Manage updates with the Download AppNovember 23, 2005 4:00 AM PST
Perspective: File-sharing crackdown rages worldwide
See all Perspectives
According to the International Federation for the Phonographic Industry, file-sharers in Sweden, Switzerland, Argentina, Hong Kong and Singapore are now at risk of criminal penalties and payment of damages in an international campaign. Thousands of people already have had to pay at least $3,000 for uploading copyrighted music on peer-to-peer networks.
The IFPI maintains that these latest cases bring the total number of such legal actions to more than 3,800 in 16 countries outside the United States. The IFPI states that this is the fourth wave of cases since this international campaign began in March 2004. The campaign is targeting users of all the major unauthorized P2P networks, including FastTrack (Kazaa), Gnutella (BearShare), eDonkey, DirectConnect, BitTorrent, WinMX and SoulSeek.
At a press conference announcing the latest wave of legal actions, IFPI Chairman and CEO John Kennedy proclaimed there was no excuse to steal music on the Internet--especially when there are plenty of legal alternatives. "There are 2 million tracks available on over 300 sites across the world where consumers can download safely and legally and buy, subscribe to or listen to online music at fantastic value," he said. "The music industry is making a vast catalog of music available to consumers online, but at the same time we are determined to protect our music from copyright theft."
The recent actions in Sweden, Switzerland, Argentina, Hong Kong and Singapore are set against the backdrop of prior lawsuits filed in Austria, Denmark, France, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, the U.K. and the United States. That brings the total of countries involved in litigation to 17, according to the IFPI. The take-away point here very well might be that you can run, but you cannot hide.
That is to say, the recording industry likely will go to the ends of the earth to seek to stamp out what it believes to be illegal file-sharing. The industry likely will not be able to go after every single infringer. But if it makes enough waves in many countries, its legal actions could have a serious deterrent effect.
Biography
18 comments
Join the conversation! Add your comment
i don't encourage pirating of copyright works. however, the riaa and its treatment of its artists and customers is .. interesting. the deterrent effect suggested by Sinrod might not be what he expects, and might be more like what the riaa is already getting: decreased music sales as more and more folks who, like me, boycott anything riaa, free or not.
there's plenty of other good music out there from indy artists.
mark d.
What worries me is classification of P2P networks as unauthorized networks. Why would these networks be unauthorized? And what legal body / institution would be responsible for it?
I don't believe P2P is used only for pirated content and it should be made clear that it is not the tool that is wrong - it is the users using it for wrong purposes! I have downloaded completely legal content using Bitorrent - namely the instalation CD for Ubuntu Linux. AFAK as I know this is not illegal and requires nobody elses authorization or approval but the Ubuntus developes approval.
RIAA and other such organisations should also ask themselves why people share illegal copies of their content and how can they turn P2P networks to their advantage. In short - develop a new business model and stop suing people for showing you your old business model is no longer desired or efficient! I happen to have an idea or two - but this is not a place nor opportunity to share them.
One last little rub against the fur - why is it that it is as of recently safer to listen to pirated music downloaded from P2P networks than actually buying a legal CD (namely Sony content)?
In providing for the establishment of copyright laws, the Constitution recognized that a person has a right to earn a fair profit for his intellectual efforts for a reasonable amount of time, before a work lapses into the public domain. Throughout most of our history, that period of time was deemed to be anywhere between seven and fifty years, with the latter seen as an exaggerated high end. Since the advent of the digital age, however, when firms like Microsoft generated unconscionable profits from its software (the product of intellectual creativity), corporate America has successfully lobbied our Congress for the implementation of extended copyright periods. Attentive only to the lining of their campaign chests, and impervious to the deleterious effects such unreasonable copyright periods have upon the public good, creativity, and artistic expression, our Congressional delegations allowed the giant entertainment industry to dictate copyright terms.
Excessive restrictions on fair use of copyrighted materials has already begun to show their stifling effects. Through legal manipulation, the consumer no longer buys or purchases recorded music or software programs or electronic games; the End-User Licensing Agreement (EULA) makes it clears that the consumer is paying for a lease, a conditional lease, at that, and that such lease can be cancelled at any time by the company leasing the intellectual property. [Thus, it is actually false advertising to offer a CD for sale Buy it here! is misleading and deliberately conveys a false impression, and Own your copy today is equally false!]
There was a time when, after finishing a Stephen King novel, I could give it to my bed-ridden aunt. Not any more. You must first get the permission of the copyright holder! There was a time when you could put together on one cassette tape several of your favorite songs, from different performers and sources. No longer! Not too long ago, I would donate records and books to the Public Radio Station for its Fund Raiser. Those items are no longer the property of the consumer who thinks he bought and paid for them. And although I havent heard of it happening, it is theoretically a punishable offense for the radio station to hold a used book and record sale.
