KaZaa Ignores Court Order to Shut Down 365
An anonymous reader submitted that "The Amsterdam district court ruled two weeks ago that the KaZaa P2P program is acting unlawfully by making software available that allows users to download music files and must shut down. The court gave the company 14 days to do this or face $40,000 US a day in fines. KaZaa has chosen to ignore the shutdown order."
still talking (ZDNET) (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Damn. Another one. (Score:2, Informative)
It is, that's correct. However, this case is in Holland, and the DMCA is a US law, so your comment isn't as relevant as you think.
NO... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Umm... (Score:5, Informative)
Basically what Kazaa said is that they have no way to comply with what the dutch judge told them to do (namely to put an end to the illegal exchange of the above mentioned stuff using Kazaa). It is simply not feasible since the transactions are fully peer to peer. The searches nor the downloads go through a central server.
In any case, Limewire 2.0 is available now and has some new features that should enhance scalability of the gnutella network greatly. Gnutella is open source and has no dependencies on a login server (unlike Kazaa) eliminating the last link to a central server. If Kazaa is going to lose their case it will be because of the logins.
Re:Actually Surprising? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Good (Score:2, Informative)
About spyware (Score:3, Informative)
However. There are alternatives and one of the less known ones is Grokster [grokster.com]. This is also an official client to the fasttrack network and it does also include spyware but you can disable it. Actually it's disabled by default! I've been using it and when I've checked with AdAware it's green. So go get it!
Meanwhile. What happened to giFT/OpenFT [giftproject.org]?? I'm still waiting.. :)
Freenet (Score:2, Informative)
That was always my gripe with freenet, that it's been too damn hard to use... Keep up the improvements, guys, for everyone's sake.
Re:Another order.... (Score:3, Informative)
Just a thought.
Re:No centralized server. (Score:2, Informative)
That was then, this is now (Score:5, Informative)
What Jackson actually said was, "John Marshall has made his decision; let him enforce it now if he can." Please note that name. Marshall was the first jurist to argue that the Supreme Court could review the actions of other branches of government [jmu.edu]. In 1830 this concept was still controversial. Now it's universally accepted. Recent presidents ignore the Court at their peril. Eisenhower enforced court orders he empahtically disagreed with [state.gov]. Nixon was forced to obey an order that cost him the Presidency [c-span.org]. FDR, probably the most popular President in history, couldn't even get away with adding friendly judges to the court [nara.gov].
Re:Let's get things straight (Score:3, Informative)
Re:About spyware (Score:3, Informative)
Re:NO... (Score:2, Informative)
The article is _WRONG_ (Score:2, Informative)
*Sigh*
The mp3newswire.net story is complete bollocks... they probably thought: 'hey, more than two weeks pasts, KaZaA hasn't shut down, they're probably ignoring the verdict...'. The quotes in the article are even based on things said weeks ago!
What's the _real_ story?
Is was already posted a week ago on a Dutch site [emerce.nl]
The most (and only) interesting part of the article: (translated)
A spokesman from KaZaA's main office in Sweden explains they don't need to [shut down] yet. "Since we're negociating with Buma/Stemra right now, we are not forced to shut down"
Tsssk... if only more people could read Dutch :-p
Re:Water Under Bridge (Score:2, Informative)
Re:NO... (Score:3, Informative)
If you want more details, goto #giFT on irc.openprojects.org, ask for jasta.
-jasta
lead developer giFT, openFT, gnapster
Re:Good (Score:3, Informative)
Unless you want to contend that Robin Hood respected the laws of King John (he was careful not to get caught, so an argument could be made).
First of all, Robin Hood is fiction, and besides that the story predates the modern legalistic society.
'Round about the time of the American and French revolutions a shift took place in world politics. The absolute authority of monarchs began to be replaced by the absolute authority of The Law. I don't mean any one law specifically, but rather the idea that The Law, as a body of rules, is the highest authority.
This isn't a new idea; it's embedded pretty firmly in Judeo-Christian cultures going all the way back to the time of the Hebrews. In the pre-Christian era, The Law was handed down by Yahweh himself and was considered to be infallible. The coming of the Christian church in the first century AD brought the era of the Popes, which led in part to the medieval idea of the divine right of kings. Suddenly The Law was no longer an entity of itself, but rather simply an extension of the will of kings and queens and Popes who had a divine mandate to rule.
Philosophical shifts in the 17th century led to yet another change in this paradigm. John Locke refuted the divine right of kings pretty thoroughly in Two Treatises On Government; in these writings Locke first put forth the idea of the legitimacy of government through the consent of the governed. Locke took some of the ideas of Thomas Hobbes-- notably the concept of man in a state of nature and of moral law-- and extended them, attempting to apply them to the real world in a practical sense. Locke contended that, in an ideal world, Hobbes's ideas would hold sway, but that the real world is one of scarcity, and as such it is necessary for man to willingly delegate some of his natural moral authority to society in the name of greater good for all.
Then came the American Revolution (among other changes in the world at the end of the 18th century) and with it a political system never before seen in the world: one based on the very Lockian idea of political legitimacy and the consent of the people.
Inherent in this idea is the notion that we, as citizens, must respect the law of our land, for man in the natural state and man as a citizen of the society are incompatible ideas. In order for a government to stand, all of its members must uphold their end of Locke's social contract.
A lack of respect for The Law leads to anarchy and chaos. Perhaps the anarchy may come in a small way, and be hardly noticable at first, but eventually it will erode our society and lead us back to barbarism.
So I stand by my original opinion. Disagree with laws. Disobey when your conscience tells you that you must. But if you fail to respect the law, the only source of authority that our society allows, then you're destroying our country and our society as surely as if you did it with guns and bombs.
Re:NO... (Score:2, Informative)