Thousands of file-sharers face legal action in Britain

[Finner]

Interesting article on how the music industry is going about making its cash now:

Thousands of people suspected of sharing music, films and games over the Internet will be pursued through the courts for damages, lawyers for entertainment companies said on Wednesday.

London-based law firm Davenport Lyons said it will apply to the High Court to force Internet service providers to release the names and addresses of 7,000 suspected file-sharers.

The number of people targeted by Davenport Lyons for sharing games could reach 25,000, according to a report in the Times newspaper on Wednesday. They will be offered the chance to pay 300 pounds each to settle out of court, the report added.

The first 500 who ignore the letters will face immediate legal action brought on behalf of five games developers, including Atari, Techland and Codemasters, it said.

So basically they send out letters to force people who probably can't afford to fight these charges on there own, so they pay them 300 pounds. Hell what if one of your kids friends had downloaded copywrite materials on your computer...oh well pony up those 300 pounds.

This is laughable, and to think the cons want to bring in rules like this.

Discuss!!



edit: LINK ADDED: http://uk.reuters.com/article/techno...17419220080820

[Bobblehead]

I think you said it all. Guilty or not, people are given the choice to pay an arbitrary "fine", or they can fight it and probably pay much more than that in barrister's fees. Even if they win, they lose. A lose-lose situation. for the people who get these letters.

It has worked for the RIAA for a number of years.

[Traditional_Ale]

I personally think its brilliant.

But then again, most of the artists I listen to distribute their albums online for free anyway. Someone who forces me to pay 20 dollars for their tracks isn't someone who's ethics lend well to me respecting their music.

If their music rocks, I order the album.

[Finner]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

I think you said it all. Guilty or not, people are given the choice to pay an arbitrary "fine", or they can fight it and probably pay much more than that in barrister's fees. Even if they win, they lose. A lose-lose situation. for the people who get these letters.

It has worked for the RIAA for a number of years.

Its like the cops seeing someone driving a Honda Civic speeding so they send out a ticket to all Honda Civic owners that states they can either pay $200 or take it to court.

[troutman]

I imagine the 7,000 file-sharers each downloaded way more than 300 pounds of copyrighted material.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by troutman

I imagine the 7,000 file-sharers each downloaded way more than 300 pounds of copyrighted material.

How would you jump to that conclusion?

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

How would you jump to that conclusion?

they don't just pick random people out of a hat. They make a list of people who haven't just downloaded once, or something like that, as they'd probobly lose those in court. I'm sure the list they try to get the names of is all people who have downloaded more than 300 lbs worth.

It doesn't pay for them to go after someone who doesn't download very much. The damages are too little.

[SebC]

The thing is, "damages" isn't anything when it doesn't cost them anything to dowload something you weren't going to buy to begin with. Stealing music isn't like stealing a car where someone is now missing a car. There a people who have millions of dollars worth of music on their computers, and I can guarantee that most would not have spent millions of dollars on CDs otherwise.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

they don't just pick random people out of a hat. They make a list of people who haven't just downloaded once, or something like that, as they'd probobly lose those in court. I'm sure the list they try to get the names of is all people who have downloaded more than 300 lbs worth.

It doesn't pay for them to go after someone who doesn't download very much. The damages are too little.

true, but the company has taken it on themselves to judge random IP addresses guilty and have determined their own fine.

There has been no oversight in this process, no way they can be sure if one person is at that IP address or 10 people through a wireless connection, if the person who "owns" the connection is the one who downloaded the content, or maybe a roommate. If the IP address has been held by the same user over the period, or if it has been passed around between multiple users. If the IP address has been hacked and used by a hacker to store/steal files.

The companies looking to sue only have an IP address right now. They can't know the answer to these or many other questions, yet they want to go ahead and send letters saying pay me or else I will sue you and we'll let the courts figure it out.

I think people deserve to be paid for their work, but I believe lawsuits like the ones proposed here are wrong.

They may as well let cops watch the Deerfoot then when average speeds go over 100 just give tickets to everyone and let the courts figure it out.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

How would you jump to that conclusion?

If a CD is 10 pounds, that is only 30 cds worth of music.

[REDVAN]

I am confused.... are they going after people who are SHARING the files, or people who are DOWNLOADING them? Isn't there a legal difference?

