Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

RIAA Victims Bring Class Action Against Kazaa

Posted by Zonk on from the playing-right-into-their-hands dept.

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In Chicago, Illinois, a Kazaa customer has filed a class action against Kazaa, Lewan v. Sharman, U.S.Dist. Ct., N.D. Ill 06-cv-6736. The lead plaintiff, Catherine Lewan, was a Kazaa customer who was sued by the RIAA for her use of Kazaa, and paid a settlement to the RIAA, and she sues on behalf of others in her position. In her complaint(pdf) she alleges, among other things, that Kazaa deceptively marketed its product as allowing 'free downloads' (Complaint, par. 30); it designed the software in such a manner as to create a shared files folder and make that folder available to anyone using Kazaa, while at the same time failing to make the user aware that it had done so (Complaint, par. 36-37); and it surreptitiously installed 'spyware' on users' computers which made the shared files folder accessible to the Kazaa network even after the user had removed the Kazaa software from his or her computer (Complaint, par. 42-45)."

288 comments

  1. Of course I don't support copyright, but... by dada21 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...I also don't support using the courts to try to decide who is a victim and who isn't. For me, I'd rather buy optional insurance to protect my transactions than worry about suing someone.

    This is another case that reminds me of so many court cases and other reasons to ask the State for help:

    "It wasn't my anger, your honor, it was the gun!"
    "It wasn't my inability to stop eating, your honor, it was the pill!"
    "It wasn't my irresponsibility to save for the future, your honor, it was commercial society!"
    "It isn't that I refuse to learn a trade and stick to it, it is just fair to pay a living wage!"

    Sheesh. Yet another waste of time that will only make the lawyers wealthier and the State more powerful.

    1. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pay for "optional insurance?" Hell, you pay for SLASHDOT. A fool and his money.

    2. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Welcome to the land of no accountability. We don't hold anyone accountable for what they do here, not our politicians, not corporate CEOs, and definitely not morons who hurt themselves or break the law.

      It's always someone else's fault.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    3. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by dada21 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I've received at least 5 short contracts because of slashdot -- contracts that have paid at least 5 figures each.

      Almost everything I get from slashdot is worth more than the time I spend writing on it. People respond to my posts, and I use those responses to better understand various topics and items -- politics, tech, lifestyle. This is my business, so the input I gather here helps me cultivate a better product for my customers, thereby raising my income. I would say that I probably receive more out of the responses here that I would doing any continuing education or external study. Whereas most educations are antiquated and take years to catch up, slashdot is NOW and tells us about the current "geekthink." I don't think one can spend their time better if they're consultants. You'd also be shocked at how many employers read slashdot regularly, and take steps to hire those who have interesting viewpoints.

      A fool with his money is the fool that doesn't think about their return on every purchase -- whether a financial profit, emotional profit or even time-savings. For me, I receive the education and opinions of thousands. For $10 and an hour a day of time invested.

    4. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by gt_mattex · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Suing someone is now a way of recouping losses rather than a way of seeking justice.

      --
      "No doubt one may quote history to support any cause, as the devil quotes scripture." - Learned Hand
    5. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by Kelson · · Score: 5, Informative

      The spyware claim (keeping the shared folder shared even after uninstalling Kazaa), if valid, is the only one that might have any merit.

      Everything else, though, smacks of "Look what you made me do!" blame-deflection.

      I sued Home Depot
      'Cause they sold me a hammer
      Which they knew I might drop on my toes
    6. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by elrous0 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I somehow suspect the RIAA itself may be behind this lawsuit.

      -Eric

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    7. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by gt_mattex · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or outright profit for that matter.

      --
      "No doubt one may quote history to support any cause, as the devil quotes scripture." - Learned Hand
    8. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by wawannem · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Although you may be right, I think there may be some merit to her case. Do we punish the owners of the masses of infected/infested PCs who spew out tons of email? We assume that everyone understands technology and legal issues the way we do, but in fact, I would say that it is very possible (even likely) that most people don't understand the ramifications of using Kazaa. Imagine a teenager showing a grandparent the library of music available online through Kazaa. Having never used the software, I can't say whether or not there are warnings about the dangers of trading copyrighted content, but if the warnings are obscure and not prevalent (like the warning labels of cigarettes) then maybe they should be held accountable.

    9. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      What does paying for slashdot give you that you couldn't get with a free subscription?

    10. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by Thansal · · Score: 3, Informative

      ummm, IANAL, but isn't the POINT of suing to recoup losses?

      Justice is for criminal law, civil law is for reperation of damages/lost income/etc, etc. Not for "justice". The only place "justice" comes into is paying some one for their "psycological truama" or "pain and suffering", and those I tihnk are just rediculous anyway. If some one HARMED you then what they did is almost always illegal, and thus is covered by criminal law.

      I guess that is just my oppinion on law, probably I am wrong.

      --
      Do Or Do Not, There Is No Spoon, There Is Only Zuul. Everything in the above post is probably opinion.
    11. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I also don't support using the courts to try to decide who is a victim and who isn't.

      What, then, do you think the courts are supposed to be used FOR...?

      And did you really need to construct FOUR strawman arguments that may never have actually been argued in a courtroom? Wouldn't one have been enough to support your fallacy?

    12. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by dada21 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What does paying for slashdot give you that you couldn't get with a free subscription?

      Very little. My reason for subscribing is (in order of importance):

      1. To support the site with my money, showing that it has value.
      2. To generate a tiny level of respect for those who also subscribe or give a subscriber bonus to their own personal mod modifier.
      3. Receive the chance to read articles before they're slashdotted.

    13. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by dada21 · · Score: 1

      And how do you, as an individual, hold masses accountable? Most say through laws, but the laws just don't work. If a law is created, does it really change what the masses want to do? Not a chance, ever. Most people don't murder because they know it is wrong -- not because the law says "don't murder." Even with the law, murders occur more or less as often as before (and I would say moreso because of other laws that have caused people to lose their minds). Do laws against theft make you not steal? I doubt it, since most of us know we could steal and not get caught. We generally don't steal because we know it is wrong.

      If you're afraid of others who are spamming or sending virii out into the ether, get software on your end and be a good example of the right way to protect your own resources, rather than yell "There should be a law!" when you know that laws just don't work.

    14. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by cnelzie · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "It isn't that I refuse to learn a trade and stick to it, it is just fair to pay a living wage!"

      This last strawman argument you have made is highly disingenuous of you.

      Yes, it is fair to pay a living wage and not every single person has the opportunities to put themselves into a position for which they can begin to learn, let alone stick to a trade of some sort. Sometimes, this is simply because someone was born with less intelligence than someone else. Sometimes this is because the environment they were raised within handicapped them, with either parent's who cannot read or are simply "busy" with other things.

      A living wage allows a person the opportunity to advance him or herself and raise him or herself out of the situation he/she lives within. This is better for all of society, because it brings greater potential for people to earn more and thus purchase more expensive items, thus bringing the price of such items lower for all, while simultaneously increasing the profit margins of the manufacturers and retailers of those goods due to the economy of scale.

      --
      If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
    15. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by sumdumass · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It is not Kazza's duty to inform it's customer base of the various laws that cold be broken. Ford or toyota do not place warnings on the stering wheel or fuel tank's cap warning about driving too fast for conditions or speeding or having a valid drivers license or even insurance before operating. In most states/areas. you don't even need a valid drivers license to buy a car. Try getting out of a ticket by claiming the manufacturer never warned or instructed you about the laws. Try going back after them when you gte busted for breaking a law they never informed you about.

      It is the consumers obligation to know what they are using and how it to be used. As with almost everything else, Kazza, cars, kitchen knives, ropes, chains,/whatever can be used in a way that isn't legal. Furthermore, It could be not legal in one area but legal in another. Or under certain circumstances were maybe downloading an audio file of the garage band next door is and downloading three doors down might not be. This is just like driving a car down the street isn't illegal but driving a car down the street without a license might be.

      The only merit I can see from this suit is were it says the shared folders still shares files after you try to remove the software and the software makes it appear that you did. The difference in this and small label on the tobacco packs is that the tobacco companies were force to place the warnings there and actively campaigned to deny the health risks. Kazza has always claimed downloading and sharing someone else's copywriten material without there permission was not legal. They kust claimed that there are legal uses like open source software or situations were the copyright hold places the files online to the shared.

      In contrast, that would be like the tobacco companies claiming that cigs make good cleaning agants when used in a certain manor instead of claiming the surgeon general warning were bunk and smoking is healthful.

    16. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I've received at least 5 short contracts because of slashdot -- contracts that have paid at least 5 figures each.

      What do you do?

    17. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by hsmith · · Score: 1

      Also note that laws protect the state NOT that individual. Much as in a murder case. The case isn't brought on on behalf of the family, it is brought on by the state. In many states, individuals cannot privately prosecute a murderer, only the state can. Criminals are locked up on behalf of the state, they aren't for the victim.

      Laws are created to protect the massive state, not individuals. SOmething that most others seem to forget.

    18. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by Viper+Daimao · · Score: 1, Troll

      Sometimes, this is simply because someone was born with less intelligence than someone else.
      So you want to subsidize stupidity?
      --
      "In the game of life, someone always has to lose. To me, if life were fair, that someone would always be Oklahoma." -DKR
    19. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by cemcnulty · · Score: 1

      Wow, four stawmen in one post. Impressive even by slashdot standards.

    20. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by mangu · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Do we punish the owners of the masses of infected/infested PCs who spew out tons of email?

      We should.

      We assume that everyone understands technology and legal issues the way we do, but in fact, I would say that it is very possible (even likely) that most people don't understand the ramifications of using Kazaa.

      They should. Robert Heinlein wrote in 1949 in his short story "Gulf":

      "If the average man thinks at all, he does silly things like generalizing from a single datum. He uses one-valued logics. If he is exceptionally bright, he may use two-valued, 'either-or' logic to arrive at his wrong answers. If he is hungry, hurt, or personally interested in the answer, he can't use any sort of logic and will discard an observed fact as blithely as he will stake his life on a piece of wishful thinking. He uses the technical miracles created by superior men without wonder nor surprise, as a kitten accepts a bowl of milk. Far from aspiring to higher reasoning, he is not even aware that higher reasoning exists. He classes his own mental proccess as being of the same sort as the genius of an Einstein. Man is not a rational animal; he is a rationalizing animal.
      For explanations of a universe that confuses him he seizes onto numerology, astrology, histerical religions, and other fancy ways to go crazy. Having accepted such glorified nonsense, facts make no impression on him, even at the cost of his own life. Joe, one of the hardest things to believe is the abismal depth of human stuipidity.
      That is why there is always room at the top, why a man with just a little more on the ball can so easily become governor, millionaire, or college president - and why homo sap is sure to be displaced by New Man, because there is so much room for improvement and evolution never stops.
      Here and there among ordinary men there is a rare individual who really thinks, can and does use logic in at least one field - he's often as stupid as the rest outside his study or laboratory - but he can think, if he's not disturbed or sick or frightened. This rare individual is responsible for all the progress made by the race; the others reluctantly adopt his results. Much as the ordinary man distrusts and persecutes the process of thinking he is forced to accept the results occasionally, because thinking is efficient compared with his own mauderings. He may still plant his corn in the dark of the Moon but he will plant better corn developed by better men than he.
      Still rarer is the man who thinks habitually, who applies reason, rather than habit pattern, to all his activity. Unless he masques himself, his is a dangerous life; he is regarded as queer, untrustworthy, subversive of public morals; he is a pink monkey among brown monkeys - a fatal mistake. Unless the pink monkey can brown himself before he is caught.
      The brown monkey's instinct to kill is correct; such men are dangerous to all monkey customs.
      Rarest of all is the man who can and does reason at all times, quickly, accurately, inclusively, despite hope or fear or bodily distress, without egocentric bias or thalamic disturbance, with correct memory, with clear distinction between fact, assumption, and non-fact. Such men exist, Joe; they are 'New Man' - human in all respects, indistinguishable in appearance or under the scalpel from homo sap, yet as unlike him in action as the Sun is unlike a single candle."

      ...


      "I confess to that same affection for democracy, Joe. But it's like yearning for the Santa Claus you believed as a child. For a hundred and fifty years or so democracy, or something like it, could flourish safely. The issues were such as to be settled without disaster by the votes of common men, befogged and ignorant as they were. But now, if the race is simply to stay alive, political decisions depend on real knowledge of such things as nuclear physics, planetary ecology, genetic theory, and even system mechanics. They aren't up to it, Joe. With goodness and more will than they

    21. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by Vellmont · · Score: 3, Insightful


      So you want to subsidize stupidity?


      It kind of amazes me that this has become an argument. Just put the word subsidize in front of any form of funding and put people on the defensive.

      So you want to subsidize transportation?
      So you want to subsidize schools?
      So you want to subsidize the Army?
      So you want to subsidize the elderly?
      So you want to subsidize Africa?

      The basic premise seems to be "Why can't these lazy bastards stand on their own two feet and pull themselves up by their bootstraps!!"

      Which ignores the basic fact that no one stands on their own two feet. We're all dependant on one another. I'm a bit tired of the "self made man" fallacy.

      --
      AccountKiller
    22. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by rudeboy1 · · Score: 1

      Not true. OJ Simpson got off the hook in his criminal trial, but got his ass kicked in a wrongful death civil suit. Granted, he can't be locked up (at least initially, if he doesn't pay up, I think he can under certain guidelines) and can't be put to death in a civil suit, but he can most definitely be privately prosecuted.

      --
      Raging in an online forum won't do anything for the world around you. To see change, you must take action.
    23. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by INowRegretThesePosts · · Score: 1

      Not in this case. Everyone with half a brain knew what Kazaa made possible.
      It is not Kazaa's fault that people are stupid.

      It wouldn't be moral to obligate Kazaa to put in their products warnings that most people would not like to see (people don't like reading warnings, and if there is a warning, you are almost obligated to read it, because it may be something very important, and you don't know until you read it) because someone is incredibly stupid.

      Do I think that poisonous products should come with warnings? In most cases, yes.

      Do I think that a chair should come with a warning "This object might cause injuries if thrown at a person"? Absolutely no.

    24. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by wawannem · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I never yelled "There should be a law!"

      I think you are completely missing my point. I agree that people know that stealing is wrong, but what I suggest is that many people may not realize that listening to music they haven't paid for is stealing. Before the massive ad campaigns, I think most people didn't realize that they could be sued for downloading music. I had to explain to a sister-in-law that napster/kazaa was a bad idea because they were stealing and their response went something like: "Well... I listen to it on the radio without paying for it, is that stealing? If not, how is it stealing when I listen on my computer?" This is an educated (master's degree) adult who was confused on the matter.

      I don't doubt that people don't steal because it is wrong, but if such a mass of people are stealing could it be possible that they don't realize they are stealing?

    25. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whatever it is, for five figures he had better swallow after.

    26. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by Viper+Daimao · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We're all dependant(sic) on one another. Of course we are, and it takes the form of the free market. Subsidizing however makes us all dependent on govt, not each other. Do you really want to be dependent on a body that is at any given moment is 45%-55% composed of people from the *insert political party you disagree with here* party?
      --
      "In the game of life, someone always has to lose. To me, if life were fair, that someone would always be Oklahoma." -DKR
    27. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by mudeth · · Score: 1

      What do you mean 'Of course I don't support copyright'? Is there currently cool? *Of course* I've seen . Heh. Heh heh. Heh heh heh.

    28. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by db32 · · Score: 1

      Well I am going to go ahead and use your slashdot favorite of the car. Kazaa knows full well that sharing those files is illegal. Now it certainly isn't their responsibility to stop you from downloading them, however, they certainly have some responsibility in the fact that their stuff is deceptive as hell and defaults to sharing all files, and IIRC searches your computer for things to share beyond what you download. So...now to my point of your silly car analogy. Its like if Ford and Toyota connected a shotgun to the horn on your car. Sure its not their fault that you broke the law shooting someone, you should have known enough to disconnect the hidden gun from the horn. I mean they only advertised it as new Superhorn used to increase your safety, you should have been up on the nuances of the technology and all applicable laws to know what it did and that you would get in trouble. (Again, let us please not forget that alot of these stupid copyright laws are relatively new, and incredibly vague, so the "obvious illegal" part of it isn't exactly obvious...unless of coarse you are an RIAA lawyer)

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    29. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by wawannem · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wait, let me get this straight... You are quoting a work of fiction as your basis to argue that this woman's case is wrong? That's about as shakey as the people who point to the bible as their argument against masturbation

      Well, we'll let the courts decide then, but I would assume that her attorneys will bring more than works of fiction to the table.

      What I base my opinion on is what I've observed. In my observation, a lot of the people I know who have used Kazaa are not computer professionals or copyright experts but they also would be considered intelligent, educated citizens. They assume that they pay for tangible items, and that digital copies aren't stealing because there is no physical DVD or CD. I am not making a point that they are right or wrong, I am simply pointing out what these people think. In an earlier post, I point out something someone asked me, "If listening to a song on my computer for free is stealing, then is listening to the same song on the radio stealing too?"

      To people like the /. crowd this is a ridiculous argument, but to many people they don't understand that stealing information is just as much stealing as the theft of physical items. Do I think it is Kazaa's job to tell people that? I don't, but the courts may. The courts have harshly judged companies in the past (think tobacco industry and prescription drug companies) for not warning people about their products.

    30. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by undii · · Score: 2, Informative

      Hmm in my owners manual for my motorbike and car they both state to not break the speed limit and use the vehicle in a dangerous manner. My bike also has warning stickers on the fuel tank with regards to not putting the helmet on the handlebars or fuel tank as it may fall off (and break protective lining or shell) It looks like they do have (some) accountability with things like this?

    31. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      And just for comparison, I provide you: The reasons I don't subscribe in no particular order.

      1. Editors that don't edit
      2. Numerous bugs across the website (Nothing to see here, for example. And right now I don't have reply links to post comments under stories, they have just vanished inexplicably.)
      3. Issues with abuse of moderation are ignored entirely, basically rewarding people for mismoderating
      4. Dupes, dupes, dupes. Did I mention dupes?
      5. First post is not important to me. The useful part of slashdot is discussion - it's not like it's a useful archive of knowledge with the crap search functionality built into slashcode. Why would I want to read the story early, when almost no one can see it?
      6. OSTG accepts ads from known spammers, which means they appear here on slashdot.

      For $10/mo I could get access to, say, Xbox Live. This is a service that is actually maintained, in which they listen to their customers to some small degree, and they actually try to accomodate them. On the other hand we have slashdot, which claims to be news for nerds, but accepts "ask slashdot" questions that a trained monkey could find the answer to with google in minutes, and which has a CSS theme that redefines the size of P text. Gee, thanks. I guess my preferences for font sizes don't matter. Or anything else.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    32. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by Kjella · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Although you may be right, I think there may be some merit to her case. Do we punish the owners of the masses of infected/infested PCs who spew out tons of email?

