Danish Anti-Piracy Organization Bills P2P Users 682
faaaz writes "The danish anti-piracy organisation Antipiratgruppen has billed approximately 150 p2p users an amount of up to $14,000 each for sharing copyrighted material. The organisation says 'Pay up, or we'll sue!'" There's also a Reuters article.
Ex-wife (Score:5, Funny)
Isn't this what Slashdot has always wanted? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Isn't this what Slashdot has always wanted? (Score:3, Interesting)
is it M$ thats chraging the pirates?
is it adobe, or macromedia, or whatever company who's software is being distributed?
no.
its just some company who's supposedly against piracy, who is gonna make a profit off of piracy.
will adobe or M$ or anyone else see that money?
i highly doubt it.
all they are doing is basically going around and saying pay us, or pay us and some lawyer to protect your ass.
definately not what we've been asking for
No it isn't (Score:4, Insightful)
But the important thing here is that they do NOT have any proof that those people are in possesion of the songs illegally. To my knowledge there is no law against posting your songs up on a network. [wait for the whole point] They could of course make a case that you are putting them up there with the express intent of facilitating piracy (ie Napster) but that isn't what the people are being charged ($$$) for since it would be a criminal charge not something they could send you a bill for.
The individuals could of course say that it was simply the easiest way for them to make their own, legally obtained music available to themselves when not at home.
No this is not what Slashdot has wanted all along. What we have wanted all along is for them to bust people who are DOWNLOADING / possesiing songs they don't have the licence to; versus the simple act of posting a legal song. Of course the "posters" who do so for profit should be shut down because no matter if they own a real licence to the music they do not have the right to distribute. That is the discriminator: you have no way to deny inent to distribute if you are engaging in the business of selling the data. Remember the rules of logic and debate in the court room are very specific compared to a conversation in a bar or a chat room. Afterall how do you think OJ got off???
Back to the point
To put it simply
That is what Slashdot has wanted
Re:No it isn't (Score:5, Informative)
Of course, as others have pointed out: 1) These guys are not the copyright holders and thus have no standing to demand payment, and 2) They have no proof that these are illegal copies. But what do they care? If I wasn't encumbered with ethics, I might try this scam myself. Then again, if I wasn't encumbered with ethics I'd be spamming you all with ads to my porn sites.
Re:Isn't this what Slashdot has always wanted? (Score:2)
I don't like the idea of any anti-piracy group assuming that I'm guilty prior to a fair hearing by billing me.
Re:Isn't this what Slashdot has always wanted? (Score:3, Interesting)
They don't, and it does not matter. The person does not own the copyright so he cannot legally distribute the material.
By the way, I guess both articles got some basic facts wrong. I don't think they are going to be sued for downloading but for offering copyrighted works. IMHO, this is what the **AA should have been doing all along instead of trying to block new technology.
And to answer all those comments that the anti piracy group cannot know what the files contain and should not have the right to set the fines themselves: You are right!
Just consider this fine as a generous offer. If you think it is unfair, then let the police investigae exactly what you have shared, and a court decide what you should pay.
It will be interesting to see where all this will end up...
Re:Isn't this what Slashdot has always wanted? (Score:4, Funny)
Yes, I hope every single Danish citizen participates liberally in P2P file sharing networks. It'd be fun to watch the country dissolve into a police state in which normal human behavior is supressed so that a stupid obsolete law can be enforced by the state. It's wonderful to watch, really.
Every time you remember a word you've read, you've violated copyright you know. We must extract those patterns from your brain cells after you've finished that book. Can't have you walking around with an illegal copy in your head.
Re:Isn't this what Slashdot has always wanted? (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean, like the U.S.?
(Score: -1, Unamerikan)
It's not what I wanted (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's take a trip down memory lane. Me making a copy of a CD for a friend technically violates the copyright, but only the dumbest and most opperesive states would bother to enforce it. What monetary damage was done by my "perfect" seleveless, artless copy for my friend? Generally zero as my friend would never have bought the thing in the first place but has an inferior copy which might lead him to buy the "real" thing. We could walk further down that road to tapes where courts upheld your right to do just that. We could go even further back before acid paper and comercial pulp printing and find much weaker copyright laws. We could go back even further and find that for the majority of human history writers expected no finicial reward for their efforts and considered it an honor when others would publish their work.
What I see comming is some awful invasive world where others think they have a right to search my personal effects at will. They have screen shots of the victim's computers? They must have been windoze users [min.net], but the precident is disturbing. Suppose my ISP is pressured to not allow connection from "insecure" platforms that do not allow such spying? Well, screw that. I don't go places where people treat me like a criminal. I'm not intersted in RIAA music, I never ran Napster, nor have I ever fooled around with newer music sharing junk. I want to share my own work, not that of others. These jackasses seek to prevent others from publishing their own music. If they get away with it, soon other forms of publishing will be prevented. We are on the road to Tycho.
Probably just a pittance (Score:2, Insightful)
If I were these guys, I'd consider myself getting away with a slap on the wrist.
Whoa... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Whoa... (Score:2, Funny)
The "word of honor"? Ah I forgot, these are probably lawyers... can't expect that to work.
Who gets the money? (Score:5, Insightful)
Assuming a CD has, on average, 15 songs, and you can get a CD for $12 at Best Buy, $2.67--that's a 250% markup on each song.
And, who is going to ensure that paying these folks will prevent future prosecution by the copyright holders? Do I get to keep the songs and movies that I downloaded if I pay up?
Re:Who gets the money? (Score:4, Informative)
No.
From the article:
"If they pay now - and delete the illegal content from their hard drives - then the amount is cut in half and they avoid going to court. Those who don't pay up are to be sued."
Well.. (Score:5, Interesting)
it's not hypocrisy (Score:2, Interesting)
That having been said, I do enjoy watching slashdotters squirm in their pants when accused of hipocrisy. ;)
Re:Well.. (Score:5, Insightful)
My problem is that I don't see how they suddenly got this power without having the police involved.
