Slashdot Mirror
Australian Court says Kazaa Users Breach Copyright
mferrare writes "This from Reuters UK: An Australian court ruled on Monday that users of Kazaa, a popular internet music file-swapping system, breached music copyright and ordered its owners to modify the software. The music industry told the court that Sharman Network licensed users to access a network it knew was being used for piracy and hence it was authorising people to infringe copyright"
"...was being used for piracy and hence it was authorising people to infringe copyright."
Come on now, this is the same argument that's been going on for decades concerning VHS tapes, cassettes, CDs, DVDs, etc. Sure Kazaa has its share of illegal bits and bytes, but if you want to censore everything, might as well get rid of the internet altogether.
This sig contains repetition and redundancy.
From TFA:
The music industry told the court that Sharman Network licensed users to access a network it knew was being used for piracy and hence it was authorising people to infringe copyright.
Ok, so, extending this precedent, Comcast (for example) provides access to a network (the Internet) that it knows is being used for piracy. Ergo, all ISPs are authorising people to infringe copyright. I am amazed a court actually swallowed this.
Stasis is death. Embrace change.
Sharman Network licensed users to access a network it knew was being used for piracy and hence it was authorising people to infringe copyright What? By this logic, the manufacturer of a firearm would be held liable for any murders committed with said firearm because they knew it could be used for such a purpose. Thankfully, such cases have been struck down in the USA. This is an awful decision. If we were to hold manufacturers responsible for what people did with their products, we wouldn't have guns, knives, VCRs, computers, cameras (kiddie porn!), or even pencils. There is almost always a destructive use for any type of technology, but that doesn't mean the technology should be outlawed or it's creators punished.
This game will waste your life. Don't clicky!
Hm, a family music store owner who cusses out kids, no matter how stupid in his store. Good one.
Frankly, I haven't bought a single CD in about a year (no, I haven't downloaded anything either, I don't have the time, and my currently fairly extensive collection serves me fine on the few occasions I have a moment to listen to my tunes, like in the car on my way to clients'.)
I'm sorry to hear about your business. My mom and I have both built up small companies individually. However, we've done so in areas in which there was demand. I've done my best to keep on top of that demand, and to adapt my services to what's required; as long as I can keep doing this, life goes on.
However, if anyone was so fucking arrogant as to come up with something like a "blacklist", I would be the first to sign up for it voluntarily. As I've said, I don't pirate music; most of what's around today is too shit for me to waste time on. I've 3-4 CDs I've burned from friends, but compared to the ca. 700 I _bought_, you'll agree that these are peanuts.
As I wrote in a letter to the head of consumer relations for EMI Germany when I realized that my girlfriend had bought a copy-protected disc that took me more than 5 minutes to rip a copy of so she could listen to it in her car without scratching the original, I will not subscribe to ANY goods or services from ANY company that treats me like a potential thief instead of a customer. I'm an honest individual, I'm smart and hard-working enough to be prosperous, and that's a pretty choice customer demographic. But hey, no EMI CDs for my girlfriend (who owns several) or myself since...
However, I don't care how barefoot your children have to walk to school, if you, as someone who wants to sell me something (which you do not seem to) even hints at a threat, I will vote with my wallet. Maybe some of the 7-10 friends whom I will, as a statistically average consumer, ask to do likewise, will also avoid doing business with you. So what? You're not selling air or food or water. Maybe some of their friends will too. In fact, I've already noticed myself going to fewer movies just because the RIAA warnings and "no cameras" signs piss me off on principle. So what? There's cafes and books and girls in short skirts outside, I think I can deal.
And you know what? I don't matter. I'm just one among millions. But act like an arrogant prick instead of someone who wants to woo me for the purpose of an honest exchange, no matter how hard you're being hit by '1337 p1r8 d00dz, and you may see that the ones among millions from whom you won't see a red cent out of general principle will add up.
It's capitalism, survival of the fittest. With an attitude like that, no business has any right to exist.
Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage
It's interesting to note that the parent comment went from Insightful to Troll in the time it took me to read it and click reply...
Seriously man, I feel sorry for you that your business is facing a difficult time, but a "national register of pirates" doesn't sound like the best option to me. To ban people from buying CDs would only encourage them to pirate more, wouldn't it?
I will admit that I have used P2P to obtain music in the past (although barely anymore, I prefer to buy music online first) - some of my favourite artists I discovered by P2P - if I have the money, I will by the CD, if I like it. If I don't like it, I probably won't listen again, and since I wouldn't have bought it anyway, nothing lost.
I actively encourage people to buy CDs of the artists in order to support them. Bumblefoot is my favourite artist and I went to the trouble of importing his CDs from the States (not available in the UK) after I had downloaded them with P2P. Interestingly enough, it was Bumblefoot himself who put his own music onto P2P.
You also mention Metallica - a group whose policy on piracy I can't agree with because they were putting strong pressure on Universities to permanently expel students they suspected of sharing their stuff - an action that would have serious effects on their education (duh) and quite possibly long-term effects on their career. It is quite disturbing to realise that this is the way they would have their loyal fans treated for wanting to share their music with other people.
