KaZaA sues RIAA for copyright infringement

fuuucckkers · Post by **fuuucckkers** » Sat Sep 27, 2003 6:38 am

Sharman Networks is suing the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) for distributing replicas of its P2P file sharing software.

Sharman says the RIAA has distributed versions of KaZaA Lite with warning messages to potential infringers, which it deems "monopolistic and conspiratorial" behavior. In July a Judge nixed an attempt by Sharman Networks to stop the distribution of RIAA-flavored KaZaA software using Antitrust legislation. That failed, but this time it's trying again.

This latest twist highlights some of the RIAA's stranger behavior. The copyright-cartel has been playing fast and loose with other people's copyrights: while claiming that it is upholding the law, it has proved only too happy to break it. And while claiming to uphold the integrity of the music it distributes, it has pioneered the art of poisoning works of art with clicks and hisses.

But the RIAA hasn't escaped Antitrust scrutiny just yet: last month it was sued by the Webcaster Alliance. An unguarded comment by an RIAA attorney expressed the lobby's groups satisfaction at seeing 25,000 smaller webcasters perish, if AOL could stream 200 channels.

Careless talk. ®

Timelessblur · Post by **Timelessblur** » Sat Sep 27, 2003 9:29 am

I think this is there second time to sue Kazaa the first time they lost. I know they hate kazaa light because they can not scan those computer for copy right songs because it blocks the RIAA IP address

Jon8RFC · Post by **Jon8RFC** » Sat Sep 27, 2003 9:44 am

I think you misread it, sharman networks (kazaa) is suing the RIAA. I think they announced it a few days ago, hope it goes well. Actually, blocking the suspected RIAA IP addresses just prevents you from downloading messed up music and possibly worrying about them finding you. When they scan for songs on your computer, they're just doing the "show me more from>same user" thing and the option to disallow a listing of files has been in the K++ version since 2.1.0 I believe, there's also a registry hack they offered a long time ago, which I still have, that sets it up so list can't be made of all your shared files.

If anybody wants this registry hack you can snag it from me here-
http://jon8rfc.homeip.net/privacy_on.reg

Timelessblur · Post by **Timelessblur** » Sat Sep 27, 2003 10:36 am

Well now that I read it right this is great. RIAA desvers to have it ass handed to them. They bitch and complain about copy right laws. Well from what that suit is tellimg me the RIAA holds no water with there complates in more because they are a bunch of hipocrates.

Orginaly they where going overboard with there acctions on some stuff but I understood there reasoning now that they are doing what htey bitch about the most....
If there is one thing I hate it hipocrates.

Michael · Post by **Michael** » Sun Sep 28, 2003 8:34 am

How are they hypocritical?

Anthony · Post by **Anthony** » Sun Sep 28, 2003 10:03 am

I think he means the RIAA, if Kazaa wins this battle.

I however don't think they will... Very few people with a political position will support P2P well on the record (Even if they think diffrently off the record).

Michael · Post by **Michael** » Sun Sep 28, 2003 4:52 pm

Personally, I don't understand how people can justify being pissed at the RIAA. While I agree that P2P networks like Kazaa's and Gnutella's and Limewire's do have legitimate, legal uses, the RIAA also has the right to protect the copyrights of its members. Really, this whole thing is just about people being pissed because they can't get music for free anymore. I can understand why people are pissed, but what makes me mad is people trying to justify stealing music.

Timelessblur · Post by **Timelessblur** » Sun Sep 28, 2003 5:32 pm

I can understand the RIAA reason for be tick. But what ticks me off about the RIAA is it goes about very quetional meatods of geting people information. The fact that it was proven that they were illigel raise the price of CDs and now this lastest stunt by the RIAA beaking copy right laws.

Now in the court case I hope it one of those judges who does not give a damn about polical views and rule strickly on the laws. (There are a few of them out there)

Michael · Post by **Michael** » Sun Sep 28, 2003 6:11 pm

But if you rule strictly by the law...people who download music are breaking the law.

Anthony · Post by **Anthony** » Sun Sep 28, 2003 8:07 pm

Actually...

You run into a intresting scenario...

Artist actually couldn't care less about P2P networks...
Label does not like it...
RIAA really hates it...

In this case the RIAA could attempt to go after these law breakers, but if the artist puts their foot down and says they do not mind the downloader even thought the record label and RIAA have laws against it, the artist (since it's their work) has the final say.

