Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Music Media The Internet Your Rights Online

Australian Court says Kazaa Users Breach Copyright 346

Posted by Hemos from the not-surprising-ruling-at-this-point dept.
mferrare writes "This from Reuters UK: An Australian court ruled on Monday that users of Kazaa, a popular internet music file-swapping system, breached music copyright and ordered its owners to modify the software. The music industry told the court that Sharman Network licensed users to access a network it knew was being used for piracy and hence it was authorising people to infringe copyright"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Australian Court says Kazaa Users Breach Copyright More

Australian Court says Kazaa Users Breach Copyright

Comments Filter:

  • Freenet needs your support (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 05, 2005 @07:55AM (#13482357)
    While Kazaa is a rather unsympathetic defendant, these rulings against P2P file sharing networks set dangerous precedents with respect to people's freedom to communicate over the Internet. While everyone hopes that political means can be used to resist the erosion of our digital rights, there is a backup plan.

    The Freenet Project [freenetproject.org] is working towards the next major release of the Freenet software, hopefully this side of Christmas. Among the major new features will be:

    • Trusted links, so that only your friends will know that you are part of the network
    • Switch from TCP to UDP to support seamless firewall traversal
    • Complete code rewrite and simplification
    • Support for live broadcast of information, in addition to storage and retrieval (allowing everything from IRC over Freenet to "instant RSS")
    Freenet's goal is to ensure that people have the freedom to share knowledge without fear that someone is looking over their shoulder. Unlike Kazaa, Freenet is a voluntary, non-profit free software project.

    The Freenet project requires $2,300 per month to pay for its full time developer, Matthew Toseland, but currently the project's reserves are very low, so if you can spare it (especially given the more immediate [redcross.org] drains on people's generosity), your donation [freenetproject.org] would be much appreciated.

    • Perhaps these judgements against P2P operataors who are most cogent of the infringing uses to which their software is being put are not such a bad thing. 1) They harm businesses that are making money by closing their eyes and then suggesting with wide eyed astonishment 'Me sir, no sir, I never realised that was the main use of my network' 2) They promote research of more robust P2P software (i.e. freenet etc.), which has more legitimate intentions for the networks use.

    • Freenet is slow. use emule. (Score:4, Informative)

      by leuk_he ( 194174 ) on Monday September 05, 2005 @08:16AM (#13482435) Homepage Journal
      Freenet is slow. And i am not talking about the developemnt cycle (if you are on the unstable branche you would think it goes very fast). I am talking about the download speed.

      That is because the freenet was developed for anonymisation, not for file exchange. That is, freenet is good against compagnies that sue their own customers.

      If you want to leave kazaa because it future is doomed because their next client will/should contain copyright restrictions (I am sure there wil be lots of trolls here that say you can not determine this, true, but flaimbait) you might want to switch to emule ,an open source client without any spyware, that does provide search (where is the search button in freenet?)

      If you live in fear because ou think some compagny might sue you because of copyright violations please use freenet. But you might get afraid they capture you for aiding terrorist/childporn. Don't worrie you will never get such charges get uphold by a court, (if you get there).
      • The only reason the RIAA hasn't been suing emule users is that emule hasn't yet had a large enough userbase. Expect that to change very soon indeed.

        Freenet is currently quite slow, but these problems should be rectified in the next version. There is no inherent reason that an anonymous P2P system must be slow.

        Of course, you are correct that Freenet isn't about "file sharing", its about the free exchange of knowledge and information. If all you care about is getting free music, Freenet probably won't

        • That's obviously wrong because the Donkey network has a larger userbase than Kazaa. The inherent reason that anonymous P2P must be slow is because to make it anonymous there's heavy use of proxying, and because of this you are not only downloading the stuff you want, but also relaying unrelated data to other people.

          • That's obviously wrong because the Donkey network has a larger userbase than Kazaa.

