Kazaa's man in Washington speaks out

You wouldn't quibble with the claim that pornography is popular on peer-to-peer networks, would you?
My client provides software with highly effective filtering tools. The software comes with a content filter that's based on suspect words. Beyond that, we give parents the ability to set further filters with password control. We provide a way for parents -- who need to take some responsibility with any Internet use by their children -- to block that.

And if a minor downloads Kazaa without a parent's knowledge?
There's no software -- whether it's a peer-to-peer application or a Web browser -- that can be programmed to compel parental responsibility. Parents have to keep watch over what programs their kids are using and how they're using them.

Does your job ever get personal?
I don't think so. When they make gross misstatements about my client, we respond by correcting them, by setting the record straight. I think everyone understands by now that the RIAA and Hollywood in particular have really been involved in a vicious, inaccurate smear campaign against peer-to-peer technology over the last two years.

What differences do you see between the recording industry and the MPAA?
The RIAA lobbyists seem to be more fixated on pornography. Other than that, they can make claims -- which I think are suspect -- that they've been harmed in some way. Meanwhile, the movie industry is reporting record profits.

If Kazaa and its rivals become as slick and easy to use as Apple's iTunes, do you honestly think that many people will still be buying music in a few years?
Absolutely. We've already got proof of concept. Peer to peer is already the leading technological platform for the distribution of licensed content. It's already well ahead of central-server models like iTunes.

It's not well-known, but every major manufacturer of computer games has licensed their content for peer-to-peer distribution. Even though those same computer games are available for free elsewhere on peer to peer, people are plunking down $30 or $50 for them -- so they have a warranty and no worries about a bogus or harmful file.

Sharman Networks has sent repeated notices to Google complaining about links to the ad-free version of Kazaa called Kazaa Lite. Is it ironic for your client to threaten lawsuits over copyright violations?
I don't think so. Kazaa Lite is an application that's using the Kazaa name in a way that's not tied to Kazaa. There are also, as I understand it, technical issues with the hacked software they were offering. My client's business model is simple: They offer a pay ad-free version and an ad-supported free version.

And if someone offered Kazaa Lite but with a name of P2P Lite?
If someone wants to offer their own self-created version of P2P software, we can't do anything.

Even if it uses the same network as Kazaa?
Then it's using proprietary code.