![The Courts The Courts](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/court_64.png)
![Government Government](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/government_64.png)
![Media Media](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/media_64.png)
![Music Music](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/music_64.png)
![The Internet The Internet](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/internet_64.png)
![News News](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/news_64.png)
UK Has First Verdict in P2P Case 193
An anonymous reader writes "Two British men have been found guilty of illegally sharing music via a P2P network. The BBC reports that their defense of 'Not knowing it was illegal' and that 'There was no evidence' did not hold water, and they have been ordered to pay the BPI 'between £1500 and £5000' - probably with double that again in costs.
Theis isn't the first time the BPI has launched a case of this kind - but it is the first time the accused has tried to fight instead of stumping up the cash straight away. Three other verdicts are pending."
Ignorance... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Ignorance... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Ignorance... (Score:2)
Giving you a karma boost up.
Re:Ignorance... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ignorance... (Score:5, Insightful)
I also heard another case where some people in midwest figured out that they could swipe their drivers license at the gas pump and it would dispense gas for "free." Those people were charged and found guilty.
In both cases, just like this P2P case, you can claim "I didn't know it was illegal." I am guessing that such naive "confession" isn't really applicable or effective as a defense (and shouldn't be, in my opinion) beyond certain point since people were getting things of monetary value for "free."
In all cases, the prosecution had evidence on who and what was involved: withdrawer/money, motorist/gas, sharer/copyrighted music. All "I didn't know it was illegal" defends is the intent. That's not "no evidence."
Re:Ignorance... (Score:3, Interesting)
Ignorantia juris non excusat or Ignorantia legis neminem excusat (Latin for "ignorance of the law is no excuse") is a public policy holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely because he or she was unaware of its content; that is, persons have presumed knowledge of the law.
Re:Ignorance... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ignorance... (Score:2)
Re:Ignorance... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Ignorance... (Score:3, Insightful)
So of course, BPI has either pictures of these guys actually in the act of sharing music, or credibile witnesses that claims to have watched them do so?
No evidence means just that. The BPI has an IP address and a filename. By the same standards of "proof", you could convict Richard Nixon of bank robbery on no better evidence than someone wearing a Nixon Halloween mask during the crime.
As unlikely as you may consider it (from
Re:Ignorance... (Score:2)
Then again, he says that there wasn't and I'm sure that he's a completely unbiased observer, so that's that settled.
Re:Ignorance... (Score:2)
Ya know, there's an easy way to avoid this kind of thing...
STOP SHARING COPYRIGHTED WORKS YOU DON'T OWN
Re:Ignorance... (Score:3, Insightful)
So if I own the music, it's okay then.
By the way, no one can own music. You can own an object, like a CD or if you're a record company, the master. But music is not property and you can't own it. You can hold a copyright, but that's it. Music belongs to the world. That's sanity. That's how it works.
The idea is to give the copy-rights to someone for a limited time, to encourage the arts and help the artist get paid. Then the music is released into the commons.
Thi
Re:Ignorance... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ignorance... (Score:2)
Mea culpa (Score:2)
Re:Ignorance... (Score:4, Insightful)
Excep that 95%+ of all copyright violators I know don't give a flying fsck about any of that. They couldn't care less about what was released 15 years ago, they want what was released at the cinema last week. The war is between the greedy and the greedy, And the people who are really getting screwed are the customers who'd like to make some sort of compromise. I've never ever gotten a rootkit via MP3s, do put it quite frankly. I've never had any downloaded movie tell me that I'm in the wrong zone or that it won't let me fast forward. And I sure haven't had a movie disable my player, like Blu-Ray threatens to. Trusted Computing is gong to make me a dog on a leash, only allowed to do what my master the TCPA computer will let me. "Leashed computing" would be much more accurate. Why should I let myself be treated this way? And with apologies to Harry Potter: "Dark and difficult times lie ahead. Soon we must all face the choice between what is right and what is easy."
Re:Ignorance... (Score:2)
However, I have an issue with this in the US. With federal codes comprising 50 titles plus who-knows-how-many state and local laws, and with them continually changing, I don't know how anyone is supposed to remember and keep up with all of them.
Re:Ignorance... (Score:2)
"Willfully" means you intended to do the action, not necessarily intended to break the law.
