User User name Password  
   
Monday 9.11.2009 / 12:14 AM
Search AfterDawn.com:        In English   Suomeksi   På svenska
afterdawn.com > news > five people to appear in court for sharing music in uk
Show topics
News
News

Five people to appear in court for sharing music in UK

1 August 2005 17:16 by James "Dela" Delahunty | 25 comments

Five people to appear in court for sharing music in UK The British Phonographic Industry (BPI) is to take its first court action against 5 file sharers it accuses to have been illegally distributing music on P2P networks. More than 60 people already paid settlements to the BPI in its campaign against illegal file sharing. According to the BPI, the five people in question (three men and two women) made 8,906 songs available over the Internet. People who have settled with the BPI have paid up to £6,500 in compensation each.

"We have tried to agree fair settlements, but if people refuse to deal with the evidence against them, then the law must take its course," said BPI general counsel Geoff Taylor. "We will be seeking an injunction and full damages for the losses they have caused, in addition to the considerable legal costs we are incurring as a result of their illegal activity." More than 14,000 people worldwide have been sued in a campaign which the music industry calls an "educational tool".

Despite the large increase in legal music downloads, the music industry is not willing to stop or ease their tactics. The belief is that the rise in legal sales is directly due to the legal action on filesharing. However P2P usage continues to rise even now at huge rates. Research firm, The Leading Question found that people who illegally shared music files online spent four-and-a-half times more on paid-for music downloads than average fans. This is not enough to convince the BPI. "They are undermining the legal services, they are damaging music and they are breaking the law," said BPI chairman Peter Jamieson.

Source:
BBC News


Permalink to this article

Get AfterDawn's news to your favourite feed reader! Share this story with your friends!
 

 
Related articles:

  • UK's National Consumer Council criticises BPI over lawsuits (8 October 2005)
  • BPI feels sorry for parents it sues? (21 August 2005)
  • Research firm attacks music industry downloading myth (27 July 2005)
  • Worldwide legal music downloads tripled (21 July 2005)
  • Legal music downloads way up in 2005 (14 July 2005)
  • UK music download milestone reached (11 July 2005)
  • BPI sues MCPS (1 July 2005)
  • BPI threatening British file sharers again (16 March 2005)
  •  

    « Previous news article
    BeAll Best 16x DVD-R media reviewed by CDR-Zone
    Next news article »
    Xbox 360 release date and price leaked?
     Post your comment
    Discuss this article! 
    neewbie (Member) 1 August 2005 17:38 Send private message to this user   
    quote: "The Leading Question found that people who illegally shared music files online spent four-and-a-half times more on paid-for music downloads than average fans"
    why would u share something and pay for it? you mite as well download it for free instead of getting caught sharing songs!....
    Dela (Staff Member) 1 August 2005 19:25 Send private message to this user   
    eh, they were talking about people who still use P2P but also purchase songs and people who have gone from P2P to purchasing. Those who have ben using P2P for years are more likely to buy more music if they switch to legal service than someone who just signs up for a legal service with no history of downloading music!
    connolly (Member) 2 August 2005 6:58 Send private message to this user   
    I'm just wondering about the legality of all this.

    If the file-sharers caught had of obtained public performance licences for being a non-profit making public broadcasting radio station (which are very cheap).In other words turning themselves into a radio station, how would they stand in court?

    They would then have been covered for copyright and simply allowing the music to be copied is no worse then radio stations all over the world have done by allowing music to be audio taped.

    Please shoot holes in my theory everyone.
    borhan9 (AfterDawn Addict) 2 August 2005 14:11 Send private message to this user   
    I only have one question to make and tht is

    What does porn have to do with music industry...

    preety weird that the 2 are linked like this and its preety far fetched i think for them to go through all this plus i have to say although i does seem resnable to settle out of court prior...
    Lethal_B (Moderator) 2 August 2005 14:30 Send private message to this user   
    WTF? who mentioned porn? it says british phonographic industry.....
    chickenb (Newbie) 2 August 2005 14:44 Send private message to this user   
    Quote "What does porn have to do with music industry...

    preety weird that the 2 are linked like this"

    Yep, that's made my night!

