Scottish Person Charged for Illegal Music

[Behemoth]

Another +1 to what Chuckskull said.

On a less serious note, I was half-hoping that this thread meant that bagpipes had been made illegal.

I continue to live in hope.

Bagpipes are best heard from a distance, Scotland is just about far enough.

[chuckskull]

Bagpipes are best heard from a distance, Scotland is just about far enough.

[roachcoach]

They seized computer equipment and found 7,493 digital music files and 24,243 karaoke files - worth an estimated £54,792 in the mainstream market.

how the HELL are Karaoke files worth more than the steam off my ..... tea? let alone tens of thousands of quidz.

Don't know, but I think the defense lawyer should have said "So, about an ipods-worth then?"

[G4Z]

£7.31 per track.


Are they kidding us on or what?

[Spud1]

£7.31 per track.


Are they kidding us on or what?

How do you make £7.31 a track?

54792 / 31736 = £1.72/track. Still an inflated price, unless you assume that she ripped all of them from £15 CDs bought from the high street in the 90s

[roachcoach]

Well to be fair, in America it would've been $ 6,571,486,171,864,765,146,514,681,478,941,654,161

Or that kind of ballpark anyway.

[G4Z]

How do you make £7.31 a track?

54792 / 31736 = £1.72/track. Still an inflated price, unless you assume that she ripped all of them from £15 CDs bought from the high street in the 90s

Ah I forgot to count the 24k karaoke songs.

Which is fair enough in my opinion.... but anyway £1.72 is still a complete joke in my estimation. That is more than double what it costs from itunes and I find itunes to be stupidly overpriced.

I do buy music occasionally from beatport and other places but I don't buy much because the price is simply too high. We should be talking pennies per download. If I could download a hundred tracks for £10 I would probably do that every month. Instead I just google-fu what I want. Oh well music industry what can I say, I don't feel bad because I attend loads of live shows and support the producers I like that way.

[Saracen]

On a more serious note this is the way it should be handled, rather than civil cases as has been in the past. If for no other reason than fairness, you can't pit individual citizen's against multi-national conglomerates and expect fair results. While not perfect a criminal case at least redresses this balance, if the record industry wants to keep harping on with it's "Infringement is a crime" tagline then it needs to behave in the same way the victim of any other crime is expected to and inform the police and allow them to do their work, not use their wealth and power to take matters into their own hands even if they use the thin veneer of legality a civil case provides, and especially not using the blatant extortion tactics we saw last year in this country.

I agree, and yet, kinda don't.

It's not an either/or situation. Copyright infringement can be both a civil natter, for which someone suffers a loss an expects compensation, or an order seizing infringing copies, etc, but it might, in some circumstances, also be a criminal matter but the results of a criminal trial will include (if convicted) punishment for the offender but they won't include restitution for the losses of the person that suffered the loss.

So .... don't assume that just because this woman was prosecuted in a criminal court that she won't also get sued in a civil court. In fact, it's far from unknown for the results of a criminal case to trigger a civil claim, where that option exists. After all, a criminal conviction in the matter is pretty strong material for indicting where the liability lies in a civil case, and the burden of proof is much lower in the civil case.

On the other hand, don't attribute this case going the criminal route rather than civil as being some kind of principled change. It may be nothing other than pragmatism. A big corp suing an individual for silly money is not only often counter-productive because of bad PR, but is likely top be unenforceable, financially. For someone to be able to be held to account, financially, in the civil court, they have to have either income or assets against which any judgement can be enforced. If they don't, then they may fear criminal penalties but a civil loss holds no fear for them, and that may have been the case with this lady.

.... and especially not using the blatant extortion tactics we saw last year in this country.

Agreed .... but that's the nature of our legal system.

Let's suppose you utter some serious and very damaging defamatory remarks about me? What can I do about it? If I can afford £100,000, or possibly quite a lot more, I can sue you for defamation. If you lose, it'll cost you potentially a lot of money, including not just damages but my legal fees too. And yours. So .... can you stump up what could behalf a million quid, or even a lot more than that, if you fight and lose?

If not, I have you over a barrel, and if I expect and demand a humbling and grovelling retraction and apology or I sue you, you have to decide whether to eat crow, or risk financial devastation.

If, on the other hand, I'm an average working Joe and you're a multi-millionaire, can I afford to sue you? Almost certainly not. So in a very real sense, you can say pretty much what you want about me and I have to be careful what I say about you.

