Again, from 23rd May 2006:
http://www.ifpi.org/site-content/PRESS/20060523.html
Germany launches biggest legal action against illegal file-sharing
IFPI welcomes criminal proceedings launched today against 3500 eDonkey users.
The biggest single action against illegal file-sharing internationally took place in Germany today as 3,500 illegal music file-sharers faced criminal prosecution for uploading large amounts of copyrighted material on peer-to-peer networks.
Investigators identified individual illegal music file-sharers who were using the eDonkey network to offer up to 8,000 copyright infringing music files on the internet.
Each of the individuals faces both criminal prosecution and claims for compensation for their actions under civil law. They are likely to face damage claims of up to several thousand euros for distributing music on file-sharing networks, without permission, for millions of other to download.
Police today searched 130 premises to gather evidence in the investigations, which have been running for several months. The actions are coordinated by the Public Prosecution Service of Cologne and the Police Authority of Bergheim.
File-sharing networks, such as eDonkey, cause huge damage to investment in music and cost the international recording industry billions of dollars in lost sales every year. In Germany, legal physical sales of music have fallen by a third in five years, while more than 400 million music files were downloaded illegally in 2005 alone.
The German recording industry has taken high-profile actions against file-sharers since early 2004. They are part of an international campaign that has seen more than 7,000 legal proceedings brought against uploaders in the last three years. Hundreds of settlements have resulted in file-sharers paying an average of 2,500 euros in damages.
Michael Haentjes, Chairman of IFPI Germany and Chairman and CEO of Edel Music, said: "The important message to all internet users is that you cannot rely on being undiscovered when committing crime online.
"On behalf of the recording industry, IFPI thanks the police for a great piece of teamwork and a superb investigation success."
John Kennedy, chairman and chief executive of IFPI said: "I am pleased that the German authorities recognise the serious impact of copyright crime and are taking action against it. Internet piracy has hurt the whole music community in Germany, with legitimate sales falling by a third in just five years. The victims are investment in music and everyone who makes a livelihood out of the music industry.
"No one should be surprised that we are stepping up our campaign in this way. The music industry has run numerous education campaigns aimed at audiences from parents to schools and internet users. MOST PEOPLE CLEARLY KNOW THAT FILE-SHARING WITHOUT PERMISSION IS ILLEGAL - unfortunately it takes legal actions such as this make a real impact on behaviour. Today, there is every reason for music lovers to download legitimately. There is a huge choice of legal services available to consumers. There is really NO EXCUSE for STEALING music online."
Note to editors:
IFPI is the organisation that promotes the interests of the international recording industry worldwide. Its membership comprises over 1400 major and independent companies in more than 70 countries. It also has affiliated industry national groups in 48 countries. IFPI's mission is to fight music piracy; promote fair market access and good copyright laws; help develop the legal conditions and the technologies for the recording industry to prosper in the digital era; and to promote the value of music.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
There you have it....enough said.
Bottom line:
It is ILLEGAL to host, share or LINK to COPYRIGHT material - PERIOD.
To claim Queenzone is "innocent", and does NOT ITSELF host files is immaterial, as this site, legally, becomes an 'ACCESSORY AFTER THE FACT'.
Legally: "...an accessory is a person (or company etc) who ASSISTS in the COMMISSION of a crime, but does not actually participate in the commission of the crime as a joint principal."
In otherwords, if two or more people are responsible for the 'actus reus' (latin term for the 'guilty act'), they can both be charged. The test to distinguish a 'joint principal' from an 'accessory' is - whether the accessory contributed to causing the 'actus reus'.
To put this in simple terms, if anyone in here accepts the invitation to link to an illegal download via Queenzone, WE all become part of the problem, and in legal terms, that makes Queenzone an accessory - and therefore, under the eyes of the law, just as guilty as the original file-sharer.
This means that if these official downloads were NOT linked to, we could NOT be seen as encourgaging the original host of the file to break the law, but by providing the link, we are in effect, encouraging them to do so.
END OF DISCUSSION.
Because this is the LAW, many sites HAVE been closed-down. This is not my personal headache, but, the headache of the RIAA, and it is they, not I who WILL SHUT US DOWN.