On the Internet, it was quickly ascertained that one could share favorite musical selections quite easily, just as you once loaned an LP to a friend. The entertainment cartel caught wind of it (not that Napster was a well-guarded secret, by any means!) And theres not much reason to review the history of the thousands of lawsuits initiated by the RIAA against students, working mothers, children, teenagers, and others. The Sue em all crusade took a lot of liberties with facts, figures, and language, falsely claiming losses in the billions of dollars and calling those who shared files pirates .
A few weeks ago, a computer security specialist discovered that Sony BMG had installed hidden software on the computers of thousands of citizens who had purchased their CDs. The software proves to be harmful to ones computer, and from a legal point of view, is technically known as Spyware , which is illegal. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! This giant of the recording industry set itself above the law in the implementation of its Digital Restriction Management rights, which allows for software to block the copying of copyrighted materials.
Before harsh judgment is passed on those who wrongfully downloaded copyrighted materials, it is imperative that we focus on the broader scope of the issue. Excessive pricing by the recording industry has generated inexcusably excessive profits. This, in turn, has given the entertainment cartel the power to influence legislation which benefits them and them alone, is counter to legal precedent, flies in the face of the public good, and is instrumental in stifling creativity. And yet, when analyzed from a world-view, one must ask oneself whether or not anything is truly original enough to warrant protection from use by others.
Satire, travesty, and farce all depend on taking liberties with events, creative output such as books, songs, or motion pictures, or generally known or accepted products, people, or matters existing in nature. I would hate to imagine a world without the comedy which pokes fun at or exaggerates the serious, solemn, or heroic facets of life. I thank my lucky stars that the RIAA had not suborned Congress with its selfish agenda before Mel Brooks was able to create his masterful Young Doctor Frankenstein , or Space Balls , or High Anxiety , or Blazing Saddles , etc. Other spoofs are equally noteworthy: Airplane (the satire based on Airport ), Carol Burnetts classic farce based on Gone With The Wind , and so many others.
If the RIAA is so intent on the elimination of unauthorized copies of its products, let it go after the true pirates the ones who mass produce illegal copies and sell them to the public for a profit. Downloaders of computer files are not criminals. Oh, its true that the RIAA has seen to it that their actions are sanctioned against by Federal Statutes, now; but it is totally false and misleading to label those people as criminals. Conversely, the most prominent of the RIAA associates, Sony BMG, deliberately commissioned illegal software from a software firm to intentionally, and illegally, install such software on the computers of its customers, without their knowledge or consent.
Thats my two-cents worth. I just want people to consider this entire issue from an objective point of view.
computer programs) you are correct. The consumer is
purchasing a license to use the product. The same is essentially
true for books, but with a slight caveat.
When you purchase a book, you buy a physical object which is
very difficult to make a viable copy of. So, when you give your
Stephen King novel to your grandmother or anyone else, you've
lost access to that copy.
This isn't the case with electronic media. I can make copies of
software and audio CDs that are as good as the originals and
work exactly the same. If I give my copy of an audio CD to
someone else, I can still have a copy of my own to play.
Note that all ELUAs allow for transfer of the licensed software as
long as no other copy exists in the transferer's posession. In
effect, giving away your copy of Windows 98 because you've
decided to use Linux or upgraded to Windows XP is perfectly
legal as long as you don't have a copy of Win98 physically stored
away for later use.
so is the crux of the problem of today... privledged lemmings... everywhere!! and they even vote and run around in politics!!! ha ha ah.... lol
Sindrod. I have noticed a pattern. Many of you probably are
thinking "duh", but articles appear more to be about laying
marketing groundwork, and almost nothing to do with journalism.
Watch him closely.
Personally I hope the RIAA and the no-name IFPI dry up and rot in hell.
and they know it!
We don't really need them any more.
Every "garage band" on Earth has it's own recording studio (or
has access to one). Even "major" acts don't record their music at
Sony or Warner Bros. studios for the most part.
You can go out and buy CD burners that will mass produce CD's
AND print the label (you put in 50 blanks, out comes 50 finished
CD's).
But who needs CD's anymore anyway? It's much more
convenient to carry around my iPod (less than 1/2 full with 1608
songs) then a CD player and a small CD case. Even 3 CD's (let's
be generous and say 45 songs) takes up more space than my
iPod. When someone figures out a way to give me the cover art
and liner notes with an .mp3, I'll never buy anouther CD again.
