Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2005 11:37 am
thank you Moongirl for the story. 
CricketMX.com
Tech discussion, website creation and the world's best OT Forum!
https://forums.cricketmx.com/
Legal news stories and other items of interest
Page 8 of 29
Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2005 1:24 pm
My pleasure, usually it is you with the news Peter P.
riaa sends cease-n-desist letters to P2P services
Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:14 am
File-Sharing Firms Are Urged
To Protect Music-Industry Rights
By SARAH MCBRIDE
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
September 15, 2005; Page D8
The Recording Industry Association of America has sent cease-and-desist letters to several file-sharing companies, including BearShare, LimeWire and WinMX, asking that they stop activities that allow users to download copyrighted music.
The letters ask the companies to "immediately cease and desist from enabling and inducing the infringement of RIAA member sound recordings," according to a copy of the letter reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.
The letters are an attempt by the music industry to build on the favorable ruling it received from the U.S. Supreme Court in June in the so-called Grokster case, involving a file-sharing company that was accused by the industry of facilitating copyright violations. In that ruling, the court found that copyright holders could sue file-sharing companies for encouraging people to violate copyrights. Now, the industry is taking the first step toward enforcing the ruling against other file-sharing companies.
"Companies similar to Grokster have been given ample opportunity to do the right thing," said the RIAA, which confirmed sending the letters to seven file-sharing companies.
The RIAA has long said it supports legal uses of file sharing. It wants file-sharing firms to alter their software -- for example, by creating filters to strip out copyrighted material or creating mechanisms to pay copyright holders. In recent months, it has been working with several file-sharing firms, including iMesh and Mashboxx, to create services that wouldn't violate copyrights.
The file-sharing companies that received cease-and-desist letters can shut down, fight the RIAA in court, or make changes that mollify the RIAA.
Despite the Grokster decision, a court case based on other file-sharing programs wouldn't necessarily be open and shut, says Ralph Oman, the former U.S. Register of Copyrights and a Washington, D.C.-based intellectual-property lawyer at the law firm Dechert LLP. The Supreme Court found that Grokster and co-defendant Morpheus were actively pursuing former users of the original Napster, a free file-sharing service found to be illegal, and remanded the case to trial court for further consideration. (A new Napster service offers paid, legal downloads.) It might be harder to prove that for the newer services.
Mr. Oman said file-sharing companies would have to prove they had "some credible rationale other than the promotion of illegal file sharing."
LimeWire confirmed receiving the letter, but declined to comment on any action it would take. BearShare and WinMX didn't respond to requests for comment. As of last night, these companies were still offering unchanged file-sharing software programs for download.
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIAA Pretends It Fully Won The Grokster Case --- Threatens Other P2P Providers
Contributed by Mike on Thursday, September 15th, 2005 @ 03:50AM
from the this-ought-to-be-fun dept.
While the actual Supreme Court decision in the Grokster case was not completely what the entertainment industry wanted, ever since it came out, they've been acting as if the Supreme Court ruled 100% in their favor. What the court actually said was that companies would not be protected if they were shown to have taken affirmative steps to encourage the sharing of unauthorized copyrighted material -- the so-called induce standard. The standard, itself, is still quite fuzzy. Fuzzy enough, in fact, that the RIAA didn't waste much time going around telling people that the court had declared all file sharing programs that didn't have deals in place with the industry as illegal. Basically, they started suggesting that almost anything they could think of was inducing copyright infringement. Of course, that was jumping the gun, because the Supreme Court didn't say whether or not Grokster and the others did, in fact, induce infringement. They sent that question back to the lower court, which has yet to decide. In the meantime, though, it should come as no surprise that the RIAA has now let its own interpretation go to its head and has sent legal nastygrams to other file sharing app companies, including those behind BearShare, LimeWire and WinMX, telling them all (notice the language) that they must "cease and desist from enabling and inducing the infringement." Considering that it's not even clear if the first set of companies they sued infringed, it would appear that the RIAA is jumping the gun a bit. The RIAA needs to realize that they don't get to decide what the definition of induce is. That's for the courts to clear up. But, for right now, it appears the RIAA's definition of "inducement" is any app that lets unauthorized files be shared -- which is a pretty broad definition.Update: Here's another version(see C|NET NEWS.COM article)of the story that won't expire so quickly.
TECHDIRT.COM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Record labels send more letters to P2P services
Published: September 15, 2005, 9:56 AM PDT
By Dawn Kawamoto
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
The Recording Industry Association of America has sent letters to seven peer-to-peer companies, asking them to halt what the RIAA alleges is their practice of encouraging users to illegally distribute copyrighted material.
