|
|
|
ONLY MAJOR UK MUSIC SWAPPERS WILL B PROSECUTED!
|
|
|
cdcoaster
Junior Member
|
14. January 2004 @ 03:36 |
Link to this message
|
|
According to this article only people that have a lot of music? on their pc's, and allow others access to it via p2p file sharing apps will be prosucuted in the UK.
Wednesday January 14, 02:33 AM
Music industry targets song swappers
By Bernhard Warner, European Internet Correspondent
LONDON (Reuters) - The UK music industry will sue Internet song swappers unless they stop putting their music collections online for others to download, says a top music official.
"We want to increase consumer awareness of the legal implications of file-sharing. We want to introduce new legitimate (online download) services. If these are not working, then there has to be a degree of enforcement," said Andrew Yeates, director general of industry association The British Phonographic Industry (BPI).
The comments, made on the sidelines of an industry event Tuesday night, is the clearest statement yet that the European music industry is prepared to follow in the controversial footsteps of the United States.
In September, U.S. trade group The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), launched a legal crusade to stamp out Internet piracy by suing individuals who distribute songs on file-sharing networks. Yeates said the legal crackdown would be "proportional," suggesting the BPI would, as the RIAA has in America, go after those who distribute the most songs and leave the occasional file-sharer alone. (Was the 12year old girl they prosecuted in the USA a major distributor? coasterboy) He also hinted legal enforcement would not start until after new industry-backed music download services, such as Apple Computer's and Roxio's Napster make their European debut, as anticipated, later this year.
If the industry-backed services prove a hit with consumers and piracy levels tail off, he said,
legal steps may not be necessary.
The music industry blames file-sharing services such as Kazaa and Grokster for creating a massive black market of free songs on the Internet that is crippling CD sales.
Over the past few months, European music industry officials have been making increasingly stronger suggestions that they would consider suing online file-sharers if piracy levels continue to climb.
Recent industry statistics reveal that file-sharing is on the decline in the United States but increasing in Europe since the RIAA embarked on its legal campaign four months ago.
Yeates said the BPI was stepping up talks with European Internet service providers (ISPs) to streamline a process for identifying the major culprits, a necessary development if a legal campaign is to be effective.
The ISP industry regularly investigates complaints from copyright holders about file-sharing abuses, but as of yet they remain unwilling to hand over the identities of their customers without a court order.
Under a new UK copyright law, file-sharing has been criminalised. But few expect it will result in jail time for downloaders.
"The BPI is not going to bring a criminal case," Struan Robertson, a solicitor for UK law firm
Masons, told Reuters. "That would require prosecutors getting involved. And they have a lot more to do than to go after kids in their bedrooms."
This at least seems a somewhat more tempered approach rather than jumping in "Jack boots" first and attempting to prosecute anyone they feel like on the basis that they have/had a p2p app on their pc!
Time will tell but, "I HAVE THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT"
sorry i messed the title up seems it does not work on that?
_
_
_
_
_
_
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 14. January 2004 @ 04:06
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
Moderator
|
15. January 2004 @ 09:02 |
Link to this message
|
A person would be a fool to expect anything different than what RIAA has done here in the U.S. RIAA started off with the same exact statements, "only the most egregious offenders" and look at what they've done. Look at what CRIA is doing now as well. After saying they weren't going to sue anybody like the RIAA they already have 40 people lined up to be sued. They're all the same in mentality and purpose - the only difference is the country they call home.
My killer sig came courtesy of bb "El Jefe" mayo.
The Forum Rules You Agreed To! http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/2487
"And there we saw the giants, and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight" - Numbers 13:33 |
|
cleft
Junior Member
|
16. January 2004 @ 18:58 |
Link to this message
|
Till I read Nephilim's answer I was going to answer along the same lines; that is was a near copycat of the announcements made at the start of the RIAA campaigne.
The RIAA was active for months before the start of their pursuit of legal options against illegal downloaders in gathering info for their use. Would highly recommend that if you don't already use an ip blocker that you get serious and do so and combine that with a firewall. Either that or make the entries in the firewall to block those that should not be allowed to view your computer contents.
Help is on the way in that certain p2p applications are beginning to take up the issue of this spying and what it means to their users and members. Encryption is coming and is being developed for use as we talk of this issue and p2p usage. That will not help you today...
Whether mp3 is or is not a true infringement on copywrite is also still an issue that has not stood the test of court and law, to my knowledge. For a long time the RIAA policy was that mp3 was a poor brother and only a bit better than radio quality in the reproduction of music. It was only after they saw that they could not sue the developers of p2p and the sites that did not contain music within their servers that it became an issue. To drum up support they constantly beat on the piracy issue but went for the easy victums and not the real pirates in the asiatic countries. File sharing in and of itself is not illegal or so the courts have ruled, in the US.
Having been defeated in the Verison case of basically short circuting the intent of the law by not going through legal processes that the law is founded upon, they are reduced to the old method of having to have a warrent issued for the data for each and every request from the local judge in the area affected. So now they have painted a happy face on it, said they won and filesharing is down and that sales are on the increase.
