Slashdot Mirror
Kazaa Appeal Likely In 2006
daria42 writes "Although the company behind Kazaa has already vowed to launch an appeal of yesterday's decision that it had breached music industry copyright, it now appears likely any such appeal will have to wait until early 2006. The music industry seems to think it'll be able to get billions of dollars in damages out of the company, Sharman Networks, although the amount has yet to be decided - and who knows if they can pay." From the article: "Sharman Networks is expected to lodge its request for leave to appeal before the deadline of three weeks from yesterday's decision expires. Sharman's lawyer, Mary Still, reiterated through a spokesperson today the company's position last night that it would 'appeal those parts of the decision where we were not successful' remained unchanged."
Does anything happen fast in the legal relm?
Microsoft is like...no, it's much worse.
I think at this point it will be hard to change people's mind, so long as they know about this. It is like the last election: People will take a stance and not move, and there will be precious few neutral or swing states (or people).
Not only "land of the free" but "land of the lawyers" who love a good old 1st amendment smackdown. Shihar 153932
Having to wait until 2006 is going to cost them alot. Of course, this case will be used as a landmark decision for cases in other countries besides Australia...
Maybe I'll be able to keep the bandwidth-sharing spyware after all! A remix on Madonna's "Like a Virgin" is definetly worth it...
But if they are going to be sued by every music company on the planet, can't they just declare bankruptcy and dodge the whole thing? I've known of companies here in the USA that do it, though on a much smaller level.
Well, the way it works is that the costs of legal battles and almost certain losses are factored into the business plan. In the meantime, they're making insane amounts of money with the spyware installs and they just have to stretch that for as long as possible. It's a winning strategy that doesn't require the legality of their P2P implementation to be defendable in court.
It's rather nasty that the costs of losing in court are not always so prohibitively high that the crime doesn't pay. Look at microsoft... sorry for that comparison.
see a Text Widget
I'm not personally familiar with Australian law, I hope someone who is will be able to give us a bit of insight. But until then, I really can't understand how the judge made this ruling. Kazaa is a data transfer protocol-a crappy one, granted, but that's all it is. Their software simply -allows- users to transfer files via that protocol. Are the makers of FTP clients now liable if an FTP user downloads copyrighted material?
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
"The music industry seems to think it'll be able to get billions of dollars in damages out of the company, Sharman Networks"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikki_Hemming
The way I understand Sharman Network is setup, is that if Sharman Network looses kazza, it loses it's advertising base, therefore it's not worth anything. Then RIAA won't get money, but only shut down a skelton company that has no real product or base.
Freedom of Speech only include discussion that are approved by the RIAA, MPAA and DMCA.
http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2005/233.html
Sharman's lawyer, Mary Still, reiterated through a spokesperson today the company's position last night that it would 'appeal those parts of the decision where we were not successful' remained unchanged." Ahh...this remained unchanged today from their announcement yesterday? Let's hope so...
// no
Since no one wants to buy our products, let's just sue!
WOW, you are a scary man. DEAL WITH IT???? I'd sure hate to be wrongly accused in your country and found guilty.
Anyway it is to make sure that due process was followed and to help insure you are not convicted of something you did not do.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
Oh those are Judges from 3rd Wold Cuntries....
(Before I get flamed, remember he once hinted that Canada is 3rd world and so we shouldn't import drugs from them?)
The last I checked, judges and juries are comprised by human beings, known to make the occasional error, and are vested with a huge degree of power and authority. The best defense we've found so far against human error is review by many. Even newspaper articles are reviewed by an editor before publication. Should we not apply the same mechanism to judicial verdicts, that often possess the power to bankrupt or imprison someone?
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
I looks like we may be able to sue gun companies now. -Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
How is this related to the Kazaa case?
Short summary: Irish ISPs forced to reveal subscriber information, the recievers can only use it for seeking compensation for copyright infringement, and they may not publicly disclose the subscriber information unless they take it to court.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Nothing's free anymore. If you don't pay, whatever it is, is shut down. But what I'm concerned about, is will they continue to sue the users?
Given bittorrents popularity at this point, even if kazaa gets back in business, is it really going to make a difference? It's obvious that bit torrent is being chosen by the tech masses as the next-big-internet-software-distribution-mode(tm).
I guess there's no question who squeezed the Sharman...
*closes shell*
You can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia
Most lawyers and judges do the same thing. If you read case briefs, you will see lawyers argue over the same case as being helpful to them or not helpful. You will also see different case decisions citing different lines out of a case to compare or to contrast that case to the one that they are citing. This is common.
You might want to think of it as two blind men describing an elephant from 2 different perspectives -- One describes it as a snake and another describes it as a tree.
Fight Spammers!