The RIAA's actions follow a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June against P2P services provider Grokster and marks one of the first actions the recording industry trade group has taken against P2P services beyond Grokster. In a unanimous decision, the court said companies that build businesses with the active intent of encouraging copyright infringement should be held liable for their customers' illegal actions.
"Companies situated similarly to Grokster have been given ample opportunity to do the right thing," a RIAA spokesperson said. "Those businesses that continue to knowingly operate on the wrong side of that line do so at their own risk."
The letters were mailed to seven file-sharing companies, according to a RIAA spokesperson, who declined to identify the companies.
Companies such as eDonkey, LimeWire and Kazaa were viewed as potential targets of litigation after the Supreme Court ruling because of their unrestricted file-swapping services. Under the court's decision, these companies could face the additional burden of demonstrating that they were not encouraging users to circumvent copyright laws.
In a copy of the letter obtained by CNET News.com, the RIAA states: "We demand that you immediately cease-and-desist from enabling and inducing the infringement of RIAA member sound recordings. If you wish to discuss pre-litigation resolution of these claims against you, please contact us immediately."
Previous Next The letter, dated Tuesday, Sept. 13, goes on to say that the U.S. Supreme Court decision involving Grokster applies equally to the company and certain individuals at the company.
Other companies in the peer-to-peer file-swapping market include i2Hub, BitTorrent, WinMX and Free Peers, maker of file-swapping software BearShare.
BearShare, WinMX and LimeWire were identified in a Wall Street Journal story as recipients of the letters.
LimeWire declined to comment, and Free Peers did not return phone calls. WinMX representatives could not be reached for comment.
Following the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, the RIAA has been diligently filing lawsuits against alleged copyright violators. Last June, RIAA filed lawsuits against 784 individuals and just last month issued another round against 754 individuals.
C|NET NEWS.COM
To Protect Music-Industry Rights
By SARAH MCBRIDE
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
September 15, 2005; Page D8
The Recording Industry Association of America has sent cease-and-desist letters to several file-sharing companies, including BearShare, LimeWire and WinMX, asking that they stop activities that allow users to download copyrighted music.
The letters ask the companies to "immediately cease and desist from enabling and inducing the infringement of RIAA member sound recordings," according to a copy of the letter reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.
The letters are an attempt by the music industry to build on the favorable ruling it received from the U.S. Supreme Court in June in the so-called Grokster case, involving a file-sharing company that was accused by the industry of facilitating copyright violations. In that ruling, the court found that copyright holders could sue file-sharing companies for encouraging people to violate copyrights. Now, the industry is taking the first step toward enforcing the ruling against other file-sharing companies.
"Companies similar to Grokster have been given ample opportunity to do the right thing," said the RIAA, which confirmed sending the letters to seven file-sharing companies.
The RIAA has long said it supports legal uses of file sharing. It wants file-sharing firms to alter their software -- for example, by creating filters to strip out copyrighted material or creating mechanisms to pay copyright holders. In recent months, it has been working with several file-sharing firms, including iMesh and Mashboxx, to create services that wouldn't violate copyrights.
The file-sharing companies that received cease-and-desist letters can shut down, fight the RIAA in court, or make changes that mollify the RIAA.
Despite the Grokster decision, a court case based on other file-sharing programs wouldn't necessarily be open and shut, says Ralph Oman, the former U.S. Register of Copyrights and a Washington, D.C.-based intellectual-property lawyer at the law firm Dechert LLP. The Supreme Court found that Grokster and co-defendant Morpheus were actively pursuing former users of the original Napster, a free file-sharing service found to be illegal, and remanded the case to trial court for further consideration. (A new Napster service offers paid, legal downloads.) It might be harder to prove that for the newer services.
Mr. Oman said file-sharing companies would have to prove they had "some credible rationale other than the promotion of illegal file sharing."
LimeWire confirmed receiving the letter, but declined to comment on any action it would take. BearShare and WinMX didn't respond to requests for comment. As of last night, these companies were still offering unchanged file-sharing software programs for download.
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIAA Pretends It Fully Won The Grokster Case --- Threatens Other P2P Providers
Contributed by Mike on Thursday, September 15th, 2005 @ 03:50AM
from the this-ought-to-be-fun dept.
