Slashdot Mirror
Danish Anti-Piracy Organization Bills P2P Users
faaaz writes "The danish anti-piracy organisation Antipiratgruppen has billed approximately 150 p2p users an amount of up to $14,000 each for sharing copyrighted material. The organisation says 'Pay up, or we'll sue!'" There's also a Reuters article.
My question would be, "Who are they screw-heads, and why should I PAY them?!" Bills I don't remember instigating don't get paid. And let them sue me - they have to prove it.
I mean, going after those who actually possess and distribute something that they have not legally purchased? Sounds legitimate to me.
When men used to be men
If I were these guys, I'd consider myself getting away with a slap on the wrist.
Software piracy is victimless theft.
Okay, so assuming this extorti...I mean apparently-legal action goes through, who gets the money? Is this anti-piracy group going to go out and distribute the monies to the appropriate copyright holders? Who decided what price to set for the various downloaded artifacts? Certainly there's a significant markup here.
Assuming a CD has, on average, 15 songs, and you can get a CD for $12 at Best Buy, $2.67--that's a 250% markup on each song.
And, who is going to ensure that paying these folks will prevent future prosecution by the copyright holders? Do I get to keep the songs and movies that I downloaded if I pay up?
When I watch Buchanan and Press, and see Press describe mp3 as no bigger a crime than not stopping at a stop sign, I realize it's finally beginning to hit the public at how much power RIAA is getting. People are getting sick of it, and if RIAA doesn't watch it, they'll find a lot of young people taking office and changing laws.
Before any of you americans start quoting your constitution, please remember that this is Denmark and the law is different there. Why not wait and see what happens first, eh?
How 'bout I send a bill to Kazaa for 'stealing' information about me that is used to provide ads that bother the shit about me? Oh wait, I can't threaten them with legal action like they can.
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
...not the artists. Why should they get any? Like in Napster case...
Also it's interesting as the people in The Register note, that proving, even with the lower standard of civil action, that particular user had real movies or who exactly set up p2p on particular computer might be a little problematic.
Looks like a scare tactics to me.
The moon is not fully subjugated. I demand a second assault wave preceded by a massive nuclear bombardment.
The article says that they are billing by file name. This method has its own, shall we say, limitations. I would imagine it would be embarrasing to take the p2p users to court only to have them show up with recitps for the material the rightly own.
Cheers,
-- RLJ
1) the evidence used are screen shots (can be faked)
2) the file names could be misleading (i.e., the file's contents not illegal)
3) which family member used the computer?
Basically, they are saying pay us $60 bucks. Otherwise, they will take you to court.
However, if they take you to court, you might win!
This is like me sending random letters asking to be PayPal'd or expect to see me in court! If people comply... well then thanks!
Which by the way would be like holding people up for ransom?
Maybe this story affected the Danishes, eh?
Cover your eyes and click this link!
Ok, now think about for example Kazaa without all those evil pirates. Guess what - this cool technology wouldn't exist and wouldn't be used without them.
The names of the files can be rather incriminating, since it isn't likely that a file named "U2-Sunday Bloody Sunday.mp3" is anything but that song, by that artist. Coupled with the fact that these users probably have hundreds of similarly named files, it won't be easy to dissuade a jury of your peers that you were not illegally obtaining copy righted music. Yet, with this being the only evidence that they have to go by, a defending lawyer might be able to prove that there is reasonable doubt - especially if the files are no longer present on the culprits system at the time of a law enforcemnet raid (if that ever happens over there).
The most obvious answer is to stop pirating. A person can come up with all of the self serving rationalizations that they want, like "I wasn't going to ever pay for it anways" or "the industry charges too much", but in the end, you obtained material that is explicitly protected and must be obtained through a legitimate sale in an illegal manner. Pay up.
BUT, putting that aside. Some points:
Too all those "They can't make me pay cause I didn't sign anything" or "Go ahead, sue me for not paying the bill.": You guys missed the point. This bill is an option. They are being nice to you. They are saying; OK, look, you're busted and, deep inside, you know you are busted. We are giving you a chance to avoid court and make this go away as if you were legit. Just pay this bill and you won't go to court. Oh, don't agree? Want to deny it? Won't pay? Fine. We'll take you to court. Oh... NOT for not paying this bill. You are right, you didn't sign or receive a service for THIS bill. Nope, we're taking you to court for the copyrighted material you have stole and are redistributing.
