa! You've got spyware!"
"Kazaa! You thought it was Star Wars but it's really goat porn!"

--
Curiosity was framed. Ignorance killed the cat.
Re:Not so by Skuld-Chan · 2005-03-13 04:57 · Score: 1

Can you point out what they have done to emule? I still use it (although I rarely download anything the mpaa or riaa is interested in) and there's still tons of "their" files on there. In fact I would go as far as to say its stronger and better than ever.
Re:Not so by Saeed+al-Sahaf · 2005-03-13 05:52 · Score: 1

Bittorrent isn't going anywhere and in fact will become better and better.
Isn't that what people said about all the other p2p pirating scams? Of course they are all toast.

--
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
Re:Not so by m50d · 2005-03-13 06:14 · Score: 3, Insightful

They weren't open source is why they went under. Gnutella is still out there and going strong while other networks from the same era are collapsing, because the source is available. Napster and Kazaa both got in trouble when they started filtering things, because that showed they could have filtered out copyright infringing stuff. That can't happen with bittorrent, because the software is open source and there is no central server.

--
I am trolling
Re:Not so by sgant · 2005-03-13 07:35 · Score: 1

How are they going to shut down something that has no central server...and is open source?

Go after the original author? Then what? The source is out there under the MIT licence...so then the RIAA would have to go after the licence and have it rendered null...and would they really want to open up that can-o-worms?

--

"Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
Re:Not so by bayvult · 2005-03-13 07:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

They can't shut something down unless it's a central entity. ... Of course, I could be totally wrong
You are totally wrong. BitTorrent was never designed to be anonymous. BitTorrent sites were closed down quicker than the P2P networks because the individuals sharing thier files identified their IP addresses and Torrents were advertized on easy to find websites. Very easy to go after a web site.
It's weird how people see the word "decentralized" and think it's some kind of magic.
Re:Not so by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-13 08:25 · Score: 0

Yeah, you are totally wrong. Whether or not it was purposeful is debatable. No, they can't shut down BitTorrent, but they can essentially shut down almost every site that uses it for illicit purposes (so long as it draws enough attention to be discovered). That's what the discussion is about, which I'm sure you already knew; why you chose to ignore that fact is interesting.

The RIAA is facing an uphill battle...is that so? When has the RIAA suffered a loss recently greater than that of the companies that are running these services? When have they -ever- suffered that big a loss? Their industry isn't threatened in the least, they have a number of senators in their back pockets. What makes you think this is so difficult a task for them? The fact that they haven't started doing it until recently, coincidentally when the popularity of such tools is reaching a peak?

I find it difficult to believe that you're actually as ignorant as you seem to be suggesting you are.
Re:Not so by Saeed+al-Sahaf · 2005-03-13 09:51 · Score: 1

How are they going to shut down something that has no central server...and is open source?
What does "open source" have to do with it? Absolutely nothing. The words "open source" do not have some magical power that renders corporate lawyers impotent.
What they will do is send out a few thousand subpoenas and sue the shit out of both users and torrent link sites. That is what they will do. Scare tactics can be very effective, this approach has been shown to work very well in the past.

--
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
Re:Not so by sgant · 2005-03-13 12:01 · Score: 1

when I say "open source" in relation to this it means that the source code for Bittorrent is all over the world. People can see it and modify it and make it better and make it different to where no one can even know where something is coming from or where it's going etc etc...

Napster shut down back then because it was a central place with closed software that was a huge target. Same with Kaaza.

Where are the subpoenas going to go for the many people that use Bittorrent...a program that is even used by bigger companies to parcel out software updates such as Blizzard does with World of Warcraft.

But no, I wasn't using a buzzword like "open source" to say it will help everything. "hey man, dont worry, it's that open source shit man...it's that Linux...we'll Linux it over everything. Open source it linux-like and they'll never find our googlized-FSF-GNU-linux-source man...we'll source it...see?". Lol

But hey, I'm still waiting for the RIAA to demand the shut down of the entire Internet.

--

"Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
Re:Not so by sgant · 2005-03-13 12:10 · Score: 1

But that's just it, there still is no centralized program or company to target. Sure, they go after tracker web sites and maybe shut a few down...but then 10 more take their place the very next day. Kaaza and Napster are very big targets from single companies that can pull the plug from their servers. A bittorrent web site may go dark, but the torrents are still out there pumping away in the dark.

