p2pnet - rss feed: Big Music cartel nails Sharman
p2p news / p2pnet:- The owners of the Big Four music label cartel are delighted. The Australian Federal Court has found Sharman Networks’ Kazaa p2p application induced users to infringe copyrights.
Judge Murray Wilcox said it had “long been obvious that warnings on the Kazaa website against sharing of copyright files ‘are ineffective to prevent, or even substantially to curtail, copyright infringements by users’,” says the Australian Associated Press.
In the process, he effectively said he believes Sharman can in fact control what files are accessed, and what files aren’t, despite statements from Sharman executives that they can’t monitor Kazaa users. “They [Sharman] said Kazaa’s legal uses included trading of authorised songs, videos and even recipes, and the website contained clear warnings that users were not authorised to infringe copyright,” says the Sydney Morning Herald.
And, “Far from trying to discourage copyright file sharing, the Kazaa website exhorted users to increase their file-sharing, effectively encouraging visitors ‘to think it cool to defy the record companies by ignoring copyright constraints”, said Wilcox, quoted by the APP.
He acknowledged Sharman “probably cannot totally prevent copyright infringement by users”, and didn’t order Kazaa to be shut down, says the story. But he did rule that Sharman and partner Altnet be restrained from “authorising Kazaa users to breach copyright and that modifications be made to future technology to reduce copyright infringement”.
Wilcox dismissed allegations against Philip Morle, Sharman’s cto, and Anthony Rose, says the Herald.
According to ZDNet Australia, a Sharman spokeswoman said the company would appeal, stressing the victory hadn’t been comprehensive, “citing the judge’s dismissal of the labels’ Trade Practices Act and conspiracy claims”.
Sharman is “obviously disappointed that we have not been completely successful,” she said. “But, we will appeal those parts of the decision where we were not successful and are confident of a win on appeal.”
Wilcox ordered Sharman to pay 90% of the costs. A separate hearing will determine damages, say the reports.
ZDNet has Michael Speck, the ex-head of the ARIA’s (Australian Recording Industry Association) faux police unit, saying the labels had already had AU$30 million worth of Sharman’s assets frozen “and so were confident they would receive full payment”.
Kazaa’s popularity has plummeted in the last couple of years largely because of its use of bundled adware and, formerly, spyware, and in the US, Big Music’s RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) has been persecuting people it claims share files with each other.
Many, if not most, were using Kazaa.
Revised @ 8:13 am Pacific as per the first comment post. Thanks.
Something you think we should know? tips[at]p2pnet.net
See:-
Australian Associated Press - Kazaa ruling a win for music industry, September 5, 2005
Sydney Morning Herald - Kazaa ordered to clamp down on ‘rip-offs’, September 5, 2005
ZDNet Australia - Sharman to appeal while record labels celebrate, September 5, 2005
September 5th, 2005 at 4:01 pm
Your first paragraph is incorrect. According to online summaries of the ruling. the judge did not find that Sharman infringed copyrights - he found that Sharman induced users to infringe copyrights.
It seems that Sharman made three critical errors that contributed to their vulnerability:
1. They earned money on Kazaa from bundled adware and advertising, making it worthwhile for lawyers to go after them.
2. They actively encouraged users to trade copyrighted files, at least before they smartened up and got more careful.
3. They located their home office in a jurisdiction (Australia) where the legal system is traditionally very friendly to established authority.
September 5th, 2005 at 8:56 pm
I would love a couple of more of those two-worded responses :).
September 6th, 2005 at 2:06 am
Let me understand the logic here. Because of a false presumption that software can be coded to know whether its use is infringing or not, Kazaa is being held liable for copyright infringement. This is no difference than if, under the false presumption that a gun or a car can be “coded” to know whether it is being used in the commission of a crime, that the manufacturer should be held liable if it is used for infringing purposes.
Are people, including the courts, really that uninformed bout the nature of computers to have the wool pulled over their eyes so easily? I know that “to err is human, to really fowl things up requires a computer” was a cute statement I read as a child, but it seems to apply to far too many courts. The “filters” that they are asking for can’t exist, and the whole concept of “copy control” is snake-oil being pushed on the market by technology monopolists that want to ensure that all digital communications are intermediated by their products.
http://KillBillC60.ca
September 7th, 2005 at 1:45 am
Sharman never did explain how it was that you could set up a business using other people’s content. Let the hundreds of legitimate businesses that supply mucis on-line get on with honest business.
September 7th, 2005 at 1:16 pm
A a new type of filter must be invented. The world has seen all type of filters, but none of them will work as a p2p filter, so we must start from scratch. My wife works in a filter manufacturing plant, my car has an oil filter and a friend smokes filtered cigarettes. All of this makes me en expert on filters, all of which is helpful, for here we are talking about the most complex filter ever devised. Its importance cannot be underestimated, since the filter can prevent anyone with a computer from being sued by RIAA, at a cost of trillions to the economy and a possible revolution of the people against government.
First lets define what a p2p filter must do. A p2p filter allows Public domain works 2 Pass. That is where the letters come from: Public domain 2 Pass.
Then we must define what is a public domain work. Anywhere a public domain work is any work not protected by copyright law. Non public domain works have one or many owners. So here we present our first idea. A P2P filter allows everything to pass except works that that have owners.
The next question we must ask, is how is the filter going to determine that a work is copyright protected. My filter expertise has led me to developed a secret method for p2p filtering. However, since business methods can now be patented and copyrightable if the ideas are embodied in software, I will not reveal my secret until I talk to my patent/copyright lawyer and have patented and copyrighted my idea.
Several filtering problem I have not solved . For example, my soon to be patented filter cannot cope with these situations, when:
-today is the 70th anniversary of the death of the author and the work goes into public domain. Unless this problem is solved we will get many false positives.
-the author is an animal. For example a monkey painter.
-the author is unknown. For example the photographer of my great grandfather’s photograph taken during a safari in South Africa in 1920 by a safari guide. Is the author dead? The laws of what country applies? If any rights exists, do they belong to the 40 heirs of the Safari photographer or the 40 descendants of my great grandfather?
-the composer of a music score is Chopin. Is the author dead over 70 years and the work is in the public domain or is the author the publisher who made a new annotated edition, with the useless annotations added as a trick so a to qualify for a new copyrights or to extend the life of copyrights?
-the author is a machine. For example, photos taken of a bank robbery by security cameras.
-the author owner is a native of the Amazon region who has no idea what a copyright is.
-the work was published under the old laws, with the authorization of the owners but without a copyright notice, thereby becoming automatically a public domain work. How is it determined that the author authorized the publication without the copyright notice.
- the owner of the work wishes that his/her work be freely shared by anyone.
- the author is from one of these radical countries where it is believed that authors have no rights of ownership. One of these countries is the U.S., where works by federal public employees automatically become public domain works.
-
Please, if anyone can figure out how to solve the above problems, please let me know. Help save civilization and arts as we know it.
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com