Too all the photoshop wannabe's with this: we could fake those screenshots. Do you honestly (stupidly) think that all they have are some dot-matrix printouts of some screen dumps? Think people. They probably had notarized witnesses present while capturing the data, or cops or the equivilent - for one. And they probably DID download the files from your computer and categloged them neatly with the IP your ISP DHCPed to you along with the records from the ISP where you dialed up from or which IP they gave to what MAC address on who's cable modem or what IP went to what DSL caller.
People - listen. This is not a troll or flamebait. Remember something
If you are not doing anything illegal - you have nothing to worry about!
Obviously legal users of P2P networks aren't concerned, they are happy. All those bandwidth hogs trading illegal stuff are being forced off. This is a GOOD thing remember? You have said you actually want this right? How could you possibly complain?
Before replying, think: only the thieves have anything to worry about - and you aren't a theif are you?
Yeah, we've all been screaming for random organizations being able to force ISP's to do what only the police use to have the power to - make them publicize their customer information. Yes, "force", since this is never done willingly by the ISP's since it gives them very bad PR when the average user find out that they tend to give away their customer info like that.
My problem is that I don't see how they suddenly got this power without having the police involved.
Also, as The Register mentions, this can surely backfire:
"Also, the labels, movie studios and video game makers have increasingly distributed bogus files on P2P networks that resemble the genuine article, down to file size and title, to frustrate would-be downloaders."
From the antipiracy bureaus, I hope for their own sake that they brought CRC checksums of each file with them and that they can connect those to the actual transfer of the p2p user.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
You weren't the one downloading the movie/CD, you are legaly making a backup, and allowing other people who also own that movie/cd to get a backup...
Everyone can make an MP3/divx, but not everyone understands it enough to make a good MP3/divx...
Before user-friendly mp3 programs, I know lots of people who used Napster just for that...
That would be the basic argument in the USA, I'm unsure about the Danish argument tho...
~~~
Click here, you know you wanna!
Let me be one of the first hundred people or so to say, "GOOD!" For far too long every post where anyone dares say anything that even remotely links P2P and piracy is instantly modded down and disagreed with under the guise of freedom.
Well, it's not about freedom. It's mostly about stealing music and movies.
People stole stuff, or at a minimum, engaged in the redistribution of it. Those people should pay.
Break the law, get in trouble. Oh, and don't explain why it shouldn't be against the law, and how it's better for record companies for us to share music. That's a rationalisation of the sickest kind. It's still illegal, and if the people who do it could spent one tenth the time they spend stealing things actually trying to change the law and they'd get it changed.
Nah, I'll keep stealing stuff until someone busts me.
The only problem is that they are NOT doing that. As it even states in the article (RTFA?) there appears to be no proof that the songs on those computers are illegal (ie they own the actual CD. They also make a mention that there doesn't appear to be proof that the files displayed on the screen are actually songs. That is of course a very "lawyer" thing to say but it DOES matter in at least US courts; but it isn't like it would have been too hard to at least check a few of the songs and try to get the judge to believe that if 20 out of 200 songs are real than the other 180 are real.
:)
... what I said above would include NOT busting me for downloading Metallica, Ride The Lightening because I do own that CD but it is scratched beyond repair. I legally own the CD and I have every legal right to have the song. The only gray area is who is allowed to provide me with the replacement data. It would be understandable for the publisher to want to charge me for the costs invovled with providing me the data again but certainly NOT to charge me for another licence. The key would be once I were to become in possesion of that data again, unless they observed me getting it they would have no way to tell if I got it from my own CD or someone elses, and it wouldn't matter if they did observe because they would have to prove I denied them revenue which I did not since I am in possesion of a legal licence. So far I know of no case law or legislation that would actually make me quilty of anything if I were to get a copy of that data from another legally licenced data source (aka friends CD).
... we want our FAIR USE RIGHTS facilitated (not expanded) by technology not abridged by it.
... or at least my interpretation of the VAST myriad of opinions that should NOT all be lumped together as, "Isn't that what SLASHDOT has wanted."
But the important thing here is that they do NOT have any proof that those people are in possesion of the songs illegally. To my knowledge there is no law against posting your songs up on a network. [wait for the whole point] They could of course make a case that you are putting them up there with the express intent of facilitating piracy (ie Napster) but that isn't what the people are being charged ($$$) for since it would be a criminal charge not something they could send you a bill for.
