Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Music Media Government The Courts Your Rights Online News

Kazaa Trial In Australia Underway 177

Posted by Hemos from the attacking-on-all-fronts dept.
wadiwood writes "Five record companies are suing the makers of Kazaa. Sharman (moved to vanuatu in Feb 2004) say they are not responsible for what their users do with the software. Personally I don't get what Sony is doing selling MP3 players for all your "favourite tunes" and then selling music which they say you are not allowed to copy to their MP3 players, but that's another story."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Kazaa Trial In Australia Underway More

Kazaa Trial In Australia Underway

Comments Filter:

  • I tried Kazaa, too (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    A while back. Seemed kinda buggy, so I deleted it. I'm sure Australia will do the same.

  • First Post (Score:1, Insightful)

    by tarunthegreat2 ( 761545 )
    Yea, Sony is a little mysterious that way! One would think it could recoup some music losses thru its hardware sales. W00T!

    • Re:First Post (Score:5, Interesting)

      by tambo ( 310170 ) on Monday November 29, 2004 @11:23AM (#10943196)
      Sony is a little mysterious that way! One would think it could recoup some music losses thru its hardware sales.

      In fact, they're trying the opposite tactic. They have essentially missed the whole MP3 player market - entering the field late, and with a product that was both indistinguishable from a dozen also-rans and rendered lame by copyright restrictions. So they are endeavoring to propagate the "repeat media sale" model to these new devices. They sell you one copy of the CD for your home computer, another copy for your car, a third for your MP3 player...

      This is perhaps the greatest threat of the P2P/open-media frontier: the big media gravy train is coming to an end, as the public realizes it should only have to buy content once.

      - David Stein

  • More info here .. (Score:5, Informative)

    by macaulay805 ( 823467 ) on Monday November 29, 2004 @10:31AM (#10942885) Homepage Journal
    There is more info here: Afterdawn.com [afterdawn.com]

    • Why not from the source? (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      The Register [theregister.co.uk]

    • Re:More info here .. (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Will be an attempt to determine whether Sharman can be held liable for Kazaa user's activity or not.

      Hopefully, the defendant will raise the issue of trivial and vexacious litigation, as well as forum shopping. Given the US has already decided this one , it is plainly another speculative bid, with the tantrum thrower trying another parent after being told no the first time.

      There is ample precedent in Australia, that Beer company's are not liable if the user/driver has an accident - the guilt - association

  • "I don't get what Sony is doing..." (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anita Coney ( 648748 ) on Monday November 29, 2004 @10:32AM (#10942890) Homepage
    In the US it is perfectly legal to rip purchased CDs into MP3 format for non-commerical use.

    • In the US it is perfectly legal to rip purchased CDs into MP3 format for non-commerical use.

      Even if it circumvents a copyprotection system?

    • Re:"I don't get what Sony is doing..." (Score:5, Insightful)

      by theparanoidcynic ( 705438 ) on Monday November 29, 2004 @10:41AM (#10942965)
      Yes, but it's not legal to circumvent the DRM on the discs to rip them . . . . .

      • Re:"I don't get what Sony is doing..." (Score:5, Funny)

        by Anita Coney ( 648748 ) on Monday November 29, 2004 @11:04AM (#10943079) Homepage
        Yeah, only in America is it legal to copy music but illegal to hold down the shift key!

      • Only if you know its there (Score:2, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward
        If I use a piece of software and it rips it into an MP3, I haven't circumvented any DRM. Maybe the software did, but I don't know anything about DRM, circumvention or any of that fancy tecnical junk. I just want to use my iPod, your honor.

        Case dismissed.

      • Re:"I don't get what Sony is doing..." (Score:5, Informative)

        by mark-t ( 151149 ) <marktNO@SPAMnerdflat.com> on Monday November 29, 2004 @11:54AM (#10943376) Journal
        Actually it is still perfectly legal, regardless of what manufacturers and publishers might think or even want.

        Read the text of the DMCA carefully. Pay particularly attention to section 1201, subsection c (Sorry, I don't have a link handy). There is a specific exemption in it that says that it shall not infringe on fair use.

        So really, the only time the DMCA can be applied to someone is when they were breaking the law already anyways (even if the DMCA weren't law), which makes the DMCA redundant at best, and a waste of everyone's time at worst.