      Because we're rather sure they had nothing to gain by making their PC and Internet slow and annoying. In this case, she quite clearly got "free" music which sounds like a rather good motive if you ask me. Just downloading is against the law tiself (see the Napster case), even if they manage to argue being clueless about sharing it. The most pathetic are the ones I see that go like "I didn't know if Napster was illegal or not, but when they got convicted I stopped" as if it wasn't clear all along that the direct infringers were guilty as hell - it was only a matter of secondary liability or not. To quote the 9th circuit Napster case:

      "We agree that plaintiffs have shown that Napster
      users infringe at least two of the copyright holders exclusive rights: the rights of
      reproduction, 106(1); and distribution, 106(3). Napster users who upload file
      names to the search index for others to copy violate plaintiffs distribution rights.
      Napster users who download files containing copyrighted music violate plaintiffs
      reproduction rights."

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    33. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      Ford or toyota do not place warnings on the stering wheel or fuel tank's cap warning about driving too fast for conditions or speeding or having a valid drivers license or even insurance before operating.

      Uh, they put warnings in the manual about driving too fast for conditions, speeding, et cetera.

      Try getting out of a ticket by claiming the manufacturer never warned or instructed you about the laws.

      You need a license to [legally] drive a car. The licensing procedure is intended to ensure that all drivers are at least mostly aware of related laws. Therefore you can not possibly use such an argument in court. You don't need a license to use a computer. Your analogy is utterly inapplicable.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    34. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      The only place "justice" comes into is paying some one for their "psycological truama" or "pain and suffering", and those I tihnk are just rediculous anyway.

      So if my car blows up due to a manufacturer's fuckup and blows off my wing-wang, you don't think I should be entitled to any damages?

      If some one HARMED you then what they did is almost always illegal, and thus is covered by criminal law.

      That's nice. I don't get any money if someone gets busted for a crime - although it will assist my civil case against them.

      If someone runs me down with a car, then yes I am very much happire if they are busted for their crime than I will be if they are not. But it doesn't actually help me in any way. If I'm going to pay my medical bills, I'm going to have to sue them in court. Beyond my medical bills, there's the issue that while I'm recovering, I can't do the things I like to do. I can't do the things I need to do. I can't do the things other people need me to do. This has a huge impact on my life. Why do you think it's unfair for me to impact their life? Money is just a reflection of time, at least in theory. My time, their money.

      Ultimately, why shouldn't I get money for my pain? It's their fuckup, not mine.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    35. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by kirk444 · · Score: 1

      Without putting in my thoughts on the subject, I would simply like to point out that part of driving that car you use in your example is being licensed to drive it. That license implies certain requisite knowledge you demonstrated when applying for the license. So while the manufacturer may not have informed you, the state most certainly did.

    36. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      We're all dependant(sic) on one another.
      Of course we are, and it takes the form of the free market

      There is no such thing. Every market on this earth has bullshit layered on top of it. Port fees. Import tariffs. Patents. Copyrights. Trademarks. Government-granted monopolies. Laws against anticompetitive behavior. Selective enforcement of said laws.

      Do you believe in leprechauns, too?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    37. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by MrAnnoyanceToYou · · Score: 1

      Um.

      This is a computers / technology site. I'd have to bet on computers as a profession. Just a guess though, unless he happens to re-roof houses at 10k+ apiece.

      Actually, I bet if I became an electrician or plumber I'd get a few hits off Slashdot. At least, if I weren't such a wanker.

      --
      My little site.
    38. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Although in some places you may not need a valid License to purchase a vehicle, that is not a valid argument while using motor vehicles. Also why can you not own a vehicle but never drive it? People collect many cars that they never intend to drive.

      Driver's licenses are needed to use the vehicles. You are supposed to take a class that informs you of what is required when driving a motor vehicle. As Ford and other car companies expect that you have taken the actions necessary to be legally able to drive a car they should not be held accountable for what you do with a car.

      Add in that people have known that a license is required to operate a motor vehicle due to it having been a long standing and known law, we are looking at decades of this knowledge. Compare that to this new frontier. People have been trading cassette tape copies of music forever, but they were never told they were in the wrong, they knew nothing of copyright law and the fact it should be a civil matter and not something dictated by the DMCA.

      Since the RIAA have gone to great lengths to get people to believe that downloading music and not paying for it is wrong thanks to all the warnings they put on various things, then if Kazaa was to start nowadays then people should get what they get by using a service like this. However, when Kazaa was being used people (general population) was not aware of the consequences of their actions, and as it is a civil matter then it is not a matter of life or death. People have since learned of those consequences.

      I do not and have never downloaded a non-free song from the internet. The only songs I have downloaded have been from the original artists off of their non-RIAA affiliated record labels websites. I am not a huge music person so I never got into all of this trading stuff. So I am speaking from the outside looking in.

      I believe this should be a case, as everything I ever heard about Kazaa was directed at what you could get without paying. Now the stuff I read about Kazaa was different it was all about all the negative affects it has on one's computer.

    39. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by everphilski · · Score: 1

      For $10/mo I could get access to, say, Xbox Live. This is a service that is actually maintained, in which they listen to their customers to some small degree, and they actually try to accomodate them. On the other hand we have slashdot, which claims to be news for nerds, but accepts "ask slashdot" questions that a trained monkey could find the answer to with google in minutes, and which has a CSS theme that redefines the size of P text. Gee, thanks. I guess my preferences for font sizes don't matter. Or anything else.

      And I believe you just justified Dada's point completely.

    40. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by Viper+Daimao · · Score: 1

      And certainly markets have more or less of those compared to each other. I wish to have a freer market. I thought that part was obvious, no need to be so nihilistic about it. The freer the market, the more we depend on each other, and the less on govt.

      --
      "In the game of life, someone always has to lose. To me, if life were fair, that someone would always be Oklahoma." -DKR
    41. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by danpsmith · · Score: 1
      Ford or toyota do not place warnings on the stering wheel or fuel tank's cap warning about driving too fast for conditions or speeding or having a valid drivers license or even insurance before operating.

      Of course they don't, you are, however, missing the point. Let's face it: Kazaa is designed with a specific intention of breaking the law. Choosing to ignore that fact by using metaphors about cars to get around the point isn't going to do much to sidestep this fact. To an unsuspecting user, that doesn't know that Kazaa is breaking the law, this just looks like an incredible free service. The entire service industry is at odds with the content industry on this one, and the person in between (the consumer) pays on both accounts.

      Let's face facts: companies like kazaa thrive off of illegal downloads. No matter what they are saying they are doing to be legitimate, or what other services they offer, the network is set up and utilized for illegal filesharing. ISPs advertise based on the ability to download MP3s faster specifically in some literature. Now, they of course only mean ones from emusic, right?

      Industries and companies basically sidestep copyright law in furthering their own interests, advertising faster and better copyright violations as an added benefit of using their services and then their users are the ones that suffer. If we were to be consistent, we'd shut down all Kazaa servers immediately, along with anything else. I understand it's not centralized like Napster, but the point remains. If Napster was illegal and misleading then Kazaa is too. Kazaa does nothing to inform its users that they might be violating copyright. I'm sure there are a number of users that wouldn't care because they are breaking the law willingly deeming it a low risk venture. If that's the case, well then that can't be prevented. But if it's a grandmom being duped into believing it's legal to download Beatles albums being sued by the RIAA because Kazaa didn't inform her that what she was doing was patently illegal, and that in fact the service itself is setup around grey areas of the law, well then I think it's not a terrible thing if they are held accountable as well.

      You take advantage of the fact that you know you are breaking the law. There are people out there that think Kazaa is a reputable company to use for things. They don't know they are breaking the law and then get sued for it. When a business thrives off allowing illegality and then has the consumer pay the price for its success, I'm sorry, but the end user isn't the only one who should be responsible. It's basically a business plan based on thievery and entrapment, and should be treated as such.

      --
      Judges and senates have been bought for gold; Esteem and love were never to be sold.
    42. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by sumdumass · · Score: 1
      I hope your not a Kazaa victim. If so,All I can do is say that I'm sorry. (not that I did anything but I feel for ya).

      Kazaa knows full well that sharing those files is illegal. Now it certainly isn't their responsibility to stop you from downloading them, however, they certainly have some responsibility in the fact that their stuff is deceptive as hell and defaults to sharing all files, and IIRC searches your computer for things to share beyond what you download
      Sure it does. But, if IIRC the seaet thayrching is prefixed by a dialog box asking you for permision. But directly to the car analogy, Ford knows that speeding is illegal, yet they product cars that can go well above the speed limit. They even market some of those cars with a 0-60 mpg time claiming how fast it is even in market were the state speed limit is only 55mph. So Ford knows dam well that 60 miles per hour is illegal but leave the ability there.

      So...now to my point of your silly car analogy. Its like if Ford and Toyota connected a shotgun to the horn on your car. Sure its not their fault that you broke the law shooting someone, you should have known enough to disconnect the hidden gun from the horn. I mean they only advertised it as new Superhorn used to increase your safety, you should have been up on the nuances of the technology and all applicable laws to know what it did and that you would get in trouble.
      I've had the luxury of removing more Kazza installs then actually installing them. Frankly, I have only installed it twice to illustrate the source of malware infections to a customer who claimed i didn't clean the machine good enough when the actuality is Kazzaa and some other program invited the malware back when they took it home and reinstalled it.

      But your hidden shotgun isn't really a close example of anything going on here. First, there is no legitimate reasons for a shotgun being trip wired to the horn. There are legitimate reasons for file sharing programs and programs that search your computer for media files.

      So to make your car analogy somewhat close to being the same thing, Lets assume they produce a touring sedan that can do a serpentine cone obstacle in less time then any other production car to date. Lets also assume the 0-60 time is less then any other car also. Their advertisements show the car making turns a 35 MPH that any other car would have to maneuver at 15MPH to do it safely. Now imagine in the fine print, it says this is only possible on dry asphalt pavement designed for racetracks. You get one of the cars and wip it around corners faster then ever and one day it rains, you know cannot control it and have an accident resulting in a citation for failing to control a motor vehicle. Can you sue the car maker? Probably not because you were "driving too fast for conditions" to safely allow. Can the people you violated sue the manufacturer? probably not because you were the one operating the car and you are the one "driving too fast for conditions" and "failing to control the vehicle". Did you know that having an accident was illegal? probably not because calling it an accident appears to absolve responsibility. (IE,, it wasn't my fault, it was an accident)

      (Again, let us please not forget that alot of these stupid copyright laws are relatively new, and incredibly vague, so the "obvious illegal" part of it isn't exactly obvious...unless of coarse you are an RIAA lawyer)
      confusion of a law is seldom a defense for violating it. Why should it be a mitigating factor in weather a user or company is responsible for that violation? And couldn't that be an affirmative defense in the law suite in the first place making the need to sue Kazzaa mute in the first place?
    43. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Point? Which one? He had three. He wants to support the site with money, showing that it has value - the advertisers do this for us. A level of respect for those who subscribe? Those of us who don't subscribe still generally think you're fools, and a jerk-off party between the subscribers does not appeal to me. Read articles before they're slashdotted? Just watch digg :P (Not that I read digg. I come for the discussion, not to be the first kid on my block to know that Sony is lame or that Microsoft is still trying to dominate the universe.) I don't see which point I justified.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    44. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by mobby_6kl · · Score: 1
      So you want to subsidize transportation?
      So you want to subsidize schools?
      So you want to subsidize the Army?
      So you want to subsidize the elderly?
      So you want to subsidize Africa?


      No, no I don't.
    45. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately the market cannot exist without government, but government always expands to fill all available space. Government creates the market in a very real way. Without government anyone can do whatever they like - they don't have to pay you anything for your goods if they kill you and take them. So I think this is not a solvable problem, at least depending on the scale you're talking about. On a personal scale I can work things out via barter and keep the government mostly out of it.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    46. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by Viper+Daimao · · Score: 1

      Additionally I believe you missed my argument. You subsidize something because you want more of it and/or it to be better.
      So more and better transportation? Sure.
      More and better schools? Sure
      More and better army? Hell yeah.
      More and better stupid people? Uhhhh no thank you.

      And this is all beside the point of how economically a minimum wage drives up prices and creates unemployment.

      --
      "In the game of life, someone always has to lose. To me, if life were fair, that someone would always be Oklahoma." -DKR
    47. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by mangu · · Score: 5, Insightful
      They assume that they pay for tangible items, and that digital copies aren't stealing because there is no physical DVD or CD.


      I fully agree with this. Copyright violation is not stealing.


      But my point wasn't about this very important difference. My point, on which I extensively quoted Heinlein's opinion, is that being considered "intelligent, educated citizens" isn't enough if your education is limited to non-technical issues. This was already true when Heinlein published his story more than five decades ago, and it's much more relevant today.
       

    48. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by everphilski · · Score: 1

      Dada said:
      A fool with his money is the fool that doesn't think about their return on every purchase -- whether a financial profit, emotional profit or even time-savings. For me, I receive the education and opinions of thousands. For $10 and an hour a day of time invested.
      I'm pretty sure his money towards slashdot has netted him more than your XBL subscription but that's just me. I guess its relative.

    49. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by HermMunster · · Score: 1

      People should not be able to shuck off their responsibility but I know Kazaa installs nasty stuff on your computer and often does it in a stealth and even deceptive manner. What bothers me is that apparently when you remove it through add/remove programs software is still on your computer that they installed that can/will share your files with others.

      Of course, I still need this to be proven. I'm only commenting on how the article was written up. If indeed they are installing stealth software and are deceptive in how they get you to install and enable uploads, and then when you determine it to be a bad thing and you remove their program, that they leave software on your computer that effectively continues that sharing process, well, someone's going to suffer the penalty.

      --
      You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
    50. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      And in the documentation for Kazzaa, I'm sure it explains you should only download and share files you have a right to. But we aren't dealing with people who read the handbook though. We are dealing with people who claim if it isn't obvious at the start, then they are wrong.

    51. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by metamatic · · Score: 0, Troll
      6. OSTG accepts ads from known spammers, which means they appear here on slashdot. For $10/mo I could get access to, say, Xbox Live.

      You made an ethical argument against Slashdot, then immediately followed up by suggesting you'd be willing to give money to Microsoft? Yeah, that'll convince us.

      --
      GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
    52. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "Do we punish the owners of the masses of infected/infested PCs who spew out tons of email?"

      yes, and if the car manufacture broke the law while building the car you drive, then clearly you should go to jail.

      "They should. Robert Heinlein wrote in 1949 in his short story "Gulf":"

      they won't and shouldn't, your very quote proves that.

      Jeez, try to understand what you quote.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    53. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I'm pretty sure his money towards slashdot has netted him more than your XBL subscription but that's just me. I guess its relative.

      I'm pretty sure his money towards slashdot got him nothing at all. He gets to see stories an hour earlier when most people (being nonsubscribers) can't see the story, therefore can't comment, therefore can't make the story valuable. He gets to not see ads, which I don't see either. What else does he get? Poorer.

      See, slashdot's customers are the advertisers, just like google's customers. The users are not the customers. The users are there to make the site valuable to the advertisers. And the users who pay for something they can get for free, we call "suckers".

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    54. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      You made an ethical argument against Slashdot, then immediately followed up by suggesting you'd be willing to give money to Microsoft? Yeah, that'll convince us.

      Actually, I said I could, not that I would. English? YOU FAIL IT!

      I was using XBL as an example because it was the first thing that came to mind as a service that actually provides you, well, service.

      If I had a nickel for every time I wanted to do something with slashdot but couldn't due to a bug, or an error, or a network failure, or just plain stupidity on the part of the slashdot maintainers, I'd have a shitload of nickels.

      I suppose it IS true that in their current forms, I'd rather give money to Microsoft than Slashdot. Slashdot is not inherently good. In fact, how many Microsoft ads have you seen on slashdot? I mean, assuming you don't have ad blocking. Or that there was a time when you didn't. I do, but when I didn't, there were a lot of 'em. The bottom line is that if I'm going to shell out money, I want something back. I don't want to spend money and get nothing, which is what I get if I give it to slashdot. What I've seen here as a nonsubscriber has convinced me to stay one. It never ceases to amaze me that so many people are willing to spend money on a site when the people who are "running" it clearly don't give a fuck about it, or their so-called customers.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    55. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by Vellmont · · Score: 1


      Of course we are, and it takes the form of the free market.

      Haha! I'm sorry, I wasn't aware I was taking part in the "free market" when I helped my neighbor carrying a package up the stairs. I wasn't aware I was taking part in the "free market" when I offer or take advice to a friend.

      The point is that there's more to people's dependence on one another than the "free" market. Anyone who says otherwise has taken too many business school classes and hasn't really lived a real life.

      Do you really want to be dependent on a body that is at any given moment is 45%-55% composed of people from the *insert political party you disagree with here* party?

      So what's my other choice? Dependent on a body that's composed of a dictator? That's worked out well historically.

      You seem to be of the opinion that government=bad. Why don't you take a gander on over to the countries without a government, or without funding of public good (like say a polio vaccine). My guess is you don't want to live there.

      --
      AccountKiller
    56. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by MaineCoon · · Score: 1

      I knew several people who didn't realize they were illegally downloading music. They honestly believed and swore left and right that Limewire was legitimate because they had paid for the program, and could download anything they wanted with it for free, legally.

      If I didn't know that the software promoted copyright infringement, I wouldn't have figured it out by looking at their website at the time.

      Kazaa deliberately mislead people into commiting copyright infringement, and thus eventually getting sued by the RIAA, for the sake of selling a $20 program.

      It is of course hard to draw parallels, but compare it to an accountant who, for a fee, will hook a person up with an abusive tax shelters, by promising "a totally safe way to reduce your taxes" (completely avoiding the word "legal" or "illegal" at any time). Organizations or individuals whose goal is to make a profit from people by convincing them to break the law. They do so using seemingly logical arguments that the average person not intimately familiar with the subject can be convinced with. They convince the victim that it is either not actually illegal, due to some technicality, or that the method makes it legal by some reasonable means.

      Consider how many people fall for pyramid schemes, the promise of making lots of money, but they don't sit down and actually do the math. Yes, they may be idiots for doing so, but sadly there are a lot of people like that... and even geniuses do foolish things from time to time.

      --
      Hunt your preferred prey at Aliens vs Predator MUD. Join the war at avpmud.com port 4000
    57. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      I always thought Heinelin was an arrogant twat. I hadn't read that particular passage, but it seems to exemplify my position.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    58. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by mangu · · Score: 2, Insightful
      if the car manufacturer broke the law while building the car you drive, then clearly you should go to jail.


      Yes, of course, under many circumstances you should! And if your computer causes a fire you should be jailed for arson.


      The fact is that technology may become dangerous. It doesn't matter if a mistake was made by someone else, if a tragedy occurs because you didn't care to act upon information that was available to you, then you are guilty as well.

