is Kazaa legal?

[Munky90]

Hi. I's sorry if this has already been discussed or if it's in the wrong forum but I need to know. Is kazaa legal?

The reason I ask this seemingly obvious question is because I got rid of kazaa after recieving a warning from the RIAA, but miussed it. So I went back to kazaa.com to find some more information and found that it had been taken over and copywrighted by 'Sharman Networks'. So I got reading and found that there were two legal versions of the software. One was $29.99 per year, which I didn't read into because I don't want to pay, and the other was free and ad-supported. Which got me thinking, could this really be legitemate? It certainly seems quite professional and stuff, but I don't want to be dooped, or fined.

Please help! :)

*Edit* BTW, merry christmas everyone!

[iMacc]

In a word......................................NO.

[iPodHawk]

Using P2P software isn't necessarily illegal...provided that you aren't using it to share copyrighted material. If that's what you use it for (and let's be real here, that's what everyone who has kazaa uses it for), then you're definitely breaking the law, at least in the U.S. (Laws apparently differ elsewhere.)

If the RIAA has been able to specifically trace your activity to the point where they can personally warn you, you may want to re-think your music acquisition strategy. They may not have the resources to sue everybody, but they seem to be out to make random examples out of people in addition to going after the big file-sharers.

[[zerophase]]

simplely "no"

[studogvetmed]

P2P programs have their legal uses, but downloading music from it that is not being distributed with the permission of the copyright holder (some copyright holders WILL distribute their material legally over these networks to decrease distribution costs) is illegal. You are paying to use kazaa, but it does not give you any legal right to download music.

Stuart

[WebbyBabe]

No it's not legal. It's illegal.

[n3tfury]

sorry, kazaa as a service is not illegal. that's like saying bittorrent clients are illegal. yes, boys and girls, there are legitimate files (open source software for example) that can be had using a perfectly legal p2p program.

[enjoilax]

Originally posted by n3tfury
sorry, kazaa as a service is not illegal. that's like saying bittorrent clients are illegal. yes, boys and girls, there are legitimate files (open source software for example) that can be had using a perfectly legal p2p program.

Just to let you know, you are talking to someone who has already been caught by the RIAA.

1. From his post he sounds as though he knows nothing about computers (no offense, but i think i'm accurate in that), or copyright law.

Therefore, to everyone who reads this post, the simple answer is just:

no.

[ICHIBAN]

No its not Legal People here in the UK have been arrested because of Downloading from Kazaa. Be worned!

[smirf83]

Have they? I thought they hadn't really started after downloaders in UK, just the people who are making lots of music available.

[Angryhobo]

Kazaa is legal, it's what you download thats not.

[btlaxripper]

correct.

Kazaa originally started by a rag tag group of about 20 software developers in Eastern Europe created Kazaa. Originally started to share .pdf files and emails and memo's among co workers and office buildings.

They released the primitive version and people realized they could share pornography (c'mon we all know thats what is really downloaded) and music files.

The developers than sold the Kazaa network/program to an Australian pretty covert company called Sharman. Sharman tweaked it and allowed ad support. And voila!

So now you have a totally legal program traded files totally illegally.

[n3tfury]

Originally posted by btlaxripper
So now you have a totally legal program traded files totally illegally.

exactly, but that's not the programmer's fault what users do with it. therefore, the file sharing app in question is legal.

[n3tfury]

Originally posted by ICHIBAN
No its not Legal People here in the UK have been arrested because of Downloading from Kazaa. Be worned!

yep, they've been arrested for illegal files on their pc's, NOT because of having kazaa on there.

[n3tfury]

Originally posted by Angryhobo
Kazaa is legal, it's what you download thats not.

almost.... let's rephrase that...

Originally posted by Angryhobo
Kazaa is legal, it's what you choose to download thats not.

there, all better!

[Wolffe]

Things are a little more grey here in Canada. We pay a "tax" on a lot of recordable media (such as CDs) supposedly to recoup lost revenues due to music sharing/copying. This is similar to the new tax they are imposing on PCs in Germany.

However, this didn't quite work out as they planned because if I'm already paying a tax to recoup the losses, how can I be sued for the same losses? In a sense, I've already paid my dues -- they can't have it both ways. Heck, they're collecting that tax whether the media is used to store copyrighted material or not -- they're collecting a tax for the potential to copy music. They collected a royalty from that CD I used to backup my summer vacation photos.

DRM makes this only worse -- why should I be paying royalties for media to recoup the losses for copying and sharing if I don't even have the ability to copy in the first place?

