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."
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.
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.
" Yes. Apple sold it. Not some RIAA-sponsored site, or one put up by Sony, Vivendi or any of the rest of them. And if you think that the entertainment people are happy about that, you are sadly mistaken."
Remember, the record companies do 99% of their business through resellers. That's largely how their business model works. The iTMS is just another reseller to them, like Amazon or Tower Records. The difference is that it's a wildly popular reseller, and they make more margin than they do in the traditional channel -- no returns, price protections, co-op ads, and the squillion other things that eat at margins in the traditional brick and mortar channels.
"And control of distribution is the crux of the problem: no matter how many songs that iTunes sells for them it won't make any difference because iTunes isn't owned or controlled by the RIAA, and Apple Computer is not part of their group."
That's how it's always worked. The record companies have traditionally worked in what's called a two-tier distribution mechanism: they sell the CD into distribution, who in turn sells it to a reseller. Stating that the record companies are upset because they don't own the iTMS is a bit like stating that they are unhappy because they don't own Wal-Mart, Best Buy, Amazon, Tower Records, or any of the innumerable music stores out there. It's correct, but meaningless.
"No, they most certainly do not get it, will never get it, and would like nothing better than for the Internet to just go away."
The record industry has survived half a dozen format changes over the past 50 years. The iTMS is huge. Meanwhile, "Open source" music labels like Magnatune, which fit many Slashdotter's model of the perfect record label, are flailing. The major labels get this Internet thing just fine.
"And what you don't seem to understand is..."
"You can't be that naive about this."
Oh, please.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
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?