FIRST AUSTRALIAN CRIMINAL INTERNET PIRACY CASE

The first convictions under the Australian criminal internet piracy legislation have taken place according to news.com.au. Peter Tran and Charles Ng were each given 18 month suspended prison sentences and, together with Tommy Le, received community service orders for their parts in running a Napster-style MP3 site. The judge, NSW Deputy Chief Magistrate Graeme Henson, said that the trio's activity didn't only deprive copyright holders and artists, but also "drills down deeply within the economy" and can "work a significant disadvantage to society". Michael Speck, of Music Industry Piracy Investigations, has claimed that the sentences are too short, comparing the group's acts to theft, and has argued that they should be treated as if they had stolen the quantity of CDs shared on their network from an actual shop.

The IPKat is not entirely happy with the analogy drawn between copyright and the theft of tangible property. For one thing, it is uncertain that those who used the downloading network would actually have bought the physical CDs, so a direct diversion of sales has not necessarily taken place. Those who assume that tangible property principles such as theft apply to intangible intellectual property must prove their point and demonstrate that they are suitable, despite the differences between physical and intellectual property.

So you want pirate music? Click here, here and here you naughty person


FIRST AUSTRALIAN CRIMINAL INTERNET PIRACY CASE FIRST AUSTRALIAN CRIMINAL INTERNET PIRACY CASE Reviewed by Unknown on Thursday, November 20, 2003 Rating: 5

No comments:

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html

Powered by Blogger.