I personally hope, on behalf of the German people, that their "piracy" tax comes back to bite those who thought it up as well. Their piracy tax sounds even more broad whereas ours really only applies to music.



http://www.theregister.com/2005/01/03/fujitsu_siemens_loses_pc_copyright_levy_ruling/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/12/17/canada_ipod_tax_illegal/

[jhollington]

Originally posted by Wolffe
Things are a little more grey here in Canada. We pay a "tax" on a lot of recordable media (such as CDs) supposedly to recoup lost revenues due to music sharing/copying.
Of course, now that they've thrown out the tax on hard-drive based DAPs (as they don't fall under the definition of "media"), there's some debate about whether the storage of copyrighted music on these devices is legal.

However, in looking at the situation a little bit more closely, it's not the blank media levy that makes personal copying legal. The Copyright Act here in Canada, last revised in 1998, allows for personal use of copyrighted material -- regardless of the blank media levy. The blank media levy was something that was put in to appease the copyright holders (they were basically asked whether they wanted a blank media levy, or tougher copyright laws... naturally they went for the money).

Basically, making copies for personal use in Canada is perfectly legal. Distributing those copies is not. To provide a reasonable analogy, if I loan you a commercial CD, and you make a copy of it, neither of us have broken the law. If I burn a copy of that same commercial CD and give it to you, I've now broken the law by distributing it.

[n3tfury]

man, i've heard about the Copyright Court, but, ashamedly, blew it off since it doesn't effect me. thanks alot for the links.

pc taxes in Germany...just as the copyright tax you're having to deal with, this is just as ridiculous as that. punish everyone for other's wrong doings.

doesn't it just make you feel all warm and toasty?

[n3tfury]

Originally posted by jhollington


Basically, making copies for personal use in Canada is perfectly legal. Distributing those copies is not. To provide a reasonable analogy, if I loan you a commercial CD, and you make a copy of it, neither of us have broken the law. If I burn a copy of that same commercial CD and give it to you, I've now broken the law by distributing it.

most interesting, although confusing. there's a very fine line there. seems to me that it's "illegal" both ways because either path leads to the receiver getting a copy of said copyright material.

[jhollington]

Originally posted by n3tfury
most interesting, although confusing. there's a very fine line there. seems to me that it's "illegal" both ways because either path leads to the receiver getting a copy of said copyright material.
It's a fine line, although an important one. There is no provision in the Copyright Act that you must actually own the recording that you are making a copy of.

To put it into the context of Kazaa and other similar services... Downloading is not illegal, uploading is.

Making your collection available for download, however, is a big gray area. It does not, in the eyes of the law, constitute distribution, since distribution, by definition, requires physical action and intent. However, the Copyright Act also prohibits "communicating to the public by telecommunication." I think the intent of this clause is to rule out sharing your library on Kazaa, but whether action and/or intent needs to be established for this would be up to the courts to decide.

It is a very strange gray area, but then again if you've ever read copyright laws, you'll see that they're chocked full of such hair-splitting.

Also, I should point out that many people confuse this private use excemption with applying to copyrighted materials in general. In fact, it only applies to musical works. Movies and computer software would not qualify under this exemption... and in fact even audiobooks wouldn't.

[n3tfury]

you sir, are very informative and i thank you for your time. very very interesting indeed. i'm reading the actual law at this moment. :)

[mndtrp]

This is probably the single most informative thread I've read on here yet. Once again, I'm impressed with jhollington. Not so much that he apparently knows a lot, but that he can express it in ways that everyone can understand.

[AnduriL]

kazaa & bearshare etc. are all illegal - if used to get copywritten material (programs, games, music....not freeware mind you) ive often thought about uploading some of my own work...

[enjoilax]

Originally posted by AnduriL
kazaa & bearshare etc. are all illegal - if used to get copywritten material (programs, games, music....not freeware mind you) ive often thought about uploading some of my own work...

Nope read this sticky: http://www.ipodlounge.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=67861

[DPUMA8]

I had CDs stolen out of my car. Would it still be illegal if I downloaded those songs back? I did own them. What about songs from 20 years ago when I was a kid?
What if I have a receipt for the CDs I bought?

[n3tfury]

Originally posted by enjoilax
Nope read this sticky: http://www.ipodlounge.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=67861

hey lax, you should just put that in your sig too ;)

[enjoilax]

Originally posted by DPUMA8
I had CDs stolen out of my car. Would it still be illegal if I downloaded those songs back? I did own them. What about songs from 20 years ago when I was a kid?
What if I have a receipt for the CDs I bought?

