Kazaa owner welcomes file-swap ruling

The Australian-based owner of popular peer-to-peer program Kazaa, Sharman Networks, has welcomed a United States court ruling favouring file-sharing software, but is still evaluating its impact on its own legal battle with the music industry.

US federal judge Stephen Wilson ruled that peer-to-peer network creators Streamcast and Grokster were not liable for copyright infringements that occur using their software, a decision which overturns previous court rulings.

"Sharman Networks Limited, owner of Kazaa Media Desktop, applauds Judge Wilson's decision in his ruling that file-sharing software is legal," said a spokesperson for Sharman Networks in a statement. "Since acquiring Kazaa Media Desktop, Sharman Networks built it to be a legitimate, powerful and efficient distribution channel for rights managed content. Our legal team is currently evaluating the ruling's significance."

Sharman Networks representatives are scheduled to appear in Judge Wilson's court on Monday in the United States for oral arguments in plaintiff's motion to dismiss Sharman's counterclaims against the entertainment industry. Sharman, which is currently being sued by the music industry for allegedly assisting copyright infringers, claims that major entertainment companies have colluded to drive potential online rivals out of business.

Sharman has said it wants to set up a legal peer-to-peer music distribution system that reimburses copyright holders, but has been thwarted by music companies who refuse to contemplate such a system. Paid-subscription sites are now available, but services had to fight hard throughout 2002 to win music licenses, and the right to offer services such as CD burning.

Michael Speck, the manager of Music Industry Piracy Investigations, told ZDNet Australia the decision was a "serious concern".

"The decision has more to say about how the case against the respondents was run than the principles, in my view," said Speck. "Unless it's redressed by [law] or a more thorough prosecution it presents a blueprint for Internet infringement, and it's a serious concern."

Talkback 3 comments

    After reading this article and ...Anonymous -- 30/04/03

    After reading this article and one from Reuters where the "RIAA" was quoted as saying "We're not going to change behavior overnight. The only way we can measure this is to see if fewer people are offering files on Grokster and Kazaa," I went out to the Kazaa sight and looked at the license agreement (Yes, as a musician and a programmer I still prefer CDs). I am surprised that Kazaa has not turned around and filed a DMCA complaint against the RIAA as it is clearly violating the law if it is using Kazaa to determine if people are offering copyrighted material using the software. While the issue as to whether or not Kazaa or Verizon has violated the law that remains to be seen, but if the RIAA publicly states it is using Kazaa in direct violation of the “end user license agreement” then they put their proverbial foot in it.

    I was pleased by the ruling wh ...Andrew Garrick -- 30/04/03

    I was pleased by the ruling why? because if Sharman or Grokster or any of the other P2P sharing programs are held resposible then fundamentally Microsoft, Cisco, and the internet providers and basically anyone that has provided or promoted the use of P2P on the internet would also have to face charges. These orginizations promote the use of P2P for business use and home user use, Sharman etc just make it easier for the computer illiterate to be able to share files, in an easy manner. It would like holding Ford Motor Car Company responsible for someone crashing into someone elses car or if you wish to take it to a ridiculous level, where a Bank has been held up FORD or the car maker must be responsible because they produced the car in the first place. More POWER to P2P

    I have read about this ordeal ...Anonymous -- 13/05/03

    I have read about this ordeal since the beginning. In one of the articles I've read, it was telling about how the music industry was suing Kaaza and saying that P2P sharing was illegal, and that it was planning on sending an IM to all Kaaza's users saying that the users were not anonymous and that sharing files was illegal and bla bla bla. Well, personally, I think that is rediculous. If they say sharing of music or software or any other contents is illegal through P2P sharing software or through any other means on the internet, don't they think that it is also illegal when people lend their music cd's to friends/family members to record onto tapes or burn to cd's or lend their software to others to install on computers??? Why is it illegal when we share the things that we like to our friends and family members? It's just a part of every day life. Don't tell me that those who sue Kaaza (and other P2P networks) do not share their things to friends/family. Don't tell me that they don't lend their cd's to friends to copy. We all do. Sharing is a part of day-to-day activity. Without sharing over the internet, people can still share in reality. A friend can lend a friend their music cd's to copy or their software to burn. Or people can even rip songs from their music cd's and share to their friends by other means. And for some people, they download songs to listen, but still want to have a copy of the original professionally done of those songs, so they go out and buy the cd's of the songs that they have already downloaded. For movies, you think that those movies downloaded off of Kaaza are worth to keep? To me, no. Some people download movies from Kaaza for the purpose of previewing. If they see that they like the movie, they still go out and get a copy of the DVD of that movie. Why should people buy a movie that they don't even know if it's good? I was talking to a friend about such subject, and he said that he didn't have time to take his kids out to theater, so he downloaded movies from Kaaza for the kids to see. If any movie that his kids really liked, he would go to FutureShop and get the DVD copy for them to keep. Movies from Kaaza are ripped movies. They have been resampled to less quality resolutions. Just as songs, they are just good enough to listen. Anyway, sharing shouldn't be made illegal, whether through p2p networks or through any other means. Singers, actors and actress, music and movie companies will not be at stake. They still make tons of money and are still rich, because there are still millions of people around the world buying cds, dvds, or going to theaters. So, there is no point in suing. They just make a big ordeal out of something simple.

Add your opinion

Latest Videos

Sponsored content

Power Centre - Content from our premier sponsors

Blogs

  • Brad Howarth The key Topik is always money
    One of the big problems of the internet is that is practically impossible to keep up-to-date on preferred topics. You can limit your sources, but this can mean missing a lot of valuable data.
  • Array Google open-sources JavaScript tools
    Google announced overnight the release and open-sourcing of a trio of tools designed to help JavaScript developers.
  • Array Do we need the legislative blackmail?
    Virtually everyone in the telecommunications industry has their say in the Senate Standing Committee's public hearing into the pending legislation to split up Telstra, in this week's Twisted Wire podcast.
  • More blogs »

Tags

Back to top

Featured