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.

14 of 643 comments (clear)

  1. Isn't this what Slashdot has always wanted? by targo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I mean, going after those who actually possess and distribute something that they have not legally purchased? Sounds legitimate to me.

    1. Re:Isn't this what Slashdot has always wanted? by kableh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, I hope every single Danish citizen participates liberally in P2P file sharing networks. It'd be fun to watch the country dissolve into a police state in which normal human behavior is supressed so that a stupid obsolete law can be enforced by the state.

      You mean, like the U.S.?

      (Score: -1, Unamerikan)

  2. Who gets the money? by edashofy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

  3. People are finally starting to "get it" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:People are finally starting to "get it" by OverCode@work · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Though really it's less of a crime. When you don't stop at a stop sign, you endanger the lives of others. MP3 trading never killed anybody.

  4. Think before you post... by mattypants · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

  5. This is dangerous by GreyWolf3000 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    This may set a precedent for allowing big companies to define something as "stealing" and then send a bill. Consider a bill coming from mail.com for blocking their pop-up ads, or from the Cable TV company for not watching commercials (they DO know when you change channels and for how long).

    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.
    1. Re:This is dangerous by dj28 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What? That's how the legal system works. You don't have to pay the bill. You have a choice of either paying the bill for the music you are accused of pirating, or you can take it to court and make them prove that you pirated it. This is no different than a company or individual accusing you of vandalizing property, and then sending you a bill for the damages with a letter attached saying, "Pay up, or we'll sue."

  6. Shortsighted quick readers should not post by Drestin · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Ahh... the hipocracy begins to spue. I thought that P2P had legitimate purposes and that all the legitimate users would love it if the nasty abusers doing illegals things were punished and removed so that nothing would soil the pure clean image of P@P for ... um... legit uses, if we can think of some.

    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?

    1. Re:Shortsighted quick readers should not post by blincoln · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you are not doing anything illegal - you have nothing to worry about!

      Yeah, because legal systems the world over are infallible and cost defendants nothing to participate in. Especially where large multinational corporations and their pseudo-police are concerned.

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
  7. Re:Well.. by Jugalator · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!
  8. Hurrah! by mythosaz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  9. Re:I am an artist, and you WILL pay me. by droopus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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."
  10. clear cut case... by MORTAR_COMBAT! · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... 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!