In other words, that "blatant extortion" is a feature of so much of our legal system. It's exactly what is behind the principle of the small claims court (or small claims track of the High Court as it would more accurately be described), but that track has some fairly serious limitations both in the value of claims and the exclusion of complex cases.

So .... all too often, recourse to civil law is the exclusive preserve of those with deep pockets, and it's far from just because it's about copyright. I agree about the nature of those legal threats being kind-of extortion, but that's merely the way our wonderful legal system is designed to work ... one law for the rich, and another for the rest of us, because we can't afford to access it.

The moral of that .... if you don't want to risk facing expensive legal bills, don't get involved in piracy.

I find it hard to believe that most people involved in software (or music or video copyright infringement) aren't fully aware that they're acting illegally (though there may be exceptions to that). What they believe is that they wont get caught, and by and large, statistically, they're probably right. So a vast number of people infringe away quite happily, confident that there's little or no risk. Well, if so, they can't really complain if their number comes up and they are one of the ones that gets an example made of them.if they weren't pirating, and probably on a fairly significant scale, those lawyers are unlikely to be able to "extort" them with legal threats. If people can't "do the time", perhaps it'd be smart not to "do the crime".

[roachcoach]

The moral of that .... if you don't want to risk facing expensive legal bills, don't get involved in piracy.

Come now, it's not like they try and sue dead people or finger laser printers doing the dirty.


Problem is the "settlement letter" culture, plus the epic costs associated for Joe Public to fight a legal case. Well, that, and a forensic investigative standard that wouldn't fly on scooby do.

[Saracen]

Bagpipes are best heard from a distance, Scotland is just about far enough.

Only if you live on Mars.

Actually, and I'm going to regret saying this I'm sure, I really quite like the sound of well-played bagpipes. It's a very .... evocative sound. I can imagine it being a call to arms and a superb way of rousing the troops for a fight. It even makes me look for someone to punch.

Of course, badly played bagpipes sound worse than a dozen angry cats fighting in a sack, mixed in with liberal doses of boiler-factory explosion, and massed nails-on-blackboards. I've got a good way of stopping people playing bagpipes badly, though. I just start singing. It's hard to play bagpipes while you've got your fingers stuffed in your ears.

[Saracen]

Come now, it's not like they try and sue dead people or finger laser printers doing the dirty.

So they have made occasional stupid mistakes by not validating their targets well enough. Agreed, it's sloppy. But it doesn't affect the vast majority, where people are doing exactly what they're accused of doing.

....

Problem is the "settlement letter" culture, plus the epic costs associated for Joe Public to fight a legal case. Well, that, and a forensic investigative standard that wouldn't fly on scooby do.

That, and that if you know you've been at it and get one of these letters, you have to face up to the fact that you almost certainly got it because you were breaking the law, and only because you were.

I've lost count of the number of times I've seen, in the last week, people driving along using a hand-held mobile phone. And I don't believe people don't know they shouldn't. They do it because they don't expect to get caught, and/or don't fear the penalty if they do get caught. If they knew they had a 100% chance of getting caught, and would face a £50,000 fine and 12 months driving ban of caught (and they would get caught, how many people would do it? My bet is very few, if any.

Most people break the law if and only if they expect to not get caught, or don't fear the penalty.

[roachcoach]

Most people, but that kind of flies in the face of the current system where it's preferred not to take innocents down in the process of getting criminals.

Plus some of the US legal teams are heavily pushing the embarrassment angle of defending in court you didn't download <insert embarrassing porn name here> and faces costs etc, lengthy litigation, time off work. Why not just pay us $1500 and we'll go away eh?

It's pretty much extortion, they bank on people caving/technically illiterate/intimidated


Edit: Short on time but my main beef is its poor investigative technique and they should not be allowed to "threaten" to sue if you don't pay. You think it's them, sue 'em, prove it in court. Don't threaten them.

[Saracen]

Most people, but that kind of flies in the face of the current system where it's preferred not to take innocents down in the process of getting criminals.

Plus some of the US legal teams are heavily pushing the embarrassment angle of defending in court you didn't download <insert embarrassing porn name here> and faces costs etc, lengthy litigation, time off work. Why not just pay us $1500 and we'll go away eh?

