Another Kazaa Lawsuit

[Munkey-]

find the info here

To be honest, thats the weakest claim i've seen for a lawsuit in ages, and I've even watched judge judy....

still....go kazaa!

 

[Deadmanwalking]

The 3rd reply down has hit the nail on the head.

 

[(Shovel)]

Interestingly there does seem to be a legal base to this, and a safe one at that. Since it was ruled that Kazaa wasn't liable for the content copied over its network, they don't risk any repercussions legally.

It will very much be a "point of law" case though, pushing back the RIAA based on the previous "It's not Kazaa's fault" ruling.

It will at least bring more to light the irony of the RIAA's respect for copyright, which can't do any harm.

It's distressing to see some of the knuckleheaded replies on NeoWin though.

 

[Tom]

har har har!

I hope they win

 

[Munkey-]

Hmmm, sounds like (having just arrived at the tail end debate of the Kazaa issues) like another NRA jobby.

Kazaa is doing nothing wrong. It's the users that are doing wrong.

It's not the guns that kill people, its the people!

Either way Kazaa is still promoting an unrestricted medium through which large (alright, 99%) of the data being transferred is probably copyrighted anyway.



Still, will be interesting to see how this one develops. But as DMW said about the 3rd post down, dont see this going too far.

 

[(Shovel)]

I'm not saying that Kazaa is morally innocent. They are, however, legally innocent (in America at least). That, as with all things American, is the critical point.

Whatever moraless aspect of American society you wish to name, there will be a legal standpoint in the foundations "making it all ok". Guantanamo Bay POW Camp springs to mind. POWs that are not POWs? Legal definition.

The same is true with Kazaa now. Legally they are not responsible for the content passing through their network, even though everyone knows that that is all it is used for.

Gotta love the American legal system, though this time it might at least bite back at the RIAA.

 

[mank]

It'll probably only infuriate and incite the RIAA further :/

 

[(Shovel)]

Doesn't matter. Although the RIAA legal action is probably fueled by fear and anger, there's nothing that will change their crusade tactics.
Fundamentally, they may have realised that the Internet could put them out of business one day so a good part of this will be trying to stifle Internet use while they try and find a way to control it.

 

[Munkey-]

Baiting the bear? dangerous indeed, but still brings more publicity to the RIAA vs Kazaa stuff. Besides, if Kazaa are succesful, then not only does it make the RIAA look like idiots, but also decredits the RIAA through the clever use of irony.

bunch of hypocrits

 

[Sharma]

From what ive been reading in PC format, with the RIAA sending out subponeas (sp?) Asking for information of users who use applications from a list on the letters, Afterwards a nice lovely fine lands on their doorstep, the worrying thing is, is that theres has been a 15% drop in traffic now and an amazing amount of MP3s containing about 15 secs of the songs you want then cocking up completely, so it seems its working, if the BPI take notice of this i think half of the bloody people in my area will be fined.

According to the article in PC format the fines can extend all the way up to £10,000.

However, a certain batch of applications have been released nowwhich hide the IP and such when they are using the application, an "invisible file sharing app" soto speak, so there may be a lot left in the file sharing communities yet.

 

[Tenko]

What annoys me about the RIAA is not what it wants, payment for copyright material which hasn't been made freeware but its completely histrionic and heavy handed approach.

But that pretty much sums up everything I dislike about the USA

 

[Furr]

Cant kazza be claimed to be alot like a gun(in america)?

i.e when you own a gun its up to the user to break the law its not the fault of the company that made the gun?

 

[Munkey-]

Personally i think that its the gun makers fault for creating such a thing in the first place. I mean, you buy an M16, stock up on some rounds and commit MDK around a town before being brought down. Thats what the gun was designed for, killing people, and they're selling it to the public. Sure, i suppose its needed for the army and the such....but the general public? I dont think so.

But as i say, its all down to your viewpoint

 

[kameleon]

Originally posted by Munkey-
Personally i think that its the gun makers fault for creating such a thing in the first place. I mean, you buy an M16, stock up on some rounds and commit MDK around a town before being brought down. Thats what the gun was designed for, killing people, and they're selling it to the public. Sure, i suppose its needed for the army and the such....but the general public? I dont think so.

But as i say, its all down to your viewpoint

Most Yankswould say they are for "home defence"

 

[Rubber Bullets]

Originally posted by Furr
Cant kazza be claimed to be alot like a gun(in america)?

i.e when you own a gun its up to the user to break the law its not the fault of the company that made the gun?

No, it's usually the fault of the games designer who designed the game, that the murderer was playing, just before he shot someone.

RB

 

[(Shovel)]

Originally posted by Munkey-
Personally i think that its the gun makers fault for creating such a thing in the first place. I mean, you buy an M16, stock up on some rounds and commit MDK around a town before being brought down. Thats what the gun was designed for, killing people, and they're selling it to the public. Sure, i suppose its needed for the army and the such....but the general public? I dont think so.

But as i say, its all down to your viewpoint

Again, it's the difference between the moral (e.g. common sense) viewpoint, and the legal (e.g. fucked up) viewpoint.