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

Now I know this is hard to hear

[NicotineAtNight]

But people have to produce the songs that you're listening to for free.

Now I know that you might think that the companies involved are scummy or evil, but remember - if we didn't have the legal frameworks in place that we do, then the evil companies would do a lot more than overcharge you.

You'd be their slaves.

Re:Now I know this is hard to hear

[Anonymous Coward]

The riaa's handling of this issue is compounding the problem. Until the lawsuits against napster this wasnt even close to maintstream, napster would be a fledgling startup and this problem would have never got to this level.

I personally will NOT buy ANY cd's anymore and heres why. 1) i can get it free (yes its theft) 2) I LOATHE the riaa and dont feel remorseful stealing from them because they steal rediculous amounts of money from artists and fuck over civil rights, corrupt poloticians and just generally act seedy for profit.

That being said. I do own cd's from labels that are not part of the riaa.. (Swolen members for one)

Finally mp3'in isnt the massive problem the recording industry wants to pretend it is... Their market share is ever increasing... Every year they sell more cd's etc. This isnt a problem. However it is scape goat for their underperformance and inability to produce GOOD music.

Everything today is so manufactured, manipulated and generally screwed up (american idol) that its not even real anymore (britney spears)... DSP, Marketing, Lies, Lawsuits... Do i want to give these guys my business...

Answer: HELL NO!

Re:Now I know this is hard to hear

[velo_mike]

Music was around a long time before record labels. Moreover, when music is driven by the dollars that it brings in, it tends to suck. I would have absolutely no problem with the record industry coming crashing to earth and half of the crappy musicians in the industry having to get real jobs because they can no longer live off the royalties.

Music has historically been tied to money and sponsorship. Today it's the record labels, yesterday they were court musicians, royal composers, or were tied to the church. Brahms, Bach, Beethoven and their peers are remembered but what about the "independants" of their day? Guess I don't really have a point other than this isn't new, musicians have been selling their souls forever...

Re:Now I know this is hard to hear

[maxpublic]

In case you haven't noticed, you missed two relevant points:

(1) laws like these apply only to the powerless. This is why two college students were chosen, rather than some upper management PHB (many of whom are some of the worst offenders, from my anecdotal observations).

(2) In America whoever has the money makes the laws and decides how they're applied. Shitting all over the Constitution is perfectly acceptable if you're rich enough to push for such legislation.

In effect, we *are* their slaves. They get to decide what laws are passed and how they're enforced, and against whom. It's subtle, but it sure as hell ain't freedom or democracy any which way you slice it.

Max

Re:Now I know this is hard to hear

[0ptix]

but there is a difference between being a multimillionar and makeing a living! musicians alwasys made a living. but they werent always some the richest people in society! thats the problem i have with the industry as its set up now. things have been scewed out of proportion.

Where's the news value in this?

[NewtonsLaw]

Perhaps I'm missing something here but how does this differ from a story with the headline:

Liquor Store Robbers Face Possible Jail Term

If these guys did actually break the law, and if the maximum penalty is jail, then this is no different to thousands of other cases before the courts -- except perhaps that the law involves the protection of intellectual property.

Move along people, there's nothing to see here.

Re:Where's the news value in this?

[pantropik]

I guess I'll play devil's advocate ...

Consider the following two items:

1) I am not a customer of the music industry. Even if I'd never heard of an mp3 I would not buy music. Period.

2) Stealing, by definition, means taking something from another without permission. The core idea is that by taking this item, you deprive the rightful owner of the item of its use and value.

Now, assuming point one is true -- that I'd never buy music -- then my downloading mp3s is taking nothing from anyone. In that case I'm not downloading music INSTEAD of buying it, I'm downloading it just because it's there. If it wasn't there and "free" I'd just do without.

So we get to point two. Let's say I come to your house and you have your dead mother's Harvard degree hanging on the wall. I take it. You'd be justifiably angry. But what if I just took a picture of it? Then we both have a copy. What if I stole your car? That'd suck. What if I somehow duplicated it without inconveniencing you in any way? I doubt you'd care unless you're just a big meanie.

It's not as if I download an mp3 and it's MINE MINE MINE and only mine ... no one has been deprived of anything if I never intended to buy the CD anyway.

