Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

IFPI 'First Wave' Sues 247 In Europe & Canada

Posted by timothy on from the litigious-society dept.

securitas writes "AP and many others report that the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry - IFPI - has sued 247 accused file-sharers in Germany, Denmark, Italy and Canada as part of an unprecedented, coordinated attack. The IFPI represents the global recording industry through its members - national associations like the IFPIG, DRIA, FIMI, CRIA and RIAA - and says it will launch more international lawsuits in the months ahead. You may also want to read the official IFPI 'first wave' press release/related documents and a statement by the IFPI's chairman and CEO. Lots of coverage at AP/AJC, USA Today, the New York Times, Reuters/CNN Money, ZDNet/CNet, Bloomberg , netimperative and the BBC. The timing of the international legal attacks is especially interesting in light of the recent study that indicates file-sharing has a negligible impact on music sales."

51 of 304 comments (clear)

  1. Phonographic... by Mick+Ohrberg · · Score: 5, Funny

    On first read, I thought it said Pornographic! That has got to be the only media that's probably shared more than music...

    --

    Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.

  2. Ignoring a Common Cause? by The+I+Shing · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Same thing happened to me! When I first looked at the summary of the post, I thought it said "International Federation of the PORNOgraphic Industry"!

    I was like, "Oh, no, they're suing people over sharing porn! What are we going to do?!"

    All kidding aside, I'd really like to see chart showing the so-called "decline" in CD sales displayed alongside the trends in other aspects of the young person's financial life, such as increases in college tuition and the price of textbooks, the price of gasoline at the pump, and sales of designer clothes, video games, and other luxury items. I bet there are correlations all over the place.

    Remember when Bart Simpson encounters the inventor of Spirograph, who glumly points out that there's a direct correlation between the decline in sales of Spirograph toys and the rise in violent crime in our nation's schools?

    I think that the RIAA is using the same kind of logic... CD sales went down as P2P usage went up, therefore P2P usage caused CD sales to go down. I have this cool program on my Mac called "Fallacy Tutorial," which was made by some logic professor, and it lists this type of argument as "Ignoring a Common Cause." The RIAA and its buddies are doing what politicians have been doing for centuries. Go back and look at how Prohibition came into being in 1920, and you'll see how spurious arguments can be used over and over again until a tiny group of overly-influential people (often very wealthy to begin with) get their way.

    --
    You are in error. No-one is screaming. Thank you for your cooperation.
    1. Re:Ignoring a Common Cause? by The+I+Shing · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Prohibition came into being because the wealthy people wanted it?

      Well, of course not all the wealthy people wanted Prohibition, just the ones who were convinced that alcohol was the cause of (and not the solution to, as Homer points out) all of life's problems. I think Henry Ford is a good example.

      The late self-help author Peter McWilliams wrote a wonderful book called Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do, and it has a great chapter on the Prohibition movement, which the author posted online in its entirety before he died, along with all of his other books. Check it out... it's a cautionary tale whose lessons we would do well to review in our present age.

      --
      You are in error. No-one is screaming. Thank you for your cooperation.
    2. Re:Ignoring a Common Cause? by MoonBuggy · · Score: 4, Informative

      The point is that copyright infringement is a crime, and the recording industry associations have the duty to find and prosecute those who commit it. (emphasis mine)

      Why? The recording industry association don't create music, the recording industry association aren't needed to get the music out to the public anymore, the recording industry don't give the settlements to the artists and finally the recording industry lobby the fines up to rediculous amounts that would bankrupt any normal person and then offer to settle displaying that they don't need the fines to be as high as they are (the average settlement is just a few percent of the original charge, if they can afford to carry on this way then the fines are disporportionate) and that they are purely extorting money since nobody can afford to risk the full fine.

      If the artists submitted the songs straight to ITMS, Magnatune, Napster or a similar system they could sell them at half the price and still make a greater amount since the middlemen who take most of the profit are gone. In the past artists couldn't set up CD presses or advertise themselves, but now they just need some studio time and a website - the RIAA and co. are redundant. With this system the artists could also, quite fairly, sue copyright infringers for the value that they deprived the artist of (say $50 per song to account for repeated uploads, and force them to pay legal fees if they loose).