It's not going away and just because the RIAA waves a few lawsuits in peoples faces doesn't mean anything. It's still going to go on.

Also, I'm not saying it right or wrong. All I'm saying is that the RIAA is fighting a losing battle.

--

"Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith

Psychic con-artists could have saved 200000+ lives by ArsenneLupin · 2005-03-12 21:27 · Score: 1

...because they run tsunami scams.

Why is South East Asia investing billions in a sophisticated tsunami early warning system? Wouldn't it be much cheaper just watching the con-artists scene: as soon as you see the rats prepare to set up phony trust funds, you have 2 days to run for the hills!

(Hint: look at the dates...)

Hey, this reminds me about the 911 stock market rumors. At least those were vaguely plausible (terrorist could have been dumping the stocks). However, in the Kazaa case, I don't really think that Sharman had the resources to set up an underwater undetectable nuke...

I see what you mean! by rastakid · 2005-03-12 21:31 · Score: 1

So, if I got this right, Dispatch phoned the Red Cross two days before the catastrophe occurred for which the alleged trust fund was set up? What the hell. I smell a rat here.

Yeah, I see what you mean there brother! Now all the pieces fall together: Sharman Networks is behind the Christmas Tsunami disaster! The bastards!

--
In need of reliable and affordable server monitoring?

Re:I see what you mean! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-12 21:38 · Score: 1, Insightful

Yeah, I see what you mean there brother! Now all the pieces fall together: Sharman Networks is behind the Christmas Tsunami disaster! The bastards!
Or rather: The RIAA/MPAA goons invented/distorted the story in order to create a public outcry against Sharman networks ("the heartless bastards! they profited from the catastrophe for their own selfish goals"), but screwed up with the timing.
Re:I see what you mean! by rastakid · 2005-03-12 22:02 · Score: 1

Or rather: The RIAA/MPAA goons invented/distorted the story in order to create a public outcry against Sharman networks ("the heartless bastards! they profited from the catastrophe for their own selfish goals"), but screwed up with the timing.

I was joking, laugh!

--
In need of reliable and affordable server monitoring?

Reprecussions for VOIP by Anonymous+Writer · 2005-03-12 21:34 · Score: 1

Skype is bundled with the latest version of Kazaa, and Skype's CEO was a co-creator of Kazaa who jumped ship after the lawsuits first started. Since Skype is the most popular internet call provider, and there have been some attempts to hamper the progress of VOIP, will Kazaa's bad reputation affect VOIP in general?

Article's Site: sketchy? by The+Amazing+Fish+Boy · 2005-03-12 21:49 · Score: 0, Redundant

The site is hosted on "ninemMSN.com.au" I can't find any reference to Microsoft owning it. nineMSN just seems to link to some MS services (Hotmail, MSN, etc.) About page (below) reveals no connection, though mentions Hotmail and other services. http://mediacentre.ninemsn.com.au/med iacentre/about.aspx Whois: $ whois ninemsn.co.uk Domain Name: ninemsn.co.uk Registrant: Chris Kolle Registrant's Address: 32 Vaniki Way Westvale 3867 AU Registrant's Agent: eNom, Inc [Tag = ENOM] URL: http://www.enom.com Relevant Dates: Registered on: 20-Jul-2004 Renewal Date: 20-Jul-2006 Last updated: 30-Jul-2004 Registration Status: Registered until renewal date. Name servers listed in order: ns1.sedoparking.com 217.160.95.94 ns2.sedoparking.com 217.160.141.42 WHOIS database last updated at 09:45:01 13-Mar-2005 -- (c) Nominet UK 1996 - 2005 For further information and terms of use please see http://www.nic.uk/whois Nominet reserves the right to withhold access to this service at any time. iBook:~ kevinosb$ whois ninemsn.com.au Domain Name: ninemsn.com.au Last Modified: 06-Jul-2004 01:27:28 UTC Registrar ID: R00010-AR Registrar Name: Melbourne IT Status: OK Registrant: NineMSN Pty Limited Registrant ID: OTHER 077 753 461 Registrant ROID: C1106072-AR Registrant Contact Name: Richard Ang Registrant Email: richard@ninemsn.com.au Tech ID: C1474273-AR Tech Name: Hostworks Hostmaster Tech Email: hostmaster@hostworks.com.au Name Server: ns2.hostworks.net.au Name Server IP: 202.58.32.2 Name Server: dns0.optus.net.au Name Server IP: 202.139.83.3 Name Server: ns1.telstra.net Name Server: ns1.hostworks.net.au Name Server IP: 202.58.32.1

