Aussies Face Jail Over MP3s

An anonymous reader writes "Two Australian students have been charged over music piracy offences, according to this story on Australian IT. It's short on details, but presumably they weren't running a P2P network. The maximum penalties for breaching copyright under Australian law is 5 years jail."

Now I know this is hard to hear

[NicotineAtNight]

But people have to produce the songs that you're listening to for free.

Now I know that you might think that the companies involved are scummy or evil, but remember - if we didn't have the legal frameworks in place that we do, then the evil companies would do a lot more than overcharge you.

You'd be their slaves.

Re:Now I know this is hard to hear

[phrogeeb]

But people have to produce the songs that you're listening to for free.

I find it amusing that people assume that there would be no more new music if people weren't getting millions of dollars for making it. I'm not sure if this is what you're assuming, but I'll use this time to rant anyways.

Music was around a long time before record labels. Moreover, when music is driven by the dollars that it brings in, it tends to suck. I would have absolutely no problem with the record industry coming crashing to ea

Re:Now I know this is hard to hear

[velo_mike]

Music was around a long time before record labels. Moreover, when music is driven by the dollars that it brings in, it tends to suck. I would have absolutely no problem with the record industry coming crashing to earth and half of the crappy musicians in the industry having to get real jobs because they can no longer live off the royalties.

Music has historically been tied to money and sponsorship. Today it's the record labels, yesterday they were court musicians, royal composers, or were tied to the ch

Re:Now I know this is hard to hear

[0ptix]

but there is a difference between being a multimillionar and makeing a living! musicians alwasys made a living. but they werent always some the richest people in society! thats the problem i have with the industry as its set up now. things have been scewed out of proportion.

Re:Now I know this is hard to hear

[zurab]

Now I know that you might think that the companies involved are scummy or evil, but remember - if we didn't have the legal frameworks in place that we do, then the evil companies would do a lot more than overcharge you.

You'd be their slaves.

I am wondering when they are going to arrest and jail the illegal, anti-competitive, price-fixing, anti-privacy, anti-any-rights, monopolistic, control-freak, entertainment industry cartel member corporations and give all of them 5 years jailtime; so that they can't d

Re:Now I know this is hard to hear

[maxpublic]

In case you haven't noticed, you missed two relevant points:

(1) laws like these apply only to the powerless. This is why two college students were chosen, rather than some upper management PHB (many of whom are some of the worst offenders, from my anecdotal observations).

(2) In America whoever has the money makes the laws and decides how they're applied. Shitting all over the Constitution is perfectly acceptable if you're rich enough to push for such legislation.

In effect, we *are* their slaves. They

Where's the news value in this?

[NewtonsLaw]

Perhaps I'm missing something here but how does this differ from a story with the headline:

Liquor Store Robbers Face Possible Jail Term

If these guys did actually break the law, and if the maximum penalty is jail, then this is no different to thousands of other cases before the courts -- except perhaps that the law involves the protection of intellectual property.

Move along people, there's nothing to see here.

Re:Where's the news value in this?

[pantropik]

I guess I'll play devil's advocate ...

Consider the following two items:

1) I am not a customer of the music industry. Even if I'd never heard of an mp3 I would not buy music. Period.

2) Stealing, by definition, means taking something from another without permission. The core idea is that by taking this item, you deprive the rightful owner of the item of its use and value.

Now, assuming point one is true -- that I'd never buy music -- then my downloading mp3s is taking nothing from anyone. In that case I'm not downloading music INSTEAD of buying it, I'm downloading it just because it's there. If it wasn't there and "free" I'd just do without.

So we get to point two. Let's say I come to your house and you have your dead mother's Harvard degree hanging on the wall. I take it. You'd be justifiably angry. But what if I just took a picture of it? Then we both have a copy. What if I stole your car? That'd suck. What if I somehow duplicated it without inconveniencing you in any way? I doubt you'd care unless you're just a big meanie.

It's not as if I download an mp3 and it's MINE MINE MINE and only mine ... no one has been deprived of anything if I never intended to buy the CD anyway.

My roommate downloads songs all the time. Then he buys the CD if he likes the music and there's not too much crappy filler material ... who wants to pay $17 for 3 good songs and an hour of crap you'll never listen to? Not every good song becomes a single, after all. Maybe the industry should look into letting people download legal tracks and make their own CDs without filler crap that they'll never listen to and don't want to pay for ... and make the price reasonable. Sounded good up until that last part, huh?

And what if he buys a CD and HATES it? Can't take it back after it's been opened, that's a no-no. So he downloads the stuff, listens, and decides based on that whether to get the CD (he was way over a hundred, compared to my zero -- I'm just not a music person).

I bet there are a lot more people like him (and like me) than there are people who "steal" just for the fun of it. The music industry MAKES money because he "steals" music. If the music industry would get with the times and stop waging war against its customers ... well, I doubt it would stop piracy, but it certainly couldn't hurt.

Re:Where's the news value in this?

[benjiboo]

I am not a customer of the music industry. Even if I'd never heard of an mp3 I would not buy music. Period. [....] Now, assuming point one is true -- that I'd never buy music -- then my downloading mp3s is taking nothing from anyone

That's BS. By *listening* to these records, no matter how you obtain them, you are a customer of the record industry. Regardless of whether or not you would have bought them, you have had the use out of the item *without* paying. If you want use of something, even if it's

Re:Where's the news value in this?

[Sunnan]

By

listening to these records, no matter how you obtain them, you are a customer of the record industry.

