BPI to get 31 file sharer names
p2pnet.net News:- Six UK ISPs have been ordered give the Big Music cartel’s UK rep, the BPI, the names and addresses of 31 people said to have, “uploaded large numbers of music files on to peer-to-peer filesharing networks”.
The six have two weeks to comply.
Once the BPI (British Phonographic Industry ) has the information, it’ll, "write to the individuals concerned, setting out the details of their infringements and offering them the opportunity to settle the case before proceedings are issued,” it says.
Does this remind of you of anything – the cartel’s RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America), perhaps?
In the US the RIAA has sued approaching 10,000 people for, it says, sharing music online.
However, no one has yet appeared in a court of law, meaning no one has yet been found guilty of anything. That’s because none of the people Big Music is trying to sue into buying its product has the resources to stand up to the multi-billion-dollar industry and its legions of expert lawyers.
This does not, however, stop the enforcement unit from suggesting to the ever-gullible mainstream media that it’s successfully sued thousands of people for copyright infringement.
The BPI is even suggesting parents should spy on their children on its behalf.
“We would particularly advise parents to check what their children are doing on the internet and make sure that they are not breaking the law by filesharing illegally,” says BPI lawyer Geoff Taylor.
Something you think we should know? tips[at]p2pnet.net
============
See:-
31 people – British RIAA nails file sharers, p2pnet, March 4, 22005
March 14th, 2005 at 7:52 am
Jon… Hi… it’s method (methlabs) here… Do you have any information on the file-sharers or any way to contact them? I’ve got a few arguments for legal defence that I’d like these people to know. (’Fair Use’, knowing that the downloading party isn’t breaking ‘Fair Use’, the actual extent of damage caused by that particular misdemeanour, etc.)
Having a file available isn’t the same as being caught passing the file to someone else AND doing so knowing that the other person would be breaking the law by receiving a copy of whatever it is they’re downloading.
Surely, they (the BPI/RIAA/courts/etc) should be forced to provide the evidence of your file transfer to/from a 3rd party, AND… where the downloader also doesn’t have a claim over copyright or fair use. They would have to know this to KNOW a crime has been comitted… otherwise… they’re basing their claims on speculation, assumptions and guesswork. – They only SUSPECT you have illegally transferred files.
For them to know that there was an ILLEGAL file transfer between the litigation target and a 3rd party… they’d have to know who that 3rd party is, be unaffiliated with them AND know that they wouldn’t be operating outside of ‘fair use’. – To do this, they’d need to know who initiated the download. If they knew this, they’ll know who instigated the transfer and therefore.. is the real guilty party.
That’s my theory anyway!!
|||=+|-|
March 14th, 2005 at 3:14 pm
That’s good old British ingenuity for you. The RIAA have terrorised 10,000 innocent internet users, the BPI have managed a mighty… 31. Rule Britannia!
March 15th, 2005 at 12:04 am
Hey it maybe only 31 so far, but last week it was Christmas on Neighbours, it just take Britain a couple of months to catch up.
Geth