Beta

×

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!

RIAA Victims Bring Class Action Against Kazaa

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the playing-right-into-their-hands dept.

Music 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)."

cancel ×

288 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Of course I don't support copyright, but... (5, Insightful)

dada21 (163177) | more than 7 years ago | (#17150162)

...I also don't support using the courts to try to decide who is a victim and who isn't. For me, I'd rather buy optional insurance to protect my transactions than worry about suing someone.

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.

Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17150270)

Pay for "optional insurance?" Hell, you pay for SLASHDOT. A fool and his money.

Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... (4, Interesting)

dada21 (163177) | more than 7 years ago | (#17150360)

I've received at least 5 short contracts because of slashdot -- contracts that have paid at least 5 figures each.

Almost everything I get from slashdot is worth more than the time I spend writing on it. People respond to my posts, and I use those responses to better understand various topics and items -- politics, tech, lifestyle. This is my business, so the input I gather here helps me cultivate a better product for my customers, thereby raising my income. I would say that I probably receive more out of the responses here that I would doing any continuing education or external study. Whereas most educations are antiquated and take years to catch up, slashdot is NOW and tells us about the current "geekthink." I don't think one can spend their time better if they're consultants. You'd also be shocked at how many employers read slashdot regularly, and take steps to hire those who have interesting viewpoints.

A fool with his money is the fool that doesn't think about their return on every purchase -- whether a financial profit, emotional profit or even time-savings. For me, I receive the education and opinions of thousands. For $10 and an hour a day of time invested.

Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17150566)

What does paying for slashdot give you that you couldn't get with a free subscription?

Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... (3, Insightful)

dada21 (163177) | more than 7 years ago | (#17150632)

What does paying for slashdot give you that you couldn't get with a free subscription?

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.

Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17151028)

I've received at least 5 short contracts because of slashdot -- contracts that have paid at least 5 figures each.

What do you do?

Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... (5, Insightful)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 7 years ago | (#17150334)

Welcome to the land of no accountability. We don't hold anyone accountable for what they do here, not our politicians, not corporate CEOs, and definitely not morons who hurt themselves or break the law.

It's always someone else's fault.

Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... (4, Insightful)

wawannem (591061) | more than 7 years ago | (#17150544)

Although you may be right, I think there may be some merit to her case. Do we punish the owners of the masses of infected/infested PCs who spew out tons of email? We assume that everyone understands technology and legal issues the way we do, but in fact, I would say that it is very possible (even likely) that most people don't understand the ramifications of using Kazaa. Imagine a teenager showing a grandparent the library of music available online through Kazaa. Having never used the software, I can't say whether or not there are warnings about the dangers of trading copyrighted content, but if the warnings are obscure and not prevalent (like the warning labels of cigarettes) then maybe they should be held accountable.

Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... (1)

dada21 (163177) | more than 7 years ago | (#17150686)

And how do you, as an individual, hold masses accountable? Most say through laws, but the laws just don't work. If a law is created, does it really change what the masses want to do? Not a chance, ever. Most people don't murder because they know it is wrong -- not because the law says "don't murder." Even with the law, murders occur more or less as often as before (and I would say moreso because of other laws that have caused people to lose their minds). Do laws against theft make you not steal? I doubt it, since most of us know we could steal and not get caught. We generally don't steal because we know it is wrong.

If you're afraid of others who are spamming or sending virii out into the ether, get software on your end and be a good example of the right way to protect your own resources, rather than yell "There should be a law!" when you know that laws just don't work.

Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... (1)

hsmith (818216) | more than 7 years ago | (#17151050)

Also note that laws protect the state NOT that individual. Much as in a murder case. The case isn't brought on on behalf of the family, it is brought on by the state. In many states, individuals cannot privately prosecute a murderer, only the state can. Criminals are locked up on behalf of the state, they aren't for the victim.

Laws are created to protect the massive state, not individuals. SOmething that most others seem to forget.

Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17150912)

I have always said, if ytou dont understand the device, you have no right owning and operating one.

Yes many people dont understand a car, and yes, those people really have no right to be driving. haveyou even looked at the idiots on the road and how bad they drive????

Example? Norther roads get SNOW. how many SUV's and cars do I see overturned or off the road with BALD TIRES in the snow? Almost all of them. People too stupid to know that bald tires in snow = you slipping and sliding off the road should not be allowed to drive.

These morons that dont know how to operate and maintain a PC should not be allowed to own one... give them a webtv box.

Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... (5, Insightful)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 7 years ago | (#17150922)

It is not Kazza's duty to inform it's customer base of the various laws that cold be broken. Ford or toyota do not place warnings on the stering wheel or fuel tank's cap warning about driving too fast for conditions or speeding or having a valid drivers license or even insurance before operating. In most states/areas. you don't even need a valid drivers license to buy a car. Try getting out of a ticket by claiming the manufacturer never warned or instructed you about the laws. Try going back after them when you gte busted for breaking a law they never informed you about.

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.

Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... (4, Interesting)

mangu (126918) | more than 7 years ago | (#17151200)

Do we punish the owners of the masses of infected/infested PCs who spew out tons of email?


We should.


We assume that everyone understands technology and legal issues the way we do, but in fact, I would say that it is very possible (even likely) that most people don't understand the ramifications of using Kazaa.