      If there's a gaping hole in this argument feel free to point it out, but I don't see anything that the artists can't do themselves/pay for independently rather than signing their rights to the RIAA's companies.

    3. Re:Ignoring a Common Cause? by RCO · · Score: 2, Insightful
      And the RIAA members would make a lot of money if they embraced the Internet and P2P.


      And they probably will embrace it, right after they have made all the money they can in court. And, while they are dragging everyone through court, it gives them the time to develope their own business plan for the internet and P2P world
      --
      'And all the monkeys aren't in the zoo Every day you meet quite a few...'
    4. Re:Ignoring a Common Cause? by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ``Why? The recording industry association don't create music, the recording industry association aren't needed to get the music out to the public''

      Not _needed_, but it's convenient to have someone to do distribution, marketing, etc. for you. Also, it's practically impossible for artists to detect, not to mention prosecute, every case where their music is illegally performed, distributed, etc. This is why the RIAA and its ilk exist.

      The flaw in the system is that, at least in some countries, the RIAA-equivalent is the _only_ entity allowed to enforce copyrights. This allows them to charge ridiculous fees; they know the artists can't go somewhere else.

      --
      Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
    5. Re:Ignoring a Common Cause? by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Insightful
      what national socialism? Admire the way I avoided Godwins law ;)

      The problem is that most /.'ers probably won't know enough about history to know what National Socialism is -- until you pointed out Godwins law anyway. Then they'll go "Oh yeah! Nazis!"

      I admire both the way you avoided Godwin's Law and the way you used it to convey your point ;)

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    6. Re:Ignoring a Common Cause? by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In fact, it shows the idiocy of how godwins law is used. Calling someone nazi is entirely different from refering to a historical fact. Godwins law should definitely not apply in the later case unless you argue for suppressing information about, and references to a rather nasty but very important little bit of our history.

    7. Re:Ignoring a Common Cause? by BlueStrat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A copy of my post re: "MP3 Sharing Not Serious Threat To CD Sales"

      "I think what the RIAA is really scared of is the fact that P2P distribution might allow an artist to gain fame and make money without going through the "major label system""

      Being a musician (blues guitarist here) myself, I can see the logic to this argument. I've known a couple of bands/artists that had high hopes when they got "signed", only to have their work "deep-sixed" because the label saw their work as possibly taking away from one or more of their "cash-cow", heavily-promoted and marketed artists. I think the real way out here is independent online marketing and sales by the artists themselves, marketing through P2P, and sales through an online service like Taxi or mp3.com. After several decades (I'm 46) of watching the labels screw artists, they couldn't pay me enough to sign with them. Granted, I might not ever get a grammy or a gold/platinum record, but at least I'll have more control of what gets released and when, and a larger chunk of whatever money is made. Plus, it might get a few more butts filling seats at gigs, which is what I live for anyway (there just isn't _anything_ like the feeling of connecting with a live audience, and riding that energy!).

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  3. Re:Damn my dirty mind! by bbrazil · · Score: 4, Funny
    Maybe I need this little thing called a life?
    You're posting on /. By definition...
  4. Someone clue me in here... by oldosadmin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How can they sue file sharers in Canada? I thought they had a media tax to make it legal to share files?

    --
    Jay | http://oldos.org
    1. Re:Someone clue me in here... by Jameth · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Nononono!

      They have a media tax to fuck people over. All it really does is puts money in the pockets of a corporation.

    2. Re:Someone clue me in here... by Zweistein_42 · · Score: 5, Informative

      You can legally _download_ music in Canada - it is covered by the levies we pay on the media (yay!:). You cannot legally _upload_ (i.e. share) music, as that makes you a "distributor" (and thus not covered under any form of personal use). It's the same reason why it is legal (in Canada) for me to borrow your CD and make a copy of it... but NOT for you to copy your CD and give me the copy. Same end result of course, but in first case, I'm copying for my personal use - in the second case, you are distributing something you don't have a right to distribute. IANAL, but I've followed Canadian copyright law for a while - the particular statute is reasonably clear once you understand the distinction between personal use (copying for myself) and distributing (copying or making available to others)

      --
      - To err is human; but to really screw up, you need a computer
    3. Re:Someone clue me in here... by Mordaximus · · Score: 2, Informative

      It is illegal to distribute copyrighted materials. You Can download an mp3, you cannot share an mp3 (Distribution).

