Yesterday I said that the famous 1984 Betamax ruling, so helpful in absolving Grokster and Morpheus in their counrtroom defense, was not applicable in KaZaA's Australian trial. Applicable or not, KaZaA's lawyers are attempting to drag the Betamax precedent across the ocean, and have cited Betamax in the opening round of their arguments. The other argument, time-honored since Napster's original court adventures, holds that KaZaA has no control over which files get traded on the network. That tack didn't work for napster, but has proved effective enough in subsequent file-sharing litigations.
