backtop

Print 53 comment(s) - last by crazydrummer45.. on Jul 31 at 12:57 AM
Kazaa goes legal

In what the recording industry calls a win situation, four record labels have settled a lawsuit with popular P2P sharing network Kazaa. Under the settlement, Kazaa will pay more than $100 million to four to EMI, Sony BMG, Universal Music and Warner Music. Kazaa will also commit to going fully legitimate said the report.

According to the International Federation of Phonographic Industry, Kazaa has contributed to a significant amount of "damage" in the music industry. IFPI chairman and CEO John Kennedy said "these are very substantial damages being paid -- in excess of $100 million -- and Kazaa will go legal immediately. They've had time to prepare for this." Representatives for the MPAA also said that Kazaa will be implementing technology that will prevent users from transferring copyrighted material over the network.

The original developers of Kazaa, Niklas Zennstrom and Janus Friis sold Kazaa to Sharman Networks in 2002. Since then, Sharman had been dealing with the MPAA and the RIAA over the legality of Kazaa users transferring copyrighted material. Neither Zennstrom nor Friis was available for comment.

Zennstrom went on to create Skype after selling Kazaa to Sharman. Zennstrom ended up selling Skype to eBay for roughly $2.6 billion in both cash and stock.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Err..
By Tin on 7/27/2006 4:11:17 PM , Rating: 2
Does Kazaa HAVE a hundred million dollars?




RE: Err..
By Falloutboy on 7/27/2006 4:13:04 PM , Rating: 5
I think the better question is who still uses kazza


RE: Err..
By ksherman on 7/27/2006 4:48:16 PM , Rating: 4
:)


RE: Err..
By othercents on 7/27/2006 4:49:46 PM , Rating: 2
Many people are still using Kazza. There are better tools out there, but they take more skill to use than Kazza does.

I just have to chuckle to see that the original programmers sold the program made their money and the new company is getting sued.

Other


RE: Err..
By mendocinosummit on 7/27/2006 4:58:13 PM , Rating: 2
Limewire is just as easy.


RE: Err..
By Vertigo101 on 7/27/2006 5:45:48 PM , Rating: 2
It's just as well. Kazaa is flooded with fake files these days, making it a pain to navigate.


RE: Err..
By MrSmurf on 7/27/2006 8:30:57 PM , Rating: 2
Limewire too last I heard. Heaven forbid you actually go through a little effort to get something you're stealing.


RE: Err..
By Xavian on 7/27/2006 6:59:40 PM , Rating: 2
shh dont tell everyone ;)


RE: Err..
By poohbear on 7/28/06, Rating: 0
RE: Err..
By masher2 (blog) on 7/28/2006 8:59:31 AM , Rating: 2
> "Stealing is when i take something from u and u no longer have access to it.."

Theft is defined as the unauthorized appropriation of property or services. Copyright theft is theft, plain and simple.

If you break into an empty hotel room and spend the night, you've stolen services...even though the hotel still has the room, and even if the hotel would not have rented the room. Similarly, if you tamper with a cable box to receive a free feed, you've stolen services...even though the cable company still "possesses" the signal.


RE: Err..
By rushfan2006 on 7/28/2006 9:06:51 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Theft is defined as the unauthorized appropriation of property or services. Copyright theft is theft, plain and simple.


I'm 99.9999999999% sure that the post you were referring to was meant as sarcastic humor. ;)



RE: Err..
By masher2 (blog) on 7/28/2006 10:04:25 AM , Rating: 2
> "I'm 99.9999999999% sure that the post you were referring to was meant as sarcastic humor. ;)"

I was nearly as sure it wasn't...so I'll guess we'll just have to let the original poster clarify :)


RE: Err..
By rushfan2006 on 7/28/2006 10:43:41 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
I was nearly as sure it wasn't...so I'll guess we'll just have to let the original poster clarify :)


Well in case (s)he comes back and say (s)he was serious and I don't get to post back in time.....then I agree with you 100% - it is stealing.

For the sake of that poster's own image of looking like a screwball -- I hope they were kidding. I mean a 5 year old knows that's stealing for crying out loud.

(Isn't it interesting how so many arguments come up to change the definition of theft or "stealing"; both terms I find very clear and easy to understand the defintions of...but getting something for nothing so often I guess becomes a kind of addiction, and addictions cause people to not think rationally).