      You can make a personal copy of a CD, you cannot make a copy for someone else (Distribution)

      Assume that when they say they are suing file sharers, that they are after those who make the files available...

    4. Re:Someone clue me in here... by Zweistein_42 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It is questionable for you to download music in Canada because the copyright extension only allows for copying from an original source.

      This is incorrect, and in fact the Copyright Board of Canada has specifically clarified that it is only concerned whether a copy of musical audio work is made for personal copy or not. The source is actually irrelevant. (I posted a link in another post in this discussion if you'd like to check the source:))

      As to your assertion that this levy is an attack on freedom, it is debatable. More importantly, while it is an imperfect system, it is (I believe) better then what US has. Public has as much choice in which artist gets $$$ and how much as it ever does - and in fact, the same metric is used (50% sales figures, 50% charts/requests I believe). Regular CD-Rs have much lower levy then designated Audio-CD-Rs (or cassete tapes etc). Meanwhile, for a bargain price, we get much more freedom. If you believe the price itself to be unfair, Copyright Board Canada is taking comments for considerations, and the levies are revised every 1-2 years (all this was found out in this morning's research - it's not that hard:)

      Solution? Boycott these cartels (stop sharing and stop buying) and support Free alternatives.

      I am not sure which "free alternatives" you propose (are we still talking music?). I can only get Sultans of Swing (my favourite song) from Dire Straits - any other alternative would be illegal or imperfect or both :->>>

      --
      - To err is human; but to really screw up, you need a computer
  5. File stealing? by kryptkpr · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "This is our first co-ordinated effort to take this campaign over the range of countries where file stealing is a problem," said Allen Dixon, IFPI's general counsel and executive director.

    Maybe I was asleep, but since when did copyright infringements become known as "file stealing"!?

    These cartels have had it too good for too long.. they're trying to sell us both media, and a license, then claim the license is non-transferrable and the media is non-replaceable.

    In effect, you're being sold a hunk of plastic along with a very limited set of rights as to what you can do with your hunk of plastic. This business model is now crumbling thanks to the Internet, and I say good riddance to them and their Executive Directors.. go back to the dirty holes you crawled out from, and make room for real musicians, that make music for the love of it.. they've have no trouble embracing the 'net as a distribution mechanism.

    --
    DJ kRYPT's Free MP3s!
    1. Re:File stealing? by Shakrai · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Maybe I was asleep, but since when did copyright infringements become known as "file stealing"!?

      It's the same reason Fox News and the Israelis call Palestinian bombers "homicide bombers" instead of the more accepted term "suicide bomber". It's the same reason SCO releases all of their crap. FUD. It's all about the FUD and the marketing with these people. If they can change the mind of John Q. Public they've won -- it doesn't really matter what us geeks think.

      Of course I don't know how you win over the hearts and minds of John Q. Public by suing 12 year old schoolgirls either -- but I'm sure RIAA has people working on ways to spin that in a positive way.

      (Disclaimer: I'm not trolling or trying to start an offtopic discussion about Middle Eastern politics -- just the first example that popped into my head)

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    2. Re:File stealing? by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Does Israel do that too? I thought it was just a Fox News affectation.

      The right-wing Israeli press uses it -- as do some of their politicans. It's probably not as mainstream over there as it is here though (if you can call Fox News mainstream).

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    3. Re:File stealing? by Dana+P'Simer · · Score: 2, Insightful
      "This is our first co-ordinated effort to take this campaign over the range of countries where file stealing is a problem," said Allen Dixon, IFPI's general counsel and executive director.

