p2pnet - rss feed: Big Music wins UK p2p case
p2pnet.net News:- What Big Music couldn’t do in Canada, it’s succeeded in doing in the UK.
British ISPs have been ordered to reveal the names and addresses of 28 alleged “uploaders” singled out by the Big Four record label cartel as the first victims of its UK anti-p2p onslaught.
Oddly, the number is only one less than in an identical case in Canada where the labels tried, and failed, to convince a Canadian court to disclose the identities of 29 people they said were sharing music online.
In Britain, “”We will not hesitate to take action against those who infringe our members’ rights,” Geoff Taylor of the cartel’s BPI (British Phonographic Industry), is quoted as saying in a BBC story.
“The 28 individuals will be given the chance to settle out of court.”
That’s music industry Standard Operating Procedure.
“US record companies have already issued more than 5,700 lawsuits from alleged file-sharers, with many settling out of court,’ says the BBC.
In fact, all of the US victims have ’settled’. Not a single case has been heard and judged in open court.
Plaintiffs, including senior citizens and young children, can’t afford to risk going up against the Big Four record cartel with its bottomless pockets and legions of lawyer.
This allows Big Music to imply it’s ‘won’ the cases, a falacy repeated by the mainstream media.
“I’ve never had a situation like this before, where there are powerful plaintiffs and powerful lawyers on one side and then a whole slew of ordinary folks on the other side,” said a US district judge recently.
===================
See:-
anti-p2p onslaught - Sue kids in UK piracy suits?, p2pnet, October 10, 2004
identical case - Keep on swapping! Cdn file sharers told, p2pnet, March 31, 2004
settle - Music firms win ‘pirates’ ruling, BBC News Online, October 14, 2004
powerful plaintiffs - Big Music vs Ordinary Folks, August 20, 2004
October 14th, 2004 at 8:20 pm
well privacy and actual proof of infringment prior to identifying alleged infringers obviously isn’t important in the UK (well, look at the UK govs ramrod style for biometric ID) … the burden of proof must be microscopic there, ie BPI’s word that they are actually engaged in copyright infringment is enough to violate one’s privacy, either that or unlike the Canadian case BPI actually presented evidence showing the users actively engaged in willful copyright infringement (ie advertising your MP3 collection for download to all and not those that have already purchased the license for the music and say have lost their CD - yes, I know Jack V we should then go out and just buy another copy according to your interpretation of ‘fair use’)
TT
October 14th, 2004 at 9:03 pm
We’ve become nice little Americans with funny accents.
October 14th, 2004 at 10:11 pm
Where’d that story go - the one about Congress developing legislation that would allow them to sue alleged filesharers like the RIAA instead of having to build up a case strong enough fully prosecute them?
October 14th, 2004 at 10:58 pm
This one?
http://p2pnet.net/story/2711
Cheers!
October 14th, 2004 at 11:24 pm
Yeah, thanks, that’s kind of the same thing I was looking for, but I remember the p2pnet story I’m thinking of talking a bit more about how the DOJ was thinking of passing legislation that would allow them to simply sue alleged filesharers instead of prosecute them normally to alleviate the typical burden of proof associated with prosecution (but not civil suits). Do you know where that one is?
Thanks again for looking into this - I did a dozen searches but couldn’t find it.
October 16th, 2004 at 12:01 pm
verizon fight and win, uk isps must fight or they cant log users in all protocolls and dont give names
October 19th, 2004 at 8:36 am
They identified my IP as being “suspected” of offering copyrighted uploads…. Don’t they still have to prove that I actually did it?
Suppose I was downloading/uploading copyrighted files, and I was identified as a “suspect”. The RIAA (or whoever) would have to go to court to force the ISP to reveal my name. In the meantime, I’ve copied all my downloaded music onto my iPod, and may even have made backups on CD’s that I keep at grandma’s place
After a week or so of sharing them, I would then delete the copyrighted files from my hard drive. Where is the proof then? “Mr RIAA, I have no idea why you think I’m a suspect, have a look at my PC - do you see any copyrighted files available for upload? Why do you insist I settle with you when I haven’t done anything wrong?” (hehehe)
Can anyone poke any holes in this approach? Could the RIAA (and their law enforcement lackeys) turn my entire life upside down looking for proof i.e. my iPod or CD backups?