Ind: Illegal file-sharers fined for first time in Britain
kuac...@yahoo.com
By Jonathan Brown
The Independent
Published: 28 January 2006
The record industry has claimed a landmark victory in its
multimillion-pound battle against illegal file-sharers.
In the first ruling of its kind in Britain, revealed yesterday, the
High Court found that two men acted unlawfully when they swapped music
over the internet.
The British Phonographic Industry, which brought the civil case, said
the decision would send a clear warning that the practice must stop and
those who continue face court and heavy fines.
It is claimed that illegal file-sharing of top artists, such as
Beyoncé, Mariah Carey and Eminem, is threatening the future of the
music industry and is responsible for the collapse in the sale of
singles.
The two men, neither of whom have been identified, are among five
individuals accused of making 8,906 songs available to millions around
the world. The other three civil cases remain pending.
In summary judgments the court rejected the defence of the first man,
from King's Lynn in Norfolk, who claimed there was no direct evidence
against him. He was ordered to pay £5,000, with costs estimated at
£13,500 and damages yet to be assessed.
The other defendant, a postman from Brighton, claimed he was unaware he
was doing anything wrong and did not seek to gain financially. Mr
Justice Lawrence Collins ruled that "ignorance is not a defence", and
ordered him to pay £1,500, with further costs and damages pending.
The BPI has settled the majority of the 139 legal cases it has launched
against individual file-sharers since October 2004, with some paying up
to £6,500 to avoid court. However dozens are refusing to pay. The
industry hopes that the ruling will convince them to settle before the
deadline on 31 January.
The BPI chairman, Peter Jamieson, said: "The courts have spoken and
their verdict is unequivocal: unauthorised file-sharing is against the
law. We have long said that unauthorised file-sharing is damaging the
music industry and stealing the future of artists and the people who
invest in them. Here is clear confirmation of what we also said - that
unauthorised file-sharing is illegal."
Roz Groome, general counsel for the BPI, described the rulings as a
"massive step forward". She said: "We have been very patient
litigators. We have given these people every opportunity to settle.
Only when they refused to settle did we take them to court, which has
now found in our favour."
The global music industry is embroiled in a bitter struggle against the
file-sharers. As well as promoting legal downloads - sales topped $1bn
(£560m) last year, up 357 per cent - record companies have launched
20,000 legal cases in 17 countries. They believe the tide is slowly
turning in their favour as the number of illegal downloads has remained
static despite a massive increase in the take-up of high-speed
broadband connections.
The hard core of uploaders in the UK is thought to number in the
hundreds, possibly thousands, with 75 per cent of all file shares being
swapped among 15 per cent of users.
Part of the BPI's strategy has been an attempt to spread the word among
internet communities that file-sharing is illegal. It has also
supported the implementation of Digital Rights Management (DRM).
These technologies typically prevent consumers from moving content
between devices such as MP3 players and limit how the content can be
used. Critics claim DRM limits the rights of consumers and breaches
civil liberties.
Downloading: how it works
Music file-sharing boomed as the internet spread around the world. It
allowed people with access to a personal computer and a high-speed
internet connection to listen to music without paying. It also allows
for the free sharing of films, games, images and software. Unlike the
early file-sharers or legal download sites such as iTunes where content
is stored in a central server, the system works by allowing individual
computers to communicate with each other direct. Users build
peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing networks allowing access to each
others' collections. Contact is made through programmes such as Kazaa,
Grokster, eDonkey and iMesh. These can be located by simply typing the
name into an internet search engine. The software connects the user
with other people running the same software all over the world. Files
can be located using sophisticated browsers which scan other users'
collections and downloaded for free. Meanwhile, files can be
simultaneously uploaded using the same system. The industry has
concentrated its effort on tracing users via their computer's IP
address - the unique number attributed to any device using the
internet. Record companies then go to court to force internet service
providers to reveal the identity of illegal file-sharers.
Just Another Legal Fan
kuac...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> It is claimed that illegal file-sharing of top artists, such as
> Beyoncé, Mariah Carey and Eminem, is threatening the future of the
> music industry and is responsible for the collapse in the sale of
> singles.
No... Appallingly shitty "music" and artists that can't sing dance or
play instruments have done that.
The music industry has only itself to blame for the state it is in.
Whoever told any of the above that they are performers shouldn't be in
the music business.
Alex Flaherty
Agree entirely but when the two guys wake up tomorrow morning, they'll
still have a criminal record.
To be pedantic, the judge's ruling that "ignorance of the law is no
defence" presumably means that every single person living has to be
100% conversant with every single aspect of the law?
Surely unenforceable? The legal system would collapse? Or is this
another one of those "innocent until proven guilty" myths that has been
perpetrated to prop up the judiciary?
Just Another Legal Fan
Alex Flaherty wrote:
> To be pedantic, the judge's ruling that "ignorance of the law is no
> defence" presumably means that every single person living has to be
> 100% conversant with every single aspect of the law?
I am waiting for someone to take this up as a matter of Human Rights
law.
Article 6 states that legal matters must be in a language that
can be understood.
martin
morning for playing football or no practicing arms over the weekend
(assuming these mythical laws are still in force) Swamp the courts and
demand self justice.
Just Another Legal Fan
martin wrote:
> maybe everyone should turn themselves into the local police on monday
> morning for playing football or no practicing arms over the weekend
Being drunk in charge of a cow is a good one......
Just Another Legal Fan
Just Another Legal Fan wrote:
Or beating your carpet in the street after 9 am.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nolpda/ukfs_news/hi/newsid_4619000/4619942.stm
Baker@nowhere.com Dave Baker
Alex Flaherty <vanessa...@webtribe.net> wrote in message
news:1138476742.5...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Just Another Legal Fan wrote:
> kuac...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >
> > It is claimed that illegal file-sharing of top artists, such as
> > Beyoncé, Mariah Carey and Eminem, is threatening the future of the
> > music industry and is responsible for the collapse in the sale of
> > singles.
>
> No... Appallingly shitty "music" and artists that can't sing dance or
> play instruments have done that.
>
> The music industry has only itself to blame for the state it is in.
>
> Whoever told any of the above that they are performers shouldn't be in
> the music business.
Agree entirely but when the two guys wake up tomorrow morning, they'll
still have a criminal record.
No they won't. It was a civil case for damages.
--
Dave Baker
Rob
|
| Agree entirely but when the two guys wake up tomorrow morning, they'll
| still have a criminal record.
No they won't this was a civil case, they weren't prosecuted.
| To be pedantic, the judge's ruling that "ignorance of the law is no
| defence" presumably means that every single person living has to be
| 100% conversant with every single aspect of the law?
Hasn't that always been the case?
--
Rob
allan tracy
Years ago, when the music industry was claiming that home taping would
kill music, there was a survey that discovered that most home taping
was, in fact, not a substitute for a purchase.
Records were taped that either the listener didn't particularly like or
only liked certain tracks or just couldn't afford the record.
Also, those that home tapped most where also amongst the biggest
purchasers of records.
As usual, the record industry blaming its customers for their problems.
mo
iTunes the day Napster got popular.
Does anyone know exactly which software or method they were caught using?
Anthony Edwards
wrote:
> Agree entirely but when the two guys wake up tomorrow morning, they'll
> still have a criminal record.
They won't (at least, not as a result of this case, they may have
existing criminal records in respect of other matters of course).
In addition, The Independent's reporting of the case is inaccurate.
The two defendents weren't "fined"; they were ordered by the High
Court to pay damages (and costs) in a civil action brought by the
British Phonographic Industry (BPI).
The loss of a civil case does not and cannot represent, under any
circumstances, a criminal conviction.
--
Anthony Edwards
ant...@catfish.nildram.co.uk
John Anderton
>Illegal file-sharers fined for first time in Britain
>By Jonathan Brown
>
>The Independent
>Published: 28 January 2006
>
>The record industry has claimed a landmark victory in its
>multimillion-pound battle against illegal file-sharers.
>
>In the first ruling of its kind in Britain, revealed yesterday,
Why has it taken so long for this to come to court ?
> the
>High Court found that two men acted unlawfully when they swapped music
>over the internet.
>
>The British Phonographic Industry, which brought the civil case, said
>the decision would send a clear warning that the practice must stop and
>those who continue face court and heavy fines.
>
>It is claimed that illegal file-sharing of top artists, such as
>Beyoncé, Mariah Carey and Eminem, is threatening the future of the
>music industry and is responsible for the collapse in the sale of
>singles.
File-sharing *might* contribute to the collapse in sales but I doubt
it's actually in the top five of causes.
>The two men, neither of whom have been identified, are among five
>individuals accused of making 8,906 songs available to millions around
>the world. The other three civil cases remain pending.
>
>In summary judgments the court rejected the defence of the first man,
>from King's Lynn in Norfolk, who claimed there was no direct evidence
>against him. He was ordered to pay £5,000, with costs estimated at
>£13,500 and damages yet to be assessed.