        • Re:"I don't get what Sony is doing..." (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Yartrebo ( 690383 ) on Monday November 29, 2004 @12:26PM (#10943781)
          That exception doesn't extend to the provisions against distributing software to get around said copy restriction software. It might be legal to use DeCSS for fair use, but it's illegal to give it to others or receive if from others.

          This kind of makes the fair use exception of the DMCA useless.

        • Re:"I don't get what Sony is doing..." (Score:5, Insightful)

          by tambo ( 310170 ) on Monday November 29, 2004 @12:36PM (#10943887)
          So really, the only time the DMCA can be applied to someone is when they were breaking the law already anyways (even if the DMCA weren't law), which makes the DMCA redundant at best, and a waste of everyone's time at worst.

          The DMCA is contradictory on this point. It does state that it won't be construed to change fair use concepts. But it also states, quite clearly, that copyright measures cannot be circumvented. It's not clear which section controls. One would hope the rules of statutory construction (particularly, a bias toward non-contradictory interpretation) would favor the former - i.e., implicitly, one may break copyright enforcement measures in furtherance of fair use - but this is not at all clear.

          Also: The DMCA criminalizes some activity that isn't fair use, but that must fairly be permitted. For instance, reverse-engineering for commercial purposes is not typically regarded as fair use, but has been tolerated in the interest of market competition. Lexmark comes to mind here, in its attempt to assert the DMCA against a company that reverse-engineered its printer hardware in order to produce non-Lexmark-branded (and infinitely cheaper) toner cartridges. Of course, Lexmark lost that suit, but the ruling was quite limited to the field of access/lockout codes.

          - David Stein

        • Re:"I don't get what Sony is doing..." (Score:5, Informative)

          by debest ( 471937 ) on Monday November 29, 2004 @12:42PM (#10943959)
          Actually it is still perfectly legal, regardless of what manufacturers and publishers might think or even want.

          Read the text of the DMCA carefully. Pay particularly attention to section 1201, subsection c (Sorry, I don't have a link handy). There is a specific exemption in it that says that it shall not infringe on fair use.

          This is essentially correct.

          So really, the only time the DMCA can be applied to someone is when they were breaking the law already anyways (even if the DMCA weren't law), which makes the DMCA redundant at best, and a waste of everyone's time at worst.

          Incorrect.

          The DMCA does not restrict fair use of any copyrighted materials: you may legally bypass any DRM in your way and make non-commercial copies to your heart's content. BUT, the DMCA also makes it (civilly and criminally) illegal to distribute "circumvention devices", free software or otherwise.

          Essentially, you can break the DRM, but you can't ever tell anyone how you did it. You can legally reclaim fair use only if you are technically saavy enough. This is why the EFF wants to mount a challenge to this act: it is a restriction on free speech.

          • Yeah... "technically savvy enough". That's such a hugely grey area that it's not even funny. Indeed, the DMCA is basically trying to prohibit anyone from sharing any information or technology which could make anyone else "technically savvy enough" to do so, which basically means that they better start outlawing computer science classes in University.
          • Grandparent post: the only time the DMCA can be applied to someone is when they were breaking the law already anyways

            INCORRECT!

            Parent post: The DMCA does not restrict fair use of any copyrighted materials: you may legally bypass any DRM in your way and make non-commercial copies to your heart's content.

            INCORRECT!

            That clause of the DMCA [cornell.edu] actually says:

            (c) Other Rights, Etc., Not Affected.--(1) Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, in
            • That's an interesting interpretation, but I'm not sure that it is accurate.

              You're right in that the clause you quoted seems to essentially useless. However, the part that is made illegal in the DMCA is the "manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof" of any "technological measures" to defeat copy protection schemes. Translation: You may not distribute anything that will allow others to bypass the DRM. T
              • Yes, the DMCA *also* makes distrubuting "circumvention tools" illegal. They do that in 1201(a)(2) and 1201(b)(1). But how can you possibly miss the FIRST paragraph of the DMCA? 1201(a)(1)(A)? The very FIRST thing they criminalized?

                1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems [cornell.edu]
                (a) Violations Regarding Circumvention of Technological Measures.--
                (1)(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.