            As did BitTorrent for a while before they started to sue BitTorrent users - it takes time for them to shift their focus, but they will. If this isn't the explanation, then what is? Are you claiming that emule is somehow different to Kazaa in the ease with which users can be monitored by the RIAA? If so, please provide some evidence for this.

            The inherent reason that anonymous P2P must be slow is because to make it anon

            • As did BitTorrent for a while before they started to sue BitTorrent users - it takes time for them to shift their focus, but they will. If this isn't the explanation, then what is? Are you claiming that emule is somehow different to Kazaa in the ease with which users can be monitored by the RIAA? If so, please provide some evidence for this.

              No, I wasn't claiming anything. You just said something that was wrong and I corrected you.

              As for Freenet, slow is a relative term. Slower would perhaps be a bet
        • You are so wrong.

          Riaa is sueing and warning emule users. It just is not that high-profile. There are more emule users than kazaa in the world. In the USA emule is relatively less popular.

          If the anonymisation is done by proxying over more hops it is inherent slower. A faster speed can be reached by direct uploading. Note that uploadcapacity is sparse. Caching does not help get a higher upload. Motivating users to give more upload might help however.

          Is there a working search in freenet? or are there still onl

        • Re:EMule doesn't protect its user's anonymity (Score:5, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 05, 2005 @08:47AM (#13482542)
          The **aa already has fake donkey servers in the cloud. They're collecting evidence as I type this.

          http://blocklist.org/ [blocklist.org] is a nice place to find blocklists for emule/edonkey and a heap of other things too. Yes, emule supports these. The servers mentioned will send a chill down your spine. (Sonny Boy !!) Have a look at the list.
        • Freenet is currently quite slow, but these problems should be rectified in the next version. There is no inherent reason that an anonymous P2P system must be slow.

          Yes, there is. To achieve any kind of anonymity, you need to route it through multiple hosts (those that rely on faking source IPs are a joke). So at best you're looking at 1/n the speed, where n is the average path length. They have already said that the new Freenet will premix through at least three hosts, and in addition comes anonymity for the
      • You are right about Freenet being slow...but emule is SLOOOOOOW as well.

        Trying to download any file that's popular and large (over a 100MB) usually takes DAYS. Plus there are bots on emule/edonkey network that steal all the bandwidth and download everything.
        • Emule is by design faster than freenet because is has less overhead.

          Plus there are bots on emule/edonkey network that steal all the bandwidth and download everything.

          Links please? what are you pointing at?

          Note that emule is a file sharing applciation, not a file trading application like bittorrent is.

          • Vs freenet it's like comparing a fast turtle to a slow turtle. Both are almost unusable in many circumstances.

            I was on emule/edonkey for a while. I shared out a folder of REALLY old software like device drivers and old versions of software that have had newer versions for YEARS.

            Almost immediatly dozens of clients start trying to download anything and EVERYTHING I had. Old NVIDIA drivers, Quake 1 source code, old esoteric LINUX distros....

            I have a theory that bots like these slow down the network considerabl
        • Why are people using the slow P2P systems that leave you open to all kinds of crap. Why not use good old USENET. Music, videos, pr0n.. whatever you want and whatever pervertion you fancy today is covered in great detail on USENET and I have so far not seen RIAA/MPAA take on USENET.

          If you are on a cable-modem, expect max download speeds from your local ISP's newsserver, else subscribe (typical $15/month unlimited download and long retention) to a decent commercial newsserver and get a newsreader who can co
          • Probably not. Not everybody has access to a good FAST usenet server or want to pay for access to one (especially one with binary newsgroups)

            Who wants to look for part 745 of a 10000 part .rar file? You could spend days just trying to get a complete file.
            • That is uneducated BS to say the least.

              I've been using USENET for ages and have 1 commercial server I pay for in addition to my ISP's and I have *NEVER* any problems with completition, ever! Spend $15/month and you have access to a good commercial server.

