UK Record Label Commenced Litigation Against 2,000 File-SharersAdded: Saturday, July 24th, 2010
Category: Recent Headlines Involving File Sharing > Ridiculous Criminal Trials
Tags:ET, p2p, Torrent, Piracy, Peer To Peer, Network, Hackers, Internet, BitTorrent, Google, utorrent, bitcomet, extratorrent, 2010, www.extrattorrent.com
Gallant Macmillan has started mass litigation against 2 thousand Internet users on behalf of Ministry of Sound record label. The individuals are accused of copyright violation committed by illegal file-sharing.It’s actually not the first mass lawsuit in Europe, but its style is hard to be condoned even by the BPI.
2,000 file-sharers received the legal threat letters offering recipients either to pay a settlement fee of about £350 or face larger penalties in court. There’s nothing new in the form of litigation, but the number of targeted users is not entirely normal. Even the BPI, an official body representing the UK music industry, admits it doesn’t condone the mass litigation of alleged Internet infringers. They would rather prefer to reserve legal action for the most serious infringers, than use it widely as a first response.
The users reacted differently to the warning letters. Some of them panicked and settled, while the rest just threw such letters away without facing any further incident. As it usually happens with letter campaign of such scale, a few users have been very confused at the allegations because they just haven’t downloaded any infringing content.
The reason is always the same – investigators can only accuse an IP address of infringing, not a specific individual. The investigation doesn’t consider the possibility of Wi-Fi connection being hacked or the connection used by another member of a household for infringing purposes. Other explanations may include faking an IP address and sharing the address of a person involved in the litigation. When a lawsuit accuses just a few users at a time, the investigation becomes less complicated, while 2,000 accusations are actually impossible to track.
Another factor pointing to the scale of the litigation is the size of England’s population, which is around 50 million people. If compared to the US with its 300 million, it can be scaled to 12,000 of accused at a time in America.
It’s again not quite clear what the results of the action will be. Most file-sharers ignored the notifications and avoided any further action so far. But Gallant Macmillan keeps saying that Ministry of Sound is very serious when threatening legal action. However, none of the cases has ended up in the court so far.
July 24th, 2010Posted by:
Saturday, July 24th, 2010
|what exactly are MOS upto ?, its a dance music label/club, they only release mix cd's by other artists, its not like they are an act or band, Labels once again stealing from the artist and now this mass litagation crap, if i got a letter i would just throw it away, no way can they prove or link that an unsecure ip address (most are) is responsible for the copyright violation, they would have to seize computers to prove that, and that would require an expensive court order for each physical address, this is just a publicity stunt, to scare people and raise a quick bit of cash, maybe the fact that MOS albums are pretty popular and account for a lot p2p music traffic pisses them off, GOOD, come and get us MOS, your nowt but dust sniffing toffs from london, and its really quite funny the bpi are scared of the tactics employed by MOS, wonder if they finally realise that prosecuting your own customer base isnt wise, lets make this clear, Hard Copy sales (cd's etc) have declined by 25% in the UK over the last 10 yrs, while Legal Downloads (itunes etc) have bloomed by over 400%, the decline in the cd market has been made up by digital sales and exceeded them, what pisses off the labels is that they make more money for a cd (around 90% profit), than they do a download (around 5%), itunes charge around 79p per track but keeps between 60-80% of that money, labels like MOS make far less money from digital sales than they do from cd's, this is them just trying to scare people from p2p sharing, well iv got a message for them...MOS..."your cheap publicity whores, stealing money from artists and your customers,..wanks"|
|as a producer/dj...this is how it breaks down for me.....sales of cd's at gig's.....£2,400....income from tickets....£12,000...digital sales....£800....(download)...website sales (cd's, T-shirts etc)...£1,200...Royalties..(radio/tv)..£35.....I have my own label, and operate under a Creative Commons license, although to play gigs and recieve royalties etc i have to pay money every year to 3 uk music bodies...MU, PRS, BPI, which is about 300 quid or so. Notice that a large part of my income is from gigs...not sales...so as a producer really dont care if people p2p my stuff, most artsists/producers I know feel the same way, in fact most of us believe that p2p is a good thing, its free advertising to our "brand image", and some I know in the business actually encourage thier acts to post and share music online for free, MOS started out as an underground dance music club, and has grown into a corporate entity, they were supposed to be the GOOD guys, big letdown with this news Sam, Shows how much has changed since the good old days.|
|iwillkillall - I agree 100 percent.|
I just bought one cd and it cost me $20.00. All I wanted was ONE SONG; But had to buy the cd to be "legal"...
MOS is just techno/dance and now they are suing people? For boom boom music? Jeez..
Only the un informed noobs payed the extortion and that is all it is extortion.
The letters are just a threat with NO REAL PROOF BEHIND IT.. It is just an IP and a file title - NO FILE..
I go into court with just that and state to the judge I am suing 2,000 people for copyright violation of my song/dance track BOOM BOOM. Here is my proof your honor; just the I/P. addresses and name of the BOOM BOOM file these 2,000 downloaded. Then the judge if they are smart what solid proof you have this happened? You have the "file" from each of these 2,000 people; no your honor. Now that judge is gonna plant his foot up my arse for wasting his time. BUT if I am a multimillion dollar company MAKING THE SAME EXACT CLAIM; then different un written rules take place for the "elite" of society..
What all these thousands of people NEED TO DO IS FIGHT; it will clog up the court system for decades...
|i have recieved such letter and sent this reply:|
I am writing in reply to your letter of claim dated 22 July 2010 stating that my connection was used in an infringement of copyright, using peer to peer networks which allegedly occurred on the date 9 December 2009 and concerns the work Ministry Of Sound - Anthems Electronic 80‘s (“the copyright work”).
You assert in your letter that the infringement was apparently traced to my internet connection. I note that I am not personally being accused of the infringement, as you have no evidence to this effect.
Nevertheless, I categorically deny any offence under sections:-
16 The acts restricted by copyright in a work (1) (a) ,(d) and (2)
17 Infringement of copyright by copying.(2)
20 Infringement by broadcasting or inclusion in a cable programme service (b).
I have never possessed a copy of the work in any form, nor have I distributed it, nor have I authorised anyone else to distribute it using my internet connection. I note that section 16(2) of the act requires a person to either directly infringe copyright, or authorise someone else to do so. I have done neither, and you have not provided any evidence of my doing so.
As such I cannot and will not sign the undertakings as provided by you.
As you seem to be perfectly aware, it is impossible to link an IP address to a particular person or computer without further detailed analysis, which requires a level of expertise I do not possess. Furthermore the delay in your sending of a letter of claim precludes any such analysis. Unfortunately I do not have the expertise to provide a detailed explanation. As such I can only conclude that I have been a victim of foul play.
As far as I am aware, there is no law in the UK under which you could properly hold me responsible for an infringement occurring via my internet connection, without either my knowledge or permission.
Thanks in advance,
Most Popular Stories