They should. Robert Heinlein wrote in 1949 in his short story "Gulf":


"If the average man thinks at all, he does silly things like generalizing from a single datum. He uses one-valued logics. If he is exceptionally bright, he may use two-valued, 'either-or' logic to arrive at his wrong answers. If he is hungry, hurt, or personally interested in the answer, he can't use any sort of logic and will discard an observed fact as blithely as he will stake his life on a piece of wishful thinking. He uses the technical miracles created by superior men without wonder nor surprise, as a kitten accepts a bowl of milk. Far from aspiring to higher reasoning, he is not even aware that higher reasoning exists. He classes his own mental proccess as being of the same sort as the genius of an Einstein. Man is not a rational animal; he is a rationalizing animal.
For explanations of a universe that confuses him he seizes onto numerology, astrology, histerical religions, and other fancy ways to go crazy. Having accepted such glorified nonsense, facts make no impression on him, even at the cost of his own life. Joe, one of the hardest things to believe is the abismal depth of human stuipidity.
That is why there is always room at the top, why a man with just a little more on the ball can so easily become governor, millionaire, or college president - and why homo sap is sure to be displaced by New Man, because there is so much room for improvement and evolution never stops.
Here and there among ordinary men there is a rare individual who really thinks, can and does use logic in at least one field - he's often as stupid as the rest outside his study or laboratory - but he can think, if he's not disturbed or sick or frightened. This rare individual is responsible for all the progress made by the race; the others reluctantly adopt his results. Much as the ordinary man distrusts and persecutes the process of thinking he is forced to accept the results occasionally, because thinking is efficient compared with his own mauderings. He may still plant his corn in the dark of the Moon but he will plant better corn developed by better men than he.
Still rarer is the man who thinks habitually, who applies reason, rather than habit pattern, to all his activity. Unless he masques himself, his is a dangerous life; he is regarded as queer, untrustworthy, subversive of public morals; he is a pink monkey among brown monkeys - a fatal mistake. Unless the pink monkey can brown himself before he is caught.
The brown monkey's instinct to kill is correct; such men are dangerous to all monkey customs.
Rarest of all is the man who can and does reason at all times, quickly, accurately, inclusively, despite hope or fear or bodily distress, without egocentric bias or thalamic disturbance, with correct memory, with clear distinction between fact, assumption, and non-fact. Such men exist, Joe; they are 'New Man' - human in all respects, indistinguishable in appearance or under the scalpel from homo sap, yet as unlike him in action as the Sun is unlike a single candle."

...


"I confess to that same affection for democracy, Joe. But it's like yearning for the Santa Claus you believed as a child. For a hundred and fifty years or so democracy, or something like it, could flourish safely. The issues were such as to be settled without disaster by the votes of common men, befogged and ignorant as they were. But now, if the race is simply to stay alive, political decisions depend on real knowledge of such things as nuclear physics, planetary ecology, genetic theory, and even system mechanics. They aren't up to it, Joe. With goodness and more will than they possess less than one in a thousand could stay awake over one page of physics; they can't learn what they must know."


There you have it, people who cannot understand how Kazaa worked are voting for politicians who make the laws that govern us. Do you think that's right?

Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... (2, Insightful)

gt_mattex (1016103) | more than 7 years ago | (#17150410)

Suing someone is now a way of recouping losses rather than a way of seeking justice.

Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... (3, Insightful)

gt_mattex (1016103) | more than 7 years ago | (#17150458)

Or outright profit for that matter.

Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... (3, Informative)

Thansal (999464) | more than 7 years ago | (#17150572)

ummm, IANAL, but isn't the POINT of suing to recoup losses?

Justice is for criminal law, civil law is for reperation of damages/lost income/etc, etc. Not for "justice". The only place "justice" comes into is paying some one for their "psycological truama" or "pain and suffering", and those I tihnk are just rediculous anyway. If some one HARMED you then what they did is almost always illegal, and thus is covered by criminal law.

I guess that is just my oppinion on law, probably I am wrong.

Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... (5, Informative)

Kelson (129150) | more than 7 years ago | (#17150438)

The spyware claim (keeping the shared folder shared even after uninstalling Kazaa), if valid, is the only one that might have any merit.

Everything else, though, smacks of "Look what you made me do!" blame-deflection.

I sued Home Depot [sing365.com]
'Cause they sold me a hammer
Which they knew I might drop on my toes

Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... (3, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 7 years ago | (#17150450)

I somehow suspect the RIAA itself may be behind this lawsuit.

-Eric

Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... (4, Insightful)

poot_rootbeer (188613) | more than 7 years ago | (#17150608)

I also don't support using the courts to try to decide who is a victim and who isn't.

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... (3, Interesting)

cnelzie (451984) | more than 7 years ago | (#17150794)

"It isn't that I refuse to learn a trade and stick to it, it is just fair to pay a living wage!"


This last strawman argument you have made is highly disingenuous of you.

Yes, it is fair to pay a living wage and not every single person has the opportunities to put themselves into a position for which they can begin to learn, let alone stick to a trade of some sort. Sometimes, this is simply because someone was born with less intelligence than someone else. Sometimes this is because the environment they were raised within handicapped them, with either parent's who cannot read or are simply "busy" with other things.

A living wage allows a person the opportunity to advance him or herself and raise him or herself out of the situation he/she lives within. This is better for all of society, because it brings greater potential for people to earn more and thus purchase more expensive items, thus bringing the price of such items lower for all, while simultaneously increasing the profit margins of the manufacturers and retailers of those goods due to the economy of scale.

Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... (1, Troll)

Viper Daimao (911947) | more than 7 years ago | (#17151060)

Sometimes, this is simply because someone was born with less intelligence than someone else.

So you want to subsidize stupidity?

Re:Of course I don't support copyright, but... (1)

cemcnulty (225472) | more than 7 years ago | (#17151184)

Wow, four stawmen in one post. Impressive even by slashdot standards.

The Beginning of The End... (2, Insightful)

creimer (824291) | more than 7 years ago | (#17150204)

Won't be long before kids are suing their parents for neglecting them while pursuing a lawsuit against Kazaa for being self-made victims.

In other news... (3, Funny)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 7 years ago | (#17150206)

... they will be serving Free Lunch at the trial.

She might as well... (5, Insightful)

Fedorpheux (912926) | more than 7 years ago | (#17150238)

...sue the voices in her head that told her to download copyrighted material.

Re:She might as well... (1)

sgar (859603) | more than 7 years ago | (#17150390)

And oddly enough she wasn't sued for downloading copyrighted material. She was sued for illegally sharing copyrighted content. While this lawsuit reeks of stupidity, I do find that the average user is unaware of what makes sharing applications like Kazaa illegal in the first place, and hopefully this idiotic lawsuit may bring some of that forward.

What? (1)

TheGreatHegemon (956058) | more than 7 years ago | (#17150240)

"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)." Come again? I never heard of this part. Also, it wasn't false advertising. The downloading WAS free - you didn't pay for Kazaa or a monthly subscription to use it.

Re:What? (1)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 7 years ago | (#17150394)

Kazaa did install some stupid spyware, but it was really more just adware, and you had to allow it to share your music files; otherwise every 14 year old boy in the world would have been unknowingly sharing out zillions of ambient sound/music/dialog files from his locally installed video games, 'cause mp3 is a common format there too.

Re:What? (1)

no reason to be here (218628) | more than 7 years ago | (#17150408)

Also, it wasn't false advertising. The downloading WAS free - you didn't pay for Kazaa or a monthly subscription to use it.

that's true; however, that's not the complaint. she's suing over deceptive advertising practices, not false advertising. specifically, her claim is, "Kazaa deceptively marketed its product as allowing 'free downloads'" not that they said there were free downloads, but there really weren't.

Re:What? (1)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 7 years ago | (#17150616)

her claim is, "Kazaa deceptively marketed its product as allowing 'free downloads'" not that they said there were free downloads, but there really weren't.

Maybe she thought they meant "Free, as in speech", not "Free, as in beer"! Does Kazaa specify?

::sigh:: (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 7 years ago | (#17150244)

Whatever happend to honour amongst thieves?

I mean honestly...look, the woman was sued by the RIAA because she was obviously doing something illegal. The woman is now suing the company that enabled her to do the illegal thing in the first place.

Does that mean I can sue my crack dealer if I get caught? I don't mean testify against him...SUE HIM.

Surely this is a horrible display of where we as a society are headed. "And don't call me 'shirly'"

Re:::sigh:: (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 7 years ago | (#17150416)

Well, you can sue anybody for anything. That is how the legal system works. Sueing someone doesn't mean that you are going to win the argument though, but it is more civilized than having a fist fight about it.

Re:::sigh:: (1)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 7 years ago | (#17150444)

A better example would be, "Can I sue Ford because I got sent to jail after doing a hit and run in one of their cars." Or maybe, "Can I sue the bus station because I got busted after taking my drugs out of one of their lockers?"

Re:::sigh:: (1)

ThatsNotFunny (775189) | more than 7 years ago | (#17150614)

More along the lines of: The commercial said I'd get hot women with this car, but after I raped a few and got caught, I'm gonna sue!

Are you sure? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17150466)

"because she was obviously doing something illegal"

Really?

If I make a copy of my music CD and give it to my wife to listen to in her car, I can't get a straight answer out of copyright lawyers if that's illegal.

So your assertion that Kazaa was illegal to unsophisticated users to me fails the test.

For example, I can listen to shoutcast stations on the internet for free. Lots of popular music. I can listen to the radio. I can tape from the radio. Can I tape from the internet?

You seem so sure you know what's legal and what's not. I don't think anybody *anybody* knows what's legal in this area.

Re:Are you sure? (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 7 years ago | (#17150532)

If she was being sued by the RIAA, it is implied that she was distributing music illegally. Given the fact that part of her suit against Kazaa is that they didn't express that things would be shared, that is a safe assumption to make.

Yes, and no (1)

phorm (591458) | more than 7 years ago | (#17150664)

I remember when the "free music" thing first startup up. A lot of people didn't have any realization of the copyright issues. You might argue that nobody expects a free lunch, but the reality is that many products are paid for with things other than money (for example, advertising). Certainly there isn't a per-search charge for things such as google, they're pulling their cash from advertisers. Same with the "free dialup" account days, where your dialup client popped up ads that paid for the service.

Given the ads bundled with and within kazaa, and the warcry of "free stuff", it's not that unreasonable an assumption that many people truely believed they were getting a product that wasn't so much "free" as paid for in a different manner. There are also plenty of sites that do offer free music, legally. In fact, I have several songs from what was mp3.com that were legally downloaded, but have since become more popular and are on the radio etc (and mp3.com doesn't exist anymore).

