Advertisement
How to add spoiler tags, edit posts, add images etc. How to - a user's guide to the new version of Boards
Mods please check the Moderators Group for an important update on Mod tools. If you do not have access to the group, please PM Niamh. Thanks!

[Indo] Music firms get names of internet 'thieves'

  • #1
    Registered Users Posts: 4,286 damien


    http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=1548054&issue_id=13587
    THE illegal uploading of music from the internet is "simply thieving" a judge said yesterday as he ordered internet providers to provide the names and details of 49 people.

    Eircom and two other internet service providers were yesterday ordered by Mr Justice Peter Kelly to provide details of subscribers to allow a number of music companies to take legal action against 49 persons they believe are illegally uploading thousands of music tracks on to file sharing networks.

    In only the second case of its kind, Mr Justice Kelly in the High Court ordered that the internet service providers should disclose the names, addresses and telephone numbers of the 49 holders of the Internet Protocol numbers identified by the music companies.

    The judge said it may be a modern form of thieving done in one's own house, but it was nevertheless thieving.

    Mr Justice Kelly said there was evidence that what was going on was "on a very substantial scale over a lengthy period of time".

    He said it was clear that there was "serial" activity going on involving the uploading of a minimum of 500 to a maximum of 5,000 songs over a period of days. And he said that in his view this was wrongful activity that was not only wrong in the civil sense, but also wrong in the criminal sense.

    Mr Justice Kelly ordered that Eircom, BT Communications Ireland Ltd and Irish Broadband Internet Services Ltd disclose the details to four record companies.

    He noted an undertaking by the record companies that the information would be used only for the purpose of seeking redress for alleged infringement of the copyright of sound recordings and granted the orders on that basis.

    The orders were sought by EMI Records Ireland Ltd, Sony BMG Music Entertainment Ireland Ltd, Universal Music Ireland Ltd and Warner Music Ireland Ltd, all members of the Irish Recorded Music Association (IRMA), who between them claim to supply 78pc of the pop music CDs sold to Irish consumers.

    Mr Justice Kelly stressed there was no suggestion of wrongdoing by Eircom, BT Communications or Irish Broadband.

    They had not opposed the making of the orders but had sought undertakings, that the identities of the 49 persons will not be publicly disclosed except in the context of any legal proceedings.

    Mr Justice Kelly ordered that Eircom should disclose the details within three weeks and BT and Irish Broadband should do so within seven days.


Comments



  • Umm no hint at protecting privacy? So as long as a judge feels it's ok to uncover a persons real identity they can order it? Poor chap has confused theft with copyright infringment.




  • http://www.digitalrights.ie/2006/01/25/isps-ordered-to-hand-over-user-details-to-record-labels/
    Mr. Justice Peter Kelly delivered a judgement in the Commercial Court today where he described people who allow copyrighted music to be unlawfully uploaded to the internet as thieves. “It is not petty theft. Some of it seems to be theft on a grand scale”, he said.

    Justice Kelly was delivering his judgement in a motion by EMI Records (Ireland) Limited, Sony BMG Music Entertainment (IRL) Ltd, Universal Music Ireland Limited, and Warner Music Ireland Limited to compel Eircom Limited, BT Communications Ireland Limited and Irish Broadband Internet Services Limited to divulge the identity of 49 of their subscribers whose IP addresses had been recorded at particular times and dates.

    Counsel for the Plaintiff, Johnathan Newman BL outlined the case for granting the court order. He took the court through the thread of the detective work completed on behalf of the record companies, describing how IP numbers can be traced back to particular ISPs, how such numbers can be obtained in relation to people using peer to peer services who are making files on a shared folder available to others. They estimated that there were 6 million users at any time on the networks being dealt with in court which were the Fasttrack and Gnuttela networks.

    Counsel said that a company, MediaSentry Inc were engaged to investigate these matters on behalf of the copyright holders of audio files. They identified recordings, to which their clients believed they held the copyright. MediaSentry then downloaded sample tracks from users over the peer to peer network. By watching the transmission of data packets they identified which user’s IP numbers were originating in Ireland. Where they did so originate, a snapshot of the full contents of the shared folders were recorded. Of the persons whose details were being sought in court, the least number of copyright infringing files made available was 501. The greatest number was approximately 5000. The Judge noted that one address appeared so often it was “almost an industry”.