The individuals could of course say that it was simply the easiest way for them to make their own, legally obtained music available to themselves when not at home.
No this is not what Slashdot has wanted all along. What we have wanted all along is for them to bust people who are DOWNLOADING / possesiing songs they don't have the licence to; versus the simple act of posting a legal song. Of course the "posters" who do so for profit should be shut down because no matter if they own a real licence to the music they do not have the right to distribute. That is the discriminator: you have no way to deny inent to distribute if you are engaging in the business of selling the data. Remember the rules of logic and debate in the court room are very specific compared to a conversation in a bar or a chat room. Afterall how do you think OJ got off???
Back to the point
To put it simply
That is what Slashdot has wanted
If you can't be good, be good at it!
Know how I sniffed you out?
I'm sorry, but the only reason I even bothered signing with a label was to SELL MY STUFF. Make money, that's all.
There are *SO* many reasons to sign to a label!
I mean, don't get me wrong. Even with all these advantages there are significant disadvantages:
No actual recording artist these days is naive enough to think that labels are solely useful for printing and sales.
But what do I know. I'm just looking for anonymous gay sex.
If they are civil, how an organization that is not in any way related to the original copyright infringement can seek any damages? Their lawsuit would be pointless, they have to go to original copyright holders and ask them to sue -- something that is very unlikely to succeed being a horrendous waste of money.
If criminal, "anti-pirates" have obtained an information about alleged crime, and withholding it from authorities and demanding payment from alleged perpetrators to continue witholding it. Sounds like they have already commited a crime of extortion.
I am not sure if Danish law works the same way, however those things are usually pretty similar everywhere.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
A lot of folks seem to be hung up on the "how do they know that "Half-Life.zip" is actually Half-Life, the game. Fact is, it doesn't matter. Under US law (yes, I know, it's Denmark, so YMMV, but I'm pretty sure the same holds), if you buy a kilo of powdered sugar from an undercover cop, you've just committed a drug crime, so long as there's reasonable evidence to indicate that you _believed_ that you were buying cocaine. By the same token, you'd have a hard time making the argument that you like to download files entitled real_slim_shady.mp3 because you like the name, but had no intention of actually getting an Eminem song.
Although it may have gotten lost in the translation to the digital world, legally speaking, deprivation of potential revenue has always been a difficult thing to prove, and was never the same thing as theft.
And why drag morality into it?
But Photoshop was overpriced to begin with, imoho.
It's all ok, but there's a flaw..
Download the files from where? Assuming most people did this, there would be nowhere to download the files from, as noone would be sharing their files.
Let's take a trip down memory lane. Me making a copy of a CD for a friend technically violates the copyright, but only the dumbest and most opperesive states would bother to enforce it. What monetary damage was done by my "perfect" seleveless, artless copy for my friend? Generally zero as my friend would never have bought the thing in the first place but has an inferior copy which might lead him to buy the "real" thing. We could walk further down that road to tapes where courts upheld your right to do just that. We could go even further back before acid paper and comercial pulp printing and find much weaker copyright laws. We could go back even further and find that for the majority of human history writers expected no finicial reward for their efforts and considered it an honor when others would publish their work.
What I see comming is some awful invasive world where others think they have a right to search my personal effects at will. They have screen shots of the victim's computers? They must have been windoze users, but the precident is disturbing. Suppose my ISP is pressured to not allow connection from "insecure" platforms that do not allow such spying? Well, screw that. I don't go places where people treat me like a criminal. I'm not intersted in RIAA music, I never ran Napster, nor have I ever fooled around with newer music sharing junk. I want to share my own work, not that of others. These jackasses seek to prevent others from publishing their own music. If they get away with it, soon other forms of publishing will be prevented. We are on the road to Tycho.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Yeah, the price would plummet if a lot of people who couldn't afford it wound up deleting it, and publishers started using Paint Shop Pro because they can barely find anybody proficient with Photoshop.
Nice post. I agree by and large.
* they sell your shit
Yep, they arrange with both brick and mortar retailers (B&N, Tower, HMV, Sam Goody) and digital retailers (Amazon, CDNow) globally to put your music in their bins. Now, how good your placement is, how much in store advertising you are given is based on how much your label likes you, and how many CDs you'll probably sell. Moby? Front and center. End caps. Posters. A "rub Moby's bald head for luck" cardboard cutout at the door.