While the actual Supreme Court decision in the Grokster case was not completely what the entertainment industry wanted, ever since it came out, they've been acting as if the Supreme Court ruled 100% in their favor. What the court actually said was that companies would not be protected if they were shown to have taken affirmative steps to encourage the sharing of unauthorized copyrighted material -- the so-called induce standard. The standard, itself, is still quite fuzzy. Fuzzy enough, in fact, that the RIAA didn't waste much time going around telling people that the court had declared all file sharing programs that didn't have deals in place with the industry as illegal. Basically, they started suggesting that almost anything they could think of was inducing copyright infringement. Of course, that was jumping the gun, because the Supreme Court didn't say whether or not Grokster and the others did, in fact, induce infringement. They sent that question back to the lower court, which has yet to decide. In the meantime, though, it should come as no surprise that the RIAA has now let its own interpretation go to its head and has sent legal nastygrams to other file sharing app companies, including those behind BearShare, LimeWire and WinMX, telling them all (notice the language) that they must "cease and desist from enabling and inducing the infringement." Considering that it's not even clear if the first set of companies they sued infringed, it would appear that the RIAA is jumping the gun a bit. The RIAA needs to realize that they don't get to decide what the definition of induce is. That's for the courts to clear up. But, for right now, it appears the RIAA's definition of "inducement" is any app that lets unauthorized files be shared -- which is a pretty broad definition.Update: Here's another version(see C|NET NEWS.COM article)of the story that won't expire so quickly.
TECHDIRT.COM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Record labels send more letters to P2P services
Published: September 15, 2005, 9:56 AM PDT
By Dawn Kawamoto
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
The Recording Industry Association of America has sent letters to seven peer-to-peer companies, asking them to halt what the RIAA alleges is their practice of encouraging users to illegally distribute copyrighted material.
The RIAA's actions follow a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June against P2P services provider Grokster and marks one of the first actions the recording industry trade group has taken against P2P services beyond Grokster. In a unanimous decision, the court said companies that build businesses with the active intent of encouraging copyright infringement should be held liable for their customers' illegal actions.
"Companies situated similarly to Grokster have been given ample opportunity to do the right thing," a RIAA spokesperson said. "Those businesses that continue to knowingly operate on the wrong side of that line do so at their own risk."
The letters were mailed to seven file-sharing companies, according to a RIAA spokesperson, who declined to identify the companies.
Companies such as eDonkey, LimeWire and Kazaa were viewed as potential targets of litigation after the Supreme Court ruling because of their unrestricted file-swapping services. Under the court's decision, these companies could face the additional burden of demonstrating that they were not encouraging users to circumvent copyright laws.
In a copy of the letter obtained by CNET News.com, the RIAA states: "We demand that you immediately cease-and-desist from enabling and inducing the infringement of RIAA member sound recordings. If you wish to discuss pre-litigation resolution of these claims against you, please contact us immediately."
Previous Next The letter, dated Tuesday, Sept. 13, goes on to say that the U.S. Supreme Court decision involving Grokster applies equally to the company and certain individuals at the company.
Other companies in the peer-to-peer file-swapping market include i2Hub, BitTorrent, WinMX and Free Peers, maker of file-swapping software BearShare.
BearShare, WinMX and LimeWire were identified in a Wall Street Journal story as recipients of the letters.
LimeWire declined to comment, and Free Peers did not return phone calls. WinMX representatives could not be reached for comment.
Following the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, the RIAA has been diligently filing lawsuits against alleged copyright violators. Last June, RIAA filed lawsuits against 784 individuals and just last month issued another round against 754 individuals.
C|NET NEWS.COM
Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2005 1:42 am
Thanks Peter P.
Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2005 12:02 am
Your welcome Moongirl!
Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2005 6:25 am
Sony violates GPL licences & copyright to to prevent copyright theft . 
sony-drm
Is Sony in violation of the LGPL-Part-II ?
I would say so but i'm no expert on copyright laws.WTG Sony BMG & First 4 Internet..not.
Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2005 8:10 pm
Looks pretty clear to me.
They're obviously not subject to the same laws as the rest of us.
They're obviously not subject to the same laws as the rest of us.
Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2005 2:05 am
Nope it seem's they're not subject to the same laws like the rest of us. I hope LAME sues their asses and any other GPL licensed software companies they ripped off.
Posted: Sun Feb 12, 2006 12:48 am
More lawsuits & bad news. 