                So first of all the act of c
                • Okay... you admit that fair use is criminal, but the act of decrypting is criminal, YET the only thing that makes it criminal is the DMCA in the first place, and according to 1201(c), no portions of it are to affect fair use rights.

                  So... follow the chain here, If the DMCA is the only thing making decrypting criminal, and the DMCA says that it shall not affect fair use rights, then if a person decrypts a work within the limits of what would have without the DMCA been considered fair use, then they cannot b

                  • the DMCA says that it shall not affect fair use rights

                    The DMCA says:
                    (1) Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement

                    Decrypting a DVD is NOT copyright infringment. Decrypting a DVD is however a violation of the DMCA. There is no fair use defence.

                    To avoid entirely repeating myself, go read my post here [slashdot.org] were I cite judges and new congressional bills to explicitly DECRIMINALIZE non-infringing circumvention. The congressional record when the DMC
                    • I didn't say that decrypteding a DVD was copyright infringement, I only agreed with _YOUR_ premise that decrypting a DVD was criminal, under the DMCA. What is important to realize is that this is the _ONLY_ way that decrypting a DVD would be criminal, and if a person decrypts a DVD in such a manner that does not exceed the boundaries of fair use, which again, the DMCA is _SUPPOSED_ to not affect, then it logically follows directly from this that decrypting a DVD cannot be criminal (when used in accordance
                    • fair use, which again, the DMCA is _SUPPOSED_ to not affect

                      The DMCA does not alter fair use defences to copyright infringment. That is a far cry from saying the DMCA has no effect on engaging in fair use.

                      it logically follows directly from this that decrypting a DVD cannot be criminal

                      False.

                      the reason why decrypting a DVD isn't a violation of the DMCA is because there's no way that any law enforcement agency would ever find out

                      (1) Your "because" is false. Some forms of fair use are quite public.

                      (2)
                    • I have just been trying to clear up the confusion that there is a fair use exemption/defense to the DMCA. There is not.
                      I refer you to section 1201, subsection c.
                    • I refer you to section 1201, subsection c.

                      What is this? And Abbot and Costello routine?

                      The original legislative record when the DMCA was first passed, at least two judges, and at least two dozen congressmen attempting to amend the DMCA, they all say you are reading 1201(c)(1) wrong. You did read the post I linked to earlier, right?

                      1201(c)(1) is NOT an exemption or defence to the DMCA. What it says is that the DMCA should not be misinterprested as altering OLD law for prosecuting or defending COPYRIGHT I
            • Circumventing DRM is not copyright infringment! There is no fair use defense to DMCA violations! The clause is completely worthless, it says that a non-existant defense is not affected.

              That argument is specious, Alsee. As my law school contracts professor used to say: "That dog won't hunt."

              The DMCA comprises an expansion of copyright. Its central purpose is to broaden the definition of copyright infringement - e.g., to encompass circumventing anti-piracy controls are designed (at least superficially) t

              • That argument is specious, Alsee.

                According to the congressional record at the time, according to current bills floating around congress, and according to at least two judges, you are wrong.

                Judge Kaplan in the DeCSS case: "as the legislative history demonstrates, the decision not to make fair use a defense to a claim under Section 1201(a) was quite deliberate".

                Judge Whyte in the 321 Studios case effectively said the same, in an admittedly reverse construction. He said that 1201(b) was distinguished from
        • So its legal to rip but not to distribute? That is fine and I think that if ripping is the ONLY thing the end-users were doing that organizations like the MPAA and RIAA would have no problem with it. In all honesty, their problems stem from the millions of files that are traded *DAILY* without any money going to the companies that produced this material. It does not matter if we disagree with the price, their marketing, or if we should be able to share it or not....we did not create it and we do not hold
          • That's the weird thing about copyright.. the infringement is the actual copying, but you can't really tell if a particular copy was infringement until another action, such as distribution, is done. So there is a sort of temporal gap between the committing of the crime and the evidence that it was a crime.

  • Oh... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Jeffery ( 810339 )
    you mean that a corporation is greedy and realizes that they can make more money by screwing over as many people as they can? wow... as for kazaa, it's very obvious that most P2P networks are there solely to get illegal stuff (music, movies, etc), but proving it in court will be a totally different matter.