My roommate downloads songs all the time. Then he buys the CD if he likes the music and there's not too much crappy filler material ... who wants to pay $17 for 3 good songs and an hour of crap you'll never listen to? Not every good song becomes a single, after all. Maybe the industry should look into letting people download legal tracks and make their own CDs without filler crap that they'll never listen to and don't want to pay for ... and make the price reasonable. Sounded good up until that last part, huh?

And what if he buys a CD and HATES it? Can't take it back after it's been opened, that's a no-no. So he downloads the stuff, listens, and decides based on that whether to get the CD (he was way over a hundred, compared to my zero -- I'm just not a music person).

I bet there are a lot more people like him (and like me) than there are people who "steal" just for the fun of it. The music industry MAKES money because he "steals" music. If the music industry would get with the times and stop waging war against its customers ... well, I doubt it would stop piracy, but it certainly couldn't hurt.

Re:Where's the news value in this?

[RajivSLK]

Perhaps I'm missing something here but how does this differ from a story with the headline:

Liquor Store Robbers Face Possible Jail Term

Yes you are missing something.

It is common place for robbers to be sent to jail. However, this is new. Australian teens facing jail for mp3s related crimes is ground breaking.

Your missing something else. You fail to take into account the spirit of the law. In most countries, when a law is applied, not only is the letter of the law considered but the spirit as well. Was it this law's intention to target and prosecute small infractions (such as teens trading mp3s or people recording radio shows and sharing them with friends)?

Additionally, there is the matter of public policy. In many cases public policy out weighs the techinical implications of the law. Generally it is against public policy to enforce a law that would deem a large percentage of the population criminals.

You must realise that the law is not a set of rules that can be executed like a computer program. The law is open to interpertation by reasonable minds. Simply applied to the letter, the law (in any country), would land most of us in jail.

Re:Where's the news value in this?

[benjiboo]

I am not a customer of the music industry. Even if I'd never heard of an mp3 I would not buy music. Period. [....] Now, assuming point one is true -- that I'd never buy music -- then my downloading mp3s is taking nothing from anyone

That's BS. By *listening* to these records, no matter how you obtain them, you are a customer of the record industry. Regardless of whether or not you would have bought them, you have had the use out of the item *without* paying. If you want use of something, even if it's in your opinion sub standard, you have to pay by law. Simple as that. (Though I'd say that this is a valid argument against the we lose $n billion/year in piracy.)

It's not as if I download an mp3 and it's MINE MINE MINE and only mine.

Just because something is intangible it doesn't make the law any less applicable. In fact, in this situation these laws should be more rigourously enforced. The Legal process is the only way these companies have to protect their intellectual property. Likewise, people seem to throw it around that these companies are evil monoliths. Again, it's just that the smaller IP companies (software houses, publishers & independant record labels) don't have the financial clout to protect their intellectual property, rather than some philanthropic need to give away their only assets.

Re:Where's the news value in this?

[richieb]

While you're correct, the act of listening to mp3's doesn't steal from anyone? Distributing those mp3's, however, does break US copyright law. If one copy of the song was purchased and 10 copies have been distributed, isn't that 10 copies that may have been sold?

Maybe yes, maybe no. If ten people listen to the song on the radio and don't buy the CD is that theft too?

If I drive a small car, instead of an SUV, am I stealing from the oil companies? After all I only buy 10 gallons of gas, instead of 30?

Re:Where's the news value in this?

[Sunnan]

By listening to these records, no matter how you obtain them, you are a customer of the record industry.

That would be a very scary world. I walk into a café and they have the latest pop song on - I'm all of a sudden a "customer" of the record industry, owing them something. When I read that taxi drivers in Finland need to pay royalties for the music their clients hear in the car, it scares me.

How long do the tentacles of ownership stretch?

The very principle of intellectual property is insidious in and of itself, since it's dealing with a lot more abstract concepts. We don't generally allow people to claim ownership of air, right? And the air isn't even copyable.

Information and knowledge, especially in digital form, can be copied at next to no cost. Having an economic system that negates, practically forbids, that very real advantage should be looked upon with great caution.

It's odd that people don't find these discussions more tiring. Every time a news story like this is posted, we don't get reactions to the story itself, rather people (of both positions in the question) start to discuss the validity of, or necessity for, a strong concept of intellectual property.