Generally speaking, appeals do not involve any new facts. They are a review of legal rulings [for example, whether a piece of evidence is admissible] of the judge, and not a review of the factual findings of the jury.
(As an aside, a judge is the fact finder in a bench trial)
Even newspaper articles are reviewed by an editor before publication.
A mere newspaper article, sure. But the pinacle of journalism is surely the Slashdot article; nobody's ever accused them of having been reviewed before publication. I'm not convinced they're even once-viewed.
...Al Gore, inventor of the Internet, is being sued by yhe MPAA, RIAA, and all other **AA's of the US for "inventing" the internet which can be used to steal copyrighted material, look at kiddie porn, and buy stuff from myunclestoehair.com. God is also apparently preparing for a legal battle based on his invention of sight, which can also be used to steal visual copyrighted works.
Good Riddance to a bad piece of bloatware. I'll be happy to see Kazaa die. Although I may not be happy about the implications.
Does anyone know the legal/moral/constitutional requirement for the right to apeal? Why is the appeal Judge / Jury's virdict considered any more or less valid than the original?
Note, I'm not sure how much applies to the US:
1) In many lower courts, you have a single judge or a panel. More judges obviously have more weight, without making it necessary to have a full panel for every case (they are not perfect).
2) At least in criminal cases, you have the right to trial before a full jury, which is often provided in the appelate courts here. We don't put a teenager up for shoplifting before a full jury unless we have to.
3) Some courts deal with finding of facts, others deal with findings of law. Our supreme court never deals in findings of fact.
4) Often you may appeal on the court process aka technicalities. These may cause an appeal or a retrial, depending on where you live.
5) If you find new evidence based on the first trial, you may have another trial with a more complete set of facts. Note: This usually doesn't apply if you could or should have presented this evidence in a lower court.
The only real different philsophy is when it comes to double jeopardy. No civilized country allows people to be trialed multiple times for the same crime (e.g. DVD-Jon may now not be trialed again), but it varies who can appeal. In the US, only the defendant can appeal in criminal cases. In most western countries, both sides can appeal.
The upside to the US system is that you don't go through years in court if you should be found not guilty (assuming the jury was correct most of the time). The downside is that you don't get quick precedents because of unjust trials. That DVD-Jon was acquitted twice and not appealed to the supreme court is a huge precedent compared to him getting an acquittal in the lowest court.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
I'd like to see how this is going to happen. If they had that much money, I'm sure they would have had a better defense in court.
The music industry seems to think lots of things, but this sounds like a Blood from a Stone sort of battle to me.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
But they'll settle for $7,500 and a promise not to offend again.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
The quick on us law
1.) almost all [I can't think of any that don't] lower us courts have 1 judge
2.) right to trial by jury [in most states] requires a potential 6 months sentence
3.) only the lowest court is a fact finder, but new facts can, in limited circumstances, be introduced on appeal.
4.) appeals usually require a showing of harm, technicalities are rare.
5.) Prosecutors have a limited right to appeal, but it is on VERY narrow grounds.
6.) Double jeopardy only applies to the same sovereign. ie, if the feds fail, the state may be able to get you.
I propose a slashdot-style mod system for the judiciary
...hilarity ensues.
I read
Will Kazaa be appealing in 2006? It's been a LONG time since I found Kazaa appealing...
PS: AllOfMP3.com gets my vote - and it seems to be perfectly legal...
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
Mildly off-topic, but if judges and juries 'comprise' human beings what are the other permitted constituent beings. Under IP law (which this topic is about) 'comprise' is generally interpreted as being inclusive whilst 'consist' is exlusive. Thus as judges and juries can only be human beings, consist should be used.
BUT WAIT -this is a discussion of Australian IP law - the one major territory where comprise and consist are considered to mean the same thing so its OK
Parent is correct.
The Jury (or judge in a bench trial) find fact. They evaluate the evidence and make a determination.
The facts are not re-tried in an appeal. In an appeal, you argue whether the legal proceedings were conducted according to law, whether the jury was given the correct instructions, or if there was any bias, or if the judge's interpretation of the law was correct.
You can appeal on many different and interesting grounds. But you can not appeal because the fact found was wrong.
Does anyone know the legal/moral/constitutional requirement for the right to apeal? Why is the appeal Judge / Jury's virdict considered any more or less valid than the original?
The appeals process is there to give fair and equitable access to the legal system to those who can afford it. In NSW, the full bench of the Supreme court is the supreme rulers. There decision is final, and tough luck if you want that overthrown.
The only higher court in Australia, is the Australian High Court, which very rarely sits. It is hard enough to be granted a session in the High Court let alone afford the costs associated of taking a case to the High Court. Decisions in the High Court overthrow the Supreme court.
If a decision is handed down in the High Court, it is final, and there is no review process for it.