Also, as The Register mentions, this can surely backfire:
"Also, the labels, movie studios and video game makers have increasingly distributed bogus files on P2P networks that resemble the genuine article, down to file size and title, to frustrate would-be downloaders."
From the antipiracy bureaus, I hope for their own sake that they brought CRC checksums of each file with them and that they can connect those to the actual transfer of the p2p user.
Hypocrisy? How bout some rational thought? (Score:3, Interesting)
4 of my friends and I getting together and doing this in the USA would get us all thrown in jail for fraud. Why? Because I don't have any affiliation with the owners of the material that is being infringed. Sure, I could go out and gather information on everyone who is downloading or offering for download copyrighted information, but to actually use that information requires the support of the coypright holder. Basically, I can't sue you for infringing Eminem's copyright, only Eminem's label can bring that suit because they are the copyright holder.
So, when these "university students" gathered all this infringement data, the first thing they should have done is contact the copyright holders to see what the copyright holders wanted done about it... Another alternative would have been contacting the proper authorities to have them bring criminal charges if any are warranted. Threatening the infringers before taking either of those actions is not "policing copyright". It's something else entirely called "extortion". Basically these guys are saying "We've got the goods on you, pay up or we'll tell." Last I checked, extortion carried a worse criminal penalty than copyright infringement.
This isn't to say money couldn't be made by policing copyright. This very group could have done something much closer to legal by contacting copyright holders worried about infringement and getting them to bankroll just such an evidence gathering service. The data they've already gathered could even have ethically been offered free as a sample...
Screenshots do not constitute proof (Score:3, Insightful)
Let the correction of misguided statements like this begin ... now
Show me the proof. Show me something beyond filenames and IP addresses, which is what both articles appear to be implying is the main source of evidence for billing these people. Filenames alone don't cut it. If I'm missing something else here in these articles, by all means, someone correct me, but I have not seen any definitive statements that anyone looked at the actual digital content.
I am not naive enough to think that NOBODY was pirating copyrighted material. But before you go convicting someone without a trial (which is what this organization is essentially doing by simply billling them). Screenshots of filenames on people's drives constitutes proof? Bullshit.
Here, how about this? I'll create a directory on my drive. Let's call it "/home/stwrtpj/al_qaeda_plans". Now let's copy some files in there from other directories, but lets give these files name like, oh, I don't know "plot_to_kill_george_w", "destroy_america", "smite_the_infidels", aaaaand "plans_to_blow_up_hoover_dam". Now let's take a screenshot of Gnome's file manager proudly displaying those filenames. So does this mean I'm a terrorist? Does this give anyone the right to pursue civil or criminal charges against me? No. "plot_to_kill_george_w" could contain a freaking grocery list for all you know.
So, no, Slashdotters are not going to be hypocrites for the most part. I for one am not. Show me the proof of what they are allegedly doing and I'll be the first to agree that some restitution is in order. Until then, all you have are filenames and supposition.
People are finally starting to "get it" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:People are finally starting to "get it" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:People are finally starting to "get it" (Score:3, Interesting)
Lol ... (Score:2, Flamebait)
BRING IT
Where's my services rendered, where's my product delivered, and where's the sales agreement which was signed that justifies you billing me?
They've got a term for this in America, we here like to call it extortion.
Re:Lol ... (Score:3, Informative)
Think before you post... (Score:5, Insightful)
Idea... (Score:2, Troll)
This is dangerous (Score:5, Insightful)
How 'bout I send a bill to Kazaa for 'stealing' information about me that is used to provide ads that bother the shit about me? Oh wait, I can't threaten them with legal action like they can.
Re:This is dangerous (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is dangerous (Score:4, Informative)
All of this data is sent back along the cable feed to their log server in real time.
A simple call to tech support with a problem will prove this, as when they ask you do to something such as change a channel, they will tell YOU when you did it or if you didnt do it right.
In addition, they can also feed commands into your converter to change its channel, power settings, etc.
Each converter has a serial number on it that is tied to a household/billing account.
If you ever call and report your name they log that with which converter at the time you called about as well, so if you only call for one and your buddy calls for another, they can narrow it down to who has which converter as well (Thou they dont really use that particular data, its more of a note than anything.)
A simple notch filter on the cable line can block these signals, but dont expect any help from tech support if you do that. They will tell you they arnt getting a reply from your converter and something must be wrong with the connection to it, most likely dispatching a technition to fix the problem locally.
Officially they claim to only use these logs for trouble shooting, but its also been proven they use them to watch for cable pirates.
If you continuously change to channels you dont get and Watch those channels for any amount of time, yet you dont pay for them or havent orderd the pay per view show, it sets off flags that alerts them.
This is why 'test boxes' that are just descramblers also include these notch filters.
As far as the cable co can see from one of those, the converter isnt even hooked up to their network.
Re:This is dangerous (Score:4, Insightful)
Why do people think they can get away with such foolish and lazy definitions? Copyright infringement is not "stealing". Anyone taking the time to properly understand the issues will agree that copyright infringement and stealing are different crimes. Perhaps for simpletons that don't understand law very well I should begin pushing a new word "criming" that applies to all illegal activity from jaywalking to murdering in laws (This would of course include
Either way, I don't see how it's okay to do the following:
1) Observe a theft of someone else's property.
2) Ask the thief for money to avoid trouble.
3) Tell the owner of the property only if the thief doesn't pay.
The precedent for punishing thieves was set a few millenia ago... you are a little late to the party on that one.
Oh, right! My bad. Whose right hands should be chopped off in this case?
Re:This is dangerous (Score:5, Interesting)
Thanx, guess that's better than a "shabby" flame.
why is it that everybody else here seems to agree that one of the issues is theft?
Maybe because those who take the time to think about what they say have less time left over to hit the "submit" button?
So if copyright infringement in this case is not stealing, why is it not?