Re:Article's Site: sketchy? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-12 22:03 · Score: 0

NineMSN is a joint venture between Microsoft and one of Australias television networks (Channel Nine). Think of it as something similar to MSNBC.com.

It is perfectly legitimate (although the quality of what is posted leaves something to be desired.)

Incidentally, it is the default home/start page for Internet Explorer for computers with Australian regional settings.
Re:Article's Site: sketchy? by MichaelSmith · 2005-03-12 22:26 · Score: 1

The site is hosted on "ninemMSN.com.au"
For ninemsn read MSNBC in the USA. The Nine network is one of the three major commercial TV networks in Australia.

They presumably have an MSN franchise as a part of their task of promoting the Lowest Common Denominator to the Australian masses.

Australian Personal Computer magazine is probably part of the NineMSN stable.

--
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Re:Article's Site: sketchy? by danwarne · 2005-03-13 00:03 · Score: 1

Well, not exactly. Kerry Packer owns ACP (Australian Consolidated Press, the publisher of APC Magazine). He's also the owner of Channel Nine. Both ACP and Channel Nine are part of his PBL publishing conglomerate.
As far as I know, it's PBL and Microsoft which are allied to produce NineMSN, and NineMSN draws together all the websites for the ACP magazines and Nine Network TV shows (and then derives online advertising revenues from them).
Re:Article's Site: sketchy? by blackdropbear · 2005-03-13 09:20 · Score: 1

APC Mag is owned by Federal Publications IRRC which is owned by the Kerry Packer group of companies which also owns/controls Channel Nine. Channel Nine attempted to 'corner the internet' in Australia in the early 90's (about 1994-5) from memory in conjunction with Microsoft. This links to the ninemsn domain as they tied themselve together pretty tightly back then. That date first registered is a furphy. This failed miserably as Australians can quite often ignore what their govenment thinks and be considered quite normal.

No reprecussions for VOIP by rastakid · 2005-03-12 22:00 · Score: 2

will Kazaa's bad reputation affect VOIP in general?

No, because VOIP is more than Skype. Even if VOIP would equal Skype, I still don't think Kazaa could hurt Skype's reputation. Most people see Kazaa and Skype as different things, and in fact, they are different things. And they don't see Kazaa as a Bad Thing(TM).

Do you think that John Doe cares that Kazaa comes with spyware? Of course not, he hardly knows what spyware is. All he knows that he wants to download some pr0n and that his daughter wants to download the new CD of Britney Spears.

Also, John Doe wants to make cheap calls. As cheap as possible. Thus, Skype. He takes the spyware for granted. Only people like you and me (and all the other Slashdot readers) do care about it, but we are not really your average computer user, unfortunately.

--
In need of reliable and affordable server monitoring?

It couldn't have happened... by Alioth · 2005-03-12 22:04 · Score: 2

It couldn't have happened to a nicer bunch of charlatans^W people. Why people are so supportive of Kazaa, an ad/spyware peddler, I don't know. It's also obvious their business is built on copyright infringement.

--
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows

Shady folks by SteelV · 2005-03-12 22:14 · Score: 5, Interesting

I was on the phone with a Kazaa-exec a few years back (actually, listening in), and couldn't help commenting on the rampant spyware issues. He was not actually at Kazaa, rather at a company that managed their ad-services if I remember correctly, and took a great deal of offense at my comments! He got really upset when I mentioned how Kazaa-Lite was so much better (hehehe).

He sounded fairly unscrupulous at the time, so I guess he knew what was going on fairly well and was OK with it. This seems like a continuation of past policy. Obviously the higher-ups don't care about users, just about making as much money as they can, any way they can.