    59. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Maybe your sister-in-law doesn't understand how downloading music is stealing because downloading music DOES NOT CONSTITUTE THEFT. It is copyright infringement, but no physical property is lost by the party being stolen from. Is it morally wrong? Probably. But it's not theft and should not be treated as such. The analogy that music is "free" on the radio isn't far from the truth. Is it not legal to make mix tapes of music recorded off the radio to give to friends? Is downloading that much different?

    60. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by Vellmont · · Score: 1


      You subsidize something because you want more of it and/or it to be better.

      Right. That's why we "subsidize" things like AIDS. Obviously we want more AIDS. (See, I can play semantic games too).

      The government funds social programs like MEDICAID because we don't want a bunch of sick, elderly people on the streets because they can't afford medical care. Similarly we offer programs to help the retarded or infirmed because we don't want them on the streets panhandling for change. (I guess maybe you do, since obviously being retarded is so glamorous and fun everyone wishes they were retarded). Do you really want the US to resemble India?

      --
      AccountKiller
    61. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by StrongAxe · · Score: 2, Informative

      but what I suggest is that many people may not realize that listening to music they haven't paid for is stealing.

      Actually, that isn't exactly what the law says (see below). In fact, there is a great deal of confusion between the verbs is and has been legislated to be (or is, according to the laws of {insert jurisdiction here}).

      is implies an absolute state of equality, while copyright laws vary widely between jurisdictions. While p2p music sharing may be illegal in the United States, it isn't in Canada, for example.

      The whole reason why society has always considered stealing to be such a heinous crime was NOT the fact that the thief acquired something of value that he wasn't entitled to, but rather that the victim LOST that thing. In previous centuries, horse theft in England carried the death penalty - because if a man made a living using his horse, and you stole it, he could starve to death. However, if you could sneak into his barn, take a skin sample, and clone the horse, the victim would not be inconvenienced.

      This is an educated (master's degree) adult who was confused on the matter.

      And with good reason. Most people do not take courses in law, and most of the nuances of such issues are discussed only in law school (not couting the FUD propaganda being spread by media companies, schools trying to indoctrine kids into a politically correct "don't share files" culture, etc.

      Consider the following two examples:

      1) I go to Wal*Mart, take a dozen CDs home (without paying for them), then leave them on my porch with a sign saying "Feel free to take home anything you want".

      2) I go to Wal*Mart, take a dozen CDs home (but in order not to inconvenience Wal*Mart, I make copies and return the originals), then leave the copies on my porch instead.

      In case 1, I can be charged with stealing for the CDs I took. However, nobody else will be charged with taking the CDs from my porch (well, they might be charged with possession of stolen property; however, since possesion of an item is usually considered as de-facto proof of ownership, especially for inexpensive items without serial numbers, nobody in their right minds would attempt to charge anyone for that).

      In case 2, I couldn't be charged with taking the music (temporary breaking and entering aside, and even that would be moot if we were talking about art or books instead and I made copies by taking a camera into the store and photographing them). However, even though I would be considered lily white under the law for TAKING the initial copy, I could be prosecuted for every single CD that somebody ELSE took from my porch. And also remember that the charges here would not be for larceny, but rather for copyright infringement. Furthermore, under current laws, the second case would be considered MUCH more serious, even though less is actually "stolen" (since the music is, but the physical media, which is the bulk of the cost of manufacturing the music, is not.)

      My point is that in the case of physical theft, act A is punishable, but act B is not. In the case of copying, act A is not punishable, but act B is. Furthermore, the victim in case 1 is Wal*Mart, while the victim in case 2 is the RIAA. So while you may think of copyright infringement as theft, and while the two may be similar in some ways (and are viewed as the same by society), under the law they are COMPLETELY different. The RIAA and MPAA never go after peoplf for downloading content - only for uploadingcontent. (Compare web sites that offer unauthorized downloads - they can shut down the web sites, but have no legal leg to stand on vs. the web site's visitors.)

      These people rightly argue "Well... I listen to it on the radio without paying for it, is that stealing? If not, how is it stealing when I listen on my computer?". What is not clear to them, however, is that if they are using a P2P network, the analogy is more like them listening to the radio, and then piping the music through to another unlicensed transmitter - something that would get them into trouble.

    62. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by TheGrinningFool · · Score: 1
      We assume that everyone understands technology and legal issues the way we do, but in fact, I would say that it is very possible (even likely) that most people don't understand the ramifications of using Kazaa.
      I would further venture that most of us don't understand legal issues nearly to the extent that we'd like to think we do. Watching Law and Order does not a lawyer make.
    63. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      We don't hold anyone accountable for what they do here, not our politicians, not corporate CEOs, and definitely not morons who hurt themselves or break the law.

      Hey, that's not our fault! It's just how we were raised...

      --
      https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
    64. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Good points all, but no way in hell do we need to subsidize the elderly. People are already determined to get old -- the last thing we need to do is encourage it.

      --
      https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
    65. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by undii · · Score: 1

      Much like the "Do not use under water" stickers for hairdryers are for these people

    66. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      If you know the law and chose to obey it. Nothing that I'm aware of prohibits an unlicensed driver from purchasing a car or having it's titles in their name. Or at least int he state I'm familiar with. In a failed attempt to hide a car during a divorce, I owned 2 cars before I turned 15.

      So you example of a drivers license illustrates my point exactly. it is about people choosing to follow the laws. With cars, More people follow the law then not so you see it as an automatic defense against a lawsuit like this. With Kazzaa, you think otherwise and want to blame the company who mad ethe product.

    67. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by nomadic · · Score: 1

      Heinlein was a complete jackass. The funny thing is, for a guy who likes to tell everyone about how to live he failed at basically everything he did before he became a sci-fi writer. Washed out of the Navy because he didn't have the physical constitution required, failed in business, and failed in politics.

    68. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by mangu · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I always thought Heinelin was an arrogant twat


      Perhaps you have only read his later works, after 1975 or so, and then I agree with you. However, the story I quoted, written in 1949, is one of the most prophetic works of science fiction ever written.


      People always complain "where is my flying car", because they don't realize that science fiction isn't about technical details, but mostly about the sociological changes brought by evolving technology. "Gulf" was a fictional story set in an indeterminate future, but actually Heinlein was writing about the quickening pace of evolution of technology in the 1940s and how people were unprepared for that reality.


      How do you like one of the lines I quoted about how "political decisions depend on real knowledge of such things as nuclear physics, planetary ecology, genetic theory"? Don't you agree that that sentence is absolutely true today? Whoever knew what "planetary ecology" was about in 1949? Heinlein was a true prophet...


    69. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by sumdumass · · Score: 1
      You need a license to [legally] drive a car.
      You need permission from the copy right owner to distribute their works.

      You don't need a license to use a computer. Your analogy is utterly inapplicable.
      Ok, lets change cars to kitchen knives. Now if I stab you with a kitchen knife, should I be able to sue the manufacturer because they didn't warn me that stabbing someone with their product might be illegal? There is no license requirement for using a kitchen knife, In some situations, it isn't even illegal.

      So there, Does that make sense now? I love it when they pick apart the analogy to disprove something were they are more concerned with the analogy then the point it is trying to make. Just because it was a bad analogy doesn't make it a bad point.

      In case you missed it, the point is that we use quite a few things in every day life that can be used illegally or to commit a crime. Not all these things have warnings that say if used in this manor, it might be a crime. Nor do they describe every possible manor. But ever since napster, people should know that sharing certain files could be illegal.
    70. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Going another way, wasn't McDonald's successfully sued for physical damage because a customer held a cup of their coffee in her lap/between her legs, the lid came off and scolding hot coffee went over her legs? (Ok, it was for the coffe being "too hot".) I notice that there are warnings on their pies, something like: "Cauton, filling hot".

      There is a legitmate reason for the coffee being the temperature it was (to ensure it brewed properly), but clearly this is a case that shows that the provider must be responsible for all eventualities, ie Kazaa is resonsible because they didn't fully warn in large letters, and still shared copyrighted material; Ford, etc are responsible for speeding drivers for making cars that can travel faster than the maximum speed limit possible on all roads. (There was a[n experimental] device demonstrated on UK TV that limits the speed of a car to the local speed limit of the road on which it is currently being used. Unless all car manufacturers fit this device they are responsible for speeding drivers!)

      Perhaps people should be more responsible for their own actions.

    71. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by db32 · · Score: 1

      Well I think you took it a bit more seriously than intended since I think all of the lets relate it to cars things are patently insane to begin with. But just for shits n grins, most states have speed limits well in excess of 55, and it isn't exactly unheard of for cars to be sold with governors that do exactly that, keep it from going faster than what it would need to do in any sane situation.

      My point with the hidden shotgun really was only to illustrate how insane the car analogies tend to be, and that there is a slashdot assumtion that people have ANY idea what most of those "warnings" mean. I mean I could warn plenty of people using standard chemistry formulas why mixing various things is bad news, but unless they understand the terms and language its roughly meaningless. I don't know about you, but I have NEVER seen a EULA/Agreement/Whatever that resembled clear english beyond using the same alphabet and words that I presume lawyers actually do use rather than software people make up :).

      As far as the law goes, you are right ignorance is no excuse, however, in the past the whole copy thing wasn't exactly a big deal. It was trivial to tape things off the radio, to make mix tapes, there were even DJs that would TELL you when to start recording to get a nice "clean" copy off the radio. So now suddenly the world goes digital and the lawsuits are flying, fair use is out the door, and a whole realm of insanity opens up where its normal to sue grandmothers and 4yr olds for being evil music pirates, yet even by his own admission Warner CEO's kid was doing the same and just got a stern talking to.

      Sharman networks or whatever are a bunch of scumware peddling assmites. Their attack on the Morpheus network, their fraud involving Tsunami relief, quite frankly I would cheer someone on who beat their decision makers to bloody piles of goo with baseball bats regardless of how illegal that act is. So while I think the whole need for the lawsuit is insane in the first place because the RIAA n company shouldn't be allowed to do what they are doing to trigger this lawsuit in the first place, I really don't give a rats ass if it means the Kazaa folks get a good swift kick in the balls at the end of the day. Hell, if it works then it opens yet another door (beyond Hey the CEOs kid did it and didn't get sued!) for all of this RIAA sponsored insanity to be deflected from the general populace at large.

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    72. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Now if I stab you with a kitchen knife, should I be able to sue the manufacturer because they didn't warn me that stabbing someone with their product might be illegal? Possibly, if the knife came with a helpful wizard that highlighed the vulnerable parts on anyone who came in to the room.

      Kazaa will search your hard drive for any media files, and share them. It never asks you if you are the copyright owner.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    73. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by Ambidisastrous · · Score: 1

      The point is, when the obvious use of a product carries a danger -- especially when the product is what enables that behavior -- it's reasonable for the manufacturer to attach a warning to the product. You can choke/bludgeon/stab someone using just about anything, but a car is used for driving, so the maker warns the buyer about unsafe driving; liquor and alcohol ads carry warnings about unsafe drinking; fireworks carry warnings about using fireworks, unless they're shady; etc.

      Personal use of copyrighted works is legal in some cases, still. Distributing copyrighted work isn't, and that's the catch of this lawsuit: By default, Kazaa shares the files you've downloaded, so mere users unwittingly become distributors.

      This also brings some deeper pockets into the RIAA feud, so if Kazaa thinks they can show that the RIAA is harming a perfectly legal business of theirs, we could have a kinky little lawsuit-triangle on our hands.

    74. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by KiahZero · · Score: 1

      IANAL yet, but I can tell you that recouping losses has always been the point of tort law - to return a person to the condition they would be in had they not been wronged, as best as can be done by the law.

      --
      I'm a lawyer, but not yours. I wouldn't represent someone who thinks taking legal advice from Slashdot is a good idea.
    75. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by Evilest+Doer · · Score: 1
      I've received at least 5 short contracts because of slashdot -- contracts that have paid at least 5 figures each.
      Just FYI, but when people refer to "5 figures" the zeros after the dot do not count.
      --
      I feel like death on a soda cracker.
    76. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by deblau · · Score: 1
      Do we punish the owners of the masses of infected/infested PCs who spew out tons of email?

      People don't intend for their PCs to get infected. They do intend to download files using Kazaa. Intent makes all the difference.

      --
      This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
    77. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by edwardsdl · · Score: 1

      There is a legitmate reason for the coffee being the temperature it was (to ensure it brewed properly) Normally I agree, people should take more responsibility for their actions, but in this case, the coffee really was too hot. They were brewing the coffee at something like 200 degrees -- much higher than any other restaurants. http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
    78. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

      Look, it wasn't me, said the boy with the gun
      Sure I pulled the trigger, but it needed to be done
      Because life's been killing me ever since it begun
      You can't blame me cause I'm too young

      You can't blame me, sure the killer was my son
      But I didn't teach him to pull the trigger of the gun
      It's the killing on his TV screen
      You can't blame me; it's those images he sees

      Well, you can't blame me says the media man
      Well I wasn't the one who came up with the plan
      And I just point my camera at what the people want to see
      Man, it's a two way mirror and you can't blame me

      You can't blame me says the singer of the song
      Or the maker of movie which he based his life on
      It's inly entertainment as anyone can see
      Smoke machines and make up, man, you can't blame me

      --Jack Johnson

      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    79. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by pak9rabid · · Score: 0

      lack of knowledge of a law still doesn't pardon you from being prosecuted though

    80. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by pak9rabid · · Score: 0

      well, if someone harms you, it can fall under both criminal and civil law (under tort law). not only can that person be taken to court under criminal charges by the gov, but that person could also be sued by the person(s) the damage was inflicted on.

    81. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by MacWiz · · Score: 2

      I agree that people know that stealing is wrong, but what I suggest is that many people may not realize that listening to music they haven't paid for is stealing.

      That's ridiculous.

      I live in Tempe, Arizona, about a mile from Sun Devils Stadium. The last time the Rolling Stones played there, I could hear the bass and drums in my living room. U2 had speakers high up enough that we got clear vocals, too. The city also has frequent concerts and special events, which are held outdoors near the lake. In the past couple of years, I've heard Blues Traveler, Billy Idol, BTO, Jeff Beck, and dozens of other bands. From my back yard.

      This was stealing? Do I need to send, Mick, Bono and the rest a check? Or do I have to call the city and ask them to turn it down or charge me for tickets? Don't want to break the law, you know.

      What if I'm in a bar and someone puts a quarter in the jukebox and plays a song. Everyone else is a thief? What if I'm playing in a bar and you ask to be on the guest list? What if I'm playing in the subway and you don't give me money? What if I'm really, really, really bad? Is it still thievery not to pay me?

      I also listen to a commercial-free radio station, so I expect to get a subpoena any day now.

      I've been playing music since 1972. I cannot think of one occasion where I ever felt that people were stealing from me because they could hear me playing and weren't paying for it.

      Before the massive ad campaigns, I think most people didn't realize that they could be sued for downloading music.

      After the ad campaigns, some people began to actually believe that downloading is some sort of offense.

      The RIAA does not sue people for downloading, they sue them for making songs available, also known as sharing. Downloading is not illegal. If it were, iTunes wouldn't be in business. Or eMusic, or Rhapsody, or Napster, or any independent artist sites.

      Downloading is NOT illegal. Sharing is only illegal if you offer RIAA music and that's still theoretical, as the RIAA has yet to actually prove their case in front of a jury. After more than 20,000 copyright infringement lawsuits, they've yet to even get to the point where they had to produce a single copyright registration.

    82. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by Unknown_monkey · · Score: 1

      Yes especially since so many of his works in the 40's-60's were very much essays on possible political events that have come to pass. Like the recent increase in veterans running for office. Given the recent conflicts and the increasing number of veterans based on the improved survival rates, we could see a time where the overwhelming majority of the government is comprised of veterans. Which would hopefully mean more attention paid to the VA and support for survivability equipment improvements. The movie's recast political statements aside, the government in "Starship Troopers" was formed due veterans organizing after a major period of unrest. After all, when it comes down to wolves and sheep, the wolves have shown that without a separate force protecting the sheep, the wolves eat well.

      --
      Why are women so complicated? Find out how little I know here.
    83. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're completely on the mark here. Back 2003 I remember installing kazaa and their official marketing blurb was effectively "let us put ads on your computer and you can download all the music you want"

    84. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by AmberBlackCat · · Score: 1

      This page says "Fast, Safe, Free". Maybe it's a different Kazaa. I don't know. I seem to remember previous marketing material that says more directly, you can download as much as you want with the software. It seems deceptive to me, like putting up a sign on a table of 50 cupcakes that says "Free Cupcakes" without actually mentioning that only one or two of the cupcakes are free.

    85. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      You know why I "subscribe?" To get access to my full posting history. That's it. And "subscribe" is in quotes because I've turned off all the things that make it run out (e.g. hiding ads, etc.) so it's more like a one-time payment.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    86. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by FlyingSquidStudios · · Score: 1

      It's his money and it's not like he's using it to buy arms for terrorists or something, so I'm not sure why you care. If he wants to spend money on a subscription it doesn't harm you in any way. Is he a sucker? Well, people pay for porn when they can get it for free too. People pay for bottled water when they can get it out of the tap. People pay for gas in cities which have perfectly decent public transportation. Are you going to call them 'suckers' too? I suppose you have only ever spent money on necessities. I'm guessing you never pay for shareware either.

      --
      http://twitter.com/OLDTELEGRAM
    87. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      And a knife will cut you if you slide it across your skin or stab it into your skin. In some situations that might be a good idea but because there wasn't a warning doesn't mean it is anyones fault except the person doing it.

      But the whole point is that you need to know what you can and cannot do in order to remain legal. If I offer a website detailing the most likely places on a human body to produce a corpse and you stab someone in one of those places, Your at fault not me. Now lets say i sell kitchen knives that can double as a self defense intrament. Does that satisfy you?

    88. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by Pofy · · Score: 1

      >They were brewing the coffee at something like 200 degrees

      Personally I use boiling water when I make my own coffe. Coffee is supposed to be hot. If it is hot or a little bit hotter than normal, it is still hot. It is natural that one is carefull with hot stuff and that one ca burn oneself with it. Or do you claim that resturants should make coffee (and any other dring/food) so cold that it is perfectly possible to pour it on yourself without any problem? That would just be silly. The complain I would have is that coffee normally is too cold when served.

    89. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by Pofy · · Score: 1

      >Personal use of copyrighted works is legal in some cases, still. Distributing
      >copyrighted work isn't, and that's the catch of this lawsuit: By default,
      >Kazaa shares the files you've downloaded, so mere users unwittingly become distributors.

      So any makers of software should have its program detect in what country it is, what laws currently applies and then in this case, place a warning for any user were such downloading would be legal while the sharing would be illegal?

    90. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by BoberFett · · Score: 1

      What makes Kazaa any different than HTTP or FTP? It's just a tool. I can use hammer to pound a nail or crush someone's skull. The individual does bear responsibility for proper use of tools.

    91. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by julesh · · Score: 1

      The analogy you make with your quotation doesn't quite fit the case, though.

      A better one would be "Home Depot told me I could drop this hammer on my toes without hurting myself. They neglected to tell me I'd need safety boots." I still don't know if it's a valid cause to sue, but it stands some chance at least.

