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.

31 of 643 comments (clear)

  1. Ex-wife by johnraphone · · Score: 5, Funny

    Sounds alot like my ex-wife.

  2. 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)

  3. Whoa... by c0dedude · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If this organization isn't government sponsored, this sounds a lot like blackmail. I mean, pay or we'll sue? Who'll they have to go to? The big record companies, so pay up or we'll turn you over. And what guarantees does anyone have they won't turn around and sue anyway?

    --
    Since when has this country used intellectual elite as a pejorative term?
  4. 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?

  5. Well.. by dj28 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is exactly what the majority of slashdotters have been screaming for. Go after the abusers rather than the technology. It'll be interesting to see what the comments on this thread will be like. Let this hypocrisy begin... now.

    1. 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!
  6. 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.

  7. 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?

  8. 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."

    2. Re:This is dangerous by ebyrob · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Gee nice flame

      Thanx, guess that's better than a "shabby" flame.

      why is it that everybody else here seems to agree that one of the issues is theft?

      Maybe because those who take the time to think about what they say have less time left over to hit the "submit" button?

      So if copyright infringement in this case is not stealing, why is it not?

      Because data is not the same thing as material goods. There are numerous dialogues on this topic. Here is one easy list to remember on a related topic. The gist is that having copied a peice of data, I have not in any way diminshed the original data. It is quite plain that copying a file off of your hard-drive is very different than taking a beer out of your fridge and drinking it. In drinking a beer I've lowered your beer count by one. In copying a file I diminish your data count by none.

      Okay, so data is different than physical objects. But what does stealing mean?

      ----From dictionary.com----
      v. stole, (stl) stolen, (stln) stealing, steals
      v. tr.

      1. To take (the property of another) without right or permission.
      2. To get or effect surreptitiously or artfully: steal a kiss; stole the ball from an opponent.
      3. To move, carry, or place surreptitiously.
      4. To draw attention unexpectedly in (an entertainment), especially by being the outstanding performer: The magician's assistant stole the show with her comic antics.
      5. Baseball. To advance safely to (another base) during the delivery of a pitch, without the aid of a base hit, walk, passed ball, or wild pitch.
      ---------------------

      Clearly sense 1 applies here, but in the case of copyright infringement what is owned by the copyright holder (exclusive right to authorize copies) is only partially subsumed. The infringer does not put their name on the registered copyright document and begin sueing others for infringement (that would be plaguerism, which is much closer to stealing), they merely disregard the exclusive granted right.

      What *is* stealing?
      1) Breaking, entering and leaving with physical goodies.
      2) Credit card fraud.
      3) Pretending to work on company time. (like posting to slashdot for instance)
      4) Lieing on income tax returns.

      What *isn't* stealing?
      1) Trespassing. Land, has many characteristics in common with other physical property. And yet, occupying that land without permission is not considered stealing. It is trespassing. Stealing the land would require taking full ownership, not just partial unauthorized use.

      Looking over this list, it's plain that copying data without permission (copyright infringement) is very different than other activity associated with "stealing". If anything it has more in common with trespassing, another activity that only affects part of a property right. But even trespassing deals in limited physical goods whereas copyright deals with unlimited logical goods.

      Because of this and similar issues, copyright and property laws have very seperate paths of evolution. Even today, you would not go into court being unsure whether you were charged with stealing a physical good or infringing on another's right to copy.

      This isn't to say copyright infringement is "okay" or that it is not a crime. Merely that it is not the same thing as stealing. It also doesn't imply that wielding teams of lawyers and a weighty judicial system against "joe sixpack" to squeeze more cash out of him is a morally agreeable or ethically defensible activity.

      This is to say copyright infringement is not the same as stealing. It also implies the motivations of anyone pushing the infringement=stealing notion are suspect.

      Be specific please.

      You asked for it!

  9. Well at least... by blenderfish · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...now we know what Step 2 is.

    Step 3: Profit!

  10. what if..... by ejaw5 · · Score: 5, Informative

    In the instructions made to install Kazaa (Full)without adware (cydoor, et al), one of the things to do was to delete the ~/KaZaa/db folder and replace that with a dummy file by opening notepad and saving a blank file as "db" (no extention). As a result of this, all downloaded files in (~/Kazaa/My Shared Files) would appear to have "failed" in Kazaa, and the downloaded files would remain in their *.dat files. It would also NOT include them in your list of files shared. You'd then have to rename the files with extentsions before exiting Kazaa or else you'd lose them.

    So...if you want to download on P2P you could probably take these measures and be okay

    --

    $cat /dev/random > Sig
  11. Re:screen shots != great proof by Loki_1929 · · Score: 5, Informative

    "3) which family member used the computer?"

    This isn't like a motor vehicle; the person who owns the ISP account is responsible for how it's used. This is why a company can be liable for its employees' copyright infringment.

    --
    -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
  12. Blank mp3s by Zemran · · Score: 5, Funny

    I think this is the most brilliant piece of marketting yet. First they jam up P2P with blank mp3s to put people off using P2P and then they send those people a bill for accepting the blank mp3. $10 for a loop of nothing?

    Do they have a copyright on the blank loop? If not I think I should hurry up and copyright it :)

    --
    I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
    1. Re:Blank mp3s by Jester99 · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's only copyrighted if it's 4:14 in length. :)

    2. Re:Blank mp3s by TeknoHog · · Score: 5, Informative

      Don't you mean 4:33?

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
  13. Good on them! by Noose+For+A+Neck · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I'm glad to see that somebody out there is going to punish the P2P abusers. Pirates are giving P2P a bad name.

