UK court to unmask 150 'file-sharers'

[grubbymitts]

Originally Posted by scoob

I read on slashdot FAST's method of catching people is to download a full copy of the software on the P2P service, verify it and then record the IP they got it from with a time stamp. They then ask the ISP to release who had that IP allocated to them at that time.

The chances are that they are connected to a BT or Edonkey client.
So, using BT/Edonkey FAST are actually breaking the law by:
1) Downloading said software in the first place
2) Whilst downloading they will also be uploading the software to other users thus distributing warez.

Hmmmm.

[runny]

Originally Posted by grubbymitts

The chances are that they are connected to a BT or Edonkey client.
So, using BT/Edonkey FAST are actually breaking the law by:
1) Downloading said software in the first place
2) Whilst downloading they will also be uploading the software to other users thus distributing warez.

Hmmmm.

But they will be doing it with the copyright holders permission. Still no hard facts!

[andygrif]

Originally Posted by runny

The questions still remains will the UK treat software different to music. As someone has mentioned, the RIAA seem to treat it as a regular source of income, from the regular "lottery". As FAST are more software developer/distributor based, they might be more emotional about it themselves and hence be harder. How many songs = a piece of software?

I don't really subscribe to the RIAA treating the cases as a source of income...we're talking about very few people (by comparison) having actions launched against them and the settlement sums (for out of court) are pretty low by legal standards - but harsh enough to make your average Joe think twice about doing it. Also, the RIAA, per se, is funded by the US record industry - not the other way around.

I don't have any great experience with dealing with the UK software houses, but I would imagine that they will want to follow similar lines to the music industry action. From what I know about FAST, they are already instrumental in 'raiding' companies that use software illegally, so I guess it could get a lot more litigious - but you can't take people to court for hundreds of thousands of Pounds if they don't have it. A couple of grand is a good sum as most people can get their hands on it somehow, even if they have to sell their car - but it makes a significant dent in your cashflow to make you regret it.

Originally Posted by runny

But we still have very few facts: the 10 ISPS? what software? likely charges/fines/damages. The RIAA (and UK equivalent) only seem to go to court if someone won't pay up. FAST might make a point of going to court, or are there limitations on what they can do?[/font][/color]

You're right. This is a very early stage of the action, which is why there's little specific information.

It mirrors the early stages of action launched by the music industry in that they must first go to court to appeal to the judge that the ISPs named should be made to hand over specific information about the people they've honed in on.

If sucessful, and I would think that it would be, I would expect that those people, once identified, will have a somewhat threatening letter inviting them to come to court to make their case or pay a couple of thousand Pounds instead. Most will take the latter option.

Two people in the current round of BPI actions chose the former. They both received far greater judgements against them from the court.

Originally Posted by grubbymitts

The chances are that they are connected to a BT or Edonkey client.
So, using BT/Edonkey FAST are actually breaking the law by:
1) Downloading said software in the first place
2) Whilst downloading they will also be uploading the software to other users thus distributing warez.

First of all, there is no law that forbids you from using BT or ED. You would be right to suggest that under normal circumstances they would be infringing someone's copyright if they downloaded or uploaded someone else's protected works.

But as Runny said, they are acting in the interests of the industry they represent and are quite likely to be doing so with the full and explicit permission of the software house in question. Also, a comparison might be drawn by suggesting that there's no police car to catch the speeding police car!

[grubbymitts]

Originally Posted by andygrif

First of all, there is no law that forbids you from using BT or ED.

I never said that it was illegal to use these programs, of course it isn't. I merely suggested that they probably used these programs to download illegal copies and then spread the same illegal copies of stuff they were investigating as this is how these programs work.

If FAST have the permission of the software house to do this - then all well and good, but we have seen acts by other "federations" in other countries where they haven't got the permission of the software house to do it, or they have illegally planted software on servers to improve their case.

On the movie and music front there is a complaint going in against the MPAA for illegally copying a screener (yes, you read that right - who the hell sues the suer?) and the RIAA is being complained at by the Canadian agents who look after Avril Lavigne for trying to sue someone for downloading her songs. The agents have said that they will pay all legal costs and fines for the defendant. They're not saying he shouldn't have downloaded the songs - but they are saying that the way the RIAA, and others, are going about trying to stop them is completely wrong.

So, all in all, just because FAST have downloaded pirate software - where's the proof that they had permission to do that from the software house? If I were a solicitor of one of 150, I would demand that brought to the trial.

Anyway - piracy is bad. Stop doing it now.

it simply will not stop.

For every measure they put in to stop it, another crack will be out within days.

For every person they sue, they take one person off the net, only t be replaced by what? hundreds, thousands or even millions of others.
Not sure where, think it was in a recent computer magazine that said pirated software is at an all time low in the UK, not sure how they can study pirated software like, and as for other surveys, the way the RIAA goes after people no one would admit to a survey they had MP3's illegalls, they RIAA mnay be hiding under a dog turd somehwere nearby to catch them out.

[Gareth]

Just been reading this article over at The Reg...

Originally Posted by The Register

The French courts have ruled that using peer-to-peer networks (P2P), providing you are doing so for personal rather than commercial reasons, is legal. The decision comes just as the French Parliament meets to discuss whether internet users should pay a voluntary tax or surcharge of €5 a month to use P2P networks.

[runny]

Originally Posted by Gareth

Just been reading this article over at The Reg...

Intersting article, by having a basic charge for all ADSL users, it makes "sharing" a bit like common reading rights in libraries. Much more enlightened approach. Perhaps if music etc was considered more educational it would have started off that way.

What also intrigues me is what is the process of getting the information, do they just knock on the door at 4 in the morning, or just calculate it from the P2P availability? (as in - the " Société Civile des Producteurs Phonographiques who accused him of having 1,875 files containing copyright material. Anthony was a keen Kazaa user during 2004.
Lobby group L'Association des Audionautes, which defended Anthony, said: "On September 21, 2004, the prosecutor's office found 1,875 MP3 and DIVX files on the defendant's hard drive".)

[Mr Angry]

Andy, drawing on your 20 years experience in the music industry, can I ask the following?

What are your thoughts on the ongoing class action lawsuits against Sony/BMG in respect of the spyware that they planted on legitimate purchaser's machines?

Can you name one artist who has benefitted / recouped "losses" directly (fiscally) as a result of successful RIAA or BPI actions brought in respect of illegal downloading and, if so, which royalty collection organization was he / she affiliated with?

Are there any artists who have, to date, managed to show / prove a negative impact on their tour revenues / cross collateralizaton tour revenue and merch streams as a direct, and sole, result of downloading?

Thanks in advance.