×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

269 comments

I can sue Kazaa too (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8075786)

for stealing my first post

no shirts (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8075787)

no shoes
no niggers
death to gnaa

They'll never win... (4, Interesting)

Rockenreno (573442) | more than 10 years ago | (#8075790)

but bravo to Sharman Networks for making they effort!

Re:They'll never win... (1, Interesting)

stefanmi (699755) | more than 10 years ago | (#8075917)

I don't think it's even about winning, necessarily. When one side goes around suing, completely unopposed, there's a mindset in the public that their claims might be valid. After all, nobody's opposing them. People curling up into a ball and taking it doesn't help. However, when two camps sue each other, it's more often seen as squabbling, and the kind of thing that tends to end rather unceremonially. The idea, I would think, is to tarnish the public view of the RIAA's efforts and perhaps get people to see that the RIAA is NOT operating on fair and solid ground here. Hopefully consumers won't just continue to take it up the ass like 12-year-old girls (oooops...)

Re:They'll never win... (5, Interesting)

igrp (732252) | more than 10 years ago | (#8075958)

Well, actually, at this point the issue is not whether Sherman Networks has a case at all.

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.

Re:They'll never win... (4, Insightful)

Mod Me God Too (687245) | more than 10 years ago | (#8076075)

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.

hehe (5, Funny)

fjordboy (169716) | more than 10 years ago | (#8075791)

RIAA/MPAA: "You're infringing on copyrights!"

Kazaa: "No, you are!"

Sounds like playground banter to me.

Morality plays (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8075947)

Children are absolute in their moral judgement. The older we get, the more we come to realize that there are, in fact, no moral absolutes in life.

Of course some people never grow up form the naive idea of a perfect world, where things make sense, but most of us now understand there is no black and there is no white. There are only shades of gray in between. From the petty little thefts, adultery and child molestation up to genocidial torture and murder it all is washed up along the river of time. Thousands of years from now no-one will remember who Hitler, Stalin or Saddam Hussein were.

My belief is that our concept of morality (as a species) is limited by our short lifespan. In a sense we're still children believing in absolutes. Therefore, when we're discussing what the moral values imposed by the society should be, we should be extremely careful to avoid the "Lord of the Flies"-syndrome. Why can't we just extrapolate from the present adult sense of morality towards a more liberal view?

Re:hehe (1)

Blue Stone (582566) | more than 10 years ago | (#8075981)

I'm hoping the evil RIAA and dodgy Sharman Networks do some serious damage to each other.

Is that wrong?

Uh? (-1, Flamebait)

Acidic_Diarrhea (641390) | more than 10 years ago | (#8075793)

Is this summary correct? Shouldn't that lawsuit be the other way around - record companies suing Sherman?

Re:Uh? (4, Interesting)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 10 years ago | (#8075846)

What copyrights has Sherman violated?

The *IAA, however, are threatening people based on their IP addresses, and I believe you can't get confirmed IPs from Kazaa without using a DMCA breaking modified version (all IIRC, I don't personally use Kazaa).

Re:Uh? (1)

sirReal.83. (671912) | more than 10 years ago | (#8075872)

wrt to getting IP addresses of kazaa users: kazaa is just a product which runs on the network called fasttrack. there are many other implementations of fasttrack. you can easily use one of those to harvest ip addresses. or just use 'netstat' while downloading from the person...

Re:Uh? (1)

Tuxedo Jack (648130) | more than 10 years ago | (#8075953)

So can we now submit endless DMCA subpoenas to them, then threaten to sue and get outrageous settlements for their invasions of our privacy via usage of illegal software?

What is infringing? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8075794)

They are suing for copyright infringement. The article is sparse on details.

Does anyone have any idea what part of Sherman's IP was redistributed?

Re:What is infringing? (4, Funny)

Snork Asaurus (595692) | more than 10 years ago | (#8075824)

Does anyone have any idea what part of Sherman's IP was redistributed?

I think it was the 192.168. part.

Re:What is infringing? (5, Insightful)

Smitedogg (527493) | more than 10 years ago | (#8075830)

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.