I thought it would completely die years ago (I stopped using it a long time back). Maybe it will soon with all these recent "issues."

Re:Shady folks by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-12 22:21 · Score: 0

Wow, a guy running a company designed to profit off illegal activity is unscrupulous? What did you expect?
Re:Shady folks by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-13 03:50 · Score: 0

i call bullshit
first, you were speaking with a kazaa exec. well, not really. you were listening in. (no idea what that means either - somehow you made it onto a phone call with a kazaa executive and were able to listen in. maybe a corporate conference call? stockholders meeting?)

then, he's not a kazaa exec. he doesn't even work at kazaa. he works at the company that runs their advertising services. and you bitched to him about kazaa being loaded with spyware.

taco, there needs to be a '-1, boring' moderation.

50 gold stars to the first post that replies, "-1, boring"
Re:Shady folks by SteelV · 2005-03-13 09:54 · Score: 1

I understand why it seems that way, but it honestly was true. I just don't really remember the details because I wasn't quite involved in the situation. A friend just asked me to sit in because he wasn't as tech savvy as I was (although I'm not that tech savvy myself!).

It was a few years back and the call only lasted about 10 minutes. It was about my relative's company doing some business with this guy's. Like I said, I think he was an executive at a company that was very close to Kazaa, but perhaps not Kazaa itself.

I know maybe it seems like BS but honestly it's not! My memory just sucks. :)

Re:Or in other words... by Thomas+Miconi · 2005-03-12 22:17 · Score: 1

Sounds like Kazaa's lawyers might be telling them to prepare for the worst..

"You know, it's not that painful if you really bend over as much as you can, and spread your knees apart... Oh, and be sure to use lots of lube too !"

Thomas-

Re:Or in other words... by shark72 · 2005-03-12 22:25 · Score: 1

"You know, it's not that painful if you really bend over as much as you can, and spread your knees apart... Oh, and be sure to use lots of lube too !"

Fitting, as that's what Kazas's essentially been saying to the copyright holders for years.

--
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.

Re:Or in other words... by Mycroft_VIII · 2005-03-12 22:38 · Score: 1

Damn, that's got to be pure talent, not shure if it's a talent I'd want, but well the moderation speaks for itself:

Moderation -2
50% Offtopic
50% Overrated

Not shure if I should offer sympathy or applause.

Mycroft

--
https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea

Re:Psychic con-artists could have saved 200000+ li by Doc+Ruby · 2005-03-12 22:42 · Score: 0, Redundant

Does your comment have anything to do with the Supreme Court case in which Kazaa's liability for illegitimate use of their software is being decided this month?

--

--
make install -not war

biggest snake in the grass by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-12 23:28 · Score: 2, Funny

I know Kevin Bermeister personally, and he is the worst snake in the grass you could ever meet. He'd sell his mother for a dollar.

GO on, ask around. Anyone who has been in contact with him rarely comes out untouched by his filth.

Yep, I'm staying anonimous. He knows people, you know.

Kazaa needs to go down just so he does, good enough reason for me.

Re:biggest snake in the grass by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-13 04:10 · Score: 0

It's not true.

He sold his mother for $2 and she was actually pretty good. :)
Re:biggest snake in the grass by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-13 06:36 · Score: 0

It sounds like you just need to work on your price negotiating skills.
Re:biggest snake in the grass by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-13 09:31 · Score: 0

Well I didn't get much action for my dollar. Goes to show that even she had more self respect than he does, going for a higher price.
Re:biggest snake in the grass by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-13 14:53 · Score: 0

I too worked for Kevin and his offsider Mark Dyne (who was even worse) for a few years and they were some of the worst scum you are likely to meet.

The story going around the office at the time was that they fled South Africa for Australia with thousands of gold krugerands stuffed into Macintosh cases because they didn't like the 'blecks' taking over their country.

Question by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-12 23:33 · Score: 0

I don't give a rat's ass about shady spyware companies, but the FastTrack network that Kazaa uses does come in handy once in a while. Now what about the network, is it pretty decentralized and could Kazaa Lite still work assuming they put that shit company out of business?