That would be a very scary world. I walk into a café and they have the latest pop song on - I'm all of a sudden a "customer" of the record industry, owing them something. When I read that taxi drivers in Finland need to pay royalties for the music their clients hear in the car, it scares me.

How long do the tentacles of ownership stretch?

The very principle of intellectual property is insidious in and of itself, since it's dealing with a lot more abstract concepts. We don't generally allow people to claim ownership of air, right? And the air isn't even copyable.

Information and knowledge, especially in digital form, can be copied at next to no cost. Having an economic system that negates, practically forbids, that very real advantage should be looked upon with great caution.

It's odd that people don't find these discussions more tiring. Every time a news story like this is posted, we don't get reactions to the story itself, rather people (of both positions in the question) start to discuss the validity of, or necessity for, a strong concept of intellectual property.

I think it's pretty scary that mere samizdat is yet again punished by deprivation of physical freedom - this time in a so-called "free country". The information - in this case music - does not appear to be something that's destructive or harmful, and reproduction of it has plenty of positive effects for most people, the only exception possibly being the record industry itself.

Re:Where's the news value in this?

[Ioldanach]

That would be a very scary world. I walk into a café and they have the latest pop song on - I'm all of a sudden a "customer" of the record industry, owing them something. When I read that taxi drivers in Finland need to pay royalties for the music their clients hear in the car, it scares me.

In the US, you are indeed a "customer", and you have been for a long time. That cafe, in order to have the radio playing where customers can hear it, is supposed to pay an ASCAP fee. If they don't pay up, they ge

Re:Where's the news value in this?

[Sunnan]

It's more like the café is the customer, right?

Or maybe your perspective is correct.

I was aware of the practice so I usually shop at a café that only plays indie music.

Re:Where's the news value in this?

[maxpublic]

By *listening* to these records, no matter how you obtain them, you are a customer of the record industry.

By reading this comment, no matter how you came across it, you just became a customer of my company, Original Thoughts Inc.

Pay up, asshole. It's as simple as that.

In fact, in this situation these laws should be more rigourously enforced. The Legal process is the only way these companies have to protect their intellectual property.

There is no Constitutional guarrantee asserting ownership over 'i

Re:Where's the news value in this?

[Erasmus Darwin]

"The core idea is that by taking this item, you deprive the rightful owner of the item of its use and value. Now, assuming point one is true -- that I'd never buy music -- then my downloading mp3s is taking nothing from anyone."

You're still partially depriving them of the use and value of the copyright itself. In exchange for producing a creative work, the government awards the creator a time-limited (in theory), exclusive right to control the distribution of that work and derivative works. That govern

Re:Where's the news value in this?

[RajivSLK]

Perhaps I'm missing something here but how does this differ from a story with the headline:

Liquor Store Robbers Face Possible Jail Term

Yes you are missing something.

It is common place for robbers to be sent to jail. However, this is new. Australian teens facing jail for mp3s related crimes is ground breaking.

Your missing something else. You fail to take into account the spirit of the law. In most countries, when a law is applied, not only is the letter of the law considered but the spirit as well. Was it this law's intention to target and prosecute small infractions (such as teens trading mp3s or people recording radio shows and sharing them with friends)?

Additionally, there is the matter of public policy. In many cases public policy out weighs the techinical implications of the law. Generally it is against public policy to enforce a law that would deem a large percentage of the population criminals.

You must realise that the law is not a set of rules that can be executed like a computer program. The law is open to interpertation by reasonable minds. Simply applied to the letter, the law (in any country), would land most of us in jail.

sent to jail instead of being sued

[QuantumG]

Imagine if the headline read "Aussies Face Jail Over Slander". It really is a scary prospect! Slander is a civil matter and cannot result in criminal action being taken against the defendant. Copyright infringement is also a civil matter, but recent changes in law have criminalised certain acts which facilitate copyright infringement (such as the creation of circumvention devices) and it is probably this that the three in question have been charged with. This is "news" in that it is unprecidented for someone to face jail time for simple copyright infringement in Australia, but its probably just bad reporting.

Re:Where's the news value in this?

[dmaxwell]

I can't remember the last time I heard of someone getting a gun stuck in his face for his mp3s. Great! Now the **AA has people so brainwashed that downloading a tune off Kazaa is tantamount to armed robbery. Sheesh!

Re:Where's the news value in this?

[MagPulse]

Exactly. People break laws all the time without going to jail or even getting in trouble in the case of speeding. It's big news when a law is enforced in a new way, because law enforcement is effectively changing the law.

Re:Where's the news value in this?

[MrMickS]

It's big news when a law is enforced in a new way, because law enforcement is effectively changing the law.

This is a 1968 copyright law. The law hasn't changed the environment has. In 1968 computers were strange things that large companies had. Hell it's 2 years before the dawn of time for the Unix world and 12 years before the dawn of time for DOS.

People find new ways to break the law all the time, that the Australians have found a way to apply an old law to current technology is probably about the mo

Re:Where's the news value in this?

[thogard]

The media compaines don't produce music. They sell little plastic bits that cost almost nothing to make and the rest is advertising to move that bit of plastic at its inflated price.

I hear people talk about how radio stations pay to play music, that is total BS. They pay to play music but they get paid to play that music as well (its called Payola). Now its not so much under the table but hidden under advertising deals. How much did Columbia Records pay to advertise Roger Waters' last concert? Isn't i

Re:Where's the news value in this?

[richieb]

While you're correct, the act of listening to mp3's doesn't steal from anyone? Distributing those mp3's, however, does break US copyright law. If one copy of the song was purchased and 10 copies have been distributed, isn't that 10 copies that may have been sold?