    The mind boggles at the thought of what function the British 'Pornographic' Institute would serve!
    domie (Member) 2 August 2005 16:16 Send private message to this user   
    particularly as hard core porn is banned 100% in the UK LOL
    even tv had no nudity laws until 1994, then they introduced a "guideline" that (and i quote")
    1. a female body may not be dispayed totaly nude if said boy includes fully opened legs
    2. concerning male genitalia, no swaying genitalia shall be evidenced nor shall any male organs exhibit an angle of arousement greater than 30 % on public screen.

    the mind boggles. makes me ashamed to be british !!!
    DeSma (Junior Member) 2 August 2005 17:39 Send private message to this user   
    what kinda people download exesive porn on P2p ?
    neo1000 (Junior Member) 2 August 2005 18:39 Send private message to this user   
    phorn,phorn...yes
    thor999 (Member) 2 August 2005 19:15 Send private message to this user   
    I'm with the american pornographic institute, and I like it, a lot.
    whoozhe (Junior Member) 2 August 2005 20:47 Send private message to this user   
    To Connolly
    Have a look at http://www.ascap.com/about/payment/royalties.html
    It explains on just how royalties are collected.
    Non profit broadcasters are generally granted exemption.
    As for copying the US does have what is called "Fair Use" legislation which does allow copying of music for certain purposes. That legislation does include individuals.
    The main grip from record companies is that they claim to be losing sales from P2P downloaders. There is NO PROOF at all that this is the case.
    They love to omit that thier downward spiral of sales is of their own doing from producing a lousy overpriced product and the mass manipulation of sales figures.
    eg. A track can make it to Number one without selling one copy. Charts are purely based on pre orders and do not take into account returns nor is the Gold/Platinum staus revoked if even 100% of the ordered CDs are returned.
    Stores can pre order a CD that has not even finished production so it makes number one before the release date.
    They lie about that they lie about everything.
    In my days of a radio DJ we actually collected real sales figures from selected stores and compiled our own charts. Hense different stations had different charts and they varied greatly in different parts of the country.
    Now, well charts cannot be believed even with the greatest stretch of the imaginations.
    seanshow (Newbie) 3 August 2005 14:17 Send private message to this user   
    ""I only have one question to make and tht is

    What does porn have to do with music industry...""

    Borhan9 - absolute greenhorn genius m8 keep it up
    you made my night!
    borhan9 (AfterDawn Addict) 4 August 2005 0:35 Send private message to this user   
    Its good to c people have a sense of humor in regards to this article causethis is kinda weird :)
    connolly (Member) 4 August 2005 1:53 Send private message to this user   
    I still don't think he gets it!!!!

    Borhan9 you are a star.
    whoozhe (Junior Member) 4 August 2005 5:11 Send private message to this user   
    Phonographic, Pornographic hmmm they are close.
    Amusing though that a media orginisation in the 2000's still uses a term that went out somewhere in the 40's.
    Shows you just how backward they are in their thinking.
    Ahh I think I have it. P2P Porn to phono
    syntaxerr (Inactive) 4 August 2005 23:09 Send private message to this user   
    "P2P Porn to Phono"

    I want this client, quick!
    Is there an update to "Phone2Porn" ?
    Joewho (Junior Member) 5 August 2005 2:07 Send private message to this user   