RE: Err..
By Wwhat on 7/28/2006 6:08:52 PM , Rating: 2
Shoter Ocford Dictionary:
theft /TEft/ n.[OE (WS) ÞiefÞ, later ÞyfÞ, Þyft, (non-WS) ÞeofÞ, Þeoft = OFris. thiufthe, thiufte, ON Þýf<eth>, Þýft, f. Gmc base of THIEF: see -T2.]1 The action of a thief; the action or practice of stealing; larceny; spec. (Law) dishonest appropriation of another’s property with intent to deprive him or her of it permanently. Also, an instance of this. OE. 2 That which has been stolen. Now rare. OE.


RE: Err..
By Wwhat on 7/28/2006 6:10:18 PM , Rating: 2
That should read Shorter Oxford, fumblefingers ;|


RE: Err..
By masher2 (blog) on 7/28/2006 7:06:41 PM , Rating: 2
> "Shoter Ocford Dictionary"

Lookup the legal definition of theft in any state in the Union. This is from the Penn. State Penal Code:

quote:
Theft of Services [includes], but is not limited to, labor, professional service, transportation service, the supplying of hotel accommodations, restaurant services, entertainment, cable television service , the supplying of equipment for use and the supplying of commodities of a public utility nature such as gas, electricity, steam and water, and telephone or telecommunication service. The term "unauthorized" means that payment of full compensation for service has been avoided, or has been sought to be avoided, without the consent of the supplier of the service ....


Theft of intellectual property is theft. And, despite sophomoric justifications to the contrary, it deprives the owner of both control over his property, and the opportunity to profit from it. And please, don't again recite the old mantra that "I only steal what I don't intend to buy".


RE: Err..
By mindless1 on 7/30/2006 3:15:14 AM , Rating: 2
So sorry but you're completely, 100% wrong- as wrong as wrong gets!

Software piracy is not an appropriation of the property or service, it's an unauthorized distrubution or use of it.

Copyright theft is as any theft would be- stealing the copyright itself, becoming the copyright holder which is of course impossible through normal means since these things are documented.

If you broke into the hotel room, they have lost use of it, wear on it, have to clean it as well as general maintenance increase (as a %) on entire premises. Not so with piracy in general. Yes it is illegal but no, it's not any of the nonsense you pretend to know about.

It is likewise not "similar" to breaking into a cable box. That is their property (physical, box), and it is an access, use of their physical property. It would be similar to going to the software developer's office, sitting down at a terminal and using their equipment to run the software.

Please resist the urge to make up nonsense. Software piracy is not "like" some other dissimilar thing. It is illegal but not theft. We have more than 5 words in the english language because each word means something specific, no matter how much you want to pretend otherwise.


RE: Err..
By rushfan2006 on 7/28/2006 9:05:57 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
*sigh* its not stealing, its file sharing. Stealing is when i take something from u and u no longer have access to it, it belongs to ME now. We dont do that, we share files w/ thousands of others. The music i download isnt mine, and i dont pretend it is, i share w/ everyone.:)


LMAO.....;)


and i thought i hated google...
By msva124 on 7/27/2006 4:15:54 PM , Rating: 5
Maybe the music industry should sue themself, for completely botching the opportunity to sell music online.




RE: and i thought i hated google...
By R Nilla on 7/27/2006 4:53:29 PM , Rating: 2
what's wrong with Google?


RE: and i thought i hated google...
By creathir on 7/27/2006 5:15:29 PM , Rating: 3
Well, for some of us, a lot is wrong with Google.

- Creathir


RE: and i thought i hated google...
By MrSmurf on 7/27/2006 8:29:04 PM , Rating: 4
Way to elaborate! Good job!


By bobsmith1492 on 7/28/2006 4:53:46 PM , Rating: 3
Well, for one, their website is too simple. All you have to do is type in something and you just get a list of a bunch of websites. How does that ever help you find anything... :(


RE: and i thought i hated google...
By masher2 (blog) on 7/28/2006 10:03:21 AM , Rating: 3
> "Maybe the music industry should sue themself, for completely botching the opportunity to sell music online"

Why not do it yourself? Start a label, sign some bands, get a website, and sell their music. It's easy to gripe from a backseat position, when you're investing no money, exerting no effort, and taking no risks whatsoever.


RE: and i thought i hated google...
By msva124 on 7/28/2006 1:59:39 PM , Rating: 2
I don't understand. Are you saying they did the best they could in trying to keep up with the online revolution, given their limited resources?


RE: and i thought i hated google...
By masher2 (blog) on 7/28/2006 7:02:02 PM , Rating: 2
There are literally tens of thousands of people selling their music on the Internet right now. Directly-- with no middleman taking 95% of the profits. Almost without exception, none of those people have two nickels to rub together...while the people signed with the big labels are still raking in millions.

