Kazaa to Sue Movie, Record Companies

darwin writes "According to a (brief) story at yahoo, Sherman Networks (A.K.A Kazaa) just got the go ahead to sue the studios and record companies for copyright infringement. 'Studios and record companies had asked the court to throw out Sharman's countersuit, but U.S. District Judge Stephen Wilson in Los Angeles declined to do so.'"

Re:What is infringing?

[Smitedogg]

The RIAA used an altered version of their Kazaa client to find all those people that they then subpeonaed, which Sherman Networks feels violates their rights.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Grandstanding...

[JayBlalock]

It's certainly amusing, but they have no serious legal leg to stand on which I can see. And why sue for copyright infringement of all things, besides the irony factor? You might be able to get something on them for breaking the TOS, or by claiming the harassment of their users is an intentional ploy to try to destroy their business. (which would be a nice argument, since that's exactly what the RIAA is doing - isn't there something in RICO which covers that?)

On the whole, though, I'm not sure this is a good idea. If the courts find that Kazaa can assume legal responsibility in matters done TO their users, that puts them a step closer to being responsible for things done BY their users.

OH I get it!

[sirReal.83.]

Sharman, targeted by studios and record companies because its software is used to trade music and video files, has sought to turn the tables on the industry, accusing it of misusing Kazaa software to invade users' privacy and send corrupt files and threatening messages.

stop me if i'm wrong, but isn't "invading users' privacy" half the reason (the profitable half) that Sharman made Kazaa? Oh wait, now i see where the "infringement" lies...

Re:I dont get why it's "copyright infringement".

[Ieshan]

Kazaa's network may be proprietary, and the connection algorithms and things may be owned by Kazaa. Distributing a client to record companies (or even making one) for the purpose of uploading files to the network that aren't legit is violation of their EULA.

Also:

2.11 Monitor traffic or make search requests in order to accumulate information about individual users;

2.1 Transmit or communicate any data that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable;

2.13 Modify, delete or damage any information contained on the personal computer of any Kazaa Media Desktop user; or

2.14 Collect or store personal data about other users.

3.2 Except as expressly permitted in this Licence, you agree not to reverse engineer, de-compile, disassemble, alter, duplicate, modify, rent, lease, loan, sublicense, make copies, create derivative works from, distribute or provide others with the Software in whole or part, transmit or communicate the application over a network.

3.3 You may not sell, transfer or communicate the Software to any third party without our prior express written consent.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:I dont get why it's "copyright infringement".

[stubear]

From another article on this topic:

"Sharman said the companies used Kazaa Lite, an ad-less replica of its software, to get onto the network, and that they violated its own software's license agreement by sending warning messages to people on its network."

The only copyright violation would be by the developers of KazaaLite, not the RIAA and at best there is only a license violation here. Interestingly enough, if the RIAA loses this would strengthen the use of EULAs to protect software. But no, license violations are not necessarily copyright violations and in this case specifically.

Re:Grandstanding...

[the_duke_of_hazzard]

Actually, I disagree. Reading the posts elsewhere, it seems like as though the Kazaa folks do indeed have a case for infringement of the terms of the license.

I haven't read the terms of the license (who does?) but doesn't it also prevent users from using the software illegally. In that case, can anyone *force* them to sue home users who use the software illegally?

I'm not a fervent supporter of either party in this but if Sharman Networks win this case, my sympathy for the entertainment corporations would increase dramatically...

The law would be a [sic] ass, and not a particularly great one at that.

The "right" to sue?

[dada21]

I still don't understand anyone needing court approval to sue someone. If I believe you've wronged me, I should be able to sue you. If I lose, I should have to pay for your defense costs as well as court costs. Enough said there.

We're in a crises in this country. Laws are so convoluted, so full of holes and stops, that no one can understand them. Tort law has been thrown out and instead has been replaced with protections for those well connected. In the past, if you wronged someone, you had to pay for the consequences. Today, private property is all but gone, and the person or group with the most money controls what used to be your property, through the courts.

Sherman Networks should be able to sue a user for abusing its license. When you use software, you agree to the license of the owner of that software. Why is it that slashdotters gripe about Microsoft's crazy license (and yet go on and use the software), but its now fine for SN to use the same protection? Kazaa is their software. You use it under a license, and they can revoke it if you break their rules. It is their property.

This country needs to get out of its American System of Mercantilism as invented by Henry Clay and move towards a system of capitalism where private property protects you from the greed and wealth of others.

I hope the RIAA wins. No Troll

[Anonymous Coward]

This is actually good news, because If the RIAA wins, it effectively destroys the credibility of click through or shrinkwrapped contracts. That means that suddenly everything you've ever clicked yes too becomes null and void.

I actually hope the RIAA wins this one, it'll mean the end of all the stupid crap that I have to deal with when i have to reinstall a friends windows box.

Re:Grandstanding...

[JayBlalock]

Well, it's AN argument, but not the best argument. They seem to have chosen this case based on ironic value rather than legal value. ie, "Oh look! Kazaa is suing the RIAA for the exact same thing the RIAA sued them for! That's t3h funny!"

One problem I see is that they're attempting to sue them for using KazaaLite, in violation of Kazaa's license agreement. Which means they are attempting to enforce an agreement that the RIAA may have never signed. And it would be a whole lot easier to hit KazaaLite with an IP infringement case than users thereof. The argument CAN be made, but it's not a very strong one. (it would be, as I see it, basically equivilent to suing a kid for wearing an unlicensed Simpsons T-shirt - in strict legal terms it might be illegal, but it's very problematic to argue. To begin with, you'd have to establish malicious intent and some sort of knowledge that the product in question was illegitimate)

Also, TOS\EULA violation cases don't have too much legal precedent behind them, and certainly aren't upheld universally. What might be grounds to terminate a user for TOS violations aren't necessarily grounds to sue. Again, it's another hurdle that could be overcome, but not assured. Now, if Kazaa had sent the RIAA a C&D citing TOS violations ordering them to stop using the service, which the RIAA then ignored - then there would be a case. But I don't think this happened.