I'm really interested in what damages will be awarded. I've no doubt
that the record companies will argue that every download is a lost
sale whereas the reality is that, at best, only a tiny percentage of
people who download a track would have bought it if they couldn't get
it for free. This number is quite possibly offset by the number of
people who downloaded a song, liked it and then bought an album where
they wouldn't have done so otherwise.
If the judge in question has his/her head screwed on the damages could
be relatively small ( £2,000 or so) rather than the "billions and
billions" that the record companies will ask for.
>
>The other defendant, a postman from Brighton, claimed he was unaware he
>was doing anything wrong and did not seek to gain financially. Mr
>Justice Lawrence Collins ruled that "ignorance is not a defence", and
>ordered him to pay £1,500, with further costs and damages pending.
>
>The BPI has settled the majority of the 139 legal cases it has launched
>against individual file-sharers since October 2004, with some paying up
>to £6,500 to avoid court. However dozens are refusing to pay. The
>industry hopes that the ruling will convince them to settle before the
>deadline on 31 January.
>
>The BPI chairman, Peter Jamieson, said: "The courts have spoken and
>their verdict is unequivocal: unauthorised file-sharing is against the
>law.
What ? Breaking copyright law is illegal ? I'm astounded !
>We have long said that unauthorised file-sharing is damaging the
>music industry and stealing the future of artists
Remind me again what percentage of the cover price of a CD goes to the
artist ? And they think *file-sharers* are "stealing the future of
artists" ?
>and the people who
>invest in them.
Being paid large sums of money to lie about how unbelievably talented
the latest boy/girl band is, is not "investing" in them.
>Here is clear confirmation of what we also said - that
>unauthorised file-sharing is illegal."
Just in case somebody has forgotten what he said half a second ago.
>
>Roz Groome, general counsel for the BPI, described the rulings as a
>"massive step forward". She said: "We have been very patient
>litigators. We have given these people every opportunity to settle.
>Only when they refused to settle did we take them to court, which has
>now found in our favour."
Let's wait for the damages before we start gloating, shall we ?
>
>The global music industry is embroiled in a bitter struggle against the
>file-sharers. As well as promoting legal downloads
Hmm, "promoting". Apart from iTunes, how many online music stores are
there that allow downloading of individual tracks ? Where's the HMV
store, the Virgin one etc. ?
>- sales topped $1bn
>(£560m) last year, up 357 per cent - record companies have launched
>20,000 legal cases in 17 countries. They believe the tide is slowly
>turning in their favour as the number of illegal downloads has remained
>static despite a massive increase in the take-up of high-speed
>broadband connections.
>
>The hard core of uploaders in the UK is thought to number in the
>hundreds, possibly thousands,
Since most file-sharing (that the music industry can target) is
peer-to-peer then everyone who participates is an uploader.
Are there really only "possibly thousands" of people using
peer-to-peer in this country ? Seems low to me.
> with 75 per cent of all file shares being
>swapped among 15 per cent of users.
>
>Part of the BPI's strategy has been an attempt to spread the word among
>internet communities that file-sharing is illegal. It has also
>supported the implementation of Digital Rights Management (DRM).
>
>These technologies typically prevent consumers from moving content
>between devices such as MP3 players and limit how the content can be
>used.
So, not only do they want to gouge the artists, they overcharge me and
then want to limit where I can listen to the copy of the music I
bought. Thanks a bunch, guys. I wonder if that attitude to customers
is one reason for falling singles sales ?
>Critics claim DRM limits the rights of consumers
Too right it does.
> and breaches
>civil liberties.
>
Only for the extreme cases where companies (I'm looking at you, Sony)
thinks it's OK to silently install software on an individuals PC which
cripples certain aspects of that machine when a customer tries to play
a, legally bought, CD (or rather CD lookalike, since including such
software breaks the CD standard and therefore such a disc can't,
legally, be called a CD)
Cheers,
John
Peter
>
> To be pedantic, the judge's ruling that "ignorance of the law is no
> defence" presumably means that every single person living has to be
> 100% conversant with every single aspect of the law?
>
> Surely unenforceable? The legal system would collapse? Or is this
> another one of those "innocent until proven guilty" myths that has been
> perpetrated to prop up the judiciary?
There are four points here:
1. The evidential standard required by the copyright holder in such a case
is lower than for criminal cases.
2. The 'penalty' awarded is totally out of kilter compared with what a
criminal court is likely to order in such cases. Seems time for
Parliamentary intervention to deal with this 'mischief'.
3. Was the defendant able to get legal aid? According to the European
Court ruling on Maclibel, legal aid should be available to those facing
tort actions of this sort.
4. If the family is bankrupted through inability to pay awarded damages and
costs, then the family becomes a burden on society. Perhaps the Government
should be imposing stiff fees on copyright holders to meet the costs to the
community for enforcing a set of laws intended to protect private gain.
Bystander
Agree entirely but when the two guys wake up tomorrow morning, they'll
still have a criminal record.
Criminal isn't in it. These were civil proceedings. What was ordered was
damages not fines. There will be no criminal record for anyone.
Steve Walker
> Just Another Legal Fan wrote:
>> kuac...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> It is claimed that illegal file-sharing of top artists, such as
>>> Beyoncé, Mariah Carey and Eminem, is threatening the future of
>>> the music industry and is responsible for the collapse in the
>>> sale of singles.
>>
>> No... Appallingly shitty "music" and artists that can't sing
>> dance or play instruments have done that.
>> The music industry has only itself to blame for the state it is
>> in.
>> Whoever told any of the above that they are performers shouldn't
>> be in the music business.
>
> Agree entirely but when the two guys wake up tomorrow morning,
> they'll still have a criminal record.
Really? I thought this was a civil case.....
Gaz
But where is the 'mens rea' in these cases??
Gaz
Vashti
> Years ago, when the music industry was claiming that home taping would
> kill music, there was a survey that discovered that most home taping
> was, in fact, not a substitute for a purchase.
There's also a paper on the effect of file sharing on record sales,
dated 2004.
Partac
"Just Another Legal Fan" <dcj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1138478261.7...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Shit! Didn't know that was illegal - have to keep an eye out for the plod
from now on....
Colin Wilson
IANAL
I would like to see them justify saying they were available to
millions around the world, and replace this by saying definitively
"x" number of people downloaded them from that one source in its
entirety. A partial download does not render a complete copy of the
original so why fine on that basis.
If a fine is ordered by a court, it shouldn`t be based on the total
retail value of the product but the profit lost to that company alone
on the exact number of downloads from that one user - the company
incurred no costs for the media / shipping / retail mark-up, as the
"product" didn`t pass through those markets - and any further file
sharing is the responsibility of the next person in the chain.
My logic is, just because something might be available, doesn`t mean
the vast majority of people would have the slightest interest in
wasting their time with it, in exactly the same way you could go and
buy a "panpipe pop" CD down the local shops.
You could make the same groundless statement about a local drug dealer
or prostitute - technically they`re available to millions around the
world - but only if the rest of the world could be bothered "using"
their services.
--
Please add the word "newsgroup" in the subject line of personal emails
**** My email address includes "ngspamtrap" and "@btinternet.com" ****
Alex Heney
"mens rea" does not mean intent to break the law.
It means intent to *do the act* which (whether you know it or not) is
against the law.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Honk if you love peace and quiet.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
M. J. Powell
<use...@etiqa.co.uk> writes
Er..how can a mythical law be in force?
Mike
--
M.J.Powell
Rob
AIUI It's not required in civil damages cases, although I believe lack of
mens rea can help to reduce the damages awarded.
--
Rob
Gaz
> On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 21:50:14 -0000, "Gaz" <gaz...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>> Rob wrote:
>>> Alex Flaherty wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Agree entirely but when the two guys wake up tomorrow morning, they'll
>>>> still have a criminal record.
>>>
>>> No they won't this was a civil case, they weren't prosecuted.
>>>
>>>> To be pedantic, the judge's ruling that "ignorance of the law is no
>>>> defence" presumably means that every single person living has to be
>>>> 100% conversant with every single aspect of the law?
>>>
>>> Hasn't that always been the case?
>>
>> But where is the 'mens rea' in these cases??
>>
>
> "mens rea" does not mean intent to break the law.
>
> It means intent to *do the act* which (whether you know it or not) is
> against the law.
In some cases, according to the claims of the defendent, they where not
aware the act (uploading) was taking place.
Gaz
Robbie
p2p file sharing, from the main p2p applications.
The prosecutions aren't of people who had a few items in their shared
folder, nor of anyone who downloaded music, but rather individuals who
were making available (uploading) several thousand tracks each. I
believe that the BPI went after anyone with over 4,000 items or more in
their shared folder.
Obviously, by doing so they weren't just going after the small fish, the
person who downloads a few tracks and is making them available to share
but rather those who were making available thousands of tracks for
others to download. It was quite naive of those caught if they didn't
know they were sharing so much music.
Robbie
sean
<thunderb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Years ago, when the music industry was claiming that home taping would
>kill music, there was a survey that discovered that most home taping
>was, in fact, not a substitute for a purchase.
