Music pirates escape prison sentence

[pacmania_2001]

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,7905014%255E2,00.html

TWO Sydney university students convicted of internet music piracy avoided prison today when their 18-month jail terms were suspended.

Charles Kok Hau Ng, 20, and Peter Tran, 19, were charged in Australia's first criminal prosecution for online music piracy.

Ng, a University of NSW student, pleaded guilty to 22 charges of distributing as well as aiding and abetting the distribution of copyrighted material.

Tran, a student at the University of Technology, Sydney, pleaded guilty to 17 copyright breaches.

They were the brains behind the music download site MPW3/WMA Land, which featured 390 CDs and more than 1,800 tracks.

The Australian Federal Police had estimated the site cost the music industry more than $60 million but an industry spokesman today put the figure closer to $200 million.

In the Downing Centre District Court today, Ng's lawyer Christopher Levingston said his client never "set out to break the back of the music industry".

He said Ng only developed the site to gain kudos among his peers.

Tran's lawyer, Michael Burke, said his client had not broken the law through greed or malice but was "basically a kid who wanted to help run a website".

But Deputy Chief Magistrate Graeme Henson rejected suggestions the duo had broken copyright laws through youthful ignorance, saying they knew they were acting illegally and had tried to avoid detection.

Mr Henson said the crime could potentially impact on the entire community as "pirating of copyright drills down deeply within the economy".

"It is trite to say that no-one greatly suffers as a result of this type of behaviour or `that everyone is doing it."'

Mr Henson said the offences were serious enough to warrant a jail term and sentenced Ng and Tran to 18 months in prison.

But he suspended the sentences, taking into account the pair's youth, the likelihood they would not reoffend and the fact they did not profit from their website.

Both men were put on a three-year good behaviour bond.

A third accused, 21-year-old Tommy Le - also known as DJ Ace - pleaded guilty to 29 less serious copyright breaches after using the website to upload albums he compiled from copyrighted material.

Mr Henson sentenced Le, as well as Ng, to 200 hours community service.

Tran, who is considered medically unfit to undertake community service, received a $5,000 fine on top of his suspended jail term.

Outside the court, Ng said his days of music piracy were over.

"I'm just relieved this is all over," he told reporters. "I made a mistake, I'm sorry for what I did."

Tran said the court's judgment was fair and warned others not to download music illegally.

"I strongly discourage anyone else from doing it," he said outside the court," he said.

But Michael Speck, general manager of the Music Industry Piracy Investigations agency which first probed the illegal website, said the students had escaped with a "slap on the wrist".

"In the rest of the developed world you're likely to get a sentence of between 24 and 36 months (for a similar offence); here you get a slap on the wrist," he said outside court.

AAP

Does anyone else feel that the figures of $200 million dollars are slightly exaggerated? Using iTunes price of 99 cents a song that means the site would have recorded over 200 million downloads.

What are your views on this?

[Gazorgan]

How about:

The RIAA Estimates the site cost them $200 Million dollars if everyone that downloaded the music had paid retail price. In reality, no one would have purchased the music at the retail price of $14.95. Actual losses were considered to be in the $1000's of dollars, which is why the students got a suspened sentance.

The reality is, if people had to pay for the music (ala Itunes) then they wouldn't have downloaded it in the first place.

The MPAA sites piracy when sales are down, yet when sales are up over last year they don't site piracy. It's one way or the other, you can't have both. The same applies to the RIAA. Sighting piracy is a way to explain why the bubblegum bands don't do well, when in reality the 1960's model of cash bands doesn't work anymore.

[housepig]

Does anyone else feel that the figures of $200 million dollars are slightly exaggerated? Using iTunes price of 99 cents a song that means the site would have recorded over 200 million downloads.

true, but their argument will be that Apple is authorized to offer those downloads, these guys were not, so it goes from a market price of $.99 per download to a punitive damage price of up to $150,000 per infringing song.

$200 Million? They got off light - remember the students over here that got hit with a suit alleging $98 BILLION in damages?

[pacmania_2001]

That's my point though, here is the music industry saying "Oh no, it cost us $200 million" when in reality the real cost would have been below $1 million if that.

If the music industry was actually getting paid $150,000 a song by the normal music buyer then they can claim the site cost them the $200 million but to use possible damages as a basis is wrong.

[lordsmurf]

This is why all law in the modern age is... excuse the language... fucked.

[Dawn of the Dead Fan]

My 2 cents on this issue is..... I feel that the RIAA is crying the blues for no real good reason. Though I don't condone Piracy we have all done it at one time or another. The music industry is not hurting financially from this, I ask you this, are they claiming bankruptcy? I can answer that, no. The greed of the artists and the RIAA has gotten out of control to the point that they are suing anyone and everything it can. Honestly if CD's didnot cost $15-$20 (US) would anyone have been downloading music, I doubt it. The cost of a CD is staggering and considering most of the time you are lucky if you get 2 decent tracks on a CD. I just don't buy music anymore, I don't download it anymore. I don't listen anymore. When the price of a CD become reasonable, and by reasonable I mean $7-$8 (US) then maybe I might start buying again.

Let's look at DVD, here you get an entire film for $14.99-$19.99 on the average, excluding special edition, box sets, ect ect. Now the price of a DVD is justified IMHO, You get not only the film, but in most cases you get an extra or two. What do you get with a CD.....most of the time you get robbed. I can't condone paying $18 for 1 or 2 songs..... So if I can't download without being prosecuted or sued, then I just won't listen anymore.

hopefully other people will wake up and start thinking the same way and maybe the CD prices will get cheaper, or the artist will wake up and start showing us their real Talent. either way someone has to justify the cost of a CD.

[cplevel42]

I agree with pacmania_2001. These figures are so over the top that they are criminal as well. Two wrongs?

These guys should be prosecuted, but I'm not so sure that the prosecuters are on moral ground that is as high as some may think.

These guys should thank God that the judge in the case was smart enough to know that these KIDS would most likely never do it again.

[fritzi93]

Those figures are grotesquely exaggerated, Surely the music industry doesn't really believe it in their heart of hearts? Oops, that expression may have been slightly inapt.

I'll only speak to my own motivations here. Yeah I download music off WINMX occasionally. Almost invariably it's out of copyright or simply unavailable anymore. But once in a great while I'll download something more current. If I like it, I buy the CD, 'cause MP3s ain't exactly high fidelity. I don't get a chance to do that, the music industry loses any chance of a sale. And they can kiss my ass anyway. Talk about lousy public relations!

[Vintageman]

I wish I remembered the site or piece I saw this report at but since I don't here is the jest of it. It seems the music companies are using the information collected by some companies ( that have software that can tell them what mp3 songs are most popular downloads and what areas ) to make money. They use these companies to collect info on new songs there trying to work in certain areas ( say Detroit ) and then they use that info to sell there product to radio in that area by saying hay this song is the hottest download in your area you've got to add to your play list. So it seems there willing to pay thousands of dollars to companies for this info but then they want to turn around and bite the people that are giving them that info. I understand them not wanting to lose money but you can't at the same time make money off those people by using there illegal info. A crime is a crime. If the companies use this info then there commiting as a much a crime as the criminals. After all when was the last time anyone who downloaded a song was approached with a check by the record companies for helping them get there song on the air.