Re:What is infringing? (1)

rjelks (635588) | more than 10 years ago | (#8075859)

I hope that doesn't mean that users of KaZaaLite (another altered version of KaZaa) will be sued for ip infringement too. I'd guess that about 25% of their users are using that altered version.

-

Re:What is infringing? (1)

Doctor7 (669966) | more than 10 years ago | (#8075956)

I hope that doesn't mean that users of KaZaaLite (another altered version of KaZaa) will be sued for ip infringement too. I'd guess that about 25% of their users are using that altered version.

It means that they could be; KaZaALite quite happily admits that it's illegal when you install it. But going after the RIAA is a bit more of a PR coup than going after individual users. And I'd guess that (counting all the different flavours of KL) it's probably more like 75% of users.

Re:What is infringing? (2, Interesting)

r00zky (622648) | more than 10 years ago | (#8076064)

No, sueing KazaaLite users is bad for the network. Less users=>Less money

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:What is infringing? (1)

jmlyle (512574) | more than 10 years ago | (#8076122)

Until SCO buys Sherman Networks. Then the money comes from tracking down the users.

Re:What is infringing? (4, Insightful)

Tokerat (150341) | more than 10 years ago | (#8076058)


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

Re:What is infringing? (1)

Total_Wimp (564548) | more than 10 years ago | (#8076118)

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

Hell yeah! It's clear the RIAA and other large copyright holders feal, for some reason, that they're above the law. It's like a guy who gets his wallet stolen going out and stealing the criminal's girlfriend's car. It may feal good and all, but it's still theft and you'll still be held acountable when your case hits the courts. TW

Re:What is infringing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8075933)

Does anyone have any idea what part of Sherman's IP was redistributed?

Nothing was redistributed. In order to find those evil individuals who didn't pay attention in kindergarden when they were taught that it is wrong to share, the RIAA created derivative work of kazaa.

Re:What is infringing? (1)

KingOfBLASH (620432) | more than 10 years ago | (#8075955)

The RIAA and MPAA has been, for some time, putting MP3s and MPGs on Kazaa and other P2P networks that are basically white noise (usually created from the first 10 seconds of the song or something). Some of them carry viruses, and there was a slashdot post a while back about the RIAA actively developing viruses and other "Anti-piracy" tools. I guess they figured that fighting back would mean admitting to piracy they weren't worried about things like the countersuit.

it's too easy! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8075800)

1. create assembly-line copyright infringement tool 2. sue media owners for copyright infringement 3. ??? 4. Profit!!!

Re:it's too easy! (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 10 years ago | (#8076093)

Sounds like a workable approach to me, I mean, the music industry's business model goes like this:

1. steal copyrights from artists 2. sue customer base for copyright infringement 3.??? 4. Profit!!!

So I'd say that Sharman is simply taking lessons from the experts.

lolly roffle (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8075801)

it's worth a try, i suppose

I dont get why it's "copyright infringement". (4, Informative)

Dr Reducto (665121) | more than 10 years ago | (#8075804)

I RTFA, but I don't see how what the RIAA did is copyright infringement. Putting fake files on a network is not copyright infringement, it just decreases the S/N ratio.

Re:I dont get why it's "copyright infringement". (5, Interesting)

corebreech (469871) | more than 10 years ago | (#8075831)

I thought it was because the recording studios violated the license Kazaa is distributed under [slashdot.org], which I guess counts as a copyright violation.

I wish them the best of luck.

Re:I dont get why it's "copyright infringement". (1)

Tuxedo Jack (648130) | more than 10 years ago | (#8075976)

How about this?

The RIAA/MPAA drops its suits for copyright violation, and Sharman drops theirs with a promise to never sue again. Then it works out all nice and happy-like for the end-users, eh?

Re:I dont get why it's "copyright infringement". (4, Interesting)

Walkiry (698192) | more than 10 years ago | (#8076132)

Ooooh, does that mean the EULA practice is going to be challenged in court? This should be interesting.

Re:I dont get why it's "copyright infringement". (5, Interesting)

Tim C (15259) | more than 10 years ago | (#8075849)

The article is extremely light on details, but I can think of one way in which they may be able to sue for copyright infringement.