>
You can't really compare home recording with p2p and digital
technology. With home recording you would typically tape
something for your mate and that would probably be the end
of the line in terms of distribution. It was also a bit of a
hassle and the quality wasn't that great.
With p2p I could have my whole 40 CD collection made
available and distribute them through a network of more than
a millions users. These recordings would be decent quality
and with a few clicks of the mouse it can arrive right on
someones PC within minutes.. These people in turn then make
my recordings available to others and in theory, through the
network I could have started a distrubution of music to
thousands of people. And because these recording are CD
quality why would you go out and buy the CD?
No wonder the record industry is worried. And with the next
genration of anonymous P2P networks, they should be even
more worried.
>Records were taped that either the listener didn't particularly like or
>only liked certain tracks or just couldn't afford the record.
>
>Also, those that home tapped most where also amongst the biggest
>purchasers of records.
>
Only because home recording was usually pretty awful. These
days with digital recording, the recordings are pretty good
and almost CD quality.
Theo_D...@yahoo.co.uk
> The other defendant, a postman from Brighton, claimed he was unaware he
> was doing anything wrong and did not seek to gain financially. Mr
> Justice Lawrence Collins ruled that "ignorance is not a defence", and
> ordered him to pay £1,500, with further costs and damages pending.
I wonder if his farts are beyond the range of human hearing.
> The BPI chairman, Peter Jamieson, said: "The courts have spoken and
> their verdict is unequivocal: unauthorised file-sharing is against the
> law. We have long said that unauthorised file-sharing is damaging the
> music industry and stealing the future of artists and the people who
> invest in them. Here is clear confirmation of what we also said - that
> unauthorised file-sharing is illegal."
And there is clear confirmation that the BPI is just
a money-grubbing humbug. They could hardly care
less about 'the future of artists'; all they really care
about is the short-term profitability of an industry that
may have only decades left anyway.
> The global music industry is embroiled in a bitter struggle against the
> file-sharers. As well as promoting legal downloads - sales topped $1bn
> (£560m) last year, up 357 per cent - record companies have launched
> 20,000 legal cases in 17 countries. They believe the tide is slowly
> turning in their favour as the number of illegal downloads has remained
> static despite a massive increase in the take-up of high-speed
> broadband connections.
And sales of singles have boomed as a result, have they?
Except that they haven't.
> Part of the BPI's strategy has been an attempt to spread the word among
> internet communities that file-sharing is illegal. It has also
> supported the implementation of Digital Rights Management (DRM).
>
> These technologies typically prevent consumers from moving content
> between devices such as MP3 players and limit how the content can be
> used. Critics claim DRM limits the rights of consumers and breaches
> civil liberties.
And, like the Sony system, add a rootkit virus to
one's computer?
Isn't that nice of them?
> The industry has
> concentrated its effort on tracing users via their computer's IP
> address - the unique number attributed to any device using the
> internet.
And which can easily be faked. Just Google on "IP spoofer"
(with the quotes) and you'll get 693 matches, with half a
dozen or so 'sponsored adverts' from anonymising websites.
Some of the 693 matches are warnings of trojans and the
like and many others are duplicates, but the first match is
to a program that claims to be useful for file sharing.
> Record companies then go to court to force internet service
> providers to reveal the identity of illegal file-sharers.
Assuming, that is, that the file sharers are not using an
IP spoofing program; if they are, innocent people may be
falsely accused.
If you have not yet been, is it not time you went?
--
x
/|\
Alex Heney
Which might be a defence, but only if they could show it was
reasonable for them not to know - otherwise they would have been
negligent regarding it.
Which in civil cases is not very different from doing it deliberately.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Damned if you are. really screwed if you arent.
Alex Heney
>kuac...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> The other defendant, a postman from Brighton, claimed he was unaware he
>> was doing anything wrong and did not seek to gain financially. Mr
>> Justice Lawrence Collins ruled that "ignorance is not a defence", and
>> ordered him to pay £1,500, with further costs and damages pending.
>
>I wonder if his farts are beyond the range of human hearing.
>
>> The BPI chairman, Peter Jamieson, said: "The courts have spoken and
>> their verdict is unequivocal: unauthorised file-sharing is against the
>> law. We have long said that unauthorised file-sharing is damaging the
>> music industry and stealing the future of artists and the people who
>> invest in them. Here is clear confirmation of what we also said - that
>> unauthorised file-sharing is illegal."
>
>And there is clear confirmation that the BPI is just
>a money-grubbing humbug. They could hardly care
>less about 'the future of artists'; all they really care
>about is the short-term profitability of an industry that
>may have only decades left anyway.
>
Yes, because of people like you, and these who were prosecuted, who
seem to think that it is "money grubbing" to want to be paid for your
work.
Do *you* go to work for free?
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
It's easier to get older than it is to get wiser.
Jonathan Bryce
> Agree entirely but when the two guys wake up tomorrow morning, they'll
> still have a criminal record.
No they won't.
Jonathan Bryce
> No... Appallingly shitty "music" and artists that can't sing dance or
> play instruments have done that.
And the fact that DVDs are often cheaper than CDs.
Try this exercise. Go into a record shop and look for the soundtrack to the
Titanic Movie. Next, look for the entire Titanic Movie, including the
soundtrack.
When I tried this, I found that the soundtrack CD cost £17.99, and the
complete movie on DVD cost £9.99.
Which represents better value for money?
Baker@nowhere.com Dave Baker
Robbie <ngrob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:442d16...@individual.net...
It's possible to block enquiries as to the files in your shared folder and
maybe if the people concerned had done this they wouldn't have ended up in
court.
Theo_D...@yahoo.co.uk
> > It is claimed that illegal file-sharing of top artists, such as
> > Beyoncé, Mariah Carey and Eminem, is threatening the future of the
> > music industry and is responsible for the collapse in the sale of
> > singles.
> play instruments have done that.
> Whoever told any of the above that they are performers shouldn't be in
> the music business.
I am sure that on at least one planet in the universe
singers who vocalise in the key of -1^-13 are
considered to be remarkably accomplished; it is
just a pity that it is not this planet. Still, at least
one of the putative artists listed above may be
decorative on occasions; is that not worth something?
If you have been, are you a has-been?
--
x
/|\
Theo_D...@yahoo.co.uk
> On 28 Jan 2006 11:03:49 -0800, kuac...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >Critics claim DRM limits the rights of consumers
> Only for the extreme cases where companies (I'm looking at you, Sony)
> thinks it's OK to silently install software on an individuals PC which
> cripples certain aspects of that machine when a customer tries to play
> a, legally bought, CD (or rather CD lookalike, since including such
> software breaks the CD standard and therefore such a disc can't,
> legally, be called a CD)
Does that mean Sony (and all retailers selling
pseudo-CDs made by Sony) have contravened
the Trade Descriptions Act?
If is does, why have they not been prosecuted?
If you have been, did it tinkle?
--
x
/|\
Theo_D...@yahoo.co.uk
> On 28 Jan 2006 17:08:58 -0800, Theo_D...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> >kuac...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> The BPI chairman, Peter Jamieson, said: "The courts have spoken and
> >> their verdict is unequivocal: unauthorised file-sharing is against the
> >> law. We have long said that unauthorised file-sharing is damaging the
> >> music industry and stealing the future of artists and the people who
> >> invest in them. Here is clear confirmation of what we also said - that
> >> unauthorised file-sharing is illegal."
> >And there is clear confirmation that the BPI is just
> >a money-grubbing humbug. They could hardly care
> >less about 'the future of artists'; all they really care
> >about is the short-term profitability of an industry that
> >may have only decades left anyway.
>
> Yes, because of people like you, and these who were prosecuted, who
> seem to think that it is "money grubbing" to want to be paid for your
> work.
Thank you for having falsely accused me of file sharing
or otherwise of having violated copyrights. Will you
apologise for that vile and most contumelious libel
or will you pretend that you did not really mean that?
Please remind us of the proportion of the retail cost
of a CD or other recording that is paid to the artist
rather than to the marketing wallahs or in profits
to the retailer and, when you have done that, please
engage your brain before deciding if it is the underpaid
artists who are money grubbers or everyone else who
is living on the back of the work of those artists.
> Do *you* go to work for free?
Since you ask and even though it is none of your
business, I will tell you that there are indeed occasions
that I will give freely of my time and such skills that I may
have acquired over the years if, by so doing, I may
help a friend or improve the lot of my fellow beings.
Would YOU refuse to do the same?
> Alex Heney, Global Villager
And also its idiot?
If you have been, should you not return?
--
x
/|\
John Anderton
>John Anderton wrote:
>> On 28 Jan 2006 11:03:49 -0800, kuac...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >Critics claim DRM limits the rights of consumers
>> > and breaches civil liberties.
>> Only for the extreme cases where companies (I'm looking at you, Sony)
>> thinks it's OK to silently install software on an individuals PC which
>> cripples certain aspects of that machine when a customer tries to play
>> a, legally bought, CD (or rather CD lookalike, since including such
>> software breaks the CD standard and therefore such a disc can't,
>> legally, be called a CD)
>
>Does that mean Sony (and all retailers selling
>pseudo-CDs made by Sony) have contravened
>the Trade Descriptions Act?