It's pretty much extortion, they bank on people caving/technically illiterate/intimidated

What proportion are "innocents"? We don't know. But my guess would be ... not many. And even criminal trials result in the innocent being tried before being acquitted, and even found guilty. There is no such thing as perfection in these things. But you can bet that the odd ridiculous cockup gets loads of publicity, and the thousands or millions of people knowing break the law carry on regardless. The risk of being innocent and accused is a risk we all run, and the alternative is a free-for-all with no legal system at all. Otherwise, mistakes will happen, but they wouldn't be happening if people weren't pirating stuff in droves, simply because they think they can get away with it. I've no sympathy for the tiny proportion that found out it can be expensive.

[Saracen]

....

Edit: Short on time but my main beef is its poor investigative technique and they should not be allowed to "threaten" to sue if you don't pay. You think it's them, sue 'em, prove it in court. Don't threaten them.

In our legal system, it is expected and required of claimants that all steps to resolve it short of court are exhausted before you go to court. Otherwise, the courts would be backlogged with cases that could be resolved, and far more cheaply, without going to court.

Evidence of having taken steps short of court to resolve the matter, like a settlement offer, would be essential evidence if it did get to court because our judges don't like claimants (or defendants) that act unreasonably, and usually make them pay for such intransigence.

The notion of going straight to court without a pre-court process is one of the daftest I've ever heard, and would pretty much guarantee that anyone on the receiving end of a claim is going to face significant legal bills even if they could categorically prove they had not infringed copyright. Far from this being an improvement for those getting one of these letters, it'd be a disaster for them. Remember, you don't just get a letter, and go to court. You get to have to gather your evidence, consult a solicitor, get them to prepare a case and probably brief a barrister, who will need to examine your evidence and almost certainly (if you've got an ounce of intelligence) talk to you about your chances, your position, your best strategy (whether to fight or not, and if so, how), and prepare how he/she is going to approach the case.

You could well be looking at a bill of thousands to prepare a legal defence. And in a complex case, tens of thousands, before you ever set foot in court.

So do you really want to bypass the possibility of owning up and settling for, say, £1500, when that won't buy you much more than a few hours of a barrister's time. For some, it won't get you much over an hour, if that. And that's without the solicitors costs, which can be pretty steep too.

[roachcoach]

I ran out of time and couldn't post the complete thing, I think I've cut it off a bit early and my point mistaken (not your fault).


I'm not suggesting no precourt action, I think there need to be far tighter controls on what "evidence" you need before firing off a settlement letter. The problem is, as you rightly say, you will be looking at thousands and thousands to get a proper legal defense - but if you're innocent you have no choice, how else can you stop it? It would not surprise me if innocent parties pay it, because there is no viable alternative.

That is where I take issue. I may be wrong, but in my eyes traditionally litigation has been between the rich/weathly and not "out of the blue" which as contained/mitigated "abuse" like this.


Imagine, for the sakes of it, if you have a note drop through the mail saying you're being sued if you don't pay £xxx. What would you do?

Unless I'm forgetting something your options are:

• Self defend against a corporate legal panel (not a smart move, well...ok you probably could but most couldn't)
• Hire your own expensive lawyer (no such thing as a cheep one)
• Pay a relatively modest amount (compared to what any other option would cost you).

If I may indulge and compare it to another offence very similar in the nature of 'prosecution': speeding ticket. Consider if the only way to point out you were not driving at the time, despite being registered keeper, was to take it to court with no possibility of legal aid/duty solicitors or...you don't take the hassle/costs/etc so pay a moderate fine and suck it up.

The above is very similar to the ISP bill holder getting slammed. Sure, there are options, but when those options are out of the reach of most normal people I think there's something wrong.

If the only way to prove innocence is to throw thousands and thousands at it, there's something awry in the system. As I see it, the only reasonable way to do this, is to set a minimum evidence standard for a pre-litigation letter which demands settlement. Remember, actual pirates would go unaffected by this since there would be evidence, but it would limit the scatter-gun approach and force higher elvels of diligence on the part of the companies.


To my mind, it is legalised extortion for those reasons. In fact, is there any reason I couldn't just rip though the phone book, whip up an impressive legal looking letter accusing people of X, demanding a settlement of Y to drop the case and ignoring those who didn't pay? I'll wager I'd get more than a few cheques. Best I can think of would be sending a threatening letter or similar but I genuinely don't know.