UK Record Industry Sues 'Major Filesharers'

Joel Rowbottom writes "The British Phonographic Institute has warned that it is about to engage in a round of legal action against file-sharing users, following in the footsteps of the RIAA. Apparently they are 'safeguarding the future of music' - don't you just feel so secure and cuddly knowing that?" Their statement is available.

Comments

Re:Dammit

[dan dan the dna man]

Speaking of pornography I find it amusing that it's ok to share Gb's worth of hardcore material without harassment - potentially supplying minors with stuff they wouldn't have been able to get hold of say 10 years ago, yet share some mp3's and you're automagically a criminal...

It will be interesting...

[Sanity]

...to see how the British public reacts to this, there is something about huge multinational corporations suing kids that I can't see sitting well with the British way of thinking.

I know a young single mother in the US who got sued and had to use her kid's college fund to pay the RIAA. Sorry, but piracy or no piracy, that simply isn't right, and I am surprised that there hasn't been more public revulsion in the US over this. Hopefully there will in the UK.

Re:It will be interesting...

[Tim C]

I know a young single mother in the US who got sued and had to use her kid's college fund to pay the RIAA.

Would you be so outraged by this if she had commited some other crime and been fined for that? I'm not trolling, I'm genuinely interested - is it the thing that she's being punished for that's so bad, or the fact that she did something wrong and now her kid is having to pay for it too?

After all, the alternative way to look at this is that the kid would still have their college fund if only the mother hadn't broken the law. Would you still be so revolted had she been caught shoplifting, or committing fraud or similar? I realise that copyright infringement is not the same as shoplifting, but if it's to be punished (and even if you just have to buy everything you have infringing copies of, that's a fair amount of money if you've downloaded a lot of stuff), how would you punish the woman in a way that doesn't impact her family, as both fines and jail time would?

safeguarding the future of music?

[radpole]

Music, musicians, even paid entertainers existed long, long before the RIAA and other similar entities existed and musicians will be better off when the middle persons are gone! Hopefully.

Re:Dammit

[sneezinglion]

The porn industry is not worried about DRM, and here is why. 1. low costs of production. The cost of producting "Hoes on Hoes" or "Bratman" is painfully small, the small cost of a video camera, a tape and serveral people willing to have sex for money. 2. The porn industry has already been moving to the internet model, lower overhead. 3. Piracy HELPS media companies. You see if a friend gives me a video on my computer with Jenna Jameson in it and I like it then I will probably look for a tape starring her next time I go and look for a good porno tape. Just my 2 sense.....

THIS TERMINOLOGY NEEDS TO STOP

[Gannoc]

Notice how they've cleverly begun confusing "file sharing" with "copyright violation".

This is just moving towards a time where they can pass a law saying that all ISPs must block all ports besides port 80, and all ports registered with the FCC for valid, licensed use, like AOL Messenger and Windows Media.

Re:Good

[a24061]

Those 'sharing' the files do not have a right to do what they are doing.

Why not? Because the media companies say so? Because they have politicians in their pockets.

Copyright law used to be a good deal for the public because it restricted publishers for the benefit of authors without restricting ordinary people in any practical way (because printing books was difficult).

Now it has been twisted to restrict the public for the benefit of publishers. It's no longer a good deal for the public and we deserve a total overhaul.

Re:Now might be the time for ANts

[Anonymous Coward]

-Downloading music from the net that you don't have permission to download is not ethical.
-Uploading music to the net that you don't have permission to distribute is not ethical.

Why?

Noone really addresses why it isnt ethical. Illegal does not mean unethical, just like legal doesnt mean ethical.

Frankly, since the other side so corrupted the "deal" that is copyright, I see no reason to continue my part of said deal.

Right now we are on the hub of the largest creative library in the history of mankind. The only thing keeping us back are greedy corperations and corrupt government. This would result in a massive explosion of new creative work, as has every other serious media breakthrough. You can already see this trend with sites such as homestarrunner.com and newgrounds.com. Free creative works, some of which are of incredible quality. (alien hominid.. which, consequentially, is available for free online, but is coming out for home consoles soon. I expect sales to be brisk.)

In the process, it would also completly disrupt the methodology and "business" of music. Music would no longer be as commoditized as it is. CDs would still be available for sale, I assure you. Fans would WANT the super-high-quality sound recordings.

Also, there is the "ITS FUCKING REALITY" argument.

People are going to distribute your music without your permission, regardless of its legality. So why fight it? Its obviously benificial in a worldwide social sense. Why lock up/fine/punish people for sharing culture?

Re:Now might be the time for ANts

[timeOday]

Here's a much shorter way to rephrase the slashdot stance:

Laws, policies, etc. that promote and protect the free exchange of information are okay.

Laws and policies that prevent the free exchange of information are not okay.

Simple huh?

You accept intellectual property as a founding principle, and then show how illogical people's opinions are on that basis. Obviously people who view things in terms of free speech will come to different conclusions.