RIAA Victims Bring Class Action Against Kazaa 288
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In Chicago, Illinois, a Kazaa customer has filed a class action against Kazaa, Lewan v. Sharman, U.S.Dist. Ct., N.D. Ill 06-cv-6736. The lead plaintiff, Catherine Lewan, was a Kazaa customer who was sued by the RIAA for her use of Kazaa, and paid a settlement to the RIAA, and she sues on behalf of others in her position. In her complaint(pdf) she alleges, among other things, that Kazaa deceptively marketed its product as allowing 'free downloads' (Complaint, par. 30); it designed the software in such a manner as to create a shared files folder and make that folder available to anyone using Kazaa, while at the same time failing to make the user aware that it had done so (Complaint, par. 36-37); and it surreptitiously installed 'spyware' on users' computers which made the shared files folder accessible to the Kazaa network even after the user had removed the Kazaa software from his or her computer (Complaint, par. 42-45)."
Of course I don't support copyright, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is another case that reminds me of so many court cases and other reasons to ask the State for help:
"It wasn't my anger, your honor, it was the gun!"
"It wasn't my inability to stop eating, your honor, it was the pill!"
"It wasn't my irresponsibility to save for the future, your honor, it was commercial society!"
"It isn't that I refuse to learn a trade and stick to it, it is just fair to pay a living wage!"
Sheesh. Yet another waste of time that will only make the lawyers wealthier and the State more powerful.
The Beginning of The End... (Score:2, Insightful)
She might as well... (Score:5, Insightful)
Ridiculous. (Score:5, Insightful)
I bet these same people all felt like devious little rule breakers when they were doing all that copyright violation, secure in the knowledge that no one could ever catch them.
I can kinda see how the record companies can win a suit against the p2p providers, saying that their software enabled all these people to violate copyright law, but how the hell can all these people expect to win a suit against a company whose software enabled them to break the law? Kazaa's EULA spelled out that the software should only be used for legal purposes, but even if it didn't this will die because there is a huge amount of precident in prohibiting companies from being sued when their products were used in the commission of crimes (hello, gun manufacturers).
If only common sense were more common.
Look, I hate RIAA as much as anyone (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ridiculous. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's more like suing your drug dealer after you go to prison for getting caught with a rock.
Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's always someone else's fault.
Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... (Score:2, Insightful)
Suing someone is now a way of recouping losses rather than a way of seeking justice.
Customer? (Score:5, Insightful)
I call bullshit on the fact that the person claims she didn't know how kazaa worked. Its explained right here [kazaa.com] for cryin' out loud.
All this person is doing is trying to get their money back that was extorted by the RIAA. Her lawyer probably weighed the difficulty of a counter-suit against the RIAA and suing Kazaa. Guess who won.
I call shenanigans on this one. Tagged: Traitor
Re:Ridiculous. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
-Eric
Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Only in America. (Score:4, Insightful)
If you had a legal system of some righteousness, you would force someone that files a case against another person (unless for crimes that involve violence) to pay the defendant legal costs in case the defendant was found innocent... that way, all those stupid legal cases we see in America would never have been brought to justice in the first place
Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
What, then, do you think the courts are supposed to be used FOR...?
And did you really need to construct FOUR strawman arguments that may never have actually been argued in a courtroom? Wouldn't one have been enough to support your fallacy?
Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Very little. My reason for subscribing is (in order of importance):
1. To support the site with my money, showing that it has value.
2. To generate a tiny level of respect for those who also subscribe or give a subscriber bonus to their own personal mod modifier.
3. Receive the chance to read articles before they're slashdotted.
Ha.... the U.S. Justice system (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, does she really expects us to believe that she did not know it was illegal, that she could get sued over it ? Seriously ? Nah, she knew full well but much like everyone doing this, we just assume RIAA is not gonna come for regular people like us because its not worth it.
So now she does get sued and she says, was that illegal ? oh im sorry, Kazaa never said that! *pointing finger* damn you Kazaa, you got me in trouble. Now, not only will I sue you but I'll sue you on behalf of all people who didn't know (whisper:this way i can get more money)
But just because the system allows it, tons of folks are suing each other for stupid reasons and to make a quick buck.
My wife is a lawyer and I once asked her why we seldom see these things happening in canada. That's because the justice is different in that here, to win a cause you need a damage, a fault and the correlation between the two. Most of the time, people cannot make a strong argument in the "correlation between the two" part and the case ends there.
Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
It is the consumers obligation to know what they are using and how it to be used. As with almost everything else, Kazza, cars, kitchen knives, ropes, chains,/whatever can be used in a way that isn't legal. Furthermore, It could be not legal in one area but legal in another. Or under certain circumstances were maybe downloading an audio file of the garage band next door is and downloading three doors down might not be. This is just like driving a car down the street isn't illegal but driving a car down the street without a license might be.
The only merit I can see from this suit is were it says the shared folders still shares files after you try to remove the software and the software makes it appear that you did. The difference in this and small label on the tobacco packs is that the tobacco companies were force to place the warnings there and actively campaigned to deny the health risks. Kazza has always claimed downloading and sharing someone else's copywriten material without there permission was not legal. They kust claimed that there are legal uses like open source software or situations were the copyright hold places the files online to the shared.
In contrast, that would be like the tobacco companies claiming that cigs make good cleaning agants when used in a certain manor instead of claiming the surgeon general warning were bunk and smoking is healthful.
I think you missed the point..... (Score:3, Insightful)
What this case is trying to do, in a round about fashion, is to set the stage for other actions.
If this person wins this case it opens the doors for alot more. Once it can be shown in court that Kazaa either misled or outright lied to its users, it can then be shown that Kazaa was AIDING AND ABETTING the the criminal violation of copyright laws. Once that takes place, then Kazaa itself can be held liable for CRIMINAL actions.