    92. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by walnutmon · · Score: 1

      Boiling water? If you touch boiling water to your mouth, you will have serious problems.

      --
      You take it, I don't want it...
    93. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 1

      It's a tool which is in part designed to deceive the user, and which was promoted in such a way as to deceive the user.

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
    94. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by Stone+Pony · · Score: 1

      Criminal cases are brought by the state on behalf of society in general. The state prosecutes murder trials because it is in everybody's interest that murderers are punished and potential murderers deterred, as far as possible.

    95. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by Viper+Daimao · · Score: 1

      We don't subsidize AIDS, we subsidize AIDS research. We want more research for more/better therapies and cures.

      --
      "In the game of life, someone always has to lose. To me, if life were fair, that someone would always be Oklahoma." -DKR
    96. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by cnelzie · · Score: 1

      Even people born with less intelligence than average deserves to be paid a living wage for the work he or she performs. Whether that is non-union janitorial work, flipping burgers or any number of other "low intelligence" positions. This allows such people to be self-sufficient and thus they will not require government subsistance programs to provide what they are unable to obtain due to wages that are below a living wage.

          This could then provide an impetus to lower taxes that people like you believe is wasted upon the poor in the form of subsistance programs.

      --
      If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
    97. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by cnelzie · · Score: 1

      The "Free Market" you are talking about only exists in the impossible vacuum that contains only the consumer and the vendor. It will never work in reality and if you want to see what a "Free Market" looks like, just take a look at the Congolese Civil War, there's no government there. It's a true "Free Market", people do what they do in order to survive and that includes plenty of instances of people killing eachother and taking their stuff.

      --
      If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
    98. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by Viper+Daimao · · Score: 1

      Even people born with less intelligence than average deserves to be paid a living wage for the work he or she performs. See, this is what I'm saying, regardless of intelligence, no they don't deserve anything. No one has a right to be given money. You have no right to tell me how much I can pay someone for work I want done. It's wrong morally, and it's wrong economically.
      --
      "In the game of life, someone always has to lose. To me, if life were fair, that someone would always be Oklahoma." -DKR
    99. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by Viper+Daimao · · Score: 1

      The "Free Market" you are talking about only exists in the impossible vacuum that contains only the consumer and the vendor. No, it doesn't. The choices aren't Anarchy or Socialism. There are in betweens.
      --
      "In the game of life, someone always has to lose. To me, if life were fair, that someone would always be Oklahoma." -DKR
    100. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by cnelzie · · Score: 1

      Wrong Economically?

          In the reality that I live in, everytime that a Minimum wage was introduced or raised, all the moron economists were screaming bloody murder about how it was going to tank the economy and create rampant unemployment. Only thing is, everytime that's been done, unemployment went down and the economy grew...

          Either you are believing a lie or seem to be posting from some kind of bizarre mirror universe where reality works upon fundamentally different laws that are senseless in this world.

      --
      If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
    101. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by cnelzie · · Score: 1

      That "in between" that you are talking about is where we are in the US.

          The Market includes the consumers, citizens, vendors, retailers, manufacturers, workers, the government and the environment. The "Free Market" you speak of can exist only in a vacuum where much of the above simply doesn't enter the equation. Even the "Shining Example" of the "Free Market", Wal-Mart, uses an artificially depressed market that is strongly controlled by an authoritarian regime and is thus FAR from a "Free Market" in order to have the wares produced that they sell in their stores.

          Besides, this whole concept of the "Free Market" comes from a man who is almost 300 years removed from the realities of today, which are starkly different than the realities that existed when he wrote his book.

      --
      If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
    102. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by Blkdeath · · Score: 1
      Boiling water? If you touch boiling water to your mouth, you will have serious problems.

      {sigh} I can't believe Stella's horse is still being beaten. Yes, McDonald's used water that was very hot. Yes, the coffee drinker's association of America defended that practice because that's how you're supposed to brew coffee to extract the full flavour from the beans ...

      By the by; when you make coffee, you don't generally start drinking it the moment it hits the cup. Moreover, water stops 'boiling' as soon as it is removed from its heat source. Generally you take the time to mix your cream, milk, sugar, sweetener etc. before you begin drinking. But much like anything else that gets discussed on Slashdot everybody's an expert, everybody's a connoisseur, and everybody certainly knows best about every situation.

      Back to Stella's case; she knew the coffee was hot. She put the cup of coffee between her legs in the car at the side of the road to mix her cream and sugar. She managed to spill the beverage all over herself all by herself and took the age-old American view of "It's Not My Fault" to court and went after the deepest pockets she could find; the red and yellow clown.

      For more facts in the case, you can refer to the Stella Awards page dedicated to Ms. Liebeck for more facts on the matter. But please, don't allow facts to get in the way of all the Slashdot exspurt testimony.

      --
      BD Phone Home!

      Shameless plug. Like you weren't expecting it.

    103. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Downloading Three Doors Down songs should be a crime regardless of any copyright infringement.

      Disgusting pop trash.

      </music snob>

    104. Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... by Viper+Daimao · · Score: 1

      The world's not going to end, but it will be bad for the economy. Most of the states that raised minimum wages that saw unemployment drop saw it drop for other reasons. They were mostly all service/tourist based economies with wages already well above the minimum wage, therefore it didn't affect many people. Which is why the current minimum wage is alright now, it hardly affects anyone. Very few people make minimum wage, even fewer actually support themselves and/or family on it, and even fewer still spend any lengthy amount of time earning it before moving up in the wage scale. If you want to see the affects, look at the teenage unemployment rate. It jumped up starkly in the 1950s when minimum wage was introduced.

      I would encourage you to read up on some of the economics behind the issue.

      --
      "In the game of life, someone always has to lose. To me, if life were fair, that someone would always be Oklahoma." -DKR
  2. The Beginning of The End... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Won't be long before kids are suing their parents for neglecting them while pursuing a lawsuit against Kazaa for being self-made victims.

    1. Re:The Beginning of The End... by GIL_Dude · · Score: 1

      Or car thieves suing the people making the slim-jims. (I know copyright violation isn't theft; no need to point it out). It's just that this person is suing a tool maker that made a tool she used to do something illegal. Sue Smith & Wesson when you shoot somebody with their handgun?

  3. In other news... by ScentCone · · Score: 3, Funny

    ... they will be serving Free Lunch at the trial.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    1. Re:In other news... by PhxBlue · · Score: 1

      Will that come with Free Speech or Free Beer?

      --
      !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
  4. She might as well... by Fedorpheux · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...sue the voices in her head that told her to download copyrighted material.

    --
    Somewhere between a super nerd and a rock star...
    1. Re:She might as well... by sgar · · Score: 1

      And oddly enough she wasn't sued for downloading copyrighted material. She was sued for illegally sharing copyrighted content. While this lawsuit reeks of stupidity, I do find that the average user is unaware of what makes sharing applications like Kazaa illegal in the first place, and hopefully this idiotic lawsuit may bring some of that forward.

      --
      If there is anything more important than my ego around here, I want it caught and shot now.
    2. Re:She might as well... by oahazmatt · · Score: 1

      If you can apply that ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it (e.g. "I didn't know it was illegal to download music") then conversely you should be able to apply that ignorance of a program's abilities are indicative that you should not be using it until you are exactly certain as to what it can and can't do. Yes, I realize it's a stretch.

      --
      Those who believe the Internet is private,
      find their privates are on the Internet.
    3. Re:She might as well... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      You know, this whole 'ignorance of the law is no defence' thing really ought to cut both ways. If a law, or set of laws, is sufficiently complex that a citizen without a law degree can not be expected to be familiar with it, then it shouldn't be valid.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  5. What? by TheGreatHegemon · · Score: 1

    "it surreptitiously installed 'spyware' on users' computers which made the shared files folder accessible to the Kazaa network even after the user had removed the Kazaa software from his or her computer (Complaint, par. 42-45)." Come again? I never heard of this part. Also, it wasn't false advertising. The downloading WAS free - you didn't pay for Kazaa or a monthly subscription to use it.

    1. Re:What? by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      Kazaa did install some stupid spyware, but it was really more just adware, and you had to allow it to share your music files; otherwise every 14 year old boy in the world would have been unknowingly sharing out zillions of ambient sound/music/dialog files from his locally installed video games, 'cause mp3 is a common format there too.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    2. Re:What? by no+reason+to+be+here · · Score: 1

      Also, it wasn't false advertising. The downloading WAS free - you didn't pay for Kazaa or a monthly subscription to use it.

      that's true; however, that's not the complaint. she's suing over deceptive advertising practices, not false advertising. specifically, her claim is, "Kazaa deceptively marketed its product as allowing 'free downloads'" not that they said there were free downloads, but there really weren't.

      --
      my pet machine
    3. Re:What? by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      her claim is, "Kazaa deceptively marketed its product as allowing 'free downloads'" not that they said there were free downloads, but there really weren't.

      Maybe she thought they meant "Free, as in speech", not "Free, as in beer"! Does Kazaa specify?

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    4. Re:What? by E8086 · · Score: 1

      "The downloading WAS free - you didn't pay for Kazaa or a monthly subscription to use it." - or maybe they did

      I'm too lazy to look this up but wasn't there a paid version kazaa at one time?(counts 12&19 claim kazaa was sold) And someone who paid for it got sued by the record cartel, maybe the 90yr old grandmother or the 14yr old girl. Part of their defence was they thought it was legal because they paid for kazaa and thought that since they were paying for it they could download all they wanted, like one of those unlimited access for a monthly fee ones that I've never used.
      This doesn't say that the primary named plaintiff paid for it but it's very possible that others did, esp since they do not know the exact size of the class.

      --
      F7 doesn't work, ignore spelling and grammar
  6. ::sigh:: by Pojut · · Score: 1

    Whatever happend to honour amongst thieves?

    I mean honestly...look, the woman was sued by the RIAA because she was obviously doing something illegal. The woman is now suing the company that enabled her to do the illegal thing in the first place.

    Does that mean I can sue my crack dealer if I get caught? I don't mean testify against him...SUE HIM.

    Surely this is a horrible display of where we as a society are headed. "And don't call me 'shirly'"

    --
    Living With a Nerd
    1. Re:::sigh:: by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

      Well, you can sue anybody for anything. That is how the legal system works. Sueing someone doesn't mean that you are going to win the argument though, but it is more civilized than having a fist fight about it.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    2. Re:::sigh:: by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      A better example would be, "Can I sue Ford because I got sent to jail after doing a hit and run in one of their cars." Or maybe, "Can I sue the bus station because I got busted after taking my drugs out of one of their lockers?"

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    3. Re:::sigh:: by ThatsNotFunny · · Score: 1

      More along the lines of: The commercial said I'd get hot women with this car, but after I raped a few and got caught, I'm gonna sue!

      --
      "Was it a millionaire who said 'Imagine No Posessions?'" -- Elvis Costello
    4. Re:::sigh:: by DragonWriter · · Score: 1
      mean honestly...look, the woman was sued by the RIAA because she was obviously doing something illegal. The woman is now suing the company that enabled her to do the illegal thing in the first place.

      Does that mean I can sue my crack dealer if I get caught?


      Nonparallel situations. Crimes are different that civil offenses. Suits between civil wrongdoers involved in different ways in the same wrongdoing to apportion damages are a well-established feature of our civil justice system, and are nothing particularly new.

      Surely this is a horrible display of where we as a society are headed.

      Its not a sign of our society heading anywhere, because its not new.

    5. Re:::sigh:: by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 1

      Does that mean I can sue my crack dealer if I get caught?

      If you didn't know that crack was illegal when you bought and smoked it, I'd be surpised.

      On the other hand, did the average person understand that using Kazaa as intended, with its default settings, could cause him or her to commit violations of copyright law?

      It's a valid argument to raise in a civil courtroom. Whether it's a compelling enough argument to lead to a win, well... let's wait and see.

    6. Re:::sigh:: by Pojut · · Score: 1

      Ignorance is too often an excuse used by the guilty...I'm not saying it doesn't have it's place, but the chances of the woman knowing how to download and use Kazaa, and yet in this day and age not be aware that what she was doing is illegal...I'm sorry, I have an extremely difficult time believing that.

      Who knows, maybe she hoenstly didn't know...but again. That is a very very highly unlikely situation.

      --
      Living With a Nerd
    7. Re:::sigh:: by soft_guy · · Score: 1

      Does that mean I can sue my crack dealer if I get caught? I don't mean testify against him...SUE HIM. Sounds like an OK idea to me. I might even vote for you if I were on the jury. The dealer is dispensing medication without a license (either a business license OR a pharmacy license) and without regard to safety. It sounds like neglegence to me.
      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
  7. Use Your Eyes! by nbannerman · · Score: 3, Informative

    If I buy a house, and then don't pay the morgage, they'll repossess the house. I can't use the argument of 'I didn't read the Terms and Conditions' to get myself out of the mess I'm in.

    Last time I installed a piece of software like Kazaa, it stated what it was going to do at each step, and clearly explained what would happen, and that I shouldn't share files to which I didn't own the copyright.

    Sueing for being stupid is... well, stupid.

    1. Re:Use Your Eyes! by jim_redwagon · · Score: 1

      Sueing for being stupid is...
      sadly becoming the American way...
      --
      I forgot what I wanted to say, but honestly, it was important.
    2. Re:Use Your Eyes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if you bought a house, and without your knowledge, there happened to be a meth lab in the basement. The basement is not accessible to you, because the previous owner lost the key, but occasionally neighborhood thugs break in to take some of the illicit drugs without you knowing. Then one day, the cops come by and search your basement because they saw the fumes coming out of your chimney. You are bewildered, but when the police search your house, they go into the basement and find the lab. In that case would you have the right to sue?

    3. Re:Use Your Eyes! by geekoid · · Score: 1

      And if your hjouse was spewing off poison you were't aware of you should fgot to jail?

      What about people who lived in a house with abestos? should they go to jail for attempting to poison some one?

      The last time I installed Kazzaa it said nothing about sharing folders. Admittedly it has been a really long time since then, so it may have changed.

      If so, then the suit will either go nowhere, or get thrown out.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:Use Your Eyes! by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

      I agree with some of the criticisms of this lawsuit.

      But she is saying that it "shared files after it was removed," and allowed files to be shared that she didn't know about. Though it might be an excuse to get out of the fine (who expects to be caught?), it might be valid if you don't know what you are sharing.

      If she didn't choose to download certain files, but they were cached and shared on her system -- that is a different issue.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
  8. It's all there.... by emor8t · · Score: 3, Informative

    Read the fine print lady, all the stuff your sueing for is painfully obvious. Had you bothered to do any research on Kazaa, you would know it's issues! You got caught, sucks to be you. But it's not Kazaa's problem, they are simply providing a service.

    1. Re:It's all there.... by Teppic_52 · · Score: 1

      I don't think it's a case of 'fine print', just reading, you know, the bit of the installation where it asks you what to use as the shared folder, and warns you the contents will be available to other users.
      She may as well try and sue MS for having too many pointless dialog boxes, and therefore conditioning her to blindly click 'yes' on any dialog box without reading it's contents.

    2. Re:It's all there.... by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      I think that's a bit much. I would grant that if it's too good to be true, then it must be, especially with regard to free media like that.

      A person can't spend their time researching everything. Do you read every EULA and every copyright notice? Most people have better things to do with their time. If a company has malicious software in their package, I think they must be held accountable for it. Kazaa had spyware in it and they went to great lengths to hide that fact.

    3. Re:It's all there.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sums it up...

      I believe the phrase 'Buyer beware' also translates over to computers and software accordingly. I'm pretty sure AI hasn't been invented yet, and these windoze machines, despite having the look and feel that they are thinking, don't multitask the internet for free music by themselves. It takes an active role on your part, lady.

      She should be put in cubicle and made to answer AOL support calls to foreigners with limited english.

      File this one under, 'more stupid B.S occurring in America'.

  9. So much for personal responsibility by Iphtashu+Fitz · · Score: 1

    "I had no idea what the software I installed would do."

    "I didn't know that I was downloading copyrighted files. Their software should have prevented it."

    1. Re:So much for personal responsibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe the courts will simply say that Kazaa must refund what the victim paid for the Kazaa software. I only briefly had Kazaa on my computer over 5 years ago but I'm guessing that the software license included something about limits on liability.

      Jim

    2. Re:So much for personal responsibility by Andrewkov · · Score: 2, Funny

      Her cat clicked ok on the EULA when she was in the bathroom..

    3. Re:So much for personal responsibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The victim should then sue her cat rather than Kazaa.



      Is "identity theft" really theft?

    4. Re:So much for personal responsibility by u-235-sentinel · · Score: 1

      "I didn't know that I was downloading copyrighted files. Their software should have prevented it."

      She should have said she used to download movies but doesn't anymore. Also that her family sternly spoke to her about doing something like this.

      She will be honest in the future :-)

      --
      Has Comcast disconnected your Internet account? Same here. You can read about it at http://comcastissue.blogspot.com
  10. Ridiculous. by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is like smokers suing convenience stores because that's where they bought the smokes that gave 'em lung cancer.

    I bet these same people all felt like devious little rule breakers when they were doing all that copyright violation, secure in the knowledge that no one could ever catch them.

    I can kinda see how the record companies can win a suit against the p2p providers, saying that their software enabled all these people to violate copyright law, but how the hell can all these people expect to win a suit against a company whose software enabled them to break the law? Kazaa's EULA spelled out that the software should only be used for legal purposes, but even if it didn't this will die because there is a huge amount of precident in prohibiting companies from being sued when their products were used in the commission of crimes (hello, gun manufacturers).

    If only common sense were more common.

    --
    ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    1. Re:Ridiculous. by garcia · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is like smokers suing convenience stores because that's where they bought the smokes that gave 'em lung cancer.

      It's more like suing your drug dealer after you go to prison for getting caught with a rock.

    2. Re:Ridiculous. by Ngarrang · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Your Honor, I would like to blame Ford Motor Company for selling me a truck that will go 150 MPH. If they hadn't sold me that truck, I wouldn't have gotten this speeding ticket.

      --
      Bearded Dragon
    3. Re:Ridiculous. by GeckoX · · Score: 1

      Some would say it's more like trying to rat on your drug dealer after you go to prison for getting caught with a rock.

      --
      No Comment.
    4. Re:Ridiculous. by Kelson · · Score: 1
      It's more like suing your drug dealer after you go to prison for getting caught with a rock.

      Or maybe suing the guy who told you where you could find the drug dealer and/or drove you there.

    5. Re:Ridiculous. by vux984 · · Score: 1

      this will die because there is a huge amount of precident in prohibiting companies from being sued when their products were used in the commission of crimes

      You seem to have forgotten that all the "precedent prohibiting companies from being sued when their products were used in the commission of crimes" wasn't enough to stop the RIAA from *successfully* suing p2p companies.

      Or what about the lawsuits against the likes of youtube and myspace?