New take on the Nigerian scam letter... by michaeldot · 2005-03-12 23:38 · Score: 5, Funny

Dear Sir,

I am an extremely wealthy Australian businessman who needs to quickly move money out of the country.

If you let me use your bank account, I will pay you 10%.

Of course, I do already know your bank account details, given the amount of spyware I loaded onto your computer...

Sincerely,

N. Hemming
Sharman Networks

lawyers by ph4s3 · 2005-03-13 00:14 · Score: 1

Sounds like Kazaa's lawyers might be telling them to prepare for the worst...

Isn't that what we hire lawyers for? To help protect us? That's like getting mad at tax accountants for finding a way to save someone some bucks come tax season. Don't hate the playa, hate the game.

The playa is the problem by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-13 00:18 · Score: 1, Funny

"Isn't that what we hire lawyers for? To help protect us? That's like getting mad at tax accountants for finding a way to save someone some bucks come tax season. Don't hate the playa, hate the game."

If lawyers actually had scruples, and refused to lie in the courtroom, we would not have all the frivolous lawsuits (like the lady who spilled coffee, or the idiots who jump off ladders and sue the ladder company....or the guy who just now won millions from Ford because he rolled an SUV when speeding while drunk in it).

"Thief"? by AtariAmarok · 2005-03-13 00:23 · Score: 1, Insightful

"In my book that makes you an equal git with the RIAA. They might be over-zealous, but you are a plain and simple thief."

How can he be a thief when no theft is involved at all? Copyright infringement does not meet the definition of theft, and pointing out such facts as the distinctions between entirely different crimes is not an attempt to justify copyright infringement or say it is OK.

--
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.

MOD PARENT UP!! (Underrated) by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-13 00:24 · Score: 0

Parent is TOTALLY underrated! Funny stuff!!

Parent is OVERRATED!!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-13 00:35 · Score: 0

Please mod parent overrated!!!

MOD PARENT DOWN! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-13 01:13 · Score: 0

-1, fucking blatantly obvious.

Kazaa by AliasMoze · 2005-03-13 01:20 · Score: 1

Bad form, Kazaa! Bad form!

Re:Or in other words... by CrackedButter · 2005-03-13 02:29 · Score: 1

It does kinda suck. Personally I look at the posters history when I attempt to mod them, try and see if they are being just funny (peoples humour is unique) instead of selecting the negative mod options. I also hate how you can quickly lose karma over a single comment but yet it takes forever to get it back up. It is even worse when you have been unfairly modded because the mods don't put any care into what they are doing. A low user ID also plays a part in my decisions.

--
Jonathanjk.com

Or Maybe... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-13 02:48 · Score: 0

The RIAA caused the tsunami to try to wipe out Kazaa! Those bastards.

P2P scam list by tenchi90 · 2005-03-13 03:50 · Score: 1

"Donation" list Lokitorrent- Check Kazaa- Check Whos next to set up a fund scam?

That is normal by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-13 03:51 · Score: 0

While p2p was built into tcp, p2p download was really developed in the OSS world. Then some group of Windows people will take it back into their with an unethical twist. Lo and behold, it makes millions for them. DVD ripping. CherryOS. That is the ethics of the day as taught by the actions of our government, and big business such as RIAA, and even MS itself.

Just like Highlander, but without Sean Connery by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-13 04:09 · Score: 0

This is about what Timothy Roberts, CEO of Infinium Labs, should do. Secretly cancle the Phantom console, open a slush fund for....starving children in Iraq, and then funnel everything into a business account of a dead uncle, and then assume his identity.

Re:Or in other words... by menace3society · 2005-03-13 04:40 · Score: 1

People mod things as over/underrated, rather than using the normal mods, because all other moderations can be meta-moderated. This way you can never lose mod privileges for bad mods, while costing people karma at the same time! Yay!

You're on crack by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-13 04:46 · Score: 0

I've installed and used Skype MANY times, and at no point in time did it install kazaa crap (or spyware) on my PC. I have no idea what you're onto, but stop spreading lies.

RE: B.S.! by King_TJ · 2005-03-13 04:57 · Score: 1

This line of thinking is EXACTLY what organizations like the SPA and RIAA would *love* you to think.

But let's stop and think about this one for a minute, shall we?

