Big Music Kazaa blunder
p2p news / p2pnet: Organized Music thought it had Sharman Networks and Kazaa nicely tied up in a pretty Christmas parcel.
Following an Oz court decision, Sharman had until December 5 to build a keyword filter system based on words supplied by, you guessed it, the Big Four Organized Music family, Sony BMG, Vivendi Universal, Warner Music and EMI.
But Michael Williams, a lawyer acting for the Big Four’s Oz ‘trade’ group, the ARIA (Australian Recording Industry Association), has trashed it for the cartels. Or maybe not. Perhaps it was all part of their plan to scupper Kazaa altogether.
“Yesterday the Kazaa case was back on for a post judgement hearing,” emailed a p2pnet source in Oz early this morning. “Strange experience,” our informant went on. “The judge absolutely blasted the record company’s lawyer for walking out of an expert’s conclave which was intended to be a gathering designed to apply a filtering solution to the problem of infringement.
“He was also pretty critical of the Sharman side. I personally loved the comments about Williams.”
We’ve published the transcript here.
And here’s Sharman’s Joyeux Noel press statement on the (for it) happy event:
- Record company lawyer ’shot himself in the foot,’ according to Judge in Universal v Sharman hearing
The Federal Court of Australia yesterday granted Sharman Networks a further stay of the injunction ordered on 5 September 2005.
During the hearing Justice Wilcox also expressed anger about the record companies’ technical representatives failing to attend the second court-ordered technical conference.
Justice Wilcox said that when he had heard that the technical representatives of the record companies had failed to turn up for the court ordered conference, he was “extremely angry” and that the behaviour of Mr. Michael Williams, lead lawyer for Gilbert & Tobin – the firm which represents the Australian music industry – towards the Federal Court official overseeing the technical process was not acceptable. Justice Wilcox also said that Mr. Williams had “shot himself in the foot.”(1)
A first technical meeting had been held with considerable success and paved the way for modifications to be made to the Kazaa software to ensure its continued availability.
Despite objection from the record companies, Sharman Networks was granted a further stay until late in February 2006 conditional on Sharman modifying its software. The court also indicated that it was not prepared to make an order that Sharman give security for damages. Counsel for the record companies indicated they would be seeking US$200m.
A spokesperson for Sharman said the action of the record companies in refusing to attend the second court-ordered meeting revealed that their true intention was not to foster agreement about an acceptable filtering technology, but to shut down Kazaa and rid themselves improperly of a competitor.
Accordingly at the conclusion of the hearing Justice Wilcox granted a further stay. Meanwhile the appeal to the full court will be heard in late February 2006.
(1) The court in handing down its judgement on 5 September 2005 made a landmark ruling giving the parties time to agree on a protocol to allow Sharman Networks to adjust its software so Kazaa could continue to be distributed.
Stay tuned ;P
Tired of being treated like a criminal? They depend on you, not the other way around. Don’t buy their ‘product’. Do bug your local political representatives. Use emails, snail-mail, phone calls, faxes, IM, stop them in the street, blog. And if you’re into organizing, organize petitions, organize demonstrations and then turn up on your local political rep’s doorstep, making sure you’ve contacted your local tv/radio station/newspaper in advance
Also read-
nicely tied up – Kazaa doomsday countdown, November 24, 2005
November 25th, 2005 at 10:10 pm
A spokesperson for Sharman said the action of the record companies in refusing to attend the second court-ordered meeting revealed that their true intention was not to foster agreement about an acceptable filtering technology, but to shut down Kazaa and rid themselves improperly of a competitor.
I have a feeling this is the cover sharman needed to sell kazaa to another company in country company i would not be surprised if it heads back yo netherlands
November 25th, 2005 at 10:24 pm
true, if they don’t stay in Australia wouldn’t all these court decisions be pointless?
November 26th, 2005 at 12:00 am
Pardon this stupid question, but words to be used as a filter chosen by the cartels doesn’t add up to a workable filter. If they want to filter say, Stairway out of the title Stairway To Heaven; how long will it take the members to figure out S*T*A*I*R*W*A*Y or just move the letters one space in the alphabet higher as an unwritten understanding?
November 26th, 2005 at 12:33 am
“a gathering designed to apply a filtering solution”
I doubt very much that a filtering solution will be found by programmers unless all digital files have a required integrated ID and copyright status data (which they don’t have at present). Then if the integrated data is modified to fool the filter, the filter will be fooled. No wonder the lawyer did not show up to a “filtering solution” conference.
The music industry is in a bind. Any attempts to stop all file sharing would be illegal because many works are in the public domain or the owner allows sharing and copying… and no filtering system will work if the files do not have the required ID and copyright status data.
There is no way out other than a radical change in the way music is licensed and authors are paid for their work when files are shared on the Internet or copied at home.
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
“The judge absolutely blasted the record company’s lawyer for walking out of an expert’s conclave which was intended to be to the problem of infringement.”
November 26th, 2005 at 1:36 am
I wouldn’t know, i only use open source software/protocols.
Protocol: Gnutella
Client: Frostwire
Protocol: Bittorrent
Client: Azureus
Protocol: Direct Connect
Client: Dc-Qt
Protocol EDK2000/KAD
Client: AMule
Did i miss anything?
November 26th, 2005 at 5:08 am
block .avi files
or try to block “*.mp3″
November 26th, 2005 at 10:14 am
block .avi files or try to block “*.mp3″
It would be illegal to prevent the sharinig or copying of ALL mp3 or avi files, since any of these files could be in the public domain, licensed under Creative Commons or otherwise authorized by the copyright holder or the copyright status/holders are unknown.
Anyway, a filename based filter would only be an utter failure, as filenames will simply be changed before uploading and then again after downloading or playback programs can be made to recognize and playback real mp3 files regardless of the extension name.
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
November 26th, 2005 at 11:11 am
Very good point that. I can see scenarios where Sharman Networks could eventually sue the ARIA because of this.
November 26th, 2005 at 4:08 pm
“Pardon this stupid question, but words to be used as a filter chosen by the cartels doesn’t add up to a workable filter. If they want to filter say, Stairway out of the title Stairway To Heaven; how long will it take the members to figure out S*T*A*I*R*W*A*Y or just move the letters one space in the alphabet higher as an unwritten understanding?”
It may not really matter what filter is adopted due to several reasons.
1. Any filter that prevents the uploading or downloading of public domain files or files where the copyright holder licenses the songs thru Creative Commons or otherwise authorizes duplication is illegal. The vast majority of works (musical/literary/etc) are in the described category.
2. As this post suggests, no filtering based on filename will work. Too easy to defeat.
3. If a filter were to work or be a nuisance, music fans will simply copy songs from other sources (radio, CDs, etc).
4. The giving or trading of DVDs with thousands mp3 files between friends as already common. I have not heard of a case where the mere possession of a gift is illegal. Certainly the receiver does not have an obligation to verify each of the thousands of songs to verify that the copying was legal any more than a receiver of ONE Cartier purse has to verify that the purse was actually made under license from Cartier.
The record companies, the music publishers, the movie industry , the Copyright Office, and the Copyright legislators and the Copyright judges still have not yet realized what hit them. They are still in sleep mode.
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
Rafael Venegas