By Jo Best, 11 March 2005 15:30
NEWS Music industry body the BPI has launched a fresh wave of legal actions against alleged file-sharers, nearly two weeks after it announced the settlement of cases against 23 file-sharers for average damages of £2,000 each.
The High Court has granted the BPI (British Phonographic Industry) an order requiring six ISPs to give up the names and addresses of 31 individuals believed to be serial music peer-to-peer uploaders.
The ISPs have 14 days to comply. Once officials have the details of the alleged song-swappers, they will contact them and offer them the opportunity to settle out of court or face court proceedings.
BPI general counsel Geoff Taylor said file-sharers come from all walks of life and advised parents to check that their children are not using illegal P2P services.
The court order marks the second round of the BPI's action against music pirates. Of the 26 accused in the initial action of October 2004, 23 have settled, including the director of an IT company.
Comments
There are 7 comments. Join the discussion
1. anonymous
Does anyone know what the fine would be should the case go to court? Presumably those fined have been too scared to try.
It seems a little unfair that the record company is allowed to determine what the fine is and set what seems an arbitrarily high one. Surely the punishment should fit the crime, and that scale should be set amongst the known punishments for other crimes that people are tried for.
2. People are starving in africa
Bizarre, so how you going stop people copying cds or just sampling directly from the audio source. People can do that all day without touching the internet.
It would be nice to see the courts persuing real criminals but i supose they don't pay out 2k each on asking
Money makes the world goes round - nothing else sadly
3. Dave Jones
Are the BPI planning a similar "blitz" against the manufacturers, retailers and users of cassette tapes?
4. Carl Maycock
STOP bying music from record companies.
Thats the only way to stop these paracitic, talentless thieves from sueing children, harassing decent poeple, turning talented artists into slaves, getting laws amended purely for their own gain, manufacturing some of th e worst music ever to be released upon an un-suspecting public.
A wealth of music is available to download or to purchase online from decent human beings who have tried to make a living without having their very souls sucked dry by a industry that seems intent on making the world pay for their lack of vision.
Support these independant artists and create a world where record companies are no longer relevant.
5. anonymous
This is clearly spin - UK Law states that parents are not responsible for the misdemenours of their children.
It is also unlcear that they would win in A French court a recent case cleared a movie downloader who downloaded 500 movies, shared online and burned CDs for friends as the copies were for Personal Use, which is allowed - and France like Canada has ruled a Shared Folder is not publication
Distribution for money and counterfienting are crimes.
Also in Britain CD sales went up with file sharing and it is clear that like radio, sharing music is a promotion tool.
P2P has been seen as revitalising the CD Single market, and expanding the market for music. So Quite apart from harming artists, it increases theor exposure.
The untrammeled greed that serves no-one, and hurts music and music fans must be stopped.
It is clear they only want to stop as their cartel controls the music distribution chain. It is a monopolistic cartel that uses its leverage as much against artists as fans.
Perhaps a boycott of major labels?
6. Donny Osamamond
"BPI general counsel Geoff Taylor said file-sharers come from all walks of life and advised parents to check that their children are not using illegal P2P services"
Hang on P2P services are not illegal, what people might share on them could infringe copyright in some form or other, which would be illegal but.... I repeat that P2P services are not illegal in themselves
7. Jim Roberts
The BPI only go after uploaders. The reason that they do not try to prosecute downloaders is because, as a result of two UK court cases - Shetland Times v Wills and Sony v Easyinternetcafe - the internet is a "cable programme service" in English Law, exactly the same as TV or Radio. This means that individuals who download music or video (not for profit) have the same "time shifting" defence as those using VCR's etc. The BPI can't win against those individuals, which explains why they haven't tried.