Sure this isn't going to happen a lot, but imagine some artist getting very upset at the way these people are being treated... They at first were against P2P networks... Their label can't just flip sides (well they can, but it's not going to happen), however the artist since they (in almost every case) only repersent them self can. In the mean time their not giong to lose any money as far as making their fans mad... Might even get some new people to buy their CDs...

Timelessblur · Post by **Timelessblur** » Mon Sep 29, 2003 2:03 am

The funny part is the artist are not getting any money out of these law suits. The RIAA annouce that fact. The RIAA is getting all the money. Hell I was talking with a friend today and he said that he has not boughten a CD in about 4 years. Neither has he really downloaded any music. He reason for it is there just noughting new out there. Music has been the same for that past 4-5 years. Hell I have gotten bored with it. The music seemed to of stop evolving but I end up finding new stuff to listen to and New stuff I like. (Yeah I bought those CDs but I like them) The music I have DL illegle you can not longer say it is illige on my computer because guess what I bought there CDs. Hey I download some MP3 of some songs off of my favorit cds because I accendently left my orngail back at home and I wanted ot listen to a few of those songs so I did a fast download. The other time I did it since comign to tech was to download some night wish songs because I was in the librey at the time, I wanted to listen to some Nightwish and my cd happen to be in my room so I do a fast search for the Wishmaster CD on Kazaa and prompoly downloaded it. Do I call it illiage no because my ogrinal copy of the cd was in my room .5 miles a way and I did not want to walk back there. I was planing on riping the cd any how so I could listen to it where ever but kazaa saved me the trouble. (Also I use it when I am to damn lazy to rip my cds and I only want a one or 2 songs off of them. Much faster to download them that it is to rip them off of 5 cds when it only 1 or 2 songs a piece).

harra · Post by **harra** » Mon Sep 29, 2003 7:11 am

Anthony,

Actually a couple years ago The Offspring was very emphatic about their desire to allow for the free download of their new album from their website. Anyone who actually purchased the album would be provided with the means to register to win $1,000,000. Their label (which I think is/was Sony) told them if they went through with it they would be dropped so quick their head would spin.

But the fact of the matter is that an artist only makes fractions of a penny off of each CD sold. Unless you are a mega-superstar like Madonna, Michael Jackson, U2, Rolling Stones, etc. You don't have the leveraging power to negotiate any more than that. The rest of the music making community makes a majority of their money from tours, specificically the sell of T-Shirts and other tour related paraphenalia. That would be why they, the artist, doesn't really care about music downloading/sharing. As long as the fans pay to come to their concerts, they are happy. You'll notice that most of the artists that have come out against P2P sharing, are the ones who have the clout to actually command a larger share of the CD sales. My other theory is that some of these artists are pressured from their labels to say they are against it when they really are for it.

Anthony · Post by **Anthony** » Mon Sep 29, 2003 10:03 am

Although the record company can drop them (or can make threats (seeing as there are those nasty and very long contracts)) the artist still hold the full copyright to their (funny... they can control their music?) and although the record company may take action against they can't do a thing about it as far as still go after the people the artist is protecting.

If you want you can check up on what I'm saying at the RIAA's website (Google cached version since the RIAA site is famous for being down).

fuuucckkers · Post by **fuuucckkers** » Mon Sep 29, 2003 11:41 am

PhaseDMA wrote:If you want you can check up on what I'm saying at the RIAA's website (Google cached version since the RIAA site is famous for being down).

Hahah.. Yeah that's because people are pissed and they've been DDOSing the servers ever since this whole P2P war begun years ago..
Also, I believe there was even a worm out there that hosted on infected computers and had them even DDOS the RIAA Website servers.. heh.

harra · Post by **harra** » Mon Sep 29, 2003 1:19 pm

PhaseDMA wrote:the artist still hold the full copyright to their (funny... they can control their music?).

That is another thing people don't realize. Many of the record labels bury in the contract that the label owns everything about the band/artist. They own their name, any websites the artist/band puts up and the music itself. It's kind of like when you write software for a company. You sign an intellectual property agreement. The contract states that anything you do on company time or your own time is owned by the company. Many artists get stuck in one of these contracts because they don't take the time to read what they are signing and are really excited about getting "signed". Notice, these sites like iTunes.com don't have to get permission from the artist, they have to get permission from the label because they own the rights.

Big-O Software

KaZaA sues RIAA for copyright infringement

KaZaA sues RIAA for copyright infringement

Who is online