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by REDVAN

I am confused.... are they going after people who are SHARING the files, or people who are DOWNLOADING them? Isn't there a legal difference?

Depends upon the law where you live.

[REDVAN]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Depends upon the law where you live.

Well I live in Calgary... so this particular thing doesn't apply to me. And I also doubt I'd get into trouble here for my CD a week... but let's just say I know someone who downloads 100GB+ a week in movies, music.

[Azure]

First they have to get the actual IP addresses of the users.

Any legal court would be insane to release that information for THIS.

[fredr123]

Is there a link in the OP to the actual story?

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by Azure

First they have to get the actual IP addresses of the users.

Any legal court would be insane to release that information for THIS.

It's possible to compel an ISP to release this information, albeit the test is somewhat onerous. In Canada, the test adopted by the Federal Courts to determine whether an ISP should be compelled to disclose the personal information of subscribers from their IP addresses is as follows:

(a) the applicant must establish a bona fide claim against the unknown alleged wrongdoer; [this used to be a prima facie case but on appeal, the standard was lowered somewhat]

(b) the person from whom discovery is sought must be in some way involved in the matter under dispute, he must be more than an innocent bystander;

(c) the person from whom discovery is sought must be the only practical source of information available to the applicants;

(d) the person from whom discovery is sought must be reasonably compensated for his expenses arising out of compliance with the discovery order in addition to his legal costs;

(e) the public interests in favour of disclosure must outweigh the legitimate privacy concerns.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Okay a few things I've noticed in this thread:

1) It seems to me they are going after the people who are uploading this stuff, which means they are illegally distributing this stuff. If any of us have been on Napster (when it was free) we're all guilty of it, but it's still illegal (at least presumably in the UK it is)

2) To Seb C who said they weren't real damages, because the people problaby wouldn't have bought the CD anyways. That's completely irrelevant. THe fact is they are usuing the products without paying for them. If you steal my car, but I wasn't gonna drive it anyway, am I still entitled to damages? I'm not really missing anything that I was going to use, but that's irrelevant.

3)To Finner: This is nothing like that. If the company gets the names/addresses of the people then they are only sending the "Speeding tickets" to people that they know have been speeding, pretty much exactly how a real speeding ticket works. The cop writes it to you and says "You can pay this, or you can come to court and fight it". The only real difference is in this case fighting it might end up upping the price of the speeding ticket.

[LChoy]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

2) To Seb C who said they weren't real damages, because the people probably wouldn't have bought the CD anyways. That's completely irrelevant. The fact is they are usuing the products without paying for them. If you steal my car, but I wasn't gonna drive it anyway, am I still entitled to damages? I'm not really missing anything that I was going to use, but that's irrelevant.

Technically, he's taking your car and cloning it so it was never stolen from you as you had the car the whole time. Companies aren't suing because you're stealing from them, but that they are losing potential money they could gain by selling it to other people. I'm assuming someone had to buy the cd, movie…etc, in the first place in order to upload it, but after that, it's just being copied to other people. Perhaps a better example is that you buy a brand new plant. After it had grown, you give one of its seeds away to your friend so he could grow his without going to the store and purchasing it himself. The problem for the big media companies is that instead of giving away 1 or 2 seeds, torrents can give out limitless copies and with very little time and effort. The companies are losing a chunk of their sales and they want that back. However, the only thing stolen from them is their sales potential, not the actual product

Personally, I think it's time for these companies to adapt. This isn't a new phenomenon as we had tape recorders and VCRs years ago. It's just faster and more efficient now. Bands have already started releasing their own records online, amateur ones as well since they realize it’s the exposure that they are seeking. Perhaps, focus more on touring and concerts where true fans would buy tickets and come out. Make a better product (I’m looking at Pop and other mass produced music genres) so that fans would choose to buy the album or the single off on Itunes. Batman Begins and other successful movies don’t seem to be effected by torrent sharing. If the industry is truly hurting, perhaps place a tariff on storage media and or licensing agreement with Ipod and MP3 players. The Pandora’s box of downloading has already been opened. It’s best if these companies learn to adapt to it as the consumers already have.

[Finner]

Originally Posted by fredr123

Is there a link in the OP to the actual story?

Link added to OP!

[Finner]

Originally Posted by Azure

First they have to get the actual IP addresses of the users.

Any legal court would be insane to release that information for THIS.

From what I read of the article they already have permission to get the information they need.