In a setback for efforts to halt copyright abuse, a Dutch appeals court on Thursday told a technology company it could distribute a software program that is designed to let people share music and films on the Internet.

The ruling in the case between Internet software company Kazaa and Dutch music rights organization Buma Stemra overturned a decision in November in favor of the music industry.

The music industry says rampant online piracy has severely damaged recording sales, and the movie industry fears the same could happen to it as computers become more powerful.

The Amsterdam Court of Justice ruled that Kazaa was not liable for any individuals' abuse of its software, which is being used by millions of people around the world every day to swap copyright- protected games, music, pictures and films.

"We are stunned by the verdict," a Buma Stemra spokesman in the Netherlands said, adding that the organization could appeal further to the High Court. But Niklas Zennstrom, the Swedish founder of Netherlands-based Kazaa and its technology provider FastTrack, heralded the decision as "a great victory for our company and for the whole technology sector."

However, he also said the ruling came too late to save Kazaa, whose main assets were sold after the initial ruling last year to Australian company Sharman Networks.

Zennstrom continues to run FastTrack, which developed and licenses the file-swapping software used by Kazaa and its U.S. peer Grokster.

Both companies, and their rival Morpheus MusicCity, are still facing a court battle against music and film industry trade groups the Recording Industry Association of America and the Motion Picture Association of America, expected to start in October.

Kazaa attorney Christiaan Alberdingk Thijm expected the Dutch ruling to be closely watched in the United States, as his defense was partly built on a 1984 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that said manufacturers of video recorders are not liable if consumers use their products to abuse copyrights.

"This is not just about Kazaa. It also affects producers of digital recording devices," he said. These would include DVD recorders from Philips and Panasonic, and digital TV recorders from TiVo.

The Dutch ruling is in stark contrast to last year's decision in which a U.S. judge forced Napster, the original file-swapping Internet service, to cease operation until it could guarantee that there was no copyright infringement on its network.

Unlike Napster, Kazaa and its peers do not operate a central server connecting people and enabling them to transfer files. Kazaa has claimed in its defense that it is unable to control usage after its peer-to-peer software has been installed on PCs.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

LINKS

Original Article
Kazaa homepage
Sharman Networks
Buma Stemra (in Dutch)
Article from Wired News

sweeeeet

wow, another first post for me!

This really makes sense when you think about it..No one charges Nikon for copyright infringement when a photographer copies a famous photo using their camera. No one charges Ford with hit and run because their vehicle was used in a traffic fatality. Should we charge Louisville Slugger with murder because someone used one of their products to beat someone to death? This is the same type of thing. I know its a take off on the old "guns don't kill people, people do" argument, but it's a valid argument.

Thumbtack makes some good points.

Yes, that's very true thumbtack!

it's appears that, while it sounds like a very good thing, this ruling doesn't really mean much at all.

kazaa was found not to be liable, but kazaa isn't the maker of the core application -- fasttrack is. it seems that if a court were still to rule against fasttrack, kazaa and grokster, being completely dependant on fasttrack, would all still go away.

Awright Thumbtack! Glad you make the connection with the gun argument. Isn't it stupid that gun manufacturers are still being sued for acts committed by criminals with their products? >

i definitely agree. To take tack's parallel another step, the absolute worst along this vein are the lawsuits lost by the tobacco companies. Here is a product conducive to negative results for which the manufacturers are constantly bein' found accountable. Makes me sick to think Ford and Louisville Slugger are gettin' away w/murder everyday.

Hooray for the Dutch soft policy (believe me, it is ) I would have never expected a ruling like this, 'cause KaZaa doesn't make any attempts to stop the copyright abuse. I'm happy with the ruling though!!! And indeed, thumbtack made a good point. **/me gives Thumbtack 500 extra member points**
**ThaCoyote finds out he can't give anyone extra member points** Damn

ThaC, LOL!!!

***Rant Mode ON***
Milla, I couldn't agree more. No one can claim ignorance of the damage that tobacco does to your body. The only people that have a case against the companies are ones that have been addicted since before it was a well-known fact and can prove that they've tried to quit and failed.

I personally can't stand cigarette smoke--it makes me sick. But I feel that if someone decides to destroy their health, that's their right. I'm not being sarcastic here, in case I sound it.