    • Re:Oh... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by WormholeFiend ( 674934 )
      if it's so obvious, why is it hard to prove in court?

      if i was working for the suer, i'd argue that creating p2p software is like writing a virus... while the virus maker is not necessarily the person who distributes it, he is still liable for the damages caused.

      but if i was working for the sued, i'd argue that Microsoft does not get sued for crimes committed by people using Windows as a facilitating tool.

      but IANAL, so...

  • Sigh. Is the idea of licensing so hard to grasp? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mumblestheclown ( 569987 ) on Monday November 29, 2004 @10:35AM (#10942920)
    "and then selling music which they say you are not allowed to copy to their MP3 players"

    This would seem to be inconsistent.. unless, you know, you actually took a moment to think about it.

    Sony has some online music service where they do not allow you (vis a vis the linked to licensing agreemnet) to copy the songs to other players. Fine. If you dont like that, DONT USE THE SERVICE. The consequences of this licensing proviso has been factored in to the "supply and demand" equation for the service offering.

    On the other hand, it has been shown that you are welcome to take your purchased sony CD-ROMs and make Mp3s for them for your personal use on your sony MP3 players or whatnot. It has been pretty much universally acknowledged that as long as its for your own personal use, this is a privilege that you get with your physical CD purchase and this has likewise been "supply / demanded" in to the price offering.

    Why is it so hard to understand that one company might offer two different levels of service / product at different prices?

    • Except there is no Fair Use clause in Aussie copyright law. So they can't do this legally in Austrialia, hence why the submitter said this.

      • Re:Sigh. Is the idea of licensing so hard to grasp (Score:5, Interesting)

        by williamhb ( 758070 ) on Monday November 29, 2004 @11:21AM (#10943178) Journal

        Except there is no Fair Use clause in Aussie copyright law. So they can't do this legally in Austrialia, hence why the submitter said this.

        Yes, there is a Fair Use clause in Australian copyright law, it just isn't identical to the one in the US. (and unfortunately while it does cover photocopying parts of books, it doesn't cover copying music from one medium to another).

        However, there is also case law, some of which may be helpful. One example was when an Australian cable network was sued by a free-to-air network because the cable network was rebroadcasting the free-to-air signal (including ads) over cable without permission. Seems like an obvious breach of copyright law - copying the entire network content. But the cable network won, partly on the grounds that they were rebroadcasting the signal to people who were already entitled to receive it, and the free-to-air network couldn't actually prove it had caused any financial loss to them.

        As such, a law suit to stop someone copying their CDs to their own media player might prove difficult, despite it not being covered by fair use.

        But your milage may vary and I am not a lawyer...
    • Forever time with this "If you don't like it, don't buy it" argument.

      No. If they don't like it, they don't have to sell it. I am tired of being an unpaid enforcer of their policies. Fact of the mater is they are introducing a product with an immature technology for protecting their interests. So they impose upon mine. Licensing be damned: I don't tell them how to spend the money used to purchase their product, so quit telling me how to use the product. If you don't like what I am going to do with a product
      • As the parent poster, I feel some sort of obligation to go back and see what people have written in response to my post. It's only civil.

        However, as a responder, do you not feel at all any obligation to be coherent, much less logical?

        Forever time with this "If you don't like it, don't buy it" argument.

        Does not parse.

        If they don't like it, they don't have to sell it.

        Makes zero logical sense.

        I am tired of being an unpaid enforcer of their policies

        What made up world are you living in, again?

        Fa

        • Re:Sigh. Is the idea of parity so hard to grasp (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Arker ( 91948 ) on Monday November 29, 2004 @01:29PM (#10944430) Homepage

          While I agree that that post wasn't as clear as it might have been, it made some good points.

          If they don't like it, they don't have to sell it.

          Makes zero logical sense.

          Makes great sense, actually. What he's saying is that they can't have their cake and eat it too. They want to sell things - they want our money - but then they don't want to accept all the consequences of that sale. When you say, "if you don't like it, you don't have to buy it" you're certainly making no more sense than this poster was when he reversed it on you and said "if they don't like it, then they don't have to sell it."

