<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories about &quot;kazaa&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 4 Aug 2010 07:48:45 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Kazaa Returns As Expensive, Crappy DRM'd Music Service</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100804/00042210485.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100804/00042210485.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Remember Kazaa?  The name was synonymous with file sharing following Napster's demise.  It got shut down by a series of lawsuits a few years ago.  Last we heard from the company, it had settled lawsuits with <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060727/0827245.shtml">record labels</a> and <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20061031/171745.shtml">music publishers</a> and promised to go straight.  That was in 2006.  Since then... nothing.  Until now, when it <a href="http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2010/08/kazaa-is-resurrected-but-why.html" target="_blank">launched its new "authorized" music service</a>.  You might think that, given the four years between it announcing plans for a legit music service and the actual launch, there would be enough time to actually create something new or compelling.  Instead, it appears that it's launching a service that would have been state of the art back in... 2006 when it settled those lawsuits.  From Jon Healey's review:
<blockquote><i>
I haven't had much time to explore Kazaa, but my first impression is that the Web-based service is miles behind the competition. It's as if the company locked its technologists in a room four years ago and they've just now emerged, having missed the growth of social networks, the explosion in smartphone usage and the death of music DRM. The service costs $15 a month -- 50% more than Rdio, MOG or Rhapsody -- and doesn't have a mobile app. Instead, it offers unlimited streams and tethered downloads (that is, songs wrapped in electronic locks to deter copying) that can be played only by Kazaa's proprietary plugin for Windows Media Player. 
<br /><br />
It also has only rudimentary social-media features, most notably the ability to play other users' playlists and to watch a continuously updated list of what other users are playing. And although there are a handful of "editor's picks," there's no preference engine to recommend tracks based on a user's tastes -- a major handicap when it comes to discovering music. Essentially, users are left to search for tracks or artists they already know, or take unguided tours through the library's eight genres.
</i></blockquote>
Seriously.  Windows Media Player DRM.  Didn't that die out years ago?
<br /><br />
Healey also notes the amusing fact that Kazaa's relaunch happened to come the same day that Kazaa's original founders, Janus Friis with Niklas Zennstrom, launched their latest startup, Rdio, which is also an authorized music streaming service.  While I've played around with Rdio and find it to be a pretty weak offering -- overall, it sounds miles ahead of the "new" Kazaa.  It really does make you wonder what Kazaa has been doing for the past four years.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100804/00042210485.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100804/00042210485.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100804/00042210485.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>good-luck-there...</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100804/00042210485</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 31 Jul 2009 03:45:23 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Skype Founders Claim eBay No Longer Has A Right To Skype's Core Tech</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090730/1950195721.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090730/1950195721.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ As you know, eBay bought Skype for a ton of money a few years back, without having any real plan for what to do with it.  There were no synergies between the two, and about the best that can be said for eBay's ownership of Skype is that they didn't kill it (though, frankly, the new UI is so bad, it makes me wonder what they were thinking) and let it continue to grow organically.  Earlier this year, eBay finally announced plans to spin off Skype.  Fair enough.  It can probably do a lot more outside of eBay than from within.  However, it turns out that there may be a bit of a legal hitch, as <a href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/skype_as_we_know_it_may_not_exist_much_longer_ebay.php" target="_new">Skype's founders claim that eBay/Skype no longer have the legal rights</a> to Skype's underlying technology.  Apparently, the claim is that Niklas Zennstrom and Janus Friis and a separate company they ran, Joltid, only <i>licensed</i> the underlying technology to eBay/Skype for a limited time -- and that deal has now concluded.  The two companies are scheduled to fight this out in court.
<br /><br />
There are a few interesting asides to all of this.  First, it reminds me of how Zennstrom and Friis ended up in <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060327/0256249.shtml">another lawsuit</a> a few years back, <i>also</i> involving questions about licensing the core underlying technology of Skype.  There's a lot of background here, and not all the details are clear (at <i>all</i>), but that original case involved the claim that Zennstrom and Friis used the same core underlying technology that they used to build Kazaa to build Skype.  Way back, Zennstrom and Friis had created two operations: Kazaa and FastTrack, which created the underlying tech used in Kazaa.  However, they also licensed FastTrack to a company called Streamcast, that made a product called Morpheus that competed with Kazaa in the file sharing space.  Got that?