*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.

Re:I dont get why it's "copyright infringement". (4, Insightful)

stubear (130454) | more than 10 years ago | (#8075941)

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:I dont get why it's "copyright infringement". (2, Informative)

Doctor7 (669966) | more than 10 years ago | (#8075993)

The only copyright violation would be by the developers of KazaaLite

Not true. Remember that any validity in EULAs comes from the ruling that installing and running software both involve making copies, so permission from the copyright holder is required. If that precedent had not been set, groups like the BSA would have no legal support.

Re:I dont get why it's "copyright infringement". (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8076045)

Where do people keep getting this idea? 17 USC 117(a)(1) [cornell.edu] specifically says that installing and running software is not a copyright violation. EULAs don't and have never had a legal leg to stand on.

Re:I dont get why it's "copyright infringement". (5, Insightful)

Ieshan (409693) | more than 10 years ago | (#8075875)

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.

Re:I dont get why it's "copyright infringement". (3, Informative)

stubear (130454) | more than 10 years ago | (#8075924)

From another article"
"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."/blockquote

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:I dont get why it's "copyright infringement". (5, Funny)

kauai_geek (100971) | more than 10 years ago | (#8075991)

This is so great. all of the studio execs and movie moguls/ riaa payroll members were so stoked when they got the DMCA passed, little did they know it was going to be the beginning of their downfall.

The irony of the situation amuses me to no end.

Re:I dont get why it's "copyright infringement". (0, Troll)

JonathanBoyd (644397) | more than 10 years ago | (#8076057)

2.1 Transmit or communicate any data that is unlawful

Looks like there are a few million other users that they should be suing as well. 99% of their user base in fact.

Re:I dont get why it's "copyright infringement". (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 10 years ago | (#8076119)

I don't think it was the network poisoning that was the issue (anyone posting rap music or Metallica would come under that heading so far as I'm concerned) but rather it was the way that the RIAA used a custom client program to access the network to garner data on infringers. It depends ... everything is sold under a license, nowadays, and if Kazaa's license (and I've not read it so I'm just spewing here) specifically forbade specific types of network access and the RIAA did it anyway they could be open to something. Dunno what the merits of the case are and I really don't care, but it is nice to see the RIAA on the butt end of a lawsuit now and then.

OK who was stupid enuf to give $$$ to Howard Dean? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8075807)

Losers

In other news... (5, Funny)

Txiasaeia (581598) | more than 10 years ago | (#8075810)

...McDonalds sues fat customers for eating their food.

"They're, like, totally eating too much!" one frustrated McDonalds manager said. "If they don't stop eating our Big Macs... they'll, you know, explode!"

The Fat Customers Association of America (FCAA) could not be reached for comment.

Re:In other news... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8075910)

As a repsentative of the higher council of FCAA (Fat Customers Association of America) I can indeed say we are not taking this issue lightly.

In fact, we have launched a counter suite against McDonalds for their complete lack and disregard for the needs of the infinitly hungry. McDonalds continues to dismiss our requests for an All You Can Eat Buffet (AYEB). This is a blatant infringement of our constitutional rights. (At least our lawyers tell us so).

www.supersizeme.com (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8076027)

Although I have no idea what the big deal with this movie is, the guy was living like your average /.er.

This article has a lot more info (5, Informative)

hether (101201) | more than 10 years ago | (#8075811)

Re:This article has a lot more info (3, Funny)

Rockenreno (573442) | more than 10 years ago | (#8075852)

"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." At least the RIAA knows what the best Kazaa program is!

Re:This article has a lot more info (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 10 years ago | (#8076133)

Well, sure. Why would they want spyware on their network? We might find out who they're going to sue next.

Copyright infringement? (0)

sdo1 (213835) | more than 10 years ago | (#8075814)

I can see Kazaa suing, but under copyright infringement? Other than their actual software, what do they have that's copyrighted? It makes no sense to me (and yes, I did read the article).

-S

Re:Copyright infringement? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8076065)

Simple answer. You're an idiot.