MPAA Launches New Round against Alleged P2P Pirates
February 10, 2006
Thomas Mennecke
The MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) has once again made their enforcement efforts against the P2P community visible. The last publicly announced effort by the MPAA dates back to July 27 of 2005, when the MPAA sued 5 individuals in Texas who refused, for whatever reason, to settle. This doesn't mean the MPAA hasn't been busy, as today's announcement represents round 10 against alleged P2P pirates.
Overall, the MPAA has been less aggressive against the P2P community than the RIAA. Instead, the MPAA and its global affiliate the MPA have chosen to pursue physical pirates. Spurred by the intense piracy trade in Asia, the MPA and MPAA have, with the help of local police, shut down dozens of optical plants and confiscated millions of CD/DVD discs.
Today's announcement demonstrates the MPAA is active; however their efforts are specifically oriented. With the Oscar's scheduled for March 5, the MPAA is targeting only those sharing movies nominated for Academy-Awards. The list of nominated films is extensive, and includes titles such as "Good Night and Good Luck", "Walk the Line", "Batman Begins", and "Memoirs of a Geisha."
The press release did not specify how many individuals were targeted nor which networks were being used. However, a spokesperson for the MPAA told Slyck.com this campaign is part of an "ongoing effort and over the past year and a half [in which] several hundreds of individuals have been sued." In addition, the MPAA told Slyck.com the following P2P/file-sharing clients were used "Azureus, BitComet, BitTornado, Mainline, Shadow, -B, KaZaA (FastTrack), iMesh (FastTrack), LimeWire (Gnutella) and Bearshare (Gnutella)."
Like the RIAA’s efforts, once the individuals are identified they will be provided with the opportunity to settle for several thousand dollars. Alternative compliance methods, such as public apologies or service announcements have been arranged in some circumstance. The alternative is a $30,000.00 per violation lawsuit and hundreds of thousands of dollars in lawyer fees. The latter is currently being tested in the judicial system.
“In the wake of the Grokster decision last June, online users should know people who steal movies using peer-to-peer software are not above the law. There are plenty of legal ways to get movies online and through other means, like pay per view or satellite,â€
MPAA Launches New Round against Alleged P2P Pirates
February 10, 2006
Thomas Mennecke
The MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) has once again made their enforcement efforts against the P2P community visible. The last publicly announced effort by the MPAA dates back to July 27 of 2005, when the MPAA sued 5 individuals in Texas who refused, for whatever reason, to settle. This doesn't mean the MPAA hasn't been busy, as today's announcement represents round 10 against alleged P2P pirates.
Overall, the MPAA has been less aggressive against the P2P community than the RIAA. Instead, the MPAA and its global affiliate the MPA have chosen to pursue physical pirates. Spurred by the intense piracy trade in Asia, the MPA and MPAA have, with the help of local police, shut down dozens of optical plants and confiscated millions of CD/DVD discs.
Today's announcement demonstrates the MPAA is active; however their efforts are specifically oriented. With the Oscar's scheduled for March 5, the MPAA is targeting only those sharing movies nominated for Academy-Awards. The list of nominated films is extensive, and includes titles such as "Good Night and Good Luck", "Walk the Line", "Batman Begins", and "Memoirs of a Geisha."
The press release did not specify how many individuals were targeted nor which networks were being used. However, a spokesperson for the MPAA told Slyck.com this campaign is part of an "ongoing effort and over the past year and a half [in which] several hundreds of individuals have been sued." In addition, the MPAA told Slyck.com the following P2P/file-sharing clients were used "Azureus, BitComet, BitTornado, Mainline, Shadow, -B, KaZaA (FastTrack), iMesh (FastTrack), LimeWire (Gnutella) and Bearshare (Gnutella)."
Like the RIAA’s efforts, once the individuals are identified they will be provided with the opportunity to settle for several thousand dollars. Alternative compliance methods, such as public apologies or service announcements have been arranged in some circumstance. The alternative is a $30,000.00 per violation lawsuit and hundreds of thousands of dollars in lawyer fees. The latter is currently being tested in the judicial system.
“In the wake of the Grokster decision last June, online users should know people who steal movies using peer-to-peer software are not above the law. There are plenty of legal ways to get movies online and through other means, like pay per view or satellite,â€
Posted: Sun Feb 12, 2006 7:35 am
More torrent sites shutdown NLexperience.com, DikkeDonder, vplaza.nl, zerocool.nl and torrentmonkey.com.