Maybe yes, maybe no. If ten people listen to the song on the radio and don't buy the CD is that theft too?

If I drive a small car, instead of an SUV, am I stealing from the oil companies? After all I only buy 10 gallons of gas, instead of 30?

Re:Where's the news value in this?

[velo_mike]

Maybe yes, maybe no. If ten people listen to the song on the radio and don't buy the CD is that theft too?

The media company has entered into an agreement with the station to air the song, it's a form of advertising. If 10 people hear the song and don't buy the cd, it's an unsuccessful attempt. If ten people download an illegal copy it's piracy. What's the difference? Control of property. Illegal copies potentially deprive companies of making a living

Different medium, different scale, same concept

Re:Where's the news value in this?

[richieb]

The media company has entered into an agreement with the station to air the song, it's a form of advertising. If 10 people hear the song and don't buy the cd, it's an unsuccessful attempt. If ten people download an illegal copy it's piracy. What's the difference? Control of property. Illegal copies potentially deprive companies of making a living

The media companies actually pay a lot of money to get their songs played on the radio (like $100K per song!). So, if they treated MP3 distribution as radio an

Re:Where's the news value in this?

[Ioldanach]

The media company has entered into an agreement with the station to air the song, it's a form of advertising. If 10 people hear the song and don't buy the cd, it's an unsuccessful attempt. If ten people download an illegal copy it's piracy. What's the difference? Control of property. Illegal copies potentially deprive companies of making a living

The media companies actually pay a lot of money to get their songs played on the radio (like $100K per song!). So, if they treated MP3 distribution as radio and

Re:Where's the news value in this?

[richieb]

But you're still missing the core point. The media companies don't want their songs to get exposure, they want specific songs to get exposure. Allowing them all to float around gives them an equal chance to be exposed, so they've lost control. It isn't about just making money, its about control. They think they can make more money if they can control the market.

I understand that they want control. They'd like to be a monopoly that charges you each time you listen to a song for 300 years. But the custome

Re:Where's the news value in this?

[richieb]

Do you have a source for this? I've always heard the opposite, either no money is exchanged (one can't live without the other) or the radio station licenses the broadcast rights. With the rise in influence of companies like Clear Channel, it wouldn't surprise me but I'd like to see something reputable.

Salon has been writing about this for a while for example take a look here: Will Congress Tackle Pay for Play [salon.com]

Re:Where's the news value in this?

[Kombat]

Incidentally, in your photo example, YOU have broken the law, too. By profiting from your photo of the bum, you owe the bum compensation (unless he's agreed to a model release form in which he declines any compensation). The law in the US generally states that you can take pictures of anything you want in public (certain landmarks excepted, thanks to terrorism panic). But if you take a photo of a person, and the person is clearly identifiable in said photo, then you need their permission. And if you pro

What's the news?

[GammaTau]

What's the idea in this news item? That people can get jail time for breaking a law? As long as unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material over internet is illegal, this is a direct consequence. No news, really.

The important issues are when new laws are passed or when business wants to stretch the limits of existing laws. However I see nothing in the article that would suggest either.

Re:What's the news?

[cperciva]

It's news because these are students, and the readership of slashdot feels more connected to them.

Re:What's the news?

[Negatyfus]

I suppose-- like more such articles-- the issue raised by this Slashdot's submission is that simple music piracy can trigger such severe legal action. I'm not saying music piracy is okay, but it certainly does not need five years in jail. I break laws every day. I ride my bicycle through a red light. I jay-walk. I cross the speed limit. So what? I use my brain and have my restraint. Screw the authorities. I can think for myself. I have morals that will not rob others off their rights too much. That's more

Re:What's the news?

[Negatyfus]

It'd almost funny if it wouldn't be so sad. These days, openly admitting to committing these "crimes" could brand you overly rebellious in some environment; someone that needs to be shut up and controlled like the rest of the flock. Where's the world going to if that's the way it works?

Re:What's the news?

[kubrick]

Well, practically anything that isn't specifically mandated by governments/corporations these days seems to be illegal, so we might as well go the whole hog. :/

As to where the world is going... I think I'd like to move to a part of it that isn't going along for the ride. As an Australian, I'd rather move somewhere like New Zealand, which is even more marginalised in world affairs than Australia is and has the sense not to take sides, and also has the compassion to welcome refugees. The last 7 years have re

it's not illegal, that's why it's news

[QuantumG]

As long as unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material over internet is illegal, this is a direct consequence. No news, really.

Well that's the point. Here in Australia it is not illegal, but as we have no idea what laws these three are being charged under we can't make an informed protest.

Hmm, looks like it's 5 years total

[joeflies]

After a quick browse of that article, it looks like the penalty is a fixed number instead of charging per incident. In which case, wouldn't it be overprosecuting small time users with a liberal sense of copyright law, and underprosecuting the real pirates (i.e. manufacturing and distributing copyrighted material)?

Of course, it's not clear what side of the fence the accused stand on.

Re:Hmm, looks like it's 5 years total

[TheMidget]

In which case, wouldn't it be overprosecuting small time users with a liberal sense of copyright law, and underprosecuting the real pirates (i.e. manufacturing and distributing copyrighted material)?

... and it would also encourage users to continue, even after caught. Indeed, continuing will not make the penalty any worse, as number of incidents does not come into play.

Re:Hmm, looks like it's 5 years total

[spasm]

*Maximum* 5 years. Australian law only describes maximums; judges are free to interpret circumstances and context and assign penalties *within* a range 0-maximum.

Those readers from countries other than the US (or other third world dictatorships) may be familiar with the concept.

