Kazaa to Sue Movie, Record Companies 269
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.'"
They'll never win... (Score:4, Interesting)
Other suit (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I dont get why it's "copyright infringement". (Score:5, Interesting)
I wish them the best of luck.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
This will last HOW long? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I dont get why it's "copyright infringement". (Score:5, Interesting)
*If* the Kazaa licence explicitly forbids using it for such purposes, then the RIAA's agents are in violation of the licence agreement. That means that, as I understand copyright law, they have no right to have even installed the software, and so are infringing on Sharman Network's copyright.
to that man.... (Score:4, Interesting)
I wish kazaa the best of luck. I hope it gives the studios a wake up call to the real world.
They use p2p just as much as any of us.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Who cares, right? Well, the music companies are paying these guys for the statistics. The very people that are suing kazaa and their ilk for a piece of software that supposedly only has the major function of piracy are using the same software for a very legitimate and profitable purpose. They love to know that some new song that is the number one download in Omaha isn't even being touched by the radio stations and should thus be put into heavy rotation. When asked about using such data, the radio stations and record companies of course vehemently deny any such affiliation.
I'm really curious as to whether or not kazaa's suit includes any information on this usage to help them along...
Re:They'll never win... (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:This will last HOW long? (Score:1, Interesting)
This is when we find out if EULAs mean anything.
This case's outcome can only be bad, but it is a necessity. If EULAs are enforceable versus RIAA comes out stronger.
Re:They'll never win... (Score:5, Interesting)
The defendants merely asked the judge to throw the case out on the basis of the allegations set forth in the counterclaim being "too vague".
Think of it of a text book pre-trail motion; it doesn't really have anything to do with the material case at hand. Plus, the lawsuit is going to get (at least partly) suspended until all the appeals of the Grokster case [com.com] are sorted out. At least, Judge Wilson doesn't seem to a man who bows down to pressure.
It's a EULA case... (Score:5, Interesting)
Custom Versions of Kazaa designed by Bay TSP (Score:5, Interesting)
The RIAA and MPAA have employed very secretive companies like Bay TSP to develop systems designed to disrupt the P2P networks. Bay TSP has apparently authored specialized version of the Kazaa client to do just this. Which of course, because of the DMCA, is an act of illegal reverse engineering. In addition, this work had the clear intention of disrupting a network, a probable criminal violation.
There are probably a number of cyber crime laws that Bay TSP regularly violates as well. Because what Bay TSP is doing for the RIAA and MPAA is nothing more than serving as a paid vigilante.
While it is the duty of the RIAA and MPAA to report instances of copyright violation to law enforcement, they have gone far beyond that. They're now actively subverting the computer systems of those they assume to be guilty. There is no trial, there isn't even any official accusation. They are their own judge, jury and executioner. This is why vigilantism is illegal in most forms, just as it is in this one.
And if this means Bay TSP and their ilk are knocked down a notch and forced to act within the law, I applaud Kazaa for this action.
Re:What is infringing? (Score:2, Interesting)
On the other hand, sueing the sh*theads who are scaring their users with lawsuits is good for the network. Less scared users=>More users=>More money
Re:I dont get why it's "copyright infringement". (Score:4, Interesting)
You know, I was wondering about this... (Score:5, Interesting)
This was, in fact, going to a question to Slashdot. But here goes anyway:
The FastTrack network (KaZaa), supports multisourced downloading. This cannot be changed in the settings. So, here's the problem: When the RIAA goes to court, how are they proving that the downloads haven't been multisourced from different people? Because if they are, at worst they're only proving that the client had SOME of A FILE which happened to come together into the song in the end. For instance, let's say I had a song that began as a sample from an RIAA-copyrighted song but then broke into a song that I created. If they're using multiple sources, how can they prove that the song they have isn't the beginning of their song with a middle and end that belong to me?
But what if, to avoid the above legal problem, the RIAA made their own client that did not support multisourced downloads, which is what I believe they have done. Wouldn't this require them to reverse-engineer the KaZaa client, and wouldn't THAT put them in violation of the DMCA AND general software copyright law since they are using it to make a profit [thestreet.com]?