              I have on various occasions used P2P and Bittorrent and all I can say is that it is incredibly unreliable and extremly slow. P2P is the most flawed protocol ever devised for the net.
            • Who wants to look for part 745 of a 10000 part .rar file?

              This is why you have utilities like par2 [par2.net].

              Then you don't need part 745 specifically, most of the time you have enough redundancy in the bits you've downloaded that you don't need anything. And if you don't, par2 will tell you that you need x recovery blocks to repair it. *Any* x blocks. So if you can get those blocks off usenet, you're fine.

              par2's also good for making redundant backups - if you make a set of par2 files that's got more than 50% redunda
      • IIRC it's slow now because of old design decisions that have been changed for the upcoming version. In principle, since Freenet is a cacheing system, there's no reason why it can't be equally fast as a torrent download.
        • If you want to download large files (music/movies) freenet will be slower (relative) by the very same design. Since all data will have to pass over multiple peers to reach anonimity. Since a lot of users are on asymetric (adsl/cable) lines upload speed is the thing that determines the actual speed of the network.

          For a non-anonymoes network the upload speed = the download speed. for an anonymoes network the downloadspeed = uploadspeed / average numbers of peers it goes trough. that is divide ~6-7 in the sim
    • I think that is a bad thing to implement, as it will create a bunch of small 'freenets', not one large community.

      What use is it to just share your political feelings with your friends, which already know?

  • come on now (Score:4, Insightful)

    by LiquidMind ( 150126 ) on Monday September 05, 2005 @07:57AM (#13482362)
    "...was being used for piracy and hence it was authorising people to infringe copyright."

    Come on now, this is the same argument that's been going on for decades concerning VHS tapes, cassettes, CDs, DVDs, etc. Sure Kazaa has its share of illegal bits and bytes, but if you want to censore everything, might as well get rid of the internet altogether.

    • Re:come on now (Score:3, Insightful)

      by jozi ( 908206 )
      I agree with you. If something is considered a tool of piracy simply because it can be used in that context then Windows itself is indeed "authorising people to infringe copyright". If the users did not have windows they would not be able to pirate and play any new games for instance. Hence windows must also be a tool to infringe piracy. Not to mention the possibility to share folders on a network with otehers.... On second thought, all operating systems should probably be outlawed.

      • Re:come on now (Score:3, Informative)

        by bladernr ( 683269 )
        Hence windows must also be a tool to infringe piracy.

        I think the legal term that applies to that line of reasoning is "substantial non-infringing uses." For instance, knives can be used to kill people by stabbing, but they are used much more often in cooking, so they are legal. Bullets can be used to kill people by shooting, but are used far more often in target shooting and hunting, so they are legal. Nuclear bombs always (ok, almost always) are used to kill people, so they are illegal.

        All right, a li

    • Re:come on now (Score:3, Insightful)

      by m4dm4n ( 888871 )
      What a great idea. We can get individual media companies to replace it.

      Overheard in the near future: "Hey I just signed up with SonyNet, they format my harddrive for me once a month and decide what emails I need to read, and they got really cool movies and download speeds. What a great service!!!"

    • Re:come on now (Score:5, Informative)

      by QuantumG ( 50515 ) <qg@biodome.org> on Monday September 05, 2005 @08:25AM (#13482475) Homepage Journal
      Welcome to Australia. We don't even have the legal right to tape shows off tv. Rather than challenge rediculous things like that, it's the way of the Australian legal community to just ignore the problem.

      • Re:come on now (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Threni ( 635302 )
        > Rather than challenge rediculous things like that, it's the way of the
        > Australian legal community to just ignore the problem.

        What do you mean `legal community`? It's your job,as a voter, to change the law if you don't agree with it. I admit though that that's probably harder than making odd posts about the `legal community`...