Re:Hmm, looks like it's 5 years total

[confused philosopher]

Right. There is no such thing as a 200 year sentence [in the AU and Canada], stacked up from consecutive jail terms. They only do that in countries where math is a problem, and the death penalty is too backed up.

Maximum penalties

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

The five-year sentence, I would hope, is for people running large-scale commercial knockoff operations.

The interesting question is whether they did anything to attract attention, or whether someone's just trying to find someone to make an example out of.

Re:Maximum penalties

[tedDancin]

Police said the alleged piracy concerned music, album covers and music videos from ...[big names] .. and Festival Mushroom Records

You'd hope they'd be harsh. I'd hand out five years for someone who shared Jimmy Barnes and AC/DC. (:

Don't do the crime

[Dot.Com.CEO]

if you can't do the time.

By downloading music you don't own you break the law. Just because people think they have the right to listen to music for free it doesn't mean it has to be that way. I don't understand what the fuck this has to do with "your rights online". Privacy, I understand. Spam, I understand. Spyware, I understand. But what right are we talking about? Kazaa leeching? Give me a fucking break.

Go on, mod me a troll. I don't give a shit, I've had it with listening to the constant whining of a handfull of people who cannot understand the basics of "stealing music".

Re:Don't do the crime

[pesc]

By downloading music you don't own you break the law

Wrong. You can legally download music from www.mp3.com for example. But you don't own the copyright of what you download.

Actually, almost everything you download (or look at with your browser) is created by someone and is protected by the copyright laws (unless the writer explicitly gives up his copyrights and place his work in the public domain).

However, it is illegal to distribute or upload work that you don't own the copyright on. Big difference.

Th

Re:Don't do the crime

[ninthwave]

I agree with everything you said except for one point. I miss having radio stations that played a variety of music. It is hard to find new songs I download listen and buy if I like. I use it like the radio. I don't see that action as criminal because I am an active cd buyer. Though the way the law is written it is. I think my problem with the attack on mp3s is the control on the release of music by the record industries has become so strong that the variety of music is suffering on the airwaves, so to hear new things out of the pop mainstream you have to search a bit. Internet radio is great, followed by net downloading to find the version of the song you are looking for which is then followed by a hunt for the cd or a delete this rubbish option for me. I just can't see what is wrong with my use of it like that. Granted what is stated here is stealing but again the law is so rigid I am stealing under it. And I can not accept that not because I want free music but because I want the promise of captialism to offer consumers more choice to actually do that and offer me more choice while in the record industry it seems to be doing the opposite and offering my less.

Re:Don't do the crime - price fix monopoly abuse

[joelparker]

I don't understand what the fuck this has to do with "your rights online"

I'll sketch a quick picture for you:

1. Massive global corporations refuse
repeated requests by their own customers
for convenient ways to download and pay.

2. Instead, these corps collude to fix prices,
impede unsigned artists from radio airplay,
bury studies showing that MP3 helps artists,
and sue alternative distributors into oblivion.

3. These corps lobby for draconian DMCA laws,
push for spyware and denial-of-service attacks,
force police and DAs to criminalize MP3 trades,
use subpoenas and search warrant techniques,
and seek terrible shock-and-awe punishments.

4. Many governments call this monopoly abuse,
for a wide range of probable legal reasons.

5. P2P overcomes this monopoly abuse,
even as it enables copyright violations.

So I think the answers are less obvious
than "don't do the crime" like you said.
There are legal twists and turns to this.
Cheers, Joel

Re:Don't do the crime - price fix monopoly abuse

[Dot.Com.CEO]

??? Ever heard of listen.com? Go there.

Please don't give me stupid arguments about civil disobedience to stupid laws. This is not civil disobedience. It is plain and simple copyright violation. You do have an alternative - RAISE YOUR VOICE. Write letters to the companies you consider to be perpetuating the situation saying "oh well, you know, IF you had a service that allowed me to download unrestricted music for a reasonable price, I'd go there". But no! You go on with the same stupid argument that "ther

Re:Don't do the crime - price fix monopoly abuse

[LX.onesizebigger]

Oh, we need to tell the music distribution industry we want their products delivered in another way and at a lower price. Why didn't anybody think of that? I am going to inform the conglomerates of this right away; I am sure they will be delighted to listen to my input. I am sure their current mode of operation is only due to the fact that nobody told them their business model is outdated, so how could they know?

Re:Don't do the crime - price fix monopoly abuse

[Dot.Com.CEO]

Don't like it? Don't buy their music. That's what I do, actually. If you care about changing the world, do it properly. Don't kid yourself that you are part of a revolution, you are definitely not.

Re:Don't do the crime - price fix monopoly abuse

[richieb]

?? Ever heard of listen.com? Go there.

Is this the service where your music files will disappear from your computer when you stop paying? Or the one where you have to pay extra to burn songs to CD?

Thanks, but no thanks. I use Emusic.com - I get all MP3 I want for $10 bucks a month - no strings attached.

Re:Don't do the crime - price fix monopoly abuse

[Tim C]

It's only availble to US citizens. What do you propose the rest of us do?

Re:Don't do the crime BAN VCR'S and tapedecks

[dipipanone]

your mama has a VCR at home and she's taped at least one movie or TV show

Psh. Yo' mama such a pirate she wears an eyepatch and has *every single episode* of the Jerry Springer show on tape.

more detailed articles

[flokemon]

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/24/10507773 42470.html [smh.com.au]

http://news.com.com/2100-1027-998132.html [com.com]

Re:more detailed articles

[Anonymous Coward]

"Mr Negus said the site contained _links_ to digital recordings of several hundred music albums and singles, album covers and music videos owned by record companies Universal, Sony, Warner, BMG, EMI and Festival Mushroom." (emphasis mine)

The local TV news made it sound like they had copies of the songs available for download. But if all it was is a site containing links to other locations where the song can be downloaded, then I am not completely comfortable with this.

