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

Dammit

[jhdevos]

Anybody else keeps reading 'The British Pornographic Institute'?

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.....

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.

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.

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.

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?