    Counsel continued, drawing the courts attention to the need to balance Data Protection Acts’ rights to privacy with the rights of property owners. He outlined that Mr. Kavanagh, Managing Director of EMI Records (Ireland) Limited on Affidavit swore that he felt that publicity measures by ISPs regarding the illegality of filesharing were not likely to succeed.
    Following the judgement granted in July 2005, there was a significant drop around that time of use of peer to peer services. However use had now risen again. The Plaintiffs acknowledged that the Defendants in this case, the ISPs, had been “innocently embroiled” in the matter.

    Counsel continued that this copyright infringement was contrary to S140 of the Copyright and Related Rights Act 2000. Mr Justice Kelly asked if this was also a criminal offence. Plaintiff Counsel responded that “off the top of my head, yes”.
    Counsel went on to outline the evidence gathered by MediaSentry-
    29 of the 49 users had files whose copyright was owned by Warner Music downloaded by Media Sentry. All of those being sought had files listed in their shared drives from Warner Music. 15 people had files whose copyright was owned by Universal music downloaded. All 49 had files listed in their shared drives from Universal music. 29 of the 49 users had files downloaded whose copyright was owned by Sony Music and all of them had files listed in their shared folder from Sony Music.

    Counsel for the Plaintiff continued saying that there had been no subsequent Irish decision in this area since the Court had made its ruling in July 2005. The Court asked if there were any other “Common Law authorities”. Plaintiff Counsel said that there were none.

    Plaintiff Counsel then summed up the legal position for the court.
    The jurisdiction of the Court was to be exercised sparingly in this area. That the Common Law case law indicated that the Plaintiff should have established the wrong, prima facia, but can’t institute proceedings as they can’t identify the wrongdoers. The court must be satisfied on the evidence provided. The court was directed on the last occation to the Data Protection Acts- there was a need for a balance between property and privacy rights and counsel said, the level of infringement here sets property rights at nought.

    Counsel said that while it was not certain that the holder of the IP address computer was the wrongdoer, the Plaintiffs should be given the opportunity to challenge the person and decide whether proceedings are permitted against them.

    Plaintiff Counsel then ended their submissions.

    Counsel for Eircom Limited pointed out that 42 of the 49 persons whose identities was sought were with Eircom Limited. They were neither consenting nor objecting to the application.
    Eircom Counsel submitted that that the court ought to have consideration of the amount of music being downloaded and the timeframe within which it takes place ie whether it was serial rather than occational. In addition, Counsel pointed out that the copyright infringer is the owner of the IP address.

    Counsel for BT Communications Ireland Limited and Irish Broadband Internet Services Limited, Cian Ferriter BL, outlined his latter client’s position, as they had not been named in the earlier, July, court case.
    They did not condone unlawful use of their services.
    Clause 18 of their Terms and Conditions of Use forbid unlawful use of this kind.
    Irish Broadband couldn’t monitor usage. They had been caught up innocently in the matter. His clients did not want a perception that they had lost a court case to be given out if the court ordered that they should hand over their subscribers details. He stated that they were precluded from handing this information voluntarily as, per previous judgements, they have duty under Data Protection legislation to their subscribers.

    Counsel then informed the court that solicitor for his clients had received a letter from solicitors for Digital Rights Ireland Limited, a public interest group. This letter made reference to a Dutch authority in a similar case where the motion sought by the copyright holders had been declined. Counsel said he merely flagged this case for the Court, as he said that he was not making the arguments used in that case. However, it was a live issue across Europe.

    Counsel for the Plaintiffs responded that his clients had also received a letter from Digital Rights Ireland Limited’s solicitors. He stated that given the scale of the issue, litigation was being conducted in many countries and the courts there were applying the Data Protection legislation as they find it.

    Giving his judgement in favour of the Plaintiffs’ application, Mr. Justice Peter Kelly stated that the kind of actions at issue in this case were “A modern form of thieving.” He also clarified that the undertakings by the Plaintiffs to ensure that the information gleaned from the order is only to be used for the purposes it is given for specifically left it open to the Plaintiffs to allow the information to be passed on to the criminal prosecution authorities, and that “perhaps you ought”.

    Eircom Limited were given 3 weeks to produce the user names and addresses, while the 2nd and 3rd named defendants were given 7 days. The Plaintiffs accepted they should pay the reasonable costs of the defendants, who were innocent parties in the matter, including the reasonable costs of the extraction of the required information.




  • absolutely terrible judgment. i had always thought that it was pure ignorance that was at play here, with none of the balancing information being made avaiable to the judges. But here, the court was informed of the judgments handed down by courts interpreting European directive and simply ignored them. Maybe TJ will fill me in here, but Kelly's position seems to be that just because somebody else has considered what the Europeans obligations of a court are, doesn't mean that he has to think through anything. Disgusting.

    Can a judge libel someone? he has said that the activities of those represented by the IP numbers are "thieving". They are not under any circumstances thieving, that is not even what IRMA is accusing them of. So, he has called a whole bunch of people thieves off his own bat. How is that accetable and legal? Digusting.




  • woodentopz wrote:
    absolutely terrible judgment. i had always thought that it was pure ignorance that was at play here, with none of the balancing information being made avaiable to the judges. But here, the court was informed of the judgments handed down by courts interpreting European directive and simply ignored them.

    Can a judge libel someone? he has said that the activities of those represented by the IP numbers are "thieving". They are not under any circumstances thieving, that is not even what IRMA is accusing them of. So, he has called a whole bunch of people thieves off his own bat. How is that accetable and legal? Digusting.

    The only courts that bind the Irish High Court when interpreting European Directives are the Irish Supreme Court and the European Court of Justice.

    A judge in court is absolutly privileged in anything he says. I'm sure a High Court judge is very aware of the differance between larceny and copyright infringement, he just used the word "thieving" in the colloquial sense in that the infringers are violating someone else's property (their copyright) without their consent.




  • hah! you so-called "lawyers" with yer, yer...knowledge of the law!
    that's what's causin' the problem here.
    gabhain7 wrote:
    The only courts that bind the Irish High Court when interpreting European Directives are the Irish Supreme Court and the European Court of Justice.

    But i wasn' talking about being bound, just about performing due diligence on the state of law in his own area.


    AND...hows about this: can the sharing of 499 files be considered legal (by use) no names/info was sought from those folks? At least, there is something that seems to establish that IRMA does not consider the sharing of less than 500 files an issue?

    ANF ALSO...was there evidence in the case that people who had 'shared' 500+ files had actually had any of them uploaded? Kelly says (or is it just the journalist concerned?) says:
    He said it was clear that there was "serial" activity going on involving the uploading of a minimum of 500 to a maximum of 5,000 songs over a period of days.

    Is it possible that this is literally true? were a minimum of 500 files UPLOADED by those concerned? Was evidence of this offered?


  • Advertisement


  • woodentopz wrote:
    hah! you so-called "lawyers" with yer, yer...knowledge of the law!
    that's what's causin' the problem here.



    But i wasn' talking about being bound, just about performing due diligence on the state of law in his own area.


    AND...hows about this: can the sharing of 499 files be considered legal (by use) no names/info was sought from those folks? At least, there is something that seems to establish that IRMA does not consider the sharing of less than 500 files an issue?

    ANF ALSO...was there evidence in the case that people who had 'shared' 500+ files had actually had any of them uploaded? Kelly says (or is it just the journalist concerned?) says:



    Is it possible that this is literally true? were a minimum of 500 files UPLOADED by those concerned? Was evidence of this offered?

    I'm very confused by all this. Does this mean it's only illegal to upload and not illegal to download?:confused:




  • Freddie59 wrote:
    I'm very confused by all this. Does this mean it's only illegal to upload and not illegal to download?:confused:

    No its illegal to download, but only the minority of people involved in illegal file sharing actually do upload and if you can stop the uploaders you've stopped the downloaders.




  • This post has been deleted.




  • Beecher wrote:
    No its illegal to download, but only the minority of people involved in illegal file sharing actually do upload and if you can stop the uploaders you've stopped the downloaders.

    There is nothing in the Copyright and Related Acts 2000 that prohibits downloading. Uploading of copyright material without the permission of the copyright owner is against the legislation, under the making available right. IRMA are targeting people who make 500 or more files available, this is an arbitary limit chosen by them, if they so wanted they could choose people with 10 files shared. Their idea is to starve the P2P networks of content.
    If you are one of these people caught they will try to demand €4 per song shared (someone is going to get hit will a demand for €20,000), if you get a letter then first contact your solicitor and let them cut the deal with IRMA.




  • #Elites wrote:
    say if you download from say Limewire and torrent sites, but dont upload, u wont get caught?

    If you do not share copyrighted files (make available for upload) then you will not get caught. Torrents are a different matter since parts of the file are available to other users as you download. Since torrent files tend to be mainly video based, the most that will happen currently is a takedown notice is sent to your ISP by an American company like BAYTSP. These have no legal standing in Europe and currently you won't be sued, however if your ISP requests you remove this file, then you need to comply, as you are probably breaking your terms and conditions of service.


  • Advertisement


  • what my original question concerned was whether the judge had believed that every file in a share folder was regarded as having been uploaded, or whether he believed (or was lead to believe) that every file in the share folder had indeed been uploaded by somebody (from the sharer), ie that 5000 files had been UPLOADED from some people's share, 500 from others.

    The question still stands. TJ?

    Or, can we regarded sharing less than 500 songs as safe and not subject to prosecution, as IRMA has set that limit....?




  • OK, last post of the day. On this subject. On this board.

    If the damages of €4 per infringing track refer to letting "millions" of "potential" users have access to your music, how would the damages be scaled if you were to share music with a few friends, say 5 or 10 people. Would the damages be in the order of some millionth of €4? Isn't that what the €4 estimation of damages implies?




  • We don't have statutory damages for copyright infringement in the same way as the US - there's no set tariff per song shared. So it's not true to say that the plaintiffs will be awarded €X multiplied by the number of files in the shared folder. Plaintiffs must show damage actually suffered.
    whether the judge had believed that every file in a share folder was regarded as having been uploaded, or whether he believed (or was led to believe) that every file in the share folder had indeed been uploaded by somebody (from the sharer), ie that 5000 files had been UPLOADED from some people's share, 500 from others.

    I can't speak as to the judge's subjective impression, but the plaintiffs are only in a position to prove how many files were available for sharing: they have no means (that I know of) to demonstrate how many uploads actually took place. Their submission to the court spoke of "making available" as being the infringing act and Kelly J. in his July decision was careful to describe the evidence as establishing a "making available" case.




  • so the hanging question is, given that the damages are to be assessed by IRMA, and they themselves assess the damages of 'making available' at around €4 a file when made available to the entire internet population, is there any way to reasonably (and sucessfully) suggest that the damage is substancially more limited if files are made available only to a strictly limited number of friends? Or even that there is no damage at all?

    Also TJ, id be interested to hear what you think about the 'sharers of sub-500 files are not going to be pursued' notion...




  • The music labels have discretion to pursue whoever they like, on this judgement, with no limits on the numbers of files being shared put on that discretion. They might be interested in people sharing 500 up today and then people sharing 5 up tomorrow.

    Damages aren't assessed by IRMA- they are sought. Outside of court they needn't be bound by actuarial notions of subdividing the amounts sought.




  • theking wrote:
    The music labels have descretion to pursue whoever they like, on this judgement, with no limits on the numbers of files being shared put on that descretion. They might be interested in people sharing 500 up today and then people sharing 5 up tomorrow.

    Damages aren't assessed by IRMA- they are sought. Outside of court they needn't be bound by actuarial notions of subdividing the amounts sought.

    But will it be accetable to a court that IRMA act inconsistently? If they say first off that over 500 files is what causes the problem, surely that prejudices them if they later say that 5 files is a problem.

    Similarly, if they seek a certain amount of damages in one case, surely it prejudices them for seeking the same amount in a case that demonstrably of a far smaller magnitude.




  • Parties may settle for whatever they find acceptable. The court won't intervene in those negotiations.




  • fair doesnt come into this, does it?




  • UK file-sharers told to pay more than £20,000
    By Tony Smith
    Published Friday 27th January 2006 12:50 GMT
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/27/uk_p2pers_fined/

    The English High Court has ordered two men to pay a combined £6,500 in damages after deciding they illegally distributed music through P2P file-sharing networks.

    The two cases were brought separately by the British Phonographic Industry (BPI), the UK's equivalent of the Recording Industry Ass. of America (RIAA), and are the first of their kind in the UK. Both men were offered the opportunity to settle, but neither chose to do so, the BPI said. Neither man was named.

    One defendant, a postman from Brighton, Sussex was ordered to pay £1,500. He may also yet be ordered to pay costs. The court rejected his defence that he had acted in ignorance of the UK's copyright law and did not offer the music for money.

    The second man, from King's Lynn, Norfolk, was hit with a fine of £5,000 and told to pay the BPI's costs. It is estimated that they could take the total amount he must cough up to more than £18,500. He claimed the BPI had no direct evidence of infringement.

    The two men were both among five people the BPI took to court in August 2005 after they refused to reach a settlement. The BPI said the other cases are pending and that it expects them to be resolved shortly.

    The organisation began pursuing alleged copyright infringers in October 2004, and to date has come to terms with 88 people, some of whom have paid up to £6,500 to avoid a court hearing.

    The BPI said it is currently seeking settlements with a further 51 file-sharers, all of whom it approached in December 2005. They have until 31 January to reach an accord, the organisation warned.

    Attack is the best form of defence, If you go against them you must prove
    the evidence presented against you is incorrect or that their methods violated
    the law and or your civil rights.




  • Luckily my music bands(Punk) don't "claim" their music back :)


  • Advertisement


  • Mr. Justice Peter Kelly stated that the kind of actions at issue in this case were “A modern form of thieving.”
    But charging €20 to €40 for a cd is alright..:rolleyes:
    Luckily my music bands(Punk) don't "claim" their music back
    Not the bands, the one's who sell it will, tho.




  • the_syco wrote:
    But charging €20 to €40 for a cd is alright..:rolleyes:
    That doesn't make it alright to steal.




  • That doesn't make it alright to steal.
    When Movies came out here the same day as the states, and not 9 months later, piracy dropped a little. I'm not saying its right, but if they expect us to pay effin high prices, they should also expect people to download it, rather than buy it.




  • Something else I was wondering concerning this. What is the legality concerned with downloading television shows that are, in some instances, broadcast months in advance in the US. Since they are broadcast over a public medium I cant see how "copyright" is being infringed in this case. I ask because I download two shows on bittorrent but never films (no extras and the quality is relatively useless) and rarely ever music (most music is vapid "teen idol" "hip hop" rubbish anyway). My monthly download never exceeds 50% of CAP and since the speed/cap increase that has fallen to ~25%, upload is usually only 1-5% of total cap.




  • 24th January 2006 - Irish Recorded Music Association (IRMA) welcomes High
    Court decision on Illegal File Sharers

    IRMA, the Irish Recorded Music Association, today welcomed the decision of
    the High Court in Dublin to oblige a number of Internet Service Providers
    (ISPs) to release the names of a further 49 individuals engaged in serial file
    uploading of music on the internet.

    Judge Peter Kelly today described the actions of the individuals as
    "tantamount to stealing - not on a minor scale but on a grand scale". He also
    informed IRMA that a court order allowed IRMA, at their discretion, not only to
    pursue these 49 cases for civil damages but also to pass the names on to the
    Authorities for criminal prosecutions.

    This is the second wave of proceedings to be taken by IRMA and comes after
    extensive educational initiatives to raise awareness of the damage done to
    the music industry by illegal file sharers. Despite a drop in the illegal sharing of
    music in the months following their initial phase of legal actions in July 2005,
    the number of files being shared illegally on the internet continues to grow.

    Speaking after the decision, Dick Doyle, Director General of IRMA commented:
    "We will contact the 49 individuals or firms and offer them the opportunity to
    settle the action. If they refuse, we will be forced to pursue the matter
    through the Courts. We hope that, along with our consistent information
    drives, these litigations will lead to parents of teenagers and others discussing
    illegal file-sharing and ensuring that it does not affect their household or
    office".

    Interesting Mr. Doyle conceeds that the number of files available is increasing
    despite their intimidation of individuals and I would concur its very easy to
    stay out of the media cartel's (EMI Records, Sony BMG Music, Universal Music
    Ireland, and Warner Music Ireland) agencies like MediaSentry. I'll reprise an old
    post of mine concerning staying one step ahead of the IRMA.

    There is irony here, if hypothetically, Mr. Doyle and his masters were to
    succeed in wiping "their material" from the P2P networks, they would seal their
    demise. As P2P is established worldwide, other content providers would move
    to fill the void, thus, they would have no more relevance and I all I say the
    sooner the better, for everyone.


Advertisement