I don't see how they breached copyri

1968??

[canning]

If found guilty of breaching copyright under the Copyright Act 1968, they would face up to five years in jail or a $60,000 fine.

If this copyright law dates back to 1968 than there are bound to be some loop-holes that should get these guys off. They just need a decent lawyer.

Re:1968??

[ColaMan]

If this copyright law dates back to 1968 than there are bound to be some loop-holes that should get these guys off. They just need a decent lawyer.


No,it makes it a lot harder, since all the other cases since 1968 have been testing the law as it stands. The police (in general) will not prosecute if they determine that there's a previously known escape / loophole in this law that fits these circumstances. They make pretty sure that the law applies before going into court.

Updated 2000, 2002: with Karma whoring links...

[chathamhouse]

The Act was first passed in 1968, but was ammended in 2000 and 2002.

For the curious, you can download (.pdf, .rtf):

the original act plus revisions [law.gov.au]

the copyright act amendment, known as the Digital Agenda [law.gov.au]

The reader will note that for the purpose of copyright infringement, actions that are not specifically allowed are considered to be infringing. Making .mp3's out of legally purchased CDs is technically an infringement, as it is not listed in the permissives, and not explicitly endorsed by (most)

Copying CD's

[rf0]

The way I'm looking at the article it seems they might be copying CD's and reselling them. The only difference between this and downloading is that they is some tangable physical media rather than it just being stored as 0/1's on your hard disk

Short answer is that if you download music or just copy a CD is stealing. Its just how you feel afterwards that makes the difference

Rus

Here's a better link, without the crappy Flash

[core plexus]

Australia shutters music piracy site [com.com]

DNA based encryption with software developed [xnewswire.com]

Make up your minds!!

[canning]

From one article....[smh.com.au]
"Three students have been charged with copyright offences over an alleged $60 million music piracy operation. "

While another reports....[news.com.com]
"Australian police said on Thursday they had closed down an Internet music piracy site and arrested three students in an alleged copyright scam that cost the music industry at least $37 million."

Re:Make up your minds!!

[Strepsil]

Perfectly understandable if you assume the Australian newspaper is reporting the figure in Australian dollars, and news.com.com.net.com.org.com is reporting in US dollars.

The significance of this is...

[CaptainPotato]

...that several Australian universities have cooperated in handing over the details of students without having to so do. Given that ISPs fight tool and nail to avoid having to so do, they did this without being forced to. As somebody who works at an Australian university (but not one of the ones targetted by the music industry), this is concerning (and, no, not because I pirate music - I don't), especially under the new privacy laws in this country. The privacy of the arrested students - regardless of whether they broke the law - was breached in the first instance by the universities handing over their details without being legally made to so do.

BTW - another article about this can be found here [australian...iew.com.au].

Free money for government allies

[joelparker]

This wastes our police, government and courts--
and these MP3 problems get worse every week.

If anyone in public office reads this
and can advocate for better solutions,
send me email and I'll donate to you.

If you feel strongly like I do,
try donating to EFF [eff.org]

Cheers, Joel

Damages

[DreamingReal]

The industry estimates the value of albums downloaded by Web surfers worldwide was between $37 million and $44 million.

The piece of information I want the most at this point is the source of these numbers. Everytime I read these articles and come across figures such as these, I smell bullshit. Are they pulling these numbers out of their arses? Is it fuzzy math? (i.e. one download equals one lost album sale) If it's the latter, I say they need to start producing *real* numbers, and not these mystical figures. IMO, claiming one lost album sale for every download is like charging a retail burglar for the MSRP value of every single item in the store, regardless of whether or not it was actually stolen.

Re:Damages

[kinnell]

The piece of information I want the most at this point is the source of these numbers

Just speculation, but my guess is...

Loss = Mean income from each son x Number of MP3 downloaders worldwide

Criminal and civil law

[QuantumG]

For some reason I really think we're missing a large amount of information about what these three were charged with. Australia has pretty reasonable copyright laws. We don't send people to jail for copying things. We do, however, share the circumvention provisions which is maybe what they got charged under. Frankly, I have no idea what they've been charged with, because the reporting agency didn't find it necessary to get ahold of the indictment.

On the hand, we do have the same civil laws as other coun

An easier way

[terrencefw]

I don't know what the law's like in Australia compared to here in the UK, but you'd get a lighter jail sentence (or maybe just community service) if instead of downloading all those MP3s, you just conned an OAP into giving you her life savings and went on went on a spending spree in the local music store.

The laws (over here at least) are so messed up.

Amerika

[Michael Hunt]

I'm a proud Australian, and have been horrified over the past 18-odd months to see the slippery slope route our rights have taken due to Johnny Howard wanting W to think that he's important, amongst other reasons.

In the past year and a bit, we've seen a DMCA-like law passed, seen the senator for communications introduce stupid CDA-wannabe laws to appeal to the religious right, and many other atrocities.

What I find upsetting about this whole 'peer-to-peer users are terrorists' thing is the fact that the music industry couldn't give two shits if people were pirating Britney or 2pac or the artist formerly known as Puff Daddy. They're using legislative pressure to defend their business model.

While this was confined to the United States of Amerika, there was some hope that the new system would spring up around underground artists from other countries. Now that every man and his dog is a member of the 'coalition of the religious right against piracy and non-OPEC member countries', the world will slowly but surely be subjugated under big corporations, with Amerika as the figurehead 'state.'