Probably, in a real world sense. If you asked a record shop drone
whether the object in your hand was a CD, you'd probably get the
answer "yes" but if you look closely, it won't contain the "CD" logo,
nor will the company be advertising that particular object as a CD so,
in a legal sense the seller is probably OK.
Oddly, unlike the "old days" "CDs" very often don't carry the CD logo
even when they don't contain any DRM. The conspiracy theorist in me
wonders if that's to make it more difficult for the discerning punter
to differentiate between those with and those without DRM.
>
>If is does, why have they not been prosecuted?
>
They have, just not for violations of the Trade Descriptions Act over
here, see:
http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=20051122010323323
Cheers,
John
The Todal
"Bystander" <byst...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:Lf-dnXtIIqMDQUbe...@pipex.net...
I look forward to reading a transcript. Until then it is difficult to
comment usefully. Breach of copyright is a criminal offence as well as a
civil breach, and it may be that the judge gave a declaration that the
various defendants were in breach of the criminal law - but I think I'd
agree that in the absence of a prosecution they wouldn't have a criminal
record.
It is a thoroughly unsatisfactory situation. We know of course that they aim
to go after those who are making their music collection available for
upload, rather than those who download a few tracks. If a judge has now
given a clear and unambiguous statement of the law, what we need is for the
BPI to set out the ruling, in full, in a public statement. Not just crow
about their victory over a handful of scapegoats. Bastards.
marc_CH
> File-sharing *might* contribute to the collapse in sales but I doubt
> it's actually in the top five of causes.
Out of interest, what are the others?
> Remind me again what percentage of the cover price of a CD goes to the
> artist ?
They gnerally get about a dollar (US) per CD, give or take a bit. Shania
Twain managed to secure a 40% royalty at one stage.
http://www.rapcoalition.org/label_exec_$$_breakdown.htm
marc
John Anderton
wrote:
No, but I don't insist that politicians who are supposed to work for
the benefit of everybody, put in place or extend laws that restrict
those people's freedoms merely so that my out-dated business model can
continue to over charge customers for a product that I personally
don't create.
The internet should be a god-send for musicians, no longer do they
need the assistance of a huge publicity machine to get their work
played on radio or bring people to their concerts. Now, a few bloggers
and word of mouth can do the publicity for them.
Customers should no longer have to visit the local high street to buy
CDs, music should only be a click away on a legal download website
and, since running a website is a hell of a lot cheaper than running a
nationwide chain of shops, more of the profits should be returned to
the creative genius behind the music and at the same time prices
should fall since over 90% of the cost of a CD goes to the middlemen,
not the musician.
The problem with this ideal world, of course, is that there is no
place in it for the huge "music industry" machine and so they are
fighting the new technology like mad. That is why the first and, as
far as I know, still the largest, legal download site (iTunes) came
from a company who were not part of the music industry and why, even
when it's obvious the iTunes business model is a success, the
entrenched music industry is dragging it's heels in setting up their
own legal download sites.
As I see it, the music industry has two ways to approach the internet
and it's, inevitable, piracy:
1) Embrace the technology and make legal downloading so easy for
consumers that it's just not worth taking the risk of prosecution most
of the time.
Accept that some piracy will take place, but be pragmatic, after all,
as long as it isn't at epidemic proportions, it'll make more people
aware of your artists and sell more legal downloads and concert
tickets.
2) Fight the technology at every turn and use ever more draconian
legal tactics to try and stop every single attempt to illegally
download music.
Fail (because most teenage kids are better with technology than record
company employees and lawyers)
Watch your business model become discredited and drown under a wave of
illegal downloading as the customers who would prefer to buy music
legally get so pissed off with your attempts to dictate to them how
and where they can play their copy of "your" music that they also turn
to illegal downloads which don't restrict when/where they can listen.
All the music companies, except Apple and a few independents, seem to
have chosen approach 2)
I believe history will show who was right,
Cheers,
John
John Anderton
wrote:
>In article <l5lnt1teavjnjqf9k...@4ax.com> John1_anderto...@hotmail.com wrote...
>
>> File-sharing *might* contribute to the collapse in sales but I doubt
>> it's actually in the top five of causes.
>
>Out of interest, what are the others?
My list would be(not necessarily in order, except for the first which,
I think, is the main culprit):
1) Phone ringtones (£5 spent on ringtones is £5 not spent on "real"
music)
2) Cheaper albums compared to singles (why pay £3 for a single when
the album is £10)
3) Poor quality music (Is it coincidence that bands from the 70's and
80's are able to tour and pack in crowds until they die of old age ?)
4) Over-hyped marketing and a more cynical audience (Today's teenagers
are far more savvy when it comes to marketing lies (aka "spin"))
5) Generally over-priced music
>
>> Remind me again what percentage of the cover price of a CD goes to the
>> artist ?
>
>They gnerally get about a dollar (US) per CD, give or take a bit. Shania
>Twain managed to secure a 40% royalty at one stage.
>
>http://www.rapcoalition.org/label_exec_$$_breakdown.htm
>
I may be mis-reading that article but it seems to say that the dollar
per CD is only paid *after* certain costs are deducted (publicity
etc.), so an artist selling 100,000 CDs will not get $100,000 but,
quite likely, nothing.
I may be naive about business practices but I say that such costs
should be being paid for from the $9 per CD that the artist doesn't
get,
Cheers,
John
marc_CH
> Years ago, when the music industry was claiming that home taping would
> kill music, there was a survey that discovered that most home taping
> was, in fact, not a substitute for a purchase.
>
> Records were taped that either the listener didn't particularly like or
> only liked certain tracks or just couldn't afford the record.
>
> Also, those that home tapped most where also amongst the biggest
> purchasers of records.
>
> As usual, the record industry blaming its customers for their problems.
Perhaps, but file-sharing is surely a far different kettle of fish.
Rather than having to seek out someone who ons th record for you to tape
you can use a vast network of computers to do the job for you *and* get
the music to you.
I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that file-sharing is damaging
music sales. It emphatically stands to reason that if you can get
something for nothing then people here will do just that. The difference
is that I really don't care. The music business has been ripping us all
off for years and years and are only now really seeing the product of
their earlier actions.
marc
John Anderton
wrote:
>It is a thoroughly unsatisfactory situation. We know of course that they aim
>to go after those who are making their music collection available for
>upload, rather than those who download a few tracks.
The problem with peer-to-peer is that *everyone* is an uploader. An
individual may think they're only downloading one song but they are
also uploading it at the same time to, potentially, thousands of
others.
>If a judge has now
>given a clear and unambiguous statement of the law, what we need is for the
>BPI to set out the ruling, in full, in a public statement. Not just crow
>about their victory over a handful of scapegoats.
From their point of view, that's exactly what they don't want. They
want to continue using vague threats to do their work for them since
actually taking people to court is expensive (and runs the risk of
finding legal loopholes and setting unhelpful precedents)
The law is already unambiguous. If a work is copyrighted then it
can't, legally, be copied without the permission of the copyright
holder.
This case wasn't that big a deal, so far, all the record companies
proved was that the two men breached copyright. If the court awards
tiny (<£1,000) or huge (£millions) damages then it might become a big
deal.
Actually, given that distribution of a copyrighted work is a criminal
offence, I wonder why this was only a civil action ?
>Bastards.
>
Well, quite,
Cheers,
John
Just Another Legal Fan
Jonathan Bryce wrote:
> When I tried this, I found that the soundtrack CD cost £17.99, and the
> complete movie on DVD cost £9.99.
>
> Which represents better value for money?
I wouldn't call either "value for money".....
Steve Walker
And it's probably unlawful to extract the soundtrack from the DVD, or soon
will be if these plutocrats have their way.
marc_CH
> It's possible to block enquiries as to the files in your shared folder and
> maybe if the people concerned had done this they wouldn't have ended up in
> court.
Maybe. Then again it's also possible that the people from whom they were
downloading would have blocked them for having nothing to share.
marc
gonzo
> > The music indusrty would not have this problem if there was something
like
> > iTunes the day Napster got popular.
> >
> >
> > Does anyone know exactly which software or method they were caught
using?
> >
> >
>
> p2p file sharing, from the main p2p applications.
>
> The prosecutions aren't of people who had a few items in their shared
> folder, nor of anyone who downloaded music, but rather individuals who
> were making available (uploading) several thousand tracks each. I
> believe that the BPI went after anyone with over 4,000 items or more in
> their shared folder.
>
damages would he. heh. its only financially worthwhile for them to sue the
big fish.
cheers
james
gonzo
"sean" <donotreply@nospam_blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7jvnt1hl3gge7c9gi...@4ax.com...
> On 28 Jan 2006 12:24:42 -0800, "allan tracy"
> <thunderb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Years ago, when the music industry was claiming that home taping would
> >kill music, there was a survey that discovered that most home taping
> >was, in fact, not a substitute for a purchase.
