Aussie Students Face Jail Over Music Sharing Site

An anonymous reader writes "SMH this morning is reporting that three uni students may be jailed for their creation of a music sharing web site. Ok, piracy is not a good thing, but jail is just a tad extreme, don't you think? I hope ARIA (Australian version of RIAA) are pleased with themselves. What burns me about this article is the quote: 'Counsel for the Commonwealth, Paul Roberts, SC, said Ng was well aware he was acting illegally. Not only was the site camouflaged - the web space had been let to him by a teenage boy in Perth - but Ng had co-written an essay for his information technology law course on "open source software licensing."' Not entirely sure what OS licensing has to do with music piracy."

Comments

Hmmm....

[__aavhli5779]

What's interesting is that while Paul Roberts says charles Ng was "well aware he was acting illegally", opinion on the internet seems to be different. I heard a little bit about the story before, and refreshing my mind with the help of Google rendered this choice post from a message board:

A similar fate has been met by a couple of university students/amatuer hip-hop deejays in Australia.

They ran mp3wmaland.net, which was shut down about half a year ago, and they were prosecuted about three months ago and were jailed. The whole story was rather grim ... deejays subpoened at clubs for playing illegal bootlegs, police raids into bedrooms and seizing everything, complete incomprehensibility of the fact they have broken the law and face jail, by the three responsible.

On a final note, I don't think anything really needs to be said about how his paper on "open source software licensing" is somehow evidence of culpability. A hefty roll of the eyes goes out to the genius who thought that up.

because open source guys are smart

[bromba]

On a final note, I don't think anything really needs to be said about how his paper on "open source software licensing" is somehow evidence of culpability.

Just a wild guess, but maybe Roberts just assumed that someone writing an essay about open source licensing must be knowledgeable enough to be aware that sharing copyrighted material without proper permission is a copyrigth infrigement. This just shows that sometimes it is better to be underestimated and considered dumber than in reality ;)

Re:Good

[xenobyte]

He is a theif. He deserves to be in jail.

Hello? - He's charged with breach of copyright, not theft. One is a civil offence, the other a criminal offence. They are not the same.

Get your facts straight, coward. Thank you.

Re:Ng??

[The Cydonian]

Very common Chinese (Cantonese?) surname. Seems to be pronounced "ngg" in Singapore and "nmmm" in Hong Kong.

Mandarin/Cantonese/Hokkien speakers may, of course, correct me on this.

your slightly wrong

[segment]

sharing copyrighted material without proper permission is a copyrigth infrigement.

Section 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A [setting forth copyright owners' exclusive rights and visual artists' artistic rights], the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

2. the nature of the copyrighted work;

3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

This is what I use for my legal disclaimer and you could check out some of the spoofs I've done in the past on CNN, ABCNews, Republicans, etc. (antioffline.com), as well as daily copying copyrighted news. It's public domain. Which from what you state, I gather you're implying that if you photocopy a newspaper you could be sued... You could if you sold it as your own for profit, but not by using it. BTW, my legal mumbo jumbo was written for me by someone in the law field considering the shit I had/have to deal with.

Am I breaking the law copying news?, if you think so, then you are too since you copy it to your machine without permission when it gets cached.

US vs. AU law on fair use

[yerricde]

17 USC 107

Australian fair use is much more narrow than American fair use. Australian copyright law does not grant a broad exception for private copying of audio or time-shifting of television programs the way USA copyright law does (section 1008 for private copying of audio; Sony v. Universal for time-shifting of TV). While the "such as" in the first sentence of 17 USC 107 is interpreted to be illustrative and not limitative, Australian fair use's corresponding language is limitative.

Re:US vs. AU law on fair use

[yerricde]

Are you suggesting then that it is illegal to, for example, record a CD that you have purchased onto a Minidisc for personal use? Or to rip it to MP3 for personal use?

According to this paper published by the Australian copyright office, that's correct: "There is no exception in the Copyright Act that allows copyright material to be reproduced for private purposes without permission from the copyright owner."