I have often dreamt that those Free States such as Australia (was), New Zealand, the EU, etc would decide 'enough is enough, W!' and (in would would amount to a voluntary violation of the Berne Convention) decide that the DMCA and other laws were a load of junk and refuse to prosecute any of their citizens for alleged violations involving Amerikan IP.

This is looking less likely to happen now, and it's sad. My three year old sister is growing up as a slave to the MPAA because my father is too old to do anything else. Millions of other children are being rased similarly. In ten years we'll have a 'western' society where underground and independent (vs merely 'unsigned') artists have no place because nobody knows what they are or why. We won't have a public domain because it will have been bought, a-la Mexico.

I've called for moderation in the past, as people who deliberately break the law wind up appearing to stand on a very shaky political platform, but I'm fed up with it. The time is now. Spread pervasive peer to peer everywhere. Index EVERYTHING! And make sure that you're not violating classical copyright law in the process. Distribute works which WANT distribution.

Only in this way will we avoid becoming a slave to the media cartels.

PS- i'm sure that assloads of Americans are going to mod this into oblivion. I don't give a crap. I'm angry.

Re:Amerika

[muzzmac]

I'm Australian too. And I understand "fair use". Laws that make it illegal to make MP3's of my own CD's go too far.

Laws that protect "copy protection mechanisms" which stop me listening to the music I buy on the devices I want to listen to them on (Not even copy or distribute them) go too far

And I understand that distributing MP3's is not illegal in itself. It is only illegal if the copywright owner has a problem with it. Fortunately not all owners don't have that view. I've DL'ed some great free to di

Re:Amerika

[Michael Hunt]

Did I say anything about having a problem with the hundreds of years worth of historical IP law precedent? No. Reread my comment.

My problem is the content cartels using bullshit laws bought and paid for in Amerika and applied here by weak politicians to stifle new distribution models which may be interesting to people who AREN'T BREAKING THE LAW AND CONSIDER MAINSTREAM MUSIC CRAP AND NOT WORTH COPYING.

Bone up on your comprehension skills, Mr. Coward.

Re:Amerika

[muzzmac]

calm down. crack open a fosters, put a shrimp on the barbie and chill.

/me gives away a secret: Fosters is the crap beer we give to Americans. No Australian actually drinks it. :-)

jail is too much

[VaXXi]

I know the law specifies jail as a punishment, but this is pretty wrong.

We're talking about JAIL here, damn it! something that will fsck up your life for ever, mess up your future, end your chances of getting a good job, make you look bad to others. They didn't kill, didn't rape, didn't drink & drive. Give them fines (big fines), community service ... but not prison time.

Just my 2 cents.

Ok....bail time or jail time

[djupedal]

Ok, so whom is going to be the first to volunteer to put up their bail?

What's it worth to put your money where your music library is?

I think it should be Don Henley.... [usatoday.com] seriously.

this *is* news

[Unominous Coward]

Whoever says that this isn't newsworthy, just remember that the philosophy being employed in the arrest of these teenagers is spreading to other parts of the world.

It would set a very bad precedent if these kids were jailed.

What next?

[jthorpe]

Living in Australia, I wonder how long it will be before the partially Government owned Telstra discovers that I've been downloading DeCSS (for playing DVDs I actually owned) and send police to lock me up in jail for 5 years.

Makes me sick when there are people who are actually comitting crimes that harm people and society aren't even getting jail terms.

My opinion

[Sloshed_dot]

What exactly is the difference between the Aussie's crime and lending an (honestly purchased) record to a friend? Selling it second-hand? Taping the record before you sell it?

Clearly the artists must own the rights to their creations - but that does not guarantee they make money from it. When I buy a record I have bought the right to play it as often as I like, and for who I like. How could it be any other way?

Re:My opinion

[richieb]

There have been initiatives to launch pay-per-download services, with no success. Don't try to fool yourself folks! It's not the record companies that block successful services (I mean, there is such thing as free enterprise...), it's the fact that you can get it for free elsewhere that people don't want to pay for downloadable music.

It's not that people don't want to pay - it's that people do not want to be ripped off. I use Emusic.com, which cost $10/month for unlimited MP3, no strings attached, downl

Re:My opinion

[richieb]

Please, as a musician, I would like to get something in return for providing you with music you enjoy. I know this is not what the big record companies are after, but there are (a lot) more record companies out there who actually try to do some honest business.

... and another thing. What if the recordings I want are of a musican who has been dead for 50 years? Who is to get the money?

Re:My opinion

[richieb]

Nobody. The distribution / record company doesn't have to pay royalties, nor do you.

So are you saying that I can distribute MP3s of Charlie Parker's recodings legally? I don't think so..

Is this a good thing? Maybe.

[GospelHead821]

The first question this raises in my mind concerns whether or not the law that imposes such a penalty on copyright infringement is new. Was existing copyright law amended to allow for stiffer penalties, since the possible magnitude of copyright infringement only becomes greater with so much information available digitally? Even if the law is new, is it merely an extension of existing copyright law, but applicable to all copyrights? Does it affect only copyright law and not other aspects which may affect cop

Even the 'entertainers' download the music

[Ambush]

Until recently I was working at a Melbourne company (ie; in Australia) run by a very well known entertainment industry celebrity. When fixing his computer I noticed he had quite a swag of mp3's which his secretary said he routinely downloaded from the various sites.

Not that it means anything I suppose, but it's amusing how blatantly obvious it is that it's not the entertainers (singers, etc) but rather the **AA who are out for blood.

