Print 27 comment(s) - last by lazyteen69.. on Dec 12 at 12:23 PM

A person sued by the RIAA is in turn suing Kazaa on a number of claims

Catherine Lewan, a former Kazaa user who was sued by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) during the organization's attempt to crack down on file sharing, has filed a class-action lawsuit against Sharman Networks, the company which created the Kazaa file sharing program.  Due to fraudulent misrepresentation and deceptive trade practices, Sharman is responsible for all copyright violations that are made by Kazaa users.  Lewan is alleging that Sharman led users to believe that Kazaa allows for free and legal downloads through Kazaa.

Lewan's lawsuit also accuses Sharman of creating its software in a manner that has forces "Kazaa software to install... spyware... for nefarious purposes," without the knowledge or consent of the program's users.

Lewan reportedly paid Sony BMG damages of more than $75,000 to resolve the litigation.  Although Lewan  is the first to specifically name Kazaa, it is likely that she won't be the last to do so.

Last July, Sharman Networks paid more than $115 million to settle litigation which was filed against the company by the RIAA, Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), and the International Federaion of the Phonographic Industry.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

does this make sense?
By loomis2 on 12/9/2006 9:48:01 PM , Rating: 4
If Kazaa is responsible for it's users transgressions like the article states, then I would think that when they settled for $115 million they would be settling for all their users as well, right? So the RIAA has no basis for going after anyone else. As for the other part about Kazaa loading other software without conSent (emphasis on the S), that is why God created Kazaa Lite.

RE: does this make sense?
By RaistlinZ on 12/9/2006 11:04:18 PM , Rating: 5
It sounds like this lady is just pissed that she got caught and is trying to take it out on Kazaa. She knew darn well that she was downloading stuff illegally I bet.

RE: does this make sense?
By MADAOO7 on 12/9/2006 11:35:37 PM , Rating: 3
Where is Kazaa coming up with $115 million to settle? Is Kazaa really worth over $100 Million? It's just a crappier flashier version of Napster and WinMX. I just don't know how you take a hit like that and keep going....

RE: does this make sense?
By feelingshorter on 12/10/2006 1:57:02 AM , Rating: 3
Thats what I was thinking, but I'll admit I'm ignorant. They were pulling in some major $ through advertising I guess, like Google? I'm curious as to how this court case will turn out. I think most of us knew that Kazaa was illegal. I would really like to talk to someone that think Kazaa was legal. I can only imagine some good lawyer cross-examining and ripping someone that claim to think such a thing apart.

RE: does this make sense?
By polaris2k4 on 12/10/2006 7:46:32 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, but we forget, the same two people that owns Kazaa also owned Skype - which was sold to ebay for 2.6billion US just last year.
In light of *that*, a hundred odd million dollars to stop this constant harassment from the RIAA might just be a good deal.

RE: does this make sense?
By carage on 12/10/2006 10:35:35 PM , Rating: 3
I would assume the technology and the platform is legal (like BT). However, most of the content shared on the network probably isn't, and I would also assume most users would know that unless that person happens to live in France (where it seems legal to pirate for personal purposes)or Palestine (where IP laws is probably nonexistent or the law enforcement has much higher priorities to deal with)

RE: does this make sense?
By Hydrofirex on 12/10/2006 3:15:28 PM , Rating: 1
What makes sense is that if I had just had to pay out $75,000 I sure as heck would be looking to shuffle around some of the blame any way I could to recoup some of that! Right or wrong, responsible or not, if I thought I could potentially come out ahead from a loss like that I would more than likely do the same thing.

And, if you don't feel bad for the pirates and you think they're getting what they deserve, then why would you feel bad for Kazaa getting dragged into this? They brought piracy to the masses in a way only rivaled by Napster. Personally, I think they set themselves up for at least this much.


it's called responsibility for one's own actions
By nortexoid on 12/10/2006 2:58:34 PM , Rating: 2
People of the current generation can't take responsibility for their own actions anymore; it's much easier to just push it on someone/something else. Who in their right mind could think that Kazaa was legal? And where does it even remotely suggest that it is? Is some mild suggestion supposed to override the obviousness of common sense? Could it really be free music I'm getting because it was "suggested" by the lack of making explicit the fact that it's illegal? Am I severely retarded? How in the first place did I figure out how to use the internet and a computer?

RE: it's called responsibility for one's own actions
By GmanMD on 12/10/2006 6:15:41 PM , Rating: 2
I can understand people being pissed off at this lady for trying to shift blame, but if the RIAA and MPAA,etc. were already paid off by Kazaa, then doesn't his count almost as double dipping, on recovering phantom costs from 2 places. They settled on their cut with Kazaa, so leave the users alone. They can't sue everyone for all this money they lost that their accountants pulled out of thin air. They should be jumping up and down that Napster and Kazaa existed, because iTunes, etc. would never have been so popular. They are making money hand over fist without even having to press a CD with a cheap paper cover art insert.

By marvdmartian on 12/11/2006 9:29:05 AM , Rating: 3
I don't believe the "double dipping" defense will work here either.

It's like if you saw that it was going to be really easy to rip off some company, but instead of doing it yourself, you decided to sell the idea to others, so they could do it. You get caught selling this idea, and get (pretty much) slapped on the wrist.
Then some schmuck comes along, and actually uses your idea to rip off the company. But the company is wise to this method now, and have taken steps to correct the problem, and this schmuck gets caught easily.
Can it then be the schmuck's defense that he's not guilty of trying to rip off the company, because it wasn't his idea in the first place? That you, who have already paid your dues for the wrongdoing you committed, are more guilty for having come up with the idea in the first place??