Make a new thread in the lounge as this would be a great topic for it, but If you have the reciept for the cd i don't see why not.

[Froppo]

I'm seeing a trend here. "Is Limewire legal?" "Is Kazaa legal?" My big question is, how many peer-to-peer softwares have to be released before the record company realizes they are wasting their time and money? Not to mention your money as well. Because of the millions and millions of dollars they spend trying to fight illegal music downloading they end up needing to raise the price of their product, music, to compensate. This, in turn, causes more people to want to download illegally rather than buy music legally. Don't get me wrong on this, I do not support illegal downloading of music but I also don't support the record industry's way of dealing with the situation. People who download or share music illegally will continue to do so and will continue to find new avenues to do so regardless of what the record industry does. I wrote a whole research paper on the subject. What the record industry should be doing is cutting their spending so they can make music affordable again. Then, perhaps, people wouldn't have as much need or desire to download music illegally. I remember, back in the day, when a C.D. was 12 bucks if it was a brand new release and 10 bucks when it was an older release. I remember, at the time, having to limit myself to 2 C.D.s a week because they were so affordable. Now, I'm lucky if I can buy 1 C.D. a month. Come on, lets face it folks, the record company is not fighting illegal downloading because it's against the law or because it's immoral; they are fighting it because they want to be able to continue to sell their music at high costs. The money they are spending fighting it is more than the money they are losing from it. They are just a bunch of greedy tight wads that can't find a creative way to combat the problem. Not only that, but most of the groups they are signing these days aren't worth downloading illegally, or buying legally.

[bighusker]

It really boils down to this...

The OP didn't get caught because they were downloading files, but because they were sharing and *uploading* them. Like most that get caught this way, they most likely don't even know that they are sharing their mp3s to other users. If someone doesn't understand the difference, then they should do themselves a favor and just stay away from peer-to-peer altogether.

The RIAA/MPAA isn't going after people who only download, and they likely never will. It wouldn't be worth it after court costs and attorney fees, and they could run into a situation that challenges the DMCA. What if somebody owned a CD but didn't want to spend the time digging it out of their closet and ripping it themslves, so they just download it via their favorite p2p? Is that fair use? Perhaps, perhaps not...but my point is it would probably wind up with the courts deciding it...and if the DMCA was destroyed, the RIAA would be made even more useless and irrelevant...so that's why I don't think we'll ever see copyright holders going after "downloaders."

Of course, all of this is from a US perspective.

[anypats]

The interesting thing is what people have determined "Fair Use" to be. It is stated over and over that if you own a CD, DVD, Book, etc. that it is fair use to make a copy or a backup of it for your own personal use. Before anyone jumps to conclusions about my post I make backups of all my media and agree that you should be able to do so. However, the actual "Fair Use" section in the Copyright Law of the United States of America and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code does not give any provisions regarding copying of the material that you own (or material that you have purchased a license to use). Subsection 107 of the Copyright Code states "...the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright." It then gives four guidelines in helping determine what you are doing is fair use (Fair Use subsection of the United States Code) (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107). Nothing in there gives anyone the right to make copies of media that they have purchased nor does it say that they can't. I'm only pointing out what people have construed as being "Fair Use."

So what did the Digital Millenium Copyright Act of 1998 Change? In regards to "Fair Use" - nothing really. The DCMA is just another subsection (or chapter) added to the United States Code regarding Copyright Law. Therefore, it does not change anything else in the Copyright Law, it just adds to it. The main issue that it deals with is " to provide adequate and effective protection against circumvention of technological measures used by copyright owners to protect their works."

So what about labels or FBI warnings that state that you can be fined $500,000 and/or imprisoned for 5 years for copying copyrighted material? As far as I have been able to find it can only be upheld in regards to people that "...wilfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain."

So, in conclusion. I don't believe it is actually in violation of a copyright if you download a song to listen to (You're able to listen to most songs on the radio anyway). However, the person that distributed that material [I]may be in violation. If you download a song(s) from a particular artist it is always best to support this artist by buying their original works so that they will continue to provide you with entertainment. I also don't believe that you are in any violation of copyright law if you make copies for backup purposes of any original material that you have purchased (despite whether or not this is protected under "Fair Use").

[jhollington]

It's actually interesting that you should bring that up. There has been a very similar discussion in another thread (http://forums.ipodlounge.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=68933) on the nature of "fair use."