I wonder what would happen if one of their own were found to have a colle

Probably criminals

[ralphclark]

The article points out that a number of individuals were involved and that the copyright offences album covers. If they were copying covers as well as the music doesn't that tend to indicate that they may have had a fully fledged commercial pirate CD manufacture operation going? Not the same thing as a kid innocently downloading MP3s onto the PC in their bedroom.

Typical slashdot

[megazoid81]

It's short on details, but presumably they weren't running a P2P network.

If it is short on details, who is Slashdot to make these presumptions? This is a little bit like unabashed Slashdot-style Microsoft-bashing, when not enough is known and the editors take their potshots at Microsoft anyway, driven by personal biases.

Creative Commons, towards 'free media' repository

[ClarkEvans]

Along time ago RMS decided to fight proprietary software by introducing the GPL and free software and the Free Software Foundation. The FSF provided a great service, it was one-stop-shopping for GPL'd software. Anything you downloaded from the FSF is safe, free of imperial entanglements.

What we need is an new music format with several parts to it; the first part specifies the license for the file (in particular the creative commons license number), the second part is a digtal signature of some authorata

Re:no fun

[smclean]

It's funny how officials think they should give a few people the maximum sentence to 'act as a deterrent'. That's like saying we should kill 10 jaywalkers a year randomly, and when we do we'll paste their pictures all over the TV, with remorseful family shots, etc. Jaywalking? This is what it gets you!

Re:no fun

[JohnFluxx]

exactly. And it would work as well, although perhaps with a few more than 10 killings, say 1% of those who did it. If you knew that there was a small chance that the police would kill you for it, would you stop doing it?
Damn right you would.

Re:no fun

[Organic_Info]

"If you knew that there was a small chance that the police would kill you for it, would you stop doing it?"

Not really, how many people belive it will not happen to them? Look at smoking, the packects say on them "these things will kill you and give you cancer" but people still keep on doing it.

Up the percentage killed and over a (shorter) period of time people that are inclined to jaywalk will be removed from the gene pool thus a form of darwinian(sp?) natural selection will prevail reducing the number of jaywalker/stupin people.

This would scale well to other situations...

Re:no fun

[aarondyck]

I'm inclined to object to you on this point. While jaywalking is indeed illegal, it is not illegal to smoke. Many smokers started smoking far before they realized the negative effects (be it the social realization or personal realization). To further this point, nicoteine is ADDICTIVE and jaywalking is not. Should it be necessary, I could stop all jaywalking activities. I could stop all file swapping activities. Smoking, however, is physically addictive and is not quite so easy to stop. Sure it can b

Re:no fun

[Organic_Info]

If caught drink driving in the UK you recive an instant ban, 12 points on your driving lic and a fine. The length of the ban and fine is dependant on circumstances (in rare conditons, e.g. dependant for disabled family, the ban can be quashed in favour of a more hefty fine).

The UK drink driving rate has been decreasing due to a maturing cultural attitude as you mentioned and the economics of being banned. When I say the economics you get dicked by the insurance companies if you get a large number of points

Re:no fun. Germans

[panurge]

In Germany, people never used to jaywalk. They waited religiously for the Grüne Mann. Then one day in Munich I was crossing the road with a guy who had recently left East Germany, literally the day the Wall came down. He marched out into the traffic. People blew horns. I shouted at him to come back. He replied "Hitler and Stalin were possible because people behaved like sheep. Germans must learn not to be sheep!"

And that's the answer to the likes of the RIAA. Laws are supposed to reflect the beliefs of society in general, not special interest groups. If society believes that the present copyright laws are a mistake, people must not behave like sheep.

Re:no fun

[maxpublic]

No, it'd increase the number of cowardly, ass-kissing, boot-licking sheep in that society, while completely destroying any ability for independent thought. A society that'd pass these sorts of laws deserves exactly that: a populace of mouth-breathers and sycophants.

Max

If that worked...

[MisterMook]

Then killing a large number of boneheaded politicians would make a dent in the weird laws that cropped up each year. This might be true, but if the French and American revolution are any guides then I doubt it. ON the other hand, for short term effect I suppose the Nuremberg trials and WW2 worked ok if you discount the staggering amount of power those politicians that were left had.

Lesson? Kill off the criminals and you just get fewer, more powerful criminals.

Re:no fun

[DZign]

If you knew that there was a small chance that the police would kill you for it, would you stop doing it?


This thinking is wrong.. yes if there is only a small chance then people would still do it,
thinking it'd be someone else who'll get caught.

What you get when you put too harsh punishments is that people who break the law, will act more violent and try not to get caught. If the punishment for something feels too high compared to more severe act for which you get punished less, people may commit the oth

Copyright is a NECESSITY

[Michael's a Jerk!]

All the slashbots constantly whinge about how copywrite is wrong, patents are obsolete. Let's imagine a world where there is *no* IP. Making a living as a programmer is no longer viable. The whole field of software development will grind to a standstill. Do you think patents stiffile inovation? Imagine a world where if you invent something really cool, all the major hardware companies will mass-produce cheap knockoffs within weeks. You have no incentive to design at all. Companies will grow ever larger.

Re:Copyright is a NECESSITY

[Anonymous Coward]

And how is this different today? Small inventors will invariably violate patents. Dragging the major hardware company to court doesn't get them anywhere. The legal costs are astronomical and the best you could hope for is a settlement which doesn't leave you with less than before. Even big businesses admit that they can't ensure that their products don't use others' patents without license. So much for patents.