BREIN Claims Victory Over 16 Dutch BitTorrent Sites
February 11, 2006
Michael Ingram
Dutch anti-piracy group BREIN are celebrating the closure of 16 BitTorrent sites, as part of their quest to “serve and protect authors, artists, producers and distributors of creative entertainment product against commercially significant theft of copyright and neighbouring rightsâ€
BREIN Claims Victory Over 16 Dutch BitTorrent Sites
February 11, 2006
Michael Ingram
Dutch anti-piracy group BREIN are celebrating the closure of 16 BitTorrent sites, as part of their quest to “serve and protect authors, artists, producers and distributors of creative entertainment product against commercially significant theft of copyright and neighbouring rightsâ€
Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2006 7:48 pm
Here we ago again more lawsuits planned by the MPAA including Newsgroup NZB indexing sites.
[quote]Today, the MPAA has announced a tremendous escalation in their fight against online piracy - this time targeting BitTorrent, eDonkey2000 and Newsgroup NZB indexing sites.
Specifically,seven lawsuits were filed in Federal Court across the United States. Most remarkable of these lawsuits was the MPAA's strategy to target Newsgroup NZB indexing sites
“Website operators who abuse technology to facilitate infringements of copyrighted works by millions of people are not anonymous – they can and will be stopped,â€
[quote]Today, the MPAA has announced a tremendous escalation in their fight against online piracy - this time targeting BitTorrent, eDonkey2000 and Newsgroup NZB indexing sites.
Specifically,seven lawsuits were filed in Federal Court across the United States. Most remarkable of these lawsuits was the MPAA's strategy to target Newsgroup NZB indexing sites
“Website operators who abuse technology to facilitate infringements of copyrighted works by millions of people are not anonymous – they can and will be stopped,â€
Posted: Wed Mar 01, 2006 8:59 pm
US online piracy crackdown nets three guilty pleas - March 1
Three members of an online music piracy operation pleaded guilty in federal court on Tuesday in response to a government crackdown, the U.S. Justice Department said. Members of the group "Apocalypse Crew" pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit copyright infringement in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the department said.
Can file-swappers be sued as "distributors"? - March 1
Denise Barker is one of the few file-swappers sued by the RIAA who has taken her fight to court. Elektra v. Barker is an interesting case for several reasons, including the fact that the RIAA wants to argue that simply making files available (even if they're not actually downloaded) constitutes infringement. The EFF has just weighed in on the case by filing an amicus brief with the court. Rather than address all the issues raised by the case, the brief tries instead to make only a single point: sharing music files does not infringe the "distribution right" granted to copyright holders.
D2K-It.comCalls it Quits
March 1, 2006
The eDonkey2000 indexing site ED2K-It.com is the first to fall.
[url=http://slyck.com/news.php?story=1112] Served TorrentSpy and isoHunt “Moving Ahead as Normalâ€
Three members of an online music piracy operation pleaded guilty in federal court on Tuesday in response to a government crackdown, the U.S. Justice Department said. Members of the group "Apocalypse Crew" pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit copyright infringement in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the department said.
Can file-swappers be sued as "distributors"? - March 1
Denise Barker is one of the few file-swappers sued by the RIAA who has taken her fight to court. Elektra v. Barker is an interesting case for several reasons, including the fact that the RIAA wants to argue that simply making files available (even if they're not actually downloaded) constitutes infringement. The EFF has just weighed in on the case by filing an amicus brief with the court. Rather than address all the issues raised by the case, the brief tries instead to make only a single point: sharing music files does not infringe the "distribution right" granted to copyright holders.
D2K-It.comCalls it Quits
March 1, 2006
The eDonkey2000 indexing site ED2K-It.com is the first to fall.
[url=http://slyck.com/news.php?story=1112] Served TorrentSpy and isoHunt “Moving Ahead as Normalâ€
Posted: Thu Mar 23, 2006 12:08 pm
I'm not sure who i want to win this case, it would be nice to get rid of Kazaa from the p2p community , but
It would also be sweet to see the cartels loose this case.
It would also be sweet to see the cartels loose this case.
smh.com.auKazaa faces new court battle
By Louisa Hearn
March 23, 2006 - 3:22PM
The owner of the Kazaa file sharing network will have to fight on yet another front in its long-running legal battle with Australian record companies.
A judge has given the record companies the green light to initiate contempt of court proceedings against the company after it chose to block access to its network in Australia rather than implement keyword filters.
Last year the operators of Kazaa were found guilty of authorising music copyright infringement and as result, the judge gave the company a deadline of December 5 to implement a series of technical solutions while it awaited an appeal.
The record companies allege that on that date Kazaa failed to comply with the order because it chose to block access to its network for all Australian users, rather than install keyword filters to block all access to copyright music.