> >
> You can't really compare home recording with p2p and digital
> technology. With home recording you would typically tape
> something for your mate and that would probably be the end
> of the line in terms of distribution. It was also a bit of a
> hassle and the quality wasn't that great.
>
> With p2p I could have my whole 40 CD collection made
> available and distribute them through a network of more than
> a millions users. These recordings would be decent quality
> and with a few clicks of the mouse it can arrive right on
> someones PC within minutes.. These people in turn then make
> my recordings available to others and in theory, through the
> network I could have started a distrubution of music to
> thousands of people. And because these recording are CD
> quality why would you go out and buy the CD?
>
> No wonder the record industry is worried. And with the next
> genration of anonymous P2P networks, they should be even
> more worried.
>
any act since the beatles having given away vast amounts of their catalogue
on the internet, and having avoided traditional record companies entirely?
cheers
james
gonzo
"John Anderton" <John1_anderto...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:l5lnt1teavjnjqf9k...@4ax.com...> >Illegal file-sharers fined for first time in Britain
> >By Jonathan Brown
> >
> >The Independent
> >Published: 28 January 2006
> >
> >The record industry has claimed a landmark victory in its
> >multimillion-pound battle against illegal file-sharers.
> >
> >In the first ruling of its kind in Britain, revealed yesterday,
>
> Why has it taken so long for this to come to court ?
>
> > the
> >High Court found that two men acted unlawfully when they swapped music
> >over the internet.
> >
> >The British Phonographic Industry, which brought the civil case, said
> >the decision would send a clear warning that the practice must stop and
> >those who continue face court and heavy fines.
> >
> >It is claimed that illegal file-sharing of top artists, such as
> >Beyoncé, Mariah Carey and Eminem, is threatening the future of the
> >music industry and is responsible for the collapse in the sale of
> >singles.
>
> it's actually in the top five of causes.
than ever.
cheers
james
Alex Heney
wrote:
>
>"Bystander" <byst...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
>news:Lf-dnXtIIqMDQUbe...@pipex.net...
>>
>> Agree entirely but when the two guys wake up tomorrow morning, they'll
>> still have a criminal record.
>>
>> Criminal isn't in it. These were civil proceedings. What was ordered was
>> damages not fines. There will be no criminal record for anyone.
>
>I look forward to reading a transcript. Until then it is difficult to
>comment usefully. Breach of copyright is a criminal offence as well as a
>civil breach,
Only if done in the course of a business.
>and it may be that the judge gave a declaration that the
>various defendants were in breach of the criminal law
I don't think the judge *can* do that, in a civil case.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
If Murphy's Law can go wrong, it will.
Alex Heney
Only if the distribution is in the course of a business, or is to such
an extent as to "affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright"
(which obviously means affecting them more than just to the extent
covered by civil damages, or there would be no point in having the
civil remedies outlined in the act).
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
If ignorance is bliss, you must be ecstatic.
Alex Heney
wrote:
Because they aren't selling *actually* more albums.
I would guess that by "proportionately more" here you mean as a
proportion of total industry record sales.
They are treating those giveaways as advertising - which seems to
work., but sales are still nowhere near what they were 20 years ago.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Real men write self-modifying code.
Alex Heney
<John1_anderto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 10:22:42 GMT, marc...@crumhorn.org (marc_CH)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <l5lnt1teavjnjqf9k...@4ax.com> John1_anderto...@hotmail.com wrote...
>>
>>> File-sharing *might* contribute to the collapse in sales but I doubt
>>> it's actually in the top five of causes.
>>
>>Out of interest, what are the others?
>
>My list would be(not necessarily in order, except for the first which,
>I think, is the main culprit):
>
>1) Phone ringtones (£5 spent on ringtones is £5 not spent on "real"
>music)
>2) Cheaper albums compared to singles (why pay £3 for a single when
>the album is £10)
If you are looking at purely the decline in sales of singles, then I
think this would be the number 1 reason. Except that AIUI, album sales
have also declined, just not as much.
>3) Poor quality music (Is it coincidence that bands from the 70's and
>80's are able to tour and pack in crowds until they die of old age ?)
>4) Over-hyped marketing and a more cynical audience (Today's teenagers
>are far more savvy when it comes to marketing lies (aka "spin"))
I think point 1 rather disproves point 4 :-)
I can't believe *anybody* would spend money regularly on phone
ringtones without the spin and hype.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Trust me, I'm a lawyer..
Alex Heney
>Alex Heney wrote:
>> On 28 Jan 2006 17:08:58 -0800, Theo_D...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>> >kuac...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >> The BPI chairman, Peter Jamieson, said: "The courts have spoken and
>> >> their verdict is unequivocal: unauthorised file-sharing is against the
>> >> law. We have long said that unauthorised file-sharing is damaging the
>> >> music industry and stealing the future of artists and the people who
>> >> invest in them. Here is clear confirmation of what we also said - that
>> >> unauthorised file-sharing is illegal."
>> >And there is clear confirmation that the BPI is just
>> >a money-grubbing humbug. They could hardly care
>> >less about 'the future of artists'; all they really care
>> >about is the short-term profitability of an industry that
>> >may have only decades left anyway.
>>
>> Yes, because of people like you, and these who were prosecuted, who
>> seem to think that it is "money grubbing" to want to be paid for your
>> work.
>
>Thank you for having falsely accused me of file sharing
>or otherwise of having violated copyrights. Will you
>apologise for that vile and most contumelious libel
>or will you pretend that you did not really mean that?
Of course I didn't mean that.
I said you seem to think it is "money grubbing" to want to be paid for
your work.
And I stand by that.
I said nothing whatsoever regarding whether you might have violated
copyrights.
>
>Please remind us of the proportion of the retail cost
>of a CD or other recording that is paid to the artist
>rather than to the marketing wallahs or in profits
>to the retailer and, when you have done that, please
>engage your brain before deciding if it is the underpaid
>artists who are money grubbers or everyone else who
>is living on the back of the work of those artists.
They are *all* entitled to earn money from the fruits of their
labours.
Use of the phrase that it is "just money grubbing humbug" implies that
you think they were in the wrong to bring these cases.
Which to me, implies that you think it is wrong fro them to want to be
paid for their work.
>
>> Do *you* go to work for free?
>
>Since you ask and even though it is none of your
>business, I will tell you that there are indeed occasions
>that I will give freely of my time and such skills that I may
>have acquired over the years if, by so doing, I may
>help a friend or improve the lot of my fellow beings.
>
>Would YOU refuse to do the same?
>
Probably not, but that is not what we are talking about here.
Neither you not I, nor many other people would "go to work" (i.e. do
our normal day to day job) without being paid for it.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
URA Redneck if you've ever rolled your riding lawn mower
Alex Heney
<John1_anderto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 01:38:03 +0000, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On 28 Jan 2006 17:08:58 -0800, Theo_D...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>And there is clear confirmation that the BPI is just
>>>a money-grubbing humbug. They could hardly care
>>>less about 'the future of artists'; all they really care
>>>about is the short-term profitability of an industry that
>>>may have only decades left anyway.
>>>
>>
>>Yes, because of people like you, and these who were prosecuted, who
>>seem to think that it is "money grubbing" to want to be paid for your
>>work.
>>
>>Do *you* go to work for free?
>
>No, but I don't insist that politicians who are supposed to work for
>the benefit of everybody, put in place or extend laws that restrict
>those people's freedoms merely so that my out-dated business model can
>continue to over charge customers for a product that I personally
>don't create.
>
I don't think they have done that.
Copyright laws are not new, and have only been extended in ways that
follow obviously from new ways of producing creative works.
>The internet should be a god-send for musicians, no longer do they
>need the assistance of a huge publicity machine to get their work
>played on radio or bring people to their concerts. Now, a few bloggers
>and word of mouth can do the publicity for them.
>
>Customers should no longer have to visit the local high street to buy
>CDs, music should only be a click away on a legal download website
>and, since running a website is a hell of a lot cheaper than running a
>nationwide chain of shops, more of the profits should be returned to
>the creative genius behind the music and at the same time prices
>should fall since over 90% of the cost of a CD goes to the middlemen,
>not the musician.
>
>The problem with this ideal world, of course, is that there is no
>place in it for the huge "music industry" machine and so they are
>fighting the new technology like mad. That is why the first and, as
>far as I know, still the largest, legal download site (iTunes) came
>from a company who were not part of the music industry and why, even
>when it's obvious the iTunes business model is a success, the
>entrenched music industry is dragging it's heels in setting up their
>own legal download sites.
>
>As I see it, the music industry has two ways to approach the internet
>and it's, inevitable, piracy:
>
>1) Embrace the technology and make legal downloading so easy for
>consumers that it's just not worth taking the risk of prosecution most
>of the time.
Indeed, and that is what they will have to do if they want to survive
in a few years when almost everyone has broadband access.
