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."

Comments

feh

[kv9]

FTBlurb

IFPI targeted both those who 'illicitly downloaded music' as well as uploaders serving copyrighted material on file-sharing networks.

FTA

The IFPI's legal proceedings were aimed not at people who illicitly downloaded music but ``uploaders'' who put copyrighted music onto file-sharing networks.

so which is it?

Re:feh

[ThePhilips]

Since this is FUD campaign, they of course try to scare downloaders - so they use "downloaders" since it's much broader term.

As copyright law concerned, it's uploaders who are infriging. Uploading is distribution. If you want to distribute something - you have to acquire a permission from copyright holder.

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.

I probably oversimplify the situation, but that the view I have formed after reading Lessig's blog - http://lessig.org/blog/ And c'mon - it's slashdot ;-)

Re:feh

[meringuoid]

AFAIK, the only way the record company could know what you're downloading is if you're downloading it from them. OTOH, they can know what you're uploading by asking your P2P server 'so, got a copy of LatestBritneyShite.mp3?'

And if the record company set up a P2P app full of their music and sue whoever attempts to download it, they're on shaky ground. The music is, after all, theirs to distribute. They put it on P2P themselves. Surely there's no infringement of copyright when the copyright holder themselves is putting the stuff online?

Things might be different with BitTorrent, though. With that, if you're downloading something you're also making it, or parts of it, available to upload as you do so. In that case you're visible to the record company or their grasses.

Bah, just forget about the labels...

[Jugalator]

Just listen to / get free music legally from The Kahvi Collective, Magnatune, music.download.com, Electromancer, ... or why not online "radio" services like last.fm or Pandora? You have to be pretty strange these days to like overcommercialized music but not anything from any of those.

Re:Seriously...

[Pogue Mahone]

No. But then murder is wrong. Copyright infringement is merely illegal.

The are going to breed new generation networks

[burbilog]

Things like I2P and freenet are going to get a boost. Currently only a few whackos toy with freenet & co, but if you force enough people to consider their safety something is going to evolve. And then they will have a very tough task to ban cryptography...

Civil suits in Germany -- according to c't

[january]

Some weeks ago in the German magazine c't there was a feature on the legal situation of copying / downloading / sharing music and movies in Germany.

Apparently, the law firms have worked out a nice scheme to get the money out of people using p2p for downloading music / movies. It works as follows. Please forgive me my lack of law-related terminology in English.

First, one company tracks down the p2p users and files mass criminal suits against them. The charges get dropped by the court very quickly (unless it concerns someone dealing music / videos big time) -- but now, they have names and addresses, as they are not allowed to inquiry them directly at the provider.

Now what happens is this: some weeks after, a law company representing the big corps sues the user for some $BIGNUM of euros. The given user has a short time in which she or he has to react, contact a lawyer, file a protest etc. -- otherwise, the charges get lawful. Some angry letters later they propose to settle for a moderate amount -- 1-3 kEUR. Most of the people pay it just for the sake of getting out of the situation, and out of fear of having to pay $BIGNUM.

The whole process seems to be almost automatic and pays well off.

j.

Re:The War On Drugs = The War on Downloading

[digitaldc]

If the assholes would just realize the problem is them charging $20 for a CD

Solution: Go to a used CD/DVD store, most CDs are fairly unscathed and you can get really good deals there. (CDs and DVDs for $5-$10) And, if there are duplicates, some are usually cheaper than others.

OH yeah, stop me swapping 4.5gig DVDs!!!!

[cheekyboy]

Downloading?

Its quicker to swap a stack of 25 4.5 GIG dvds of MP3s!!!

It takes one day to swap, then 12mins/dvd = 300mins, easy going.

Face it, all 250 years of music is in within easy reach of everyone for zero cost + $12.95 for some blanks.

Sure musicians are artists, but they dont deserve more money than the creator of a cpu or a car. Its only music, its not
a cancer cure.