Jury hands feds first guilty verdict for Web music piracy

For the first time ever, the federal government has successfully won a jury verdict against someone accused of illegally downloading music, according to a statement from the U.S. Department of Justice.

A jury in Alexandria, Va, found Barry Gitarts, 25, allegedly a member of Internet music piracy group, Apocalypse Production Crew (APC), was found guilty of conspiracy to commit criminal copyright infringement.

Gitarts faces up to five years in prison, a fine of $250,000 and must make full restitution, according to a statement released by the DOJ.

The Recording Industry Assoc. of America (RIAA), which said it helped develop evidence against APC, applauded the jury verdict.

"For the first time ever, a criminal online music piracy case went to trial, and the jury rendered a swift and unanimous verdict," said Brad Buckles, executive vice president for the RIAA. "The crimes committed here -- as well as the harm to the music community -- are severe, and so are the consequences. We congratulate and thank the U.S. Attorney's office for its work on this case."

APC was among the pioneers in music piracy according to the blog TorrentFreak. The group is considered by many to be the first to coordinate pre-release uploading of MP3 files, TorrentFreak reported. Gitarts is accused of participating in the group for nearly a year, the DOJ alleged. The government has convicted 15 APC members so far.

What is different about Gitarts' case is that unlike any of the other APC members, he decided against striking a plea agreement and took his case to court.

What makes APC members different than average Lime Wire users is the group was sophisticated and specialized in releasing copyright music on the Web, according to the DOJ's statement. Gitarts operated a server where APC members stored hundreds of thousands of song files, the DOJ alleged.

[feliusrex]

Every time I hear about such a case, I just want to throttle the RIAA. I don't care what this guy did, he couldn't have caused $250k in damages to the corrupt and hated RIAA. There's a reason the RIAA was voted most hated company last year. I wonder if someone could post Brad Buckles email address so I could tell him what I think of his organization personally?

[TechTraction_Bret]

Here! Here! I concur with feliusrex. I highly doubt the accused did $250k in damages. The penalty certainly does not fit the crime. And the RIAA...now they have hope. Good grief!

[hunter_jc]

Don't give up bro. Fight the power!! We are here to support you bro!!!

[Renegade Knight]

Illegal downlaoding? At .99 cents a song, with a healty discount for albums that should cover all the losses, make the guy legit, and pay for about half an hour of the attorney team that cracked the case.

[James7777777]

So glad tax money is being spent on this. It's about time, music piracy is such a big deal we should definitely divert funds from prosecuting felons/rapists/child molesters towards prosecuting people who download music. I think they should raise taxes so there are more funds to pursue this type of prosecution as it's obviously in the publics best interest.

[EvPv]

Re-read this line:

Gitarts faces up to five years in prison, a fine of $250,000 and must make full restitution, according to a statement from the U.S. Attorney's office.

"faces up to..." does not mean he will get that prison term and fine.

I think RIAA steps too far on some stuff, BUT, I think music downloaders step further. If the music is worth the time to download, listen to, and keep, then it is worth paying for. For the hours of enjoyment we get from music it is still a big bargain.

When I say I bought a CD, it amazes me some people look at me strange, as if buying music is abnormal.

[tacit]

You mean "hear hear," not "here here".

In any event, the thing that I find so interesting about cases like this is the way that music fans and the RIAA have one completely incompatible idea about music that allows for no compromise or negotiation. It's a fundamental difference in worldview that likely can never be overcome.

The RIAA believes that artists should make only a tiny pittance from their music; they feel that artists should make only pennies while the music executives should make millions.

This outrages music fans, who believe that artists should make absolutely no money whatsoever, and that they should be able to have all the music they want for free.

In my experience, the people who scream most loudly that they deserve to have music fr free and they're entitled to download whatever they want without paying the folks who made it, are people who have never created anything in their lives.

[The_Decider]

@tppcnet

How do you figure? The fact is that most people who download from people like this won't pay for it anyway. Therefore the RIAA lost very little, if anything.

Of course there is the matter of the artists getting a 0% share of these types of judgments.

[jkcb5678]

I joined this community just so I could agree with your wonderfully astute comment, tacit. Thanks for your voice.

[aka_tripleB]

Don't you love how the RIAA said it helped "develop" evidence against APC? Last I checked, evidence needs to be discovered not developed.

[firefoxluva95]

One victory out of infinite battles.

Didn't the RIAA also endorse DRM in music? Look what happened to that. Amazon, Itunes, and Napster are going DRM-free. I call that a major victory on the downloader's side. RIAA may win once in a while but the consumers score more victories.

[Aaron.Walkhouse]

Mr Sandoval, whenever you receive a press release from the RIAA or MPAA about an arrest or prosecution be very wary of their opening statements before you reproduce them word-for-word under your own byline. Both of those organizations have a long-standing tactic of stating disingenuously that the offence is "downloading" when in fact downloading was never the issue at hand. If you fail to catch this common ploy you will always be viewed by the public as either quite naive as a journalist or willing to propagandize on the part of such organizations.

If, on the other hand, it was your own error and not their intent that you call it "downloading", might I suggest you get to know some people with experience on the subject so that you may be better equipped to avoid such errors in the future? ;]

[Aaron.Walkhouse]

Mr Sandoval, whenever you receive a press release from the RIAA or MPAA about an arrest or prosecution be very wary of their opening statements before you reproduce them word-for-word under your own byline. Both of those organizations have a long-standing tactic of stating disingenuously that the offence is "downloading" when in fact downloading was never the issue at hand. If you fail to catch this common ploy you will always be viewed by the public as either quite naive as a journalist or willing to propagandize on the part of such organizations.

If, on the other hand, it was your own error and not their intent that you call it "downloading", might I suggest you get to know some people with experience on the subject so that you may be better equipped to avoid such errors in the future? ;]

[Aaron.Walkhouse]

Mr Sandoval, whenever you receive a press release from the DOJ, RIAA or MPAA about an arrest or prosecution be very wary of their opening statements before you reproduce them word-for-word under your own byline. Both of those organizations have a long-standing tactic of stating disingenuously that the offence is "downloading" when in fact downloading was never the issue at hand. If you fail to catch this common ploy you will always be viewed by the public as either quite naive as a journalist or willing to propagandize on the part of such organizations.

If, on the other hand, it was your own error and not their intent that you call it "downloading", might I suggest you get to know some people with experience on the subject so that you may be better equipped to avoid such errors in the future? ;]

[Aaron.Walkhouse]

Whoops! Thought it wasn't accepting the submit button. Knock out the first two copies.