        • Re:come on now (Score:5, Informative)

          by QuantumG ( 50515 ) <qg@biodome.org> on Monday September 05, 2005 @09:03AM (#13482591) Homepage Journal
          And have done. I was involved with the people who managed to push through the 1999 Copyright Amendment (Computer Programs) Act [dcita.gov.au] which makes it legal to reverse engineer software for interoperability, security analysis, to correct errors or just to learn how it works. It took the support of a dedicated team of lawyers and academics [uq.edu.au] but, frankly, the law got changed simply because the people who were voting on it didn't really understand what we were asking for and didn't see the harm in giving it to us. Which really boils down to the lobbyists of proprietary software (like the BSA) not being nearly as organised as the lobbyists of the music industry.
          • Perhaps we should push through a law outlawing clueless lawmakers...
          • Its a pity that the US-Australia Free Trade Agreement was introduced which imported the US's DMCA.

            It meant that to do what you just mentioned to copy protected software is to be illegal. Considering that most software is copy protected, I don't see how you could enact those provisions anymore.
    • Dont think the industries wouldnt do that if they could.

      But since its not practical to do that, they will do their best to attack the end points, and turn them into simple restrictive media devices, under *their* control.

  • nice call (Score:3, Interesting)

    by germ!nation ( 764234 ) on Monday September 05, 2005 @07:58AM (#13482365)
    so when are car companies going to be told to put limiters on all their cars set to the max speed limit in that country because, you know if they allow me break the law by speeding then obviously i have no choice but to do it.

    • Re:nice call (Score:5, Interesting)

      by ray-auch ( 454705 ) on Monday September 05, 2005 @08:22AM (#13482460)

      Fairly soon if you believe the news - some systems on trial already (eg. in the uk [rin.org.uk])

      Plus, the main thrust of the judgement (according to news reports) seems to have been not that the software merely allowed, but that the defendants encouraged/incited the users' behaviour.

      Car companies (at least here) are _already_ banned by advertising regulations from inciting people to speed.
      • "Car companies (at least here) are _already_ banned by advertising regulations from inciting people to speed."

        Where is here? In the US, it seems that is one of the big come ons. Zoom Zoom anyone?

        all the best,

        drew

        http://www.ourmedia.org/node/44851 [ourmedia.org]

        • Here is UK.

          Advertising code may well be derived from EU regulations and therefore the ban might in fact be europe-wide (although likely to be implemented slightly differently in different countries).
    • Well ya know, we already have a whole bunch of car advertisements here in Australia that are questionable. They advocate speeding (zoom zoom) and they advocate antisocial behaviour (get in or get out of the way). But this isn't going to result in a court decision because there's no big vested interest that this is stomping on. If some kid gets killed by a soccer mum in her SUV his parents won't sue the car manufacturer because they won't have a chance in hell of winning against a big corporation. Of cou

  • This would be the same Australian legal system... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Boss, Pointy Haired ( 537010 ) on Monday September 05, 2005 @07:59AM (#13482366)
    ...that decided it could change the rules of Formula 1?

  • Kazaa still being used? (Score:4, Informative)

    by LiTrIx ( 911451 ) on Monday September 05, 2005 @07:59AM (#13482367)
    who's still using kazaa anyway? it's full of adawares and spywares

  • Ouch! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SleepyHappyDoc ( 813919 ) on Monday September 05, 2005 @08:02AM (#13482385)
    From TFA:

    The music industry told the court that Sharman Network licensed users to access a network it knew was being used for piracy and hence it was authorising people to infringe copyright.

    Ok, so, extending this precedent, Comcast (for example) provides access to a network (the Internet) that it knows is being used for piracy. Ergo, all ISPs are authorising people to infringe copyright. I am amazed a court actually swallowed this.

    • Re:Ouch! (Score:3, Insightful)

      by EiZei ( 848645 )
      Or that CD-R manufacturers know their products are being used for copyright infringement.

      Or that sports car manufacturers know their products are being used to exceed speed limits and endanger public safety..