    6. Re:Ridiculous. by thebdj · · Score: 1

      I can kinda see how the record companies can win a suit against the p2p providers, saying that their software enabled all these people to violate copyright law

      You are kidding, right? There are plenty of legal uses for p2p software, including the sharing of non-copyrighted materials. Some places started using bittorrent to spread software and take the load off of their servers. A lot of linux distributions did this. There are actually materials that are in the public domain that people can download through these services as well. Was the primary use of Kazaa to share illegal software? Maybe; however, I think either their arguments were flawed or the judge was stupid, because any punishment of Kazaa was a slap in the face of the Betamax decision that allowed us to keep are VCRs and provided the way for CD-RW and DVD-RW drives.

      if it didn't this will die because there is a huge amount of precident in prohibiting companies from being sued when their products were used in the commission of crimes (hello, gun manufacturers).

      Really? Because people still sue video game companies claiming that the violent game was the reason someone went nuts and shot up his office or school. Those cases and violent game laws are what keep Jack Thompson in business. We live in a society today that hates to take responsibility for its own actions. Everyone always seems to believe someone else is to blame, and until the courts stop this sort of non-sense from ever seeing the light of day, they will continue to be a problem.

      --
      "Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
    7. Re:Ridiculous. by xuenen · · Score: 1

      Hey that's a good point, but I think actually supports the plaintiff.

      It's not like suing the convenience store, it's like suing the cigarette manufacturer. It's not the cigarette maker that kills you, it's the cigarette. But we still allow lawsuits against the maker.

      In this case, it's the maker of the software that allows you to do something illegal. In fact, that makes it an even stronger case than smoking. Using Kazaa's product supports an illegal activity; using cigarettes just supports a really bad behavior.

      The only thing that makes these different (besides legality) is that the tobacco maker's product actually reduces your ability to stop the bad behavior.

    8. Re:Ridiculous. by Vellmont · · Score: 2, Interesting


      It's more like suing your drug dealer after you go to prison for getting caught with a rock.

      A surprisingly good analogy. The only claim that really has any merit IMO is the spyware claim. Using the same analogy, can you sue your drug dealer for putting rat-poison in your drugs that wound up destroying your kidneys? I'd say yes. Sure you took the risk of being addicted to the drug and the effects of it, but the drug dealer put the rat-poison in and didn't tell you about it, therefore you didn't assume that risk.

      I don't know much about spyware in Kazaa, but if Kazaa did put in spyware that created a further risk even after un-installing the software, they could be vulnerable.

      --
      AccountKiller
    9. Re:Ridiculous. by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      The **AA won against the p2p companies because they successfully argued in court that those companies were enticing people to break the law with their advertising (same as this chick). They didn't win because the p2p software allowed file transfers, because that's not illegal.

      YouTube hosts video that has copyright problems, that makes it their issue, same with MySpace. If I put up a webpage, and put copyrighted material on it, I'm breaking the law.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    10. Re:Ridiculous. by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 1

      They didn't win against the p2p companies. The only win of which I am aware at this point is Streamcast.

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
    11. Re:Ridiculous. by dannannan · · Score: 1

      It's more like suing your drug dealer after you go to prison for getting caught with a rock.

      Actually it's more like suing your drug dealer after you go to prison for drug dealing because the rocks you got from your dealer were being dealt in your name to other people, while you thought you were only a user.

      DDL

    12. Re:Ridiculous. by soft_guy · · Score: 1

      Your Honor, I would like to blame Ford Motor Company for selling me a truck that will go 150 MPH. If they hadn't sold me that truck, I wouldn't have gotten this speeding ticket. Since Ford clearly could have put a governor on the vehicle, you might have a point. However, Ford will probably counter that:
      1. The vehicle has no way to tell what the speed limit is at any given time and therefore such a governor would either still allow you to break, or else limit you to the lowest possible speed limit (i.e. 5MPH).
      2. There may be times when driving 150MPH is OK. Such as during an emergency with a police escort.
      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
    13. Re:Ridiculous. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Using Kazaa's product supports an illegal activity

      While Kazaa (or any P2P software for that matter) can be used for illegal file transfers, P2P software has plenty of valid uses as well. From your statement all car manufacturers should be held responsible for any thief that uses a vehicle as a "get away" car. As for a valid use, my company has been using P2P for working with large image files between different physical sites.

      The only thing that makes these different (besides legality) is that the tobacco maker's product actually reduces your ability to stop the bad behavior.

      Did Kazaa provide the plaintiff with a tool or a tool with directions on illegally downloading copyrighted content? Kazaa provides a tool that allows users to locate and obtain a copy of information shared by other users. At worst case, the plaintiff could go after those who provided the copyrighted material as they offered the material without obtaining the rights for it. One could probably build a case that companies have offered music (Coke Rewards - music downloads comes to mind) and they obtained the necessary rights to do so. One could apply that logic to believe that the individuals offering the copyrighted songs would also have obtained the necessary permissions. Now that would have to be a pretty naive person but as I said, that's the "worst" case.

      Jim

    14. Re:Ridiculous. by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      RIAA v Streamcast/Grokster was a pretty big win, and it's the precident this case is built on. And Kazaa settled for 110 million or so, so who knows how that one would have come out?

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    15. Re:Ridiculous. by JackOfAllGeeks · · Score: 1

      You know, hindsight is 20/20, but I'd like to point out that Kazaa wasn't a phenomenon of 2004 or 2005. Kazaa and others had been around for quite some time before filesharing to the sort of attention it has these days, and IANAL but the legality of file sharing was pretty obscure for those first several years. tack on the fact that this lady and others like her are probably not as tech-savvy or software-aware as most of us on slashdot, and I think it's pretty ridiculous to compare their activities to clearly-legislated bits like speed limits and drug trafficking.

    16. Re:Ridiculous. by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 1

      We don't yet know how big a win it is. It was only on liability, not damages.

      I was just correcting the GP's reference to wins against the p2p "companies" in the plural. A settlement is not a win. A pending case is not a win. A win is a win.

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
    17. Re:Ridiculous. by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      Imprecise speech on my part. I had forgotten that the Kazaa case was an out of court settlement.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    18. Re:Ridiculous. by vux984 · · Score: 1

      If I put up a webpage, and put copyrighted material on it, I'm breaking the law.

      Absolutely. Since *YOU* did it you should be liable. Not myspace.

    19. Re:Ridiculous. by bushki3 · · Score: 1

      Let me counter that counter with a bit of sarcasm, laced with some humor.

      1. Speed limits should not only be posted, they should be broadcast via RFID or similar short range transmission (sue the city, county, state, etc. responsible for posting speed limits). Ford should have a receiver in their vehicle to constantly monitor the broadcast of speed limits and adjust the governor accordingly (sue Ford). The Ford Dealer sold the vehicle without expressly informing the buyer that it would be possible to break the speed limit due to the lack of the "smart governor" (sue the Dealer). where does it end?

      2. IANAL, but from conversations with EMS, Fire, PD, and Sheriff's Officers (-- they are all friends and family --- I'm not an arsonist who gets burned by my own fires and caught often :) ) there is never a time where it is legal to break the posted speed limit. It is generally accepted by society as everyone would want the emergency response teams to disregard the speed limits if it was "their" life on the line.

      --
      011100110110100101100111
    20. Re:Ridiculous. by soft_guy · · Score: 1

      1. Speed limits should not only be posted, they should be broadcast via RFID or similar short range transmission (sue the city, county, state, etc. responsible for posting speed limits). Ford should have a receiver in their vehicle to constantly monitor the broadcast of speed limits and adjust the governor accordingly I honestly think this would be a great idea.
      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
    21. Re:Ridiculous. by Lloyd_Bryant · · Score: 1
      1. Speed limits should not only be posted, they should be broadcast via RFID or similar short range transmission (sue the city, county, state, etc. responsible for posting speed limits). Ford should have a receiver in their vehicle to constantly monitor the broadcast of speed limits and adjust the governor accordingly
      I honestly think this would be a great idea.


      So if I see another vehicle heading towards me, I'm not allowed to even attempt evading it by accelerating beyond the speed limit? Or what if I'm heading to a hospital with a seriously injured passenger? Or what if the creep behind me (with the illegally modified governor) is trying to run me off the road?

      There are situations where exceeding the speed limit is justifiable. Limiting the speed of the vehicle UNDER ALL CIRCUMSTANCES is possibly the most ludicrous thing I've ever heard (and given that I regularly read Slashdot, that's saying a hell of a lot!).
      --
      Don't tell me to get a life. I had one once. It sucked.
    22. Re:Ridiculous. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or what if I'm heading to a hospital with a seriously injured passenger?

      The speed limit is not the limiting factor in this case, as anyone with rudimentary math skills can show. Red lights, stop signs, and other traffic are going to be your barriers. Doing 70MPH down a 45MPH street only to stop at a red light for 3 minutes (while all those people you passed catch up to you) is completely pointless. I really wish people would realise this. You'd have to be driving this passenger much more than the average distance to a hospital for speeding to be effective, and if that's the case you should've let Life Flight or an ambulance take them anyway.

      Not to mention that depending on the injuries sustained, your speed ride from hell to the hospital may end up doing more damage to the person anyway, or even injuring an innocent driver on the road.

      Or what if the creep behind me (with the illegally modified governor) is trying to run me off the road?

      Hold your ground, and do the speed limit. If he harms you with his vehicle that's several felonies, and you have the fucker sued and thrown in jail. I drive a small car, and do the speed limit, and take great joy from boxing speeding assholes up. Never once have I been scared of them running me off the road.

      There are indeed situations that justify breaking the speed limit, such as avoiding merging vehicles, etc., but only for short bursts at a time. Most situations do not justify it, especially ones civilians encounter.

      Seriously, slow the fuck down people, you're not getting anywhere faster.

  11. Going after the wrong one... by porkThreeWays · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's almost as if the RIAA let her off easier if she promised she'd bring a class action suit to various P2P companies. This sort of thing has got to make the RIAA spooge on themselves and I can not imagine someone actually taking their frustration out on Kazaa without some coaching. Nice move RIAA, but I see right through it!

    --
    If an officer ever threatens to taze you, say you have a pacemaker.
    1. Re:Going after the wrong one... by eyeb1 · · Score: 0

      i'm with you ..

      it was probable part of her settlement with the RIAA .. that she launch a class action law suite against Kazaa.. something they could not do .. but which would serve them well ..

      they might even have made an agreement to pay her .. if it were somehow to succeed ..

  12. Look, I hate RIAA as much as anyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I hate RIAA as much as anyone, but this is just ridiculous. The person downloaded software and installed it, for the express purpose of stealing music. They knew there was no free lunch. Kind of like somebody approaching you and offering to give you a bunch of car stereo equipment out of their truck for $10. What's that saying? If it seems to good to be true, it is? In the latter case, you'd be guilty of receiving stolen property. In this case, you are guilty of copyright violation. End of case. Just another example of trial attorneys lining their pockets with reprehensible class action lawsuits.

    1. Re:Look, I hate RIAA as much as anyone by IwarkChocobos · · Score: 1

      "Just another example of trial attorneys lining their pockets with reprehensible class action lawsuits." Also another waste of taxpayers money....wtg, lady.

  13. I have a lawsuit idea. by Lethyos · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I am going to buy a gun, completely ignorant of how to use it, and start playing around with it. If someone gets shot (including myself) I will sue the company that made it. Horray for logic!

    --
    Why bother.
    1. Re:I have a lawsuit idea. by Lane.exe · · Score: 1
      Except that there are lots of legal doctrines that provide a defense to the gun manufacturer for you doing so. You're obviously cognizant of a risk of using a gun negligently, and have proceeded to use it despite an awareness of your own limitations. Sounds to me like you've assumed the risk of injury.

      Really, before people start to criticize the law, litigation, and those bastard "trial attorneys," they should at least educate themselves on the law.

      --
      IAALS.
    2. Re:I have a lawsuit idea. by swb · · Score: 1

      Except that the lawyers for the gun company will simply illustrate that the gun worked as designed; pull trigger, fire bullet.

      The gun was never advertised as having a proper target selection feature.

      In fact, I've ever heard some suggest that firearms should only have safeties that prevent accidental discharges (ie, dropping the gun or other mechanical firing system failures) and not traditional safeties, since the traditional safety teaches the misleading idea that the gun is "safe", which promotes unsafe handling practices.

    3. Re:I have a lawsuit idea. by DamnStupidElf · · Score: 1

      In fact, I've ever heard some suggest that firearms should only have safeties that prevent accidental discharges (ie, dropping the gun or other mechanical firing system failures) and not traditional safeties, since the traditional safety teaches the misleading idea that the gun is "safe", which promotes unsafe handling practices.

      Maybe they can get some of that Hollywood technology that keeps guns permanently loaded, too. I spend way too much money on ammo.

      P.S. You can already get handguns without traditional safeties (e.g. only trigger/firing pin interlocks and optional handle or thumb levers to ensure the gun is being held properly).

  14. Customer? by StarvingSE · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How can you be a customer of a company that provides Free as in Beer software?

    I call bullshit on the fact that the person claims she didn't know how kazaa worked. Its explained right here for cryin' out loud.

    All this person is doing is trying to get their money back that was extorted by the RIAA. Her lawyer probably weighed the difficulty of a counter-suit against the RIAA and suing Kazaa. Guess who won.

    I call shenanigans on this one. Tagged: Traitor

    --
    I got nothin'
    1. Re:Customer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's unfortunate that you made up your mind before informing yourself about the case. Kazaa bundles three or four other spyware applications within it. Kazaa didn't use to be spyware, as you and I both know -- not all p2p software is spyware, but now it *is* spyware -- and now the thing won't even uninstall properly -- some of it will still keep on running in the background even after an uninstall.

      In short, if you're doing P2P file-sharing, kazaa is just the wrong software to use, there are far better non-spyware p2p software applications out there. Some of those software applications are freeware and some may even be ad-supported, either way most of those other software p2p applications are a much better choice than using Kazaa.

      And yes, I'll accept the argument that people shouldn't complain about understanding p2p, I think they'll lose on that one, but I do think they have a case if they were penalized for filesharing that occurred after they had completely uninstalled Kazaa and yet -- it was still running hidden in the background.

  15. Are you sure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "because she was obviously doing something illegal"

    Really?

    If I make a copy of my music CD and give it to my wife to listen to in her car, I can't get a straight answer out of copyright lawyers if that's illegal.

    So your assertion that Kazaa was illegal to unsophisticated users to me fails the test.

    For example, I can listen to shoutcast stations on the internet for free. Lots of popular music. I can listen to the radio. I can tape from the radio. Can I tape from the internet?

    You seem so sure you know what's legal and what's not. I don't think anybody *anybody* knows what's legal in this area.

    1. Re:Are you sure? by Pojut · · Score: 1

      If she was being sued by the RIAA, it is implied that she was distributing music illegally. Given the fact that part of her suit against Kazaa is that they didn't express that things would be shared, that is a safe assumption to make.

      --
      Living With a Nerd
  16. Any app that installs spyware should be sued! by ArcherB · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm tired of spending hours removing hidden spyware and addware from machines where someone unknowingly that crap while trying to install something else. For example, my uncle has to use a computer for work. His daughters would constantly download the app-of-the-week and every Christmas, I would spend 3-4 hours removing all that crap from his hard drive.

    Yeah-yeah, I know it may be mentioned in the license agreement, but do you guys read every license agreement that comes across your screen? Besides, if Ford put a note in the glove box of every car that said, "Vehicle will send adds to your TV set at random intervals, even after vehicle is sold." would that save them from lawsuits? Would it make you guys feel better if the government put a label on all phones saying that they might be listening?

    --
    There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    1. Re:Any app that installs spyware should be sued! by Daemonstar · · Score: 1

      I agree.

      However . . . spyware/adware/virus removal is big business these days (reference the big fiasco from Mcafee/Symantec on Windows Vista). Several years ago when I worked at a local ISP (and when we actually had good technicians working there), we made enough money removing viruses/adware/spyware to pay for the payroll alone. :P

      Doesn't modern anti-spyware software give warnings when it finds Kazaa, anyway? I know some used to.

      --
      I don't reply to Anonymous posts; if you have something to say to me, identify yourself or I won't reply.
    2. Re:Any app that installs spyware should be sued! by Zerbey · · Score: 1

      Actually, yes it would save Ford from lawsuits. Ignorance is not a defence. Spyware is annoying and should be regulated (or, better still, banned entirely) but it is not currently illegal UNLESS it's done without the user's knowledge (in which case it's a virus, not spyware). In the case of Kazaa, it's written into the terms and conditions.

  17. Don't Claim Ignorance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "It designed the software in such a manner as to create a shared files folder and make that folder available to anyone using Kazaa, while at the same time failing to make the user aware that it had done so"

    How do you think Kazaa found music for free download? They didn't have some magical server with millions of songs for your disposal! If you did not want to share your music directory, you could've changed the settings in the options. You just had to know how to actually use the software. I hate users!

  18. Only in America. by jbssm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Tss, tss, only such a stupid legal system as the American could lead people to do this kind of stuff.

    If you had a legal system of some righteousness, you would force someone that files a case against another person (unless for crimes that involve violence) to pay the defendant legal costs in case the defendant was found innocent... that way, all those stupid legal cases we see in America would never have been brought to justice in the first place ... much less find a jury stupid enough to actually agree you are right (yeah that's right you also have that idiot system in which you call a bunch off illiterate people from the streets, that know nothing about justice, and get them decide if someone is innocent or guilty).

    1. Re:Only in America. by DragonWriter · · Score: 1
      If you had a legal system of some righteousness, you would force someone that files a case against another person (unless for crimes that involve violence) to pay the defendant legal costs in case the defendant was found innocent...


      Which would encourage even more the power of money and tip the justice system more than it already is in favor of the rich; no thanks.
    2. Re:Only in America. by Turn-X+Alphonse · · Score: 1

      And this would do more damage than good.

      If you put this in place then the poor have no legal system what so ever, as they cannot aford to pay both sides fees and not be on the street. This means they won't even risk the chance of it.

      If you're rich it makes no difference, if you're poor.. well you now have no law system to support you when someone screws you over.

      Funny how the great idea to fix things will only break things further. After all is it worse for some idiots to sue big companies or the little guys having no law system?

      --
      I like muppets.
    3. Re:Only in America. by Angst+Badger · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The problem with the "plaintiff pays" model is that even with entirely legitimate complaints, hardly anyone would be able to risk suing a company with deep pockets. Been wronged by Behemoth Industries? Are you sure you can win the case? If you're not 100% sure, you could get stuck with several million dollars in attorneys' fees. Even if the courts were 99% accurate in their judgments, do you want to risk the 1% chance that you'll end up as a pauper for life?

      Just as an aside, you might also want to consider that your complaints about "illiterate people from the streets" would carry more weight if you used complete sentences, correct punctuation, and proper capitalization.

      --
      Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
    4. Re:Only in America. by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 1

      (yeah that's right you also have that idiot system in which you call a bunch off illiterate people from the streets, that know nothing about justice, and get them decide if someone is innocent or guilty).