And the gov't needs to stop subsidizing tobacco fields if their anti-smoking campaigns in public schools are to stick.
***Rant mode OFF***

***Rant mode back ON***

I personally don't think the anti-smoking campaigns need to take place at all and would feel quite fine if they continued the subsidies but halted the campaigns. Why is my gov't taking my hard-earned dollars and advertising to me the evils of a product?? It's not their job. To tell ya the truth, those ads just remind me that i want another cigarette. ..just as that last sentence did. heh. It's also not their job to lecture children about its evils. That's why children have parents.

"The only people that have a case against the companies are ones that have been addicted since before it was a well-known fact and can prove that they've tried to quit and failed." Beside the fact that most of those people are dead since that news came out in the mid-60's, I don't think they should have a case either. For the same reason there's no case for those who have no training in the use of firearms or motor vehicles yet kill someone with those items. We shouldn't blame the manufacturer for consumer ignorance.

***OFF***

milla and thumb, i totally agree. Family problems begin with the family and can only be solved within the family. Govt needs to butt out.

"We shouldn't blame the manufacturer for consumer ignorance."

I'd usually agree, except there's plenty of evidence that the tobacco companies knew for a long time that their product was harmful and hid it from the public. THAT I have a problem with.

And while you don't like the gov't spending tax $ on ads, I don't like it spending my $ to subsidize a product I can't stand. They should just let the market take care of itself. Don't spend money on subsidies OR ads, and make us both happy. Again I say, vote Libertarian.

Okay, I agree that the gov't should get out of our pockets and our consciences. I too take a libertarian point of view.

However, "...knew for a long time that their product was harmful and hid it from the public." Yes, but, A) like I said, that stigma hasn't been attached since 1964, when the world became aware, much to the tobacoo companies' chagrin, that inhaling tobacco smoke was harmful to the human body. That's almost 40 years. I'd be willing to bet that no one smoking today was unaware of its dangers when they began. ...and, B) getting back to the original point, can't we apply that to gunmakers, automakers, and breweries? The companies that manufacture these items have always been well aware of their dangers but do exceptionally little to educate the public about misuse. The gov't handles all the public awareness campaigns, and we're left w/our parents, third-party defensive driving classes, and community service or jail time to teach us our lessons. Anheuser-Busch takes our money for ads to sell their product, and our gov't takes it to tell us how to use it responsibly. Why doesn't Wacky Willy's Wonder Weed get the same courtesy? (but that's another issue entirely.)

I guess that alcohol and tobacco fall into the same category, because they are recreational items. Unlike vehicles and firearms, which are tools. Vehicle manufacturers come up with new safety features every year, and anyway, the gov't controls that by requiring a license to operate them. And if you download some gun manuals (many firearm manufacturers make these available at their sites), you'll see that they ALWAYS talk about safety first. Any time they describe how to do anything, it will always include things like "first make sure the weapon is not loaded" or "first point the muzzle in a safe direction."

So if an individual is willing to be educated about safety concerning anything, they don't have to look very far. Manufacturers WANT their products to be used safely because if there are a lot of accidents (like with the Ford Explorer), people will stop buying it. (Not to badmouth the Explorer--it's a wonderful car if people didn't try to drive it like a sportscar.)

I guess my point is that if the gov't starts to send messages to us, they will probably have a spin on them. And if it's a mixed message (like with tobacco), they lose credibility. Besides, it's not their job. Information is not hard to find nowadays.

Well, it's kind of a long post, but I hope what I said makes some sense

It makes sense to me, and you make many good points. ..and don't worry about length; if you have sumpm to say, i don't think it makes a difference how many workds are needed to say it.

Consistency's important to me. Do you still think that some folks have viable cases against tobacco companies for withholding important data? Before you answer, consider that your argument was that those who were "unaware" of the dangers may have a case.

Safety was not always the foremost pre-thought on manufacturers minds. It wasn't until relatively recently that insurance and medical industries, plus consumer groups, began to sue manufacturers to get them to put the data up front in the manual. Automakers in the 40's, 50's, and 60's new full well that seatbelts saved lives. Did they install them in cars?? Not until the mid-60's did Ford begin pushing safety. Most carmakers felt that the inclusion of seatbelts would make the consumer think that cars were "unsafe," so they did without them for many years, at the expense of the public. How many years did it take for Kraft, Nabisco, and Hersheys to start putting fat and carbohydrate info on their labels? Maaanny years. Poor health from fatty and junky foods is the world's #1 killer. Where are the public service messages and the label warnings?

