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)."

55 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 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.

    3. 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
    4. 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
    5. 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.
    6. 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
    7. 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.

    8. 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.
    9. 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?

    10. 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.

    11. 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?
    12. 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.

    13. 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

    14. 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
    15. 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?

    16. 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
    17. 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.

    18. 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?

    19. 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
    20. 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.
       

    21. 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.'"
    22. 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.

    23. 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?

    24. 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.

    25. 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...


    26. 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.

  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.

  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.
  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...
  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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 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
  8. 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.
  9. 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.

  10. 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.
  11. 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'
  12. 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.
  13. 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 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.
  14. Re:So much for personal responsibility by Andrewkov · · Score: 2, Funny

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

  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. 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!
  18. 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.

  19. 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
  20. Oh yeah by LifeWithJustin · · Score: 2, Funny

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

  21. 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.
  22. 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.

  23. 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

  24. 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.
  25. 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?