Fluffy and the Puffboys? 2 CDs in the "F" bin.
* they distribute your shit
Well, they sign with distributors, but ok, they manage your distribution.
* they promote your shit
True, but again, the amount and energy of that promotion will be very different for Linkin Park than for up-and-coming punk band Pus Casserole.
* they book your shit
Touring? Don't you have a booking agent? A sponsor? You might think about that.
* they speak "on your behalf" in these kinda situations
Again true, but the RIAA is much more of the "industry voice." And yeah, label attorneys are typically pretty good.
I mean, don't get me wrong. Even with all these advantages there are significant disadvantages:
* you must sell or you are dropped
* you get a fraction of what you'd make on an indie
* you often end up owing the label money
* occasional legal nightmares
These are minor to you? As I said, I spent fifteen years in the business, and I know of a few multi-platinum artists that either never recouped, or have such gargatuan legal bills that any profit is long gone.
Here's another one for you to ponder (and reply to if ya like.) Whose count do you accept when royalty time comes along? Every six months I get at least twenty phonebook sized royalty statements, telling me how many copies of a particular album sold in Burkina Faso, Singapore, Trinidad and Tobago, South Africa, Israel, Anguilla, yada yada. I get an equvalent sized package from my publisher, with similarly arcane Excel effluvia. I think I read one once. Reversed, they make wonderful scratch printer paper, but otherwise, they mean little to me (except for the attached check which is always disappointingly low.)
I wouldn't even know where to go to get an independent auditor but I know of a few bands that did, and let's say...their figures differed from the publisher and label. A lot.
Basically, the labels/publishers tell you how many sold, and the band usually has to take that word as gospel. You comfortable with that?
In short, while there are big issues, I think labels DEFINITELY have a function. MP3.com proved that mass Internet distribution is a joke. The labels may have an 85% failure rate, but they are damn good marketers, and Kazaa would be much less popular without BMG music.
What films do people request on IRC film channels? The ones all over TV and print advertising. What CDs are most anticipated by the unwashed masses? The one's most heavily marketed. They watch the QT trailer for Nemesis with drooling glee. They hear a new Korn CD is forthcoming on radio and TV. And what do they say?
"Hey I gotta download that when it comes out."
Labels and film studios are neither anachronisms or useless. They still serve an essential function, and you're right - no signed artist would think that their label is merely a manufacturer.
Things have to change, but labels aren't going anywhere.
"The pie shall be cut in half and each man shall receive.....death. I'll eat the pie."
IANAL, but
;-).
They do not have the right to take matters in their own hands. The court system is not a tool to be bargained with, and I am sure a judge will see things cleared up. You should even be able to get a nice compensation for being threatened.
Take those letters to the police NOW.
And the best part ? Extortion is a criminal offence (it is here). The person who sent those letters is personally liable. If you get the police on his tail, he has a chance of finding himself in prison for a few months (and for the very least you could get his computer confiscated and his house searched), and he will have to personally foot any bills the court grants you (and if the company pays them, they will have to pay big money on taxes for doing that).
That $14000 is much better spent on a lawyer, in my opinion.
Keep in mind that they play this by the numbers, if a sufficient number of people move against them, they will lose money on this, and the court will not let them make "examples" of anyone.
BTW do not forget to tell newspapers, magazines, as well as anyone who cares (and a few who don't) about this. Because we live in a democracy and a LOT of people use kazaa
I assume you're implying that it's a recent addition...
An online Websters dictionary from 1828 defines it as
A 1913 Websters Dictionary defines it as:
Maybe it's just me but I think that 175 years later it's time to accept that language changes.
-rrAbsolutely! So many slashbots state that "I never would have bought the music anyway, so it's not lost revenue"
What they fail to realize is that if you don't want to pay for it, then you, GASP! don't get to view, listen, or use use that content!
Begun, this browser war has.
... of extortion.
A company cannot send you a "bill" for a contract you never signed, stating "pay up or else". This is not an electric company talking about getting reimbursement for an unpaid bill. This is a company with which these people have no agreement sending them threats which amount to, "give us money or else".
A straightforward company would simply inform the police if they believe these people to have committed criminal acts and the culprits would be arrested, or simply serve them a summons in the case of a civil dispute.
MORTAR COMBAT!