          The rest of your responses (Hooked on phonics for instance) really come off as being quite trollish, I must say. If an argument is "old and busted" fine, but it's not readily apparent that it is, and you need to back that assessment up with some sort of argument if you want it to be taken seriously.

      • No. If they don't like it, they don't have to sell it. I am tired of being an unpaid enforcer of their policies. Fact of the mater is they are introducing a product with an immature technology for protecting their interests. So they impose upon mine. Licensing be damned: I don't tell them how to spend the money used to purchase their product, so quit telling me how to use the product. If you don't like what I am going to do with a product, perhaps you shouldn't have sold it to me. Why should the onus be str

    • A license is a grant of privileges. These 'licenses' on the other hand purport to grant no privileges, but rather to take away those that the purchaser already has.

      I agree with don't buy it - and I don't buy these things. I think it's important not to give money to people that are clearly planning to spend it to corrupt the legal system. But at the same time, I'm not about to take the position that you seem to be taking, that those who do purchase these things must follow the letter of 'licenses' that gra

    • On the other hand, it has been shown that you are welcome to take your purchased sony CD-ROMs and make Mp3s for them for your personal use on your sony MP3 players or whatnot.

      Remember the laws of the USA != the laws of other countries and this is, sadly, where your argument falls flat on its face.

      Here in the UK (and other countries) when you purchase a CD, you purchase a licence to listen to the music on that medium only.

      Therefore you cannot rip your music to MP3 and use it on your portable player wit

      • Here in the UK (and other countries) when you purchase a CD, you purchase a licence to listen to the music on that medium only.

        That's actually what led to Canada bringing in its current copyright laws. We used to be under that system but copying from record to cassette tape wasn't legal. This seemed incredibly stupid so a law was brought in that allows transfer between mediums and allows copying music for personal use no matter the source of that music.

        Of course, it also brought in a levy on such things
      • >Here in the UK (and other countries) when you
        >purchase a CD, you purchase a licence to listen
        >to the music on that medium only.

        Hmm, is that actually the law? If not, what makes you believe it is so? If it is, do you happens to know were to find it? WHat other countries do you refer to by the way?

  • In answer to the Sony question... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 29, 2004 @10:36AM (#10942930)
    Two different departments/subsidiaries/legal companies often have competing interests with competing executives...the old ignorant left hand problem. It's impossible for a large corp to be consistant accross all entities since they have competing interests at various times and are run by different people. Add in your average dose of corporate politics and general large company ineptness and it's shocking that any company of any consequence at all doesn't contradict itself daily.

    As for the rest of it...it's just a fight for the few remaining profits in a changing industry. Once there's no profit left in the standard model or there is more in the digital music distribution models Sony and everyone else will adapt to the new environment. If you want it to happen faster don't buy any music. If you're comfortable with the general level of silliness proceed...either way it's only a matter of time be for the distribution of artistic media changes dramatically.

  • The boot (Score:4, Funny)

    by k4_pacific ( 736911 ) <k4_pacific@yahoo . c om> on Monday November 29, 2004 @10:38AM (#10942944) Homepage Journal
    As I understand it, a common punishment for criminal offences in Australia is to be kicked with a large boot. Can anyone in the know enlighten me as to whether this is also done in a civil trial? If Kazaa wins, do they get to boot the execs of the record companies? Their lawyers? The artists?

  • Did you get permission to use that link? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Bazzargh ( 39195 ) on Monday November 29, 2004 @10:38AM (#10942949)
    6. Linking to Sony Sites
    You must not link to any Sony Site without first obtaining the prior written consent of Sony and such consent must be signed by Sony's Director of Business Affairs to be valid.

    (to which I say: ok, lets wipe you off the face of the internet)...Oh shit now I've done it too: 2...no part of the content of this site may be reproduced in any form without the written consent of Sony...

    • Sony is a great company. Everyday, they give me a new reason to not buy anything they manufacture!

      (The other reason is that EVERYTHING I or my friends have bought from Sony has broken within a year of it going out of warranty. And the one thing that broke in warranty? They told us to "buy a new one, they're not that expensive". Fuck you, Sony.)
    • Edited and formatted because /. said "Please use fewer 'junk' characters"...well that is a bit of a harsh comment on Sony's character don't you think? I'd sue /. for libel if I was them.