    For example, I'm in a small, unsigned punk band. We distribute our music over P2P because it is a lot cheaper than getting webspace to host stuff and paying for bandwidth. But right now, we have to compete with all these ultra-shitty, ultra-popular bands like Metallica and Jon Bon Jovi for the eyes and ears of P2P users. On top of that, it gives us a bad name. People look at me funny when I say we distribute our music on KaZaA, like I'm some kind of criminal.

    When we clean out the abusers and criminals from P2P and let the real people, the small-time, unsigned artists, get exposure, then we will have won. And I won't shed a single tear for these people who are fucking it up for the rest of us.

    --

    Software piracy is victimless theft.

    1. Re:Good on them! by corby · · Score: 5, Funny

      ...Jon Bon Jovi for the eyes and ears of P2P users. On top of that, it gives us a bad name.

      I hear you, dude. It's almost like Bon Jovi's been shot in the heart, and you're to blame.

  14. 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
  15. 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.

  16. Re:No it isn't by Rick+the+Red · · Score: 5, Informative
    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.
    Did you RTFA? They are going after the people who downloaded the files, not those who served them. The servers could be in a country with no copyright laws (and thus legal); they don't care about the servers, they're going after the downloaders. Hell, for all we know these clowns ran the servers (would that be entrapment?)

    Of course, as others have pointed out: 1) These guys are not the copyright holders and thus have no standing to demand payment, and 2) They have no proof that these are illegal copies. But what do they care? If I wasn't encumbered with ethics, I might try this scam myself. Then again, if I wasn't encumbered with ethics I'd be spamming you all with ads to my porn sites.

    --
    If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
  17. Killing the internet by theolein · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I don't download stuff from Kazaa, Gnutella or even Limwire because I don't have them installed on my computer for one, and don't have the time to do this. But I must say that when I read things like some big organisation suiing the hell out of some teen or twenty year old (for whom $14000 is a hell of a lot of money) then I realise why I dislike the internet more and more. I remember working in an internet agency in the napster days where my coworkers downloaded about 200 Gigs of CD's in a couple of months and nobody really cared. Those were young guys who didn't really have the money to spend on dozens of originals, and they were fun, nice people and we had a good time listening to good music while coding websites for our soon-to-be-bankrupt agency. The net was fun and interesting. There were thousands of interesting sites and nobody was all too worried.

    With the crash of the internet boom and the lack of cash, it seems as if all the ugliest bunch of greedy scum has crawled out of the woodwork to try and resttrict peoples lives and freedom so that they can rape them for as much money as possible. Christ it's like big brother in 1984. They watch everything you do, strip you of all your privacy and then have the fucking balls to pretend to be righteous about it as well.

    Perhaps some time we'll have the last laugh...

  18. This is one of the guys..... by TomMajor · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is one of the people presued by the APG. He calls himself Siffan and he runs a danish website. Unfortunately his website: http://www.siffan.dk/ is mainly in danish.
    He has written his version of events that happen when the APG came with the courtorder.

    In short, it goes something like this: The APG came with a courtorder to see if he had an eDonkey-server up and running on his computer. They tell him he has the right to a lawyer and the presens of the police. He tells them that there is not running an edonkey server, but ther was some time ago...

    The AGP has an "IT-man" with them... he is allowed to look at the computer to see if there is a server running (according to the courtorder) He agrees with Siffan, but then he browess through his harddrive and finds illegal software and mp3 files... Siffan was not comfertable with this,and points out that most of the mp3s are legal copies of his own cds. but agrees that he has illegal stuff on his computer and desides to be cooperative. Now AGP wants to take his computer with them. Siffan now says he wants a laywer, he is not able to get one a the pressent time, but the APG will not delay the case to the next day. So it ends with the APG straling off with his computer and some cd's.

    The next day a lawyer representing the APG calls him and ask him to give up his right to have the case tested in a civil court or he will sue him within 14 days.

    That is about it. It's late and I'm tired... But I hope you find this intresting.

    --



    Ask me no questions, and I'll tell you no lies...
  19. It'll never work by grundie · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What I see happening here is a classic example of scare one and the rest will follow. I don't know much about Danish law, but I will assume it is roughly similar to other European countries. If all they have to go on is screen grabs of files names, then the don't have a leg to stand on, like the expert said without access to the alleged offenders computer they are largely unable to prove the case.

    Also consdider where the files came from. If they have screen grabbed an image of what is in someones share list, all that proves is they have a file called 'such and such' on that users HD. If the user downloaded a file from another user and APG had some way to monitor that, then that probably breaches all sorts of privacy and computer misuse laws. But, if the user had downloaded the files from computers belonging to AntiPiratGruppen then you are getting in to the realms of entrapment, plus you must ask if AntiPiratGruppen wasn't breaching copyright itself. All this is speculation, but it leads me on to an important point.

    It is certain some of these 150 so called 'Pirates' will pay up. They might not pay the full amount, they may negotiate a lower price and it will be because they are scared of what AntiPiratGruppen may or may not do to them. Once one person pays up APG will shout that fact from the roof tops and it will no doubt have the effect of scaring others in complying with the wishes of RIAA/BSA/FACT etc and leave P2P well enough alone. Effectively they will be using bully boy tactics to succeed. Regardless of your view on the legality and morals of P2P, you must admit this is a not a good thing as it sets a dangerous precident if it works.

  20. Screenshots? by grub · · Score: 5, Interesting


    Any defense lawyer worth his weight in golfballs would demand proof that the screenshot was not doctored with a graphics editting program.

    --
    Trolling is a art,
  21. 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."
  22. 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!