Perhaps the labels know a little more than you give them credit for.


RE: and i thought i hated google...
By msva124 on 7/28/2006 10:34:45 PM , Rating: 2
You're right. If anything, the records companies should have waited longer before making music available online.


Booooooooo
By bigboxes on 7/27/2006 5:04:55 PM , Rating: 2
Not that I've used Kazaa in years, but this is nonsense. I guess it's all about intent cuz I can't see the technology being the problem. I hope the RIAA and it's customers make less money every year. Since the music gets worse every year, maybe the last peep that purchases an album can pay a billion dollars for it to keep the industry afloat. No love loss here. More choice, less cost, and no DRM will save the industry. If they think that they can survive on lawsuits like these they are sadly mistaken.




RE: Booooooooo
By Teletran1 on 7/27/2006 6:03:16 PM , Rating: 3
Music is at an all time low. At least the 70s and 80s had a bunch of leftover bands from the 60s still pumping out some half decent tunes. I havent heard anything new that I would even bother to steal let alone buy.


RE: Booooooooo
By msva124 on 7/27/2006 6:14:04 PM , Rating: 2
Sadly, you're right. I actually drew up a list of the good albums/bands in the first half of each decade starting with 1960. The 2000s are by far the worst decade. If there are any new talented musicians out there they must be keeping it to themselves. I can't fault them for that, as the price of fame is a high one.


RE: Booooooooo
By MrDiSante on 7/27/2006 6:30:00 PM , Rating: 2
There are still a few good bands around. Dream Theater's been releasing solid hits all the way through, Iron Maiden and Judas Priest hit a bit of a bad patch in the late 90's but Brave New World was good and so was Living After Midnight. It's not that bleak - scratch that, not a single one of those bands lacks a member more than 40 years old.


RE: Booooooooo
By Mudvillager on 7/28/2006 4:29:28 AM , Rating: 2
Sadly you're all wrong. There is lots of good music coming out these days, for example Death Cab For Cutie, Armor For Sleep, Coheed And Cambria, Saosin, Circa Survive, Damien Jurado, A Static Lullaby, Franz Ferdinand, Dungen etc. well you get the picture.

The thing is that you have probably "grown into" your kind of music which probably isn't as common today, say Pink Floyd (which I love btw) for instance. So please can we end this discussion?


RE: Booooooooo
By crazydrummer4562 on 7/31/2006 12:57:35 AM , Rating: 2
"good" music is in the ear of the beholder. nobody really cares about what music someone else thinks is good. fact of the matter is, it's sheerly opinion.


RE: Booooooooo
By Dfere on 7/28/2006 8:04:50 AM , Rating: 2
Good to know I may not be the oldest one on here....


RE: Booooooooo
By ElJefe69 on 7/28/2006 12:09:49 PM , Rating: 2
I bet you have a gut, have a new shiney useless SUV, and a really pathetic/nostalgic view of the world.

there are several bands and a bunch of albums from the 60's that are great. Ever listen to radio from then? a lot of crap, LOADS of crap. 70's?? what absolute crap besides a few incredibly talented bands. 80's was unique and all BRAND NEW. 90's brough gothic up, brought atmospheric, made rap not r and b not crappy for like 2-3 years (now its absolute fecal matter), made a thing called Grunge, made progressive metal non-gay, brought about norwegian, finnish and japanese metal. Yeah, if you want to listen to yellow submarine and trim your earhairs, sure the 80's 90's brought nothing to you. (and you brought nothing to the 80's and 90's)


I wonder...
By underline21 on 7/27/2006 8:45:09 PM , Rating: 2
How much of that 100 million will the artists see?

I'm betting its less than 1%




RE: I wonder...
By underline21 on 7/27/2006 8:48:03 PM , Rating: 3
Also, How do they know that there was "$4.5 billion in pirated CD sales last year"?

How do they come up with numbers like that?


RE: I wonder...
By Bladen on 7/28/2006 12:26:12 AM , Rating: 2
I think they bend over and pull it out.


RE: I wonder...
By ElJefe69 on 7/28/06, Rating: 0
RE: I wonder...
By JB1592 on 7/28/2006 6:46:35 PM , Rating: 2
It's very simple. They take the number of records they used to sell, and compare it to the number they currently sell. They also ignore any factors other than sales numbers in determining what the loss to piracy was.

The fact that before CDs were popular every kid I knew always got most of their music from cassette copies means little to them. In their eyes, piracy has never been more rampant.