The filters would have prevented music from 3000 artists such as Kylie Minogue, Madonna and Eminem from being downloaded in Australia.
Sharman Networks argued that by making the site inaccessible to Australian users it was complying appropriately with the court orders pending the outcome of its appeal.
However the record industry claimed the measures would not prevent Australian users from downloading copyright music if they were already in possession of the Kazaa software.
Sharman Networks said: "Today's case was procedural and the judge has confirmed that another court will consider this matter. This clarification by the judge is useful and we look forward to the opportunity to test the record companies' allegations."
Posted: Sun Mar 26, 2006 6:16 pm
source:p2pnetMPAA says No to NiteShdw
p2p news / p2pnet: Sci-Fi tracker NiteShdw.com was/is yet another MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) victim, and it's been trying to work things out with the Hollywood mouthpiece.
But no go. MPAA owners the Big Six studios, Time Warner, Viacom, Fox, Sony, NBC Universal and Disney, want one thing only:
Total control of online distribution through the total destruction of anyone and anything they believe stands in their way.
MPAA unwilling to compromise
By NiteShdw
Ongoing discussions with the MPAA's lawyers are not going well," says the site.
They are demanding a monetary settlement of at least $10,000, which amounts to nearly a half year of income.
In addition, a clause in the proposed settlement takes away my right to ask for donations to pay for a defense or settlement fund. Under the proposed agreement, any donations I receive through NiteShdw.com would be confiscated by the MPAA and would not be applied to the total monetary damages I would owe.
The only way I could comply with such a settlement would be to stop eating, or maybe sell my daughter to the highest bidder (and that's not going to happen).
I will continue settlement discussions in the hope that the MPAA will see that NiteShdw.com did not earn money, and if anything, probably increased their revenues by allowing people to be exposed to Sci-Fi content they would have never watched before. I know that personally I became a HUGE fan of Firefly and Serenity because forum members suggested that I watch it. My entire family got into the show, we all went to see Serenity in theatres, and I've also bought the movie on DVD. I went to buy Firefly on DVD, but Amazon's free shipping starts at $25, and Firefly was on sale for $24.96!
According to a study by the Canadian Recording Industry, downloading does not hurt business. They found that the largest group of downloaders, was also the largest group of purchasers. This is a fact that we have known for a long time, but that no one in the industry was willing to admit
MPAA Puts the Screws to NiteShdw.com @ slyck's site.
Posted: Sun Mar 26, 2006 6:23 pm
[quote]Two years in prison for downloading latest film
From Roger Boyes in Berlin
GERMANS risk two years in prison if they illegally download films and music for private use under a new law agreed yesterday. Anybody who downloads films for commercial use could be jailed for up to five years.
The measures, some of the toughest in Europe, were announced after an aggressive campaign by the film industry in Germany, the largest market in the EU and one of the most computer-literate populations.
According to film industry estimates, Germans download more than 20 million films a year. Many expect the next James Bond film, Casino Royale, to be widely available in Germany weeks before its official release in November.
The law, which comes into effect on January 1, 2007, has infuriated consumer groups. They claim that it will turn consumers into criminals and harm the Government’s efforts to create a knowledge-based economy.
Patrick von Braunmühl, of the Federation of German Consumer Organisations, said: “This sends a completely wrong signal to society. It criminalises consumers and will deeply disturb internet users.
“It can’t be that everyone has to be worried now about the police knocking on the door and impounding the family computer because their 16-year-old son has downloaded a few songs.â€
From Roger Boyes in Berlin
GERMANS risk two years in prison if they illegally download films and music for private use under a new law agreed yesterday. Anybody who downloads films for commercial use could be jailed for up to five years.
The measures, some of the toughest in Europe, were announced after an aggressive campaign by the film industry in Germany, the largest market in the EU and one of the most computer-literate populations.
According to film industry estimates, Germans download more than 20 million films a year. Many expect the next James Bond film, Casino Royale, to be widely available in Germany weeks before its official release in November.
The law, which comes into effect on January 1, 2007, has infuriated consumer groups. They claim that it will turn consumers into criminals and harm the Government’s efforts to create a knowledge-based economy.
Patrick von Braunmühl, of the Federation of German Consumer Organisations, said: “This sends a completely wrong signal to society. It criminalises consumers and will deeply disturb internet users.
“It can’t be that everyone has to be worried now about the police knocking on the door and impounding the family computer because their 16-year-old son has downloaded a few songs.â€