Evidently the courts didn't think so. They ruled in KaZaA's favor. Napster was in control and since they had control and knew who was doing what and when, they were held accountable. KaZaA on the other hand makes sure it doesn't know this information and that is what protected them. My point is that there is no financial gain between one user sharing with another. So, this "could" fall under the fair use act that lets us make copies for non-commercial use.
I am no lawyer and I don't pretend to be one. We will just have to wait and see what the courts decide when the RIAA starts to haul people into court.
But, Napster was a business and Napster themselves connected the users based on information maintained at the server. There is NO commercial business involved in the distribution of these songs. This is a whole different ballgame.
Slashdot Mirror
I am no lawyer and I don't pretend to be one. We will just have to wait and see what the courts decide when the RIAA starts to haul people into court.
But, Napster was a business and Napster themselves connected the users based on information maintained at the server. There is NO commercial business involved in the distribution of these songs. This is a whole different ballgame.