View Full Version : Kazaa challenged over child porn control
If Kazaa can block traders of child porn, it can block copyright infringers too, the Australian Federal Court has been told. Speaking for the plaintiffs - dozens of recording companies and related organisations - Tony Bannon, QC, yesterday dismissed Kazaa owner Sharman Networks' claim that the company had no control over how its software was used and thus, by implication, could not be held responsible for those acts.
So, he added, if Sharman can block these users, it can also prevent anyone who shares material without the permission copyright holder, he said. In other words, it has the means to monitor and control what kinds of material are being traded on its network.
Bannon's implication is clear: the fact that Sharman has not booted off the copyright infringers, as it pledges to be able to do with porn peddlers, means that it must therefore tolerate their actions. Sharman is tacitly condoning such behaviour, he suggested.
The case continues.
Unfortunately the problem stems from while KaZaA connects alot of computers, Sharman have no control over the content.
Kazaa works quite simply like a Network Client with a Search Engine..
It would be like using Google, with your Local Area Network.
You have no control over letting users onto the network, if one of your friends come round and plug-in thier Laptop to your Hub and run the Config Wizard.. everything on it is open to everyone else.
There is no way to actually deny that computer access to the network, without creating the Network with a Private Log-in process.
It would however be against the Peer2Peer Technology rules for Sharman to not allow Anonymous access.
So while they potencially could, block these people and such.. their arms are legally tied.
It's just like the British law, where-by if someone comes into your home to burgle it and trips over something you left in the middle of the floor then breaks thier leg.. they can sue you without any worry of you running a counter-suit. So you can end up having to pay them for your carelessness despite the fact that they broke several laws in the first place!
Rather than people ATTACKING Sharman constantly, which isn't going to do much good as legally they've done all they can with Kazaa. What they should do is use it as a tool to catch these people rather than try and get Sharman to block them.
Ban them and they can just go somewhere else, you use Sharmans 'Spyware' Potencial; you can put these sickos away for a long time!
I mean FGS to me that's just common sense, then everyone wins.. rather than court cases that help no body.
Negative. This is a bigger con than Kazaa itself!!! Sharman Networks DO HAVE CONTROL over their content. This is the prosecution's argument. Sharman will purge its network of child porn, yet WILL NOT purge its network of illegal content! If they have the ability to monitor and purge kiddie porn, why can't they apply the same technology in blocking the illegal distrubution of music?
I really hope Sharman Networks get ripped to pieces over this.
I still say that the government is going after the wrong people...
who the hell tries to kill a lizard by chopping of it's tail?
I would suggest that the main use of Kazaa is to download pirated music and/or software. If they blocked that, no music, no software, no point in Kazaa. I think they know this.
Uvavoo. Indeed. And let's not forget what Kazaa is doing for Sharman Networks. It's raping your bandwidth and CPU power to run spyware and adware.
Actually they don't have the ability to stop child porn. That is just a PR claim.
I believe they do. http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/c-3.gif It's incredibly easy to analyze data packets over an unsecure network. I also believe Sharman Networks has the technology to flag certain keywords, the same as Yahoo! and Google.
There is no automated way to stop child porn or any kind of porn for that matter. All you can do is continue to fight them.
It's not like a worm that leaves bits of itself around. I think you have too much faith in technology.
Besides, if Microsoft can't force people to buy their products, what makes you think someone can be stopped from sending pics to someone else?
Originally posted by tlr online:
I believe they do. http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/c-3.gif It's incredibly easy to analyze data packets over an unsecure network. I also believe Sharman Networks has the technology to flag certain keywords, the same as Yahoo! and Google.Keywords is so easy to bypass it's not even funny.
Most security restraints can be bypassed. The point, however, is that measures exist to monitor and reduce the illegal transport of illicit media. If that can be applied to one format, it can be applied again to another. Dismissing such measures as sound-bytes is ill-informed.
Originally posted by tlr online:
I believe they do. http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/c-3.gif It's incredibly easy to analyze data packets over an unsecure network. I also believe Sharman Networks has the technology to flag certain keywords, the same as Yahoo! and Google.That would mean they would be going purely on the NAME of a given package.
The amount of times I've downloaded an episode of Ghost in the Shell, only to find out someone renamed thier porn that episode is to many to count.
There is no way to actually prevent the content of something without them putting it onto thier network..
They're simply acting as a search engine, not a webhost.
There is a difference.
I mean you ever done a search on Google for anything and ended up with a tonne of Porn?
Hell I typed in 'MI5' just the other day in Images, I got a good number of hits back of Japanese sites with girls not wearing alot.. That happens so much that really at work this isn't a big deal, but still it isn't something you want happening. There is only a way to control the naming not anything else.
And while it would be possible to block users from putting the files with those names out, the problem stems that once it has been uploaded onto another system, that system becomes a server for that file!
The only way Kazaa cuts this stuff down is by putting filters in the Client-Side engine to prevent you from downloading generic content.. to protect children and such.
The options can be turned off because they're neither 100% accurate nor exactly great at being able to tell what is offensive and what is just named wrong.
Sharman's Kazaa, can be shut down under the 'Assistance' of Piracy & Illegal Porn.. I don't see why they can't simply make a deal with them to enhance the software so that police can have a section specifically setup to monitor and check the files people have on thier systems.. At the end of the day, shutting down 1 Spyware File Sharing Company, doesn't stop the numerous others. These services work best when more people are on one rather than the others... the last thing you want to do is damn well give everyone a single choice as diversifying is keeping the file sharing down.
vBulletin® v3.8.9, Copyright ©2000-2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.