>Accept that some piracy will take place, but be pragmatic, after all,
>as long as it isn't at epidemic proportions, it'll make more people
>aware of your artists and sell more legal downloads and concert
>tickets.
>
That is what they have always done, to an extent. It is just that with
P2P filesharing, the scale is quite a bit larger.
And the culprits are easier to trace.
>2) Fight the technology at every turn and use ever more draconian
>legal tactics to try and stop every single attempt to illegally
>download music.
>Fail (because most teenage kids are better with technology than record
>company employees and lawyers)
>Watch your business model become discredited and drown under a wave of
>illegal downloading as the customers who would prefer to buy music
>legally get so pissed off with your attempts to dictate to them how
>and where they can play their copy of "your" music that they also turn
>to illegal downloads which don't restrict when/where they can listen.
>
>
>All the music companies, except Apple and a few independents, seem to
>have chosen approach 2)
>
>I believe history will show who was right,
>
I think most of the main record companies *will* change their attitude
to downloaded music.
I don't think they will change their attitude to illegally downloaded
music.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Do the joke. Get the laugh. Move on.
Jonathan Bryce
> Actually, given that distribution of a copyrighted work is a criminal
> offence, I wonder why this was only a civil action ?
Because criminal proceedings can only be taken by Trading Standards, and
they are only interested in large commercial operations, and usually it is
for selling counterfeit goods rather than copyright infringement.
Derek ^
wrote:
>Because they aren't selling *actually* more albums.
>
>I would guess that by "proportionately more" here you mean as a
>proportion of total industry record sales.
>
>They are treating those giveaways as advertising - which seems to
>work., but sales are still nowhere near what they were 20 years ago.
They need to wake up and smell the coffee.
Nobody's sales are the same as they were 20 years ago. (In real terms,
obviously). Except maybe house builders in the UK, their prices have
gone UP.
Anybody see the contradiction in terms here?
Anyway, they should check out shirts 2 for £5 in Tesco, checkout
Primark and Matalan, and then check out the DVD players for £17.99
(inc Vat) from Sainsburys.
People are working under slave labour/prison conditions in China to
achieve this. No wonder the the pop music industry wants to protect
their copyrights more than ever before. If they are successful they'll
be more/less the only manufacturing industry to make itself *asbestos*
from Chinese take over.
And this on the flawed premise that a copy of a CD track is basically
a counterfeit copy of an original work of art.
But, that's the law.
DG
The Todal
"Alex Heney" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:fbfqt1hdpvud3jiq4...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 10:58:11 -0000, "The Todal" <deadm...@beeb.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Bystander" <byst...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
>>news:Lf-dnXtIIqMDQUbe...@pipex.net...
>>>
>>> Agree entirely but when the two guys wake up tomorrow morning, they'll
>>> still have a criminal record.
>>>
>>> Criminal isn't in it. These were civil proceedings. What was ordered was
>>> damages not fines. There will be no criminal record for anyone.
>>
>>I look forward to reading a transcript. Until then it is difficult to
>>comment usefully. Breach of copyright is a criminal offence as well as a
>>civil breach,
>
> Only if done in the course of a business.
I disagree.
" 107.-(1) A person commits an offence who, without the licence of the
copyright owner-
(a) makes for sale or hire, or
(b) imports into the United Kingdom otherwise than for his private and
domestic use, or
(c) possesses in the course of a business with a view to committing any act
infringing the copyright, or
(d) in the course of a business -
(i) sells or lets for hire, or
(ii) offers or exposes for sale or hire, or
(iii) exhibits in public, or
(iv) distributes, or
(e) distributes otherwise than in the course of a business to such an
extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright,
an article which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe is, an
infringing copy of a copyright work."
Para (e) would (or at any rate might) catch someone whose computer is always
on and allows hundreds of tracks to be downloaded to other machines.
>
>>and it may be that the judge gave a declaration that the
>>various defendants were in breach of the criminal law
>
> I don't think the judge *can* do that, in a civil case.
They can, though arguably it would be obiter. I do hope we get to read the
judgment soon. If it was Collins, he is a highly respected judge who usually
gets it right. Incidentally he must now be nearly ready to give judgment in
the Meadow case.
John Anderton
wrote:
>On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 11:23:40 GMT, John Anderton
><John1_anderto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 01:38:03 +0000, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net>
>>wrote:
>>>
>>>Do *you* go to work for free?
>>
>>No, but I don't insist that politicians who are supposed to work for
>>the benefit of everybody, put in place or extend laws that restrict
>>those people's freedoms merely so that my out-dated business model can
>>continue to over charge customers for a product that I personally
>>don't create.
>>
>
>I don't think they have done that.
Record company executives, with a very few exceptions, are not
artists, they do not create, they only market and the internet has
made marketing much less important.
>
>Copyright laws are not new, and have only been extended in ways that
>follow obviously from new ways of producing creative works.
Copyrights, when they were originally implemented, granted a monopoly
for a strictly limited time (I can't remember exactly how long but 28
years rings a bell).
The logic was that the author would get official protection so that
they could profit from their work and, in return for said protection,
after the relevant period, the work would fall into the public domain
so that everyone could benefit from it.
Since that point, copyrights have taken longer and longer to expire
until we get to the current situation where an artist, or rather their
estate, holds the copyright on their works beyond death. Changes to
the law have all been one way, in favour of the copyright holder and
to the detriment of everybody else.
<snip>
>>
>>As I see it, the music industry has two ways to approach the internet
>>and it's, inevitable, piracy:
>>
>>1) Embrace the technology and make legal downloading so easy for
>>consumers that it's just not worth taking the risk of prosecution most
>>of the time.
>
>Indeed, and that is what they will have to do if they want to survive
>in a few years when almost everyone has broadband access.
I agree, unfortunately, most record executives don't.
>
>>Accept that some piracy will take place, but be pragmatic, after all,
>>as long as it isn't at epidemic proportions, it'll make more people
>>aware of your artists and sell more legal downloads and concert
>>tickets.
>>
>
>That is what they have always done, to an extent. It is just that with
>P2P filesharing, the scale is quite a bit larger.
>
>And the culprits are easier to trace.
>
Only with the current technology. What happens if/when it's possible
to download with no fear of prosecution ?
>>2) Fight the technology at every turn and use ever more draconian
>>legal tactics to try and stop every single attempt to illegally
>>download music.
>>Fail (because most teenage kids are better with technology than record
>>company employees and lawyers)
>>Watch your business model become discredited and drown under a wave of
>>illegal downloading as the customers who would prefer to buy music
>>legally get so pissed off with your attempts to dictate to them how
>>and where they can play their copy of "your" music that they also turn
>>to illegal downloads which don't restrict when/where they can listen.
>>
>>
>>All the music companies, except Apple and a few independents, seem to
>>have chosen approach 2)
>>
>>I believe history will show who was right,
>>
>
>I think most of the main record companies *will* change their attitude
>to downloaded music.
>
>I don't think they will change their attitude to illegally downloaded
>music.
Unfortunately most of them appear to imagine that *every* download is
a potential illegal upload and are trying to put unreasonable
constraints on what legal downloaders can do with the copy of the song
they have paid for.
A good example of their mentality is exhibited by the film companies.
When I go to the cinema these days, one of the first screens I see is
one telling me how piracy is illegal etc. etc. This screen is left up
for a significant length of time so the audience have every
opportunity to quake in their boots at the thought of a fine "and
possibly prison time".
The one fly in the ointment though, is that everybody there has *paid*
to see the film. They're *not* pirating it, so why the scare treatment
?
I get a little annoyed with people who imply that I'm about to commit
a criminal act when I've just paid to see/hear what I'm
seeing/hearing,
Cheers,
John
Alex Heney
wrote:
I had forgotten para (e), but I think it must mean rather more
significant harm than can be covered by normal damages awards for
copyright infringement.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Sorry... my mind has a few bad sectors.
Alex Heney
<use...@miniac.demon.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>And this on the flawed premise that a copy of a CD track is basically
>a counterfeit copy of an original work of art.
>
Why do you suggest that could be a "flawed premise"?
I can't see that there can be any doubt about that being simple fact
(assuming the copy is not authorised by the copyright holder or their
agents of course).
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Keep London tidy... Shoot a pigeon.
Anthony Edwards
<jona...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
> Try this exercise. Go into a record shop and look for the soundtrack to the
> Titanic Movie. Next, look for the entire Titanic Movie, including the
> soundtrack.
>
> When I tried this, I found that the soundtrack CD cost £17.99, and the
> complete movie on DVD cost £9.99.
>
> Which represents better value for money?
The two things are substantially different. A soundtrack CD generally
(if not always) contains the songs which appear in any given film
in their entirety. The film, on the other hand, will simply contain
extracts from those songs (and very short snippets too, quite often).
--
Anthony Edwards
ant...@catfish.nildram.co.uk
Alex Heney
<John1_anderto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 22:47:58 +0000, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 11:23:40 GMT, John Anderton
>><John1_anderto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 01:38:03 +0000, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Do *you* go to work for free?
>>>
>>>No, but I don't insist that politicians who are supposed to work for
>>>the benefit of everybody, put in place or extend laws that restrict
>>>those people's freedoms merely so that my out-dated business model can
>>>continue to over charge customers for a product that I personally
>>>don't create.
>>>
>>
>>I don't think they have done that.
>
>Record company executives, with a very few exceptions, are not
>artists, they do not create, they only market and the internet has
>made marketing much less important.
>>
>>Copyright laws are not new, and have only been extended in ways that
>>follow obviously from new ways of producing creative works.
>
>Copyrights, when they were originally implemented, granted a monopoly
>for a strictly limited time (I can't remember exactly how long but 28
>years rings a bell).
>
They still do.
For individuals, copyright exists in their work until 50 years after
their death.
For sound recordings or films, it is 50 years after first release, or
after being made if it is never released.
AFAIK, it has always been 50 years, BICBW.
>>
>>Indeed, and that is what they will have to do if they want to survive
>>in a few years when almost everyone has broadband access.
>
>I agree, unfortunately, most record executives don't.
>>
>>>Accept that some piracy will take place, but be pragmatic, after all,
>>>as long as it isn't at epidemic proportions, it'll make more people
>>>aware of your artists and sell more legal downloads and concert
>>>tickets.
>>>
>>
>>That is what they have always done, to an extent. It is just that with
>>P2P filesharing, the scale is quite a bit larger.
>>
>>And the culprits are easier to trace.
>>
>Only with the current technology. What happens if/when it's possible
>to download with no fear of prosecution ?
>
Then they would be stuffed.
But I don't think that will happen. I don't think most governments
would allow people to be able to use the internet untraceably.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
The world is so big and so global now.
kuac...@yahoo.com
> For individuals, copyright exists in their work until 50 years after
> their death.
> For sound recordings or films, it is 50 years after first release, or
> after being made if it is never released.
> AFAIK, it has always been 50 years, BICBW.
Not any more:
"The term of copyright protection in EU member states has been
harmonized by Directive 93/98/EEC. The following rules determine the
duration of protection for books.
"If the country of origin (see Country of Origin) is a European member
state or party to the agreement creating the European Economic Area, or
if the author is a Community national, then the following copyright
terms apply (see Article 1 and 7 par. 1 Copyright Term Directive):
"1. If the author of the work is known, 70 years after the death of
the author;
"2. In the case of a work of joint authorship, 70 years after the
death of the last surviving author;
"3. In the case of anonymous or pseudonymous works, 70 years after
the work is lawfully published. If the pseudonym leaves no doubt about
his identity, or if the author discloses his identity during the 70
years after the work was lawfully published, the work is protected 70
years after the death of the author;
"..."
rest at:
http://www.gutenberg.nl/copyright/duration
In the USA it's 90 years as a sop to Disney and Warner, who lobbied
(i.e., bribed) Congress. So the Happy Birthday song will continue to
accrue royalties for a long time yet.
They'll probably extend it to 900 years in due course if the Supreme
Court lets them.
But in the USA the "fair use" doctrine makes it almost impossible to
sue if the use is political or educational and "reasonable". Thus:
truthout.org citing 17 U.S.Code sec. 107.
Derek ^
wrote:
>On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 22:52:00 +0000, Derek ^
><use...@miniac.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>And this on the flawed premise that a copy of a CD track is basically
>>a counterfeit copy of an original work of art.
>>
>
>Why do you suggest that could be a "flawed premise"?
>
>I can't see that there can be any doubt about that being simple fact
>(assuming the copy is not authorised by the copyright holder or their
>agents of course).
The counterfeit copy is undoubtedly counterfeit.
But the CD track is undoubtedly a copy not an original work of art.
Like a photograph of the Mona-Lisa.
The music industry is selling copies and wanting them protected as if
they were original works of art. But copying them only involves
pressing a button, or even less, and they wonder why people do it.
That's all.
DG
Carl Waring
> You could make the same groundless statement about a local drug dealer
> or prostitute - technically they`re available to millions around the
> world - but only if the rest of the world could be bothered "using"
> their services.
Really? Your local 'pusher' has a website does he? People actually pay to
fly in to the UK to buy off him, or does he pay for their air fare?
Don't be stupid :-(
--
Carl Waring
http://getdigiguide.com/?p=1&r=1495
Peter McLelland
"Derek ^" <use...@miniac.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:jmnrt1drfj65k9rmp...@4ax.com...
overcharging the public to fund their own enjoyment, but they are selling
legally licensed copies which is quite legitimate and they do have the right
to protect that business. The protection the original artist has from
copyright is passed down by their license to the music company. As to the
photo of the Mona Lisa you will find that if you try to photograph that
painting or any other in the Louvre you will be ejected and your photo
destroyed. You can of course buy licensed copies from their shop.
Peter
Alex Heney
<use...@miniac.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 23:57:20 +0000, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 22:52:00 +0000, Derek ^
>><use...@miniac.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>And this on the flawed premise that a copy of a CD track is basically
>>>a counterfeit copy of an original work of art.
>>>
>>
>>Why do you suggest that could be a "flawed premise"?
>>
>>I can't see that there can be any doubt about that being simple fact
>>(assuming the copy is not authorised by the copyright holder or their
>>agents of course).
>
>The counterfeit copy is undoubtedly counterfeit.
>
>But the CD track is undoubtedly a copy not an original work of art.
>
A copy of a copy is still a copy of the original.
And of course every book ever printed is a copy. You could perfectly
well argue that only the manuscript is "original".
There is no logical difference between printing a book or burning a
CD.
>Like a photograph of the Mona-Lisa.
>
That is a bad example because it is well out of copyright.
But try taking a photograph of a recent painting and distributing it
commercially, and you are likely to find yourself in trouble if the
artist finds out.
>The music industry is selling copies and wanting them protected as if
>they were original works of art. But copying them only involves
>pressing a button, or even less, and they wonder why people do it.
>
I don't think they "wonder". They know perfectly well it is easy, and
that people do it because they want a(nother) copy without paying for
it.
But the fact that it can be done just by pressing a button does not
have any bearing on whether it is (or should be) legal or not.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Don't Take Life Seriously, It Is Not Permanent.
Alex Heney
>
>> For individuals, copyright exists in their work until 50 years after
>> their death.
>
>> For sound recordings or films, it is 50 years after first release, or
>> after being made if it is never released.
>
>> AFAIK, it has always been 50 years, BICBW.
>
>Not any more:
>
>"The term of copyright protection in EU member states has been
>harmonized by Directive 93/98/EEC. The following rules determine the
>duration of protection for books.
>
I can't find the Act or Statutory Instrument which would implement
that directive.
Do you know when/if it was implemented in the UK?
It certainly wasn't in 2003, because the Copyright and Related Rights
Regulations 2003 explicitly make it 50 years from the date of
recording or of release for sound recordings.
I suspect that one has not been implemented at all here. I notice that
the site you link to says "This has to be filled in" under UK.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Pobody's Nerfect!
The Todal
Nevertheless I think it is *probably* (I look forward to seeing a transcript
one day) the basis on which householders are regularly prosecuted or
threatened with prosecution, at the present time. Here's another report
mentioning criminal proceedings for file-sharing:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4663388.stm
Alex Heney
wrote:
AFAIK, no private individual has had criminal charges brought against
them as yet.
There has been a lot of misinformation and FUD from the like of FAST,
talking about potential penalties, but only civil actions have
actually been brought, which don't carry those penalties.
That article looks like another case of FUD to me.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
To define recursion, we must first define recursion.
kuac...@yahoo.com
the sound recordings law. However, think of the European law rules for
direct effect (i.e., legal effect in member states even if a regulation
or directive hasn't been transposed, by local legislation):
"For a provision of a directive or regulation, or a Treaty article, to
be directly effective it must be clear, precise & unconditional (Case
26/62 Van Gend & Loos (1963) ECR 1 - nature of Community law; rights
and obligations of individuals). The date for implementation of the
Directive must also have passed. In addition, Directives can only be
invoked against public bodies. The rationale for this rule is that the
Directive is addressed to the Member State - it is the State, which
has the obligation to implement it in national law. As individuals have
no part in that process, it would be unfair to allow them to be taken
to Court and blamed if the implementation was faulty.
"Treaty articles can also be directly effective. (For example, the
recent Angonese case - Angonese v Cassa di Risparmio di Bolzano SpA,
Case C-281/98 (6 June 2000) - held that article 39 EC on the free
movement of workers has direct effect.) The Treaty article must be
clear and precise before it can be relied on in the national courts.
Treaty articles can be relied on as against a private individual or
against the state - in other words they can be both horizontally and
vertically directly effective. This is also the case with Regulations."
Isn't Directive 93/98/EEC "clear, precise and uncondItional"?
What's surprising about the apparent lack of UK implementing
legislation is that (1) the UK has just about the best record of
implementing European law of any member state (and then complaining
about it later, but that's another story. The French complain first and
don't implement until they have to, if then.) and (2) one can assume
the Americans, who are ruled by their richest companies ("Who really
runs America?") will have been pressing the UK to match its policy of
creating vast dynasties of the wealthy, including super-rich holders of
intellectual property that lasts forever (not least by constant
extension of copyright life, but also by converting copyright to
trademark and allowing the patenting of methods, ideas and concepts),
and further enriching Disney and Warner.
The closest the UK has come to that seems to be Hugh Grant's character
in "About a Boy". But I digress...
A cursury search of Eur-Lex shows only one interpretive case, Butterfly
Music Srl, http://tinyurl.com/7l9f7 That case concerned, among other
things, the equally interesting question as to the primacy over
contrary domestic law of the revival of spent intellectual property
rights (when the duration of copyright for sound recordings was
extended from 30 to 50 years). Butterfly held that "26 In view of those
considerations, national legislation, such as Law No 52/96, as amended,
which permits persons, who were reproducing and marketing
sound-recording media in respect of which the rights of use had expired
under the previous legislation, to distribute those media for a limited
period from its entry into force, meets the requirements of the
Directive."
So: perhaps the Directive isn't "clear, precise and unconditional"
enough to allow one to bring an action in mandamus (or equivalent)
against whoever it is in England that implements and enforces copyright
law. (Since directives, even if directly effective, bind only public
bodies.) Vested interests must surely be lobbying Parliament. Too bad
that Abramoff got found out before he could get here...
But what do I know.
Theo_D...@yahoo.co.uk
> On 28 Jan 2006 20:31:20 -0800, Theo_D...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> >Alex Heney wrote:
> >> Yes, because of people like you, and these who were prosecuted, who
> >> seem to think that it is "money grubbing" to want to be paid for your
> >> work.
> >Thank you for having falsely accused me of file sharing
> >or otherwise of having violated copyrights. Will you
> >apologise for that vile and most contumelious libel
> >or will you pretend that you did not really mean that?
> Of course I didn't mean that.
Yet nevertheless that was clearly what you implied
by the phrase, "people like you, and these who were
prosecuted". The meaning, import and implication of
those words could hardly be clearer: you sought to
suggest that I am also a violator of copyrights, albeit
one whi has not been prosecuted.
And that is simply untrue.
So I invite you once more to retract your defamatory
statement and to apologise for having made it.
> I said nothing whatsoever regarding whether you might have violated
> copyrights.
You did.
Now, would you prefer people to believe that you are
a libeller or that you are an inept bungler with a
personal and idiosyncratic understanding of veracity?
> >Please remind us of the proportion of the retail cost
> >of a CD or other recording that is paid to the artist
> >rather than to the marketing wallahs or in profits
> >to the retailer and, when you have done that, please
> >engage your brain before deciding if it is the underpaid
> >artists who are money grubbers or everyone else who
> >is living on the back of the work of those artists.
> They are *all* entitled to earn money from the fruits of their
> labours.
> Use of the phrase that it is "just money grubbing humbug" implies that
> you think they were in the wrong to bring these cases.
> Which to me, implies that you think it is wrong fro them to want to be
> paid for their work.
Perhaps it does, for you seem quite determined
to infer meanings that plainly are not there in your
pathetic and puerile attempts to exculpate yourself.
I believe that recordings are overpriced, that far too
much of the retail price is paid for marketing and that
the recording artists deserve to be paid more.
> URA Redneck if you've ever rolled your riding lawn mower
Or one could be Rick Mayall?
If you have been, who was playing with his Bottom?
--
x
/|\
Alex Heney
>Alex Heney wrote:
>> On 28 Jan 2006 20:31:20 -0800, Theo_D...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>> >Alex Heney wrote:
>> >> Yes, because of people like you, and these who were prosecuted, who
>> >> seem to think that it is "money grubbing" to want to be paid for your
>> >> work.
>> >Thank you for having falsely accused me of file sharing
>> >or otherwise of having violated copyrights. Will you
>> >apologise for that vile and most contumelious libel
>> >or will you pretend that you did not really mean that?
>> Of course I didn't mean that.
>
>Yet nevertheless that was clearly what you implied
>by the phrase, "people like you, and these who were
>prosecuted". The meaning, import and implication of
>those words could hardly be clearer: you sought to
>suggest that I am also a violator of copyrights, albeit
>one whi has not been prosecuted.
>
That is not the meaning, nor is it a clear implication, to me. It
certainly was NOT what I intended.
I intended exactly and only what I said, namely that you appear to
believe it to be "money grubbing" to want to be paid for your work.
>And that is simply untrue.
>
>So I invite you once more to retract your defamatory
>statement and to apologise for having made it.
>
I apologise for the implication that you think was there.
It certainly was not intended.
I can't retract any statement that implies you may have violated
copyright, because I have made no such statement. I apologise for
including "and those who were prosecuted", as that seems to be the
only part of what I said that could possibly lead to the implication
you see.
>> I said nothing whatsoever regarding whether you might have violated
>> copyrights.
>
>You did.
>
>Now, would you prefer people to believe that you are
>a libeller or that you are an inept bungler with a
>personal and idiosyncratic understanding of veracity?
>
Neither.
I certainly said nothing whatsoever explicitly regarding whether you
might have violated copyrights.
And I certainly did not intend any implication that you might have
done. I do not believe most people would have taken that implication,
but I apologise for it anyhow.
>> >Please remind us of the proportion of the retail cost
>> >of a CD or other recording that is paid to the artist
>> >rather than to the marketing wallahs or in profits
>> >to the retailer and, when you have done that, please
>> >engage your brain before deciding if it is the underpaid
>> >artists who are money grubbers or everyone else who
>> >is living on the back of the work of those artists.
>> They are *all* entitled to earn money from the fruits of their
>> labours.
>> Use of the phrase that it is "just money grubbing humbug" implies that
>> you think they were in the wrong to bring these cases.
>> Which to me, implies that you think it is wrong fro them to want to be
>> paid for their work.
>
>Perhaps it does, for you seem quite determined
>to infer meanings that plainly are not there in your
>pathetic and puerile attempts to exculpate yourself.
>
Not at all.
You seem determined to infer a meaning that simply wasn't there in an
attempt to condemn me.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Everyone hates me because I'm paranoid
Alex Heney
>I checked LexisUK and in a quick survey couldn't anything new beyond
>the sound recordings law. However, think of the European law rules for
>direct effect (i.e., legal effect in member states even if a regulation
>or directive hasn't been transposed, by local legislation):
>
>"For a provision of a directive or regulation, or a Treaty article, to
>be directly effective it must be clear, precise & unconditional (Case
>26/62 Van Gend & Loos (1963) ECR 1 - nature of Community law; rights
>and obligations of individuals). The date for implementation of the
>Directive must also have passed. In addition, Directives can only be
>invoked against public bodies. The rationale for this rule is that the
>Directive is addressed to the Member State - it is the State, which
>has the obligation to implement it in national law. As individuals have
>no part in that process, it would be unfair to allow them to be taken
>to Court and blamed if the implementation was faulty.
>
>"Treaty articles can also be directly effective. (For example, the
>recent Angonese case - Angonese v Cassa di Risparmio di Bolzano SpA,
>Case C-281/98 (6 June 2000) - held that article 39 EC on the free
>movement of workers has direct effect.) The Treaty article must be
>clear and precise before it can be relied on in the national courts.
>Treaty articles can be relied on as against a private individual or
>against the state - in other words they can be both horizontally and
>vertically directly effective. This is also the case with Regulations."
>
>
>Isn't Directive 93/98/EEC "clear, precise and uncondItional"?
>
It may be.
But this change to copyright law will have little effect on public
bodies anyhow.
I suppose it could mean that any public body carrying out unauthorised
copying of a work between 50 and 70 years after death of the author
(or after recording in the case of a sound recording) could be
prosecuted for copyright infringement. But somehow that seems unlikely
to happen :-)
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Point not found. A)bort, R)eread, I)gnore.
Sean Black
<John1_anderto...@hotmail.com> writes
>Unfortunately most of them appear to imagine that *every* download is
>a potential illegal upload and are trying to put unreasonable
>constraints on what legal downloaders can do with the copy of the song
>they have paid for.
>
>A good example of their mentality is exhibited by the film companies.
>When I go to the cinema these days, one of the first screens I see is
>one telling me how piracy is illegal etc. etc. This screen is left up
>for a significant length of time so the audience have every
>opportunity to quake in their boots at the thought of a fine "and
>possibly prison time".
>The one fly in the ointment though, is that everybody there has *paid*
>to see the film. They're *not* pirating it, so why the scare treatment
>?
>
buy one, where the picture and sound are really crap, which may have
been the case in the VHS days, but not anymore.
>I get a little annoyed with people who imply that I'm about to commit
>a criminal act when I've just paid to see/hear what I'm
>seeing/hearing,
>
It's just as bad with DVDs, when you get the unskippable "You wouldn't
steal a car...." crap, when if you'd got a copied DVD you wouldn't have
to put up with that sort of shit.
--
Sean Black
gonzo
terms last year.
cheers
james