      ONLINE TERMS AND CONDITIONS

      1. Your Acceptance of Terms and Conditions

        The sonymusic.com.au network of websites (including sonymusic.com.au and the related websites which contain a direct link through to these terms and conditions)("Sony Sites") is owned and operated by Sony Music (Australia) Pty Limited ("Sony"). Your ac

    • Do you have a link to back this up..?

    • Re:Did you get permission to use that link? (Score:5, Informative)

      by aero2600-5 ( 797736 ) on Monday November 29, 2004 @11:11AM (#10943119)
      "You must not link to any Sony Site without first obtaining the prior written consent of Sony and such consent must be signed by Sony's Director of Business Affairs to be valid."

      2600 Magazine has already taken this to court against Ford Motor Company and won. A website cannot legally prevent someone from linking to them. Here's a link [2600.com] to the article. The World Wide Web cannot exist in it's present form without the ability to link to anyone you choose. Take Slashdot as example. What if all the websites in these stories didn't want to be linked to? No more Slashdot.. Linking is the premise that the World Wide Web is built on.

      Aero

      • Re:Did you get permission to use that link? (Score:4, Informative)

        by HeghmoH ( 13204 ) on Monday November 29, 2004 @11:29AM (#10943231) Homepage Journal
        The World Wide Web cannot exist in it's present form without the ability to link to anyone you choose. Take Slashdot as example. What if all the websites in these stories didn't want to be linked to? No more Slashdot.. Linking is the premise that the World Wide Web is built on.

        This is basically the same argument the music companies are using. "Take BMI as an example. What if all of those customers chose to copy their music from their friends? No more BMI. Copyright is the premise that the music industry is built on." A much better argument would talk about how a link is just an address, which is public knowledge, and there is no law that prohibits dissemination of them.
        • This is basically the same argument the music companies are using... Copyright is the premise that the music industry is built on.

          No, they are not demanding copyright enforcement. They are demanding *DRM* enforcement. DRM enforcement does not equal copyright enforcment. They have absolutely no right to expect or receive laws criminalizing non-infringing activities.

          -

  • The statistics of being sued... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dep01 ( 730107 ) on Monday November 29, 2004 @10:43AM (#10942977) Homepage
    Wow.. 100 million people use Kazaa.. I think they've put suits out against approx. 4,000 people now? What percentage of 100 million is 4,000? 00.004%? Yeesh. How unlucky do you have to be to be sued by the RIAA? *cringes*

    • Re:The statistics of being sued... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Wylfing ( 144940 ) <[brian] [at] [wylfing.net]> on Monday November 29, 2004 @11:33AM (#10943250) Homepage Journal
      How unlucky do you have to be to be sued by the RIAA?

      Lawsuits are only filed after other thresholds have been met. While I am not privy to all the mechanics of it [1], your chances of being "tagged" by the RIAA in one of their databases as a filesharing IP are quite high. If your IP shows up a lot, you'll make it into a verification stage. If they can verify that you're distributing their stuff, then the lawsuit appears. So the 0.004% of users is just how many have made it into the final, verified stage of (probably massive) copyright infringement. There may be 5-10% who are in process of being verified, or who have not uploaded a sufficient quantity yet to warrant a lawsuit but who are being watched while they do.

      [1] Not so long ago I received a friendly note from my ISP that I was being observed (and the ISP was receiving DMCA threats). I got a pretty good look at what was going on that way.

      • So the 0.004% of users is just how many have made it into the final, verified stage of (probably massive) copyright infringement. There may be 5-10% who are in process of being verified, or who have not uploaded a sufficient quantity yet to warrant a lawsuit but who are being watched while they do.

        And yet they still somehow managed to tag somebody who doesn't have a computer capable of running Kazaa [sfgate.com]. Good job, music industry.

      • If your IP shows up a lot, you'll make it into a verification stage. If they can verify that you're distributing their stuff, then the lawsuit appears.

        So: the more you share, the more likely you are to be sued? Very well... how about this:

        Have the P2P app index your entire collection - let's say ten gigabytes. However, have it only share one gigabyte, chosen at random. After some time - let's say, 24 hours uptime - have it replace that gigabyte with a different gigabyte, again chosen at random.