Re:Copyright infringement? (1)

wed128 (722152) | more than 10 years ago | (#8076105)

That's exactly it...the RIAA used their software for a purpose that wasn't in the liscence...they have nothing else, and i believe a last stand is in order...

Other suit (3, Interesting)

DrLZRDMN (728996) | more than 10 years ago | (#8075815)

I think that all of the people who were sued by RIAA/MPAA should make a counter suit for invading their computers.

Invade? (2, Insightful)

slobarnuts (666254) | more than 10 years ago | (#8075913)

How did the RIAA/MPAA invade their computer?

They accessed information SERVED by the computer, in no way did they 'invade' it. They choose to share the files anyway, so they were inviting whatever traffic came in.

As for downloading,
the fake files may fill up your harddrive, but its your own fault, not the MPAA/RIAA.
unless you are refering to the viruses, but no one has proved that the RIAA is at fault.

copyright infringement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8075816)

what is that all about? is it good, or is it wack?

wack (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8075840)

what is that all about? is it good, or is whack?

Re:wack (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8075923)

Wack is how Britons spell it

Re:wack (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8076015)

I whack Britons up the side of the limey heads for not knowing how to spell. Speak American, damn it.

Attention Lamoid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8075964)

Why does someone keep posting this? If you are trying to start a new catch phrase you would have better luck if you actually came up with one that is catchy.

This is like (-1, Offtopic)

Savatte (111615) | more than 10 years ago | (#8075838)

being in a class when you dont know the answer to a question. better to sit completely still, than to make a move and have the teacher call on you.

Re:This is like (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8075986)

"It is better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt." Mark Twain

Grandstanding... (3, Insightful)

JayBlalock (635935) | more than 10 years ago | (#8075843)

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.

Re:Grandstanding... (2, Insightful)

the_duke_of_hazzard (603473) | more than 10 years ago | (#8075949)

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.

Re:Grandstanding... (5, Insightful)

JayBlalock (635935) | more than 10 years ago | (#8076030)

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 (2, Insightful)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 10 years ago | (#8076051)

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?

It is copyright infringement (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8075845)

It's a copyright issue because the RIAA/MPAA used Kazaa Lite to access the Kazaa network.

This will last HOW long? (2, Interesting)

JessLeah (625838) | more than 10 years ago | (#8075848)

Like, twenty seconds?

Re:This will last HOW long? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8075932)

I think you'll be surprised. What is passed on the network will be a non-issue in this case. The bottom line is RIAA broke the EULA.

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.

From the Mercury News article... (5, Informative)

Tuxedo Jack (648130) | more than 10 years ago | (#8075855)

"Sharman Networks, the company behind the Kazaa file-sharing software, filed a federal lawsuit in September accusing the entertainment companies of using unauthorized versions of its software in their efforts to snoop out users who were downloading copyright music files from others on the network.

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."

There's the answer; the RIAA/MPAA used an _illegally modified_ version of Kazaa Media Desktop in order to connect to the network. When you install Kazaa Lite (not saying that I have, despite what's copy/pasted next), it states:

"Please note that installing this software is ILLEGAL and is in violation of the Kazaa Media Desktop Terms of Use. If you do, however, install the software contained in this package, you agree to take ALL responsibility for your actions."

In this case, it's a big-ass lawsuit against you. The RIAA/MPAA violated the Sharman Networks EULA for Kazaa, and as such, opened themselves to legal action.

Ironic, isn't it?

(And to think that they could have used dummy machines to get around the Cydoor, P2P networking, and Gator that was in Kazaa...)

to that man.... (3, Interesting)

mr_tommy (619972) | more than 10 years ago | (#8075861)

to the man who said they will never win; what a foolish thing to say. If you have learnt one thing over the past few years it should be to never ever attempt to pre-judge the american (or for that matter any) legal system. The fact is that these trials have a strange habbit of coming out in favour of the group you least expect.

I wish kazaa the best of luck. I hope it gives the studios a wake up call to the real world.

OH I get it! (5, Insightful)

sirReal.83. (671912) | more than 10 years ago | (#8075862)

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...

In other news... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8075867)

Today the pot and kettle met at a local kitchen. Both attempted to play the race card.