Because data is not the same thing as material goods. There are numerous dialogues on this topic. Here is one easy list [gnu.org] to remember on a related topic. The gist is that having copied a peice of data, I have not in any way diminshed the original data. It is quite plain that copying a file off of your hard-drive is very different than taking a beer out of your fridge and drinking it. In drinking a beer I've lowered your beer count by one. In copying a file I diminish your data count by none.
Okay, so data is different than physical objects. But what does stealing mean?
----From dictionary.com----
v. stole, (stl) stolen, (stln) stealing, steals
v. tr.
1. To take (the property of another) without right or permission.
2. To get or effect surreptitiously or artfully: steal a kiss; stole the ball from an opponent.
3. To move, carry, or place surreptitiously.
4. To draw attention unexpectedly in (an entertainment), especially by being the outstanding performer: The magician's assistant stole the show with her comic antics.
5. Baseball. To advance safely to (another base) during the delivery of a pitch, without the aid of a base hit, walk, passed ball, or wild pitch.
---------------------
Clearly sense 1 applies here, but in the case of copyright infringement what is owned by the copyright holder (exclusive right to authorize copies) is only partially subsumed. The infringer does not put their name on the registered copyright document and begin sueing others for infringement (that would be plaguerism, which is much closer to stealing), they merely disregard the exclusive granted right.
What *is* stealing?
1) Breaking, entering and leaving with physical goodies.
2) Credit card fraud.
3) Pretending to work on company time. (like posting to slashdot for instance)
4) Lieing on income tax returns.
What *isn't* stealing?
1) Trespassing. Land, has many characteristics in common with other physical property. And yet, occupying that land without permission is not considered stealing. It is trespassing. Stealing the land would require taking full ownership, not just partial unauthorized use.
Looking over this list, it's plain that copying data without permission (copyright infringement) is very different than other activity associated with "stealing". If anything it has more in common with trespassing, another activity that only affects part of a property right. But even trespassing deals in limited physical goods whereas copyright deals with unlimited logical goods.
Because of this and similar issues, copyright and property laws have very seperate paths of evolution. Even today, you would not go into court being unsure whether you were charged with stealing a physical good or infringing on another's right to copy.
This isn't to say copyright infringement is "okay" or that it is not a crime. Merely that it is not the same thing as stealing. It also doesn't imply that wielding teams of lawyers and a weighty judicial system against "joe sixpack" to squeeze more cash out of him is a morally agreeable or ethically defensible activity.
This is to say copyright infringement is not the same as stealing. It also implies the motivations of anyone pushing the infringement=stealing notion are suspect.
Be specific please.
You asked for it!
Body of article (Score:2, Informative)
LONDON -- In a unique crackdown on illegal file-sharing, a Danish anti-piracy group mailed invoices to alleged pirates demanding compensation for downloading copyrighted materials off the Internet, an attorney for the group said on Tuesday.
The Danish Anti Piracy Group (APG) identified 150 alleged pirates asking them to pay a combined $133,600, said Morten Lindegaard, an attorney for the group. The biggest offenders face a bill of $13,360.
"We are demanding full payment for the use of these copyrighted materials," Lindegaard said. The APG has worked with the Danish branch of music trade body International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, to crack down on online piracy. The decision to seek compensation for downloads opens up a controversial new front in copyright holders' ongoing campaign to curb consumer piracy on the Internet, a phenomenon blamed for a decline in CD sales and upswing in the free trade of video games, computer software and video games.
The tactic is drawing protests from some technical and legal experts who insist that without the violators' computer it's impossible to prove the existence of copyright violations. Others question the size of the bills.
"In this case, we're talking about compensation for the damage the Anti Piracy Group claims its members have suffered. It's the courts that decide the amount of compensation to be paid due to copyright infringement, not the victim." said Martin von Haller Groenbaek, a Danish attorney specialising in IT law.
KAZAA, EDONKEY USERS TARGETED
In each case, the Danish users were accused of downloading copyrighted materials from file-sharing networks Kazaa and eDonkey, two popular so-called peer-to-peer (P2P) networks in Denmark, Lindegaard said.
Lindegaard, 29, and his helpers -- four Danish university students -- developed a software program that monitored Danish file swappers on the two P2P networks, honing down to the users' Internet Protocol, or IP, address to confirm they were logged on from Denmark.
The program also traced the files shared and the time at which they were downloaded. After reviewing the evidence, a judge ordered the users' Internet service providers to pass on the violators' billing addresses.
In each case, the alleged pirate first learned they were being investigated when they received a bill in the post, which began arriving late last week.
A spokesman for the Danish Consumer Council said they received roughly 50 complaints from the fined individuals. After an initial investigation, the council determined the APG complied with local data protection laws, the spokesman added.
STUDENTS, PROFESSIONALS FINGERED
Lindegaard said the accused range from high school students to professionals. They downloaded materials ranging from Eminem songs to the latest Star Wars film to the video game, "Grand Theft Auto."
"The top 10 computer games, music and movies -- it's all there," said Lindegaard.
The alleged pirates were billed based on the amount of files they shared. For a single music file, they were charged $2.67; $26.70 for a movie and approximately $50 for a video game, Lindegaard said. But technical experts threw into question the fairness of the bill, pointing to the fact that copyrighted material from time to time is distributed for free across the Internet in a legitimate manner.
For example, major record labels allow users to download select songs from new album releases off the Web. The tracks typically expire after a period, but in some cases the deactivated track may still appear on a users' hard drive.
Also, the labels, movie studios and video game makers have increasingly distributed bogus files on P2P networks that resemble the genuine article, down to file size and title, to frustrate would-be downloaders.
"How do you know each of these copyrighted materials is illegal? That's the big issue here," said Urs Gattiker, a professor of technology and innovation management at Aalborg University in Denmark.
And the money goes to... (Score:2, Insightful)
Also it's interesting as the people in The Register note, that proving, even with the lower standard of civil action, that particular user had real movies or who exactly set up p2p on particular computer might be a little problematic.