      Maybe I was asleep, but since when did copyright infringements become known as "file stealing"!?

      Based on the current copyright laws any "copy" that you make, not matter what form it takes, is still covered under the copyright and therefore the property of the copyright holder. You might have a license to make a copy for personal use but you do not own the file that you copied it into. Therefore it is "file stealing".
      These cartels have had it too good for too long.. they're trying to sell us both media, and a license, then claim the license is non-transferrable and the media is non-replaceable. In effect, you're being sold a hunk of plastic along with a very limited set of rights as to what you can do with your hunk of plastic.
      While the "hunk of plastic" is certainly part of the COGS for a CD the purchase price is really just you license fee for being able to listen to the music. The media is replaceable if you copy the data to a back up CD before it is destroyed. The priciples of fair use definately give you the right to backup the licensed content.
      This business model is now crumbling thanks to the Internet, and I say good riddance to them and their Executive Directors.. go back to the dirty holes you crawled out from, and make room for real musicians, that make music for the love of it.. they've have no trouble embracing the 'net as a distribution mechanism.
      Even some of the "real" musicians that make music for the love of it want get paid for it. The only way for them to do so is to have some sort of control over the content. That control can be expressed in law or in restrictions in the media itself. The former is punative and latter preventative. Which would you choose? Let them violate your rights and catch them later or don't let them violate your rights in the first place. Attempting to maintain control over their IP is an obvious action to take.

      You might be right that the industry is changing and that the record companies will be going by the wayside. If that makes you happy, fine. But that does not give anyone the right to steal IP from people who own it.

      Since I am a software engineer I like to draw examples from the Open Source movement. Some of the same people that act like stealing music is justified because of the "evil" record company's behavior would probably vehmently argue for the defense of the GPL were it to be violated. The GPL is strong because copyright law is strong, any errosion of the copyright law in the music industry will affect the GPL as well.

      We can't have it both ways, either IP is protected or it is not.

  6. CCC calls for boycott by Tom · · Score: 5, Interesting

    In reaction, the german Chaos Computer Club (CCC) has called for a boycott: German Page

    This banner with the motto "Industry kills Music" is especially nice. The german text at the bottom translates to "And you are surprised that things are going badly?" and was part of a recent speech at a german music price ceremony where except for one indie band only badly casted, out-of-TV and largely joke-"stars" were on stage.
    Oh, and the big bosses of the german music industry were present. According to news articles, they didn't exactly like being told the truth so bluntly and on live television...

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    1. Re:CCC calls for boycott by WyldThang · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Not only the CCC is acting, even the party "Die Grunen" (part of the governing coalition in germany) started an postcard-initiative against copy-protection on CDs as it infringes the right to make your own copies (which is legal in germany).

  7. Effect of lawsuits on sales. by Yartrebo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I wonder how many sales are being lost because of the negative PR all these lawsuits must bring.

    Personally, I've been boycotting the RIAA member companies for years now, and I have no intention of dropping it any time soon. Music is one of those things that if you don't know the band, you don't desire it. When you get exposed to it, you want more and more of it.

    1. Re:Effect of lawsuits on sales. by Maestro4k · · Score: 4, Insightful
      • I wonder how many sales are being lost because of the negative PR all these lawsuits must bring.
      Even if it could be proven the lawsuits are having a larger negative effect than the perceived downloading has on sales, I doubt the RIAA would stop. They ignore studies which show CD sales have not been majorly effected by downloading (we had a post about that yesterday, and the RIAA just tossed it aside claiming all these studies that had shown a direct-link. The only problem is I believe the RIAA or someone in the recording industry funded the research of all the researchers who found that there was a correlation.)

      It's not like the RIAA is even trying to hide that it's just sue-happy right now. Even people who haven't heard about the whole downloading bruhaha are starting to notice and think the RIAA is a bunch of idiots. That has to be effecting the industry, but does the RIAA even seem to consider the possibility? If they have, they sure don't act like it.