In my eyes, it has to do with their marketing and the type of music they try to shove down our throats. Every hit is followed by 10 more that sound the same. Everything sounds overproduced. Everything sounds formulaicly mass produced in the attempt to replicate a hit. Most CDs contain maybe one or two catchy (catchy mind you, not necessarily good) songs and a bunch of filler that they rushed out.

When Led Zeppelin's "How the West Was Won" came out it debuted on the charts at number 1. That's wrong. Yes, Zeppelin is a GREAT band. Probably my all time favorite. But they beat out 50 cent's "Get Rich or Die Trying," a CD that was supposedly a huge hit for a current artist. A band that disbanded 23 years previously managed to out chart a current act. Not only that, they managed to do it with a 3-disc live album (ie; more expensive than a 1 disc album).

Some of the posters are correct. There are some older bands that are still around that are VERY good. Dream Theater was a good example. There are also other bands out currently that actually don't suck. But those bands don't push out a constant stream of crap that sounds like the crap that was at the top of the charts last week. As such, they do not have the support of the record industry and the marketing push that they should. They suffer from lack of exposure.

The preceding opinions were brought to you by a musician. One that understands that art is a personal thing. Some of us wish to share our music with the world and support file sharing, others prefer to have control over their music and its distribution. The point however, is not whether file sharing is right or wrong. It's whether you believe for a second that it's why record sales are down. It's not. The lack of CDs that inspire album sales is their problem. Piracy has ALWAYS been rampant, especially amongst the early teens that are typically the biggest file sharers.

Watch the video from Korn's "Y'All Want a Single". It's got a point. http://www.putcode.com/song/1459">


RE: I wonder...
By farbdogg on 7/29/2006 3:34:19 AM , Rating: 2
Okay, if music sales are down, then why are music playing devices (such as mp3 players, etc) at an all time high? Economically they are complementary goods. That means if the demand for music players is high, so is hte demand for the music for the music players. Since music sales are down, the lack of demand must come from pirated music. So yes, pirated music has caused record sales to go down.


RE: I wonder...
By JB1592 on 7/29/2006 9:17:19 PM , Rating: 2
1) EVERY kid I ever knew had a walkman and/or discman. Every single one. No one I know has an IPOD. Not a single friend, family member, friend of a family member, co-worker, or anyone else. That may sound amazing considering what a "trendy" thing it is, but it's absolutely true. As such, I call B.S. on the whole statistic. Most of them do still have portable disc players though, in which case you might be able to convince me that "more playing devices" are being sold simply because there is a larger variety of "playing devices" available. Not to mention that they are probably counting cell phones that are capable of being used as MP3 players too (a feature that is contained in a quite a few phones belonging to people I know... not a single one of which actually makes use of it).

2) Even if it is true, just because two products are complementary does not mean their sales must correlate. I did just a couple weeks ago purchase a new CD player for my car. It even has MP3/WMA capabilities. I also got the compatible 10-disc changer (also capable of reading MP3s). That's two sales of music playing devices right there. Now... where's my motivation to buy a new CD? I don't have any. I filled up the changer with discs I already had, and when I get around to ripping them and making a few MP3 discs, it'll once again be primarily composed of material I already own. Actually, come to think of it... the reason I bought the "music playing devices" is directly related to why I'm NOT buying CDs like I used to: I couldn't stand driving around listening to the radio anymore. I'm tired of the same old playlists on the stations that don't play absolute crap, and the other stations play absolute crap. There's only ONE modern rock station left in this whole state, and even there I have to listen to the same old, same old far more often than not as they still compose the playlist out of more older stuff than new.

At the end of the day, you can quote all the statistics that support the RIAA's theory that you want. The fact is, I know from my own music purchases, as well as those of people I'm acquainted with, what's going on. In the early 90's I was buying CDs constantly. I was collecting albums released by older artists (I had every Aerosmith album when I was 13, ditto for Zeppelin, quite a bit of Rush, etc.; all obtained legally), I was buying stuff by newer artists, and I was replacing worn out or damaged cassettes with the more reliable media. I'm not doing any of that anymore. I don't have to replace things because CDs are indeed more reliable. I've already bought most of the older stuff I care to. I'm finding it harder and harder to find anything new I like.

