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."

Comments

more detailed articles

[flokemon]

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

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

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 copyright by just providing a list of locations that you can find copies of songs. That is like suing the telephone directory publisher, because the list photocopy centres where copies of books can be made/found.

Besides which such a list of locations should be legal, if you have the legal right to those files. Just because people who do not have that right, are able to view the list (and then illegally copy the files) should not make the list itself illegal.

If they are using the album covers as an excuse for copyright infringement (Then talking up the MP3 files, even thought they are being prosecuted for the use of the cover art). Then advertising companies could be in big trouble.

Here's a better link, without the crappy Flash

[core plexus]

Australia shutters music piracy site

DNA based encryption with software developed

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.

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.

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?

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

the copyright act amendment, known as the Digital Agenda

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) content producers.

More specifically, you can check another government site to learn what they interpret copyright infringement as.

I quote from the above: "Infringement of copyright can happen when works - such as paintings, books, computer software, films and music - are reproduced without permission from the copyright owners."

Ignorance of the law is no excuse..

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

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 let the songs go around the P2P netoworks, the music would get similar exposure at a much lower cost.

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.