  8. Warez works the same way. by BoomerSooner · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I generally use warez groups to find out about new software or software I didn't know existed. I try it, if it's good I buy it. As a software developer I find it extraordinarily hypocritical that people will steal (illegally copy) software but want others to pay for their offering.

    I would have never purchased the Adobe Design Collection if I hadn't been able to learn to use Photoshop, InDesign and Acrobat Forms first. I have yet to use Illustrator but Freehand is easier for me, and I'm too busy to pick up that old book I bought.

    I have a policy at my company that if you use a piece of software to enhance your productivity and contribute to your job, you will get it. Hell, I've even bought WinRAR, Textpad and VuePrint (which readily have keygen's available).

    This is why I think the "stealing music" slant is bullshit. How are you supposed to hear new music when Clear Channel owns 1/2 the radio stations and someone else owns the other 1/2? File Sharing. I buy every CD I have an mp3 for because honestly I make too much money to waste my time trying to decrypt the slang used to name songs. Not to mention my bandwidth, etc. A $11.99 CD is well worth the time savings.

    The RIAA, etc need to pull their heads out of their asses and learn that people like to test drive a product before they buy. I cannot imagine buying a car without trying it out. Why should music be any different?

    1. Re:Warez works the same way. by BoomerSooner · · Score: 2, Funny

      Lol, chewgums?

      Obviously this wouldn't apply to MATERIAL goods that are single or limited use. But to goods that are available to be used long term (music CDs, cars, etc...) it is very useful.

      BTW I guess you don't try on clothes, shoes, or anything else you buy. Simply walk in, pick it up, and leave. Doubtful.

    2. Re:Warez works the same way. by Shakrai · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I cannot imagine buying a car without trying it out

      Expect you have permission from the car dealer to take the car for a test drive first. If not I'm sure you'll be hearing from the police in short order.

      Point being there is nothing that says they have to let you test drive a car. Of course they wouldn't sell many cars if they didn't but there is no law on the books that says they have to.

      I'd like to see iTunes let me hear the full version of the song before I buy it -- not just a random 30 second clip. Do you know how many songs I've bought only to find out it was a different friggen version then the one I know and like? If they are worried about piracy they could broadcast these demos in really low-quality (mono-only perhaps?). If someone really likes it he is going to pay the $0.99 anyway -- why waste your time stealing a lower quality copy?

      Ditto for the little Kisoks at Barnes and Noble. WTF is the reason to limit them to 30 seconds? Do they think people are going to tape record them with a hidden microphone or something?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    3. Re:Warez works the same way. by hvt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I agree. Permission is important in law as well as in life. Permission is what separate a guess from a trespasser, a consensual encounter from rape, an authorised distributor from a file sharer. If one is unhappy with the current law, one come up with a thoughtful alternative and convince enough people to change it. The current system is built on top of laws and rationalizations way more thoughtful and workable than anything I have read so far.

  9. Re:Isn't it unfair... by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Isn't it unfair that Western Europe and the U.S. (Canada included ;-) ) have to support the entire worlds intellectual property industry? I mean, from pharmacueticals to CD's we have to bear the brunt of the cost burden that undoubtably would be reduced if these companies went after real pirates, ie. those with factories in 3rd world nations selling generic's and pressed/packaged digital media packages? Just seems unfair to me.

    Why would they go after third-world pirates? Those guys are just increasing market-share when they would otherwise presumably be buying from local media/software vendors. Why would they want them doing that?

    But you can bet your ass they'll go after us -- we don't have any other sources to buy their product from so why not? Whatever other sources we might have had they took away with the product design (DVD region codes) or DCMA.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  10. They don't care if filesharing helps sales by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's not interesting that they are suing at all. If filesharing helped music sales increase 1000% they still would be suing filesharers. They care about control of the media not sales. Filesharing is a threat to their business because filesharing makes their class of middleman obsolete. If artists release their music over kazaa what purpose would RIAA members serve?

  11. fud by GillBates0 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    "The message is the same," Dixon says. "You cannot put someone's music on the Internet without permission. That's theft."... Microsoft, Coca-Cola and British retailer HMV operate online European music services with limited selection and arcane usage rules.