      Trial by a jury of peers is a core tenet of Common Law and has a history dating back to the Magna Carta. It's practiced, to one degree or another, in many of the most prosperous, most free, and most democratic nations in the world.

      Tell me: what judicial system do you prefer, and how are the citizens in it protected against governmental abuses?

    5. Re:Only in America. by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      (yeah that's right you also have that idiot system in which you call a bunch off illiterate people from the streets, that know nothing about justice, and get them decide if someone is innocent or guilty).

      For the most part, I think that's an ignorant statement. Most states sign you up for possible jury duty if you either have a driver's licence or if you register to vote. It's not as if homeless bums are serving on juries.

      On knowing nothing about justice, I have been in the smaller jury selection pools for state and federal courts and they go to great lengths to explain everything with pretty rigorous detail.

      What you see in the media is when things go wrong. When things go right, you don't hear about it because it's not interesting.

    6. Re:Only in America. by AVonGauss · · Score: 1

      Most of the other respondents have totally dismissed this idea, but when it comes to equalizing the civil court system - it may have some merit. The problem right now is you can sue anybody for just about anything - other than your legal fees and maybe some court fees, there really is no penalty. This effectively puts in control the group/person with the most assets - research, legal services and money. If the court system was changed to decide two factors (generally speaking) in each case - merit of claim and disposition of claim, then a penalty system could be implemented based on claims without merit. The penalty system would obviously need to be structured so that it scales itself depending on the group or individual in question - this is necessary to prevent the common person verses billion dollar corporation dilemma. I'm sure there are tons of other details too, but I don't think I would so easily dismiss the idea... For example, if the RIAA/MPAA had to face a penalty for merit-less cases, do you think they would continue to bring those types of cases to court? For the RIAA/MPAA, their legal costs for the most part are fixed and probably considered by the company as a cost of doing business. With a changed model, if a court finds that the case is considered merit-less then they could be imposed a fine.

    7. Re:Only in America. by ekimminau · · Score: 1

      Only in America do you have the right to shout out the stupidity of the government secure in the knowledge you have the right to do so. An you are jealous for every second of the day you don't live here. I call flame bait.

      --
      Armaments, 2-9-21 And Saint Attila raised the hand grenade up on high, saying, 'O Lord, bless this Thy hand grenade' N
    8. Re:Only in America. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Tss, tss,


      I don't know where you're from, but here in America it is "tsk, tsk" and it is generally only used when talking to children, unless you're an arrogant know-nothing know-it-all asshat.

      ...only such a stupid legal system as the American could lead people to do this kind of stuff.


      Guess you're not in the West then...

      If you had a legal system of some righteousness, you would force someone that files a case against another person (unless for crimes that involve violence) to pay the defendant legal costs in case the defendant was found innocent...


      I agree, if the case was frivolous and without merit, but someone always has to lose a case unless there is a settlement agreement, even though the suer had legitimate reasons to sue.

      that way, all those stupid legal cases we see in America would never have been brought to justice in the first place ...


      No, the problem is the insane amounts of money you can get for being a "victim". People sue for money instead of resolution/justice and that does need to be fixed. But as others have pointed out, your solution completely disenfranchises the poor.

      much less find a jury stupid enough to actually agree you are right (yeah that's right you also have that idiot system in which you call a bunch off illiterate people from the streets, that know nothing about justice, and get them decide if someone is innocent or guilty).


      You realize you just called 99% of /.ers or their friends and family illiterate know-nothings, right? Judging by your writing, you're just barely literate yourself.

    9. Re:Only in America. by jbssm · · Score: 1

      Humm, this may be true for Anglo-Saxon countries, but it's not normal in Europe.
      Also, I don't know what you mean by "the most democratic and free nations of the world" ... but if you check any official report, USA doesn't belong to them for lot of time now.

      The trial is made by a jury from among magistrates ... but still the defendant has generally the option to ask for a jury of peers if he wishes (although that practically never happens).

      Also the justice system is got absolutely nothing to do with politics and is a complete different power from the government (the government doesn't elect any kind of magistrates for any kind of courts and they are absolutely independent from any other group), also, magistrates cannot be affiliated or in any way show sympathy for a political party.

      Bottom line, the government makes the laws, the magistrates apply it, and the 2 roles are completely separated. The fact that the outcome of the juridical cases (normally and as long as the defendant wishes it) is decided by someone that actually understands the law, is a good thing.

    10. Re:Only in America. by jbssm · · Score: 1

      Well, this seems also a problem that comes from a jurisprudence juridical system, if there were laws that regulated the cases like in many European countries, this kind of juridical claims could have been gone a long time ago by a set of laws made by the government that would at least minimize the problem.

    11. Re:Only in America. by jbssm · · Score: 1

      You don't know what you are talking about:

      Check wikipedia and read the result gathered related to:
      "Freedom in the World published by Freedom House ranks countries by political rights and civil liberties that are derived in large measure from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights"
      Press freedom:
      USA - Satisfactory
      Practically Every Country From European Union - Good

      Being the rank from better to worst: Good, Satisfactory, problems, difficult, very serious

      Now you know your nice USA is not as good as that ... and believe me, no one in the EU of the 15 (the members that entered before 2004) is jealous of you ... in fact most of us pity you.

    12. Re:Only in America. by jeff.paulsen · · Score: 1

      On the Freedom House website, I found a PR (press) rating on a 0-40 scale, and a CL (civil liberties) rating on a 0-60 scale. You'll find that the USA gets a 37/40 for press, and 56/60 for civil liberties, exactly the same as Hungary. Italy gets a 39 and 53. France gets 38 and 55. Belgium, 39 and 58. The Scandinavian countries get perfect 40-60 results.

      There is room for improvement there, but this is hardly pitiable.

      Details can be seen on the subcategory page. That page includes a 1-7 rank for each country for both the Press and Civil scores. The US is ranked 1 in both areas, just like all of Europe. This may be a case in which Wikipedia has out-of-date or misleading information.

      --
      -- Jeff Paulsen
    13. Re:Only in America. by jeff.paulsen · · Score: 1

      I hate to reply twice to the same post, but I just checked the Wikipedia entry you describe, and it does not say what you claim it does. Here's a link: Freedom House 2006 on Wikipedia.

      --
      -- Jeff Paulsen
    14. Re:Only in America. by TheSkyIsPurple · · Score: 1

      >If the court system was changed to decide two factors (generally speaking) in each case - merit of claim and disposition of claim

      Actually, the system already does. The only problem is the ba for determining that something is meritless is extremely high.
      Judges want to give every chance to the "little guy", and that lets alot of crap get through.

    15. Re:Only in America. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd rather have homeless bums on a jury than some of the morons I know to have voted in the last federal election here.

    16. Re:Only in America. by ekimminau · · Score: 1

      You still wish you could have the opportunities we have here, pay $2.50 US a gal for gas, buy fresh Angus steaks, get fresh Maine lobster, fresh gulf shrimp, see first run movies, buy real cars, not those weenie European models. You wish you could have a Miss America pagent where the women have no under arm hair and 50% of your wages don't go for socialist taxes. You wish you had DOLLARS instead of Euros. And obviously nothing in your backyard compares to /. or you wouldn't be trying so hard to gain attention from us pitiful American slobs. And every feeble attempt you continue to make me thinks "Thou dost protest too much." Again, I call flame bait. Fermez le bouche l'enfant.

      --
      Armaments, 2-9-21 And Saint Attila raised the hand grenade up on high, saying, 'O Lord, bless this Thy hand grenade' N
    17. Re:Only in America. by jbssm · · Score: 1

      Thank you Jeff, this is interesting data ... specially the part about Italy.

      I don't know if you are from USA, but if you are from EU, you probably know that Silvio Berlusconi controls practically all the media himself trough his companies ... so it's a good surprise too see that Italy fared pretty well in the Press Freedom part.

      But still, these data doesn't seem very in accordance to the one we have for the European Union.
      Last year Estonia was considered the freest (in press freedom) of the new EU members even above some of the old EU members from southern Europe ... but still in this table, it's below ... there must be some discrepancy here (although it's a small one).

    18. Re:Only in America. by violent.ed · · Score: 1
      The problem with the "plaintiff pays" model is that even with entirely legitimate complaints, hardly anyone would be able to risk suing a company with deep pockets.
      If the marked comma is separating two complete but related sentences, replace the comma with a semicolon. If the second half of your sentence begins with "then," add "and" before "then." In this case, use a comma to separate the two groups of words.
      Just as an aside, you might also want to consider that your complaints about "illiterate people from the streets" would carry more weight if you used complete sentences, correct punctuation, and proper capitalization.
      Don't make me brand you as a grammar Nazi.
      --
      - You're not paranoid, they really are after you.
    19. Re:Only in America. by TheoMurpse · · Score: 1
      that idiot system in which you call a bunch off illiterate people from the streets, that know nothing about justice, and get them decide if someone is innocent or guilty
      Holy crap, what country do you live in where you are not guaranteed the right to a trial by jury?
    20. Re:Only in America. by jbssm · · Score: 1

      In a country of Europe like practically all the others here ... and if we want we can have it, but practically no one does it because if find it better for the jury to be composed by a group of magistrates that actually know the law.

    21. Re:Only in America. by TheoMurpse · · Score: 1

      But in America, juries do not need to know the law -- they don't decide matters of law. They only decide matters of fact. For example, in a civil suit, a jury will decide if someone in fact intentionally harmed another person. The judge will decide whether personal jurisdiction exists. In a criminal case, juries decide if someone committed murder or not. The judge will decide procedural elements.

      Thus, juries do not decide matters of law in America either.

  19. Is Ignorance Ever An Excuse? by blueZhift · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I know that many here on /. have already dismissed the person filing it as stupid. But I really think this case may help test the question of whether someone's ignorance of how computers and networks work can be held up as an excuse for copyright violations, etc.. At least in the case of automobile driving, all drivers are supposed to have valid licenses which were presumably obtained after training and passing the appropriate tests. But I don't recall any such requirements to operate a computer networked to the internet. I've encountered plenty of smart people in technical and scientific fields who don't really know what they're doing on a computer. So the average Jane, might be excused for not having too much of a clue about what is really happening on the machine. Of course the judge might still throw it all out because she should have read the licenses, but generally our legal system tries not to punish people unless they are competent enough to know what they are doing is wrong. Needless to say, it isn't always successful in this.

    --
    To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started
    1. Re:Is Ignorance Ever An Excuse? by kurzweilfreak · · Score: 1

      Almost anyone can buy a car with the funds. Even without a license in some places, as someone said in a post way above. To legally operate a car, however, requires a valid license that shows (in theory) that you've received some kind of training in the safe operation of the car because you're operating it on public infrastructure. Maybe the same kind of licensing should be in place for operating computers connected to the internet, also a public infrastructure. No, I don't know the details of how this would work or how it would be enforced, nor shall I try to. :P

      --

      kurzweil_freak

      5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student

      Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.

    2. Re:Is Ignorance Ever An Excuse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Regarding those EULAs. With regards to the general populace, do you think they can understand those things. Even the parts that are spelled out are not done very well, with the exceptions of a few EULAs most are written by lawyers for lawyers.

      I have not read the Kazaa EULA and have never used the program, but quite a few people do not read EULAs and those that try do not understand them. For the software I do use I read the EULA, but in the past I did not understand most of what they said. Today I see common patterns and take the time to look things up. Of course today most everything I use is GPL'd so that license is pretty simple to understand.

      Are we now saying that EULAs are legally viable and that everyone should be held accountable for what they state? I thought the general /. concept was that a EULA was not legally binding.

    3. Re:Is Ignorance Ever An Excuse? by FunWithKnives · · Score: 1

      As much as I would like to see the general level of (perceived) intelligence raised in the online world, I seriously do not believe that requiring a license of some sort in order to operate a networked computer is a good idea, by any means. That will open everyone up to having their online privacy invaded, and completely abolish anonymity on the net, which is one of the most beautiful things about it. Sure, some will say, "But the government wouldn't do that.", and to them, I pose one question: Are Social Security Numbers still only used for our "Social Security" funds?

      (I included the quotation marks because, as we all know, social security is now a joke.)

      --
      "We may face a scorched and lifeless earth, but they're accountable to their shareholders first."
    4. Re:Is Ignorance Ever An Excuse? by Lex-Man82 · · Score: 1

      If ignorance was an excuse wouldn't the RIAA's lawsuit have failed in the first place?

  20. Yes, and no by phorm · · Score: 1

    I remember when the "free music" thing first startup up. A lot of people didn't have any realization of the copyright issues. You might argue that nobody expects a free lunch, but the reality is that many products are paid for with things other than money (for example, advertising). Certainly there isn't a per-search charge for things such as google, they're pulling their cash from advertisers. Same with the "free dialup" account days, where your dialup client popped up ads that paid for the service.

    Given the ads bundled with and within kazaa, and the warcry of "free stuff", it's not that unreasonable an assumption that many people truely believed they were getting a product that wasn't so much "free" as paid for in a different manner. There are also plenty of sites that do offer free music, legally. In fact, I have several songs from what was mp3.com that were legally downloaded, but have since become more popular and are on the radio etc (and mp3.com doesn't exist anymore).

    I've had quiet a few people ask me about the "free music" or "free music" and they were genuinely shocked when I explained the legal rammifications.

    Constrasting this to your analogy of drugs, where the knowledge of drugs such as crack being illegal is hammered into us since childhood, I'd say it's an unfair comparison. People *know* that drugs not coming from a pharmacy are generally dubious if not illegal, and they certainly know that crack, heroin, etc are not legal. Given the mish-mash of free promo songs, ad-paid sites, and those such as garageband, etc... the music industry is far less clear.

    Heck, I just had a band send me a free disc the other day. I didn't even pay shipping.

    Assuming that the women was honestly misled by Kazaa (which given the marketing used, isn't so unbelieveable), I'd say she has a case. Furthermore, before the advent of iTunes etc, many ISP's were advertising fast download speeds for music, movies, etc... but not offering any legal services. Given the number of people without 'net who signed up purely based on this, I think that the overall market has some liability in this case.

    1. Re:Yes, and no by Pojut · · Score: 1

      mp3.com used to be an amazing website...but the majority of what was on there was put up by independed artists trying to make a name for themselves...I know there was big-name music up there, but the vast majority of it was put up by the bands themselves.

      Man. You used to be able to find ANYTHING on that website. They covered 30 subgenres of metal alone.

      --
      Living With a Nerd
    2. Re:Yes, and no by Secrity · · Score: 1

      "(and mp3.com doesn't exist anymore)"

      mp3.com exists again (www.mp3.com) and it is now part of CNet. It offers free mp3 downloads from new artists and full track streaming audio new releases from established artists.

    3. Re:Yes, and no by Pojut · · Score: 1

      true, it is "live"...but compare it to how it used to be, and you will find that it is nearly worthless by comparison

      --
      Living With a Nerd
    4. Re:Yes, and no by phorm · · Score: 1

      but the majority of what was on there was put up by independed artists trying to make a name for themselves

      Yup, and for some of those I'm fairly sure they weren't all that well known at the time, but they have since become more popular.

    5. Re:Yes, and no by Pojut · · Score: 1

      I can think of at least 5 bands that I know that were local within three hours of me, but got a record deal (one of them semi-substantial) and have gotten subsequently better deals thereafter...and they were discovered on that website.

      --
      Living With a Nerd
  21. Balance by EVil+Lawyer · · Score: 1

    Guys, a lot of society's choices involve balancing protection of the less-sophisticated, less-knowledgable members' interests with general laissez-faire values. I am a bit surprised to see a place as liberal as Slashdot brimming with such fervent dispassion for what, in essence, is a claim for protection of someone who just might be a little less sophisticated than general members of society.

    1. Re:Balance by DaMattster · · Score: 1

      I agree with you. And given RIAA's tactics, I am not and cannot be sure that the victim was even actually guilty of anything.

    2. Re:Balance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think the general consensus here is frustration with this persons lack of knowledge, but rather frustration with the absurd idea that others should be forced to pay for it.

  22. Maybe I'll sue too.. by Micklewhite · · Score: 0

    I could just as well say I'm building a rocket ship so I can go visit the planet that has all those green women. It doesn't mean I'm actually gonna get anywhere. Most likely, or hopefully the case won't actually make it to trial. I know judges in the states don't have a lot of common sense, but this seems to me to be the sort of thing where it'd just get thrown out. Which is ironic since none of the RIAA's cases were ever thrown out for being idiotic.

    --
    I don't own a snook, and if I did I wouldn't leave it cocked.
  23. Ha.... the U.S. Justice system by Programmer_In_Traini · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is precisely why the U.S. justice system is broken.

    Seriously, does she really expects us to believe that she did not know it was illegal, that she could get sued over it ? Seriously ? Nah, she knew full well but much like everyone doing this, we just assume RIAA is not gonna come for regular people like us because its not worth it.

    So now she does get sued and she says, was that illegal ? oh im sorry, Kazaa never said that! *pointing finger* damn you Kazaa, you got me in trouble. Now, not only will I sue you but I'll sue you on behalf of all people who didn't know (whisper:this way i can get more money)

    But just because the system allows it, tons of folks are suing each other for stupid reasons and to make a quick buck.

    My wife is a lawyer and I once asked her why we seldom see these things happening in canada. That's because the justice is different in that here, to win a cause you need a damage, a fault and the correlation between the two. Most of the time, people cannot make a strong argument in the "correlation between the two" part and the case ends there.

    --
    If you look like your passport photo, you're too ill to travel. - Will Kommen
    1. Re:Ha.... the U.S. Justice system by Ollabelle · · Score: 1

      I'm afraid I don't agree that it's broken. All she's done is sue. The law system is built to allow a pretty low bar to start the lawsuit. The next step will be a decision whether the case has any merit whatsoever (e.g. a demurrer or motion for summary judgment). Only if the case passes that point will it begin to get interesting. That's a far, far cry from winning, as your comparison with Canada uses. In the end, the law and facts will be applied fairly, depending on which venue (court) she's using. I'll freely admit that California comes out with some rather weird decisions sometimes ("I'm a victim because my coffee is hot...") but everyone else in the country discounts their thinking and applies much more rational standards. Here in Virginia, the standard is contributory negligence, i.e. you're all guilty; case dismissed.

      --
      Ibid.
    2. Re:Ha.... the U.S. Justice system by paralaxcreations · · Score: 1

      My wife is a lawyer and I once asked her why we seldom see these things happening in canada. That's because the justice is different in that here, to win a cause you need a damage, a fault and the correlation between the two. Most of the time, people cannot make a strong argument in the "correlation between the two" part and the case ends there.

      Same thing happens here, buddy. Filing a lawsuit != winning a lawsuit. If I wanted to, I could sue you on the grounds that what you said offended me and caused me mental anguish. Does that mean I'll win? Not one bit. If you're suggesting that the state decide what lawsuits are allowed to even be filed, I'm quite scared.