Just so you know, I'm not advocating piracy. I'm advocating sharing music and if possible, buying the CD to support the artist. I'll tell you for nothing that "piracy" has made me a better musician, and has definitely made a difference to the possibility of me recording and distributing my own music some day.
Another reason for why people don't buy CD's from stores is the pitiful quality of music available there. All they sell is the garbage the music industry churns out. Loads of cookiecutter "bands" and "artists" who have never written an original word or note. Add to that outrageous prices (because of the huge cut record companies take on each and every CD) and it's a small wonder business is slow. Back in the 80's when Compact Disc technology was introduced, the huge price hike was being defended with "the price will fall when the technology propagates". Now, after a quarter of a century, CD prices have not decreased once. Instead, they have been outrunning inflation 3:1 (conservative estimate). Record companies have dug themselves into a hole with raging profiteering and expect the courts to bail them out.
When I was younger, it was kind of a thing to do. Go and spend an hour or two meandering around the CD store looking through racks and racks and racks of CDs. In today's world I can't prioritize that kind of time to browsing through music. In the last year I've bought about 10 CDs and it took me less than an hour over the course of the whole year to do it.
I've only gotten one album from the 'net, and it wasn't from an automated file-sharing network. It was from an acquaintence who frequents many of the same music forums that I do. It was Maxim's Hell's Kitchen album. I've since purchased the actual CD, and Maxim's second album "Fallen Angel", as a result of it.
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
By continuously exchanging copyrighted material via the internet, copyright law will not end. If we ant to get rid of copyright law, we should petition the goverments, protest (with your money by not spending it on the apparently for you, or in your opinion, to expensive materials), start a political party against copyrights, etc..
You are wrong. The best way to get rid of unjust laws is to have everyone break them so they become unenforceable.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
If you walk into a store and steal anything, you get arrested (some call this bad luck!), and you will get some punishments. What is different here?
1/ Contrary to what happens if you steal a can of soup in a supermarket, when you download an mp3, you do not prevent anybody else from having it.
2/ To defend law in that particular case, where what is at stack is not high (we are talking about (C), not talking about people dying, or even about poor people getting poorer), the judge makes a decision which, when transposed trivially to equivalent situations, hurt some of our most fundamental rights.
3/ It's hard to understand why it's okay to borrow a book from a neighboor and not to borrow an mp3 from a guy 1000km away.
Thus, differences there are.
Cheers,
--Go Debian!
Since they can't know what you're downloading, on what basis can they sue you?
If necessary, they'll have a whole new law drawn up. Don't think they can't.
Look at the recent DMCA. The fact that it exists shows that the US Congress is happy to make laws to prevent unauthorized digital distribution of copyrighted entertainment content.
If, as you claim, there is no legal theory by which freenet can be sued, the music lobbyists simply make up a new law prohibiting contributatory anonymization.
If P2p migrates to freenet, then freenet will be outlawed.
You might have tried this with speeding. It does not work that way. Huge protests against this kind of law might work, but just look at the basics of the law. Those basics are not unfair. The new extensions of 50 years, DRM, not able to resell your CDs legally (not law yet, just wait...) are unfair and showing to much power of the industry representing groups.
My wife's sketchblog Blob[p]: Gastrono-me
I run a small software company. The keyword here a is "small." Genuine small business with genuine employees making honest wages. After being tipped off by a customer, I looked at eMule and found that some of our software, which we sell for about 50% the price of our billion-dollar competitor, was being "shared" by 35 users.
I think it's unfortunate that you're sticking with a business model which requires artificial scarcity when for the last 10-15 years we've actually had a world of unlimited abundance.
Shame, but there you go.
Try releasing your code to everyone and wonderful things will happen (and you'll make a good deal of money through consultancy too, but that's only part of the fun).
Rich.
libguestfs - tools for accessing and modifying virtual machine disk images
Our software is not technically terribly innovative. I mean, it does a good job, and is user friendly, but its value is in that we as a company gather experts who put together specialist material and then we present it in a useful fashion (I dont really want to give away who we are or what we do, but maybe let's say we create specialty training materials). Releasing of our source code will do ZERO - if somebody really wanted to, they could probably make a pretty good duplicate of our code, but our real value is in the material we present and the way we present it. There are no real bugs in our software for users to kill, and because most of our users are individuals (because of the nature of the market we are in), there is no consultancy to be had.
Look, I'm really happy for you that you have this imaginary idea of how the software market should be. and, maybe there are a few small areas where a company could legitimately succeed the way you suggest (for example, MySQL). However, in this case, your suggestion has no bearing. We do NOT have an out-of-date model, and the vast majority of our customers are honest people who see the value of what we do and have no problems paying our modest fees. In fact, we are often held up in our trade press as an example of excellent value for money.
However, nevertheless, this doesn't stop some people from pirating it. There is ZERO justification for this - those people are criminals.
I'd also mention that due to the area we work in, EVERYBODY who uses our software is not poor and can easily afford it. We are not talking about word processors or web browsers here that has applicability to "up and coming" peoples of the world. Think (and this is just a silly example, but nevertheless) as if we were selling Yacht maintenance software that requires specialist understanding of yachts to put together efficiently and is of value to yacht owners only.