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.
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
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.
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!
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!
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?
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.
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."
... 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