The reality is that in most cases, nobody is going to waste time pursuing those who simply download music, as it's not only very difficult to trace, but it's also difficult to enforce. Not only could the Fair Use provisions apply here, but there is also the Good Faith Fair Use Defence (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#504) that could apply in this situation (admittedly, that clause is a bit of a stretch, as it technically only applies to non-profit educational institutions, libraries, and public broadcasting agencies, but it exists nonetheless).

One problem with fair use, however, is that Section 107 (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107) of the U.S. Copyright Law defines "fair use" as being "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching ... scholarship, or research." Personal use could be deemed as fitting into one of those categories, particularly if you're only downloading and sampling music, as opposed to collecting it. However building up a large library of downloaded material that you had not paid for would likely not be construed as fair use, particularly in consideration of paragraph (4), where it would easily be argued that such use of the music affects the "potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."

As I said in that other thread, "Fair Use" is a grey area at best, that has seldom been properly explored in the courtroom. Therefore, it's difficult to say in any given situation what side a judgement would come down on. Therefore, while we may believe that the law allows for "fair use" the decision of a court may or may not see things that way (to be fair, I do tend to lean toward your interpretation, but then again, I'm not a lawyer or a judge).

Of course, I should also point out that this is an issue that doesn't affect all jurisdictions. In Canada, Section 80 (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-42/39385.html#rid-39508) of the Canadian Copyright Act expressly permits reproduction of musical works for private use.

[jimmeh]

kazaa is perfectly legal to own...i own soulseek and winmx, similar things to kazaa, and i don't download copyrighted material on them, i download video and audio recordings of concerts, which is perfectly legal, no one can arrest me.

as for the downloading, actually generally, although it is illegal to download, i think you'll find that its normally the people who share the huge amounts of copyrighted material that get done in by the law, not the people who download, cause like jhollington said, downloading is too hard to enforce, sharing is much easier.

[iMacc]

Originally posted by jimmeh
i download video and audio recordings of concerts, which is perfectly legal

Is it ? :rolleyes:

[jimmeh]

Originally posted by iMacc
Is it ? :rolleyes:
actually yeah, as long as it hasn't been released and therefore copyrighted on a live album, its fine...ya know mate, if you actually take some time to look around there are statements from band members that they don't care about people sharing concert recordings...and if they were illegal would invisionfree let you have so many messageboards about the trading of them :rolleyes:

[bighusker]

Generally speaking, many bands don't have a problem with concert recordings being distributed...so long as they're not available on a CD or something.

[Doug Gilmour]

Originally posted by bighusker
Generally speaking, many bands don't have a problem with concert recordings being distributed...so long as they're not available on a CD or something.

As well as, if the distributor is not making profits from spreading them around.

-Dan

[jimmeh]

i don't actually know of a band that does mind...

[RECYCLE BEN]

My local public library owns a copy of Metallica's Greatest Hits CD,
and loans it out to the patrons such as myself who pay local taxes and some of the tax money goes to the library fund.
Therefore in principal I own part of that CD. If I download Metallica's Greatest Hits CD I'm downloading a legal
backup copy of it. If I copy the library's CD it's a legal backup copy.

[enjoilax]

Originally posted by RECYCLE BEN
My local public library owns a copy of Metallica's Greatest Hits CD,
and loans it out to the patrons such as myself who pay local taxes and some of the tax money goes to the library fund.
Therefore in principal I own part of that CD. If I download Metallica's Greatest Hits CD I'm downloading a legal
backup copy of it. If I copy the library's CD it's a legal backup copy.

No. Because you did not rip those specific files, you are just downloading the copyrighted materials, plus you don't "own" anything from the library, as you do not own the title.

What you just said would NEVER ever hold up in court.

[papayaninja]

Yeah, it wouldn't hold up in court but it does make a small amount of sense. My library doesn't charge for a card or anything, and it doesn't charge for overdue material. So if I got a CD from them, it would be free. When my two weeks (or however long the period is) is up, I go and renew it. So I can theoretically have that CD in my possession forever, or until someone else wants it. So if I take it home and rip it, I am just having it forever which I already demonstated was possible to do with the library copy. Now though, it saves me the hassle of renewing it every so often, and someone else can checkit out whenever they like.

[Layton 2.0]

Downloading music in Canada is legal. Its as simple as that, for the time being. The Liberals are working on a copywrite bill right now but untill that pass's, and depending what it really says, Canadians can download as much music as they want. Now, it is not legal to upload you music and share it with other people via p2p networks.