British RIAA nails file sharers
p2pnet.net News:- With all eyes on the RIAA and MPAA sue ‘em all efforts, it’s easy to forget the two enforcement units are no more than the US spearheads in carefully coordinated and orchestrated international entertainment industry campaign to bring file sharing and file sharers under its total control.
In Europe, the Big Music cartel-owned IFPI (International Federation of Phonographic Industries) is working hard with the same goal in mind, as is the BPI (British Phonographic Industry) which has just announced that 23 UK internet users have “agreed” to pay thousands of pounds in “compensation for distributing music illegally via peer-to-peer networks on the internet”.
Similar US efforts are having zero effect on file sharing which is rising, not falling.
The RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) recently tried to sue a corpse and has just sued another 753 men, women and children for, it alleges, sharing music with each other.
Also in the US, a man who obtained copies of feature movies from a Hollywood insider and who was eventually named by the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America), was found dead in an LA prison cell.
But Big Champagne p2p research firm statistics say globally, on average, in February last year, 6,831,366 people were logged onto the p2p networks at any given moment, and that in the US, the figure was 4,039,989.
The same figures for February, 2005, show this has risen substantially to 8,524,938 globally, and 6,183,636 for the US.
It’s certainly the same in the UK where individual file sharers stand as much chance of being sued by the BPI pseudo-cops as they do of winning the pools. And as in the US and elsewhere, this situation swings more and more in the favour of file sharers as more and more people go online.
‘Still in negotiation’
Meanwhile, the BPI follows the same practice as its counterparts elsewhere.
Knowing full well the people under its guns have zero chance of matching its financial or legal resources, the BPI makes an offer its victims can’t refuse: Settle.
Or else.
“The 23 settlements announced today arise out of the 26 cases announced by the BPI in October 2004,” it brags, implying that the people who settled have been found guilty of something whereas they’ve never appeared before a court.
“Three cases are still in negotiation and legal action may follow,” says the BPI.
The ‘settlements’ include 17 men and six women with the average being “more than £2,000” (almost $3,850) and, “Two illegal filesharers are paying more than £4,000 each to settle their cases,” it says, failing to explain how the file sharers had done anything illegal since they hadn’t been found guilty of anything.
BPI general counsel Geoff Taylor said with a straight face, “We have no desire to drag people through the courts. So we have attempted to reach fair settlements where we can.”
The BPI also says it’s today trying to get High Court orders for, “the disclosure of the identities of a further 31 illegal filesharers on a range of peer-to-peer networks, including KaZaA, eDonkey, Grokster, Soulseek, DirectConnect, Limewire, Bearshare and Imesh”.
Something you think we should know? tips[at]p2pnet.net
===================
See:-
sue a corpse – RIAA vs ’smittenkitten’, p2pnet, February 7, 2005
753 men, women and children – RIAA sues another 753 file sharers, p2pnet, March 1, 2005
found dead – ‘MPAA sentences man to death’, p2pnet, March 2, 2005
at any given moment – Big Music terror tactics, p2pnet, March 2, 2005
victims can’t refuse – Silenced by Big Music, p2pnet, February 6, 2005
March 7th, 2005 at 1:38 am
A list of names have been published by BPI. In doing so, I believe the BPI have committed a criminal offence under the Data Protection Act. Remember, these people did not go to court…. so their anonominity should be guaranteed by the UK’s data protection act. Anyone care to sue the BPI?
March 7th, 2005 at 5:33 pm
Unless they signed something agreeing to the listing.