Results 1 to 7 of 7
01-14-2003, 11:18 AM #1
Judge rules Kazaa subject to US jurisdiction
Breaking news 21 minutes ago from http://www.europemedia.net/shownews.asp?ArticleID=14445
Editor: David Minto
A decision by a court in Los Angeles that Sharman Networks, parent company of Dutch online file-swapping service Kazaa, is able to be tried in the United States has been applauded by the Motion Picture Association of America and the Recording Industry Association of America.
US District Judge Stephen Wilson made public on Friday a 46-page decision "Given that Sharman's (Kazaa) software has been downloaded more than 143 million times, it would be mere cavil to deny that Sharman engages in a significant amount of contact with California residents." Sharman had claimed that being based in Australia and incorporated in the Pacific island nation of Vanutu meant that it was not bound by US law.
American legal experts are now speculating that the Kazaa lawsuit will be combined with two similar suits against file-swapping companies Streamcast Networks and Grokster, both of whom use Kazaa’s underlying technology. In issuing his decision, Wilson distinguished the case from a previous suit against a Texan man distributing a DVD-descrambling utility online, referring to a California Supreme Court ruling that internet distribution of software did not subject someone to California jurisdiction.
On a seperate note, to those using kazzalite thinking they are clean...wrong. Kazzalite has joined the ranks of theftware with the inclusion of the "host" file,blocking the webmasters ability to earn from their labors.
01-14-2003, 12:40 PM #2
Two things (slightly contradictory maybe) I've always wondered about this issue.
1: As web page makers we try to defend against the use of these programs which hijack our hard work and make money for others. However, I've seen the same solution recommended to users of these programs many times on various sites: use a file swapping program, such as Winmx, which contains no ad software.
We all know these programs are used primarily to swap other people's copyrighted material (mostly music, movies and software). Shouldn't the solution we recommend be that people BUY these films, songs and programs?
2: On the side of file swappers - I used to own many records (oh how I miss vinyl) back in my days as a DJ. Many are now gone beacause of wear and tear and beer spills but I still paid the price required for the legal posession and use of those recordings.
Do I not still have the right to listen to those songs and therefore the right to download them to my computer or was that right revoked wiith the demise of the discs which contained them?
Just thought I'd throw that out there see what y'all thought....
01-15-2003, 12:50 AM #3
if those copyrighters had their way, they would make us pay for one CD, and have us listen to that CD only and not allow it to be transfered to another media such as an Mp3 player. i hope they get the balance of consumer-rights and copy protection right or we're screwed.
01-15-2003, 03:56 AM #4if those copyrighters had their way, they would make us pay for one CD, and have us listen to that CD only and not allow it to be transfered to another media such as an Mp3 player.
With the technology available today it would be easy to electronically register a purchase giving the consumer the right to download the music, transfer it to different media or whatever ad infinitum.
Little wonder the music industry has been coy about adopting new technology...it impacts their bottom line. And the artists are just as greedy.
03-01-2003, 01:50 AM #5
Personally, I hope KaZaA is outlawed, as I buy all of my programs and it sucks a whole lot when you know people are getting studio MX for free, and I go out and spend $700 on it. >:-0
03-01-2003, 02:16 AM #6
It's my understanding that one can purchase music (and I'm ONLY talking about music here) on a specific type of media, and then make as many copies of that media, onto any other type of media, FOR THEIR OWN PERSONAL USE.
It's when you share (make available to another party) or sell those copies (or the original) that the law has been violated.
Originally posted by Mikailus
And the artists are just as greedy.
I abhor copyright violation as much as the next person, and I think that pricing for music and musical events is outrageously high, but I don't think that too many artists would be averse to seeing this price gouging dealt with.
Most artists want they're art available to the widest audience possible. Additionally, most artists would be happy just to make a reasonable sum from the sales of their art, as they're really in it for the sake of making good art rather than making good money.
03-01-2003, 11:25 AM #7
Making even one copy for whatever reason is copyright infringement - most of us get away with it for personal usage, especially like making photocopies of pages at the library because "big brother" government isn't in our lives 24-7, yet.