If you do something on purpose (instead of by accident) even if you don't know it is illegal, you still did it "willfully".
If I didn't know it was illegal, and made copies of CDs and sold them, it would still be "willfull". If I accidently sold a copy of a copyrighted CD instead of a copy of some open source software because I got confused, that wouldn't be "willfull".
Re:Ignorance... (Score:2)
Clarification (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Clarification (Score:2)
wow, had to read that one twice...
Re:Clarification (Score:2)
Re:Clarification (Score:2)
Just be glad we haven't yet had the usual nitwits who point to the backwardness of the organization because they have the archaic word phonograph in their name.
It probably eludes these people that this is common. The "C" in NAACP doesn't stand for "African-American," and I don't even want to bring up what the 2nd "T" in "AT&T" stands for.
Re:Clarification (Score:2)
Evidence? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Evidence? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Evidence? (Score:2)
Re:Evidence? (Score:2)
Re:Evidence? (Score:2)
If the blank files were created by the **AA, they would hold the copyrights to them and so sharing them would violate copyright.
The most interesting defense in this case, of course, would be to point out that the files were placed on P2P by the copyright holders and so they gave an implicit permission to copy them. I'Ãm not sure if that would hold up but it would be interesting to see it tried
Truco ( == I call BS ) (Score:2)
Re:Truco ( == I call BS ) (Score:2)
Anyway, if the **AA wanted to enforce copyright on the files, they would really only have to add some creative content to them. It should cost them no more than a few minutes to have some hack put together a few notes in a music program and put that in there in stead of blank files.
Someone should patent this business me
Re:Evidence? (Score:5, Interesting)
For instance if you buy 1 pound of baking soda off a guy but he sells it to you as cocaine, that is illegal. If you take the baking soda and then (thinking it is cocaine) try and sell it to another individual as cocaine that is also illegal (you intended to sell an illegal drug). This is different from the sale of baking soda as cocaine (which is also a crime). I think that is sale of an imitation controlled substance.
If you unknowingly downloaded false files (unknowingly because you thought they were real) and shared them on the network as the real files (maybe you never checked them when you initially got them) then you might be charged with illegal file trading (or what ever they were charged with) because you intended to trade files that are copyrighted.
But in your case, where you knowingly make up fake files and pawn them off as real (for whatever reason) I don't think they can get you for that. But if John Doe takes them from you and does the above (trades them as real) he might be brought up on charges because he intended to break copyright laws.
But I am not a Lawyer, I just play one on TV. And by play one on TV I mean I make shit up and post it on Slashdot.
Re:Evidence? (Score:2)
Re:Evidence? (Score:2)
ObDisclaimer: IANAL.
Re:Evidence? (Score:2)
Attempting to is (e.g attempted murder, attempted drug buy, etc). Selling imitation controlled substances is a statuatorily defined offense under US Federal law, by the way it is also a very good way to get yourself killed.
We don't have "mindcrimes" yet.
Re:Evidence? (Score:2)
But what about this...
You're sitting at home with a box of baking soda. You say "does
Re:Evidence? (Score:2)
Re:Evidence? (Score:2)
Re:Evidence? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Evidence? (Score:2)
If you by a preponderance of evidence can show that you did do that, and that you did not download those files thinking they were real and that you were violating copyright, yes. Good luck with that. It's like seeing a car having been beaten up with a sledgehammer lying nearby, and then picking it up and waiting for the owner to see you.
And the same goes for uploading too, bu
Re:Evidence? (Score:2)
I don't buy that analogy. In that case there is clear evidence that a crime was committed. Not just a suspision that one was, but real evidence. And you've just went and implicated yourself. A slightly closer analogy would be if you picked up a beat-up car from the salvage yard, parked it in some parking lot and sat in a chair next to it holding a sledge hammer. A
Conversion (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Conversion (Score:2)
Re:Conversion (Score:2)
It's A Brave New World. (Score:5, Interesting)
"Ignorance is not a defense" That's a classic one. Seriously though... what if you played stupid like you don't even know what p2p is and stick to denying d/l. Of course they'll come back and say we have IP logs. But can't you use the "IP spoofing" or "I have a wireless router" idea? I would argue, ok if I stole this song... where is it? Show me that the one you apparently saw on my computer exists? A good defense could win the case I bet.
