SYDNEY -- A long-running court battle between Australia's record industry and file-swapping giant Kazaa reaches a climax Monday, when a judge is to rule on whether the peer-to-peer network is no different from a photocopier or is a giant "engine of copyright piracy."

Lawyers for major Australian record labels want Federal Court Judge Murray Wilcox to find Kazaa's owners liable for copyright breaches and loss of income.

"We have argued file sharing on Kazaa is a breach of copyright and unfair to all those people who try to make a living by creating and producing music," said Michael Speck, managing director of Australia's Music Industry Piracy Investigations, a division of the Australian Recording Industry Association.

"This is a long-awaited judgment on an issue that's critical to the music industry, artists and consumers worldwide," he added.

The 10 defendants in the Australian case include Kazaa's owners, Sharman Networks Ltd., Sharman License Holdings and Sharman's Sydney-based chief executive officer, Nikki Hemming.

Their lawyers argued that the software used by Kazaa is no different from a tape recorder or photocopier _ and that Kazaa could not control copyright infringement by users of the network.

The case is the latest in a long line of courtroom showdowns between so-called peer-to-peer (P2P) networks and copyright holders like record companies.

In a landmark case earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court said Grokster Ltd. and Streamcast Networks Inc. _ developers of leading Internet file-sharing software _ can be sued because they deliberately encouraged customers to download copyrighted files illegally so the companies could build a larger audience and sell more advertising.

If the record industry wins Monday and Kazaa's owners are declared liable, it could signal the end of Kazaa. Key defendants including Hemming already have agreed to freeze their assets ahead of the verdict.

If the defendants are ruled liable, Wilcox will hold a fresh round of hearings to determine the level of damages, which could run into the millions of dollars.

Whichever side loses Monday is expected to appeal.

But whatever the outcome, observers say users of peer-to-peer services around the world already are leaving Kazaa for services which allow quicker downloads.

Prof. Michael Geist, an e-commerce expert at Ottawa University's law faculty, said the file sharing industry has moved on since the Kazaa trial began last November, with the software underpinning Kazaa now holding only 10 percent of the market, although the Kazaa Web site claims that nearly 390 million people have downloaded its software.

"It just isn't as big a player as it once was as BitTorrent and eDonkey are now far more important to file sharers," Geist said. "This has been common trend for years as file sharers move between services."

As a result of the ever-shifting market, record industry attempts to stamp out P2P networks via the courts "are doomed to failure since for every service that is shut, many more spring up in their place," he added.

But Fred von Lohmann, senior intellectual property attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a U.S.-based nonprofit group that aims to protect the rights of Internet users, said the ruling, and other cases against peer-to-peer networks, hold wider implications for new technologies.

"The larger question raised in the lawsuits against P2P technology companies around the world is when the vendor of a multipurpose product will be held liable for infringements committed by customers beyond their control," he said.

"For example, when Dell or Hewlett-Packard sells PCs equipped with CD and DVD burners, they know to a statistical certainty that most of those burners will be used for infringing purposes at one point or another by their owners. The same is true for makers of photocopiers."

And he added that even if the Australian court orders the closure of Kazaa, the technology will likely live on.

"If Sharman's claims are to be credited, the dissolution of all the Kazaa-related business entities would not stop the millions of copies of Kazaa from continuing to function, so even the remaining Kazaa users are unlikely to be effected by the ruling one way or the other," he said. (AP)

September 4, 2005

Ah, big day tomorrow, must get a good nights sleep...

A little late for the recording industry to outlaw Kazaa.

and heres the answer
http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/NewsArticle.aspx?type=internetNews&storyID=2005-09-05T101605Z_01_KRA523507_RTRIDST_0_OUKIN-UK-MUSIC-KAZAA.XML

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/09/05/kazaa_verdict/
KAZZA lost

But the recording industry didn't really win either. Go figure...

Quote From the article:

He also noted the defendants had not "taken any action to implement... technical measures... that would enable the respondents to curtail – although probably not totally to prevent – the sharing of copyright files".

The defendants were banned from offering their P2P file-sharing systems in Australia until they modify the software essentially to exclude copyright works from searches. The modification must come in the form of a "non-optional key-word filtering technology", and the company must place "maximum pressure" on existing Kazaa users to upgrade to the modified version of the software. Sharman has a grace period of two months before it must comply with the order.

The ARIA DID WIN.. plain and simple. They now have the power in australia to force the redesign of ANY SOFTWARE OR SYSTEM that "doesn't do enough".

This is precisely what the EFF managed to prevent state side.

I predict overturn. What an ignorant judge.

Isn't this the same thing Napster went through years ago? In the end, the name of Kazaa goes belly up, etc, etc, and in the meantime 15 more programs start up...it's a lose, lose situation.."illegal" filesharing carries on, the record industry keeps suing and nothing changes..YAWN, going back to bed....

actually this is what I've been looking for and the industry didn't want. the line is drawn (over there at least) now watch as some creative people find ways around this. "yeah our software filters out blah blah." except someone managed to create a crack that removes the filtering and we're essentially back to square one.

"Isn't this the same thing Napster went through years ago? In the end, the name of Kazaa goes belly up, etc, etc, and in the meantime 15 more programs start up..."

yep, only now they know exactly what to avoid and fighting it in court will be much tougher next time.

Does anybody know whether there is an appeals process in Australia like the one we have here?

Nobody uses KaZaa anymore...the lite version was much much better. But I don't do that anymore. Really.

what "ways around this".

this ruling is an "anti-betamax" for australia.

anyone can now be forced to redesign their potentially infringing product, be it a cd burner, a pc, an ISP,.. etc etc because that particular MONTH the ARIA doesn't think it's "taking ENOUGH affirmative steps to prevent infringement"

And what about web pages..somebody doesn't like something on your web page, calls it infringement next thing you know, your tied up in court for the next two years...

