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

Now might be the time for ANts

[ControlFreal]

Now might be the time to move to an anonymous P2P network. ANts is a 3rd-generation multi-hop P2P network that uses both point-to-point and end-to-end encryption. A search for material doesn't give you a list of files and IP addresses, like in a normal P2P network, but a list of files and virtual addresses. Nobody knows what virtual addresses belong to which hosts; routing is learned by ant-colony optimization.

The network is small now, and it needs nodes. Go to the page here (Coralized) or download the webstart file directly from here (also Coralized).

Note that the network is now still very small. It might also take a good while to connect. Java 1.5 is required.

I feel secure and cuddly again... ;)

Re:Now might be the time for ANts

[sploxx]

Mod me down for this, but:
It is not okay for you to use a GPL'ed piece of code without GPL'ing it because this goes against the wishes of the creators and owners of the content in question.
The difference is that GPL-infringing people want to make money out of GPL'ed software. File sharers don't want to make a buck out of the files they share. If they do, they should be punished.

It is okay to sue or threaten to sue people for the above mentioned infringement of the GPL license because it is important to protect the coder's rights and not set a precedent of ignoring violations.
So you compare suing, as a single developer or a small group of 3-4 people, a company with employed lawyers because they make money out of your product to the crackdown on school/college students by a billon megacorp.? Because they shared a bunch of files?

Of course, many file sharers are hypocritical. But that doesn't make these two of your arguments valid.

IMHO, the solution are media fees. See also my other post in this thread.

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.

Dammit

[jhdevos]

Anybody else keeps reading 'The British Pornographic Institute'?

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...

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.....

According to Pete Waterman

[CmdrGravy]

According to Pete Waterman ( Stock, Aitken & Waterman ) it doesn't matter that UK single sales are actually rising, this is just a blip / does not alter the fact that filesharing thieves are damaging the industry. Well actually not the industry because that is doing OK but it is damaging the poorer artists who are now going to get even poorer.

Filesharing, he says, is illegal. Just like recording songs from the radio is illegal but the bottom line so far as he is concerned is that people are listening to music and he's not getting paid for it. I really don't like Pete Waterman.

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.

Slashdot lies, why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Joel Rowbottom writes Apparently they are 'safeguarding the future of music'.

I didn't know Slashdot was a propoganda machine. Nowhere on that page linked (where the statement is) is that phrase in the text.

I don't support the actions of these people, but don't lie to make your case. It makes you no better than the people you decry.

Re:Slashdot lies, why?

[Joel Rowbottom]

The article has been changed since I first posted that (see Last Updated: Thursday, 7 October, 2004, 12:49 GMT 13:49 UK).

The original "safeguarding..." comment was made by a spokeman for the BPI.

As it is, they've updated it to say they're suing 28 people initially.

HTH.

jx

Good

[smooth wombat]

Those 'sharing' the files do not have a right to do what they are doing. They don't own the licenses to the songs nor do they have an agreement with either the artist or record company to distribute the songs. They get what they deserve.

Now go ahead and be good little mods and mark me as Troll or Flamebait because I dare to express a point of view which runs counter to the whole 'information wants to be free' crap.

If you're so keen on giving away information then you develop something, pay with it out of your own pocket and give it away. We'll see how long you survive.

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.

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:Pornographic Institute..

[91degrees]

Am I the only one who read that as, "British Pornographic Institute"?

Nope. The guy who posted just before you did as well.

Illegal?

[BarryNorton]

Says The Guardian:

Record labels believe it is essential to establish file-sharing as illegal in the minds of the public [...]

Yeah? Even if they'd said sharing files of music to which copyright applies, how about establishing such in law before trying this?

I can't believe that these people were getting away, unchallenged, with such sweeping (not to mention incorrect) generalisations also on (UK) television this morning.

Have we lost all sense of objectivity?

Anyone else read?

[sporty]

Did anyone else read that as the "British Phonographic Institute". Oh wait...

It's the list of comments which bothers me

[dunstan]

If the BPI are going to sue people who are illegally copying copyright material that's one thing. But the attributable comments on the end of the press release makes me want to throw:

"... all that many of those musicians and songwriters are trying to do, is to make the world the rest of us live in, a much more valuable, much brighter place." Feargal Sharkey

No, Feargal, if all you were trying to do was make the world a brighter place then you wouldn't mind people copying your music. I try to make the world a brighter place by making music, the difference between us is that I'm not trying to make money at it. What you're trying to do is make the world a brighter place and make yourself money - absolutely fine, but there's a difference.

"Record companies are the biggest investors in new music in the UK ..." Martin Mills, Chairman, Beggars Group

No, the people who invest time and money in learning to make music are the biggest investors. What the record companies "invest" in is recorded music which you can buy in shops. I hate the way they talk as if the entirety of music is the stuff you buy in shops, it's so dismissive of the people who invest in being able to make music.

"Piracy is theft - pure and simple ... I hope it will stop in their tracks the habitual offender who uploads to make a quick buck out of other people's talent." Arts Minister, Estelle Morris

Remember, this is a government minister who shold know better: firstly, the obligatory comments about misuse of the terms "piracy" and "theft". Secondly, does anyone make money out of participating in a P2P network?

"The serial uploaders who post thousands of music files free of charge onto the Internet are stealing this product in exactly the same way as a shoplifter in a Music store. Theft on this scale cannot be allowed to continue unchecked." Steve Knott, Managing Director, HMV Europe, and Chairman, British Association of Record Dealers

No they're not. A shoplifter in a Music store is committing property theft while a serial [?] uploader is committing copyright infringement.

"The internet has changed all our lives. It is revolutionising the way music is consumed. What it doesn't change are the fundamentals of the concept of intellectual property. Unauthorised filesharing is against the law. After several years of seeing it eat into our livelihoods, we reluctantly and finally have to resort to the law to protect our business." Tony Wadsworth, Chairman & CEO, EMI Recorded Music UK & Ireland

This one is much closer to reality (except the use of the term "Intellectual Property" in place of "copyright law").

"There is a worrying lack of understanding of the value and meaning and intellectual property. We need to move very swiftly from a climate of ignorance to one in which people understand that illegal uploading is fundamentally no different from shoplifting." Jeremy Lascelles, Chief Executive, Chrysalis Music

Surely the "worrying lack of understanding" is someone so close to the issue not recognising the difference between property theft and copyright infringement.