http://religiousfreaks.com/ [religiousfreaks.com]Re:It's A Brave New World. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's A Brave New World. (Score:2, Interesting)
Say you get sued for DOWNLOADING, not uploading, 5 $GENERIC songs. Could you not simply go out and buy the CDs that those songs are on (cash purchase at used record store) and claim fair use? They would have no way to prove when you purchased those CDs, and spending $10 a CD would be a lot cheaper than settling with a record industry. I know that not settling would probably mean that you would have to go to court and that in itself is quit
Re:It's A Brave New World. (Score:2)
AFAIK the record industry hasn't yet set up a bunch of honeypots to spot that - and that's the only way they could get you for downloading.
Not because they couldn't (they could), but because it's easier just to fire up your handy-dandy P2P client, go searching for a well-known track, then sue the people behind the first few IP addresses which claim to have the track available.
Given the number of people using P2P, the RIAA/BPI could quite easi
Re:It's A Brave New World. (Score:2, Informative)
i.e.,Chapter III, Acts Permitted in relation to Copyright Works
It doesn't necessary cover the example given above though.
Re:It's A Brave New World. (Score:2)
Not that I agree with this defence and I don't think it would work very well, I don't think they could get you on perjury.
Re:It's A Brave New World. (Score:2)
Re:It's A Brave New World. (Score:2)
It goes like this:
Prosecuter: I accuse you of murder
You: It wasnt me!
Jury: Guilty of murder.
Prosecuter: And he lied about it! I now accuse him of perjury.
Re:It's A Brave New World. (Score:2)
Forgive my American ignorance, but wouldn't this not work in the UK because of their "guilty until proven innocent" system?
Basically, it seems the BPI could just give up funding any new music altogether, and just set up shop suing random people. They can claim the people traded files on P2P networks, and then if the people say "it wasn't me", "look for yourself, I don't have any MP3s on my computer", etc., BPI can say they delete
Re:It's A Brave New World. (Score:2)
Re:It's A Brave New World. (Score:2)
We don't have a "guilty until proven innocent" system, unless it's a criminal case being brought under terrorism legislation.
In criminal cases, the burden of proof is "beyond reasonable doubt". In civil cases, it's generally "on the balance of probabilities".
Copyright infringement is a civil offence, hence the amount of evidence needed to win a case is somewhat reduced.
Puh! (Score:3, Funny)
Declining CD sales are inevitable? (Score:5, Insightful)
As for the opinion that most music today just isn't that great (IMHO) and therefore leads to declining CD sales - was never mentioned.
People legally downloading songs, on the other hand, might have been another argument, but that wasn't mentioned either.
Re:Declining CD sales are inevitable? (Score:3, Insightful)
Increase in uptake of alternative media (games consoles, DVDs, etc) also meant that limited budget is being spread around more things.
Of course people are going to stop buying music. It's the easiest thing to access (radio, tv) and it isn't important to own. Especially if it isn't that good.
Sales increasing over the past six years (Score:2)
From the press release: This high comes after six years of year-on-year growth in artist album sales from 87.7m [units] in 1999 to 126.2m in 2005, an increase of 44% in just six years.
It's sad to see this once powerful industry decimated by p2p piracy.
"Oh, wait..."
Re:Declining CD sales are inevitable? (Score:2)
Not another person saying music today is not as good as the crap I listened to growing up. Give me a break.
A law is just what is declared to be a law. (Score:4, Funny)
Perhaps they should consider to seek political asylum in France.
Better just to pay. (Score:2)
Scary (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm no law scholar here, but doesn't the judge have to actually refuse any defendant's claim with some logical arguement instead of simply claiming "nah, I'm pretend I didn't hear that?"
Re:Scary (Score:3, Insightful)
"I'm no law scholar here, but doesn't the judge have to actually refuse any defendant's claim with some logical arguement instead of simply claiming "nah, I'm pretend I didn't hear that?""
Yes.
I'm guessing you're assuming this didn't happen because you didn't read about it in the article? Keep in mind that it's a 15-sentence writeup on a mainstream news website. The brevity of the writeup should not be taken to mean that something didn't happen just because it did not go into detail.