What's more, I'm interested in how they are proving how many songs somebody is hosting. Are they, for instance, downloading one MD5-hashed song and then using the shared list to infer that the rest are legitimate RIAA-copyrighted songs? Or are they downloading every song and then comparing the MD5-hashes? And if the latter is the case, can it be implemented in the peer-to-peer protocols to keep individual users from uploading to the same people? That way, any lawsuit could be limited to say 5 songs or so?
What do you guys think?-Grym
Illegal activities still have certain protections (Score:5, Interesting)
M
Is this really want we want? (Score:3, Interesting)
Seemingly, this would seem to go along great with what most on Slashdot want. (Well, besides the ones that wish to see the RIAA HQ violently explode on national TV.
If Sherman Networks wins, what exactly will be so great? We get a better S/N ratio on Kazaa? We get to stick it to the industries with a taste of their own medicine and say "neener neener neeeener!"? OK, I suppose that sounds good, at least to some. But, doesn't this also just strengthen the EULA and other such frivolous legal mumbo-jumbo? Wouldn't that just prove that the EULA is a real and binding contract?
Assuming I've understood the suit (which as I pointed out up top, I'm not sure I have), it seems many people are being hasty and blinded by their wish to see the entertainment industry falter. I mean this would amount to nothing more than thinking that it's OK to use Gestapo tactics, but only if they're used on criminals. Slashdot is quick to fall in love with this battle only to lose the war.
Of course, I could be wrong.
TSage
Re:Grandstanding... (Score:3, Interesting)
Get the facts first... but then, this is Slashdot.
NOTE: IANAL but IAAP2pD(eveloper). Our EULA specifically forbids using our software for the purposes of identifying users for legal action. Also, specific companies and known agents of RIAA/MPAA are explicitly barred from usage of our software. Violating this clause of the terms results in revoced license, and any continued useage (perhaps even continued possession) may be in violation of civil law.
Apparently, they have no legal right to use the copyrighted material, according to the copyright-law view presented in lawsuits that they themselves file.
Personally, I think this is peotic justice, and (if EULAs can be upheld) they should probably win.
Of course, EULAs and the like shouldn't really be enforceable IMHO, and this will just further illustrate and compound the problems in "patchwork" laws created by the introduction of the Internet.
-dave-
(Shameless Plug) Use BearShare [bearshare.com] for all your p2p needs.
Re:I dont get why it's "copyright infringement". (Score:5, Interesting)
Think about it. My company buys a hacked copy of MS Office 2003 from a company called MyCrowsOffed for 5 bucks, and we install it on 200 computers. Meanwhile MyCrowsOffed goes out of business.
Microsoft finds out and wants to sue us. Under what grounds? Can't be license violation, because we didn't agree to any license, we bought de-licensed hackware from a defunct company.
So does that mean I get to install and use illegal software without penalties? I didn't write it, so I can't be blamed? Cool.
Well, no. So obviously the quoted article is wrong.
Just what I thought: Future DMCA fun to come... (Score:4, Interesting)
Basically you can sue everybody and everything for using anything that you're involved in. Think of the copyrighted Haiku for spam filtering or now this. Which, mind you, actually by law IS a case, imho.
Build a network for OSS projects, with a own protocol, copyright the stuff and add a modified GPL that forbids anyone who ever even thought of issueing a software patent to come nearer to it's code than 500 yards. As soon as Mickeysoft / RIAA or the likewise even twitches, sue them to chunky kibbles.
Really, if you think about it, this DMCA bullshit - which as I understand, even has gotten US Judges and law experts thinking if that was such a good idea - it's a wonderfull hinge & crowbar for seriously harrasing any organisation (RIAA, etc.) that is a major pain in the butt for any honorable US citizen.
I'd say it's time for you folks across the pond to use it to fight back. Maybe we europeans then won't have to go through the same hassle wilst our politicians are trying to pull the same braindead stunt. Mindlessly copying all US bullshit without even thinking twice. Instead of copying, for instance, US speedlimits or something else that would actually make sense.