just wanted to get people's opinions on the recent court decision in australia that found that kazza was liable for the prohibited copying of music on its fasttrack network. There is a short article here
How about this for an idea. Since two people can't both be guilty of the same act, does that mean that it's illegal to host services that provide for file sharing but not to actually partake in the file sharing. To be honest i wouldn't think so, but it's an idea.
Also, is Kazza now going to be charged with every download that took place over its network. Because i'm pretty sure that alot of people just download songs that they wouldn't otherwise have bought. People have mp3 players that can play for months and still not repeat any songs, and i'm pretty sure that lots of people don't listen to music endlessly for several months.
Or from a technological point of view. Would there have been a different ruling if people had been using a different, decentralised network. How about a network that nobody owned, how could the music companies find somebody responsible for something that nobody owned.
Finally, i understand that record companies and movie studios are making record sales on music and dvds at the same time as they are saying that their industry is being crippled by file sharing over the internet.
note: i don't use kazza, it's full of spyware and not free and open source.
i recomment GNUnet (http://gnunet.org/