    *sigh* some people never learn...or they knowingly choose to use stronger language to frighten (or terrorize in today's overused parlance) the masses into submission.

    And I don't want to fuckin' have to think twice every time I want to listen to the same music in my car, on my computer or on my living room. Is it that difficult to understand?

    --
    An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
  12. Re:Damn my dirty mind! by The+I+Shing · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This might be offtopic, but I'm annoyed.

    I think it is really unfair for moderators to moderate the first four or five replies after the first one as "redundant" just because they all make the same observation. The fact is that people posting in /. aren't seeing real-time posts go up as they're quickly composing their replies.

    Heck, I made the observation about my own misreading of the name of the organization in question, and then went on to make a point about the arguments used by that organization, and got modded redundant!

    About 10% of my reply was devoted to my misreading of the name of the organization, and I even prefaced it by saying, "that happened to me too," yet my entire reply is redundant? How about reading my entire post before moderating it, okay?

    --
    You are in error. No-one is screaming. Thank you for your cooperation.
  13. no science by HarveyBirdman · · Score: 2, Insightful
    The timing of the international legal attacks is especially interesting in light of the recent study that indicates file-sharing has a negligible impact on music sales."

    I share music with wild abandon, and think the lawsuits are BS, but you're basing this on one NON peer reviewed study that, if you read the PDF file linked from yesterday's story, makes some rather dubious assumptions.

    --
    --- Ban humanity.
  14. How much compensation? by Cooper_007 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    asking them to stop illegal file-sharing and pay compensation - or face legal action.

    I wonder if the IFPI will be asking equally ludicrous amounts as the RIAA has.

    The chairman's quote seems rather funny in this context though:
    "People are at real risk of being sued or prosecuted if they continue to rip off those who make music."
    Pot. Kettle. Black. I guess he's got a good lawyer...

    Cooper
    --
    This truth probably doesn't come as shocking news to any of you,
    and if it does then you're stupid and I hate you.
    - Everything Can Be Beaten -

  15. a bit off-topic by PYves · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I was wondering if there were any statistics between RIAA's drop in sales and independant labels' increase in sales.

    Not ever record label in the states is an RIAA member, and to be honest, since I started downloading mp3s, I've bought more cds but nearly all of them were from non-RIAA members (not as protest, but because that's the music I like!)

    I don't think the RIAA could even come after me for trading these files, since it's not even their intellectual property :P

  16. Study results do not make it legal! by morzel · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Repeat after me: just because the study proved that filesharing does not have a noticeable impact on CD sales does not make it legal!

    Copyright law in many countries prevents you from distributing somebody elses work, plain and simple. These people are not being sued because they had some kind of tangible impact on sales, but because they were distributing copyrighted material to anybody (ie: nothing to do with fair use rights here).

    These are the people that are making it bloody hard for the rest of us to get non-crippled CDs, because the recording industry thinks this is the way to fight them (which it incidentally is not, but that's a whole different story).

    I'm glad the record industry is suing, because this is the way copyright conflicts should be dealt with: in court. Not with half-assed technological countermeasures that are making it a pain for the rest of us, and certainly not with lobbying legislation that will obliterate 'fair use' for their works.

    --
    Okay... I'll do the stupid things first, then you shy people follow.
    [Zappa]
  17. For crying out loud by Underholdning · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Damnit - I need to get this off my chest. If this much effort was put into catching the real criminals of the internet (spammers, child pornographers etc) the net would be a much better and safer place. All this is just due to a huge lobby and a horde of overpaid lawyers. I refuse to recognize this as problem worthy of this many ressources.
    Ok - I'll get off my soapbox now. Sorry for the rant.

    --
    Underholdning.info
  18. Re:Maybe I just don't understand it... by Maestro4k · · Score: 3, Interesting
    • but does this mean in the entire area they can cover, they only found enough proof to accuse 247 of them? I'm sure more are to come, but why not just file suit against more? also, yes, I thought it said pornographic...
    Well realistically they probably can't afford to file suit against all the thousand (perhaps millions) online sharing music at any given time. Even if they could financially (and what am I saying, they probably can), logistically coordinating it would be a nightmare.

