Slashdot Mirror
More Music File-Sharing Lawsuits in Europe
rfunches writes "The New York Times is reporting that 20,000 cases in 10 countries were brought against file-sharers in Europe, according to the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI). '...Users targeted for legal action included a Finnish lumberjack, a British postman, a Czech IT manager and a German judge,' according to the article. More than 70 computers were seized in Italy by authorities investigating illegal file-sharing. IFPI targeted both those who
'illicitly downloaded music' as well as uploaders serving copyrighted material on file-sharing networks. Total music sales were down 3% in 2005 according to the IFPI, with the decline in physical media (e.g. CDs) countered by 'soaring' digital music sales."
Music Industry Unleashes More Lawsuits in Europe
By REUTERS
Published: April 4, 2006
LONDON (Reuters) - The music industry launched a new wave of lawsuits and criminal proceedings against file-sharers across Europe on Tuesday, part of its drive to curb online piracy and encourage the use of legal music services.
About 2,000 cases were launched in 10 countries, the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry said, bringing the total to 5,500 people in 18 countries.
That figure does not include the United States, covered by its sister group the Recording Industry Association of America, which has filed about 18,000 lawsuits.
Among the countries targeted was Portugal, where sales of physical formats like CDs have slumped by 40 percent in the past four years amid heavy file-sharing usage, especially by college students.
Other users targeted for legal action included a Finnish carpenter, a British postman, a Czech IT manager and a German judge, the IFPI said.
``A large number of cases involve men aged between 20 and 35 and parents who have not heeded successive education and warning campaigns,'' it stated.
In Italy authorities have seized more than 70 computers in the search for evidence of illegal file-sharing.
The IFPI's legal proceedings were aimed not at people who illicitly downloaded music but ``uploaders'' who put copyrighted music onto file-sharing networks.
The IFPI said last week that digital music sales soared in 2005, but not enough to make up for a continuing decline in physical formats like CDs, sending total sales down 3 percent.
2,000, not 20,000.
The summary is remarkably incorrect, even for a Slashdot story.
Wasn't it a lawyer? The infamous Buddy of an equally infamous lawyer in Munich who is renowned for hunting down "pirates", who was finally and quite "surprisingly" caught with his hands in a pretty large FTP Server hosting "a few" files that it should not host according to some copyright law?
What happened to Bernie and Günni? Anyone know?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I can give you the link to the heise story. Doesn't mention the specific cases in the NYT article though, just 'eine neue Klagewelle'. Babelfish for whoever's interested.
Generally, yes, in Sweden, no. According to a recent law (last July), downloading without a license is also illegal. Thus Piratpartiet.
This law is supposed to be an implementation of a EU directive, so it will be "interesting" to see what the other countries make of it...
FYI, in legal jargon, things that are "just wrong" are called "malum in-se", and things that are illegal but not necessarily wrong are called "malum prohibitum". It's from English common law, or something.
Just in case you get into an argument with a lawyer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malum_in_se
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malum_prohibitum
l'Homme n'est Rien l'Oeuvre Tout: Gustave Flaubert to George Sand
I do not Agree with the EULA though and since I bought the goods I can do whatever I want with it. If you agree to the EULA it's your loss.
You can't do anything your want with the new Intel-based Apple Macs. Apple made sure of that by including a Trusted Computing TPM... which is deliberately designed to hide stuff from *you* the owner and ensure that they never lose control of the computer. It's hardware-based DRM in all but name.
I bought Windows XP, and I have notepad.exe and I cracked it to make it display the cursor line number [nikse.dk].
While cool, it's a bit pointless as described. From the link
To edit my code i like to use Note-pad. But one disadventage of Notepad is that it doesn't show linenumbers. So when the compiler gives an error with linenumber, i have to load another editor to find the line with the error.
Obviously he wasn't aware that (ctrl)+g brings up a dialog box where you can enter the line number that you want to go to.
As copyright law concerned, it's uploaders who are infriging. Uploading is distribution.
It is correct that uploaders infringe on the distribution right.
Case for downloader is much simpler: downloader has acquired something for personal use. As long as file in question isn't used for anything what's prohibited by copyright law - downloader is clear. "Listening to mp3" is not there. "Distributing" and "profiting" is there.