    3. Re:Ha.... the U.S. Justice system by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 1

      Actually the reason it's not happening in Canada is that the Canadian courts recognized that the MediaSentry investigation was not sufficiently reliable to provide a basis for allowing the ISP's to divulge confidential customer information. BMG v. Doe. Since the RIAA's Canadian counterpart hasn't been able to find out the names and addresses, they haven't been able to bring lawsuits. The Netherlands courts, likewise, refused to go along with the RIAA's litigation torrent. Foundation v. UPC Nederland.

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
    4. Re:Ha.... the U.S. Justice system by The+Cydonian · · Score: 1
      the Netherlands courts, likewise, refused to go along with the RIAA's litigation torrent.

      Pun unintended, I'm sure. :-)

      --
      More than mere navel gazing.
    5. Re:Ha.... the U.S. Justice system by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 1

      I must confess it was intentional.

      What can I say? My sense of humor may not be my forte. I was thrilled when I got 2 comments modded funny. The problem is that I wasn't trying to be funny.

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
  24. Lawyer choice? by Non-CleverNickName · · Score: 1

    I just hope she's not going to use the same lawyers that SCO is using...

    --
    This is my signature. There are many like it but this one is mine.
  25. The problem is not Kazaa... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...it is capitalism. Copyright is theft. It is "private ownership" of the means of production that alienates workers from the prodoct of their own labor and forces the people to accept the insane idea that the fruits of human thought should be locked in vaults like gold bricks and not freely shared to nourish the minds of all and every.

    Only when the people come together and reject the twisted logic of the capitalist system will there be freedom and justice.

    1. Re:The problem is not Kazaa... by Sneakernets · · Score: 0

      Problem is, Capitalism Always wins.

      --
      "No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson
    2. Re:The problem is not Kazaa... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It'll fall. Capitalism, by its exploitive nature -- creates the conditions necessary for its own demise; one failed anti-capitalist movement doesn't mean capitalism will live forever.

  26. Another money-making scheme for the lawyers? by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

    Is this another one of those money-making schemes for the lawyers? Surely the plaintiff must realize that he/she will end up with marginal gains after all is said and done. I could be wrong but didn't Kazaa go bankrupt or something. If so, would the new company (and shareholders) actually be liable for anything? Probably not but chances are we won't know until a few hundread thousand in legal fees are earned by the lawyers... Sivaram Velauthapillai

    --
    Sivaram Velauthapillai
    Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    1. Re:Another money-making scheme for the lawyers? by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 1

      Class action lawyers are the ones taking the financial risk. They don't get paid unless they win or settle. There is absolutely no money in it for the plaintiff's firm unless there is a victory or a settlement.

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
    2. Re:Another money-making scheme for the lawyers? by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      Yeah but even a cynic must accept the fact that, with the way the legal system is, you are bound to win at least 1 out of 10 cases--regardless of who ridiculous the case is. The best example of this are law firms that sue companies after their stock price drops due to some issue (hello! when did shareholders become zombies suing for mistakes they themselves make?) I see that you are a lawyer and I'm not dissing your profession or you per se. I really respect defense lawyers such as yourself (really!) since you defend people against the strong arm of the government and against powerful corporations and their interests. Nevertheless, I think a huge chunk of the legal establishment, including many prestigious firms, live off ridiculous lawsuits. The fees charged are way too high. This doesn't mean that lawyers are ripping off people but it just means that the system is inefficient. It's going to get to the point where an average person won't be able to defend themselves against anything in the future. Even the government is going to go bankrupt due to the high legal costs (similar to the problem with doctors and the medical system)...

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
  27. If my memory aren't failing me... by Jugalator · · Score: 2, Informative

    it designed the software in such a manner as to create a shared files folder and make that folder available to anyone using Kazaa, while at the same time failing to make the user aware that it had done so

    If my memory doesn't fail me, Kazaa indeed guided the user through a wizard at the first run, where among other things you configured network settings, and which folders to share. And with a "shared files" folder activated by default, while showing that fact to the user as well.

    --
    Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
  28. it is downright stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope the lawsuit is thrown out of court otherwise I my have a few lawsuits of my own.

    I am going to sue the ink pen manufacturer because they made it easy to write bad checks, I am going to sue the printer manufacturers because they made their color laser printers so good that it can print money, I am going to sue the telephone company because its easy to make obscene phone calls, I am going to sue to the car manufacturers because of the speeding ticket I got since it was easy to drive over the speed limit, I am going to sue walmart for placing their merchandise close to the front door making it easy to grab and run...

  29. I think you missed the point..... by Anachragnome · · Score: 3, Insightful

    While I am sure the person that is suing would be happy as a clam to get some financial gain from this, I think alot of you are missing the point.

    What this case is trying to do, in a round about fashion, is to set the stage for other actions.

    If this person wins this case it opens the doors for alot more. Once it can be shown in court that Kazaa either misled or outright lied to its users, it can then be shown that Kazaa was AIDING AND ABETTING the the criminal violation of copyright laws. Once that takes place, then Kazaa itself can be held liable for CRIMINAL actions.

    It would not surprise me in THE SLIGHTEST that the RIAA is behind this themselves. Its all about "precedence". Once you win a small case, its only makes it that much easier to use that small case as a foothold in larger, farther reaching and far more serious cases.

    While I believe that the person filing the suit, and everyone else that steals copyrighted material should be prosecuted, I also believe that anyone that made it possible for them to do so should be held accountable as well.

    1. Re:I think you missed the point..... by TheoMurpse · · Score: 1
      If this person wins this case it opens the doors for alot more. Once it can be shown in court that Kazaa either misled or outright lied to its users, it can then be shown that Kazaa was AIDING AND ABETTING the the criminal violation of copyright laws. Once that takes place, then Kazaa itself can be held liable for CRIMINAL actions.

      It would not surprise me in THE SLIGHTEST that the RIAA is behind this themselves. Its all about "precedence". Once you win a small case, its only makes it that much easier to use that small case as a foothold in larger, farther reaching and far more serious cases.
      Precedence is a theory used when dealing with matters of law, not matters of fact. You cannot cite a criminal case's outcome as proof in another criminal case.

      Hess v. State of Alaska
      Krueger v. Board of Professional Discipline of Idaho State Bd. of Medicine

      Otherwise, if you testified that your brother did not commit a crime, and then then your brother was found guilty, you would automatically be guilty of perjury. Additionally, it would hold everyone hostage to the legal skills of unknown third parties. For example, suppose I want to convict you of accessory to murder. A accuses B of committing murder with you assisting, and B loses on purpose. Bam, you're guilty by precedent? I don't think so.
  30. I may be in the minority here.. by fury88 · · Score: 1

    But lets say she truly did not download pirated music but accidentally shared her music folders to Kazaa without knowing. This would be a great point to the case. I am not saying this is what happened but I think she might have a good point. I mean there was a P2P frenzy there for awhile and there may have been a ton of people who downloaded Kazaa without truly knowing what it was.

  31. Isn't this like a drunk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    suing the alcohol company?

  32. software is software by treak007 · · Score: 1

    Software by nature is neither good software nor evil software (exception being M$ products). It is what you do with that software that makes it good or bad. There is no way they will win a case against Kazaa.

    --
    Klingon Software is not released, it escapes, inflicting terrible damage onto the enemy as it does
  33. End Users by pkcs11 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    With the ubiquity of internet access comes a deeper spectrum of users, some of whom legitmately do (did) not know that using Kazaa (shareazaa et al.)to trade/download/share music is illegal. Without proper messaging from Kazaa (et al) the burden should also rest on their shoulders.

    --
    "I have an odd craving to whisper about those few frightful hours in that ill-rumored and evilly shadowed seaport of dea
  34. US Justice - not that different than Canadian by mandelbr0t · · Score: 1

    The real issue here is how the RIAA is choosing to enforce their copyrights. We don't see parallel cases in Canada because the CRIA (the Canadian equivalent) does not have such wide-reaching powers. KaZaA users were discovered by invading a reasonable expectation of privacy. Like our telephones, we should be able to use our computers in the privacy of our homes without worrying about some kind of wiretap (unless we were involved in some kind of criminal activity where a warrant for this tapping could be issued.) I've read through the complaint, and it's cohesive and exhaustive. It doesn't just charge the Sharman defendants with being misleading (that's only one of the counts). It logically describes the sum total of the actions taken by the defendants which caused her and others to unwittingly expose themselves to litigation. Sure, there's a good chance that a large portion of the Class named in the suit were fully aware that they were breaching copyright, and given the large number of hammer-to-kill-a-mosquito sorts of activities that the RIAA was well-known to be engaging in, should have expected the litigation. However, the charge that uninstalling KaZaA did not stop you from violating copyright is particularly telling. It means that even the knowledge that you had been duped by Sharman did not give you any way of preventing the activity you would be sued for. The count of Unjust Enrichment is also very strong; it seeks punitive damages to Sharman because they got rich by exposing others to a product of low-quality that exposed them to considerable liability. (BTW, this is the only count that seems like it could have been influenced by the RIAA). In short, as much as people like to beat up on the KaZaA users and say "shoulda read the fine print" and claim that "Only in America could this lawsuit happen", I'd say that's not true. If the CRIA were able to obtain the sorts of records that the RIAA obtained to launch their myriad of legal actions, we'd probably see a lawsuit of this nature eventually, simply because it's the only legal recourse that the suckers who used the product have. Unlike the crack dealer who can be imprisoned, the only thing left to do with the Sharman defendants is to take away all their money and give it to someone else. It doesn't really solve the problem, but at least a judgement is made which will clarify what sorts of caveats a software vendor is required to publish. I think everyone's just jealous coz someone who's pirating music might actually make some money :P mandelbr0t

    --
    "Please describe the scientific nature of the 'whammy'" - Agent Scully
  35. You know what they say.. by s31523 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    about sh*t that is... it flows down hill. Next to be sued will be broadband providers because before, when we had dial-up, we never had this problem.

  36. Next up. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Convicted shoplifters who drove off with full tanks of gasoline sue gas stations for making it so easy to steal gasoline?

  37. Of course I DO support copyrights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Without them, BSD, GPL, LGPL, etc. would be meaningless names instead of valid FOSS licenses.
    What I don't support is illegal monopolies and price fixing.

  38. Not knowing does not make you unaccountable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Where I come from you are accountable for breaking the law even if you don't know you are breaking the law. You are accountable for all your actoins and obligated to find out what you can and cannot do.

  39. Groening Analogy by sulfur_lad · · Score: 1

    I'm of two minds about this one.

    On the one hand:

    Homer: "I'm just gonna start chomping my jaw like this. If that *chomp* blueberry pie gets *chomp* in the way, then I'm *chomp* not responsible for *chomp* what's going to happen..." It's more than likely that even with his limited capacity for reason, Homer knows exactly what he's doing.

    On the other hand:

    This suing everyone is just becoming ridiculous. This case sounds a little like stripping Kif Kroker of his rank just for being there when Zapp Brannigan attacks the neutrals (not saying the RIAA is neutral, I'd use another N word here...). Whose fault is it really?

    The buck's just gonna get passed around in a circle, and with the grounds for litigation I see getting weaker and weaker, it's just bound to get worse. The next step will be Kazaa suing the lady's ISP for providing the bandwidth for this lady that enabled her to abuse their good faith software to break the law. Then the ISP will sue the lady for violating her terms of use agreement and using the connection they provided to her in good faith to break the law. Ah, the circle of life is complete.

    utterly ridiculous.

  40. Liberal by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 1
    Where do you get the idea that /. is liberal?

    /. is an eletist society of geekdom where the geek-challenged are considered the unwashed masses.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
  41. The Sleeping Giant by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1

    One of these days (years?) the RIAA is going to realize they've awakened the sleeping giant. The only reason they have the limited - note the use of the word limited - monopoly of copyright is because the people, through their government, gave it to them. (Actually they gave it to the artists who created the works in the first place, but that's another argument for another day.) And what the people give, the people can take back if they're too abused by it. I wouldn't mind seeing that day arrive.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
    1. Re:The Sleeping Giant by Overzeetop · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're presuming that the people have any say in such a condition, which they do not. Even if the US were not a republic, with representatives listening to the handlers which keep them in office, you are under the incorrect impression that a true democracy would be fouled by the advertising clout that can be brought to bear when billions of dollars is at stake. I do like your optimism though.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  42. Oh yeah by LifeWithJustin · · Score: 2, Funny

    Step 1: Do something (knowingly) stupid.
    Step 2: sue
    Step 3: um...
    Step 4: Profit !

  43. Whew by JazzLad · · Score: 1

    I was getting worried - 5 minutes and no bad car analogy!

    Thanks!

    --
    "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
  44. Curious... by _Griphin_ · · Score: 1

    Sorry, I don't get this. In the article, it is written: (Kazaa) designed the software in such a manner as to create a shared files folder and make that folder available to anyone using Kazaa, while at the same time failing to make the user aware that it had done so (Complaint, par. 36-37) OK, so unless the complatent (sp?) just downloaded music without copying music files to the shared directory, then the RIAA is on strong drink. However, if the complatent (sp?) copies files to that subdirectory to share with other like-minded users then they knew what the software did and they are (non-legally) full of s***.

  45. good points by Programmer_In_Traini · · Score: 1

    Ok, point well taken. But in the end, the judge has to apply what call in french "GBS" or "Gros bon sens" - which would best translate as "common sense".

    Even in Kazaa never said it was illegal to download/share copyrighted music, its the user's responsability to determine whether his/her actions are liable or not. Kazaa is nothing but a tool, a mean to justify the end. The key point here would be to be able to prove that she was in fact unaware of the legal implications behind sharing MP3s. If it can be proved out of any reasonable doubt that she was unaware then maybe kazaa could be held liable in some way - and that wouldnt be strong enough to make it class action and claim that none of all the users knew it was illegal.

    Its like saying, your honor, I know i shot a man, but i didnt know it would kill him, where on the bullet is it said that its lethal ?

    Or the shoplifter saying, your honor, i know i did carry a digital camera out of store but i just wanted to try it, the store never said it was illegal.

    just where do you draw the line when talking about common knowledge and assuming the guy knows it ?

    --
    If you look like your passport photo, you're too ill to travel. - Will Kommen
  46. Oh poor me by TheRecklessWanderer · · Score: 1

    Oh wow is me, I am too stupid to realize that I am stealing, and poor me, someone else should pay for me when I make a mistake. It's my right to avoid my problems by suing other people, it's my parents fault,and my teacher's fault, and the governments fault, and my neighbours fault, and...well just everybody but me. Once again, I am too stupid to know that getting free music is stealing. / Come on, you do the crime you do the time. Suck it up, and suffer.

    --
    Mean what you say...say what you mean.
  47. RIAA's plan by bilbravo · · Score: 1

    Totally joking here, I'm not saying the RIAA put her up to this... but, if they were smart: 1. Sue person 2. Get person to bring class action suit against Kazaa 3. Win suit against Kazaa 4. Kazaa users come clamboring to get their Piece of the Pie (TM) 5. Get list of those wanting in on the lawsuit pay-out 6. Sue them!

    --
    Starmen.net
    1. Re:RIAA's plan by SoulRider · · Score: 1

      This might not be as far fetched as it sounds, is there anywhere we can view what the settlement conditions with the RIAA were for any of these cases? The RIAA did seem to target Kazaa with a majority of lawsuits, and I do know they consider Kazaa to be on the same level as Napster (since they both were at their peaks at about the same time). As ridiculous as it sounds this may have been the plan all along, the RIAA has been caught in conspiracies before (price fixing, making illegal deals with radio stations, not paying the artists, etc...).

  48. How do you get Kaaza into Court? by prozac79 · · Score: 1

    The RIAA, with their army of lawyers, has been trying to shut down Kaaza and it's owner, Sherman Networks, for years. However, that company is spread out all over the world with everyone passing the buck on who is actually responsible for that program. The company has operated this shell game in a way that they escape various local and national laws and don't fall into any one's jurisdiction. So if the RIAA has been unable to get Sherman Networks to appear in court, how will a smaller groups of lawyers be able to do it in a class action lawsuit? And to add, this class-action isn't very rock-solid either.

    --
    "Oh dear, she's stuck in an infinite loop and he's an idiot" -Prof. Farnsworth (Futurama)
  49. Sue the Car Maker for Your Vehicular Homicide? by ToxicBanjo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This kind of crap really disturbs me because I make my living writing software. Kazaa's legality is not the issue, it's the sueing of a software maker because someone misused the program that has me steamed.

    I read of people who use software to do exactly what it was written for, then they sue the software makers because they did something illegal with the program and got caught, or because "it (the program) should have known I was doing bad stuff and stopped me."

    If I write a program to admin an SQL server and someone uses it to hack/damage SQL Servers how the fuck can I be liable for it? I can put disclaimers in and still get sued so this could be a very bad precedent.

    --
    There are only 10 kinds of people in the world. Those that understand binary and those that don't.
  50. Ignorantia juris non excusat by atomic_toaster · · Score: 2, Informative

    Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Since when is not knowing you're doing something illegal enough to get you out of punishment for committing a crime? Whatever happened to presumed knowledge of the law? If you kill, rape, steal, embezzle, falsify evidence, obstruct a police investigation, etc. and you don't know it's illegal, you still go to jail.

    KaZaA provides a tool. How you choose to use that tool is up to you. If you live in wilful ignorance by choosing not to read the instructions/disclaimer/EULA and it gets you into trouble later, that's your own problem. It's much akin to trying to sue McDonald's for you burning yourself with their coffee after they've changed all the cups to read "Caution! Contents are hot!"

    29. The Sharman Defendants deceptively marketed the KaZaA Product as a P2P service as allowing "free" downloads.

    That's not deceptive marketing, that's the truth. You don't pay a fee, either subscription or per download, to download files through their service.

    31. The Sharman Defendants deceptively marketed the use of the KaZaA Product as legal.

    KaZaA is legal; what people choose to do with it may not be legal in certain jurisdictions. There is a major difference. It's like saying that the postal service is illegal because sometimes people use it to ship illegally obtained merchandise.

    32. The Sharman Defendants knew that most users of the KaZaA Product would use the KaZaA product to catalogue and store digital copies of copyrighted sound recordings and films. 33. The Sharman Defendants encouraged, invited, and solicited such conduct from its public, its customers, and users of the KaZaA Product.

    You'll note that the claim fails to mention that items 32 and 33 aren't necessarily illegal. It may be implied, but the reality is that every piece of media created since the invention of copyright is inherently copyrighted. This does not mean that copying this material is automatically illegal; that's up to the creator to decide. There is a lot of media out there that is provided free for the sharing, so long as you follow certain terms and conditions (like not claiming the work is your own).

    [KaZaA] designed the software in such a manner as to create a shared files folder and make that folder available to anyone using KaZaA, while at the same time failing to make the user aware that it had done so (Complaint, par. 36-37)...

    Correct me if I'm wrong, since it's been a while since I used KaZaA, but when you set install and set up the program, doesn't it let you pick your shared folders? Even if it doesn't, you can change it very easily through the program's settings. Even if you don't know this when you originally install the program, KaZaA lets you see who has been downloading what files from your computer. If you don't want people to download from you, wouldn't you change your settings as soon as you see the list of people trying to copy your stuff?