The likelihood
Re:Scary (Score:2)
To qualify the grandparent post: anything a judge does in court is fine, as long as it isn't in itself illegal, and it isn't overruled by a higher court on appeal (this is true in both the US and UK; the US does not have a monopoly on judicial oversight). No other investigating body becomes involved if there is no evidence of impropriety.
So, yes, putting his fingers in his ears and going "nah nah nah nah" would be perfectly
More information? (Score:3, Insightful)
According to the Register:
Considering the number of people downloading music from P2P clients in the UK, you're going to have to be really really unlucky to be one of the 88.
One thing to consider is how 'targetted' these cases were. Do we know if the BPI are chasing the people who are providing the files for download or just those downloading? I believe the RIAA were doing chasing the content providers in attempt to 'cut off the supply' of files available for download.
It might also be interesting to find out what client that these guys were using - more for my own personal benefit so I never use it ...
Bravo! (Score:3, Insightful)
Unless, of course, we don't really care about P2P and just want free music and all of our righteous and indignant howling over curtails on p2p technology is a reaction to having buy all the trash music we claim so much to hate.
Re:Bravo! (Score:2)
We want free information, we'll take the battles as they come.
And the least risky and seemingly most proffitable is music...
We know that more music will be produced once the industry falls in fact the quality will probably rise. Artists only get about 3-4% of a sale currently, and most of the rest is spent marketing music in various ways...
We're not being unrational or really acting unilaterally. We're trying something out... And if sharin
Re:Bravo! (Score:2)
Information is free. If you want to listen to music for free, turn the radio on. If you want free books, borrow them from the library. Free CDs and movies? The same. I haven't paid to rent a DVD in years, the public library has a fair collection that you can borrow for no charge, they even have an external drop-box and the late fee is like eighty cents. Our library even has a web interface to reserve hard-to-find copies from other librari
Re:Bravo! (Score:3, Informative)
Erm, this was a civil case, brought by the BPI against people who got the letter and declined to settle.
other piracy news (Score:4, Funny)
When questioned privately about the incident earlier this week, one RIAA representative said, "Damn! I was sure there was piracy going on out there."
Re:other piracy news (Score:2)
Ugh.
Bad Lawyers (Score:4, Insightful)
1. Bad lawyers for the defendants. (There was obviously a lack of professionalism)
2. Most lawyers in both the U.S. and Europe have little, if no understanding of the copyright system. For example in the U.S. alone the copyright laws have been amended so many times that only a handful of lawyers even understand what the law "says", let alone is interpreted as.
3. Pressure! (These lower court decisions obviously have huge pressure inflicted by the lobbying groups involved, it would take a good lawyer to get taken seriously)
4. The arguments involved in defending yourself for these sort of cases tends to be much more complicated then typical civil action. In these cases the defendant must prove "lack of evidence" under a much wider argument generally along privacy, fair use, copyright details, what is infringment etc...
5. The judges in these cases generally don't have a lot of precedents to refer to.
6. The world is undecided currently on what to do with the Internet in a legal sense of rights and fair use.
Hope this clarifies some issues a bit.
Re:Bad Lawyers (Score:2)
"Bad lawyers for the defendants. (There was obviously a lack of professionalism)"
Obviously? You were able to glean from the 15-word writeup that the defendant's lawyers were unprofessional? Perhaps the fellows really were sharing all those songs with Kazaa or whatever? It's interesting that a common sentiment on Slashdot is "There are millions and millions of filesharers! You can't stop us!" and then when the occasional unlucky few out of the millions and millions get caught, a common assumption is
Re:Bad Lawyers (Score:2)
Well, that's likely the truth: any sane lawyer would have told them to settle. Getting a summary judgement against you with a defence of "I didn't know it was illegal" sounds a bit lame. Possibly they weren't legally represented, this being a civil case; or the defendents were just too pig-headed to take advice.
You're right though the details are a bit thin: maybe there will be a better report in tomorrow's news
Re:Bad Lawyers (Score:2)
7. They're guilty.
I hope this clarifies things even more.
Civil not criminal (Score:2, Informative)
For the nth time... (Score:5, Informative)
Grrr...
