By Andy McCue, 27 January 2006 13:40
NEWS
The UK record industry is claiming a landmark victory after the High Court ordered two men to pay thousands of pounds in fines and damages for illegally distributing music downloads using file-sharing software.
In the first case, a man from King's Lynn was ordered to stop file-sharing illegally and told to make an immediate payment to the BPI of £5,000. The High Court rejected the man's defence that the BPI had no evidence of infringement and granted the summary judgement without the need for a trial.
He now faces a bill for costs estimated at £13,500 with damages set to take that figure even higher.
In the second case, a postman from Brighton claimed he was unaware his actions were illegal and that he did not seek to make any financial gain from it.
His case was also thrown out of court, with Judge Justice Lawrence Collins declaring that "ignorance is not a defence". The man was ordered to make an immediate payment of £1,500, pending final determination of costs and damages.
The BPI has declined to name the two men.
BPI chairman Peter Jamieson said in a statement: "The courts have spoken and their verdict is unequivocal: unauthorised file-sharing is against the law. We have long said that unauthorised file-sharing is damaging the music industry and stealing the future of artists and the people who invest in them."
The BPI said it has settled the majority of the 139 legal cases it started launching against individual file-sharers from October 2004, with some paying up to £6,500 to avoid going to court.
Comments
There are 6 comments. Join the discussion
1. anonymous
How long before some 'unwitting' wireless braodband user is the 'victim' of a neigbour (etc) illegally downloading music through their unsecured wireless connection..?
Legally there is no obligation to protect your home network and the only info the BPI/RIAA have other than what was downloaded is your IP address, NOT which wireless device was behind that address doing the actual downloading.
The first case of this nature that goes to court will almost certainly get thrown out and result in a huge amount of press attention, record industry be warned...
2. Mike
The record industry argument is spurious!
They argue that they are losing the revenue from the lost sales. However, If the "music (doubtful classification in most cases)" couldn't be downloaded for free, would that purchaser actually buy it? I think not! It is quite wrong to argue that if all file sharing ceased, the revenue of record companies would increase by the notional value of the downloads.
For info: I don't download, I'm not interested: my small collection of classical LPs is suffucient for my needs!
I just don't like to see powerful business interests getting away with a cr*p case!
3. Richard A
Guilty without a trial or evidence... what century is this?
"The High Court rejected the man's defence that the BPI had no evidence of infringement and granted the summary judgement without the need for a trial."
The sentence appears to be written without a trace of irony or, apparently, a sense of jurisprudence. Here and in the US draconian laws are being implemented for the benefit of big industry that contradict centuries of legal tradition.
As no money changed hands, the plaintif should have to prove that those who downloaded songs from the defendants did not already hold legal copyright.
Whilst copyright needs to be protected, P2P tends to be teenagers doing the modern equivalent of home taping and oldies like me who are too lazy to convert their old vinyl to mp3. On the other hand, commercial pirates are making millions and stealing from the BPI... but the good old BPI prefers to pour its resources into chasing the wrong people. Great!
When did the cute little HMV dog, suddenly turn in to a cross between Judge Dredd and the Witchfinder General ? No evidence required!
4. anonymous
No evidence provided by Claimant..
Defendant Found Guilty without any Evidence and refused a fair Trial...
Welcome to 21st Century Democracy..
Welcome to the age when Money buys 'Justice'....
Welcome to the age of the 'Corporation'
and all this while we stand up and criticise North Korea and China for abuse of human rights....
5. anonymous
Lost revenue
The usual war-cry from the industry.
However, the industry continues to make obscene profits. How?
By honest customers paying more, that's how. The record company doesn't lose a cent/penny - we the customers) do. They just hike up the prices to cover any perceived 'loss' they might suffer.
I suspect that the 'loss' is calculated as:
Loss = (What we'd like to make) - (what we made)
Hardly based on any eveidence, is it?
How do they assess the level of piracy?
If home priacy really did damage the industry, they would have gone bust when cassette recorders were first used to record the chart hits when 'Fluff' played them on Sunday teatimes...
And don't even get me started on that Judge finding those men guilty w/o evidence, fact or a trial... How did he manage to arrive at that decision?
6. anonymous
I would suggest a yearly license for PCs - just like a TV license, which would go to the entertainment industry and legalise all file sharing.