Why is it the more they think, (the courts), they are making things right, the more they are making things wrong with everything else? Does that make sense??

the problem is what does this do for other P2P networks

Comp, I imagine they would still have to take them to court, one at a time....years and years of litigation...a lawyers dream!

"What an ignorant judge."

Since you know nothing about Australian law, I'd say you are the ignorant one. What a tool.

"engine of copyright piracy."
LOLOLOL....what a foolish bit of gibberish that is...engine of copyright privacy, indeed!

Whatever laws of marketing is, the climate is changing whether or not the Recording Industry like it.

Radio was born, and the RIAA sued the radios for broadcasting music. They urge people to buy 78s instead. Radio lived on, and the RIAA did nothing about it. Photocopiers existed, and people were using photocopiers to counterfeit CD labels and even books.

Now, P2P networks are going along. The RIAA has to realize that this technology is going to exist and they are going to put only the proper security measures to still allow customers of music to make and manage copies of the legitimate CDs that they own, whether it is making backup copies, importing them into video and computer games, or putting it on a portable device.

Copy protection must be put on the hardware, not the CDs themselves. If copy protection is put on CDs, malfunctions and problems are going to happen.

We need protection not only to copyright infringers (these people making thousands of copies and selling them to strangers), but also against shoplifters, like putting an ID and a purchase authenticator, so that songs purchased will be fingerprinted to ensure that purchased copyrighted works do not leave the consumers' area of the network and being kept out of people who don't have the rights to use the media.

But the industry needs to give consumers legal options to use P2P networks. Sony's Playlouder, while it's a closed network, is a step in the right direction. Soon, Comcast, AOL, and other ISPs may have to implement their own P2P services and may be opensource so that the consumers pay for P2P services while the artists get paid for every file shared, edited or not, over the internet.

And, CD burning. Oh, how the RIAA is so scared of everything. Instead of restricting consumers, why not market them. Maybe they should put software and the proper security measures so that personal copies are secure and don't work on other people's players and make a special copy to give to friends, where every time a CD is copied, money is given to the artists.

Using these technologies, this is a great opertunity that the consumers arn't restricted and the artists get paid big bucks in result of these technologies.

Remember, in order to allow innovations, consumer flexibility is very important. Put down restrictions, and the consumers are going to backlash, walk away, and the RIAA is going to learn from this.

SO they put a keyword filter to block 'britney spears' so all what would need to happen is people rename them to 'britnee speers'. Filter bypassed.

Waste of time.

" but also against shoplifters, like putting an ID and a purchase authenticator, so that songs purchased will be fingerprinted to ensure that purchased copyrighted works do not leave the consumers' area of the network and being kept out of people who don't have the rights to use the media."

Again, what yoyu are discribing is aimed at copyright infringement, not shoplifting, theft, murder, rape, death, or anything else.

so we're back to bickering are we mroop?

the judge's ignorance has nothing to do with australian law, it has to do with the crap shoot he just placed every high tech industry upon.

My quote from the official thread on the resolution of this case:

"I'm more concerned about australian consumer electronics manufacturers.

the VCR, the dvd recorder, the DVR, the cd burner, the pc, DSLAMS, isp's, modem and router manufacturers... the list is endless.

All these people, according to this ruling, can now be forced into incorporating the ARIA's "DRM of the month" because they will lose now if they "don't do enough".

This kind of outcome was the one most feared by the EFF in the US, and this is what is now happening in AUS.

The ARIA now has total regulatory control over the design and sales of consumer electronics, broadband, and software."

"so we're back to bickering are we mroop?"

No. I'm back to calling you an idiot whenever you say dumb shit like "I predict overturn." when you have no basis in law or fact. I wil continue to call you out when you try and play liar. Nothing has changed.

"the judge's ignorance has nothing to do with australian law, it has to do with the crap shoot he just placed every high tech industry upon."

You know nothing about the whether or not the judge is ignorant. You wouldn't even know the judge's damn name if it wasn't printed in the article.

"try and play liar"

That's "lawyer". Little Freudian slip there. : )

Most lawers are a waist of space and this judge is no exeption. If he was not ignorant of the technology he would know that there is no way to filter files effectively. Did he forgot what's hapened when the old Naspter pathetically tried to filter? In some way this is too bad for those of us that want to avoid the RIAA crap while exploring for new music. It is too bad for me too because it would help me concentrate my fire better on RIAA stuff with my majorthreat server.

For the rest all is vain for the CRIA because unlike Napster Kazza application is stand alone and does not require any servers.

For those that like spyware they can continue to use their current client for years if they want too even if Kazaa company dissapear. And of course there is the open source Kazza application such as Kazza-lite still arround without the spyware. The Kazza application is obsolete anyway and the CRIAA shooted an empty house. Any way Kazza is opperated by the same type of parasites operating the music industry so it will be a good ride-off. Parasites hate each other you know so they can exterminate each other. Lucky for us!

odd, I've always considered liar and lawyer as synonymous. silly me.

Don't tell that to the liar/lawyer who owns this site, gfmlcka.

"Judge Wilcox said Kazaa failed to use available technology, such as key word filters, to prevent copyright infringements because it would have been against its financial interest."

Gee, if Judge Wilcox wasn't so ignorant mroop, maybe he would have realized that they tried doing this with Napster and it DIDN'T WORK. Maybe the judge was ignorant after all, he obviously knows very little about P2P file sharing software or he wouldn't have made such a stupid suggestion. And it has NOTHING to do with Australian law, liar (lawyer) or otherwise. Maybe knowing something about the software before he made his ruling would have kept him from looking so ignorant. Maybe you realizing this point would have kept YOU from looking as ignorant.