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)."

18 of 288 comments (clear)

  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 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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
    4. 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.

    5. 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?

    6. 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.

    7. 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.

    8. 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
    9. 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?

    10. 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.
       

  2. 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...
  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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'
  6. 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).

  7. 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.