Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UK Has First Verdict in P2P Case

Posted by Zonk on from the it-doesn't-look-good dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Two British men have been found guilty of illegally sharing music via a P2P network. The BBC reports that their defense of 'Not knowing it was illegal' and that 'There was no evidence' did not hold water, and they have been ordered to pay the BPI 'between £1500 and £5000' - probably with double that again in costs. Theis isn't the first time the BPI has launched a case of this kind - but it is the first time the accused has tried to fight instead of stumping up the cash straight away. Three other verdicts are pending."

6 of 193 comments (clear)

  1. For the nth time... by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 4, Informative

    Copyright infringement is NOT STEALING!!!!

    Grrr...

  2. Clarification by Ctrl+Alt+De1337 · · Score: 3, Informative

    For those of you unwilling to RTFA, "BPI" is the British Phonographic Industry.

  3. Conversion by creepynut · · Score: 2, Informative

    £1500-£5000 == $2678.25-$8927.50 USD

  4. Civil not criminal by TheRappingShoe · · Score: 2, Informative

    It should be noted that this was a civil prosecution, not a criminal one: The term "illegal" refers only to criminal cases and not civil cases such as this. Also, the judge seems to have ruled against the defendents for simply making the files AVAILABLE for download - whether they actully uploaded them to anyone else or not.

  5. Re:It's A Brave New World. by gronofer · · Score: 2, Informative
    The UK copyright law has a entire chapter devoted to various exemptions to copyright restrictions, aka "fair use".

    i.e.,Chapter III, Acts Permitted in relation to Copyright Works

    It doesn't necessary cover the example given above though.

  6. Re:Bravo! by Shimbo · · Score: 2, Informative

    The more of these people who are legitimately caught via law enforcement instead of bullying extortionistic letters from the attorneys of the content cartels, the better.

    Erm, this was a civil case, brought by the BPI against people who got the letter and declined to settle.