Kazaa Source Scandals

[THE ENFORCER]

Man you have gone completely lost on this metaphor let me summarise
Kazaa developers created a program for people to share stolen music, obviously the people who share the stolen music are liable however they have little money and not worth sueing so lets look at the Kazaa developers. Kazaa developers created this program to share this stolen music (i admit its hard to prove but lets work on the assumption that we can look into the minds of the developes and we know for a fact that intended to create a program for sharing music). Therefore kazaa developers provided the means and therefore is an accomplise (spelling?) like the driver is an accomplise to the robber understand?

[THE ENFORCER]

THAT'S BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT LOGICAL!

Is post 46 better?

[Sarien]

Kazaa developers created a program for people to share stolen music,
Kazaa developers created this program to share this stolen music

I'm afraid you're mistaken.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...&notFound=true

Kazaa developers wrote the peer to peer engine, and then sold it to
Sharman networks and made it into Kazaa Media Desktop.
And just in case you won't read it.. I quote from the article:

The programmers insist they did not set out to help people trade music and movies illegally. Rather, they simply wanted to make it easier for people to swap any sort of file. Once people load the software on their computers, they need just type the name of a file they are looking for and then are presented with a list of possibilities. They can select the file they want with one click of the mouse and wait for a copy to be transmitted to their computer. Their copy then becomes part of the giant database of files that is available for others to download.

They didn't even make their peer to peer software to be "kazaa"..
They made it and sold it to an interested company who made it into
Kazaa.

[THE ENFORCER]

well ofcourse they gonna say that they didnt mean to do make a program for illegal sharing, if they did it will be admitted for evidence and they will be sued! What they say in the papers and what they thought is two different matters or do you believe everything that they say in the papers to be true?

man dont be fooled by the media!

[sTuPiD-gErBiL]

one day, i'm going to invent a new type of computer monitor that will allow me to reach through it and bitchslap people like you.

[THE ENFORCER]

one day, i'm going to invent a new type of computer monitor that will allow me to reach through it and bitchslap people like you.

Well thats just great, i think your gonna have some serious problems in life if you take these things too personally and cant respect someone elses opinon on matters

Now goodday to you sir!

[Vitron]

What are you going on about the building????????
I dont think you understand my logic.....
Note: the building did not help the robbers steal the money! the only two people involved are the robber(you and me) and the driver (kazaa) no-one else! Who the fuck represents the building?

Your tanslation is once again flawed, the building 'kazza' is storing the money 'files'. The robbers take the money from the building, neither kazza or the building are at fault.

This is like saying we should sue the guy who made ftp software. We should sue the people who invented the first network. We should sue the guy who made the internet too. We should sue the guy who made VHS and DVD. We should sue the guy who made the copy machine. We should sue kazza?

Edit: You can easily point to all of these as being created for illegal use and that the authors just pretend to have made it to transfer legal files. That's just plain silly - Even if they created it to share illegal files, it still doesn't make the program kazza (or the tape recorder) illegal, and there is nothing to sue the creators for if they havn't shared illegal files.

All of these, including kazza, are just a way to transfer information. Kazza is not the driver, a driver is a human, Kazza is the car...

[Jerome Scuggs]

k so in sumarry kazaa is good and holy thxbye

[Force of Nature]

Your tanslation is once again flawed, the building 'kazza' is storing the money 'files'. The robbers take the money from the building, neither kazza or the building are at fault.

This is like saying we should sue the guy who made ftp software. We should sue the people who invented the first network. We should sue the guy who made the internet too. We should sue the guy who made VHS and DVD. We should sue the guy who made the copy machine. We should sue kazza?

Edit: You can easily point to all of these as being created for illegal use and that the authors just pretend to have made it to transfer legal files. That's just plain silly - Even if they created it to share illegal files, it still doesn't make the program kazza (or the tape recorder) illegal, and there is nothing to sue the creators for if they havn't shared illegal files.

All of these, including kazza, are just a way to transfer information. Kazza is not the driver, a driver is a human, Kazza is the car...

I know lets sue the car makers since they obviously made it for bank robbing. But they just claim in public that its used for transport of people from one destination or another. I mean between you and me COME ON!

[Jerome Scuggs]

i thoughtr we were talking aboiut kazaa? wetf?

[THE ENFORCER]

Your tanslation is once again flawed, the building 'kazza' is storing the money 'files'. The robbers take the money from the building, neither kazza or the building are at fault.

