Slyck.com
 
Slyck Chatbox - And More

Kazaa Contempt Hearing Not Until January '06

Discuss Slyck's latest news
Forum rules
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Slyck Forum Rules

Kazaa Contempt Hearing Not Until January '06

Postby SlyckTom » Thu Dec 15, 2005 12:41 am

If Sharman Networks ever releases an industry authorized service, the last few weeks have provided enough publicity to get the ball rolling. It's been a war of words between the ARIA (Australian Recording Industry Association) and Sharman Networks, the intellectual property owners of Kazaa and the FastTrack network. So far, it appears Sharman is winning.

The more recent drama between the ARIA and Sharman came to a head on November 25, 2005. Prior to that date, the technical crews of Sharman Networks and the ARIA were scheduled for a second conclave, or meeting, to comply with Order 5. According to court orders, the two sides were to agree on a technology that would filter copyrighted material from the FastTrack network. In a surprise move, the ARIA lawyer cancelled the meeting at the last minute.

Angered by this, Judge Murray Wilcox said the ARIA lawyer "shot himself in the foot." Indeed he did, as Judge Wilcox extended the September 5th stay for Sharman Networks to install a permanent filter until late February 2006. In the mean time, Kazaa's already existing key word filter would be expanded to include 3,000 copyrighted works of the ARIA's choosing by December 5th.

Of course, December 5th came and went with no Kazaa release. Sharman Networks did however block Australian users from accessing the Kazaa.com website. The measure does nothing to prevent the sharing or distribution of copyrighted works on the FastTrack network.

This caused an uproar at the ARIA. Angrier than a private tracker operator being leeched by BitComet, the ARIA and MIPI (Music Industry Piracy Investigations) issued a press release that claimed that Kazaa's "shut down" was imminent.

“Sharman has thumbed its nose at the court. They were given a chance to do the right thing and they’ve ruined it. They cannot be trusted to even take the simplest steps towards complying with the Court’s orders and again have shown they intend to do nothing about the illegal activities occurring on a massive scale on their system,” ARIA Chief Executive Mr. Stephen Peach said.

Funny thing actually. The reason why Sharman Networks didn’t expand their 3,000 word filter - technological capability arguments aside - was because the second conclave never occurred. Both sides were ordered to come to an amicable filtering agreement. Since that did not occur, Sharman could only comply with Order 4. This order required Sharman to prevent the authorization of Kazaa users in Australia from infringing on the ARIA member's copyrights.

As of December 14th, it’s a week and two days since Sharman was supposed to expand their key word filter. The ARIA brought the matter to Judge Murray Wilcox today and asked for a contempt hearing next week. Gauging from the ARIA's boisterous position last week, it would seem such a request would be a cake walk.

Not quite. Judge Murray Wilcox did grant a contempt hearing; however it will not be heard until January 30, 2006. Kazaa, FastTrack and Sharman Networks in their current iteration will continue to exist at least until that time.

In addition, the ARIA wanted immediate action on Order 5 taken by Judge Wilcox. Specifically, the ARIA wanted a "compulsory filtering order" established. Although by design similar to the original Order 5, the ARIA wanted it independent of the September 5th ruling. Judge Wilcox said "No."

As in any country, contempt is a serious matter punishable by jail time. How the two sides will spin this in their press releases is another story. Yet according to legal sources in Australia, it's rare for an individual to receive jail time under contempt charges. This circumstance should add to that rarity, as Judge Wilcox has never jailed anyone for contempt in his entire judicial career.
Follow us on Twitter @SlyckDotCom
Join our Facebook Fan page
SlyckTom
 
Posts: 5713
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 7:22 pm
Location: New York City

Postby Fez » Thu Dec 15, 2005 1:09 am

Unless there is additional information concerning this case that we, the public, are not privy to, it sounds like the worst case scenario at this hearing is a fine for Sharman...
User avatar
Fez
 
Posts: 1435
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2003 10:26 am
Location: Great White North

Postby SlyckTom » Thu Dec 15, 2005 1:24 am

Edit: I dont know if this can really be considered a delay since there wasnt a contempt hearing in the first place. Hence the headline change...
Follow us on Twitter @SlyckDotCom
Join our Facebook Fan page
SlyckTom
 
Posts: 5713
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 7:22 pm
Location: New York City

Postby IceCube » Thu Dec 15, 2005 1:28 am

Heh, I'd laugh if something happened on the 30th of January to cause this thing to drag out further. :lol:
User avatar
IceCube
 
Posts: 17079
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 5:31 pm
Location: Igloo Country?

Re: Kazaa Contempt Hearing Not Until January '06

Postby MetalFuture » Thu Dec 15, 2005 2:38 am

SlyckTom wrote:This caused an uproar at the ARIA. Angrier than a private tracker operator being leeched by BitComet,


HAHAHAHAHAHA.

Sweet.
signature? does this make it legally binding
MetalFuture
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2005 7:23 pm
Location: West Coast!!

Re: Kazaa Contempt Hearing Not Until January '06

Postby IceCube » Thu Dec 15, 2005 2:53 am

MetalFuture wrote:
SlyckTom wrote:This caused an uproar at the ARIA. Angrier than a private tracker operator being leeched by BitComet,


HAHAHAHAHAHA.

Sweet.


Indeed. Got a laugh out of that too. Nice article though Tom :)
User avatar
IceCube
 
Posts: 17079
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 5:31 pm
Location: Igloo Country?

Postby Dormant707 » Thu Dec 15, 2005 4:23 am

***Opens the door. Checks that Volt is not in the room. All clear! :D ***

I had a bit of a chuckle about this article. :D

SlyckTom wrote:Angered by this, Judge Murray Wilcox said the ARIA lawyer "shot himself in the foot."


Bad idea to piss a judge off!

This caused an uproar at the ARIA. Angrier than a private tracker operator being leeched by BitComet


LOL!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

“Sharman has thumbed its nose at the court. They were given a chance to do the right thing and they’ve ruined it. They cannot be trusted to even take the simplest steps towards complying with the Court’s orders and again have shown they intend to do nothing about the illegal activities occurring on a massive scale on their system,” ARIA Chief Executive Mr. Stephen Peach said.

Funny thing actually. The reason why Sharman Networks didn’t expand their 3,000 word filter - technological capability arguments aside - was because the second conclave never occurred. Both sides were ordered to come to an amicable filtering agreement. Since that did not occur, Sharman could only comply with Order 4. This order required Sharman to prevent the authorization of Kazaa users in Australia from infringing on the ARIA member's copyrights.


This is where it is going to get interesting. I don't believe that the ruling is going to change, but I think that the judge is definitely going to give some leeway to Sharman.

The ARIA brought the matter to Judge Murray Wilcox today and asked for a contempt hearing next week. Gauging from the ARIA's boisterous position last week, it would seem such a request would be a cake walk.

Not quite. Judge Murray Wilcox did grant a contempt hearing; however it will not be heard until January 30, 2006.


Shows how arrogance comes before a downfall....

In addition, the ARIA wanted immediate action on Order 5 taken by Judge Wilcox. Specifically, the ARIA wanted a "compulsory filtering order" established. Although by design similar to the original Order 5, the ARIA wanted it independent of the September 5th ruling. Judge Wilcox said "No."

As in any country, contempt is a serious matter punishable by jail time. How the two sides will spin this in their press releases is another story. Yet according to legal sources in Australia, it's rare for an individual to receive jail time under contempt charges. This circumstance should add to that rarity, as Judge Wilcox has never jailed anyone for contempt in his entire judicial career.


Seems to me like this Judge Wilcox is good judge - being fair and perhaps he won't find Sharman in contempt. Perhaps nail the contemptuous attitude of ARIA's lawyers?
Dormant707
 
Posts: 5067
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 5:03 pm

Postby Terrian » Thu Dec 15, 2005 4:59 am

dannybhoi wrote:
Seems to me like this Judge Wilcox is good judge - being fair and perhaps he won't find Sharman in contempt. Perhaps nail the contemptuous attitude of ARIA's lawyers?


Well, seeing as how it was ARIA that stopped the required meeting, I am a little surprised that they have not been hit by a contemp of court charge.

cya
Terrian
 
Posts: 142
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 4:00 pm

Postby Nick » Thu Dec 15, 2005 8:57 am

A fine article, and the simile involving BitComet and private trackers made me chuckle.