<br /><br />
The folks at Streamcast insist that part of their contract with FastTrack was that they had a right of first refusal on buying the underlying technology.  But then, all sorts of stuff happened, with Kazaa being sold off to a group in the South Pacific, but Zennstrom and Friis supposedly retaining some core technology which (Streamcast claims) they used to build Skype.  Then, once Skype sold, Streamcast claimed that the whole thing was an elaborate shell game, but in selling the Skype underlying technology, Streamcast claimed that Zennstrom and Friis violated their agreement on having a right of first refusal on purchasing the technology.
<br /><br />
Yet, now I'm left wondering if that original claim was true.  If the current claim is that Joltid still "owns" the original technology and Skype/eBay only licensed it, then the technology itself might never have actually been sold (unless, we're talking about two separate core underlying technologies... which is possible).
<br /><br />
Still... the bigger question?  How the hell did eBay make a deal and <b>not</b> make sure it had either purchased (entirely) the core underlying technology or had a guaranteed perpetual license that couldn't be revoked?  The eBay Skype purchase was bad enough already.  Could it be even more ridiculous in that eBay didn't even properly purchase the technology in question?  It seems preposterous to believe that a company could screw up an acquisition that monumentally, so you have to wonder if it's actually true.
<br /><br />
In the meantime, since there are questions about how eBay can rebuild Skype's underlying core technology without violating the many patents in the space, it makes you wonder if eBay may be forced to simply buy someone else's technology.  Maybe it's time to call up <a href="http://www.gizmoproject.com/" target="_new">the Gizmo Project</a> (which has built a very Skype-like product) to see what they're up to these days.  Though, can you imagine eBay needing to buy another company just to power Skype so it can be spun off again?  Yikes!<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090730/1950195721.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090730/1950195721.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090730/1950195721.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>this-is-going-to-get-messy</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090730/1950195721</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 16 Aug 2007 23:23:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Michelle Santangelo Sues Kazaa, AOL And Anyone Else She Can Think Of For Her Getting Sued By The RIAA</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070816/164905.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070816/164905.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've been following the story of Patti Santangelo and her family's fight against the RIAA for some time -- but the latest moves by the Santangelo family seem a bit scattershot.  Santangelo, of course, was one of the first people to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20050816/0959223_F.shtml">fight back against a bogus RIAA lawsuit</a>.  This was fantastic, as many others simply settled, rather than going through the trouble of fighting the questionable charges (especially in cases where parents were sued for the actions of their kids).  A year and a half later, the RIAA finally admitted it didn't have any evidence against Patti Santangelo and <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20061219/121441.shtml">dropped the case</a> (and tried to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070322/083921.shtml">get out of paying her legal fees</a>), but then quickly sued her kids instead.  This wasn't a huge surprise.  The RIAA had been <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060217/1724206.shtml">secretly investigating her kids</a> for some time.  However, the response of the kids has been a bit questionable.  Patti's son Robert's response <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070131/003508.shtml">included every argument in the book</a> against the RIAA -- including a number of weak ones that could hurt his case more than help it.  There are a few strong arguments that can be used against the RIAA.  Including a bunch of very weak ones probably doesn't help.  Now, Patti's daughter Michelle is taking a similarly broad approach, not in responding to the RIAA, but in blaming everyone she can possibly think of for the fact that she was sued by the RIAA.  She's <a href="http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2007/08/michelle-santangelo-to-cross-sue.html">filed lawsuits against Kazaa, AOL and the guy who installed Kazaa on her computer</a>, saying they were all complicit in getting her to share copyrighted content, without warning her of the consequences.  This is an incredibly weak argument that <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20061207/105259.shtml">hasn't gotten very far in the past</a>.  This lawsuit just makes it look like she doesn't want to take responsibility for her own actions.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070816/164905.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070816/164905.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070816/164905.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>questionable-lawsuits</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20070816/164905</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>