Way back when Lotus 1-2-3 for DOS was still the most popular spreadsheet around (pre-1996) - accusations were flying left and right about "there being an illegal copy in use for every single legal one". Similar claims were made about WordPerfect and the early versions of MS Word too.

Of course, there's never any way to really *prove* any of these alleged numbers - but that's still true today, making that a moot point.

So I ask you, why was a claimed infringenent rate of 50% of these works not enough to justify legal penalties up until 1996, but it's suddenly different after that?

It's just the latest excuse to point the finger at the Internet and act like it's the source of all of our copyright woes. But before MP3s or even digital CDs of music, people were buying predominantly dual-deck cassette recorders for their home stereos too. (You think that was because most consumers were just making their "one legal backup copy" of their Styx and Doors tapes?) The technology for copying/distributing things is always going to be improving, like all technologies. But the motivating force behind copying a work of I.P. never changes. Therefore, I'd say that the relative number of infringements of a given work haven't really changed that much either. It might take "pirate A" less time to obtain the latest software than it did 10 years ago -- but either way, he/she was gonna do it if it meant saving the $495 retail store price or whatever.

Easy Solution by kd5ujz · 2005-03-13 05:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

If they claim it was a trust fund for the Red Cross, then there is an easy solution, give ALL of the money to the Red Cross.

--
-William
God is everything science has yet to explain.

Re:Easy Solution by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-13 17:57 · Score: 0

Yes, but...

The Red Cross runs a bit like the state department.

While they're in the business of deplomacy, it's not uncommon to find that you're working with an ambasador who purchased his position with a $90k camaign contribuation.

The Red Cross (or any Tax Deductable Charitable Organization for that matter) is nothing more than an exit strategy for having a dust-up with the recording industry and still managing to come out relatively unscathed.

Do me a favor... by FLEB · 2005-03-13 05:17 · Score: 1

Remind me to steal your stuff.

--
Information wants to be free.
Entertainment wants to be paid.
You just want to be cheap.

prevailing legal opinion is for Kazaa by Cryofan · 2005-03-13 05:24 · Score: 1

actually a prestigious Australian law firm put out an article on the case saying that the law was essentially on Kazaa's side

--
eat shiat and bark at the moon

First rule about modding comments about Soulseek. by Civil_Disobedient · 2005-03-13 05:32 · Score: 1

...do not mod SoulSeek comments above +1!

Don't you think they read /.?

just more "Manufacturing Consent" by Cryofan · 2005-03-13 05:34 · Score: 1

Yep, the entertainment lobbyists are paying off the media to "manufacture" consent for a crooked kangaroo court to rape the p2p services.

If they pay to have enough lying, crooked twisted articles in the media, when they fuck them over in court, the public outcry will be muted.

--
eat shiat and bark at the moon

Most downloaded program by killermookie · 2005-03-13 05:34 · Score: 1

Kazza Most Downloaded Program

Don't know how viable to source is but I did find this on a Google search right on the first page.

Re:Or in other words... by Darby · 2005-03-13 05:56 · Score: 1

Not shure if I should offer sympathy or applause.

I'd say a little of both.
Of, course, I'm not sure which of the 50%s would get which ;-)

Re: B.S.! by mark-t · 2005-03-13 06:10 · Score: 1

The Internet is not the source of all our copyright woes.

People not respecting Copyright is the source of all our Copyright woes.

That's it.

The fact that it takes pirates a lot less time to pirate than it did 10 years ago doesn't change the reason people pirate, but it certainly does affect the frequency.

They never cared about the reason before, and they don't care about it now... they (rightly) care about the impact on what Copyright actually is, the exclusive _RIGHT_ to _COPY_, which was granted to the author. Everyone else who wants to copy the work has to get permission first (personal and fair use notwithstanding, whose bounds are clear enough to easily determine if they've been crossed on a case-by-case basis). On account of an unprecedented rise in frequency, Copyright infringement today has a bigger impact than it did 10 years ago, which is why they've started pressing charges now.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'

You know what would be justice? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-13 06:27 · Score: 0

All the people who whish/hope someone gets disease XYZ and dies from it, gets the same disease and dies from it.