I've had quiet a few people ask me about the "free music" or "free music" and they were genuinely shocked when I explained the legal rammifications.

Constrasting this to your analogy of drugs, where the knowledge of drugs such as crack being illegal is hammered into us since childhood, I'd say it's an unfair comparison. People *know* that drugs not coming from a pharmacy are generally dubious if not illegal, and they certainly know that crack, heroin, etc are not legal. Given the mish-mash of free promo songs, ad-paid sites, and those such as garageband, etc... the music industry is far less clear.

Heck, I just had a band send me a free disc the other day. I didn't even pay shipping.

Assuming that the women was honestly misled by Kazaa (which given the marketing used, isn't so unbelieveable), I'd say she has a case. Furthermore, before the advent of iTunes etc, many ISP's were advertising fast download speeds for music, movies, etc... but not offering any legal services. Given the number of people without 'net who signed up purely based on this, I think that the overall market has some liability in this case.

Re:Yes, and no (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 7 years ago | (#17150750)

mp3.com used to be an amazing website...but the majority of what was on there was put up by independed artists trying to make a name for themselves...I know there was big-name music up there, but the vast majority of it was put up by the bands themselves.

Man. You used to be able to find ANYTHING on that website. They covered 30 subgenres of metal alone.

Re:Yes, and no (1)

Secrity (742221) | more than 7 years ago | (#17151094)

"(and mp3.com doesn't exist anymore)"

mp3.com exists again (www.mp3.com) and it is now part of CNet. It offers free mp3 downloads from new artists and full track streaming audio new releases from established artists.

Re:::sigh:: (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 7 years ago | (#17150706)

mean honestly...look, the woman was sued by the RIAA because she was obviously doing something illegal. The woman is now suing the company that enabled her to do the illegal thing in the first place.

Does that mean I can sue my crack dealer if I get caught?


Nonparallel situations. Crimes are different that civil offenses. Suits between civil wrongdoers involved in different ways in the same wrongdoing to apportion damages are a well-established feature of our civil justice system, and are nothing particularly new.

Surely this is a horrible display of where we as a society are headed.

Its not a sign of our society heading anywhere, because its not new.

Re:::sigh:: (1)

poot_rootbeer (188613) | more than 7 years ago | (#17150776)

Does that mean I can sue my crack dealer if I get caught?

If you didn't know that crack was illegal when you bought and smoked it, I'd be surpised.

On the other hand, did the average person understand that using Kazaa as intended, with its default settings, could cause him or her to commit violations of copyright law?

It's a valid argument to raise in a civil courtroom. Whether it's a compelling enough argument to lead to a win, well... let's wait and see.

Re:::sigh:: (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 7 years ago | (#17150860)

Ignorance is too often an excuse used by the guilty...I'm not saying it doesn't have it's place, but the chances of the woman knowing how to download and use Kazaa, and yet in this day and age not be aware that what she was doing is illegal...I'm sorry, I have an extremely difficult time believing that.

Who knows, maybe she hoenstly didn't know...but again. That is a very very highly unlikely situation.

Use Your Eyes! (3, Informative)

nbannerman (974715) | more than 7 years ago | (#17150252)

If I buy a house, and then don't pay the morgage, they'll repossess the house. I can't use the argument of 'I didn't read the Terms and Conditions' to get myself out of the mess I'm in.

Last time I installed a piece of software like Kazaa, it stated what it was going to do at each step, and clearly explained what would happen, and that I shouldn't share files to which I didn't own the copyright.

Sueing for being stupid is... well, stupid.

Re:Use Your Eyes! (1)

jim_redwagon (845837) | more than 7 years ago | (#17150700)

Sueing for being stupid is...

sadly becoming the American way...

It's all there.... (3, Informative)

emor8t (1033068) | more than 7 years ago | (#17150254)

Read the fine print lady, all the stuff your sueing for is painfully obvious. Had you bothered to do any research on Kazaa, you would know it's issues! You got caught, sucks to be you. But it's not Kazaa's problem, they are simply providing a service.

Re:It's all there.... (1)

Teppic_52 (982950) | more than 7 years ago | (#17150604)

I don't think it's a case of 'fine print', just reading, you know, the bit of the installation where it asks you what to use as the shared folder, and warns you the contents will be available to other users.
She may as well try and sue MS for having too many pointless dialog boxes, and therefore conditioning her to blindly click 'yes' on any dialog box without reading it's contents.

Re:It's all there.... (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 7 years ago | (#17151014)

I think that's a bit much. I would grant that if it's too good to be true, then it must be, especially with regard to free media like that.

A person can't spend their time researching everything. Do you read every EULA and every copyright notice? Most people have better things to do with their time. If a company has malicious software in their package, I think they must be held accountable for it. Kazaa had spyware in it and they went to great lengths to hide that fact.

So much for personal responsibility (1)

Iphtashu Fitz (263795) | more than 7 years ago | (#17150260)

"I had no idea what the software I installed would do."

"I didn't know that I was downloading copyrighted files. Their software should have prevented it."

Re:So much for personal responsibility (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17150528)

Maybe the courts will simply say that Kazaa must refund what the victim paid for the Kazaa software. I only briefly had Kazaa on my computer over 5 years ago but I'm guessing that the software license included something about limits on liability.