In theory, you can then have the RIAA arrested for violating the DMCA, or at least try to get your case thrown out. (The "evidence" that you had the MP3 is inadmissible if they obtain it illegally, is it not?)
And if they convince the judge that my idea is total crap, haven't they just set a precedent weakening the DMCA? Might as well fight fire with fire. :)
________________________________________________
suwain_2
From reading through some of the posts it appears the RIAA is already winning the war. No one appears to find the implied illegality of copying a file in your possession an incongruous proposition anymore.
This is the core of the issue, not "pirates" or "artists" or other fictions. The problem with the RIAA and its discordant crusade is the fact that it runs against a widely accepted social norm - I have the right to copy my files. This is where the RIAA is weakest and is the only avenue for its defeat. If this idea is forgotten, the RIAA wins. Everyone else loses.
That having been said, I do enjoy watching slashdotters squirm in their pants when accused of hipocrisy.
I don't get this ceaseless talk about hipocrisy. The people who read this forum should know that there are as many many opinions (at least) as there are slashdotters. Yet som posters seem to think that slashdot has some kind of united voice and that it is hence suspicious whenever it is caught in a selfcontradiction.
Let the correction of misguided statements like this begin ... now
Show me the proof. Show me something beyond filenames and IP addresses, which is what both articles appear to be implying is the main source of evidence for billing these people. Filenames alone don't cut it. If I'm missing something else here in these articles, by all means, someone correct me, but I have not seen any definitive statements that anyone looked at the actual digital content.
I am not naive enough to think that NOBODY was pirating copyrighted material. But before you go convicting someone without a trial (which is what this organization is essentially doing by simply billling them). Screenshots of filenames on people's drives constitutes proof? Bullshit.
Here, how about this? I'll create a directory on my drive. Let's call it "/home/stwrtpj/al_qaeda_plans". Now let's copy some files in there from other directories, but lets give these files name like, oh, I don't know "plot_to_kill_george_w", "destroy_america", "smite_the_infidels", aaaaand "plans_to_blow_up_hoover_dam". Now let's take a screenshot of Gnome's file manager proudly displaying those filenames. So does this mean I'm a terrorist? Does this give anyone the right to pursue civil or criminal charges against me? No. "plot_to_kill_george_w" could contain a freaking grocery list for all you know.
So, no, Slashdotters are not going to be hypocrites for the most part. I for one am not. Show me the proof of what they are allegedly doing and I'll be the first to agree that some restitution is in order. Until then, all you have are filenames and supposition.
Karma: Frotzed (mostly due to the Frobozz Magic Karma Company)
with a shareware demo, the install would be decently huge, and adobe would have to host that file somewhere. with piracy, its all on the p2p networks, so adobe pays no bandwidth costs.
some companies might just say "all we really need is the demo version" or something like that (my school did that with mcafee antivirus). not a smart way to run a business, but many business managers arent very smart about the technical aspects of such things. if you offer no shareware, or a shareware version thats crap, then companies cant do this.
with a shareware version of a product, you would still run the risk of not enough people using your software. they might opt to get something with all the features they need, and learn that, for much cheaper than adobe is prepared to offer. personally, i almost never use shareware, unless its fully functional even if i dont pay (WinZip). seems to me like adobe (and many other software companies) know exactly what theyre doing.
as a programmer, though, im not saying you should be happy people are pirating your stuff. im saying that you should be happy people are pirating your stuff if it means that it will cause your program to become an industry standard, and you can charge 10 to 29 times what you should to businesses who want to use it.
APG monitored the file sharing networks for available files with Danish IP addresses - and went to court to get the users' personal details from their ISPs, armed with screen shots of, for example, the KaZaA window showing the files on the user's hard-drive. The courts obliged and ordered the ISPs to deliver the personal details of the incriminated users. Then the bills were in the post ... landing on the mats of the unfortunate downloaders over the last few days.
There is an epidemic of misuse of the word 'downloader'. They are looking for people who are posting files. If you have no files shared, you are not seen and the only way you would be caught 'downloading' is if you were 'entrapped', by being offered downloads from the Kopyright Kops, if you will. Then they would record your name as you are downloading.
I generally respect the register, but the article is poorly written. This does not have to do with downloading, it has to do with offering your stuff up on the P2P networks for others to download.
Chris...
It does not matter what you do, it's wrong.