Looks like a scare tactics to me.
Well at least... (Score:5, Funny)
Step 3: Profit!
How do the Danish know ... (Score:3, Insightful)
The article says that they are billing by file name. This method has its own, shall we say, limitations. I would imagine it would be embarrasing to take the p2p users to court only to have them show up with recitps for the material the rightly own.
Cheers,
-- RLJ
Re:How do the Danish know ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, there's the people who will respond with "Well, I can make a copy for a friend or my spouse can't I?" I suppose, but that sort of copying isn't near of the scale of distribution that offering your MP3s on Kazaa gives you.
Sharing or downloading? (Score:2)
So what?! Why put funny things in the slashdot article?!
Who's copyrights? (Score:2, Interesting)
Otherwise their actions are about as threatening as the BSA's. Right?
What's it worth? (Score:2)
screen shots != great proof (Score:2, Insightful)
2) the file names could be misleading (i.e., the file's contents not illegal)
3) which family member used the computer?
Basically, they are saying pay us $60 bucks. Otherwise, they will take you to court.
However, if they take you to court, you might win!
This is like me sending random letters asking to be PayPal'd or expect to see me in court! If people comply... well then thanks!
Which by the way would be like holding people up for ransom?
Maybe this story [slashdot.org] affected the Danishes, eh?
Re:screen shots != great proof (Score:5, Informative)
This isn't like a motor vehicle; the person who owns the ISP account is responsible for how it's used. This is why a company can be liable for its employees' copyright infringment.
now (Score:2)
How would they prove this? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:How would they prove this? (Score:3, Informative)
And then it becomes legitimate (Score:2)
So, if someone pays the bills, he can then legally digitally own everything he got billed for! With no EULAs in sight, presumably.
what if..... (Score:5, Informative)
So...if you want to download on P2P you could probably take these measures and be okay
Re:what if..... (Score:3, Insightful)
Download the files from where? Assuming most people did this, there would be nowhere to download the files from, as noone would be sharing their files.
Re:what if..... (Score:4, Insightful)
In theory, you can then have the RIAA arrested for violating the DMCA, or at least try to get your case thrown out. (The "evidence" that you had the MP3 is inadmissible if they obtain it illegally, is it not?)
And if they convince the judge that my idea is total crap, haven't they just set a precedent weakening the DMCA? Might as well fight fire with fire. :)
Tough situation (Score:3, Insightful)
The names of the files can be rather incriminating, since it isn't likely that a file named "U2-Sunday Bloody Sunday.mp3" is anything but that song, by that artist. Coupled with the fact that these users probably have hundreds of similarly named files, it won't be easy to dissuade a jury of your peers that you were not illegally obtaining copy righted music. Yet, with this being the only evidence that they have to go by, a defending lawyer might be able to prove that there is reasonable doubt - especially if the files are no longer present on the culprits system at the time of a law enforcemnet raid (if that ever happens over there).
The most obvious answer is to stop pirating. A person can come up with all of the self serving rationalizations that they want, like "I wasn't going to ever pay for it anways" or "the industry charges too much", but in the end, you obtained material that is explicitly protected and must be obtained through a legitimate sale in an illegal manner. Pay up.
Ridiculous.. (Score:3, Interesting)
would claim.
Blank mp3s (Score:5, Funny)
Do they have a copyright on the blank loop? If not I think I should hurry up and copyright it
Re:Blank mp3s (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Blank mp3s (Score:5, Informative)
Good on them! (Score:5, Interesting)
For example, I'm in a small, unsigned punk band. We distribute our music over P2P because it is a lot cheaper than getting webspace to host stuff and paying for bandwidth. But right now, we have to compete with all these ultra-shitty, ultra-popular bands like Metallica and Jon Bon Jovi for the eyes and ears of P2P users. On top of that, it gives us a bad name. People look at me funny when I say we distribute our music on KaZaA, like I'm some kind of criminal.
When we clean out the abusers and criminals from P2P and let the real people, the small-time, unsigned artists, get exposure, then we will have won. And I won't shed a single tear for these people who are fucking it up for the rest of us.
Re:Good on them! (Score:4, Interesting)
I understand your sentiment about people mucking up P2P with big name bands and such. I know it's hard to be a small, unsigned artist.
But if you think the recording and movie industries will allow P2P to stay free, and unhindered, you have another think coming, hard and fast.
Even if the P2P networks were totally clean, and only had legal files to be downloaded, I doubt the recording and movie industries would allow them to live free. Do you think they want people to be able to find you and listen to you without their help? Numerous big names (Tom Petty being one) have tried to distribute their latest singles via P2P, only to have their ideas squashed by their labels. If the big names can get bitchslapped, do you think the little ones won't?
RIAA and MPAA are going to slowly hunt down and kill the P2P networks, and replace them with their own, craptacular, pay P2P networks
End result? Your band's still out in the cold.
Re:Good on them! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Good on them! (Score:5, Funny)
I hear you, dude. It's almost like Bon Jovi's been shot in the heart, and you're to blame.
If they pay (Score:2)
Good! (Score:2)
Shortsighted quick readers should not post (Score:5, Insightful)
BUT, putting that aside. Some points:
Too all those "They can't make me pay cause I didn't sign anything" or "Go ahead, sue me for not paying the bill.": You guys missed the point. This bill is an option. They are being nice to you. They are saying; OK, look, you're busted and, deep inside, you know you are busted. We are giving you a chance to avoid court and make this go away as if you were legit. Just pay this bill and you won't go to court. Oh, don't agree? Want to deny it? Won't pay? Fine. We'll take you to court. Oh... NOT for not paying this bill. You are right, you didn't sign or receive a service for THIS bill. Nope, we're taking you to court for the copyrighted material you have stole and are redistributing.
Too all the photoshop wannabe's with this: we could fake those screenshots. Do you honestly (stupidly) think that all they have are some dot-matrix printouts of some screen dumps? Think people. They probably had notarized witnesses present while capturing the data, or cops or the equivilent - for one. And they probably DID download the files from your computer and categloged them neatly with the IP your ISP DHCPed to you along with the records from the ISP where you dialed up from or which IP they gave to what MAC address on who's cable modem or what IP went to what DSL caller.
People - listen. This is not a troll or flamebait. Remember something
If you are not doing anything illegal - you have nothing to worry about!
Obviously legal users of P2P networks aren't concerned, they are happy. All those bandwidth hogs trading illegal stuff are being forced off. This is a GOOD thing remember? You have said you actually want this right? How could you possibly complain?
Before replying, think: only the thieves have anything to worry about - and you aren't a theif are you?
Re:Shortsighted quick readers should not post (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, because legal systems the world over are infallible and cost defendants nothing to participate in. Especially where large multinational corporations and their pseudo-police are concerned.
Re:Shortsighted quick readers should not post (Score:3, Insightful)
They made a mistake and handed you a "bill" that doesn't show your system but someone elses? Well, then - don't pay it. And if they try to sue you, you prove that it wasn't your system they are saying it is and you sue them for wrongful prosecution and get your attorney fees back and more.
Again - common sense. They probably spotted a LOT more people distributing illegal files than they handed out. a ***LLLOOOTTT*** more - but they picked the creme of the crop. Probably picking those guys with fixed IPs who had thousands of songs that they actually downloaded dozens from on more than one occasion with a room full of witnesses to swear to it.
They aren't chasing Joe Junior with an 8-mile soundtrack song - they are after teh guys with 1000s of *obvious* bootlegs that they can be 99+% certain of. They don't want this to backfire either so they are only going to pursue those they know they'll "win."
Now - if you KNOW that they are handing you a screen shot of your own system - are you going to actually fight this? Could you be that stupid? They hope a few do, I'm sure, so they can make examples of them.
I can imagine someone who says, "Screw this, I ain't paying" and who really is doing something illegal. They sue him and then tell him, ya know where we gave you the chance to get outta this at under $3 a song? Guess what - it's $250,000 PER Each violiation and lesse, in the 3 months we monitored you we saw at least 10,000 downloads so... you got a few billion laying around?
I feel that at some point one of these music organizations is going to find some sucker with a penguin on his T-shirt and 30,000 MP3s on a P2P who, even through he knows he is caught red handed, will fight it in the forum of the EFF and Slashdot etc. And THAT will be the guy that the big time lawyers will say, ok, lets his him with the big one. Slam this guy and sue him for more than he's worth x 1000 and lets see how many others suddenly decide to fight.
Think of it - you are a burgler. You go and steal something. The police show up at your door and whip out a video tape showing you actually doing it with your face smiling into the camera as clear as day. They tell you: "either you pay for what you stole and we completely forget all about you, or we throw your ass in jail without any plea bargin" - tell me which burgler isn't going to whip out his wallet and pay on the spot. He'll even ask them to take paypal!
Re:Shortsighted quick readers should not post (Score:3, Insightful)
A lot of innocent people are in prison right now. A lot of the people on death row right now did not commit the crime for which they will die. (This is a fact not my opinion- DNA evidence has proven this to be the case again and again.)
I'm all for punishing people who violate the law but we must always watch the watchmen- for they are human and prone to fall.
.
Hurrah! (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, it's not about freedom. It's mostly about stealing music and movies.
People stole stuff, or at a minimum, engaged in the redistribution of it. Those people should pay.
Break the law, get in trouble. Oh, and don't explain why it shouldn't be against the law, and how it's better for record companies for us to share music. That's a rationalisation of the sickest kind. It's still illegal, and if the people who do it could spent one tenth the time they spend stealing things actually trying to change the law and they'd get it changed.
Nah, I'll keep stealing stuff until someone busts me.
Here's a question (Score:3, Interesting)
How Can This Organization Sue? (Score:3, Interesting)
I seem to recall that the FSF [fsf.org] can only sue a GPL violator if the violation is on a program that the FSF has the copyright on [fsf.org]. The general rule, then , would seem to be that only a copyright holder can sue for copyright violations.
So, who the hell is this anti-piracy group? And what gives them the right to sue on behalf of George Lucas, Eminem, and Rockstar Games?
If the Anti Pirat Gruppen had used their (admittedly quite reasonable-sounding) tools simply to report the violations back to Lucas/Eminem/Rockstar et al., and then let them sue, I'd have little problem with this.
As it is, though, I can't help but wonder what Anti Pirat Gruppen is planning to do with the money. This sounds sort of like if I saw a burglar breaking into my neighbor's window, and I said, "Hey, buddy... tell you what, how about you climb back out that window now, and pay me $100, and I won't call the cops on you."
I wonder if Lucas and the others have heard about this... and what they're planning to do to Anti Pirat Gruppen as a result.
Re:How Can This Organization Sue? (Score:3, Interesting)
I would surely understand this case better if the copyright holder sued.
Are those civil or criminal charges? (Score:3, Insightful)
If criminal, "anti-pirates" have obtained an information about alleged crime, and withholding it from authorities and demanding payment from alleged perpetrators to continue witholding it. Sounds like they have already commited a crime of extortion.
I am not sure if Danish law works the same way, however those things are usually pretty similar everywhere.
Irrelevant Whether It's Actually the Named File (Score:4, Insightful)
Tell me again what crime is committed (Score:5, Interesting)
b) I borrow the friends CD and play it on my player at my house
c) My friend takes a backup copy of his CD and lends it to me to listen to
d) A stranger gives me a CD which is a backup copy of a CD he bought
e) I download a CD from Kazaa, no money is paid
Which of these is illegal?
Which is a copyright infringement?
I just want to know the score
Re:Tell me again what crime is committed (Score:3, Insightful)
a) I listen to a friends legitimate CD at his house
Unathorized public exhibition/performance, stricly prohibited
b) I borrow the friends CD and play it on my player at my house
Unauthorized distribution, stricly prohibited
c) My friend takes a backup copy of his CD and lends it to me to listen to
Unauthorized reproduction, unathorized distribution, strictly prohibited
d) A stranger gives me a CD which is a backup copy of a CD he bought
Unauthorized reproduction, unathorized distribution, strictly prohibited
e) I download a CD from Kazaa, no money is paid
Unauthorized reproduction, unathorized distribution, unauthorized public performance, trafficing in circumvention device, strictly prohibited
Hypocrisy! (Score:3, Insightful)
Some people here don't like microsoft, others do. Some will be heading on out to lord of the rings, others will be sitting at home boycotting the movie industry. And yes some people download mp3s of copyrighted material, others don't. That some posters here feel one way on a subject does not make me a hypocrite for acting in ways contrary to their feelings.
Pay for nothing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmmmm...
Okay, they pay $60 for the movie and $16 for the CD (which are waaay overpriced anyways). Then they have to delete it? But didn't they just pay for it? Shouldn't they be allowed to keep the file? Are they going to give them the shrinkwrapped copy of it?
DirecTV is doing something similar... (Score:3, Interesting)
File names are not proof (Score:3, Interesting)
I remember something to the effect a file called 'harry potter' was actually a book report, but the poor kid's parents lost their ISP account.
If it can be proven its copyrighted and that there is NO doubt that the user downloaded it ( 'judge, I must have been hacked, I don't even know what this kaaa thing is'.. ) THEN some restitution can be asked. until then its just a witch hunt with really bad ramifications..
It also sets a bad precedent where mere unverified suspicion over rules due process and 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.. Sort of like we
do now with suspected terrorists here
not a troll or flamebait (Score:3, Interesting)
the RIAA, the MPAA, DMCA, etc. guard a world that existed before the internet. they are attempting to reverse history. but they can't possibly win. pandora's box is already open.
we are not in gutenberg's time anymore, we live in a world where information like music and books and movies is as transmuteable as water. in a way, information wants to be free. entropy naturally leads to the release and spread of information. trying to contain information is a losing game like trying to fight gravity is a losing game.
music is about nothing specifically, and is enjoyed for it's own sake. this should be free. you can steal atoms. but you can not "steal" data. you can steal a car. but you can not steal a song, or a book, or a movie. think this doesn't make sense? kazaa, etc. are NEVER GOING TO GO AWAY.
it is a technological war of one-upmanship. an arms race. everything the companies do, short of sending armed guards home with every cd, will be circumvented and broken by pirates.
think intellectual property and copyright law is pretty damn important and should be a pillar of modern society? meet the internet! disseminating information effortlessly and freely with no chance of shutting it down IS WHAT IT WAS DESIGNED TO DO. close their servers, block their ports, do whatever you want. someone, somewhere, will circumvent.
i mean what is the purpose of the internet after all? so the problem is we have a tool which makes transmitting data as effortless as water and as unstoppable as the tides. but we have laws and hardcoded mindsets that think about copyright and ip as if we were living in gutenberg's time. that ended with the internet.
every major discovery is not necessarily a bloodless event. just ask the aztecs or incans. so we did not think the internet through. as if anyone could foresee all consequences. the problem is that, since there is no way to enforce the idea of "stealing" data, as opposed to stealing atoms like a car, what are we supposed to do about it? fight it like sticking our fingers into a dam forever? or redefine our understanding of what property is when it comes to anything that can be digitized?
if it it is digital, it is product made for the mind, enjoyed for the mind. it is not a material product. it is, therefore, much in a way like we call our minds free, that it is important for our minds to be free. perhaps we should extend this content of free minds to digital content, since it is more an extension of individual's minds then the extension of media company's pocket books.
maybe we should all just rethink our laws to take into account the internet, because our laws are fundamentally unenforceable on the internet.
if this sounds like giving up, well, things change in the world. there is plenty of things that should never be given up on, no matter how hopeless things seem, like fighting drug abuse. but what is this fight about other than big company's pocket books? it's just a new understanding of the way things work in the world, that is all. i don't think it will be bloodless, but it is clear that there is no way to fight music piracy/ software piracy/ movie piracy/ ip piracy, etc.
and maybe it is a better world to encourage these activities instead of discourage them, for the individual's sake. even if it drives giant media companies into the ground, it is perhaps a new paradigm that is for the betterment of all on an personal level, rather than a corporate level. to think about digital content as just free, as in speech, as in beer, as in tap water from the spigot in your bathroom.
Killing the internet (Score:5, Interesting)
With the crash of the internet boom and the lack of cash, it seems as if all the ugliest bunch of greedy scum has crawled out of the woodwork to try and resttrict peoples lives and freedom so that they can rape them for as much money as possible. Christ it's like big brother in 1984. They watch everything you do, strip you of all your privacy and then have the fucking balls to pretend to be righteous about it as well.
Perhaps some time we'll have the last laugh...
Antipiratgruppen is representing (Score:4, Informative)
- IFPI [ifpi.org] - The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry
- NCB [www.ncb.dk] - Nordic Copyright Bureau
- DMF danish site [www.dmf.dk] - Danish Musician Union. some english info [www.mxp.dk]
- DAF [artisten.dk] - Danish Artist Union
In addition, the members of APG isQuote from the site:
The transfer of rights to NCB is organised in the following way: rights owners in the Nordic countries and the Baltic States transfer all their rights to the national performing rights society. This society administers the performing rights and transfers the mechanical rights to NCB. Thus, NCB represents virtually all copyrighted music in the Nordic and Baltic areas in connection with recording and the manufacture and distribution of copies of recordings.
So this is basically a group representing many, if not all copyright holders for the material in question
This is one of the guys..... (Score:5, Interesting)
He has written his version of events that happen when the APG came with the courtorder.
In short, it goes something like this: The APG came with a courtorder to see if he had an eDonkey-server up and running on his computer. They tell him he has the right to a lawyer and the presens of the police. He tells them that there is not running an edonkey server, but ther was some time ago...
The AGP has an "IT-man" with them... he is allowed to look at the computer to see if there is a server running (according to the courtorder) He agrees with Siffan, but then he browess through his harddrive and finds illegal software and mp3 files... Siffan was not comfertable with this,and points out that most of the mp3s are legal copies of his own cds. but agrees that he has illegal stuff on his computer and desides to be cooperative. Now AGP wants to take his computer with them. Siffan now says he wants a laywer, he is not able to get one a the pressent time, but the APG will not delay the case to the next day. So it ends with the APG straling off with his computer and some cd's.
The next day a lawyer representing the APG calls him and ask him to give up his right to have the case tested in a civil court or he will sue him within 14 days.
That is about it. It's late and I'm tired... But I hope you find this intresting.
It'll never work (Score:5, Interesting)
Also consdider where the files came from. If they have screen grabbed an image of what is in someones share list, all that proves is they have a file called 'such and such' on that users HD. If the user downloaded a file from another user and APG had some way to monitor that, then that probably breaches all sorts of privacy and computer misuse laws. But, if the user had downloaded the files from computers belonging to AntiPiratGruppen then you are getting in to the realms of entrapment, plus you must ask if AntiPiratGruppen wasn't breaching copyright itself. All this is speculation, but it leads me on to an important point.
It is certain some of these 150 so called 'Pirates' will pay up. They might not pay the full amount, they may negotiate a lower price and it will be because they are scared of what AntiPiratGruppen may or may not do to them. Once one person pays up APG will shout that fact from the roof tops and it will no doubt have the effect of scaring others in complying with the wishes of RIAA/BSA/FACT etc and leave P2P well enough alone. Effectively they will be using bully boy tactics to succeed. Regardless of your view on the legality and morals of P2P, you must admit this is a not a good thing as it sets a dangerous precident if it works.
Screenshots? (Score:5, Interesting)
Any defense lawyer worth his weight in golfballs would demand proof that the screenshot was not doctored with a graphics editting program.
clear cut case... (Score:5, Insightful)
A company cannot send you a "bill" for a contract you never signed, stating "pay up or else". This is not an electric company talking about getting reimbursement for an unpaid bill. This is a company with which these people have no agreement sending them threats which amount to, "give us money or else".
A straightforward company would simply inform the police if they believe these people to have committed criminal acts and the culprits would be arrested, or simply serve them a summons in the case of a civil dispute.
The RIAA is winning the war (Score:3, Insightful)
This is the core of the issue, not "pirates" or "artists" or other fictions. The problem with the RIAA and its discordant crusade is the fact that it runs against a widely accepted social norm - I have the right to copy my files. This is where the RIAA is weakest and is the only avenue for its defeat. If this idea is forgotten, the RIAA wins. Everyone else loses.
Fair Use in Denmark (Score:4, Informative)
Well, speaking as a guy who actually lives in Denmark.....
Since Summer 2001, various forms of digital copying have been legal in Denmark. Before that, Danish law on this area bore obvious marks of being written by people who had no idea what the whole thing was all about (prohibiting all forms of digital copying without prior permission -- bye bye Internet :) ). The laws are confusing, though. According to Forbrugerrådet (the "Consumer's Council" -- I'm not sure if you Americans have a similar organization), Danish citizens are allowed to:
We are not allowed to:
(from Forbrugerrådet's web page [forbrugerraadet.dk])
I hope this helps shed a little light on the situation.
Danish Law, 2002 1984 (Score:3, Informative)
It gives the copyright holders the right to collect evidence and present this to a judge. The judge then issues a warrant based on the evidence (yes no 3rd party is involved). The warrant can be for a house search or in this case to get information from a isp based on the ip's they collected. The law has been used to raid netparties as well.
The problem is that all this happens outside the criminal courts, they run all the cases as civil law suites.
I hope they stepped over the line, and that our silly goverment that doesn't know a power button from the reset button, changes this absurd law.
Look a pig that flies (sponsered by S O N Y)
Re:Yay! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Who are they? (Score:3, Interesting)
Can't say I'm an expert on the Danes, but if this were the US, that's exactly what they'd be getting ready to do.
Since there was no purchase agreement between the "buyer" and "seller," the seller has to put a dollar value on the product by invoicing the "buyer." This way, they can take the cases to CIVIL court (suing for non-payment under much looser juries -- preponderance of evidence rules instead of reasonable doubt, etc., etc.) instead of waiting for the government to get involved with CRIMINAL charges.
Turnabout (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I am an artist, and you WILL pay me. (Score:3, Insightful)
Know how I sniffed you out?
I'm sorry, but the only reason I even bothered signing with a label was to SELL MY STUFF. Make money, that's all.
There are *SO* many reasons to sign to a label!
I mean, don't get me wrong. Even with all these advantages there are significant disadvantages:
No actual recording artist these days is naive enough to think that labels are solely useful for printing and sales.
Re:I am an artist, and you WILL pay me. (Score:5, Insightful)
* they sell your shit
Yep, they arrange with both brick and mortar retailers (B&N, Tower, HMV, Sam Goody) and digital retailers (Amazon, CDNow) globally to put your music in their bins. Now, how good your placement is, how much in store advertising you are given is based on how much your label likes you, and how many CDs you'll probably sell. Moby? Front and center. End caps. Posters. A "rub Moby's bald head for luck" cardboard cutout at the door.
Fluffy and the Puffboys? 2 CDs in the "F" bin.
* they distribute your shit
Well, they sign with distributors, but ok, they manage your distribution.
* they promote your shit
True, but again, the amount and energy of that promotion will be very different for Linkin Park than for up-and-coming punk band Pus Casserole.
* they book your shit
Touring? Don't you have a booking agent? A sponsor? You might think about that.
* they speak "on your behalf" in these kinda situations
Again true, but the RIAA is much more of the "industry voice." And yeah, label attorneys are typically pretty good.
I mean, don't get me wrong. Even with all these advantages there are significant disadvantages:
* you must sell or you are dropped
* you get a fraction of what you'd make on an indie
* you often end up owing the label money
* occasional legal nightmares
These are minor to you? As I said, I spent fifteen years in the business, and I know of a few multi-platinum artists that either never recouped, or have such gargatuan legal bills that any profit is long gone.
Here's another one for you to ponder (and reply to if ya like.) Whose count do you accept when royalty time comes along? Every six months I get at least twenty phonebook sized royalty statements, telling me how many copies of a particular album sold in Burkina Faso, Singapore, Trinidad and Tobago, South Africa, Israel, Anguilla, yada yada. I get an equvalent sized package from my publisher, with similarly arcane Excel effluvia. I think I read one once. Reversed, they make wonderful scratch printer paper, but otherwise, they mean little to me (except for the attached check which is always disappointingly low.)
I wouldn't even know where to go to get an independent auditor but I know of a few bands that did, and let's say...their figures differed from the publisher and label. A lot.
Basically, the labels/publishers tell you how many sold, and the band usually has to take that word as gospel. You comfortable with that?
In short, while there are big issues, I think labels DEFINITELY have a function. MP3.com proved that mass Internet distribution is a joke. The labels may have an 85% failure rate, but they are damn good marketers, and Kazaa would be much less popular without BMG music.
What films do people request on IRC film channels? The ones all over TV and print advertising. What CDs are most anticipated by the unwashed masses? The one's most heavily marketed. They watch the QT trailer for Nemesis with drooling glee. They hear a new Korn CD is forthcoming on radio and TV. And what do they say?
"Hey I gotta download that when it comes out."
Labels and film studios are neither anachronisms or useless. They still serve an essential function, and you're right - no signed artist would think that their label is merely a manufacturer.
Things have to change, but labels aren't going anywhere.
Why stephen king? (Score:2)
Re:Awww Crud! (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm sorry. I have to anal about this. Look through the Danish or United States laws passed on copyright, and you won't ever find the word "piracy." That's because the word piracy -- which is used to describe boarding someone else's seagoing vessil without permission and plundering -- is totally unrelated to copyright infringement in the English language. The reason the word "piracy" is used is because "copyright infringement" doesn't sound as bad. It doesn't sound as bad because it is not as bad. When you literally steal goods, you are depriving them of something. When you infringe on a copyright, you are depriving no one of anything but just that -- a copyright.
The reason this is important is, (1) people need not be confused by words that don't actually exist in their used context, (2) you can talk seriously about what constitutes "copyright infringement." If you make a personal copy, is that copyright infringement? Legally, no. But because piracy has no legal definition, the copyright holders are free to apply the word at their discretion. Ie: Watching a DVD on Linux is piracy. -- there's no legal definition for piracy, so prove it wasn't! Now simply watching a DVD on Linux is not copyright infringement, and I can prove it because there is a legal definition of copyright infringement.
When you use the word "piracy" you loose credibility with me. You are buying into the myth that copyright infringement is a legal and ethical parallel for stealing. In reality, there is no such thing as intellectual property or piracy of that property. There is a right to copy a work, and copying a work without that right is something else entirely.
Re:Awww Crud! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Awww Crud! (Score:3, Insightful)
I assume you're implying that it's a recent addition...
An online Websters dictionary from 1828 defines it as [65.66.134.201]
A 1913 Websters Dictionary defines [bibliomania.com] it as:
Maybe it's just me but I think that 175 years later it's time to accept that language changes.
-rrRe:Not this shit again! (Score:4, Insightful)
And why drag morality into it?
Re:Not this shit again! (Score:3, Interesting)
If we want to talk about software IP rights in terms of 'ownership' and 'theft', we can define theft in terms of the unwillingness of the owner to part with what is rightfully his. We can then argue the 'rightful' part of this argument relative to IP, but applying the term theft is perfectly reasonable--in terms of whichever of the *thousands* of defintions of 'theft' you'd like to argue. ('Piracy', no matter how misapplied a term, has become a defacto term. There's no more use arguing it than arguing that your neighbor's hot tub isn't really a 'Jacuzzi')
I agree that this isn't necessarily a moral discussion, but one of laws--although I question your assertion that morals are arbitrary. This again sounds like convenient justification.
The bottom line is, if you're a US, British, Canadian, Russian, or one of any number of citizenry, you're obligated by the laws of your country to respect copyright, patent, and other IP-related laws. If you don't, you hurt the people that depend on these laws to make a living. If you don't like the laws, go lobby against them!
I work as an application developer. I'm not a rich man, I'm just a normal guy making a decent living. The team I work for _depends_ on people adhering to these laws to generate revenue, which ultimately generates my paycheck. If the laws change, hey, I'll go find something else to do. Consulting sounds interesting. In the meanwhile, every company that steals our software and can't think beyond convenient, bullshit semantic arguments against copyright laws puts another one of my team closer to the reduction-in-force list. You live in a country that enforces a system. You profit from the system. Respect the system until you can legitimately effect change in it.
But hey, these labels like 'piracy', and 'stealing', are inaccurate and heinous, right? So you'll just do your part for the cause not by some active means, but just by copying the occasional CD or app. They're just bits and bytes, words on a page--it's not hurting anyone--right?
Re:Awww Crud! (Score:3, Insightful)
What they fail to realize is that if you don't want to pay for it, then you, GASP! don't get to view, listen, or use use that content!
Re:sounds familiar... (Score:3, Funny)
Yes, that was sarcasm, for the humor-impaired.
Re:APG and their reputation (Score:3, Funny)
If not, I hope the RIAA doesn't try the same tactics over here... instead of meeting Mr. Joe The Pirate (arrr matey!) they'd have a rather grave encounter with Mr. Remington the .12 Gauge Shotgun.