      Or that gun manufacturers know their products are being used to kill.
      • Or that tobacco manufacturers know that their products cause potentially fatal health problems for their users and in some cases people around them.

      • The difference with all those things is that Kazza can (and do) monitor what files are being transfered over their network. If they refused to log anything (as many ISPs do in Australia) they could claim they were ignorant of the illict use of their network. But yeah, it is precident setting. If Kazza doesn't just shut its doors and actually starts threatening to disconnect people who are using the network for copyright infringement, that opens the door for the labels to sue ISPs for failing to do the sa

    • Re:Ouch! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by moviepig.com ( 745183 ) on Monday September 05, 2005 @08:47AM (#13482541)
      ...[according to] this precedent ... all ISPs are authorising people to infringe copyright. I am amazed a court actually swallowed this.

      The court could reasonably argue that Kazaa's fundamental purpose was to facilitate illegal file-sharing, rather than the legal file-sharing that comprises a minuscule fraction of its business.

      And, there's ample precedent for courts to reach beyond a defense made of cynical camouflage. E.g., "piercing the corporate veil" routinely violates the so-called rights of individuals who use corporations to escape liability.

      Ultimately, any legal system comes down to whether you trust your (very human) judges.

    • Re:Ouch! (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Tim C ( 15259 )
      It's all about substantial use. The Internet demonstrably has substantial non-infringing uses. Also, the quality of life, ease of business, etc of tens of millions of people would be adversely affected by going after ISPs in that fashion.

      For p2p apps like Kazaa it's much less clear cut. My personal experience is that the vast majority of content on such networks is infringing. Sure, there's a fair amount of stuff that isn't, but my belief (backed up by nothing more than gut feeling) is that the overwhelmnig

  • kazaagate (Score:5, Informative)

    by DuncanE ( 35734 ) on Monday September 05, 2005 @08:03AM (#13482387) Homepage
    Check out aussie journalist Garth Montgomery's full coverage "kazaagate" site here [apcstart.com]

    Including the full official court ruling as well [apcstart.com]

    No I dont know him, but have found the site very insightful throughout the trial.

  • So that means... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MosesJones ( 55544 ) on Monday September 05, 2005 @08:11AM (#13482415) Homepage

    1) The NRA defence of "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is now dead

    2) Microsoft are liable for writing an OS that they KNEW would enable virus writers to propogate

    3) DARPA are buggered as they built the underlying technology to DELIBERATELY enable information sharing.

    I'm one of the few people who don't do illegal downloads but this really isn't an attack that work in the above cases so why does it work here?
    • ``1) The NRA defence of "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is now dead''

      That should never have been a good defense to begin with. Guns may not kill people all by themselves, but having a gun makes it much easier and therefore more likely that you'll kill someone.

      ``2) Microsoft are liable for writing an OS that they KNEW would enable virus writers to propogate''

      Microsoft are at least taking steps to prevent these viruses from propagating. They do fix most of the bugs that these viruses exploit. Sha

      • Sharman Networks, despite being aware that their software is mostly used for illegal purposes, takes no steps to prevent this.

        Are you serious? Just how would you suggest they do that? Recieve filtering-lists from the various **AAs and implement them uncritically? As far as I can see, that's the only way.

        And lemme see... Does this have potential for abuse? "Some indie artist is stealing all our smoke. Yeah, lats ban him from searches as well". "Oh damn. Some perfectly legal DRM-circumventions are fl

  • What!? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by gravos ( 912628 ) on Monday September 05, 2005 @08:19AM (#13482449) Homepage
    Sharman Network licensed users to access a network it knew was being used for piracy and hence it was authorising people to infringe copyright What? By this logic, the manufacturer of a firearm would be held liable for any murders committed with said firearm because they knew it could be used for such a purpose. Thankfully, such cases have been struck down in the USA. This is an awful decision. If we were to hold manufacturers responsible for what people did with their products, we wouldn't have guns, knives, VCRs, computers, cameras (kiddie porn!), or even pencils. There is almost always a destructive use for any type of technology, but that doesn't mean the technology should be outlawed or it's creators punished.
    • If they sold their weapons indiscriminately to anyone that asked then I don't see the problems with that. OTOH they don't (maybe in the US, but in the rest of the world there are laws stopping them).