And I'm not alone. My 15 year old brother is wearing an AC/DC shirt right now. Him, and many of his friends, don't even have their own CD collections because they simply borrow discs from their parents (or older siblings) who are listening to the same stuff. I'm only in my early 20s. My parents were still into new music back in the 80's, so why is it that I'm not now? My dad was obsessed with Van Halen, why is it that I'm having a hard time even thinking of an artist that exemplifies this decade to put at the end of the phrase, "so why don't I listen to"? Why is it that none of my friends are really into new music either? The only ones I know that listen to new music are the ones that are not really all that "into" music to begin with and can't be bothered to download or buy CDs. They only "listen to new music" in so much as they keep the radio in their car tuned to a Top 40 station.

Remember 15 years ago when "high speed dubbing" was a feature touted on many dual cassette deck stereos and boomboxes? Who do you think that appealed to? Piracy has always been absolutely RAMPANT. I'm not arguing that. It's true. But it's not a new thing either. They lost just as many sales to piracy decades ago as they do now. They just need a scapegoat now.

Art and the corporate environment don't mix. You can't simply manufacture art. They're trying to. It's not working.

Answer me this: When the music industry is constantly just trying to push out hit after hit that all sound the same... how the hell is the "next big thing" ever supposed to come along? It'll be ignored because it doesn't sound like last week's #1. Imagine, if you will, if Nirvana was never given a shot because they didn't sound like Poison. We'd still be living with regurgitated glam metal. Thankfully, we're not, but unfortunately the only part that we've managed to escape is the glam metal. Somewhere out there I'm sure that someone is doing something absolutely amazing... and being ignored by the major labels because he doesn't sound like Shakira.


How can these developers be billionaires?
By MrCoyote on 7/27/2006 4:19:08 PM , Rating: 3
All this software is used for mostly is illegal file sharing. Yet any no-name developer can come up with a "new" peer-to-peer protocol and someone buys it for billions of dollars! I don't understand it.

I ought to get back to C++ programming and hook up with another person and write a "new" protocol and give it a funny name. I'll call the program Wigster .




RE: How can these developers be billionaires?
By masher2 (blog) on 7/27/2006 5:36:43 PM , Rating: 2
Primarily because the purchaser isn't buying the protocol as much as they're buying the installed user base. When you have a few million users, your product is valuable...regardless of what its based upon.


By Dfere on 7/28/2006 8:03:24 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed.

The best products are not always the most profitable. Distribution networks, and even domain names carry a lot of weight too.

Unfortunately, consumer purchases are hard to predict, and there is a lot of inertia. Buy Skype, you now can license skype phones, and possibly try to figure out other/secondary revenue streams, have a marketing database, record marketing info (who calls who and when), etc etc. Then you slam customers with added costs until a competitor finally arrives or perople change their consumption. It adds up to huge potential for the short run.


It just ain't fair
By cubby1223 on 7/27/2006 7:34:33 PM , Rating: 4
The record industry should get the same outcome as we get whenever there's a class action lawsuit. All we get is a lame coupon for a single that no one gives two bits about. So I say the settlement should be that Kazaa permits the music industry to use Kazaa ad-free for a year!




RE: It just ain't fair
By mikeblas on 7/28/2006 12:21:18 PM , Rating: 2
They are getting the same outcome. They pay for their lawyers up front. Win or loose, they make that payment. Then they get to keep whatever settlement they get. The net result of the settlement is the result of the settlement minus the lawyer fees.

When you get a class action result, you're getting the same value: the result of the settlement minus the lawyer fees. You have the advantage of not paying anything if the case is lost or not settled.


Was not free after all.
By JoJoman88 on 7/27/2006 6:59:29 PM , Rating: 2
I guess everybody who downloaded something form Kazza should thank them for the payment of those downloads.




RE: Was not free after all.
By ElJefe69 on 7/28/06, Rating: 0
RE: Was not free after all.
By Wwhat on 7/28/2006 6:12:14 PM , Rating: 2
lol :)


Yeah
By segagenesis on 7/27/2006 4:16:46 PM , Rating: 2
RE: Yeah
By bunnyfubbles on 7/27/2006 4:57:44 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah, it would be easy to create the copycat, but the problem is tricking millions of people into using just your solution so that the company isn't buying the software/technology, they have to buy the entrenched user base.

I'm sure eBay could have easily come up with their own Skype solution, but that wouldn't get current Skype users to suddenly be at their mercy.


lawyers
By TonicSonic on 7/28/2006 3:43:24 AM , Rating: 2
lawyers getting paid......




"Paying an extra $500 for a computer in this environment -- same piece of hardware -- paying $500 more to get a logo on it? I think that's a more challenging proposition for the average person than it used to be." -- Steve Ballmer

Related Articles
Skype to be Integrated with eBay
June 14, 2006, 12:37 PM
botimage
Copyright 2013 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki