DailyTech - RIAA Defendant Files Lawsuit on Kazaa Owner

Submit News

Internet RIAA Defendant Files Lawsuit on Kazaa Owner
Michael Hoffman (Blog) - December 9, 2006 9:54 AM

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

Username
Password
remember me

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

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.

Parent

"Folks that want porn can buy an Android phone." -- Steve Jobs