This is like saying we should sue the guy who made ftp software. We should sue the people who invented the first network. We should sue the guy who made the internet too. We should sue the guy who made VHS and DVD. We should sue the guy who made the copy machine. We should sue kazza?

Edit: You can easily point to all of these as being created for illegal use and that the authors just pretend to have made it to transfer legal files. That's just plain silly - Even if they created it to share illegal files, it still doesn't make the program kazza (or the tape recorder) illegal, and there is nothing to sue the creators for if they havn't shared illegal files.

All of these, including kazza, are just a way to transfer information. Kazza is not the driver, a driver is a human, Kazza is the car...

Sigh, read post 46 pay particular attention to the bold!

[THE ENFORCER]

I know lets sue the car makers since they obviously made it for bank robbing. But they just claim in public that its used for transport of people from one destination or another. I mean between you and me COME ON!

Why are you repeating someone else's point of which i already explained why it doesnt apply?

[sTuPiD-gErBiL]

Well thats just great, i think your gonna have some serious problems in life if you take these things too personally and cant respect someone elses opinon on matters

Now goodday to you sir!

all trash talk aside, and nothing personal against you:

you're arguing points with people who have done research on the subject. being a musician myself, i've had to surface-study copyright laws to protect my own endeavors, including online distribution. my personal standpoint is that music should be freely available online, since artists benefit more from merchandise (shirts, etc) and concert revenue than from actual cd sales (which the record company usually gets about a 90-95% take). but this is a tangent already handled in another thread.

anyways, my point is that your opinions are just plain wrong. there's nothing bad with that, just as long as your learn from it and move on. but, to keep insisting that you are absolutely correct, even when proven incorrect by people more informed than you, is just ignorant.

if you don't trust my word that peer-to-peer software engineers are exempt from guilt in a copyright-infringement case, please feel free to do the appropriate research. i'd rather you find the correct answer from someone else than for you to continue toting an absolute crock of shit.

[THE ENFORCER]

all trash talk aside, and nothing personal against you:

you're arguing points with people who have done research on the subject. being a musician myself, i've had to surface-study copyright laws to protect my own endeavors, including online distribution.

First of all i appreciate that you have taken a less agressive tone. However all you have stated is that you have done some research about copyright laws however you havent stated any of these laws that apply nor has anyone else. So although you may know about yourself how do you know that anyone else has done proper research??? and how do we know that you have done the research???

my personal standpoint is that music should be freely available online, since artists benefit more from merchandise (shirts, etc) and concert revenue than from actual cd sales (which the record company usually gets about a 90-95% take). but this is a tangent already handled in another thread.

Secondally Metallica, Dr Dre and many others endlessly fight agianst online distribution and i would take thier opinon over yours since they stand much more to lose, Also piracy extends beyong musicans microsoft have also taken a direct approach to stop piracy and many courts in America have convicted citizens (even minors) for downloading illegal songs (so see i have got knowledge (or done research) on the topic.

anyways, my point is that your opinions are just plain wrong. there's nothing bad with that, just as long as your learn from it and move on. but, to keep insisting that you are absolutely correct, even when proven incorrect by people more informed than you, is just ignorant.

And if no-one states any comment that changes my mind, why cant i persist in proving my point? just like your persisting in proving your point?

if you don't trust my word that peer-to-peer software engineers are exempt from guilt in a copyright-infringement case, please feel free to do the appropriate research. i'd rather you find the correct answer from someone else than for you to continue toting an absolute crock of shit.

Also although i havent done any direct research on the topic, i do have a very basic knowledge of the law, which i have shown (conversion, exclusion clause) and no-one else has stated anything about the law except you jsut now who claimed to have read the copyright laws but havent proven that yet!

However its ok not to provide any proof because this is just an amatuer forum, where people who provide their ideas its just no feasible to do a full length study on the topic for us because (for me at the very least) have lives outside of this forum. So in summary its absurd to say that my opinon doesnt count because i dont have the knowledge as 1.this is an amatuer forum and 2. im the only one who has stated anything about the law

Oh and could you please provide a quote (other than yourself) that proves that someone else has done some research on the topic because in this forum i cant see it, except me cause i actually stated some law topics.

[THE ENFORCER]

However i am happy that you have decided not to take a direct insult me approach.