NO. You do the crime, you do the time. Anyone who's sharing music on P2P networks either knows that they're doing something wrong, or is just too friggin stupid to be allowed to own a computer, and should have it taken away from them!! You do the crime, you take your chances, and when you get caught, you hang your head in shame and take your punishment.......unless you're part of the newest trend, which is to blame everyone but yourself for your wrongdoing!

By GmanMD on 12/11/2006 12:41:46 PM , Rating: 2
I don't have a problem with them "doing the time". Then give them jail time if found guilty, but don't give me this crap that the record industry should be suing everyone involved for their "losses". If they want to criminally prosecute then that is one thing. If 2 people steal $100 from me, I can both criminally prosecute and civily sue them. I cannot get $100 from each of them so I have $300 in my pocket.

whats next?
By Tremain on 12/10/2006 10:05:33 AM , Rating: 2
Can thieves sue gun companies after they get caught robbing a store? kazaa has never claimed you can download whatever you want for free, in fact its always had a copyright violation warning so this seems like a bs suit to me. The spyware stuff on the other hand im with them 100%.

RE: whats next?
By Live on 12/10/2006 2:59:07 PM , Rating: 3
That was kazaas defense (or rater Sharman networks, who bought the software from the inventors who then invented skype). But they lost in court. So if the court believes kazaa is responsible for the copyright infringement then the user might not be. It's not that far fetched. The difference with the gun companies is that the gun companies that has been sued has not lost there court cases. My bet is that the courts will rule that both kazaa and the user are responsible but they might not.

Should they really have....?
By polaris2k4 on 12/10/2006 2:55:23 PM , Rating: 3
Me and a friend was actually just talking about a similar issue last night - the McD's Hot Coffee case.

Her question was, should companies actually be responsible for the direct ill or irresponsible use their products?

In BC, Canada, it's allowed (or at least it used, not sure about now) to legally sell cannabis seeds, but you're not allowed to grow them. Should these companies be liable for the use of those seeds?

On the other hand, should Ferraris' come with a warning saying "Warning: Going fast and hitting something can harm you and others."

RE: Should they really have....?
By rcc on 12/11/2006 1:06:05 PM , Rating: 2
Companies should be held responsible for the quality and function of their products, and the legality of their offerings. But not, IMNSHO, for the negligence and stupidity of their customers.

So, if you burn yourself on hot coffee, consider it a learning experience and get on with life. OTOH, if you burn yourself on a cup of Pepsi that you just bought, maybe the vendor has a problem.

Selling a product that has no legal use is something that law enforcement should crack down on ASAP. For instance, the proliferation of bump keys on the internet. These have 0.0 legitimate uses. These companies know that they are going to kids and amateur thieves. And yes, I know they all post the "for legitimate use and locksmiths only" warning, but here's a shocker..... those folks don't need them, and certainly wouldn't pay the internet price when they can make them for a 5th of that, or less.

Take responsibility for yourself and your actions, and require that others do so as well. And don't mix up the two.

By BioRebel on 12/10/2006 10:36:28 AM , Rating: 2
Isnt there a release statement when you install kazaa, saying that the designers did not intend for you to download illegal music?

"that is why ..."
By lazyteen69 on 12/12/2006 12:23:28 PM , Rating: 2
"that is why God created Kazaa Lite"
I agree with you on that. I also think that is why god created IRC and Torrents some years ago.

By ajfink on 12/10/2006 1:30:49 AM , Rating: 4
I went back over your older posts, and I now realize why your poster rating is so low. You never say anything constructive and always tear people down.

By hondaman on 12/10/2006 6:57:39 AM , Rating: 2
lol! Nice find on this guys history. Clearly a lifer troll.

By mindless1 on 12/11/2006 4:54:52 AM , Rating: 3
That might be true, but it doesn't account for low ratings in general, which can come from a variety of causes like certain special interest groups that just lurk around derating things that don't reflect well on their company.

In other words, you can post a non-personal, entirely truthful, factual thing and have it be entirely applicable to the topic and yet get downrated. Dailytech does not have a normal rating system where the post quality matters so much as it does on many other forums with rating systems.

By frobizzle on 12/10/2006 9:30:27 AM , Rating: 1
I normally don't post on grammer or spelling but since this guy is a maximum troll, I have to ask:

Let the whinning begin.

Is he trying to say winning or whining ?

Or perhaps he means that folks should start whinnying like a horse?

By darkfoon on 12/10/2006 8:15:17 PM , Rating: 3
I'm not defending BeenThere, however before you call out other people on their poor use of the English language, you might want to check yourself first.

That being said, it's spelled grammar, not grammer.

By Montrevux on 12/10/2006 9:22:45 PM , Rating: 2

By cochy on 12/11/2006 12:41:56 AM , Rating: 2
lol you can say that again.

By MoonSad on 12/10/2006 3:01:31 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with this post 100%.
Someone else said something to the effect, that if a robber gets caught should he then sue the place he robbed? No, common sense says if you didn't purchase the CD, or mp3 (or equivalent) file (or any other item, TV, car etc), you are in possession of illegal material, thus you are responsible for your own actions. If you don't read the "agreements" then that's your own fault. Personal responsibility in this country and world has gone down the tubes!

By XtremeM3 on 12/11/2006 7:33:04 AM , Rating: 2
I agree as well. Although I believe a more accurate alternative scenario would be a car thief trying to sue the makers of Slim Jims because he got caught stealing cars.

Silly either way.


"There is a single light of science, and to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere." -- Isaac Asimov
Related Articles

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki