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

[phrogeeb]

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

I find it amusing that people assume that there would be no more new music if people weren't getting millions of dollars for making it. I'm not sure if this is what you're assuming, but I'll use this time to rant anyways.

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, without the record industry, would be incredible. It would be written by people who actually have some interest invested in making music.

Down with the RIAA! Stop buying CDs, pirate it off the 'net!

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.

Re:Where's the news value in this?

[velo_mike]

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

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

Different medium, different scale, same concept: I lean out my window and take a photo of the bum who is currently pissing on my building (I hate this city), print some copies and sell them with the agreement that you may display in your home or office or sell the copy you have. That's it, accept it or don't buy it. You like my picture, buy it and proudly display it at home. After a party, your friends admire my photo, take it to kinkos and burn copies for themselves. You've deprived me of the opportunity to sell my photo to those friends and broken our agreement. It's the same as ripping and distributing mp3's. OTOH, If I get my masterpiece displayed at the radio station's annual art fair, 10 people look at it and don't buy it, once again it's failed advertising...

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.

Re:Where's the news value in this?

[maxpublic]

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

By reading this comment, no matter how you came across it, you just became a customer of my company, Original Thoughts Inc.

Pay up, asshole. It's as simple as that.

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.

There is no Constitutional guarrantee asserting ownership over 'intellectual property'. None whatsoever. The only Constitutional mention of anything remotely like this has to do with copyrights, and at no time is 'intellectual property' mentioned or even alluded to. Here's the actual text, from Article 1 Section 8:

"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries"

You will note that the current definition of 'intellectual property' is in no way mentioned. The sole purpose of copyright law is to 'promote the progress of science and the useful arts'; it is not to protect anyone's right to profit, or to harbor a failing business model that can't keep up with the times.

Of course, this has nothing to do with Australia, which is perhaps even more repressive than the United States. But it seems that whatever nonsense the U.S. government promotes the governments of other First World nations are quick to emulate.

Max

What's the news?

[GammaTau]

What's the idea in this news item? That people can get jail time for breaking a law? As long as unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material over internet is illegal, this is a direct consequence. No news, really.

The important issues are when new laws are passed or when business wants to stretch the limits of existing laws. However I see nothing in the article that would suggest either.

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.

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

[confused philosopher]

Right. There is no such thing as a 200 year sentence [in the AU and Canada], stacked up from consecutive jail terms. They only do that in countries where math is a problem, and the death penalty is too backed up.

Re:no fun

[smclean]

It's funny how officials think they should give a few people the maximum sentence to 'act as a deterrent'. That's like saying we should kill 10 jaywalkers a year randomly, and when we do we'll paste their pictures all over the TV, with remorseful family shots, etc. Jaywalking? This is what it gets you!

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.

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.

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:Copyright is a NECESSITY

[Anonymous Coward]

And how is this different today? Small inventors will invariably violate patents. Dragging the major hardware company to court doesn't get them anywhere. The legal costs are astronomical and the best you could hope for is a settlement which doesn't leave you with less than before. Even big businesses admit that they can't ensure that their products don't use others' patents without license. So much for patents.

However, this is a copyright issue. I have a very hard time accepting that I'm supposed to pay twice for the same information if I want to listen to the same music in my car and in my home, or that I am not allowed to use my MP3-player because the information is not available in that format and I am forbidden to convert it myself (would have to circumvent copy-prevention systems to do that -> DMCA). I can also not understand how something which has been created decades ago, which has been milked for every drop of revenue, which has become part of our culture, is still not public domain and probably never will be. It is my belief that people *want* to create, regardless of the economic value. I do value the input of truly creative people and therefore I think they deserve copyright, but if the current copyright system is the result, I'd rather rely on their inherent drive to create.

Re:Copyright is a NECESSITY

[richieb]

Let's imagine a world where there is *no* IP. Making a living as a programmer is no longer viable.

Hardly. Most programmers working today work on customized in house software that would be useless outside their own companies.

You are also mixing up patents and copyrights, they are quite different. At least patents last for only about 20 years. Copyright at the moment last for about 150 years.

The copyright laws have gotten way out of balance. I wouldn't mind such laws if copyright expired after 14 years. Having a 14 year monopoly on distributing a work should be enough.

Here's a better link, without the crappy Flash

[core plexus]

Australia shutters music piracy site

DNA based encryption with software developed

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.

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.

The significance of this is...

[CaptainPotato]

...that several Australian universities have cooperated in handing over the details of students without having to so do. Given that ISPs fight tool and nail to avoid having to so do, they did this without being forced to. As somebody who works at an Australian university (but not one of the ones targetted by the music industry), this is concerning (and, no, not because I pirate music - I don't), especially under the new privacy laws in this country. The privacy of the arrested students - regardless of whether they broke the law - was breached in the first instance by the universities handing over their details without being legally made to so do.

BTW - another article about this can be found here.

Free money for government allies

[joelparker]

This wastes our police, government and courts--
and these MP3 problems get worse every week.

If anyone in public office reads this
and can advocate for better solutions,
send me email and I'll donate to you.

If you feel strongly like I do,
try donating to EFF

Cheers, Joel

Damages

[DreamingReal]

The industry estimates the value of albums downloaded by Web surfers worldwide was between $37 million and $44 million.

The piece of information I want the most at this point is the source of these numbers. Everytime I read these articles and come across figures such as these, I smell bullshit. Are they pulling these numbers out of their arses? Is it fuzzy math? (i.e. one download equals one lost album sale) If it's the latter, I say they need to start producing *real* numbers, and not these mystical figures. IMO, claiming one lost album sale for every download is like charging a retail burglar for the MSRP value of every single item in the store, regardless of whether or not it was actually stolen.

Re:no fun

[Organic_Info]

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

Not really, how many people belive it will not happen to them? Look at smoking, the packects say on them "these things will kill you and give you cancer" but people still keep on doing it.

Up the percentage killed and over a (shorter) period of time people that are inclined to jaywalk will be removed from the gene pool thus a form of darwinian(sp?) natural selection will prevail reducing the number of jaywalker/stupin people.

This would scale well to other situations...

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

Re:better start deleting..

[fruey]

Yes! No one ever bought a movie to watch it once and let it collect dust afterwards.

This is a misnomer. The DVD medium lends itself to kneejerk buying : it's a movie your friends may have raved about, it has special features. You buy it because it's about 10-15 bucks, and then you watch it once, don't enjoy it, and indeed it does gather dust. Or, you're a business traveller and you want something to watch on the plane, you impulse buy a DVD that looks OK at the airport in 5 minutes as you rush to get to the gate, to watch on your laptop. You never watch it again.

I have done all of this. Half my DVD collection is unlikely to be watched again. Indeed, I would never have bought VHS tapes the same way, because I never had a portable VCR... but I have a laptop with DVD, a PC with DVD, and a home DVD player. Add to that quality, nicer form factor, special features that may make the DVD as a whole more valuable than just as a movie. And of course let us not forget that we can watch a particular scene and freeze it really well, just to see if there was indeed a hint of beaver in that sex scene ;-)

Add in special features and extra content, and you have DVDs that you might buy (especially if you have a reasonable income) on a whim.

Now, the scary thing with mp3 / DivX (why have I seen no articles about DivX and mpeg traders?) is that there are students being taken to court, fined and jailed. Students don't have much of a disposable income, and are bound to be ahead on the technology curve. I don't understand why they're being persecuted, because they are the ULTIMATE consumers of the future. Sure, I've downloaded the odd movie, but I'm in an income bracket now where a couple of DVDs per month is going to be par for the course for a long time. A lot of my friends, graduated say over 5 years ago, also have big DVD collections.

Banks, restaurants, brandnames for clothes, dead tree publishers... these have all been known to give students breaks in order to keep them when their income starts coming in. This is the mistake the record industry is making, because they are missing the whole point. Students have always bootlegged, borrowed and stolen music. I can't quite understand it. The regular consumers are NOT doing this. It really screws with my mind to see this kind of intellectual property fascism. Consumerism is not the be all and end all of the whole world economy, let's hope that sooner or later a bit of clemency starts to happen especially, I have to say, in the US (by virtue of its being the biggest, most hardcore consumer economy in the whole world).

sent to jail instead of being sued

[QuantumG]

Imagine if the headline read "Aussies Face Jail Over Slander". It really is a scary prospect! Slander is a civil matter and cannot result in criminal action being taken against the defendant. Copyright infringement is also a civil matter, but recent changes in law have criminalised certain acts which facilitate copyright infringement (such as the creation of circumvention devices) and it is probably this that the three in question have been charged with. This is "news" in that it is unprecidented for someone to face jail time for simple copyright infringement in Australia, but its probably just bad reporting.