Contrary to what you may think, manufacturers have NO interest in public safety. The most important thing to them is turning a profit. The fewer lawsuits there are, the more profit there is.

And how do you get fewer lawsuits? Make a safer product.

Initially, the reason I said that the only people who have a case against the tobacco companies are the old people was to make the point that there weren't any, or damn few.

You're absolutely right about seatbelts/cars and safety. But attitudes have changed since then. Safety is now of much greater concern to the consumer than it was 30 years ago. Now, manufacturers advertise how safe their product is to gain a buyer's trust. We are also a lawsuit-happy culture now. There is adifference in suing a manufacturer for selling an unsafe product and suing them for the actions of an unsafe consumer with their product.

The point about the food is interesting. I think the difference lies in how clear cut the case is. If you are driving a car and the front axle leaves you on the highway because of poor design, it doesn't take much to figure out that the product was unsafe. (Unless you modified it or did not maintain it properly.)

But dealing with food gets real ambiguous real fast. Say I get heart disease. I can't just up and blame Burger King because I've also eaten at Jack In The Box, McDonalds, and many others. Not only that, but I don't exercise and don't drink enough water and too much alcohol . Plus, in school I was taught about leading a healthy lifestyle (and I do believe schools should teach that). So food companies don't care because they don't have to worry. McDonald's has never claimed that the BigMac is healthy. It's OK to eat a BigMac as long as you balance it with healthier food. And balancing your diet is YOUR responsibility. On the other hand, some food products are advertised with lines like "Only 5 calories!"

You make an excellent point with "Poor health from fatty and junky foods is the world's #1 killer. Where are the public service messages and the label warnings?" I don't know. They would be a good idea. Stats on how many people in the US are obese are staggering. They would do much more good than politically charged ads about tobacco/drugs/alcohol or firearm safety.

One more thing... Food companies didn't just start volunteering their ingedients list and calorie information. They do that because of gov't regulation. This is one place where I am glad that the gov't is intervening. (This includes Truth-In-Advertising laws.)

So I guess what I'm saying is that if a product has the capability of causing harm (like a car, fireworks, guns, etc.), the manufacturer will go all out to encourage safe use. If it's something that can CONTRIBUTE to causing harm (like fast food, alcohol, etc.), it becomes an issue of balancing its use and thereby worthy or public service messages.

Whew!

This is one of the more interesting discourses I've had in a long time, especially since we're on a happy tangent. Without ever touching on the subject of the article, our exchange still reeks of poignancy. *shakes Cryxan's hand*

We're pretty much on the same wavelength. Without trying to sound like I'm continuing a debate of some sort, I'd just like to address 1 or 2 things, if I may.

I definitely agree that there's a difference between unsafe products and unsafe product users. What I hope to iterate is that safer products are a result of cost-efficiency, not concern for the public good. Companies (any company) wish to maintain a profit, not necessarily safe use of what they sell. Their concern for safety is a direct result of previous lawsuits and gov't intervention. Kraft couldn't give a flying fig about your perverbial heart disease, because, like you say, they're absolved by ambiguity. Miller Brewing is a bit less ambiguous, so they toss in the fine prints of "Don't drink and drive," "Drink responsibly," and "Don't drink if you're pregnant." Terrific. Now they're absolved. Phillip Morris hasn't had such luck, tho. They haven't advertised in motion media for over 30 years, and despite warnings on every pack and public service promos imploring us to abstain from its use, PM has paid out quite a bit in legal payouts in recent years. Btw, Kraft/Miller/PhillipMorris are the same company, and may as well be considered the #1 "pusher" in the world. (..but i shouldn't single out one company; it applies to all involved.)

I absolutely confer that foods get ambiguous fast, and it's that very ambiguity that should dictate to us that all other products have fine lines in the sand, too. Every product is bad if misused. A cigarette after sex is still referred to positively on American television.