I'm not going to get too heated about this because there are probably very good reasons, but what exactly is the point of the "appeal" process.
You obviously don't understand science then. Every scientific finding is subject to peer review. So is every legal finding. Sometimes judges don't know what to do, and make a call that's incorrect. It can happen, and only a peer review can correct it. That's why the appeal process is the way it is. Sometimes it's important to be really, really sure.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
In another article on this, a record company spokesman is quoted:
"We're disappointed they won't accept the umpire's decision. It can't be fair to build a business on somebody else's work," he said.
I'm not a doctor and I don't play one on TV, but I know Unbelievably Blatant Hypocrisy when I hear it.
You appeal on a specific point from the original trial, you aren't just saying I want the case to be heard agian.
For example, if you think a piece of evidence was collected unlawfully you could appeal on that point. If the appellate court decides in your favor, they tell the lower court to re-decide/re-hear the case without that piece of evidence.
Last time (a few weeks ago) I could never get it to go. Did something change?
You can pretty much sue anyone for anything when it comes to civil cases.
You may lose the actual case, but if you can manage deplete their resources along the way, who really lost?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
A judge has ruled against you. DEAL WITH IT
;-).
Go read the judgement. Plenty of links below. The judge did not rule against Sharman/Kazaa on three claims relating to Fair Trading, Trade Practices, and conspiracy. He dismissed claims against the two Technical Officers (I suspect from his wording he had some sympathy for them as they came across in court a bit dimwitted
One outstanding item that is not being shouted from the rooftops is that Sharman and all users can carry on using Kazaa, so long as within 2 months it is cleaned up to allow only licensed copies (probably with DRM but this is not specified) to be shared. Justice Wilcox quickly got to grips with the two tiered search results Kazaa offered users, and deduced that Sharman needed a big swag of pirated stuff out there, so that the "Gold" hits, or licenced material, would increase in proportion and so boost Sharman's income. He's been jolly decent in giving them 60 days to get their house in order, but don't hold your breath.
Of equal significance is that this case was only to establish facts. Justice Wilcox made it clear from the start he was not interested in determining losses by any party due to actions of any other party. He has in accordance with long established practice awarded 90% of the applicants' (BMG et al) legal bill for the case against Sharman. But the billions being parlayed about are for another case, where Big Music will have to establish, factually to satisfy a Judge, precisely how many dollars and cents they are down, and precisely how much of that is directly attributable to Sharman/Kazaa. That IMHO is not going to be a walkover.
Comparisons are being made here to Grokster, but Wilkox J read Grokster and declared that he found it not relevant. The difference here is that Kazaa is a two layered structure. Sharman needed the pirates to keep the quasi-legal stuff afloat. Wilkox did not accept their plea that they did not know how much piracy was happening and could not control it. But he has accepted that Kazaa could be run as a legal (DRMed if necessary) service. And he's given them the opportunity to do that.
They're already sueing customers left and right, and now kazaa. How can they sue the users of kazaa for damages and the makers of kazaa. Isnt this kind of fighting both sides of the argument? not to mention getting paid twice for haveing a file stolen once?
Im happily on Gentoo and using opensource software nearly exclusivly as i dont feel these business practices are ethical. Im voting with my wallet, why dont you?
Kazaa is a notorious, deeply entrenched spyware author; their insipid content delivery system is a mere shadow of the service's true nature, which is to infect your computer as badly as AOL Instant Messenger or as ruthlessly as Real. It is a useless service, anybody who wants to download mp3s deletes Kazaa immediately and goes for something else.
Should I be happy Kazaa is getting sued for "copyright infringement?" It's true, Kazaa infringes on a lot of copyrights. Their spyware infringes on my personal data, copying off as much as it can, in secret, while also shredding copies of my system files. Kazaa both retrieves personal information from my computer, and deletes and re-routes other data to gain access and stay there.
In other words, downloading mp3s from Kazaa requires the installation of viruses, thus mp3s are proof of infection. If the music industry can sue Kazaa for putting viruses on my computer, can I do the same or do I have to author the virus?
Damn terrorists... we need to inject democrazy bombs there and fill their women with liberty silicone! They look a little skimpy too, some freedom fries would do them good.
the sun is god
How much are the premiums?
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
Please see definition number 2:
Main Entry: insure
Pronunciation: in-'shur
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): insured; insuring
Etymology: Middle English, to assure, probably alteration of assuren
transitive senses
1 : to provide or obtain insurance on or for
2 : to make certain especially by taking necessary measures and precautions
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
hm. i always thought that usage was a confusion with "ensure", of which the only definition is "to make sure, certain, or safe". Is this one of those misuses that is just so common it started getting accepted?
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
ooh: look! we're all sort of wrong: http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/dictionaries/en glish/data/d0081600.html
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love