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.

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.

Copyright is only one possibility

[iamacat]

Let's say there is no IP, but there is no program that satisfies my needs. There is however a website that says I can put down $100 and either get a program with specified feature list within 6 months or get $110 back. If the price and "interest" are chosen correctly, I will be motivated to invest if and only if I need the software. Freeloaders will be able to use the software, but they will not get any customer support unless they buy it, and they will not be compensated for waiting. In the same spirit, manufacturers of "cheap knockoffs" will chip in to produce innovations. Or, fans of an artist will pay him/her to record a song.

Sure, this system has it's own problems. For example, some independent expert will be needed to verify that the new program fulfills the promise made to investors. Or, companies would have to establish their reputation. But the current patent/copyright system has problems as well.

Basically, without IP rights, inventors or engineers will still be compensated for their innovation, but the amount will drop off over time and nobody will be able to live off 20 year old inventions. They would have to keep innovating. The result could well be better for an average user/listener/consumer.

What next?

[jthorpe]

Living in Australia, I wonder how long it will be before the partially Government owned Telstra discovers that I've been downloading DeCSS (for playing DVDs I actually owned) and send police to lock me up in jail for 5 years.

Makes me sick when there are people who are actually comitting crimes that harm people and society aren't even getting jail terms.

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?

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.

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: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:no fun

[aarondyck]

I'm inclined to object to you on this point. While jaywalking is indeed illegal, it is not illegal to smoke. Many smokers started smoking far before they realized the negative effects (be it the social realization or personal realization). To further this point, nicoteine is ADDICTIVE and jaywalking is not. Should it be necessary, I could stop all jaywalking activities. I could stop all file swapping activities. Smoking, however, is physically addictive and is not quite so easy to stop. Sure it can be done, but it is not an easy process, painful for most. I could stop all music piracy in a second, if I thought there was a serious chance of going to jail for it, but realistically there is almost zero chance of that happening for me. I live in Canada where US copyright laws do not apply and Canadian copyright laws are only enforced on a corporate level. When was the last time you heard of an individual being thrown in jail or fined for copyright violation?

Even the 'entertainers' download the music

[Ambush]

Until recently I was working at a Melbourne company (ie; in Australia) run by a very well known entertainment industry celebrity. When fixing his computer I noticed he had quite a swag of mp3's which his secretary said he routinely downloaded from the various sites.

Not that it means anything I suppose, but it's amusing how blatantly obvious it is that it's not the entertainers (singers, etc) but rather the **AA who are out for blood.

I wonder what would happen if one of their own were found to have a collection of unlicenced music. Any bets on if it would even see the light of day?

Re:no fun. Germans

[panurge]

In Germany, people never used to jaywalk. They waited religiously for the Grüne Mann. Then one day in Munich I was crossing the road with a guy who had recently left East Germany, literally the day the Wall came down. He marched out into the traffic. People blew horns. I shouted at him to come back. He replied "Hitler and Stalin were possible because people behaved like sheep. Germans must learn not to be sheep!"

And that's the answer to the likes of the RIAA. Laws are supposed to reflect the beliefs of society in general, not special interest groups. If society believes that the present copyright laws are a mistake, people must not behave like sheep.

Super...

[clambake]

So, take productive, tax paying, probably highly trained (computer geeks tend to be the biggest mp3 collectors) members out of your society, along with whatever money and goods they would be contributing back to the economy, and spend lots of additional money to store them in prision. Don't forget the fact that they will have a hell of a time finding work once they get out, couple that with the intensive criminal training they will receive by associating with known felons, and the end result is that you not only decimate your economy, but you breed a clan of highly intelligent uber criminals who would like nothing better but to run the state even further into the ground. Yeah, sounds like a plan. At least the RIAA will have enough money to hire 24/7 body guards to protect them when the world decends into anarchy... Well, at least until one of those newly trained bad guys gets his home made rail gun up and running...