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"
The Freenet Project is working towards the next major release of the Freenet software, hopefully this side of Christmas. Among the major new features will be:
- Trusted links, so that only your friends will know that you are
part of the network
- Switch from TCP to UDP to support seamless firewall traversal
- Complete code rewrite and simplification
- Support for live broadcast of information, in addition to storage
and retrieval (allowing everything from IRC over Freenet to "instant
RSS")
Freenet's goal is to ensure that people have the freedom to share knowledge without fear that someone is looking over their shoulder. Unlike Kazaa, Freenet is a voluntary, non-profit free software project.The Freenet project requires $2,300 per month to pay for its full time developer, Matthew Toseland, but currently the project's reserves are very low, so if you can spare it (especially given the more immediate drains on people's generosity), your donation would be much appreciated.
"...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.
who's still using kazaa anyway? it's full of adawares and spywares
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.
Check out aussie journalist Garth Montgomery's full coverage "kazaagate" site here
Including the full official court ruling as well
No I dont know him, but have found the site very insightful throughout the trial.
Every day, fewer and fewer customers enter my store to buy fewer and fewer CDs. Why is no one buying CDs? Are people not interested in music? Do people prefer to watch TV, see films, read books? I don't know. But there is one, inescapable truth - Internet piracy is mostly to blame.
I'm afraid this isn't obvious to me. I never buy CDs from record stores; I buy them on the internet, often second hand. It is cheaper, easier (order from your house, and they deliver), and I don't like browsing in shops. People are still buying music, legally, just not from you. They buy on the internet, either CDs or downloads (e.g. iTunes Music Store).
Fairly soon if you believe the news - some systems on trial already (eg. in the uk)
Plus, the main thrust of the judgement (according to news reports) seems to have been not that the software merely allowed, but that the defendants encouraged/incited the users' behaviour.
Car companies (at least here) are _already_ banned by advertising regulations from inciting people to speed.
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.
FYI: This is a cut & paste troll that gets posted in every P2P/piracy related article.
The **aa already has fake donkey servers in the cloud. They're collecting evidence as I type this.
http://blocklist.org/ is a nice place to find blocklists for emule/edonkey and a heap of other things too. Yes, emule supports these. The servers mentioned will send a chill down your spine. (Sonny Boy !!) Have a look at the list.
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.
And people on Freenet do not swap material which is under copyright?
What's wrong with swapping material which is under copyright? I've had a BitTorrent client open all week, with my upload speed pretty much maxxed out. I've been distributing copyrighted material with it. And I haven't broken a single law. Because - get this - the stuff I'm distributing is stuff I either own or have permission to distribute.
You're an idiot if you listen to the RIAA/MPAA's lies about how "distributing copyright material is illegal". It's only illegal if you don't have permission. The RIAA want you to think that copyright is a "special" thing that only "artists" get, and you - the consumer - must fear, like an ancient pagan cringing before the idol of his god. But that's bullshit.
Copyright is a simple concept that naturally applies to any creative endeavour. Including anything you or I create. And if you or I create something, and we want to distribute it over the Internet, then it makes sense to use P2P networks. At which point we are using P2P to distribute copyright material - and yet we are not breaking any laws.
Don't listen to the RIAA/MPAA's lies. Copyright != illegal to distribute. Copyright == illegal to distribute without permission. Two little words that make a world of difference.
Freenet is just another P2P application, and since people have nothing to share except other peoples material, it will be used to do just that.
Maybe that applies to some people. Like you, I assume - you wouldn't say a thing like that unless it applied to you. But some of us create things ourselves, you know? And having done that, miraculously we have things to share that are our own. And we use P2P to share them.
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?
The difference is that theft is always illegal. Whereas sharing copyright material is only illegal if you are also infringing the copyright in that material. Which can easily be avoided by either creating the material yourself, or getting the permission of the copyright holder to distribute it - at which point (am I repeating myself here?) you can share it over a P2P network without breaking any laws.
It is not your digital right to exchange copyrighted material at all.
Whoa, you're saying I don't have the right to use the computer I own Internet connection I leased to transfer the material I created?
Fuck that. I'll thank you not to tell me to throw away my right to freedom of speech, if that's quite okay with you. It is my freedom that's on the line if P2P networks ever actually get made illegal, and I do care about my freedom.
Go after the people who are infringing copyrights, please. And leave those of us alone who are distributing copyright material entirely legally, because we own the fucking copyrights.
The first time this story was posted, I thought, "This guy needs to see a counsellor."
f aces+ruin.+CD+sales+have+dropped+through+the+floor .%22&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2004-22,GGLD :en&filter=0
The second time I saw this story, I thought, "Umm, you already said that."
The third time I wondered what the hell is going on. Then I tried a google search and looky what I found.
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=%22My+business+
And thats not even half the time the story has been posted. It does the rounds on slashdot quite regularly. It should be added to slashot posting spam filters or something. Great work of fiction, isn't it?
For the record, I have smoked pot and hashish, I have taken the latter across national borders (I was young and stupid), I have shoplifted (a candy when I was 13), I speed on empty highways whenever I can, I've found money on the streets and not returned it, I slept with an underage girl (I was 17), I lie and cheat on my taxes as much as I can, have snuck into two movies after only paying for one, and I've copied CDs and allowed friends to copy parts of my mp3 collection (ripped from my CDs, but hey, that's life.)
I also finance terrorism, smuggle fissionable material to al Qaeda operatives in Baluchistan, coordinate a major child pornography operation, smuggle kidnapped women for the purpose of injecting them with MASTER RACE SEED (tm) in my underground lair, and leave the fucking toilet seat up BECAUSE I CAN.
But I guess the CD copying is what they're really interested in.
Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage