Being sued by the music biz for sharing MP3

[Elektraman]

Newbie here.

On saturday I was served with a draft writ from the BPI representing 11 major record companies. Apparently I am a serious offender because i shared some MP3's and they want......£10.5K compensation within 2 weeks or else!!!

Thing is I used Limewire to download 4000 MP3's and unwittingly had sharing switched on. BPI downloaded 3 files from my PC as "proof" of breaking the law. By the way an injunction was sought against BT to get my IP address.

There are 31 other people getting the same writ.

Help!!! Any possible defences???

[napho]

Maybe you could throw yourself on the mercy of the court and the BPI and tell them you'll write some essays on why piracy is wrong and you'll spam the net distributing that newfound belief.

[emmy]

Originally Posted by napho

Maybe you could throw yourself on the mercy of the court and the BPI and tell them you'll write some essays on why piracy is wrong and you'll spam the net distributing that newfound belief.

If I had a camera my picture would look like this

[JackSpratts]

Originally Posted by napho

you'll spam the net distributing that newfound belief.

you can start here!

- js.

[Drakonix]

Only an attorney can give you legal advice.

Many persons sued by the Recording Industry Association of America in the U.S. were able to settle out-of-court for substantially lower sums than originally demanded.

Start reading up on this issue, a good place to start is www.eff.org.

[malvachat]

Originally Posted by Elektraman

Newbie here.

On saturday I was served with a draft writ from the BPI representing 11 major record companies. Apparently I am a serious offender because i shared some MP3's and they want......£10.5K compensation within 2 weeks or else!!!

Thing is I used Limewire to download 4000 MP3's and unwittingly had sharing switched on. BPI downloaded 3 files from my PC as "proof" of breaking the law. By the way an injunction was sought against BT to get my IP address.

There are 31 other people getting the same writ.

Help!!! Any possible defences???

Take it easy for a start.
See a solicitor and check the wording of the letter carefully.
If they are demanding money it's possible they are breaking the law.
Civil law in Britain is a very complicated thing.

If you make an offer £1 a week say.
Only do this after legal advice,you might be admitting guilt.
Sometimes a judge will rule against the company if they press the case after you've shown willing.
The important thing to remember is it's civil action.
It's very rare to be jailed for civil action.

You can drag these things out for years and years.
I did this with the poll tax and it's still going on 15yrs later.
I agreed to pay so much a month off the arrears..
I pay one month,then leave it till I get a letter reminding me.
I then pay another month.
The gaps between the letters gets bigger and bigger.
I made the agreement six years ago.
I have made 8 payments in all and still have 192 payments to make.
Some how I thinks they'll give up before me.
You'll be surprised how the system forgets you in time.
I still have fines from 25 yrs ago outstanding.
If your payments are high pay less,at least your showing willing.
If you have children even better.
No judge is going to make you pay and leave your kids short.
They won't even cut your gas and electricity off,if you have children.
Worst case,get signed off with stress they will suspend payments.
Then never say when you go back.
There are loads and loads of ways to mess about with civil payments.
Good luck and why don't you keep us all informed.

[Jadesun]

Guys...(I don't read up/stay on top of the topic as I should...

but Canadians are still 'safe' aren't they to download away...

PS: What does BPI stand for?

[JackSpratts]

1) reduce that fine!

ideally get the payments down to about 5 cents a song (us). that's just about what mp3s are worth.

2) increase your haul!

if you still have to pay the full 10,000, go out and get a few hundred thousand more songs. the fastest way to that is drive cloning. this way you'll still be paying that nickle a tune. it's not so bad with that ratio.

3) meet new pirates!

hook up with those other 31 deperadoes and pool your files. you'll all feel better when you get your money's worth.

- js.

[Elektraman]

BPI stands for British Phonographic Institute, they represent all major record labels.

Guys, serious replies appreciated.

I have a defence for the first round (without a lawyer) that might get them to drop charges. I'd post it here but as they 'allegedly caught me in a P2p network I aint risking posting the reply here yet. Perhaps later.

Starting at the top what are the technical reasons I can argue? I've already gone for proving the IP address was in use by my tel point at that time and the fact that a number of people have access via that IP address at this site. The argument is that its in my name and im responsible.

I'm expecting a reply soon and will let you know.

NB it's not the downloading thats the problem, iots the fact I SHARED the files to other people via P2P.

[malvachat]

Originally Posted by Elektraman

Guys, serious replies appreciated.

I was being serious.

Don't panic.
Change ISPs.
Do not get into conversation with these people
The next letter you get,return to sender,not known at this address.
You no longer live there,no forwarding address.
Let them try and find you.

[albed]

YOU WANT SERIOUS?

YOU CAN'T HANDLE SERIOUS!

Get an assault rifle and ammo and when they come for you, go out in a blaze of glory.

That way they'll think twice before going after other p2p users.

[JackSpratts]

oh. you want really serious. ok. in the u.s. to my knowledge no-one's beaten this. delay, delay, delay but they will all have to pay eventually. probably. you can and should expect a reduced settlement however, which for americans hovers around $3500.00 per occurrence. at this rate the companies hired by the riaa to process the suits are finding the goings quite profitable, so there doesn't seem to be any reason - financially - to stop suing the customers. 11,000 people sued x $3500 in "settlements" = $38,500,000.00 in potential grosses – so far. obviously we're looking at real money here. this works in your favo(u)r. the last thing they want are any interruptions to the cash flow, and that would happen quickly if people fought this outrage. in order that doesn't happen they have been "surprisingly flexible" in accepting lowered payments, if one defines flexible by comparing the difference they could theoretically win in a u.s. court ($150,000.00 per song) with what they willingly accept (apx $1.00). while the italians hit a roman club dj with a million $ plus fine i imagine most of that will evaporate before he has to pay (knowing the italians it wouldn't surprise me if all of it mysteriously evaporates lol). i’m thinking the bpi will do the same in the uk as the riaa does in the u.s.. why not? the law firms, like the record companies, are global in nature, and they crave making fast money as much as the next oligarch.

as for advice, i can only tell you what i would tell a friend: hire a lawyer (solicitor), instruct him/her to make the best deal possible - use the fact that they actually examined only 3 songs to your advantage - they can't know if the others are genuine songs or incompletes or misnamed files or what, and when you’re comfortable (as possible) with the figure, lay back and think of england. you’ve taken a bullet for the cause you wonderful martyr.

then vote the corrupt assholes out who pushed the laws upon you leading to this fix in the first place.

think of it as the cost of freedom. compared to wwii, which you guys handled pretty well, this is a kindergarten dust up: no bombs, no guns, no gas - just that irritating monthly statement; and maybe, just maybe, a whole new bunch of names to remember in parliament.

- js.

[Millencolin]

what aboot them downloading files.. oh wait.... eh i was gonna say they hacked his computer to get them which is illegal right? but i think what they mean't was they downloaded them with another comp., not hacking... nevermind

[Elektraman]

of course, the 3997 other files were me busking on my guitar unless they prove otherwise.

(Incidentally, i have about 1000 other MP3's, they are actually guitar backing tracks that are copyright free......mmm seeing some ideas here!)

As I say i'll post up my interesting defence lines when the case closes.

[malvachat]

Originally Posted by albed

YOU WANT SERIOUS?

YOU CAN'T HANDLE SERIOUS!

Get an assault rifle and ammo and when they come for you, go out in a blaze of glory.

That way they'll think twice before going after other p2p users.

Maybe if you lent him your medal.
He could wave that at them and call them names
Then they would be really,really frightened,and never come back.

[legion]

dunno if it will help you but give it a shot anyways

http://www.euro-copyrights.org/index/8/13

Originally Posted by Drakonix

Only an attorney can give you legal advice.

Many persons sued by the Recording Industry Association of America in the U.S. were able to settle out-of-court for substantially lower sums than originally demanded.

Start reading up on this issue, a good place to start is www.eff.org.

OK, so I suspect one of my minor kids might have downloaded a few songs.

I will confront her about it and educate her about what is legal and not.

MY QUESTION IS ... DAMAGE CONTROL.

I don't know P2P, and I want to say "live & learn, but here's what you should do going forward in case you (or I, as your parent) get sued."
Do I just tell her to stop downloading copyrighted material, or should I go further and make her delete old downloads? Anything else?

From the damage control perspective, I don't know that deleting the old downloads will help, assuming that money demands would be calculated based on the number of downloads, ... not how many times or how long you listen to each download.

[Elektraman]

Just because you own a number of MP3's doesnt mean you have broken the law.

1) THey might for instance be said recordings of me bsuing on my guitar and for your own reasons you've filed it as "Beyonce - Baby Boy" because you think thats what it sounds like!

2) They might be legal sample files freely given out legally.

3) They might be corrupt in which case has breach actually occurred? Intent might have but you can hardly have broken the law downloading a file that wont even open.

4) See the BPI website download about filesharing. They are concerned with SERIOUS offenders, they say they are after UPLOADERS not downloaders.

I shouldnt worry if I were you.

[JackSpratts]

Originally Posted by trepid

OK, so I suspect one of my minor kids might have downloaded a few songs.

I will confront her about it and educate her about what is legal and not.

MY QUESTION IS ... DAMAGE CONTROL.

I don't know P2P, and I want to say "live & learn, but here's what you should do going forward in case you (or I, as your parent) get sued."
Do I just tell her to stop downloading copyrighted material, or should I go further and make her delete old downloads? Anything else?

From the damage control perspective, I don't know that deleting the old downloads will help, assuming that money demands would be calculated based on the number of downloads, ... not how many times or how long you listen to each download.

from a technological standpoint unless your computer had been hacked and rogue programs installed (which is illegal to do in itself) copyright cops don't know what you're downloading - unless they are the ones supplying the file. so if we have some detective who is authorized by the copyright holder offering files for download the immediate defense that comes to mind is that you have their permission to receive them, i mean after all, they're giving them to you without duress. in the states at least the "crime" that leads to a lawsuit is the one of "distribution," not reception, so they have not been keen to fall into their own pit. they do not know what you download if you download from someone else for the simple reason your computer isn't connected to theirs and when it's not they can't see your ip address, and it's your (cyber) ip address that is used to reveal your (physical) identity.

what they do then is prowl the networks for users who offer files, and then transfer some of those files to their hardrives while making careful note of that ip. if the files are genuine they proceed from there. so in the strictest sense this is not about the number of downloads you may have, or are in the process of getting. it's about the number of copyrighted files you offer for upload. obviously if you share every single applicable file on your computer the difference is negligible, but if you have ten thousand files and only share ten the difference is significant.

if one is trying to limit one's exposure to potential suits, which in two years have affected less than one in 10,000 users, one's best strategy is to be a "leecher" and not upload at all unfortunately, and indeed this is what's encountered increasingly on the larger and more open public networks. plenty of grabbers grabbing from fewer and fewer givers. leechers have always been the dark side of file sharing going back years, before there was even talk of lawsuits and criminal actions. there seems to be a neurotic and twisted type who for reasons known only to him or her takes while never giving, ever, even if the "giving" is a near-zero cost expenditure. i mean we are after all discussing electronic copies. some of the biggest downloaders, real content hogs, are also some of the worst leechers. it's one of the things i wish psychologists would hurry up and study so i could download their pdfs (yuk yuk). of course now when sharing is less "zero-cost" one could expect to find more people leeching, and one does, but it has been a slight increase and not a linear progression. while normal people understand give and take hard core leechers don't get it, nor seem to behave the way they do because of resource husbandry, indeed they’re hardly saving anything at all, it's more of an internal greed-dialog unaffected by external developments. luckily for the community the majority of participants are normal, and normal file-sharers don't all start leeching in response suits while continuing to download with abandon. they take an all inclusive approach and simply limit all file-sharing activities, try other defenses like ip blockers, eliminate some shares or as we see increasingly, move to networks less affected by legal actions, or employ some combination of these strategies.

so if i had a nutty gabby daughter who chatted and swapped like a drunken sailor on any and every network - i’d let her mother deal with it! however if she inherited her incautious ways from said mom i’d have to insist she cut down on the sharing. it’s the cheapest and most effective form of protection. not so hot for the larger file-sharing community – and she’d hear from them – but with the family’s assets foremost in mind, perhaps the best overall solution. a few uploads are better than none. once someone’s been sued you will probably never see any files from them again.

- js.

[Elektraman]

Originally Posted by JackSpratts

from a technological standpoint unless your computer had been hacked and rogue programs installed (which is illegal to do in itself) copyright cops don't know what you're downloading - unless they are the ones supplying the file. so if we have some detective who is authorized by the copyright holder offering files for download the immediate defense that comes to mind is that you have their permission to receive them, i mean after all, they're giving them to you without duress. in the states at least the "crime" that leads to a lawsuit is the one of "distribution," not reception, so they have not been keen to fall into their own pit. they do not know what you download if you download from someone else for the simple reason your computer isn't connected to theirs and when it's not they can't see your ip address, and it's your (cyber) ip address that is used to reveal your (physical) identity.

what they do then is prowl the networks for users who offer files, and then transfer some of those files to their hardrives while making careful note of that ip. if the files are genuine they proceed from there. so in the strictest sense this is not about the number of downloads you may have, or are in the process of getting. it's about the number of copyrighted files you offer for upload. obviously if you share every single applicable file on your computer the difference is negligible, but if you have ten thousand files and only share ten the difference is significant.

if one is trying to limit one's exposure to potential suits, which in two years have affected less than one in 10,000 users, one's best strategy is to be a "leecher" and not upload at all unfortunately, and indeed this is what's encountered increasingly on the larger and more open public networks. plenty of grabbers grabbing from fewer and fewer givers. leechers have always been the dark side of file sharing going back years, before there was even talk of lawsuits and criminal actions. there seems to be a neurotic and twisted type who for reasons known only to him or her takes while never giving, ever, even if the "giving" is a near-zero cost expenditure. i mean we are after all discussing electronic copies. some of the biggest downloaders, real content hogs, are also some of the worst leechers. it's one of the things i wish psychologists would hurry up and study so i could download their pdfs (yuk yuk). of course now when sharing is less "zero-cost" one could expect to find more people leeching, and one does, but it has been a slight increase and not a linear progression. while normal people understand give and take hard core leechers don't get it, nor seem to behave the way they do because of resource husbandry, indeed they’re hardly saving anything at all, it's more of an internal greed-dialog unaffected by external developments. luckily for the community the majority of participants are normal, and normal file-sharers don't all start leeching in response suits while continuing to download with abandon. they take an all inclusive approach and simply limit all file-sharing activities, try other defenses like ip blockers, eliminate some shares or as we see increasingly, move to networks less affected by legal actions, or employ some combination of these strategies.

so if i had a nutty gabby daughter who chatted and swapped like a drunken sailor on any and every network - i’d let her mother deal with it! however if she inherited her incautious ways from said mom i’d have to insist she cut down on the sharing. it’s the cheapest and most effective form of protection. not so hot for the larger file-sharing community – and she’d hear from them – but with the family’s assets foremost in mind, perhaps the best overall solution. a few uploads are better than none. once someone’s been sued you will probably never see any files from them again.

- js.

The crime i've commited is "uploading" (unwittingly), they took screen shots of the IP address whilst themselves downloading and took out an injunction against my telephone company to supply my contact detail.

The BPI are authorised to protect artists interests and therefore are guilty of no crime themselves.

The shared directory contained 3000 odd files. Interestingly not all of these were copyright and the other point is that the BPI cannot prove the copyright of these files AS THEY NEVER DOWNLOADED THEM TO EXAMINE and therefore do not know the substance behind the filename, they simply assume they are able to fire a nuke in my direction. To be pedantic, some of the music files are from American Record Labels and outwith the jurisdiction of the BPI.

Clearly, if the BPI approach you, dont immediatly assume that what they say goes, each act has tobe proven, within their jurisdiction and "punishable".

I think I might be an IP Lawyer after all!