No business can survive that makes victums of the very folks that they depend on for income and alienate the public sentiment in the process. This is something the BPI should have taken note of at the start...
|
|
cdcoaster
Junior Member
|
17. January 2004 @ 06:14 |
Link to this message
|
|
NOW, just to make things even more interesting, In a landmark case, the Netherlands Supreme Court have decided that it is actually legal for Kazza to be made available to the general public.
The development came as a result of action taken by the music rights society Buma/Stemra claiming that merely d/loading the file shareing program was a breach of copyright. However, seeing as Kazza HQ does not directly control the sharing of user's files the court ruled that Kazza itself does not actually breach any copyrights.
Unsurprisingly, the argument had centred around what many believe is the most popular use for the software, as a way by which to get hold of copyrighted works without paying for them.
However, the judgement know seems to put the onus for that kind of usage directly back on to the user who chooses to use it for that purpose.
Everthing is in such a total mess when you have companies like Sony trying to stop p2p d/loading of MP3's (now THEY are in the music production buisness!) and yet they have produced MP3 players for years, yet it has only been possible to legally aquire/d/load MP3's and pay for them for a short time, and what about the billions of cassette tapes and walkman's they have made and profiteered from, what did they think people were going to record and play on there products?
As for protection i have the obligitory Peer Gaurdian/firewall etc, but nothing is perfect and these people don't stand still anymore than we do, if they change their IP address frequently then PG won't recognise them until it's updated.
I get an average of 50-100 hits a week from the likes of Net PD and Rejected: 209.11.67.20 - Cydoor Technologies and Cydoor Technologies (01-09-2004 @ 00:49:31)
if i was to try and gain access to someone's PC on the scale that they work at i would be classed as a hacker, whatever that is?
With the constant and multiple attempts by these companies to try and gain access one could argue that their port scans are in fact a denial-of-service (DoS) attack, which are usually considered illegal!
As for fewer people d/loading music where do these statistics come from? if some survey asks you "do you d/load music" i for one am not going to reply, so "Our survey shows fewer people CLAIM to be d/loading music" Yet at the same time Kazza was the most d/loaded program last year.
If only i was a lawyer, with all this legal bulls*** going on i could be making a fortune, just like they are!
_
_
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 17. January 2004 @ 06:22
|
|
DaOsT
Senior Member
|
17. January 2004 @ 08:26 |
Link to this message
|
|
cleft on the issue of ip blockers I run with norton 2004 firewall and peerguardian 1.99v12 I think is there anything else I can add to stop these ppl knocking at My computer constantly??
Cydoor
Ad awore.com
NSS SA Argentine who ever the fuck they are between them hit Me over 2000 times from 10 pm last night to 7 am this morning ad awore hit Me over 400 times in 30 seconds this mornin
if you know away o improve My hand as ever its greatly appreciated
DaOsT
::LivE ForeveR OR DiE TryiN!!::....::DonT FinD US WE WilL FinD YoU::..
ChecK OuT ThE PenguiN GamE AnD PosT YouR HighesT DistancE ON ThE ForuM
http://www.gazholland.co.uk |
|
cdcoaster
Junior Member
|
17. January 2004 @ 10:50 |
Link to this message
|
|
JEEEZ DaOsT and i thought i had a lot of hits!
Does any1 know off any good s/ware we can start hittin back with? such as some sort of spammin app, be great to spam em every time they hit us!
Please note: Sending unsolicited advertising/obscene/threatening/fuck-off type
e-mails to people my be illegal in your country, please consult any relevent documentation that comes with your next copy of "Farm Excrement Weekly" and roll it up and smoke it"
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 17. January 2004 @ 11:00
|
|
Praetor
Moderator
|
17. January 2004 @ 12:22 |
Link to this message
|
|
cdcoaster: There is no [BOLD] tag for titles :P
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
cleft
Junior Member
|
17. January 2004 @ 13:58 |
Link to this message
|
|
DaOsT asks a good question in is there anything more you can do or more protection that can be obtained. cdcoaster pretty much hits the nail on the head with his answer.
All I can tell you is this. Most hits are search bots running port scans looking. They are usually coming in from the internet and for a large part are not coming from the p2p locations themselves, except for certain notable exceptions. There are also individuals out there making scans. College kids looking for easy money being amoung them. I have seen several times when traces came back from transparent proxies that traced right to the same ISP service when standard scans didn't penetrate. Firewall notification was not allowed to connect till I checked the source. While this works for some, there are other proxies that are not transparent and will not allow traceback beyond their connection. It doesn't take a wizard to figure when you are being probed and get transparent proxies and then a blocked one who is attempting the probe. However if it is of any comfort, those doing manual scans by personal attention are far fewer than the standard spybot looking. Spybots don't change isp numbers or ports with any regularity for the most part.
cdcoaster also brings up another point that has set in my craw for some time. That of attempted hacking and DOS. There is no way that the amount of attempts to look in every computer on the internet does not slow down internet traffic by the sheer volume alone. Attempts to port scan will be different for every computer, even if you have more than one computer on the same ip at the same time. A lot look for the ip address of the computer as well as the ip that you are connected to at the time. My computers will show different attempts by different spybots and for the most are not duplicated on the other machines.
I have never had the volume of hits in attempts to port scan that DaOsT mentions but have seen 1800 hit days.
|
|