Jim

Re:So much for personal responsibility (2, Funny)

Andrewkov (140579) | more than 7 years ago | (#17150620)

Her cat clicked ok on the EULA when she was in the bathroom..

Re:So much for personal responsibility (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17150934)

The victim should then sue her cat rather than Kazaa.



Is "identity theft" really theft?

Re:So much for personal responsibility (1)

u-235-sentinel (594077) | more than 7 years ago | (#17150962)

"I didn't know that I was downloading copyrighted files. Their software should have prevented it."

She should have said she used to download movies but doesn't anymore. Also that her family sternly spoke to her about doing something like this.

She will be honest in the future :-)

Ridiculous. (4, Insightful)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 7 years ago | (#17150280)

This is like smokers suing convenience stores because that's where they bought the smokes that gave 'em lung cancer.

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.

Re:Ridiculous. (4, Insightful)

garcia (6573) | more than 7 years ago | (#17150320)

This is like smokers suing convenience stores because that's where they bought the smokes that gave 'em lung cancer.

It's more like suing your drug dealer after you go to prison for getting caught with a rock.

Re:Ridiculous. (2, Insightful)

Ngarrang (1023425) | more than 7 years ago | (#17150426)

Your Honor, I would like to blame Ford Motor Company for selling me a truck that will go 150 MPH. If they hadn't sold me that truck, I wouldn't have gotten this speeding ticket.

Re:Ridiculous. (1)

GeckoX (259575) | more than 7 years ago | (#17150428)

Some would say it's more like trying to rat on your drug dealer after you go to prison for getting caught with a rock.

Re:Ridiculous. (1)

Kelson (129150) | more than 7 years ago | (#17150606)

It's more like suing your drug dealer after you go to prison for getting caught with a rock.

Or maybe suing the guy who told you where you could find the drug dealer and/or drove you there.

Re:Ridiculous. (2, Interesting)

Vellmont (569020) | more than 7 years ago | (#17151142)


It's more like suing your drug dealer after you go to prison for getting caught with a rock.

A surprisingly good analogy. The only claim that really has any merit IMO is the spyware claim. Using the same analogy, can you sue your drug dealer for putting rat-poison in your drugs that wound up destroying your kidneys? I'd say yes. Sure you took the risk of being addicted to the drug and the effects of it, but the drug dealer put the rat-poison in and didn't tell you about it, therefore you didn't assume that risk.

I don't know much about spyware in Kazaa, but if Kazaa did put in spyware that created a further risk even after un-installing the software, they could be vulnerable.

Re:Ridiculous. (1)

vux984 (928602) | more than 7 years ago | (#17150846)

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

You seem to have forgotten that all the "precedent prohibiting companies from being sued when their products were used in the commission of crimes" wasn't enough to stop the RIAA from *successfully* suing p2p companies.

Or what about the lawsuits against the likes of youtube and myspace?

Re:Ridiculous. (1)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 7 years ago | (#17151174)

The **AA won against the p2p companies because they successfully argued in court that those companies were enticing people to break the law with their advertising (same as this chick). They didn't win because the p2p software allowed file transfers, because that's not illegal.

YouTube hosts video that has copyright problems, that makes it their issue, same with MySpace. If I put up a webpage, and put copyrighted material on it, I'm breaking the law.

Re:Ridiculous. (1)

thebdj (768618) | more than 7 years ago | (#17150960)

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

You are kidding, right? There are plenty of legal uses for p2p software, including the sharing of non-copyrighted materials. Some places started using bittorrent to spread software and take the load off of their servers. A lot of linux distributions did this. There are actually materials that are in the public domain that people can download through these services as well. Was the primary use of Kazaa to share illegal software? Maybe; however, I think either their arguments were flawed or the judge was stupid, because any punishment of Kazaa was a slap in the face of the Betamax decision that allowed us to keep are VCRs and provided the way for CD-RW and DVD-RW drives.

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).

Really? Because people still sue video game companies claiming that the violent game was the reason someone went nuts and shot up his office or school. Those cases and violent game laws are what keep Jack Thompson in business. We live in a society today that hates to take responsibility for its own actions. Everyone always seems to believe someone else is to blame, and until the courts stop this sort of non-sense from ever seeing the light of day, they will continue to be a problem.

Re:Ridiculous. (1)

xuenen (1036934) | more than 7 years ago | (#17151058)

Hey that's a good point, but I think actually supports the plaintiff.

It's not like suing the convenience store, it's like suing the cigarette manufacturer. It's not the cigarette maker that kills you, it's the cigarette. But we still allow lawsuits against the maker.

In this case, it's the maker of the software that allows you to do something illegal. In fact, that makes it an even stronger case than smoking. Using Kazaa's product supports an illegal activity; using cigarettes just supports a really bad behavior.

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.

Going after the wrong one... (2, Interesting)

porkThreeWays (895269) | more than 7 years ago | (#17150298)

It's almost as if the RIAA let her off easier if she promised she'd bring a class action suit to various P2P companies. This sort of thing has got to make the RIAA spooge on themselves and I can not imagine someone actually taking their frustration out on Kazaa without some coaching. Nice move RIAA, but I see right through it!

Re:Going after the wrong one... (1)

eyeb1 (522766) | more than 7 years ago | (#17151034)

i'm with you ..

it was probable part of her settlement with the RIAA .. that she launch a class action law suite against Kazaa.. something they could not do .. but which would serve them well ..

they might even have made an agreement to pay her .. if it were somehow to succeed ..

