Here’s one to watch out for. The Register reports on the latest stage of the Australian case brought by Music Industry Piracy Investigations (MIPI) against Sharman Industries, the parent company of Kazaa. Sharman is claiming that certain evidence obtained by the MIPI from Sharman’s premises by means of an Anton Piller order should be declared inadmissible. It’s arguing that the raids breached the Australian Telecommunications Act. It claims that MIPI took "communications" from Sharman's routers before they were relayed to the company's computers, contrary to the Act’s prohibition on the interception of a "communication" passing through a telecoms system. However, Judge Wilcox wasn’t impressed by this argument and fixed 29 November 2004 as the trial date, though the parties will be going back to court on 16 July to report on whether they have sorted out their disagreements over access to the seized materials. Sharman is said to be anxious to delay the trial as it is hoping for an outcome in favour of Kazaa, which will separate the liability of file-sharing software providers from individual users in the US appeal against the recent Californian Kazaa decision.

The IPKat looks forward to brining you coverage of the trial when it starts properly.

Kazaa here
More musical searches here, here and here
AUSTRALIAN KAZAA CASE AUSTRALIAN KAZAA CASE Reviewed by Unknown on Monday, July 05, 2004 Rating: 5

No comments:

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here:

Powered by Blogger.