I think it's pretty scary that mere samizdat is yet again punished by deprivation of physical freedom - this time in a so-called "free country". The information - in this case music - does not appear to be something that's destructive or harmful, and reproduction of it has plenty of positive effects for most people, the only exception possibly being the record industry itself.

Hmm, looks like it's 5 years total

[joeflies]

After a quick browse of that article, it looks like the penalty is a fixed number instead of charging per incident. In which case, wouldn't it be overprosecuting small time users with a liberal sense of copyright law, and underprosecuting the real pirates (i.e. manufacturing and distributing copyrighted material)?

Of course, it's not clear what side of the fence the accused stand on.

Re:Hmm, looks like it's 5 years total

[TheMidget]

In which case, wouldn't it be overprosecuting small time users with a liberal sense of copyright law, and underprosecuting the real pirates (i.e. manufacturing and distributing copyrighted material)?

... and it would also encourage users to continue, even after caught. Indeed, continuing will not make the penalty any worse, as number of incidents does not come into play.

Re:Hmm, looks like it's 5 years total

[spasm]

*Maximum* 5 years. Australian law only describes maximums; judges are free to interpret circumstances and context and assign penalties *within* a range 0-maximum.

Those readers from countries other than the US (or other third world dictatorships) may be familiar with the concept.

Maximum penalties

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

The five-year sentence, I would hope, is for people running large-scale commercial knockoff operations.

The interesting question is whether they did anything to attract attention, or whether someone's just trying to find someone to make an example out of.

Don't do the crime

[Dot.Com.CEO]

if you can't do the time.

By downloading music you don't own you break the law. Just because people think they have the right to listen to music for free it doesn't mean it has to be that way. I don't understand what the fuck this has to do with "your rights online". Privacy, I understand. Spam, I understand. Spyware, I understand. But what right are we talking about? Kazaa leeching? Give me a fucking break.

Go on, mod me a troll. I don't give a shit, I've had it with listening to the constant whining of a handfull of people who cannot understand the basics of "stealing music".

Re:Don't do the crime

[ninthwave]

I agree with everything you said except for one point. I miss having radio stations that played a variety of music. It is hard to find new songs I download listen and buy if I like. I use it like the radio. I don't see that action as criminal because I am an active cd buyer. Though the way the law is written it is. I think my problem with the attack on mp3s is the control on the release of music by the record industries has become so strong that the variety of music is suffering on the airwaves, so to hear new things out of the pop mainstream you have to search a bit. Internet radio is great, followed by net downloading to find the version of the song you are looking for which is then followed by a hunt for the cd or a delete this rubbish option for me. I just can't see what is wrong with my use of it like that. Granted what is stated here is stealing but again the law is so rigid I am stealing under it. And I can not accept that not because I want free music but because I want the promise of captialism to offer consumers more choice to actually do that and offer me more choice while in the record industry it seems to be doing the opposite and offering my less.

Copyright is a NECESSITY

[Michael's a Jerk!]

All the slashbots constantly whinge about how copywrite is wrong, patents are obsolete. Let's imagine a world where there is *no* IP. Making a living as a programmer is no longer viable. The whole field of software development will grind to a standstill. Do you think patents stiffile inovation? Imagine a world where if you invent something really cool, all the major hardware companies will mass-produce cheap knockoffs within weeks. You have no incentive to design at all. Companies will grow ever larger. IP might be a bad thing, but it's the lesser of 2 evils.

Re:better start deleting..

[Negatyfus]

Congratulations on the most obvious troll for the day!

I agree to some extent that it's not very ethical to be sharing mp3's on your fave p2p network. I'm the last one to scream "but it can be used for good, too!" We all know what the primary purpose is. Fact remains, times are changing.

P2p file sharing isn't going away. And I perceive that as a good thing.

Information availability has been upped a few notches and now I can quickly access music and movies that before I could only dream of. I'm talking non-commercially available stuff. Will I have to wait before someone decides to release a DVD box set (that is very much over-priced)? No, but will I buy it if I deem it a valuable addition to my collection? Yes! No one ever bought a movie to watch it once and let it collect dust afterwards.