Look, I hate RIAA as much as anyone (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17150300)

I hate RIAA as much as anyone, but this is just ridiculous. The person downloaded software and installed it, for the express purpose of stealing music. They knew there was no free lunch. Kind of like somebody approaching you and offering to give you a bunch of car stereo equipment out of their truck for $10. What's that saying? If it seems to good to be true, it is? In the latter case, you'd be guilty of receiving stolen property. In this case, you are guilty of copyright violation. End of case. Just another example of trial attorneys lining their pockets with reprehensible class action lawsuits.

Re:Look, I hate RIAA as much as anyone (1)

IwarkChocobos (881084) | more than 7 years ago | (#17150468)

"Just another example of trial attorneys lining their pockets with reprehensible class action lawsuits." Also another waste of taxpayers money....wtg, lady.

I have a lawsuit idea. (4, Interesting)

Lethyos (408045) | more than 7 years ago | (#17150314)

I am going to buy a gun, completely ignorant of how to use it, and start playing around with it. If someone gets shot (including myself) I will sue the company that made it. Horray for logic!

Re:I have a lawsuit idea. (1)

Lane.exe (672783) | more than 7 years ago | (#17150666)

Except that there are lots of legal doctrines that provide a defense to the gun manufacturer for you doing so. You're obviously cognizant of a risk of using a gun negligently, and have proceeded to use it despite an awareness of your own limitations. Sounds to me like you've assumed the risk of injury.

Really, before people start to criticize the law, litigation, and those bastard "trial attorneys," they should at least educate themselves on the law.

please tag this story: faggots (0, Troll)

sirius sam (963847) | more than 7 years ago | (#17150350)

Thats what these people are a bunch of. AMIRITE?

Customer? (4, Insightful)

StarvingSE (875139) | more than 7 years ago | (#17150412)

How can you be a customer of a company that provides Free as in Beer software?

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

Any app that installs spyware should be sued! (4, Interesting)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 7 years ago | (#17150482)

I'm tired of spending hours removing hidden spyware and addware from machines where someone unknowingly that crap while trying to install something else. For example, my uncle has to use a computer for work. His daughters would constantly download the app-of-the-week and every Christmas, I would spend 3-4 hours removing all that crap from his hard drive.

Yeah-yeah, I know it may be mentioned in the license agreement, but do you guys read every license agreement that comes across your screen? Besides, if Ford put a note in the glove box of every car that said, "Vehicle will send adds to your TV set at random intervals, even after vehicle is sold." would that save them from lawsuits? Would it make you guys feel better if the government put a label on all phones saying that they might be listening?

Re:Any app that installs spyware should be sued! (1)

Daemonstar (84116) | more than 7 years ago | (#17150786)

I agree.

However . . . spyware/adware/virus removal is big business these days (reference the big fiasco from Mcafee/Symantec on Windows Vista). Several years ago when I worked at a local ISP (and when we actually had good technicians working there), we made enough money removing viruses/adware/spyware to pay for the payroll alone. :P

Doesn't modern anti-spyware software give warnings when it finds Kazaa, anyway? I know some used to.

Don't Claim Ignorance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17150506)

"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"

How do you think Kazaa found music for free download? They didn't have some magical server with millions of songs for your disposal! If you did not want to share your music directory, you could've changed the settings in the options. You just had to know how to actually use the software. I hate users!

Only in America. (4, Insightful)

jbssm (961115) | more than 7 years ago | (#17150552)

Tss, tss, only such a stupid legal system as the American could lead people to do this kind of stuff.

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 ... much less find a jury stupid enough to actually agree you are right (yeah that's right you also have that idiot system in which you call a bunch off illiterate people from the streets, that know nothing about justice, and get them decide if someone is innocent or guilty).
 

Re:Only in America. (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 7 years ago | (#17150754)

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...


Which would encourage even more the power of money and tip the justice system more than it already is in favor of the rich; no thanks.

Re:Only in America. (1)

Turn-X Alphonse (789240) | more than 7 years ago | (#17150886)

And this would do more damage than good.

If you put this in place then the poor have no legal system what so ever, as they cannot aford to pay both sides fees and not be on the street. This means they won't even risk the chance of it.

If you're rich it makes no difference, if you're poor.. well you now have no law system to support you when someone screws you over.

Funny how the great idea to fix things will only break things further. After all is it worse for some idiots to sue big companies or the little guys having no law system?

Re:Only in America. (3, Interesting)

Angst Badger (8636) | more than 7 years ago | (#17150930)

The problem with the "plaintiff pays" model is that even with entirely legitimate complaints, hardly anyone would be able to risk suing a company with deep pockets. Been wronged by Behemoth Industries? Are you sure you can win the case? If you're not 100% sure, you could get stuck with several million dollars in attorneys' fees. Even if the courts were 99% accurate in their judgments, do you want to risk the 1% chance that you'll end up as a pauper for life?

Just as an aside, you might also want to consider that your complaints about "illiterate people from the streets" would carry more weight if you used complete sentences, correct punctuation, and proper capitalization.

Re:Only in America. (1)

poot_rootbeer (188613) | more than 7 years ago | (#17150966)

(yeah that's right you also have that idiot system in which you call a bunch off illiterate people from the streets, that know nothing about justice, and get them decide if someone is innocent or guilty).