      In the same way selling a knife to an under 18 makes you liable to prosecution, etc. we have to take responsibility for what we're doing.

    • "Sharman Network licensed users to access a network it knew was being used for piracy and hence it was authorising people to infringe copyright"

      What? By this logic, the manufacturer of a firearm would be held liable for any murders committed with said firearm because they knew it could be used for such a purpose. Thankfully, such cases have been struck down in the USA.

      Actually, as was recently done in a 9-0 ruling by the supreme court, grokster can be sued for intentionally seeking out copyright violators t
  • C|net:
    http://news.com.com/Australian+court+rules+against +Kazaa/2100-1030_3-5849480.html [com.com]

    Full judgement:
    http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/ 2005/1242.html [austlii.edu.au]
    - reasonably plain english, and worth reading. No cause for outrage here folks.
  • So now corporations, if they make software that can potentially be used for copyright infringment, must research all uses of that software that only infringe copyright, and block those?

    Watch out bittorrent.
  • Change the software? Ok...
    1c1,2
    < Connect to illegalmusic.com allowed
    ---
    > Connect to illegalmusic.com not allowed
    > Connect to illlegalmusic.com allowed
    I'm sorry your honor, we just can't keep up with all the illegal servers out there!
  • Actually, the court opinion is rather balanced. It basically says that Kazaa absolutely knew that rampant sharing of copyrighted materials has been going on through the Kazaa "network" and has taken no steps to prevent it. Instead, Kazaa has tried to capitalize on it by combining searches for copyrighted material being shared by individuals which was available on the network with copyrighted material which is authorized for sharing.

    The judge also outlines some very basic steps that Kazaa should implement

  • Let's see them filter all copyrighted content, and then we'll find out just how many non-infringing uses P2P applications actually have.
  • Newsagents sued for encouraging piracy of books by selling pens and paper.

    Seriously though, it's easy enough to argue that the primary use of Kazaa et al is piracy. However, were there enough appropriately licensed content (eg creative commons etc.) then this would be less clear. It would be a shame to lose the right to use peer to peer technology for 'legitimate' tasks, especially if projects like BitTorrent come under fire for the same reasons.
  • In other news, an Australian court ruled that the national highway system must be dismantled. Judge Kanga stated in his ruling "It's clear that these roads were intended from the beginning to facilitate illegal activities. Every smuggling operation or fleeing criminal in the country is using these roads. The complex system of registrations, fees, taxes, and licenses does not relieve the road authorities from their culpability in enabling these criminal activities. Without the roads, there are no high sp
  • I'm encouraged by this news. Next Australia will obviously be cracking down on gun makers, who know their customers are using their products to murder, rob and terrorize. Australia will order the gun makers to change their gun products to prevent people from shooting each other.

  • What about the rest of the internet (Score:3, Insightful)

    by fireman sam ( 662213 ) on Monday September 05, 2005 @12:11PM (#13483561) Homepage Journal
    I can use an ftp client to get illegal software.
    I can use a browser to get cracks for software.

    This just in:

    The following software can be used to access copyrighted works:

    Mozilla Browser Suite
    Firefox
    Internet Explorer
    Opera
    Lynx
    Links
    www
    wget
    curl
    ftp
    cuteftp
    wsftp
    gftp

    (This is not an exaustive list)

    ARIA (Australian Recording Industry Association) and the AFI (Australian Film Industry) has called for a ban on the above mentioned list, and any other softwares that allow access to the FTP or WWW networks.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Protozoa are small, and bacteria are small, but viruses are smaller than the both put together."

Close