They use p2p just as much as any of us.... (5, Interesting)

storl (740323) | more than 10 years ago | (#8075869)

I remember reading an article recently (Wired maybe?) about a company that sells download statistics to record companies and radio broadcasters all over the world. They have software that monitors p2p networks, tracks what people are downloading, determines what general area of the country a person is in (by IP, guess) and puts all this in a nice fat database.

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...

This lawsuit was brought to you by (1, Troll)

Krapangor (533950) | more than 10 years ago | (#8075877)

the people who killed Kazaa-lite and add spyware to your computer !

I really appreciate their actions.

huh? (0, Offtopic)

Idolatre (197068) | more than 10 years ago | (#8075908)

Copyright infringement for threatening kazaa users. Wtf, do they own a patent for "A method for threatening customers, allowing the sales of inferior quality products to the scared to the death victims" ?

It's a EULA case... (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8075960)

If Kazaa loses, wouldn't it be funny if this case establishes that the terms of EULAs are worthless and unenforceable?

Copyright infringement? (0)

Tokerat (150341) | more than 10 years ago | (#8075963)


Of what, exactly?

Sounds like either a stupid lawsuit or piss poor reporting, to me...

A Better Article, Some Clarification (5, Informative)

LittleVito (625033) | more than 10 years ago | (#8075966)

This article [mercurynews.com] has way more details than the parent post. Sharman is suing because the RIAA used Kazaa Lite, an illegal replica of Kazaa without the ads, and for violating the license agreement by sending warnings to Kazaa users. Unlike the Recording and Movie industries, which allege that Kazaa is illegal because it could be used as a tool in copyright infringement, Sharman is alleging that the RIAA is using software which directly violates copyrights. Kazaa Lite explicitly states in the license agreement that it is illegal.

The "right" to sue? (4, Insightful)

dada21 (163177) | more than 10 years ago | (#8075992)

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.

You do have a right to sue (4, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 10 years ago | (#8076120)

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.

I hope the RIAA wins. No Troll (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8076007)

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:I hope the RIAA wins. No Troll (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8076073)

>That means that suddenly everything you've ever
>clicked yes too becomes null and void.

No it doesn't. It only applies to that party clicking on that agreement.

Why do people believe that one civil court decision changes the whole landscape of law for the entire world? If my landlord sues me and somehow I win and get out of paying rent, does that mean that everybody forever more is released from paying rent if they have a lease contract similar to mine? And why would none of them be entitled to a hearing on his individual case?

Speling error! (1, Funny)

naitro (680425) | more than 10 years ago | (#8076008)

From the article:
"[...] accusing it of misusing Kazaa software to invade users' privacy and send corrupt files and threatening messages." (emphasis added)

That's piracy, mind you.

:-)

Kazaa is dying, with any luck (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8076040)

Between the spyware, RIAA problems, plethora of viruses, corrupt files, mislabelled files, lack of corruption handling, inability to block shared file viewing, leechers, child porn, static filled songs, low quality mp3s and avis and security flaws I'm surprised anyone is still using it

Custom Versions of Kazaa designed by Bay TSP (5, Interesting)

Mal Reynolds (676267) | more than 10 years ago | (#8076049)

I suspect they're accusing the recording and movie industry of doing (effectively) what the Kazaa light group did. Making custom version of the Kazaa client to suit their own needs. It's a clear violation of the DMCA and of Kazaa's copyrights.
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.

Just goes to show... (5, Funny)

frohike (32045) | more than 10 years ago | (#8076061)

You should always be careful when you squeeze the Sharman!

Ba-dum-psshh.. thanks, I'll be here all evening. Tip your waitresses and try the buffet.

Consumers' copy rights? (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 10 years ago | (#8076131)

Does this complex of countersuits resolve more clearly a consumer's right to duplicate the CDs they bought? If I make a few copies of a CD I bought, can't I play one at home, one in the car, one in the office, and another in the closet as backup, for reduplication when those other copies are too scratched to play any more? If I give a copy to someone else, that seems like a violation, but if I keep all my copies for my own use, is that OK?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...