As for your other points, you listed several things covered under fair use, buying second hand, borrowing from a friend or store(is fair use, but not the copying part).

Downloading CD ABC from the internet without permission and paying for it is stealing. Funny how you don't do it for profit because of your morals. What about your amassing large amounts of music and not paying those who made it? Sure the artist gets little back, but it is better then the big fat nothing they get when you download it.

Now please grow up.

Why you diss Ali G? by Roblimo · 2005-03-13 06:51 · Score: 1

Yo, you need be watch more Ali G on whatever channel I think it is HBO in the US it will give you more inside dope into how you is writing an article for readers that is hip hop TV generation and knowing the net not for old lamers what don't know nothing.

Peace, out...

Frustration... by ImaLamer · 2005-03-13 12:23 · Score: 1

Once more...

the sole purpose of Kazaa was to help people trade copyrighted works and to make money off of that trend. Why are people against seeing this?

Kazaa did nothing to help Indie artists, did nothing to stop piracy (required to or not, a gesture of goodwill would have been a start) and let's mention again Kazaa isn't just a piece of software .

"Kazaa" is a service, a profit model. I'm not running Kazaa on my machine, they are operating indexing servers out of Denmark... if I fire up the software or not "Kazaa" lives.

I understand that people are afraid that their rights are under attack, but they aren't. I assume that is why you try to attack my points with semantics - but you don't need to.

Once you admit that Kazaa was nothing more than a bunch of fucktards who wanted to get rich off of the explosion in illegal activity on the Internet by the normal user you can realize they are out for no one but themselves. If Kazaa cared about your "rights" they'd be responsible. They wouldn't install Spyware on machines and so forth.

Now, Apache and IIS weren't written to trade media files between millions of users

Of course they were.

No, they weren't. What are you smoking? Apache and IIS can only have a one-to-many relationship with users. What we are talking about is a many-to-many relationship which causes millions of illegal transactions per second. Again though, there was no reason for Apache or IIS to be brought into the conversation. Everyone's far reaching metaphores make the argument a wash...

BTW, Sharman stole millions from people hiding behind a Red Cross scam... that is what started this topic. If this were a trial I'd use that fact as a character witness.

--
Get your Unix fortune now!

Re:Frustration... by cheesybagel · 2005-03-13 14:24 · Score: 1

For your information, it is possible to do HTTP uploads, as well as downloads. How did you think form information was received by a web server?
Re:Frustration... by ImaLamer · 2005-03-13 21:27 · Score: 1

Yeah, you are right. I run Apache and should know this.

No matter Apache alone can't setup and index billions of files between users worldwide and track users logins and so forth. Really, it's the software that you use with it.

Alone, Apache and IIS are efficient label killing machines.

Again though, let me state: I'm not even really against piracy. I've downloaded and uploaded my share (and yours) since BBS's and USENET (still do actually) but I'm against all of these folks doing this so openly and getting off on technicalities. It really looks as if Kazaa could win and that kinda scares me. That is really it. It's sick that they've made money off of record labels' property and now a tragedy. Their "100% legal" campaign twists my stomach because they seem to just be slapping the **AA in the face. I see them like I see the **AA: Record labels haven't changed so they use the law to fight technology and Kazaa uses shell games and legal loopholes to continue to enrage the **AA. I'd like to see more for-pay mp3's and less blatent piracy. I'm sorry - I'm a pirate with a heart. I sure wouldn't copy what I do if I could afford any of it. (Which still doesn't absolve me or give me the right to do wrong. See being mature is knowing when you are doing something wrong and feeling bad about it.)

Too bad this insight is buried so deep in the discussion.

--
Get your Unix fortune now!

Oh, nothing by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-13 13:41 · Score: 0

Sounds like Kazaa handle the wave of litigation. They're afraid of being wiped out by the flood of lawsuits.

Re:Garth Montgomery by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-13 13:41 · Score: 0

For some reason the author is out to get Sharman

To the point where some of his previous articles made out case developments to be the "killing blow" to sharman networks, when in reality they won on the point in court.

It's getting to the point where I'm starting to wonder if there is money involved. But then again this is the same magazine that has an editorial from the ARIA chief "piracy" investigator.