Trial by a jury of peers is a core tenet of Common Law and has a history dating back to the Magna Carta. It's practiced, to one degree or another, in many of the most prosperous, most free, and most democratic nations in the world.

Tell me: what judicial system do you prefer, and how are the citizens in it protected against governmental abuses?

Re:Only in America. (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 7 years ago | (#17151150)

(yeah that's right you also have that idiot system in which you call a bunch off illiterate people from the streets, that know nothing about justice, and get them decide if someone is innocent or guilty).

For the most part, I think that's an ignorant statement. Most states sign you up for possible jury duty if you either have a driver's licence or if you register to vote. It's not as if homeless bums are serving on juries.

On knowing nothing about justice, I have been in the smaller jury selection pools for state and federal courts and they go to great lengths to explain everything with pretty rigorous detail.

What you see in the media is when things go wrong. When things go right, you don't hear about it because it's not interesting.

Re:Only in America. (1)

AVonGauss (1001486) | more than 7 years ago | (#17151196)

Most of the other respondents have totally dismissed this idea, but when it comes to equalizing the civil court system - it may have some merit. The problem right now is you can sue anybody for just about anything - other than your legal fees and maybe some court fees, there really is no penalty. This effectively puts in control the group/person with the most assets - research, legal services and money. If the court system was changed to decide two factors (generally speaking) in each case - merit of claim and disposition of claim, then a penalty system could be implemented based on claims without merit. The penalty system would obviously need to be structured so that it scales itself depending on the group or individual in question - this is necessary to prevent the common person verses billion dollar corporation dilemma. I'm sure there are tons of other details too, but I don't think I would so easily dismiss the idea... For example, if the RIAA/MPAA had to face a penalty for merit-less cases, do you think they would continue to bring those types of cases to court? For the RIAA/MPAA, their legal costs for the most part are fixed and probably considered by the company as a cost of doing business. With a changed model, if a court finds that the case is considered merit-less then they could be imposed a fine.

Is Ignorance Ever An Excuse? (4, Interesting)

blueZhift (652272) | more than 7 years ago | (#17150656)

I know that many here on /. have already dismissed the person filing it as stupid. But I really think this case may help test the question of whether someone's ignorance of how computers and networks work can be held up as an excuse for copyright violations, etc.. At least in the case of automobile driving, all drivers are supposed to have valid licenses which were presumably obtained after training and passing the appropriate tests. But I don't recall any such requirements to operate a computer networked to the internet. I've encountered plenty of smart people in technical and scientific fields who don't really know what they're doing on a computer. So the average Jane, might be excused for not having too much of a clue about what is really happening on the machine. Of course the judge might still throw it all out because she should have read the licenses, but generally our legal system tries not to punish people unless they are competent enough to know what they are doing is wrong. Needless to say, it isn't always successful in this.

HEY ZONK! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17150668)

Is that [flickr.com] the wife of a man who continuously posts FUD on Slashdot?

Is that [flickr.com] you on the left?

I hope you get cancer dude. Skin cancer to be precise. With skin cancer you and your FUD will never make it to CNN.

And you love CNN, right?

Balance (1)

EVil Lawyer (947367) | more than 7 years ago | (#17150710)

Guys, a lot of society's choices involve balancing protection of the less-sophisticated, less-knowledgable members' interests with general laissez-faire values. I am a bit surprised to see a place as liberal as Slashdot brimming with such fervent dispassion for what, in essence, is a claim for protection of someone who just might be a little less sophisticated than general members of society.

Maybe I'll sue too.. (1)

Micklewhite (1031232) | more than 7 years ago | (#17150716)

I could just as well say I'm building a rocket ship so I can go visit the planet that has all those green women. It doesn't mean I'm actually gonna get anywhere. Most likely, or hopefully the case won't actually make it to trial. I know judges in the states don't have a lot of common sense, but this seems to me to be the sort of thing where it'd just get thrown out. Which is ironic since none of the RIAA's cases were ever thrown out for being idiotic.

Ha.... the U.S. Justice system (2, Insightful)

Programmer_In_Traini (566499) | more than 7 years ago | (#17150730)

This is precisely why the U.S. justice system is broken.

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:Ha.... the U.S. Justice system (1)

Ollabelle (980205) | more than 7 years ago | (#17150942)

I'm afraid I don't agree that it's broken. All she's done is sue. The law system is built to allow a pretty low bar to start the lawsuit. The next step will be a decision whether the case has any merit whatsoever (e.g. a demurrer or motion for summary judgment). Only if the case passes that point will it begin to get interesting. That's a far, far cry from winning, as your comparison with Canada uses. In the end, the law and facts will be applied fairly, depending on which venue (court) she's using. I'll freely admit that California comes out with some rather weird decisions sometimes ("I'm a victim because my coffee is hot...") but everyone else in the country discounts their thinking and applies much more rational standards. Here in Virginia, the standard is contributory negligence, i.e. you're all guilty; case dismissed.