All the major labels are is a giant marketing firm. Now, with
iTunes music store and the rest, we don't need them for that
anymore. I would much rather pay $1.00 per song and have
$.75 [for example] go directly to the artist than pay $16 and
have them still only get $1.50 for the whole thing after the
record label has taken it's share.
Face it Sony, RCA, Warner Bros, MCA... you're dinosaurs whos
time has come.
You're scared and you're trying to save your ***** any way you
can!
First they want total control: closed networks like cable, satellite, ciphered media. Secondly, with thier archaic business practices and distribution methods, they actually expect the world to wait for them to offer something current to us (forget about what's new).
How many years has iPod been around? iPod was not the beginning, it was a response to a very-marketable idea, which quickly became a standard and a demand. It was further propelled by iTunes, but iPod appeared years <i>after</i> the idea/arrival of portable players and internet distribution.
All this is over 10 years in-the-making - even more if you include the concepts like Phillips CD-i and DCC. The totalitarian music/movie industries have hardly scratched the world's expectations; virtually all progress was made later by 3rd parties like Real Rhapsody and Apple iTunes, preceded by several others.
None of these technologies and ideas are cutting-edge stuff. With the software and infrastructure, its so easy to do, and the 'industries' with all the power, all the money, all the resources, AND all the original media - they're hardly on the map. Instead they direct us to hundreds of unaffiliated, unbranded, unknown 'legitimate' sites. ??????
<b>Message to the 'industries':</b> you missed every possible entry point for this tech wave; you should accept your mistakes and move on. Anything you do now is obviously out of greed and necessity (otherwise known as damage control for the share-holders).
<B>Get something done. Several new medias are looming. if you choose not to evolve, don't expect loyalty. If you choose to waste your resources, <u>don't complain about profitability.</u></b>
Right now you are wasting ridiculous resources to punish individuals worldwide who generally trade mp3s - early 90s MPEG1 encoder technology, usually set to 128k-js. These music files are generally inferior to recorded analog cassette tapes. They are barely even stereo (technically, they aren't).
You already lost the tape battle in the last round, why are you fighting it again? Look ahead.
Javier
Like the Empire trying to keep Ghandi and the people from making salt at the sea ....
I do not feel that 'copyright' law is anything but a bad human pretense and as such oppose all applications of the dogmatic tenet of those who claim it as a 'right'.
The world has gone mad with companies/capitalists actually 'patenting' plant seeds (food power). When one is told that this madness is done in the name of 'fairness' it is sickening in the extreme -- it is all about profit/greed amongst a species hell bent for destruction.
In riposte to these moguls of the 'arts' I feel it only apropos to post a smidgen of a lyric by Donovan -- for them to heed if they can hear or perceive what lies ahead ..
"In the chilly hours and minutes,
Of uncertainty, I want to be,
In the warm hold of your loving mind.
To feel you all around me,
And to take your hand, along the sand,
Ah, but I may as well try and catch the wind."
RIP all those who would try to tame the new ether .... in the words of W.O. Mitchell ...
"Who has seen the Wind"
PS: You would think Mr. Sinrod would be ashamed of himself for writing such false drivel to the net ... this stuff is now like a permanent archive of the foolish statements made by the RIAA MPAA muggers and those who would act as an accomplice ....
No big deal. It's just me.
So come on big boys put your energy into something better your mission is nasty and pointless!!!
Same goes for the movie industry.
are like Edison with his patents on the kinetescope, which
granted his company the monopoly on motion pictures. So the
pirates moved to Hollywood and acted like The Pirate Bay. NOW
the pirates want to close the gate, because they're respectable
now.
I read an interview with George Lucas. He understands you
simply cannot hold back the ocean, and his solutions are a)
close the "window," release the DVD or the HD-DVD or Blu-Ray
on the first day in the theater. Then nobody will be hiding in the
back with a videocam. b) make the theater a better experience c)
figure out an iTunes for movies. (Hint: it will have to involve
BitTorrent, won't it?).
Oh, and Lucas's last point? The average budget of a Hollywood
movie, even something simple that is a boy-girl-boy romantic
comedy, is $60 million. The rest of the world spends $3.5
million on average.
This is common sense. The idiotic lawyer creeps of the studios
are holding cinema back from another golden age.
In five years, the studios will crash to the ground, if they attempt
to act like King Kong and keep the tightest lid possible on the
circulation of their movies.
If the industry wasnt all about the money and was more about the people, then there wouldnt be a problem. yes the artists should get a cut from their music, but honestly when you hear a song on the radio, who doesnt want that song as soon as they know the title? if it wasnt a big hassel to get one song instead of the whole album, then people wouldnt use p2p sharing.
Apple has the right idea with iTunes. Charging a price for a song, and making it much easier for people to find the music that they want, when they want.