However, this is a copyright issue. I have a very hard time accepting that I'm supposed to pay tw

Copyright is only one possibility

[iamacat]

Let's say there is no IP, but there is no program that satisfies my needs. There is however a website that says I can put down $100 and either get a program with specified feature list within 6 months or get $110 back. If the price and "interest" are chosen correctly, I will be motivated to invest if and only if I need the software. Freeloaders will be able to use the software, but they will not get any customer support unless they buy it, and they will not be compensated for waiting. In the same spirit, ma

Re:Copyright is a NECESSITY

[richieb]

Let's imagine a world where there is *no* IP. Making a living as a programmer is no longer viable.

Hardly. Most programmers working today work on customized in house software that would be useless outside their own companies.

You are also mixing up patents and copyrights, they are quite different. At least patents last for only about 20 years. Copyright at the moment last for about 150 years.

The copyright laws have gotten way out of balance. I wouldn't mind such laws if copyright expired after 14 year

Re:better start deleting..

[Negatyfus]

Congratulations on the most obvious troll for the day!

I agree to some extent that it's not very ethical to be sharing mp3's on your fave p2p network. I'm the last one to scream "but it can be used for good, too!" We all know what the primary purpose is. Fact remains, times are changing.

P2p file sharing isn't going away. And I perceive that as a good thing.

Information availability has been upped a few notches and now I can quickly access music and movies that before I could only dream of. I'm talking non-commercially available stuff. Will I have to wait before someone decides to release a DVD box set (that is very much over-priced)? No, but will I buy it if I deem it a valuable addition to my collection? Yes! No one ever bought a movie to watch it once and let it collect dust afterwards.

This whole situation is called evolution. It happens and no one can do anything about it, no matter how hard they try. Some victims will fall, but in the end, the majority will benefit the most. No, I don't see mp3 file sharing as a severe crime punishable by jail time. That's just a shock-and-awe tactic that will get the music industry nowhere. They think "set an example!" and don't think in terms of human beings. What do they care? As long as they get out the message that they want. A person's life does not matter, nor does it matter that possibly this offender will fall victim to more severe crimes because of his social decline. If anything is criminal, this is it.

The people will continue buying. Maybe a little less than before, but that may be for the better. Too much of anything is simply too much. Step off your high horse and see things in perspective. This is just an over-reaction and it's painfully obvious.

Re:better start deleting..

[fruey]

Yes! No one ever bought a movie to watch it once and let it collect dust afterwards.

This is a misnomer. The DVD medium lends itself to kneejerk buying : it's a movie your friends may have raved about, it has special features. You buy it because it's about 10-15 bucks, and then you watch it once, don't enjoy it, and indeed it does gather dust. Or, you're a business traveller and you want something to watch on the plane, you impulse buy a DVD that looks OK at the airport in 5 minutes as you rush to get to the gate, to watch on your laptop. You never watch it again.

I have done all of this. Half my DVD collection is unlikely to be watched again. Indeed, I would never have bought VHS tapes the same way, because I never had a portable VCR... but I have a laptop with DVD, a PC with DVD, and a home DVD player. Add to that quality, nicer form factor, special features that may make the DVD as a whole more valuable than just as a movie. And of course let us not forget that we can watch a particular scene and freeze it really well, just to see if there was indeed a hint of beaver in that sex scene ;-)

Add in special features and extra content, and you have DVDs that you might buy (especially if you have a reasonable income) on a whim.

Now, the scary thing with mp3 / DivX (why have I seen no articles about DivX and mpeg traders?) is that there are students being taken to court, fined and jailed. Students don't have much of a disposable income, and are bound to be ahead on the technology curve. I don't understand why they're being persecuted, because they are the ULTIMATE consumers of the future. Sure, I've downloaded the odd movie, but I'm in an income bracket now where a couple of DVDs per month is going to be par for the course for a long time. A lot of my friends, graduated say over 5 years ago, also have big DVD collections.

Banks, restaurants, brandnames for clothes, dead tree publishers... these have all been known to give students breaks in order to keep them when their income starts coming in. This is the mistake the record industry is making, because they are missing the whole point. Students have always bootlegged, borrowed and stolen music. I can't quite understand it. The regular consumers are NOT doing this. It really screws with my mind to see this kind of intellectual property fascism. Consumerism is not the be all and end all of the whole world economy, let's hope that sooner or later a bit of clemency starts to happen especially, I have to say, in the US (by virtue of its being the biggest, most hardcore consumer economy in the whole world).

Re:better start deleting..

[echucker]

Students don't have much of a disposable income, and are bound to be ahead on the technology curve. I don't understand why they're being persecuted, because they are the ULTIMATE consumers of the future.

Easy. The industry has always been short-sighted about this. All they know is that they've picked a target with little resources to fight back.

Re:better start deleting..

[Negatyfus]

Agreed. The thing that gets to me is that I can get at more stuff, and I do, but I still buy DVD's on a whim and will go out to buy this and that DVD if I think it is really worth it. I simply don't see my use of file sharing as a crime severe enough to warrant a jail sentence. It's like jailing pot smokers. Over here, we have public coffee shops in which we do that undisturbed by the law.

No material is gone missing and I do not think I would buy less products if I didn't have file sharing. I'm not going t

Re:Death by hanging!

[Negatyfus]

You moderators are really missing the point I'm trying to make here. This is starting to look like a mass hysteria. Even Slashdot seems not to care anymore that a "crime" (read: offense) that is so easily commited can just as easily get you jail-time (possibly resulting in a very fucked-up life).

Re:...album covers...

[Negatyfus]

They probably have a deal with the record company for stuff like that.