Kazaa turns the table! LOL

Discussion in 'Music' started by jimnyc, Sep 24, 2003.

  1. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    LOS ANGELES - Turning the tables on record labels, makers of the most popular Internet song-swapping network are suing entertainment companies for copyright infringement.

    Sharman Networks Ltd., the company behind the Kazaa file-sharing software, filed a federal lawsuit Monday accusing the entertainment companies of using unauthorized versions of its software in their efforts to root out users. Entertainment companies have offered bogus versions of copyright works and sent online warning messages to users.


    Sharman said the companies used Kazaa Lite, an ad-less replica of its software, to get onto the network. The lawsuit also claims efforts to combat piracy on Kazaa violated terms for using the network.


    Sharman's lawsuit also revives its previous allegation that the entertainment companies violated antitrust laws by stopping Sharman and its partner from distributing authorized copies of music and movies through Kazaa.


    U.S. District Judge Stephen V. Wilson rejected those claims in July but last week allowed Sharman to try again. Sharman is incorporated in the South Pacific island nation of Vanuatu with main offices in Sydney, Australia.


    The Recording Industry Association of America (news - web sites) called Sharman's "newfound admiration for the importance of copyright law" ironic and "self-serving."


    Universal Music Group and Warner Music Group declined to comment on Sharman's latest lawsuit.


    Recording companies sued 261 music fans this month, claiming they were illegally distributing hundreds of digital song files apiece over the Internet. The industry trolled file-sharing networks such as Kazaa and downloaded song files from users' computers.


    Once the industry determined a downloaded song file was a copyright work, they issued subpoenas to Internet access providers to find out who was behind the account used to log onto the file-sharing network.


    Meanwhile, the recording industry group has dropped one of the 261 lawsuits, a case filed against a 66-year-old sculptor who apparently was targeted in a case of mistaken identity.


    Sarah Seabury Ward, of Newbury, Mass., was accused of illegally sharing more than 2,000 songs through Kazaa, including rapper Trick Daddy's "I'm a Thug." The music companies threatened to hold her liable for up to $150,000 for each song.


    After Ward's lawyer complained that Ward is a "computer neophyte" who never installed file-sharing software or downloaded any songs, the case was dropped in federal court in Boston on Friday.
     
  2. 5stringJeff
    Offline

    5stringJeff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9,990
    Thanks Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Puyallup, WA
    Ratings:
    +540
    Man... the fact that the RIAA would sue people instead of trying to win their business back speaks voumes about them... if their product is not priced right, they should expect to lose business. As for me, as soon as I get into my new house (knock on wood) and get high-speed internet, I plan on downloading all I can get.
     
  3. Dan
    Offline

    Dan Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    3,928
    Thanks Received:
    156
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Aiken, SC
    Ratings:
    +157
    I don't know where these people get the idea that consumers are stupid enough to think that $18 is a fair price for a CD. First off, we all know that all but maybe a couple dollars of that goes to the retailer, who is of course owned by the same corporations as the record companies. But, I was thinking about this: a brand-new DVD of a brand-new movie never usually costs more than $20, right? So, the RIAA is saying we should pay the same price for something that cost maybe $1 million to make as a movie that cost $30 million? STUPID!

    Not to mention the fact that pretty much all of the popular music out there isn't worth five cents, let alone $20.
     
  4. Crescendo
    Online

    Crescendo Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    I agree!

    The RIAA is stupid. They could make a lot of money off of the internet downloading technology if they wanted to-- but they are alienating their own customers. With these "protected" CDs, I can't play it in my computer or car.

    And that is interferring with fair-use laws!

    In fact, if I want to upload CD files to my hardrive, I am legally intitled to do that. But the RIAA doesn't want me to.

    If I was one of the people being sued from music downloading, I'd counter-sue.
     
  5. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    There are a few places where they are trying to make money off of the downloading, but it's seriously flawed at this point.

    I joined a couple of the sites and payed the stinking 99 cents per song and downloaded at great speeds. Imagine my surprise when I tried to burn it to CD afterwards and didn't have rights to. Even worse, I copied it over to my laptop from my desktop and it wouldn't play! You need to pay another 99 cents per song for another license to play on other machines! I say bullshit! I paid for the song, I now own it, I should be able to do whatever the hell I please with it so long as I don't share it.

    Ahhhh... Back to Kazaa and Imesh!

    Screw the RIAA, I hope they all die. :D
     

Share This Page