It would not surprise me in THE SLIGHTEST that the RIAA is behind this themselves. Its all about "precedence". Once you win a small case, its only makes it that much easier to use that small case as a foothold in larger, farther reaching and far more serious cases.
While I believe that the person filing the suit, and everyone else that steals copyrighted material should be prosecuted, I also believe that anyone that made it possible for them to do so should be held accountable as well.
End Users (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
So you want to subsidize stupidity?
It kind of amazes me that this has become an argument. Just put the word subsidize in front of any form of funding and put people on the defensive.
So you want to subsidize transportation?
So you want to subsidize schools?
So you want to subsidize the Army?
So you want to subsidize the elderly?
So you want to subsidize Africa?
The basic premise seems to be "Why can't these lazy bastards stand on their own two feet and pull themselves up by their bootstraps!!"
Which ignores the basic fact that no one stands on their own two feet. We're all dependant on one another. I'm a bit tired of the "self made man" fallacy.
Re:Ridiculous. (Score:1, Insightful)
While Kazaa (or any P2P software for that matter) can be used for illegal file transfers, P2P software has plenty of valid uses as well. From your statement all car manufacturers should be held responsible for any thief that uses a vehicle as a "get away" car. As for a valid use, my company has been using P2P for working with large image files between different physical sites.
The only thing that makes these different (besides legality) is that the tobacco maker's product actually reduces your ability to stop the bad behavior.
Did Kazaa provide the plaintiff with a tool or a tool with directions on illegally downloading copyrighted content? Kazaa provides a tool that allows users to locate and obtain a copy of information shared by other users. At worst case, the plaintiff could go after those who provided the copyrighted material as they offered the material without obtaining the rights for it. One could probably build a case that companies have offered music (Coke Rewards - music downloads comes to mind) and they obtained the necessary rights to do so. One could apply that logic to believe that the individuals offering the copyrighted songs would also have obtained the necessary permissions. Now that would have to be a pretty naive person but as I said, that's the "worst" case.
Jim
Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
I think you are completely missing my point. I agree that people know that stealing is wrong, but what I suggest is that many people may not realize that listening to music they haven't paid for is stealing. Before the massive ad campaigns, I think most people didn't realize that they could be sued for downloading music. I had to explain to a sister-in-law that napster/kazaa was a bad idea because they were stealing and their response went something like: "Well... I listen to it on the radio without paying for it, is that stealing? If not, how is it stealing when I listen on my computer?" This is an educated (master's degree) adult who was confused on the matter.
I don't doubt that people don't steal because it is wrong, but if such a mass of people are stealing could it be possible that they don't realize they are stealing?
Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Sue the Car Maker for Your Vehicular Homicide? (Score:2, Insightful)
This kind of crap really disturbs me because I make my living writing software. Kazaa's legality is not the issue, it's the sueing of a software maker because someone misused the program that has me steamed.
I read of people who use software to do exactly what it was written for, then they sue the software makers because they did something illegal with the program and got caught, or because "it (the program) should have known I was doing bad stuff and stopped me."
If I write a program to admin an SQL server and someone uses it to hack/damage SQL Servers how the fuck can I be liable for it? I can put disclaimers in and still get sued so this could be a very bad precedent.
Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, we'll let the courts decide then, but I would assume that her attorneys will bring more than works of fiction to the table.
What I base my opinion on is what I've observed. In my observation, a lot of the people I know who have used Kazaa are not computer professionals or copyright experts but they also would be considered intelligent, educated citizens. They assume that they pay for tangible items, and that digital copies aren't stealing because there is no physical DVD or CD. I am not making a point that they are right or wrong, I am simply pointing out what these people think. In an earlier post, I point out something someone asked me, "If listening to a song on my computer for free is stealing, then is listening to the same song on the radio stealing too?"
To people like the
Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Because we're rather sure they had nothing to gain by making their PC and Internet slow and annoying. In this case, she quite clearly got "free" music which sounds like a rather good motive if you ask me. Just downloading is against the law tiself (see the Napster case), even if they manage to argue being clueless about sharing it. The most pathetic are the ones I see that go like "I didn't know if Napster was illegal or not, but when they got convicted I stopped" as if it wasn't clear all along that the direct infringers were guilty as hell - it was only a matter of secondary liability or not. To quote the 9th circuit Napster case:
"We agree that plaintiffs have shown that Napster
users infringe at least two of the copyright holders exclusive rights: the rights of
reproduction, 106(1); and distribution, 106(3). Napster users who upload file
names to the search index for others to copy violate plaintiffs distribution rights.
Napster users who download files containing copyrighted music violate plaintiffs
reproduction rights."
Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
I fully agree with this. Copyright violation is not stealing.
But my point wasn't about this very important difference. My point, on which I extensively quoted Heinlein's opinion, is that being considered "intelligent, educated citizens" isn't enough if your education is limited to non-technical issues. This was already true when Heinlein published his story more than five decades ago, and it's much more relevant today.
Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm pretty sure his money towards slashdot got him nothing at all. He gets to see stories an hour earlier when most people (being nonsubscribers) can't see the story, therefore can't comment, therefore can't make the story valuable. He gets to not see ads, which I don't see either. What else does he get? Poorer.
See, slashdot's customers are the advertisers, just like google's customers. The users are not the customers. The users are there to make the site valuable to the advertisers. And the users who pay for something they can get for free, we call "suckers".
Re:The Sleeping Giant (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, of course, under many circumstances you should! And if your computer causes a fire [dellbatteryprogram.com] you should be jailed for arson.
The fact is that technology may become dangerous. It doesn't matter if a mistake was made by someone else, if a tragedy occurs because you didn't care to act upon information that was available to you, then you are guilty as well.