Mobile/PDA About Us Advertise here


		User name	Password

		Not registered yet? Register here. Lost your password? Click here.

Browse by topic

News

3636 Italian file sharers receive copyright infringement notices

13 May 2007 18:33 by Andre "DVDBack23" Yoskowitz | 11 comments

The German music label Peppermint Jam has sent out 3636 copyright infringement notices to alleged Italian file sharers for downloading music off p2p programs such as eMule and BitTorrent.

The notices inform the file sharers that they "have been found guilty of uploading copyrighted songs". Although that is not true and just a scare tactic, the notices also tell the file sharers to immediately remove all Peppermint Jam label music from their HDDs as well as discontinue seeding any music on torrents.

In a twist, each user has been only accused of sharing a single song, most likely because subpoenaing 3636 hard drives must get very expensive.

In addition, the notices also give the alleged file sharers the opportunity to pay a one time $400 USD fee or face a "...criminal and/or a civil lawsuit brought against them."

Although this may seem like a good deal to many who just want to get it over with, if a large amount of alleged sharers admit guilt by paying up, this can give the record labels an advantage later on.

Source:
ZeroPaid

Permalink to this article

« Previous news article
MySpace tackles video 're-posting'

Next news article »
T-Mobile is favorite for iPhone in Europe?

Post your comment

Discuss this article!
PeaInAPod (AfterDawn Addict) 13 May 2007 19:10
Quote: ...pay a one time $400 USD... I dont see were they get their numbers, I don't think they make that much profit off of 1 CD. [ + quote]
scizor600 (Newbie) 13 May 2007 20:34
Quote: [quote]...pay a one time $400 USD... I dont see were they get their numbers, I don't think they make that much profit off of 1 CD.[/quote]not 1 cd one song lets see $400.00 USD - $0.99 USD = $399.01 USD of bulls**t or this could just be a mathmatical mistake in that case i think the RIAA and its italian and german counterparts as well as the music label should invest less in laywers and technology to track these downloads and more in calculators. [ + quote]
akaangus (Member) 13 May 2007 21:37
Copyright law allows a penalty as well as the cost, which is why they are allowed to sue for that much in a CRIMINAL case. The article says they could pursue civil action, but I doubt they could ever get more than $.99 for that because small claims usually doesn't allow penalties unless undue stress can be adequately proven. At least $400 USD is less than the $3000+ the RIAA wants... [ + quote]
webe123 (Inactive) 13 May 2007 21:39
Sending copyright notices to thousands of people is ONE thing...ENFORCING them is quite another! [ + quote]
duckNrun (Inactive) 13 May 2007 21:54
Really somebody needs to bring a RICO suit against the RIAA. Their investigations prior to bringing their John Doe suits have been proven to be faulty. Their payments letters and refusal to directly deal with the alleged offender, instead referring them to the settlement house that will handle their confessioal payment as well as the ease in proving that they have learned nothing from these erroneous legal actions and instead try to always drop them with prejudice only goes to show with a preponderance of the evidence that they will continue to try to behave in a similiar manner in the future. These actions all fall under RICO which if found guilty could result in ALL proceeds from these threatened lawsuits being turned over the the government, the start of a class action lawsuit by all targeted defendants, and some serious down time for some execs! They tried to do this to Big Tobacco a few years ago and while they didn't win in RICO they did win big in the other suits! And while most of the people on the hill are on the payroll, ahem I mean accept contributions, from the RIAA and MPAA as well as their many faces the same was true of tobacco not too long ago. [ + quote]
borhan9 (AfterDawn Addict) 13 May 2007 23:01
Quote: In a twist, each user has been only accused of sharing a single song, They go after them only for one song, give me a break. $400 for just one song is absurd. How do they justify the fine?? [ + quote]
pigfister (Inactive) 14 May 2007 0:52
Originally posted by borhan9: They go after them only for one song, give me a break. $400 for just one song is absurd. How do they justify the fine?? they see the MPAA and RIAA doing it and are simply coping the new market in the vision of new American dream, sue everyone! [ + quote]
S2K (Member) 14 May 2007 4:25
akaangus (Junior Member) 14 May 2007 wrote: Copyright law allows a penalty as well as the cost, which is why they are allowed to sue for that much in a CRIMINAL case. The article says they could pursue civil action, but I doubt they could ever get more than $.99 for that because small claims usually doesn't allow penalties unless undue stress can be adequately proven. you are incorrect in general and in this case. This is not in way way a criminal case. also copyright is not handled in small claims. [ + quote]
natony (Junior Member) 14 May 2007 6:08
I don't know how it is in Italy, but to subpoena someone in Aust, I swear it has to be in person. Plus to say someone has been found guilty even when they haven't... I mean, surely any court would throw this crap out the window. Just too many breaches of the proper legal process. grrr so angry [ + quote]
pigfister (Inactive) 14 May 2007 7:44
Originally posted by S2K: you are incorrect in general and in this case. This is not in way way a criminal case. also copyright is not handled in small claims. every country is different dude and i expect that there will be no mass court cases in Italy! [ + quote]
Unfocused (Member) 15 May 2007 18:58
If they are paying the fines in US Dollars, then shouldn't they be innocent until proven guilty? [ + quote]