AfterDawn: Tech news

Five people to appear in court for sharing music in UK

Written by James Delahunty (Google+) @ 01 Aug 2005 17:16 User comments (25)

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

Previous Next  

25 user comments

11.8.2005 17:38

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!....

21.8.2005 19:25

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!

32.8.2005 6:58

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.

42.8.2005 14:11

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...

52.8.2005 14:30

WTF? who mentioned porn? it says british phonographic industry.....

62.8.2005 14:44

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!

72.8.2005 16:16

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 !!!

82.8.2005 17:39

what kinda people download exesive porn on P2p ?

92.8.2005 18:39

phorn,phorn...yes

102.8.2005 19:15

I'm with the american pornographic institute, and I like it, a lot.

112.8.2005 20:47

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.

123.8.2005 14:17

""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!

134.8.2005 0:35

Its good to c people have a sense of humor in regards to this article causethis is kinda weird :)

144.8.2005 1:53

I still don't think he gets it!!!! Borhan9 you are a star.

154.8.2005 5:11

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

164.8.2005 23:09
syntaxerr
Inactive

"P2P Porn to Phono" I want this client, quick! Is there an update to "Phone2Porn" ?

175.8.2005 2:07

Thanks Borhan9, you certainly brightened up the day for many people !!!

185.8.2005 3:47

"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.

195.8.2005 3:57

Actually, you probably could go to prison as this country villifies financial crime but seems relaxed on phyiscal abuse

205.8.2005 14:40

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

215.8.2005 16:13

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!

225.8.2005 17:16

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.

237.8.2005 3:45

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.

247.8.2005 4:40

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!

257.8.2005 9:20

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!!!!!!!!

Comments have been disabled for this article.

News archive