In the meantime, there are any number of anti-trust \ RICO-style laws under which a far stronger argument could be made. It is almost inarguable that the RIAA is throwing huge amounts of money and resources trying to litigate Kazaa to death. If Kazaa presented itself as legitimate competition, which the RIAA is illegally attempting to destroy rather than facing them on the open market, they'd have a pretty good case. It would come down to a pure verdict on whether the RIAA's actions were anti-competitive.

Why copyright infringement

[ShieldW0lf]

And why sue for copyright infringement of all things, besides the irony factor?

Perhaps they want to give these organisations reason to limit the powers of these laws that they have bought?

Re:What is infringing?

[Tokerat]

Then it's a violation of Serman Networks TOS, not copyright infringement, unless they copied source straight from Kazaas codebase.

Re:They'll never win...

[Mod Me God Too]

Sharman Network are no P2P heros. They took over the disbanded Kazaa (after the Dutch court case), implanted huge amounts of Spyware^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Adware and have ruthlessly ruled over the Fasttrack network, shutting down Kazaa Lite, barring other P2P clients etc. They are in this to keep their quick buck rolling, not for the good of P2P (bittorent, WinMX etc), not to tackle the establishment's copyright encorcement, but purely to extract a few more dollars from Kazaa users.

You do have a right to sue

[Sycraft-fu]

However, once you file a suit, it can be thrown out if it is frivilous. Like, say I sue for something really stupid, like I think you are ugly so you owe me money for that. SHould you be required to spend the money to defend yourself form that? No, it should be thrown out because the lawsuit has no merit. Well what happened here is that the judge said that Kaazaa's case DID have merit, and it will therefore proceed.

We actually need to strengthen this, as there are way too many frivilous suits these days.

No winners here.

[s20451]

The RIAA used an altered version of their Kazaa client to find all those people that they then subpeonaed, which Sherman Networks feels violates their rights.

So wait just a minute. On the one hand, we have the record companies trying to shut down P2P. On the other hand, we have Kazaa trying to enforce an EULA. Which do you want to win?

Somewhere in an underground lair deep beneath the Hollywood hills, a deranged genius is stroking a cat and laughing maniacally.

Seriously now. This sounds like a lose-lose scenario.

Re:hehe

[socialpariah]

I appreciate the humorous take on the article, but, seriously, consider the situation.

RIAA: Searches inside people's computers, against their will, for sole purposes of litigation. Sues KaZaA (and consumers, ISPs, ...)

KaZaA: Provides medium for exchange of computer files. Consumers use this to exchange illegal files. Sues RIAA for using illegal, modified copies of their software for purposes against their EULA.

My only point is that I don't consider KaZaA's suit any less legitimate than the RIAA's suits.

Does not sound right

[spitzak]

If their client was GPL, the RIAA could modify the source code all they want to make whatever evil program they wanted, and they would not be violating the GPL or copyright. It has been shown many times that the GPL allows you to modify code for your own use. This is because the GPL only grants some additional rights that copyright does not allow, and copyright already allows you to do this. Thus the GPL cannot stop it.

Only if they "distributed" the resulting program would they be violating the GPL. And certainly they would not be distributing it, since that would allow the enemies of the RIAA to get it and try to figure out how to outwit it's purpose.

So IMHO this is in no way a copyright violation, and KAZAA is completely wrong to even attempt this.

Re:Does not sound right

[ingenuus]

If their client was GPL,... So IMHO this is in no way a copyright violation, and KAZAA is completely wrong to even attempt this.

If your assumption were correct, your argument would make sense, but who said Kazaa was GPL'd? ... I don't think it is even open-source. A quick google for 'kazaa license' turned up this [kazaa.com] which might be the license.

Re:Thought I'd never say this.. hope the RIAA wins

[Newtlink]

wrong..

whether Kazaa is illegal, or not, does not give the RIAA the right, or entitlement, to HACK Kazaa's network..

there are standing laws against what the RIAA did..

refer to...

http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/cclaws. ht ml

AND..

http://www.rent-a-hacker.com/hacklaw.htm

specifically look at 2(c) on this page..

there is enough precedence to warrant a lawsuit..

the RIAA got caught with their hands in the cookiejar.. plain and simple..

what i am talking about has NOTHING to do with the morals/legalities of downloading music..

it has *everything* to do with _illegally hacking_ a network..

the ends DO NOT JUSTIFY the means..

the RIAA was wrong.. it's vigilantism, and even if what they did was to "protect" what is "theirs", they cannot conduct themselves in this manner without legal reprocussions..

the hacking laws are very defined, in this case..

Re:KaZaA Suit != RIAA Suit

[LnxAddct]

FastTrack, the protocol Kazaa uses, is copywritten/patented and can only be used for the purposes set forth by Kazaa. Purposefully loading bad content on its networks to degrade quality is against the EULA. Also tracking down, watching, or poking at other peoples connectiones using the FastTrack protocol is illegal. Then finally, using a modified client is illegal and thats why KazaaLite was shutdown.What the users are doing isn't necessarily right, but the RIAA enforcing their copyrights by breaking someone elses isn't right either.
Regards,
Steve