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."

10 of 193 comments (clear)

  1. Evidence? by Kittyflipping · · Score: 5, Interesting

    How is this possible? Aren't they using the file names to determine infringement? What kind of 'evidence' is that? If I purposely renamed a bunch of legal files to look like copywritten mp3 and make them available on P2P am I liable for damages too?

    1. Re:Evidence? by thefirelane · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You realize, just because someone can go to extrodinary lengths to simulate a crime, doesn't mean that evidence of that crime is invalid in all cases. That's why we have judges to decide these things.

    2. Re:Evidence? by OctoberSky · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Well you can break the law through "intent to break the law" only.

      For instance if you buy 1 pound of baking soda off a guy but he sells it to you as cocaine, that is illegal. If you take the baking soda and then (thinking it is cocaine) try and sell it to another individual as cocaine that is also illegal (you intended to sell an illegal drug). This is different from the sale of baking soda as cocaine (which is also a crime). I think that is sale of an imitation controlled substance.

      If you unknowingly downloaded false files (unknowingly because you thought they were real) and shared them on the network as the real files (maybe you never checked them when you initially got them) then you might be charged with illegal file trading (or what ever they were charged with) because you intended to trade files that are copyrighted.

      But in your case, where you knowingly make up fake files and pawn them off as real (for whatever reason) I don't think they can get you for that. But if John Doe takes them from you and does the above (trades them as real) he might be brought up on charges because he intended to break copyright laws.

      But I am not a Lawyer, I just play one on TV. And by play one on TV I mean I make shit up and post it on Slashdot.

  2. It's A Brave New World. by gasmonso · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "Ignorance is not a defense" That's a classic one. Seriously though... what if you played stupid like you don't even know what p2p is and stick to denying d/l. Of course they'll come back and say we have IP logs. But can't you use the "IP spoofing" or "I have a wireless router" idea? I would argue, ok if I stole this song... where is it? Show me that the one you apparently saw on my computer exists? A good defense could win the case I bet.

    http://religiousfreaks.com/
    1. Re:It's A Brave New World. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      It'd be worth going into personal debt to win (well 'not lose') that kind of case, to set a precedent requiring a very high standard of evidence, as well as to help convince the RIAA/BPI/etc that acting like dickheads isn't going to help their profits.

      p.s. my position on filesharing is that technology has made it possible for us to have instant access to all music. Paying $20 to everyone who's ever produced a CD is obviously stupid, we'd all be broke. So let's pay what we paid in 1990, and get free access to all the music for that. It's win win. I'd also like to see some method of compensation for artists that rewards quality over marketing level, but that's hard to do.

    2. Re:It's A Brave New World. by DaFallus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Now maybe I'm wrong about this, but I always thought this would work:

      Say you get sued for DOWNLOADING, not uploading, 5 $GENERIC songs. Could you not simply go out and buy the CDs that those songs are on (cash purchase at used record store) and claim fair use? They would have no way to prove when you purchased those CDs, and spending $10 a CD would be a lot cheaper than settling with a record industry. I know that not settling would probably mean that you would have to go to court and that in itself is quite expensive, but if you own the CD, isn't it legal to download the song? And if you win you could counter-sue for legal costs.

      I am in no way saying that this is a bullet-proof alibi, but is there a huge flaw in my logic that I am not seeing?

      --
      No one cares what your captcha was

      Houston TX, USA
  3. Scary by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The first defendant, from King's Lynn, said the BPI had no direct evidence of infringement, but the judges dismissed this

    I'm no law scholar here, but doesn't the judge have to actually refuse any defendant's claim with some logical arguement instead of simply claiming "nah, I'm pretend I didn't hear that?"

  4. Re:Office Space said it best by RingDev · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "Wrong! Stealing = Taking the property of someone without permission (Destruction of others' property is taken into account, too)."

    If you consider the content "Property" then, yes it is stealing. The only difference between "stealing" digital content VS. physical content is the reproduction costs and ease of access. In both cases you enter an agreement (for sales), for $x I will give you ownership of this copy of this content (whether it's an MP3 download, a DVD, or a car). You don't get reproduction or redistrobution rights. You get fair use (IE: you can drive the car, sell the car, and crash the car, but you can't create a new production plant that builds that car. Just like you can listen to an MPG, you can sell an MPG, but you can make many copies of the MPG and distribute them)

    The person DOWNLOADING the music is stealing. The person HOSTING the music, is violating copywrite laws.

    Personally, I'd say swat the downloaders with the actual legal download cost per song they get busted with (proven to be illegally downloaded). And sue the people hosting the music for patent infringement with big penalties. Make it clear that you are going after the people distributing the music, not ma and pa who's teenager downloaded a handful of music.

    -Rick

    --
    "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
  5. Re:Ignorance... by deviantphil · · Score: 3, Interesting
    See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorantia_juris_non_ excusat

    Ignorantia juris non excusat or Ignorantia legis neminem excusat (Latin for "ignorance of the law is no excuse") is a public policy holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely because he or she was unaware of its content; that is, persons have presumed knowledge of the law.

  6. possible defense? by joincamp · · Score: 1, Interesting

    What if you own an album that is unplayable(scratched) or hard to convert(vinyl), then download it because you are unwilling to be extorted by paying several times for your content. It is easy to leech and not give back(although shunned upon). I also don't see how they can prove if you were sharing it. You may be listed as a peer, but have your upload turned off. Also, stuff like peerguardian will likely block most snoops ip's so you wouldnt be giving them any of it. The point being, if you already own the content, and if you arent contributing to piracy, would they be able to still convict you?