This whole situation is called evolution. It happens and no one can do anything about it, no matter how hard they try. Some victims will fall, but in the end, the majority will benefit the most. No, I don't see mp3 file sharing as a severe crime punishable by jail time. That's just a shock-and-awe tactic that will get the music industry nowhere. They think "set an example!" and don't think in terms of human beings. What do they care? As long as they get out the message that they want. A person's life does not matter, nor does it matter that possibly this offender will fall victim to more severe crimes because of his social decline. If anything is criminal, this is it.

The people will continue buying. Maybe a little less than before, but that may be for the better. Too much of anything is simply too much. Step off your high horse and see things in perspective. This is just an over-reaction and it's painfully obvious.

Re:Don't do the crime - price fix monopoly abuse

[joelparker]

I don't understand what the fuck this has to do with "your rights online"

I'll sketch a quick picture for you:

1. Massive global corporations refuse
repeated requests by their own customers
for convenient ways to download and pay.

2. Instead, these corps collude to fix prices,
impede unsigned artists from radio airplay,
bury studies showing that MP3 helps artists,
and sue alternative distributors into oblivion.

3. These corps lobby for draconian DMCA laws,
push for spyware and denial-of-service attacks,
force police and DAs to criminalize MP3 trades,
use subpoenas and search warrant techniques,
and seek terrible shock-and-awe punishments.

4. Many governments call this monopoly abuse,
for a wide range of probable legal reasons.

5. P2P overcomes this monopoly abuse,
even as it enables copyright violations.

So I think the answers are less obvious
than "don't do the crime" like you said.
There are legal twists and turns to this.
Cheers, Joel

this *is* news

[Unominous Coward]

Whoever says that this isn't newsworthy, just remember that the philosophy being employed in the arrest of these teenagers is spreading to other parts of the world.

It would set a very bad precedent if these kids were jailed.

Re:no fun

[DZign]

If you knew that there was a small chance that the police would kill you for it, would you stop doing it?


This thinking is wrong.. yes if there is only a small chance then people would still do it,
thinking it'd be someone else who'll get caught.

What you get when you put too harsh punishments is that people who break the law, will act more violent and try not to get caught. If the punishment for something feels too high compared to more severe act for which you get punished less, people may commit the other crimes too.

I.e. if a burgler gets caught and he knows he'll get life imprisonment for this, he will do everything to escape, including killing who's trying to bust him. If he gets away by killing someone, good for him (and bad for our society as we now created a murderer), if he kills but gets caught, he still gets life imprisonment, so he didn't loose anything by killing someone..

5 years for some mp3's ? You might as well defend your pc with your shotgun and make sure no
police gets near it.. or better, be a drunk driver and run over the kids of those who voted this law, and you probably get less than 5 years..

I agree with financial punishments - you stole the mp3s, now you pay (double, triple, ..) for all of them. But putting people in prison for years is imo wrong, certainly compared to the severe things one could do and be punished less.

I thought the times that people were put to jail for stealing bread were over..

Re:Don't do the crime - price fix monopoly abuse

[Dot.Com.CEO]

??? Ever heard of listen.com? Go there.

Please don't give me stupid arguments about civil disobedience to stupid laws. This is not civil disobedience. It is plain and simple copyright violation. You do have an alternative - RAISE YOUR VOICE. Write letters to the companies you consider to be perpetuating the situation saying "oh well, you know, IF you had a service that allowed me to download unrestricted music for a reasonable price, I'd go there". But no! You go on with the same stupid argument that "there is no place I can legally download music" to justify something that is not only ILLEGAL, but it is also WRONG.

To sum it up, go to listen.com, see the list. I mean, 10000 ALBUMS ON LINE NOT ENOUGH FOR YOU?

Re:My opinion

[richieb]

There have been initiatives to launch pay-per-download services, with no success. Don't try to fool yourself folks! It's not the record companies that block successful services (I mean, there is such thing as free enterprise...), it's the fact that you can get it for free elsewhere that people don't want to pay for downloadable music.

It's not that people don't want to pay - it's that people do not want to be ripped off. I use Emusic.com, which cost $10/month for unlimited MP3, no strings attached, downloads. Because they have lots of music I like (eg. jazz) I'm happy to pay and I get my money's worth.

But if I had to pay $20/month plus $1 per song, plus extra $2 to burn it to CD - that's too much. Plus, if the song went away when I cancelled my subscription - that's a ripoff.

So don't blame the people for not wanting to be ripped off. If you want people to buy stuff, you have to offer something they like at a price they are willing to pay.