        The res

  • Shaman and Sony (Score:3, Insightful)

    by DJCF ( 805487 ) <stormsaber.gmail@com> on Monday November 29, 2004 @10:44AM (#10942985) Homepage Journal
    Personally I don't get what Sony is doing selling MP3 players for all your "favourite tunes" and then selling music which they say you are not allowed to copy to their MP3 players, but that's another story."

    Ok, what the hell does that have to do with the stated news article about suing Shaman Networks? More news, less uninformed opinion please? Nah - too much to ask.

    • Just guessing over here but maybe Sony Music or whatever it's called are in this lawsuit also? Also I wouldn't be surprised if Sony owned stocks here and stocks here on other major/less major music companies, by which tieing it to this case.

      Not that I read the article.

    • Re:Shaman and Sony (Score:2, Insightful)

      by mejesster ( 813444 )
      It's two stories really... As for the labels suing Sharman, there is precedent to protect Sharman (although we hear Australian copyright law may be different? How different?) and far more importantly, any decision against Sharman in Australian courts lacks the ability to gain compliance. As for Sony, their online music service and their new hardware product are both lagging far behind. I hope both fail.

  • In other words: (Score:5, Funny)

    by Pxtl ( 151020 ) on Monday November 29, 2004 @10:59AM (#10943054) Homepage
    KaZaa is about to get voted off the island.

    sorry.

  • Did you get permission? (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    According to that Sony site you point us to, you're not allow to point us to their site without their permission... You did get that before you /.'d them eh?

    Well, if not, then let me join in on the fun! Nothing like a good ole' DDoS [sony.com]

  • thought there was a judgement already made about P2P SOFTWARE is legal ??????

    • Re:Kazaa LEGAL !! (Score:2, Interesting)

      by AkaXakA ( 695610 )
      That was in the Netherlands.

      They might move back there again if they lose here, or get into too much difficulty.

    • Re:Kazaa LEGAL !! (Score:5, Informative)

      by gcaseye6677 ( 694805 ) on Monday November 29, 2004 @11:37AM (#10943276)
      This is in Australia; Kazaa was found to be legal in the United States. Australian judges do not consider these rulings when a suit is filed in their court. The makers of Kazaa are still being sued on a regular basis even in the U.S. whenever the recording industry lawyers come up with a new idea for a suit.

  • Sony AU Site /.'ed (Score:3, Funny)

    by frank249 ( 100528 ) on Monday November 29, 2004 @11:23AM (#10943192)
    Sony Australia apologises for this interruption in service.

    Our servers are currently performing a maintenance function(after melting down) and are temporarily unavailable.

    This service outage is not anticipated to take long
    and the site should be available within 30 minutes.

  • P2P can have serious legal uses and shouldn't be banned just for the convinience of some big companies. But does anyone here doubt for a second that Sharman networks business model is based on music piracy? If they were strong believers in copyright laws, they would at least have some kind of filters for top stolen songs.

    I realize farmers need hunting rifles and people living in messed up places need small guns for self defence (until effective non/less-lethal weapons are developed). But dealers marketing
    • Oh, please.

      Yes, Sharman is sleezy. But the ethics of the law are more complex than "sleezy". If there are legitimate users of a product, and the targeted customers are not themselves victims (like cigarette ads targetting children) then the law MUST protect the rights of the legitimate users.

      There is plenty of legitimate content on Kazaa (like shitty porn, public domain e-texts in PDF format). There are plenty of places on the internet where many copyright laws don't apply.

      If you want to get ethically ph
  • To correct something that the article-poster and article itself implies which is uncorrect... The creators of Kazaa are not Sharman Networks in Australia. Kazaa was created by a team of programmers from The Netherlands(Europe). Eventually Kazaa was bought from them when they were entangled in a lawsuit against them. Because the Dutch creators didn't want to take any risk of losing this case in court and face the consequences of a conviction, they sold Kazaa to Sharman Networks in Australia. Ironically th
    • On a side-note...