Everything in moderation. Which products do we absolve because the market is too wide and which do we hold accountable due to fewer competitors? Johnny's uncle dies from lung cancer and he smoked 2 pax of Camels a day for 40 years. ...but during his life he also inhaled city pollution, fiberglass insulation dust, lead paint fumes, etc. Food is heart-disease-ambiguous for all its brand names; cigarettes are all alone in the brand-name lung-pollution business, so they're easy to target.

Do you remember McLean? It was supposedly a low-fat Mcburger. Remember? Damn, how much more healthy could McDonald's possibly get, right? They advertised a "healthy" fast-food burger that was 96% fat-free. Waaowwwww. I knew so many people who were relatively impressed w/that. What few people realized is that the regular MickeyD's burger meat was (and is) 92% fat-free. ...I'm w/ya on certain gov't roles to regulate product labels and warnings. Somebody's gotta do it. But truth in advertising laws are currently a joke and still need plenty of refinement.

Burger King, Jack In The Box, McDonald's. ... Benson & Hedges, Brown & Williamson, Winston-Salem. The same person who killed themself in 3 restaurants could've just as conceivably smoked 3 brands in their life produced by all 3 buttmakers. If one pays, they all pay in the end.

I say we hold none accountable and leave it to survival of the fittest. hehe. jk, but not totally. If you didn't exercise, can't we blame Jenny Craig for not advertising _enuff_?? Couldn't Weight Watchers be liable when a former client still dies from sumpm brought on by obesity? How 'bout our water company that failed to provide to us all the potential benefits from drinking plenty of water? Shouldn't it work both ways? Why isn't the tabacco company rewarded for the people who smoke 5 pax a day and live to a ripe old age? hehe. Japan, the most oversmoked nation in the world, has also the highest average age of death in the world. Go figure.

Anyways, I believe the true issue here that people in general do not like to take responsibility for their own actions, so they look in every possible direction for where to lay the blame. I call it "reproxibility": responsible by proxy. Like why the bartender needs to worry about how much the patrons are drinking. Feh!! Let's imagine for a moment *grinning sheepishly* a cab driver who takes someone successfully from point A to point B. What would life for cabbies be like if they had to be concerned w/their fare's eventual arrival at point C?? This is essentially what bartenders are now reproxible for.

Your last paragraph is intriguing, but i'd like to pick it apart even further. I believe the line should be drawn at those products which potentially do harm to ourself and those which can potentially harm others as well. For instance, I don't like seatbelt laws. I feel they're nothing more than laws designed to protect my own well-being. I like seatbelts, but not the laws requiring my use of them. Why are seatbelt laws laws and not just good advice? Insurance and medical. It always boils down to the almighty $ rather than concern for the public good. Prescription drugs; another good example. Do they really need to be attached to a doctor "for our own good?" Of course not. Require the manufacturer to put a label on it and sell it to me like mouthwash. If aspirin were patented today instead of the 1850's, it'd be a miracle drug, promoted by Pfizer, branded w/some name containing an X, Z, Q, and/or K, and sold by prescription only for 8 dollars a dose. Ka-ching.

Again, I think the line should be drawn there. Products potentially dangerous to the user should have labels; products potentially dangerous also to others should have service messages, detailed manuals, and require licenses, regular training classes, and refresher courses. (...Yes, I feel we should be required to retake our driving test every x amount of years.) No manufacturer should be held reproxible for their products' misuse. Thank you.

Have I rambled enuff yet? heh, sorry.

*returns Milladrive's handshake with a smile*

There ya had to go and destroy my naive belief that manufacturers care about my safety for my well-being . Yeah, it really sucks to admit that, but I agree.

Your comment about "survival of the fittest" hit on a pet peeve that my boyfriend likes to go on about. A lot. His rant is that so much technology nowadays short curcuits darwinism. A lot of the diseases that would, without medicine, kill the weakest of us, have been all but eliminated.

Your point about seatbelt laws is part of that. If you make the personal choice to wear it, you are more likely to survive, which is good for the species because you had the intelligence to wear one. (I think AIDS might have come about as nature's way of controlling the human population, but that's another book )

Yes, society has been moving towards a point where we don't want to take any personal responsibility, and it's sad. Unfortunately, the gov't is only too happy to oblige, because we are basically giving them permission to take our freedoms away. The Founding Fathers must be turning over in their graves, I'm sure.