    In the real world one would expect those 247 sued to be the biggest sharers they could find, but history (RIAA suits last year into this year) have taught us that the recording industry doesn't seem to share our reality. I will not be surprised if the IFPI finds itself in the same quagmire that the RIAA did. It'll be quite amusing if it's worse and over half the sharers are little kids or grandparents whose grandkids put the software on their computer without them knowing. Now that'd be a public relations nightmare! (Not that the IFPI and/or RIAA seem to care what anyone thinks of them anymore though.)

  19. Re:Damn my dirty mind! by IWorkForMorons · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Heheh...if you think that's bad, I've been modded redundent for being the first person to post a reply. And a legitimate one at that...

    What's funnier is that I'll probably get modded Off-Topic for this post...

  20. hallmarks of Al Quaeda by victorvodka · · Score: 4, Funny

    Based on the co-ordinated nature of the attack, I have to suspect that Al Quaeda had something to do with this.

    --

    The flag just makes more sense than the constitution. - Judas Gutenberg

  21. Representing who? by gr8_phk · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The artists are represented by their recording company. The companies are represented by the RIAA, and the RIAA is represented the IFPI? I think the artists are far enough removed at this point that the IFPI is a purely political organization only interested in money / power / self.

  22. How You Can Fight Back by MichaelCrawford · · Score: 4, Informative
    I know that in the US at least, there are more people sharing files on peer-to-peer networks than voted for George Bush in 2000. I suspect the numbers are proportional in other countries.

    If you work to reform the copyright laws, you can make the sharing of any file legal.

    Here are some steps you can take to do this:

    In the US anyway, copyright is not a Constitutional right. I suspect that it's not a fundamental right in most countries.

    The reason I ask you to googlebomb my article in my signature here is that I'm trying to educate the peer-to-peer network users. I attract the readers by offerring links to lots of free, legal downloads, but give them a political education while I've got their attention.

    --
    Request your free CD of my piano music.
    1. Re:How You Can Fight Back by Catamaran · · Score: 2, Informative
      Right, but the emphasis is on LIMITED. Here are the words of Supreme Court Justice Breyer, dissenting:
      The U.S. Constitution's Copyright Clause grants Congress the power to "promote the Progress of Science ... by securing for LIMITED TIMES TO AUTHORS ... the exclusive Right to their respective Writings.." The statute before us, the 1998 Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, extends the term of most existing copyrights to 95 years and that of many new copyrights to 70 years after the author's death. The economic effect of this 20-year extension, the longest blanket extension since the Nation's founding, is to make the copyright term not limited, but virtually perpetual. Its primary legal effect is to grant the extended term not to authors, but to their heirs, estates, or corporate successors. And most importantly, its practical effect is not to promote, but to inhibit, the progress of Science, by which word the Framers meant learning or knowledge...
      --
      Test 1 2 3 4
  23. IFPI Switzerland will go down the same road by piquadratCH · · Score: 4, Interesting

    IFPI Switzerland seems to go down the same road according to this article (german).
    As in Canada, only uploading copyrighted music is illegal here, not downloading. As Switzerland is not member of the EU, the laws between the EU and Switzerland are quite different in some points. Cracking copy protection for instance isn't illegal (yet) AFAIK.

  24. Settlements (VISA,MC,US.DLLS,Euros) Accepted. by cabazorro · · Score: 2, Funny

    So many settlements
    so little time.
    Whats the difference between a lawyer and
    a whore?
    A whore stops screwing you once you are dead.
    Perpetual copyright extensions anyone?

    --
    - these are not the droids you are looking for -
  25. If true, then p2p is perfectly legal there by FreeUser · · Score: 2, Informative

    You can legally _download_ music in Canada - it is covered by the levies we pay on the media (yay!:). You cannot legally _upload_ (i.e. share) music, as that makes you a "distributor" (and thus not covered under any form of personal use).

