France’s first criminal p2p case
p2pnet.net News:- A 28 year-old teacher alleged to have downloaded 614 albums has become the first p2p user to be sued in France under criminal law.
The recording industry launched more than 50 lawsuits this summer and Big Music’s victims in France face up to three years in jail and a possible fine of up to 300,000 euros (almost $400,000).
No doubt the record label cartel had expected a stiff penalty in this first-of-its-kind lawsuit.
Instead, the prosecutor limited the fine to 1,500 euros (a little under $2,000) and the judge, who will decide the final sentence, even teased spectators, advising them not to download, "too much".
Civil charges
The court also heard the related civil case in which the labels, as well as the Authors, Composers and Publishers Society, were demanding 28,366 euros (close to $38,000) in damages.
Unlike in the US, in France damages can’t be punitive, which is to say damages required by plaintiffs in a civil case are evaluated solely on actual damage suffered.
And that’s a major point because it means 28,366 euros for 614 albums would price each album at about 46 euros (more than $60) in damages.
According to Big Music’s calculations, this in turn meant that at a real-price average of around $20 per CD, each album downloaded and shared resulted in more than two units not to being sold.
Back in March, 2004, Felix Oberholzer and Koleman Strumpf released a study which stated that "even in the most pessimistic specification, five thousand downloads are needed to displace a single album sale." They concluded that "downloads have an effect on sales which is statistically indistinguishable from zero, despite rather precise estimates."
So who’s right?
Does the recording industry suffer real damage from unauthorized downloads and uploads?
Or not?
A court will decide this on February 2, 2005.
Guillaume Champeau – Ratiatum
December 17th, 2004 at 5:01 pm
i dont think they suffer, i think they claim that they do because they see say 5000 people getting their song. Out of those 5000 probably 250 would actually teh record, the rest only got its cause its ” free ” as that musician isn’t their favourite and they just thought they would see what its like.
downloading helps artists, if i like a cd i buy it, if i dont i delete it. its only like hearing it on the radio excpet you can pause the track too, or stop it if you dont like it.
when i have downloaded music in the past its because i haven’t heard of them before and wouldn’t ever dream of going out and spending money on somthing i may potentially not like…
I guess you could even understand it if musicians had an average wage, what i mean is like the 20,000 – 40,000 avg person takes home a year, not that daft figures like 9m ” Signing Wage ” as well as all the album and singles sales from it too.
December 17th, 2004 at 6:37 pm
I know I’m banging the same old gong again,
But was this guy prosecuted for DOWNLOADING 614 albums or SHARING 614 albums?
There’s a difference.
If it really was DOWNLOADING, then what proof did they produce that downloading was the real source? Did none of the files come from his personal collection of CDs.
December 17th, 2004 at 7:15 pm
Hello,
I am the editor of this story.
This is a smart point, and well, we don’t know. Before the trial, the teacher apparently told the investigators that he did share these files. It’s only on the day of the trial that he denied uploading files, certainly advised to do so by his lawyer. If it was downloading only, then the private copying exception is said to apply, and he should not be sentenced.
The police said that they found him because he was the one sharing the biggest volume of files on the Direct Connect hub he was on ; but he said during the trial that he actually tricked the software so that it would not upload these files.
Cheers,
G.C.
December 18th, 2004 at 4:02 pm
I’m not sure about Direct Connect since I’ve only played with it a bit in the past, but the impression I got was that it would be pretty easy to set up so that it wouldn’t upload files (as it is in many P2P programs with a little know how and effort). In which case the worst “crime” this defendant is going to be guilty of is “leeching” and that’s it. There is no crime in allowing someone to see a directory listing of files you have. I am not sure how different the justice system is in France, but if it’s anything like it is here, then it will be up to the prosecution to prove that files on the defendants hard drive were actually capable of being downloaded, and not just browsed. I honestly don’t think they will be able to do that if what was said is true. With the world surely watching, it will be interesting to see what happens. For what it’s worth, I hope he wins and gives the recording industry a black eye in the process because they definitely deserve it.
December 19th, 2004 at 1:49 am
I would like to see figures showing the increase in music sales that is apparently going occur “when” they get file sharing stopped. They go on about the cost to the industry but I would venture the opinion that CD/album sales won’t see much of an increase at all. Most people seem to download music to listen to because they can.
Personally I won’t even consider buying a CD unless I have heard the music as I have been stung by the “one good song on a CD of crap” too many times. If I am prevented from hearing the music for free then I certainly won’t go out and buy it “on spec”.
January 11th, 2005 at 7:48 pm