      In fact when Kazaa would have stayed in Dutch hands, then Kazaa would have stayed a legal p2p program.
      And prosecuters from other countries would not have been able to convict it in court as illegal software.
      As the case in The Netherlands against Kazaa was already won by the creators of Kazaa.
      Furthermore p2p software in itself in The Netherlands by law in itself cannot be prosecuted as being illegal...because p2p software in itself does not cause the illegal act.
      Also downloading of cop
    • >The creators of Kazaa are not Sharman Networks
      >in Australia. Kazaa was created by a team of
      >programmers from The Netherlands(Europe).

      If I am not mistaken, Kazaa was founded by Niklas Zennström, who is Swedish, and Janus Friis, who is Danish. There might have been dutch programmers involved and perhaps the company was set up in The Netherlands, that I really don't know.

  • Simple explanation for Sony's stance (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Personally I don't get what Sony is doing selling MP3 players for all your "favourite tunes" and then selling music which they say you are not allowed to copy to their MP3 players...

    Then you haven't really put any serious thought into the issue, have you? I imagine that a simplistic explanation would be:

    • Download MP3 from "legit" (read: "pay") MP3 distribution service, OR
    • Rip MP3 from legally purchased/received CD
    • Copy said MP3 to portable player

    Notice how KaZaA is not involved?

    Furthermore, the "Sony

  • What I dont get.. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by bludstone ( 103539 ) on Monday November 29, 2004 @11:45AM (#10943323)
    Is that if they claim billions of dollars lost from piracy, then why are these losses not spelled out in their tax forms?

    • Over here drug dealers who have had all their heroin seized are able to file it as a loss...even compared to things like that, they have no chance of getting anywhere.

  • In Other News (Score:4, Funny)

    by AnalogDiehard ( 199128 ) on Monday November 29, 2004 @12:47PM (#10944017)
    The RIAA is suing Sears Craftsman claiming that their crowbars can be used to break open the doors of brick-and-mortar CD stores. The crowbars are blamed for heavy losses in CD sales although no proof has surfaced to support their claims.

    This just in... the President signed into law the latest anti-piracy bill banning the sale of Sharpie pens. With puppet strings visible the President remarked "Piracy of entertainment is a terrorist threat to our nation and must be confronted with swift decisive action" although his southern twang was curiously replaced with a heavy Austrian accent. The bill also retroactively forces all computer keyboards to have their shift keys removed.

    ...Another one from the wire... The MPAA has completed their assimulation of DVD and camcorder production lifeforms to "improve quality of life by ridding the universe of region free players and rogue movie theater pirates." The MPAA spokesborg reiterated their mission statement: "Resistance is futile. All your base are belong to us."

  • Industry-standard Browser (Score:3, Funny)

    by Lord Byron II ( 671689 ) on Monday November 29, 2004 @02:21PM (#10944992)
    The Sony agreement also requires the use of an "industry-standard browser". Sorry, IE users, you'll need Firefox to use their service.

  • Share Media (Score:3, Funny)

    by rice_burners_suck ( 243660 ) on Monday November 29, 2004 @02:23PM (#10945010)
    I'm going to open up a huge company. Using billions of investor dollars, I am going to buy all the record labels, all the music companies, all the studios and movie companies... In other words, all the content providers. I'll sell off all the portions of these companies that I don't need for my scheme.

    Then, I'll turn all of these into a new company. I'll call it "Share Media." This company will do three things:

    1. It will provide content. Music. Movies. Books. Software. All of these products will bear the "Share Media" name.
    2. It will provide technology to copy that content. MP3 players. CD and DVD recorders. Ripping and burning software. Filesharing software. All of these products will bear the "Share Media" name.
    3. It will litigate piracy cases. People who buy Share Media media and then share it through products made by Share Media will be sued for piracy.
    This will provide a good way for Share Media to make huge profits. Basically, people will buy our media, be encouraged to share it through the means we provide, and then we'll sue them for it.

    So I've finally figured it out!!!

    1. Invent something.
    2. Invent a way for people to share it.
    3. ??? (Sue people for sharing it.)
    4. Profit!!!
    Yup. That's Sony.
  • ... would be if they ALSO sued the US Postal Service [usps.com] . How many bootlegged Metallica tracks did they aid and abet? [wikipedia.org]

Slashdot Top Deals

"Conversion, fastidious Goddess, loves blood better than brick, and feasts most subtly on the human will." -- Virginia Woolf, "Mrs. Dalloway"

Close