Specifically, Justice Murray Wilcox stated three reasons for ruling against Kazaa:
- Although notices have been put up on the Kazaa website and in the EULA warning against the sharing of copyrighted files, it has long been known that such measures are ineffective, and that the respondents have known that Kazaa is widely used for the sharing of copyrighted material.
- Technical solutions exist, which would help reduce the sharing of copyrighted files, and none of these have been implemented in Kazaa since it would be in their financial interest to maximise such sharing.
- The Kazaa web page openly encourages users to increase their file-sharing using such taglines as "Join the Revolution" and creating the "Kazaa Revolution" targeting record companies, which effectively encourage the predominantly young user base to think that it is "cool" to defy the record companies by ignoring copyright constraints.
- Whether the record companies should make their copyrighted works available on a licensed basis for a fee;
- Whether it would have been possible for the record companies to make their CDs less vulnerable to being ripped by issuing them in a DRM instead of open format.
The infringing respondents were also to pay 90% of the costs of the proceedings for the applicants. The applicants had to pay the full cost of the proceedings for the four dismissed respondents.
A seperate hearing would be held to determine damages in the case.
The Kazaa camp has said (naturally) that they would appeal the ruling.
Read: Court Judgement
Reports: Sydney Morning Herald, The Australian IT, C|net, Reuters UK, Copyfight
Tags: kazaa, sharman, aria, universal, copyright, peer-to-peer