    So if I have a song on my hard drive (legally ripped from my own CD), and I open the door for you to come to my hard drive and download that song, I haven't uploaded anything. Therefor, under Canadian copyright law, running p2p software such as bittorrent should be completely legal. Everything is being downloaded ... nothing is being uploaded to a server (except perhaps a message saying "hey, there's a file on my system and the door is open").

    --
    The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
  26. No, really it's not a Constitutional right by MichaelCrawford · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Actually, article 1, section 8 of the Constitution says:

    The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, ...

    ...To promote the progress of science

    You see, Congress has the power to enact copyright laws, but it is not required to do so.

    The first copyright act wasn't passed for some time after the constitution was ratified, it was very limited in scope, and the term was only fourteen years.

    --
    Request your free CD of my piano music.
  27. File sharing LEGAL in Canada by diodeus · · Score: 2, Informative

    Accoriding to an article I read:

    "On March 19, 1998, Part VIII of the (Canadian) Copyright Act dealing with private copying came into force. Until that time, copying any sound recording for almost any purpose infringed copyright, although, in practice, the prohibition was largely unenforceable. The amendment to the Act legalized copying of sound recordings of musical works onto audio recording media for the private use of the person who makes the copy (referred to as "private copying"). In addition, the amendment made provision for the imposition of a levy on blank audio recording media to compensate authors, performers and makers who own copyright in eligible sound recordings being copied for private use."

    -- Copyright Board of Canada: Fact Sheet: Private Copying 1999-2000 Decision

    See: http://techcentralstation.com/081803C.html

  28. Remove the tin foil hats please by Luscious868 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The timing of the international legal attacks is especially interesting in light of the recent study that indicates file-sharing has a negligible impact on music sales

    Oh please! The study was just released a few days ago. I'm no fan of any of these organizations or their tactics but come on. These lawsuite take a little time to prepare you know. It's not like they saw the study and decided, ok, now we'll sue some people. This has all been in the works for some time.

  29. Um no... by Kjella · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In the real world one would expect those 247 sued to be the biggest sharers they could find, but history (RIAA suits last year into this year) have taught us that the recording industry doesn't seem to share our reality.

    If the goal was to cut off supply, then perhaps. But it is in fact quite silly when CDs and DVDs are publicly sold. While the release groups may have ways to be earlier and thus get their "name" on the release, thousands of people could do it once it is in normal retail. Read a doom9.org guide and you'll be making them like the "pros".

    Instead, the goal is to act as a deterrent. To scare and intimidate people using P2P, sending the message "You can be caught too". Including kids. Yes, they don't want to seem harsh on kids, but at the same time they don't want to send the message that it's okay either. They want them scared off P2P, not alienated from buying the music.

    Btw, is it just me that noticed the 247 = 24/7 figure? [tin foil hat]I wonder if that was on purpose to trigger a subconcious "we're watching you 24/7" thought...[/tin foil hat]

    Kjella

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  30. Italy - Homes Raided, Computers Seized by __aamkky7574 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    From the BBC:

    In Italy, 30 people have already been charged with copyright infringement, while computers and files have been seized as evidence.

    There seems to have been almost no comment on this disturbing aspect. Who performed the raid and seizure - police? If so, is uploading songs now not only a matter for civil action, but a criminal activity? Were the people raided counterfeiters, or simply your average garden-variety music uploaders?

    Considering the fuss in the USA over people being sued, I would hope that Europeans will be outraged when grandparents and twelve-year-olds are having their homes raided and PCs seized.

    P.

  31. Sounds like terrorism to me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The record companies are terrorists.

    They use indiscriminate attacks against civilian populations in order to promote their own policies.

    Here's some textbook definitions of terrorism:

    Any act including, but not limited to, the use of force or violence and/or threat thereof of any person or group(s) of persons whether acting alone or on behalf of, or in connection with, any organisation(s) or government(s) committed for political, religions, ideological or similar purposes, including the intention to influence any government and/or to put the public or any section of the public in fear.

    The use of force and threats to frighten people into obeying completely.

    the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear

    Can you think of a better term of what these litigious bastards are doing?