I think it was Nietsche that said (not sure of the exact words, or the author, for that matter): "And they will lay their freedom at your feet and say, 'make us your slaves, but feed us.'"

And so they will. Unfortunately, people like you and I, people who WANT to take responsibility, no longer have that option. I just hope that one day people wake up and realize that there once was a Bill of Rights that applied to all Americans.

Yes, tangents are good. That's one thing I love about this place. A music site where you can come for mindless chatter or a deep discussion. And I'm not surprised that the starting point of everything is music, bacause music is about life. I'm having tons of fun here. Sigh now I'm getting all sentimental =|

Kazaa owns me.

"Products potentially dangerous to the user should have labels; products potentially dangerous also to others should have service messages, detailed manuals, and require licenses, regular training classes, and refresher courses. (...Yes, I feel we should be required to retake our driving test every x amount of years.)"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I couldn't resist jumping in here And spaking of tangents...here's another one

That quote above reminds me of a discussion I had with my offices computer technician a while back. He and I are both in agreeance that requiring people to take some sort of course or exam to use an "Interneted" computer (A puter connected to the Internet) is not completely outlandish. Actually, both of us thought it to be a fairly reasonable idea. If people were required to take a course certifying that they know how to use the Net, that they know how to AVOID spreading virii, that they know warning signs that point to a potentially devious file, etc.; we would ALL be much better off. Now as of late, I'm still sort of "on the fence" as far as this idea goes. But with every passing day...with every new virus that spreads through the Internet like wildfire, and whose spreading could have been avoided had people simply taken a little time to protect themselves, I find myself falling more and more to the side that advocates and promotes the idea of "Internet/Computer Licenses"

Just another tangent here

Could there perhaps be some connection between this Dutch decision and the urgency of the effort by the paranoid ninnies in Hollywood and Congress to ram the (Anti-)Consumer Broadband & Digital Technology Promotion(?!) Act down everybody's throats?

Sounds like an idea Frawg, just as long as the gov't aren't the ones to regulate it.

Would be nice if ISP's volunteered to launch education campaigns, though.

hehe. oh, if only it could be implemented.

and yet another tangent... there are many laws on the books in many states that fall under the collective title "dram shop act". These basically say that if a guy gets in an accident, and he's DUI, the _bartender_ and _establishment_ where he/she got drunk can be held liable for damages to life, limb and property. There are many many successful (read: business loses) lawsuits out there on this, I even wrote my college thesis about one that took two and a half years to even get filed! Anyone hear about the wine company that lost 8 million dollars ?? True story. Some guy got drunk and raped the neighbors wife. So *his* wife sued the wine company, claiming he'd never had that brand before, and therefore it had to be the wine. They ended up writing her a check besides the probably hundreds of thousands, if not millions spent on legal fees.
Point is.. we (people in general) so damn ready to make someone else responsible for our own actions. It really sucks.
I smoke. I drink. I don't have lung cancer, I might get it, but I don't have it. I don't DUI, cuz it's stupid. My opinion, and I have others if you don't like that one. I don't blame others for what I choose to do, nor do I try to get others to pay for mistakes I've made.
Same goes for Kaazaa. I mean, come on people. If all we're doing is sitting here, burning pirate cd's and reverse engineering our microwave ovens, then sure I can see how that might present a problem. Why is it that lawmakers seem all toooo anxious and ready to look at changing laws that limit the peoples freedoms, yet when there's one that exists that actually doesn't infringe these rights, and it's used, they either ignore it or act like it's not pertinent. Case in point: VCRs. Trial and Statuatory laws in a few states read that the manufacturer of the unit is not to be held responsible for what the consumer does with the product. Well well well!! go figure. Why hasn't this been pushed down the f***** RIAA's throat? Simply because it's no longer a case of losing money, now it's a case of being right, and garnering power. If the RIAA and the other jagoffs involved with this CBDTIAPLMNOPQRSTE thing get it thru, they'll have the power, and we all know he who dies with the most power gets to play with the toys.

Nuff said.. I know it's confusing.. sorry.. just hope it's interesting

Good news, but moot.

How the hell can any government physically shut down a peer-to-peer file-sharing program, anyway?