I, too, find it strange that Sharman didn't initiate their own submission of contempt against the ARIA. They (Sharman) are clearing investing the minimum necessary to keep this action going, and they're not going to throw any more money in the defence than strictly necessary

Judge Wilcox clearly regarded the ARIA accusation of contempt as being vexatious itself, as they are the visible cause of all delays.

It will be interesting to see the outcome of this. The damages issue could be horrendous, but every blow that the ARIA are inflicting on themselves is costing them dearly
Nick
 
Posts: 3840
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 7:38 am

Postby MythicalMe » Thu Dec 15, 2005 12:17 pm

This will be very interesting considering that Sharman is not "selling" their wares in Australia anymore. Therefore, the ARIA really has no more beef with Sharman Networks. Did ARIA really expect that Kazaa would just die?
MythicalMe
 
Posts: 235
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 1:14 am
Location: Behind one of my 5 computers

Postby Nick » Thu Dec 15, 2005 12:49 pm

Having run through the Australian Copyright Act, I fear that you may be wrong. Australian law affects those living in or based from Australia, not their customers.

For the time being Sharman have been permitted to continue pending a judgement, and subject to their making their services unavailable to Australians. This is only a temporary situation. ARIA are still seeking damages and costs in respect of all past breaches by Sharman, and they will be prohibitive

Australian law says:

COPYRIGHT ACT 1968 - SECT 10AA
Non-infringing copy of a sound recording
Minimum requirements

(1) A copy of a sound recording is a non-infringing copy only if it is made by or with the consent of:

(a) the owner of the copyright or related right in the sound recording in the country (the copy country ) in which the copy was made; (which includes Australia and all other signatories to international copyright treaties)..../snip


and

COPYRIGHT ACT 1968 - SECT 103
Infringement by sale and other dealings
(1) Subject to sections 112A, 112C, 112D and 112DA, a copyright subsisting by virtue of this Part is infringed by a person who, in Australia, and without the licence of the owner of the copyright:

(a) sells, lets for hire, or by way of trade offers or exposes for sale or hire, an article; or
(b) by way of trade exhibits an article in public;

if the person knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that the making of the article constituted an infringement of the copyright or, in the case of an imported article, would, if the article had been made in Australia by the importer, have constituted an infringement of the copyright.
Nick
 
Posts: 3840
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 7:38 am

Postby MrFredPFL » Thu Dec 15, 2005 1:18 pm

Terrian wrote:Well, seeing as how it was ARIA that stopped the required meeting, I am a little surprised that they have not been hit by a contemp of court charge.


exactly. couldn't agree more.
User avatar
MrFredPFL
 
Posts: 15185
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2005 4:48 pm

Postby Fartingbob » Thu Dec 15, 2005 2:54 pm

ARIA seems to have cocked this whole thing up. It could have ended kazaa and fastrack, but it looks like both will still be polluting P2P users for a while longer.
User avatar
Fartingbob
P2P Trafficker
 
Posts: 13248
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2005 4:18 pm
Location: Serenity

Postby IceCube » Thu Dec 15, 2005 3:48 pm

SlyckNick wrote:every blow that the ARIA are inflicting on themselves is costing them dearly


I got this hilarious image in my mind when I read that:

ARIA: Hey! Sharman!
Sharman: What?
ARIA: C'mere! You messed with the wrong people!
Sharman: Aw man... I think it's over for me...
ARIA: *puts fists up* Come on! Bring it! I'll kick my @$$!
Sharman: ?
ARIA: *Punches self in face* You fealing that ARIA???
Sharman: *grabs a beer and watches*
User avatar
IceCube
 
Posts: 17079
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 5:31 pm
Location: Igloo Country?

Postby Andu » Fri Dec 16, 2005 6:43 pm

I still wonder why the ARIA chose a lawyer coming straight out of law school. Reminds of their shitty market research methods. I guess the guys making those have just finished high school.
User avatar
Andu
 
Posts: 875
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 1:12 pm


Return to Slyck News

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

© 2001-2008 Slyck.com