Quit stealing my idea! (Score:2)
Grrr..."
Quit stealing my idea!!!!. Oh wait...
Re:Office Space said it best (Score:5, Insightful)
Wrong! Stealing = Taking the property of someone without permission (Destruction of others' property is taken into account, too). The overinflated prices the RIAA sets on music do NOT make that money their property. Besides their prices are on the labelled, stamped, colored, decorated, copy-protected, and maybe even autographed CD's - but not on the music itself. And even that is nothing compared to the "additional costs" that are nothing but price fixing.
So what this guy stole are actually one or two dollars, who rightfully belong to the music groups. Why then do the courts make him pay so much to the recording labels? This doesn't make sense at all.
Tell me, who's the one really stealing?
Re:Office Space said it best (Score:3, Interesting)
If you consider the content "Property" then, yes it is stealing. The only difference between "stealing" digital content VS. physical content is the reproduction costs and ease of access. In both cases you enter an agreement (for sales), for $x I will give you ownership of this copy of this content (whether it's an MP3 download, a DVD, or a car). You don't get reproduction or red
Re:Office Space said it best (Score:2)
Hosting the music? Like on a website? I'm sorry, the 1990s called and want their arguments back. In case you missed out on P2P technology, let me explain it to you. 1 teenager with a handful of music on p2p x millions of teenagers = a huge library of almost all popular music with no central server
Re:Office Space said it best (Score:2)
Yes, and that would be hosting. Don't want to host? Turn off hosting, most P2P clients (all that I have seen) have that option be it No-host, don't share, leech mode, what ever. If you are distributing the content, then yes, you are violating copywrite laws, and IMNSHO the RIAA has every right to nail you to a cross.
-Rick
Re:Office Space said it best (Score:2)
No. The major difference is that when someone steals physical content, the original owner no longer has that content. If I walk into a CD shop and nick a CD, then the shop no longer has that CD. This is a clear, direct loss.
If you download the album off of someone else's computer, no-one has directly lost anything. You could argue that the band/label have lost their opportunity to sell
Re:Office Space said it best (Score:3, Insightful)
You are looking at this from a 'possible loss' point of view. Let's turn the tables and look at it as a 'definate gain' possibility.
Let's say that you like song ABC. You like it very much, enough to the point that you are willing to give up $12 for t
Re:Office Space said it best (Score:2)
-Rick
Re:Office Space said it best (Score:2)
I am not a lawyer, but copying law seems very simple to me on a fundamental level, both legally and morally.
1) A copyright holder of any given work has the exclusive right to license and distribute that work.
2) Anyone else can acquire that work only with the permission of the copyright holder.
3) In the case of music, the copyright holders require a certain amount of money in exchange for granting you permission to acquire that work for personal use.
4) If you
Re:Office Space said it best (Score:2)
Re:Office Space said it best (Score:2)
No, I believe it is morally right [slashdot.org], and I think you're only supporting the status quo with your statement.
Re:Office Space said it best (Score:2)
Only in the UK you don't get it free. There is newly classified 'tax' that we all have to pay in order to receive radio and TV signals. We can go to gaol (do not pass Go) if we refuse to pay.
It's not free Sir.
Re:Office Space said it best (Score:2)
So I'm guessing that you're talking out of your backside.
Um, *copyright infringement* is a civil offence (Score:2)
That is a bad misconception. (Score:2)
Re:FIST SPORT! (Score:2)
Re:They deserve what they got. (Score:2, Funny)
Re:possible defense? (Score:2)
Wasn't this the whole point of CD technology? To re-sell music that people already had in vinyl format?
Re:possible defense? (Score:2)
IANAL. I happen to live off another commonly copied media form, though - so this certainly holds a lot of interest to me.
Re:possible defense? (Score:2)
Re:possible defense? (Score:2)
"What if you own an album that is unplayable(scratched) or hard to convert(vinyl), then download it because you are unwilling to be extorted by paying several times for your content."
The guys were purportedly sharing thousands of tracks each. What are the odds that each one of those songs was download to replaced damaged media? Keep in mind that there's something known colloquially in the legal profession as the "laugh test." In short, if you couldn't tell your friends that each and every track in yo