Comments on: France’s first criminal p2p case

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 12 Jan 2005 00:48:26 +0000

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sun, 19 Dec 2004 06:49:27 +0000

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”.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 18 Dec 2004 21:02:57 +0000

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.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 18 Dec 2004 00:15:01 +0000

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.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 17 Dec 2004 23:37:04 +0000

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.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 17 Dec 2004 22:01:30 +0000

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.