I don't like the RIAA very much myself. Please don't take my comments as supportive of their idiotic business model...just that they unfortunately have the law on their side.
I haven't read the judge's findings on what constituted the necessary minimum contacts...but I suspect that the downloads of their software (and hence access to their network), combined with ad revenue and US products being uploaded to their network would be sufficient. I seriously doubt if they have registered agents or anything in the US...plus that Vanatu thing is so clearly a dodge of international law, it won't take too much pressure on the former New Hebrides (sp?) to straighten this all out.
Are you really about to be an attorney? Because I doubt seriously any P2P network will ever win in a courtroom since what they're doing is facially copyright infringement.
If you weren't sure of that before, following the Napster litigation, I'd think it would be clear.
RIAA can enforce a verdict in an Australian court. This is stuff out of International Shoe...you ought to know that.
Actually, what will probably happen is that the RIAA will win and then have to go to Kazaa's home country and try to get their win enforced. Then it will depend if US laws are in conflict with Australian laws...and since both probably have similar copyright laws (Berne convention) I suspect that they will be able to be awarded their win even in a foreign court.
The 9th circuit court of appeals is famous for bad decisions...but I doubt they'll rule the way you suggest.
The ruling in the court was (from the summary above) that the company "did business in California" due to the downloads of their software. If you do business in any country, you are subject to the laws of that country...(see the Yahoo France case). Kazaa could prohibit downloads in California or the US and then they would probably not be reachable by a US court.
This is NOT new law. It's very long-standing and settled law.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't like the RIAA very much myself. Please don't take my comments as supportive of their idiotic business model...just that they unfortunately have the law on their side.
I haven't read the judge's findings on what constituted the necessary minimum contacts...but I suspect that the downloads of their software (and hence access to their network), combined with ad revenue and US products being uploaded to their network would be sufficient. I seriously doubt if they have registered agents or anything in the US...plus that Vanatu thing is so clearly a dodge of international law, it won't take too much pressure on the former New Hebrides (sp?) to straighten this all out.
p3
and of course the idea of shutting down a company that's clearly in violation of even the most basic concept of copyright never enters into it...
Are you really about to be an attorney? Because I doubt seriously any P2P network will ever win in a courtroom since what they're doing is facially copyright infringement.
If you weren't sure of that before, following the Napster litigation, I'd think it would be clear.
RIAA can enforce a verdict in an Australian court. This is stuff out of International Shoe...you ought to know that.
p3
Actually, what will probably happen is that the RIAA will win and then have to go to Kazaa's home country and try to get their win enforced. Then it will depend if US laws are in conflict with Australian laws...and since both probably have similar copyright laws (Berne convention) I suspect that they will be able to be awarded their win even in a foreign court.
The 9th circuit court of appeals is famous for bad decisions...but I doubt they'll rule the way you suggest.
The ruling in the court was (from the summary above) that the company "did business in California" due to the downloads of their software. If you do business in any country, you are subject to the laws of that country...(see the Yahoo France case). Kazaa could prohibit downloads in California or the US and then they would probably not be reachable by a US court.
This is NOT new law. It's very long-standing and settled law.
p3