Not quite. The main exclusive rights are listed at 17 USC 106. Downloaders infringe on the reproduction right, because when they download, they create a new copy.
This is pretty settled law. You can see it in cases such as Napster, Grokster, and my favorite (because it's so clear, not because I like it) Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry. As for who is responsible for the download, basically it's the person that initiated it (see e.g. Marobie-FL v. NAFED). For ordinary downloading of mp3s or whatnot, that would be the downloader. If your machine was taken over by a hacker, then it wouldn't be your fault, though it could be tough for you to prove.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Also FTBlurb:
The New York Times is reporting that 20,000 cases in 10 countries were brought against file-sharers in Europe
FTA:
About 2,000 cases were launched in 10 countries
WTF? This summary is particularly out to lunch.
> More realistically, most porn webmasters are probably sensible people
> and not the mindless horde running the music/movie corporations. They
> may realize that a large part of the population can't/won't buy
> pornography and that it doesn't hurt their business model in the
> slighest for these people to get the product for free.
As someone who runs a number of adult websites, I agree completely with you. That is exactly the case. Unlike the music/movie mafia, we understand that if anything, it improves our business model by driving more traffic to our sites.
I'd also add that those I know in this industry hate the MPAA/RIAA/IFPA as much as everyone else too. The adult entertainment industry is often made out to be criminal and so on, but the real criminals are the MPAA/RIAA/IFPA with their extortion tactics.
"The rest of the cost is all in the content, and the music publishers pretty much charge whatever they think we'll pay for. But they were right, the CD's are cheaper than cassettes and vinyl ever were, and they're lining their pockets with the difference."
Are you sure about that? In the computer peripheral industry, we have to deal with:
In other words, material cost is probably the least significant factor. If it's $1.62 by your estimate, the royalties probably cost them more than that. Then add another buck or so for production costs (if it costs $50K to produce and you amortize it across 50K pieces, but most CDs don't sell that many). With sell-in to disti at around $8 or $10 per CD, the reports I've heard -- that the music industry nets out at around 10 - 20 points -- sound accurate. At least in the PC peripheral industry I have the luxury of netting 20 points plus. If you think record companies are greedy, mouse and keyboard manufacturers must make your blood boil with an insatiable fury.
If your understanding is different, let me know.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
[THIS TEXT IS PUBLIC DOMAIN]n t
File sharing is not illegal(it not really a crime to share some song).
Its just companies want it to be perceived as crime.There is no real victim,except reduced profits for corporations/publishers.Its not theft!
People SHARE THE MUSIC, they don't Steal it(it remain in the hands of authors).
Copyright entitles publishers for "property rights" for information.Ridicolous but true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringeme
For electronic and audio-visual media, unauthorized reproduction and distribution is often referred to as piracy or theft (an early reference was made by Alfred Tennyson in the preface to his poem "The Lover's Tale" in 1879 where he mentions that sections of this work "have of late been mercilessly pirated".) The legal basis for this usage dates from the same era, and has been consistently applied until the present time.1 Critics of the use of "software piracy" to describe such practices contend that it unfairly compares a crime that makes no victim - except for those that would have profited from hypothetically lost sales - with the violent actions of organized thieves and murderers; it also confuses mere illegal copying of material with the intentional and malicious penetration of computer systems to which one does not legally have access. As a consequence, "software piracy" is a somewhat loaded term. "Theft" or "stealing" are considered even more inflammatory, as well as legally misleading.2
The reason why MOST (there are exceptions) porn producers don't bother with litigation over sharing is absed on how porn is financed.
it tends to be like:
Producer contacts broker with film (who is starring, type, etc)
Broker presells copies of film to people that sell porn (truck stops, porn stores, etc)
Producer is given his advance to produce movie
Producer makes movie, Has duplication house make as many as were presold
Producer and Broker are paid in full
Product goes to sellers
and repeat
Everyone is paid in full at this point, if a film is popular then more copies are made, otherwise the money loop is closed. Since its all 'sold' before the film is even made, the pirates have no effect on the bottom line of the people earning. In fact, the more popular a producer is, the more preorders he will get, so unsanctioned distrobution may even help his cause.
Smaller groups which hold the whole burden (finance, produce, and sell themselves) are quite vigilant at enforcement of their rights (ALS, Perfect 10, Playboy)