Comments on: Australian court rules against Kazaa

Judge says managers of the peer-to-peer software had authorized users to infringe on music copyrights.

[hadaso]

And the result would be...

And the result would be that users would learn to to edit ID3 tags and remove copyright notices, change filenames etc., and use other software where there's noone to sue.

Another result of filtering would be that some creators who actually want to share their work would find that their works are blocked from sharing unless they are OKed by the music distribution cartel, that has no interest in their competition. I wonder if they can then sue anyone for unfair practices by operators of sharing networks that do what their court-appointed "bosses" from the music "industry" tell them to do.

BTW, notice that Kazaa was not found to be infringing on copyright. But they "authorize" users to do it. Kind of like a knife manufacturer whose knife is used to kill people is not responsible for the killing, but if they advertise their knives as made for killing and not for cutting steaks then they are partially responsible. You may sell knives in a supermarket. But if you are calling it a dagger then you better be careful about you sell it and to whom...

[David Arbogast]

You almost got it

<<Kind of like a knife manufacturer whose knife is used to kill people is not responsible for the killing, but if they advertise their knives as made for killing and not for cutting steaks then they are partially responsible.>>

Actually, knives, like guns, can be advertised for "killing" because killing is not illegal 100% of the time. Consider self defense. The key, is that the product is marketed or positioned to promote violation of the law.

[hadaso]

And the result would be...

And the result would be that users would learn to to edit ID3 tags and remove copyright notices, change filenames etc., and use other software where there's noone to sue.

Another result of filtering would be that some creators who actually want to share their work would find that their works are blocked from sharing unless they are OKed by the music distribution cartel, that has no interest in their competition. I wonder if they can then sue anyone for unfair practices by operators of sharing networks that do what their court-appointed "bosses" from the music "industry" tell them to do.

BTW, notice that Kazaa was not found to be infringing on copyright. But they "authorize" users to do it. Kind of like a knife manufacturer whose knife is used to kill people is not responsible for the killing, but if they advertise their knives as made for killing and not for cutting steaks then they are partially responsible. You may sell knives in a supermarket. But if you are calling it a dagger then you better be careful about you sell it and to whom...

[David Arbogast]

You almost got it

<<Kind of like a knife manufacturer whose knife is used to kill people is not responsible for the killing, but if they advertise their knives as made for killing and not for cutting steaks then they are partially responsible.>>

Actually, knives, like guns, can be advertised for "killing" because killing is not illegal 100% of the time. Consider self defense. The key, is that the product is marketed or positioned to promote violation of the law.

[City_Of_LA]

I didn't know...

that people actually still use Kazaa! Gosh, you're talking 5 years ago here. Move on kids. Much better stuff out there.

[City_Of_LA]

I didn't know...

that people actually still use Kazaa! Gosh, you're talking 5 years ago here. Move on kids. Much better stuff out there.

[heystoopid]

Sorry it's a judgement on an obsolete law!

This judgement is irrelevant,for it is a judgement on a copyright act that no longer exists! For here in Australia, since our dear unloved primeminster little johnny howard has signed the north american(/australia) free trade agreement, we gained a very new DMCA style law(was required as part of the loser trade agreement,in which lost tens times to what we gained) which automatically rendered the past Australian Copyright act obsolete. So any judgement on past obsolete laws become irrelevant. Oh well, such is life!

[heystoopid]

Sorry it's a judgement on an obsolete law!

This judgement is irrelevant,for it is a judgement on a copyright act that no longer exists! For here in Australia, since our dear unloved primeminster little johnny howard has signed the north american(/australia) free trade agreement, we gained a very new DMCA style law(was required as part of the loser trade agreement,in which lost tens times to what we gained) which automatically rendered the past Australian Copyright act obsolete. So any judgement on past obsolete laws become irrelevant. Oh well, such is life!

And they can't slightly shift the blame?

This ruling borders on the farsical. It is not the owners of Kazaa that are to blame and neither are they accountable for the copyright infringements purported to be enabled through the use of their system and software. To illustrate this point, they could comply with the ruling by trying to force users to use a new, censored version of their software but they could make this client use standard HTTP requests so that the user could see the request that isn't blocked and possibly modify this request manually (and lets face it, most Kazaa and other share network users are quite internet savvy, plus it enables other opensource/independant clients to be created).

They would then have satified the authorities that their GUI doesn't allow direct copyright infringement and yet their network infrastructure does if the request comes from a modified (hacked) request and they can't be held responsible for their system being hacked, ie: used for something it was not originally designed...

And they can't slightly shift the blame?

This ruling borders on the farsical. It is not the owners of Kazaa that are to blame and neither are they accountable for the copyright infringements purported to be enabled through the use of their system and software. To illustrate this point, they could comply with the ruling by trying to force users to use a new, censored version of their software but they could make this client use standard HTTP requests so that the user could see the request that isn't blocked and possibly modify this request manually (and lets face it, most Kazaa and other share network users are quite internet savvy, plus it enables other opensource/independant clients to be created).

They would then have satified the authorities that their GUI doesn't allow direct copyright infringement and yet their network infrastructure does if the request comes from a modified (hacked) request and they can't be held responsible for their system being hacked, ie: used for something it was not originally designed...

[mentorkyrom]

oh those poor poor record companies

As south park so cleverly pointed out.. Those artists are going to have to settle for a gold toilet instead of a platinum one. Those poor souls are going to have to settle for 4 $80,000+ cars instead of 5. We should all be saddened by their poor loss. So it's a damn good thing they're doin' this then huh?

[David Arbogast]

Poor has nothing to do with it

The amount of money made by artists and record companies has absolutely no influence upon the legal protections that are guaranteed to all U.S. citizens. If you held a copyright, you would be entitled to the same protections. This is not class warfare. Nobody deserves fewer rights under the law because they have worked themselves into a financially advantageous position.

[mentorkyrom]

oh those poor poor record companies

As south park so cleverly pointed out.. Those artists are going to have to settle for a gold toilet instead of a platinum one. Those poor souls are going to have to settle for 4 $80,000+ cars instead of 5. We should all be saddened by their poor loss. So it's a damn good thing they're doin' this then huh?

[David Arbogast]

Poor has nothing to do with it

The amount of money made by artists and record companies has absolutely no influence upon the legal protections that are guaranteed to all U.S. citizens. If you held a copyright, you would be entitled to the same protections. This is not class warfare. Nobody deserves fewer rights under the law because they have worked themselves into a financially advantageous position.