    [KaZaA] surreptitiously installed 'spyware' on users' computers which made the shared files folder accessible to the KaZaA network even after the user had removed the KaZaA software from his or her computer (Complaint, par. 42-45)...

    This is the only complaint that I can see possibly holding water, if it is true. To lend verity to their case, they'd have to test every version of the software to see which ones had this "spyware," and make sure that every person who was joining the class action suit on the spyware basis used or has used the spyware-affected versions.

    1. Re:Ignorantia juris non excusat by geekoid · · Score: 1

      yes, but what is someone else breaks the law through you without your knowledge?

      If they opened up your folder to share them, and did not clearly state they did so, how can the consumer be liable?

      If our tivo was breaking copyright law without your knowledge, should you be punished? I don't think so.

      If You install a product that tries to break into federal computers without your knowledge, should you be respo0nsible? again, no.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  51. from the front page by randallman · · Score: 2, Informative

    From the front page of the Kazaa website:

    Copyright: Sharman Networks Ltd does not condone activities and actions that breach the rights of copyright owners. As a Kazaa user
    you have agreed to abide by the End User License Agreement and it is your responsibility to obey all laws governing copyright in each country.

    Enough said.

    Randall

    1. Re:from the front page by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Great. What it DOES NOT clearly say is that it will open up your folders for everyone to see.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:from the front page by xantho · · Score: 1

      But it refers to the EULA. Have you read that? I havent, but then again, I'm not the one making flippant remarks at people I don't know on the internets.

      Hmm...

  52. Ignorance is not a defense... by jehnx · · Score: 1

    ...nor should it be. According to case law on this issue (read through the "StepSaver" case and the "ProCD" case, as well as Uniform Commercial Code section 2207), a binding contract is created when one presses the "I agree" button. Therefore, if someone does not read it, it is their own fault and they are held liable for their part of the contract. EOF, seriously.

  53. Kazaa is malware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Kazaa has bundled malicious spyware from the beginning (thus the Kazaa "lite" spyware stripped versions that have come and gone). I have seen plenty of PCs crippled by the results of a Kazaa install. Kazaa is evil, it is that simple.

    Kazaa should be sued for their malicious behaviour. Kazaa bundles plenty of malware and acts as the main vehicle of entry for viruses and trojans for millions of PCs worldwide.

    I will not use Skype and I actively discourage others from installing it because it is made by the same people as Kazaa and I expect it to bundle malware and act as a vehicle for viruses and trojans as well.

    Regardless of whether this suit is valid or not I will celebrate the day that Kazaa is made to pay for what it has done to hapless users. They have been in the wrong since their inception.

  54. MOD parent down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good luck legally buying a gun without a Firearm Owners Identification (FOID) card. With that card you can get a gun after waiting the required number of days before you can receive the gun. If you are under 16 then you will need to take a class to get the card, if over 16 then at some point in your life you would have come across what a gun is and what it is used for.

    It is not like you an indian chief centuries ago seeing one for the first time and messing around with it and killing your oldest son. In this day and age it is accepted that if you know what a gun is and have gone through the channels to obtain one then you know what it does and how it works.

    If you get one illegally, then perhaps you still should know what one is, if you do not then the person to sue would be the one that gave you the gun illegally.

    1. Re:MOD parent down by loraksus · · Score: 1

      You clearly don't live in the USA...

      --
      1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcfv gbhnjmk,l.;/
    2. Re:MOD parent down by TheSkyIsPurple · · Score: 1

      I dunno about that. I have to get a Basic Firearms Safety Certificate before I could by my first gun, and had to do the whole background check/waiting period.

      Maybe it's not called the same thing AC said... but similar idea. /in California //Arguably in the USA

    3. Re:MOD parent down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live in Illinois.

      So why don't you tell me what was wrong with my statement? I had a FOID card from age 17 until age 27. I did not renew my FOID card as I do not own a gun and no longer go skeet shooting with friends. Instead of making a statement that I am not from the US, why don't you tell me where I am wrong? I know that here in IL in order to purchase ammunition you had to present your FOID card, and when purchasing a gun you had to present your FOID card.

    4. Re:MOD parent down by loraksus · · Score: 1

      My bad.

      In most states you don't need any kind of a permit to buy handguns (and especially nothing to buy ammo)

      I'm not even an American and bought several handguns, rifles and shotguns without a permit of any kind in Oregon and would be able to purchase and own firearms like that in the majority of states. I get delayed 3 hours or whatever it takes the NICS folks to get an all clear but never had a problem otherwise..

      To make it clear, the states that require licenses and registration are a very small minority.

      --
      1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcfv gbhnjmk,l.;/
  55. This is hurting more than it's helping by XStylus · · Score: 1

    Class action lawsuits should be brought up against the RIAA, not Kazaa.

    1. Re:This is hurting more than it's helping by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 1

      Why not both? Everything they say about Kazaa in the Lewan complaint is demonstrably true. And Kazaa made a settlement for itself with the RIAA, leaving its customers hanging.

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
  56. Thank you by don_bear_wilkinson · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I just wanted to say thank you for posting that Heinlein quote. I am unaware of the referenced book and its story, but I may have to find and read it just to see more of what the character puts forth.

    As often, I find much value in what Heinlein (his characters) has/d to say. There's a cutting truth behind the opinions and attitudes he puts forth. And, for whatever truth or selfaggrandizement I find in this; I enjoy the feeling that because I understand what he is saying, there's a fair chance I am worthy of being among the elevated groups he describes and not among the dim-witted masses he lampoons. :)

    Thanks!

    --
    In Nature, stupidity is a capital offense. In human society, too many get off with less than a warning.
  57. Old vs New Copyright by CustomDesigned · · Score: 1

    I support copyright. Copyright protects open source software. Perhaps you mean you don't support the new DMCA style copyright laws that take away fair use (what do you mean I can't watch the movie I just bought?). Even so, publishing copyrighted works that you don't own online is NOT fair use.

  58. LIKE THESE MORONS DIDNT KNOW THEY WERE PIRATING by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this is hilarious and stupid, the fact is that if music were cheaper and the artists got there fair cut the riaa would be able to say and do more in court the fact is, if the margin of profit on a music cd were say applied to a carton of milk, hten id be betting that milk pirating would begin and a lot a cows would go missing.
    And just what do these class actnio idiots thik they will accomplish, other than wasting mroe money.
    I do not know of one individual who has used kazaa ( and that list has shrunk since bittorrent) who doesnt know that the "free stuff" they get is piracy. Laws aside, its just another sad use of a system and country that is run by lawters and a military.....police states usually are. to also add to that look at the article about this so called researcher whom they would chase out of the country. instead a saying, "hey how about we fund your work, privately so we can be all safer" they harrass him and place on no fly list.
    i guess iraqnam isn't going so well.

  59. settlement vs. actual court decision by xantho · · Score: 1

    It seems like anyone who has settled out of court with RIAA doesn't really have much of a leg to stand on in this case. I mean, if a person settles out of court and doesn't get a court's decision, then the person hasn't actually been told that they've done something wrong. So basically, by settling out of court, they just paid some extortion money, which is not Kazaa's fault.

    OK, whatever. The settlement might involve the person admitting or conceding something that would make Kazaa somehow liable, but it seems pretty unreasonable for people who pirate music to sue the avenue through which they got the music. Imagine if murderers successfully sued gun manufacturers for providing them with the means to commit a crime. Well, that's already happened, except it was the victim's families suing, but that case didn't actually go anywhere, did it?

    I mean, at some point there has to be some personal responsibility, doesn't there?

  60. Not my Job by HermMunster · · Score: 1

    Listen, what happens in the world of copyright infringement isn't my concern. If someone copies movies or music from someone else I don't care and I'm not going to contribute to any measure that would stop them. I just don't care. I'm not Microsoft's policeman. I'm not the sheriff for the RI fucking AA.

    Debating the legality of any act is up to the courts when it is discovered. I'm not here to justify either parties position because I just don't care about what these people do. I have my own problems that far exceed whether the RIAA or Microsoft get paid for their content. I just isn't my responsibility to deal with this issue for them. We have mechanisms in the court and elsewhere to deal with it.

    Yes, I want to know when someone is being railroaded. I want to know the tactics being used by both sides. It's news. I want to know who won and who lost and on what grounds.

    I also know people have varying degrees of understanding on most issues. I also know that not everyone understands all the laws or the gray areas and that no one is rich enough to be able to hire a lawyer to get the answers every time these types of issues come up. I also know that some people literally break the law knowingly and that they risk their futures if they get caught and that most of them know this.

    But I am not the police and I don't care about protecting Microsoft or any other agency's who's content is potentially infringed.

    I do want to know when companies such as Microsoft implement technology to keep others from stealing their software and then in turn are sued because they stole the technology that is used to do just that. It is important to me to know when they are fined for attempting to cripple the plaintiff's case and the Court by burying the evidence in a mountain of paperwork. I also like to know when they are fined 10s of millions more for doing just that. This is what Microsoft did. Is the average poor Joe/Jane who struggles year after year to make ends meet really that big of a criminal that I have to worry about if they are guilty or not?

    Sorry, I just don't have the time for that.

    I also know that other companies, other than Microsoft, are often deceptive and that unless you are technologically adept you may never really understand fully the right or wrong of some particular act.

    The music industry has been very crazy for over 20 years. They essentially are set up to steal the profits of the artists all the while complaining about teenagers that chose to tape a song off the radio. 20 years ago they were doing just that. The artists got little of the money from their work while the music company raked in the bucks and complained about every kid taping songs.

    While today the opportunity to violate the copyright of an IP owner is much greater it still isn't my duty to put any effort into protecting these companies. I don't attempt to justify either side of the story.

    What I'm interested in is when the big company attempts to cheat the little guy and then breaks the law and tries to justify it.

    How can anyone feel anything for Microsoft when they stole the technology to keep others from stealing their software? How can I feel anything at all for them when it becomes clear that they used illegal and unethical tactics to keep what they'd done secret from the judge and the plaintiff? When I see the RIAA suing dead people, old grandmothers, young children, the poverty stricken I can't help but feel no compassion for their side of the story. As well, I feel no sympathy or obligation to support any view that a company has when it effectively steals from the artists through contracts designed to place all burden on the artists while they rake in the profits. See, the artists generally pay for everything (salaries of workers, reproduction, marketing, packaging, even down to the pencils and whiteout used by the record company employees). If the record makes no money the artists generally are obligated to pay (sometimes for the rest of th

    --
    You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
  61. Word of the day for most replies. by Lethyos · · Score: 1

    Satire.

    --
    Why bother.
  62. argh are you trying to give me a headache? by nomadic · · Score: 1

    ...I also don't support using the courts to try to decide who is a victim and who isn't.

    THAT'S. THEIR. JOB. Geeze.

    If someone does something that goes against the law, and you're injured by it, you're supposed to go to the freaking courts. It IS their job to determine whether you're a victim or not.

  63. Re: Supporting Slashdot by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

    And here is my variant list.

    1. To support the site with my money, showing that it has money value.
    2. Read articles in The Mysterious Future! ... Because other time machines are centuries away.
    3. To have a nice pleasant page without the disastrous distraction value of animated ads.

    I reduce my subscriber bonus. If I don't deserve a mod point, then that must mean no one likes today's post.

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  64. It's in the EULA. Case Dismissed. by PixieDust · · Score: 1
    Kazaa's EULA had everything pretty well spelled out. It told you it was isntalling certain software items to "keep it's software free" and that it was supported by ads and such. So the spyware thing won't amount to a hill of beans.

    Depending on the judge she gets, she may have luck over the whole thing about them being free downloads. With all the frivilous lawsuits that have gone around in the last few years. As sad as it is, that one may have merit insofar as just the suit goes (absurdity aside).

    As for there being a class action suit against Kazaa, I would like to join a class action suing them for the headaches, expenses in bottles of Excedrin, expenses for Caffeine, and nicotine, as well as pain and suffering for being yelled at by Sally Joe Public and Billy Bob Public because their computers are flax0rd, and they just bought them! That's what I want. Those people had to pay to get their computers fixed, and I had to deal with it. I want MY fair compensation from these companies!

    Who is with me?!

  65. Think again... by jbssm · · Score: 1

    First, don't try to write in French cause you really can't do it properly.

    You pay $2.50 for a gallon of gas, but all is wasted in your bath tub cars, we like the cars we have in here, and we could buy American cars ... but except for Ford we don't since they are all a bloated piece of crap.

    No, we don't wish we had dollars ... Euro is now (and for some time now) stronger than dollar, I don't even get your argument.

    I bet miss America is a good as misssomeeuropeannorthencountries, and what's is that good for? I bet you never went to bed with any miss America. And our women don't have air beneath their arms since the 60's ... but why do you say that, American girls still have it by now? :o

    Finally, we like socialism, we like to have the assurance that when you are too old to work, that the state will take care of you (after all you deserve it, cause you worked for him before)
    We like to know that if we get unemployed and it's not our fault, that the sate will support us for time enough to get a new job.
    We like to know that if our children get seriously ill, we can take him to the hospital and he will get proper medical treatment no mater how expensive it is even if we don't have a medical insurance. ... and we like to know that we are the major force behind the Kioto protocol and that we don't drive bath tub like cars on the streets that only harm the environment ...

    1. Re:Think again... by ekimminau · · Score: 1

      I see. You are a tree hugging socialist liberal who obviously believes each individual European country should cease to exist and become a single homogonous nation, eliminating the unique, disparate legacy of each before joining the single, one world government which will take care of your every want and need. Right comrade? You also believe that the world should be able to tell you, regardless of where you live, how your country should be run and whether or not you can own something you may desire. The Kyoto (not Kioto) protocol (it was proposed in Kyoto, JP but you probably don't know anything about Japan, either.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol attempts to do exactly this.

      You are also apprently blessed with the misconception that the CO2 and other gases generated by the American population of automobiles in any way exceeds those the gases expelled by the worlds volcanoes in a single day. I think you might want to explore a significantly higher probability that we are exiting the last "Little Ice Age" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age rather than experiencing global warming.

      As for Socialism "taking care of you when" at the expense of all those remaining behind in the work force, those with a clue, a healthy income as a result of their decision to expend some hard work and getting an education and bank account choose to take care of themselves rather than expecting the government to do it for them. We also don't believe you have a right to a job just because an employer made the mistake of hiring you in the first place. In America, you actually have to EARN the OPPORTUNITY to have a job. Would I like to see some protection for those folks who have worked somewhere for 25 years from being laid off a month before their retirement? Sure. But I don't want to pay for welfare scumbags who worked as a bus boy for 20 years expecting handouts and helth care because they were too stupid to make a life for themselves. Personally, I would prefer to see their end of the gene pool, like yours, to get a bit shallower.

      I will also put the healthcare available in the US ahead of anything you might have in Europe, Asia, Middle East, etc. (with a very few exceptions). And anyone without helthcare in the US can still walk into any emergency room in the US and will be treated, again, with significantly higher quality healthcare than what you are probably getting. I would have to examine a direct comparison of the quality of care where you are to what I know we are getting here http://www.qualitymeasures.ahrq.gov/.

      Before you go google some report saying how crappy US healthcare is, I can tell you it will only apply to someone who can't afford it, which really doesn't bother me. I went to school, got a good job, and I pay for healthcare for my family. I have the right to do that in the US. I didn't come from a wealthy, white collar family. My divorced mother raised 3 kids with elective welfare to help support her raising 3 kids on her own. All 3 of us worked hard and supported our own way through college and we all have successful careers. I worked for everything I have today and I wouldn't trade the quality of life I have in the USA for whatever slime hole existence you choose to suffer through.

      If you think you have any hope of convincing me, or the majority here of anything to the contrary, you are sadly mistaken. And anyone who truly believes their life would be better outside the US than is here today, I would personally support paying for a one way plane ticket and a taxi to the airport. Hasta la vista, baby. We don't want or need you here any way.

      --
      Armaments, 2-9-21 And Saint Attila raised the hand grenade up on high, saying, 'O Lord, bless this Thy hand grenade' N
  66. super node by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    had a friend who used it to download anime. I looked at her share folder and found tons of porn. I warned her and she uninstalled it and I got her a copy of Kazaa Lite which would allow her to get anime and share anime, but nothing else.

    I also work at the library and a man asked me if the library counted as a "friend" and if that fell under fair use for burning copies of cds. I told him to consult a lawyer and that I could not give legal advice on that matter.

    people are completely ignorant including myself about the exact nature of copyright laws. it's best to be safe than sorry. which these people suing Kazaa did not bother reading the EULA during installation (who does? :)

    people..if someone says something is for free and it costs you nothing, and you fall for it? Please buy this guaranteed B.S. detector for only $20 which can be made in 4 easy payments of $10 dollars. (har har har)

  67. Let's do the same with firearms! by Zaatxe · · Score: 1

    1. you buy a firearm
    2. you shoot and kill somebody
    3. you get arrested by the shooting
    4. you sue the firearm manufacturer
    5. PROFIT!

    --
    So say we all
  68. Humm, are a direct descendant from Adolf? by jbssm · · Score: 1

    Ahh ... so you are the guy that is behind the Nazi party of America?

    Well, I wish you good luck ... cause in there it will be difficult to blame the Jews like your friend Adolf did it in old Germany ... try someone else ... the Democrats or something like that.

  69. re: liberal socialist resorts to name calling. by ekimminau · · Score: 1

    I see. I give you facts and specifics. You start calling me hitler. You have no honor. You have no intelligence. You have no knowledge. You have nothing but rage, jealousy and fear. Again, I call flame bait. Go away little man.

    --
    Armaments, 2-9-21 And Saint Attila raised the hand grenade up on high, saying, 'O Lord, bless this Thy hand grenade' N
  70. Facts? What facts? by jbssm · · Score: 1

    That's the problem you didn't gave me any facts, you just bragged about your stupid system because you happen to have born rich and think that the good system is one in which the rich get their wealth from the poor.

    Think again pal, for you to have all those nice possibilities, someone is got to be poor there, someone is got to drive your bus ... oh sorry I forget, you are rich, you only go by car and kill the environment, and someone is got to clean your filth.

    That is what distinguishes the developed countries from yours, in northern Europe, a doctor and a street cleaner earn similar wages because someone that is intelligent enough (more than you at least) already figured out that everyone is needed to make the system work, and so everyone should be entitled to similar treatment and wealth.

    And what you said about Kyoto is a big crap. It's the same as saying, oh, it doesn't matter we are killing all those people in Iraq ... after all everybody dies someday. You are polluting the air we breath as well ... and we are getting tired of it. Volcanoes are a natural producer of CO2 since 4000 million years ago ... and if you look at the data, the CO2 levels were never this (extremely) high since we have data about it, so don't blame the volcanoes, blame yourself.

    I'm starting to think that G. Bush finally learned to write and is posting on Slashdot.