    Thanks Borhan9, you certainly brightened up the day for many people !!!
    pro`noob (Senior Member) 5 August 2005 3:47 Send private message to this user   
    "We have tried to agree fair settlements, but if people refuse to deal with the evidence against them, then the law must take its course,"

    so what that actually means is these people can not actually afford the £6500 compensation, so what is going to court going to achieve? I can't see anyone ending up in prison for sharing a few songs.
    dnxdy (Newbie) 5 August 2005 3:57 Send private message to this user   
    Actually, you probably could go to prison as this country villifies financial crime but seems relaxed on phyiscal abuse
    borhan9 (AfterDawn Addict) 5 August 2005 14:40 Send private message to this user   
    I finally got it i read the word wrong well i must have read this article for the first time now I went and found the meaning :)


    silly mee :) I hope i made everyone giggle
    pygmypop (Newbie) 5 August 2005 16:13 Send private message to this user   
    I'm not sure who checked the facts of this story, but when I go onto the BPI site (http://www.bpi.co.uk)it discusses the issue and refers to itself as: UK record companies' trade association the "BPI". It sounds like someone's idea of a bad joke.

    Let's face it, if you are a music junkie, 128kbp Mp3s are the tinniest crap you can get, and most downloads are just that; crap. I would guess, just hypathetically that most people that really care about what they listen to are trying to find out if there are more than a couple of songs worth, even the dollar charged for the download.

    The old days of listening to a record before you buy it are gone, and the crapshoot of finding good music is an expensive endeavor. If the radio stations actually played the new songs that a band has on the new CD instead of giving us the old proven cut that we have already overheard, and God forbid a human should actually try to risk playing other than what the record companies are pushing as the "single", then we might actually be able to make an educate choice about our selection and purchase of music we like. I want the writers to get their cut, things need to change!
    ghcltd (Newbie) 5 August 2005 17:16 Send private message to this user   
    Once again its the rich sob`s in the music industry trying to make more money. What a greedy bunch. Its amazing but they haven`t the balls to prosecute anyone from China or Russia or any of the hundreds of other countries who coulnd`t care less about their copyrites. So they just hit the soft targets. Gutless wonders without a doubt.
    whoozhe (Junior Member) 7 August 2005 3:45 Send private message to this user   
    Interesting on BPI. Liake the RIAA it consists of the major companies and a handfull of smaller ones.
    Overall this associations represents around 10% of the total record companies in the UK so it cannot claim to be representative of the industry just those who control it.
    Anyone remember when FM came into being how it was not going the follow the AM top 40 way. Guess what, it's worse.
    PWM90 (Newbie) 7 August 2005 4:40 Send private message to this user   
    I just wonder how much the BPI realy cares about the actual performers and writers of the music, it seems all they are interested in is more money. They have been ripping people off for years and now take exeption to others doing it to them. Lets face it they are quite happy to settle out of court for monetary gain, I wonder how much of that money actually goes back to the people that deserve it!
    pro`noob (Senior Member) 7 August 2005 9:20 Send private message to this user   
    they are just greedy.

    even with the large ammount of illegal music downloads going on today they are still making billions of pounds a year selling their overpriced rubbish. But thats not enough, they want more more more!!!!!!!!
     Post your comment
     

    Subscribe to our newsfeed

    Get the latest headlines delivered directly to your favourite RSS reader or content aggregation service by using the links below.

    AfterDawn.com: News - RSS feed
    Add to Google
    Add to My Yahoo!
    Add to MyMSN

    Search for headlines

    Search through our news archive.

    Last week's most popular software downloads

    Digital video: AfterDawn.com | AfterDawn Forums
    Music: MP3Lizard.com
    Gaming: Blasteroids.com | Blasteroids Forums | Compare game prices
    Software: Software downloads
    Blogs: User profile pages
    RSS feeds: AfterDawn.com News | Software updates | AfterDawn Forums
    International: AfterDawn in Finnish | AfterDawn in Swedish | download.fi
    Navigate: Search | Site map
    About us: About AfterDawn Ltd | Advertise on our sites | Rules, Restrictions, Legal disclaimer & Privacy policy
    Contact us: Send feedback | Contact our media sales team
     
      © 1999-2009 by AfterDawn Ltd.