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."
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
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.
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.
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 guess there's no question who squeezed the Sharman...
*closes shell*
You can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia
...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.
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.
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?