It couldn't have happened...A lesson quoted. by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-13 18:49 · Score: 0

Foreword. From ISBN 0-8144-7197-8

"I've been as frustrated as the next person with the reality that life and people just aren't always fair, the good guys don't always win, goodness doesn't always win out, the best (wo)man doesn't always get the job, honesty isn't always the winning policy, and noble convictions don't always pay off; nor does doing the right thing guarentee success, accolades, or even appreciation, much less a brass ring.

In fact,"doing the right thing" will often put you in a risky position. You could lose position, power, material success---or your very life. Why? Because in the real world there is a constant battle between good and evil---and evil has no shame, no limits, no rules, and largely, no fear. Against that formula many people crumble, acquiesce, and even abdicate their values. After all, there are profits to be made, children to be sent to private school, job opportunities too good to lose, connections to be made, perks to enjoy, an ego to satisfy, competitions to be won, vacations and lovely homes to be had---and it seems that bending ethical rules or points of law is what everybody has to do if they want to be competitive.

Whew! difficult choices. Why would you ever choose to buck the system and do the right thing, the ethical thing, when it's so clear that you could pay a real and depressing price? Why would you choose to sacrifice profits, opportunities, and power for some noble ideal of personal and professional ethics and morality that clearly isn't shared by those in your sphere? What's really wrong with not speaking up for what or who is right if it's going to hurt you? What's really wrong with doing things you don't believe in to keep and grow your job? What's really wrong with sucking up or selling out when you're only doing so to get yourself in a better position? What's really wrong with making quality and service secondary to profit when there are supervisors to please and stockholders to satisfy?

These are good questions. These are questions you'll face in one form or other just about every day of your personal and professional life. When the noble, idealistic convictions you were taught as a child come into conflict with your career goals, opportunities, and unforseen circumstances, one very important thing happens: you come face-to-face with the truth of who you really are.

When you were a child you had dreams of what you'd do when you grew up. Don't dismiss these dreams as silly, unrealistic fantasies. In your childhood dreams you were idealistic and alturistic. Your childhood dreams were directed toward a noble goal representing your special gift. Is the world ever better off when these dreams are set aside as naive, impractical, unrealistic, or foolishly innocent? Is it worth it to sacrifice being a good person in order to "do well"? Does "what" you are matter more to you than "who" you are?

Too many people answer "yes" to these questions. Many are willing to sacrifice the "good person" role for that of the most powerful, most known, most rich, most liked, most feared, or most (superficially) beloved. There is a tremendous amount of societal pressure to do just that, and currently there is also a paucity of societal shame, rejection, or punishment of wrongdoers.

Why then would any reasonable, sane person refrain from cutting that corner if they could get away with it? For many, the answer is in their upbringing: They just can't make themselves break the rules and disappoint or shame their parents. For others, the answer is that they believe it would be an affront to God. For still others it is as simple as that they find that success without integrity brings no joy.

Success and possessions without integrity frankly are just a big letdown. To avoid that letdown feeling, many people compulsively grab for more and more and more---only to feel let down time after time. That's when some turn to drugs, alcohol, or compulsive sex in order to push away that letdown feeling.

The le

Re:Or in other words... by Mycroft_VIII · 2005-03-13 19:36 · Score: 1

Yep, figures. Sometimes it doesn't pay to be right.

Mycroft

--
https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea

Re: B.S.! by rtb61 · 2005-03-13 20:24 · Score: 1

The copyright laws are the source of all copyright woes get rid of the laws and you get rid of the crime/infringement. Or at the very least return it to the original 7 years, after all each extension was nothing more than extreme (they stole from everybody) criminal theft from the public domain with no recompence ever having being made to the general public for that continually repeated crime. The only reason there was an increase in penalties is as a result of excessive corporate involvement in the political process and greed.

--
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen

It's Fox's Fault by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-14 09:55 · Score: 0

Well, you know if you watch enough Fox, you kinda get swept up in the hyperbole intellectual vacuum. Next thing you know, all you're interested in is watching stories about terrorist cats eating lasagna as you dig your shiny new underground anti-"brown people" bunker.

Slashdot Mirror

Kazaa Outed Over 'Trust Fund' for Red Cross

234 comments