US Justice - not that different than Canadian (1)

mandelbr0t (1015855) | more than 7 years ago | (#17151134)

The real issue here is how the RIAA is choosing to enforce their copyrights. We don't see parallel cases in Canada because the CRIA (the Canadian equivalent) does not have such wide-reaching powers. KaZaA users were discovered by invading a reasonable expectation of privacy. Like our telephones, we should be able to use our computers in the privacy of our homes without worrying about some kind of wiretap (unless we were involved in some kind of criminal activity where a warrant for this tapping could be issued.) I've read through the complaint, and it's cohesive and exhaustive. It doesn't just charge the Sharman defendants with being misleading (that's only one of the counts). It logically describes the sum total of the actions taken by the defendants which caused her and others to unwittingly expose themselves to litigation. Sure, there's a good chance that a large portion of the Class named in the suit were fully aware that they were breaching copyright, and given the large number of hammer-to-kill-a-mosquito sorts of activities that the RIAA was well-known to be engaging in, should have expected the litigation. However, the charge that uninstalling KaZaA did not stop you from violating copyright is particularly telling. It means that even the knowledge that you had been duped by Sharman did not give you any way of preventing the activity you would be sued for. The count of Unjust Enrichment is also very strong; it seeks punitive damages to Sharman because they got rich by exposing others to a product of low-quality that exposed them to considerable liability. (BTW, this is the only count that seems like it could have been influenced by the RIAA). In short, as much as people like to beat up on the KaZaA users and say "shoulda read the fine print" and claim that "Only in America could this lawsuit happen", I'd say that's not true. If the CRIA were able to obtain the sorts of records that the RIAA obtained to launch their myriad of legal actions, we'd probably see a lawsuit of this nature eventually, simply because it's the only legal recourse that the suckers who used the product have. Unlike the crack dealer who can be imprisoned, the only thing left to do with the Sharman defendants is to take away all their money and give it to someone else. It doesn't really solve the problem, but at least a judgement is made which will clarify what sorts of caveats a software vendor is required to publish. I think everyone's just jealous coz someone who's pirating music might actually make some money :P mandelbr0t

Lawyer choice? (1)

Non-CleverNickName (1027234) | more than 7 years ago | (#17150736)

I just hope she's not going to use the same lawyers that SCO is using...

The problem is not Kazaa... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17150766)

...it is capitalism. Copyright is theft. It is "private ownership" of the means of production that alienates workers from the prodoct of their own labor and forces the people to accept the insane idea that the fruits of human thought should be locked in vaults like gold bricks and not freely shared to nourish the minds of all and every.

Only when the people come together and reject the twisted logic of the capitalist system will there be freedom and justice.

Re:The problem is not Kazaa... (1)

Sneakernets (1026296) | more than 7 years ago | (#17151124)

Problem is, Capitalism Always wins.

Another money-making scheme for the lawyers? (1)

Sivaram_Velauthapill (693619) | more than 7 years ago | (#17150822)

Is this another one of those money-making schemes for the lawyers? Surely the plaintiff must realize that he/she will end up with marginal gains after all is said and done. I could be wrong but didn't Kazaa go bankrupt or something. If so, would the new company (and shareholders) actually be liable for anything? Probably not but chances are we won't know until a few hundread thousand in legal fees are earned by the lawyers... Sivaram Velauthapillai

If my memory aren't failing me... (2, Informative)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 7 years ago | (#17150828)

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

If my memory doesn't fail me, Kazaa indeed guided the user through a wizard at the first run, where among other things you configured network settings, and which folders to share. And with a "shared files" folder activated by default, while showing that fact to the user as well.

it is downright stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17150842)

I hope the lawsuit is thrown out of court otherwise I my have a few lawsuits of my own.

I am going to sue the ink pen manufacturer because they made it easy to write bad checks, I am going to sue the printer manufacturers because they made their color laser printers so good that it can print money, I am going to sue the telephone company because its easy to make obscene phone calls, I am going to sue to the car manufacturers because of the speeding ticket I got since it was easy to drive over the speed limit, I am going to sue walmart for placing their merchandise close to the front door making it easy to grab and run...

I think you missed the point..... (3, Insightful)

Anachragnome (1008495) | more than 7 years ago | (#17150978)

While I am sure the person that is suing would be happy as a clam to get some financial gain from this, I think alot of you are missing the point.

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.

I may be in the minority here.. (1)

fury88 (905473) | more than 7 years ago | (#17151000)

But lets say she truly did not download pirated music but accidentally shared her music folders to Kazaa without knowing. This would be a great point to the case. I am not saying this is what happened but I think she might have a good point. I mean there was a P2P frenzy there for awhile and there may have been a ton of people who downloaded Kazaa without truly knowing what it was.

Isn't this like a drunk (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17151054)

suing the alcohol company?

software is software (1)

treak007 (985345) | more than 7 years ago | (#17151112)

Software by nature is neither good software nor evil software (exception being M$ products). It is what you do with that software that makes it good or bad. There is no way they will win a case against Kazaa.

End Users (3, Insightful)

pkcs11 (529230) | more than 7 years ago | (#17151130)

With the ubiquity of internet access comes a deeper spectrum of users, some of whom legitmately do (did) not know that using Kazaa (shareazaa et al.)to trade/download/share music is illegal. Without proper messaging from Kazaa (et al) the burden should also rest on their shoulders.

You know what they say.. (0, Flamebait)

s31523 (926314) | more than 7 years ago | (#17151206)

about sh*t that is... it flows down hill. Next to be sued will be broadband providers because before, when we had dial-up, we never had this problem.

Next up. . . (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17151212)

Convicted shoplifters who drove off with full tanks of gasoline sue gas stations for making it so easy to steal gasoline?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

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>