I have kept my promise - not to act as the official Queenzone policeman, and you will see that searching through the other forums, this is true, but, I could not allow the perpetuation of ill-informed justifications, as the law does not accept ignorance as either an excuse or defence.
It is ILLEGAL to host, share or LINK to COPYRIGHT material - PERIOD.
To claim Queenzone is "innocent", and does NOT ITSELF host files is immaterial, as this site, legally, becomes an 'ACCESSORY AFTER THE FACT'.
Legally: "...an accessory is a person (or company etc) who ASSISTS in the COMMISSION of a crime, but does not actually participate in the commission of the crime as a joint principal."
In otherwords, if two or more people are responsible for the 'actus reus' (latin term for the 'guilty act'), they can both be charged. The test to distinguish a 'joint principal' from an 'accessory' is - whether the accessory contributed to causing the 'actus reus'.
To put this in simple terms, if anyone in here accepts the invitation to link to an illegal download via Queenzone, WE all become part of the problem, and in legal terms, that makes Queenzone an accessory - and therefore, under the eyes of the law, just as guilty as the original file-sharer.
This means that if these official downloads were NOT linked to, we could NOT be seen as encourgaging the original host of the file to break the law, but by providing the link, we are in effect, encouraging them to do so.
END OF DISCUSSION.
Because this is the LAW, many sites HAVE been closed-down. This is not my personal headache, but, the headache of the RIAA, and it is they, not I who WILL SHUT US DOWN.
I have kept my promise - not to act as the official Queenzone policeman, and you will see that searching through the other forums, this is true, but, I could not allow the perpetuation of ill-informed justifications, as the law does not accept ignorance as either an excuse or defence.
Note for editors/moderators:
What I fail to understand, is how mail in the wrong Queenzone forum - can be moved into the correct forum.
Or, how offensive or spamming mail, can also be removed, if needs be.
Yet, the biggest threat to Queenzone, (ie the uploading and linking to Official product) can NOT be removed, and is ignored under the guise of 'freedom of speech'.
At the end of the day, regardless if it is me, or another who makes the upload or link, once printed in these pages, it becomes the collective responsiblity of Queenzone - and it is Queenzone who will suffer the wrath of the recording companies.
Why, oh why, can these Queenzone-threating mails NOT be removed - after all, they do break the only fundamental rule set out here.
What I fail to understand, is how mail in the wrong Queenzone forum - can be moved into the correct forum.
Or, how offensive or spamming mail, can also be removed, if needs be.
Yet, the biggest threat to Queenzone, (ie the uploading and linking to Official product) can NOT be removed, and is ignored under the guise of 'freedom of speech'.
At the end of the day, regardless if it is me, or another who makes the upload or link, once printed in these pages, it becomes the collective responsiblity of Queenzone - and it is Queenzone who will suffer the wrath of the recording companies.
Why, oh why, can these Queenzone-threating mails NOT be removed - after all, they do break the only fundamental rule set out here.
John, thank you very much!
Good job - hopefully this will FINALLY end the debate.
I suggest we need something like your posts somewhere very visible as a forum guideline.
But then again... I doubt if this would end it all.
Some people just don't accept facts and prefer to doubt 'our' intentions and rather debate about this again AFTER they uploaded official material.
Btw: in the past posts containing officially released material have indeed been removed every now and then!
Good job - hopefully this will FINALLY end the debate.
I suggest we need something like your posts somewhere very visible as a forum guideline.
But then again... I doubt if this would end it all.
Some people just don't accept facts and prefer to doubt 'our' intentions and rather debate about this again AFTER they uploaded official material.
Btw: in the past posts containing officially released material have indeed been removed every now and then!
Excellent research John, and it's brought some interesting points to reflect on.
John,
You made some very good points...
some questions:
1) What about all the copyrighted pictures on Queenzone.com (which are stored on its server), is that ok with you?
(personally I dont mind, but the fact remains that many pictures breach copyright on Queenzone.com)
2) What about linking to copyrighted material to (as with lyrics for instance, the same as with ANY video material of copyrighted songs) Earls Court 1977 or any of the Magic Tour, Crazy Tour, The Works Tour etc etc, material offered as Rapidshare or Torrent? This material is subject to copyright in its entirity, or do you have other arguments to oppose this?
Stefan
You made some very good points...
some questions:
1) What about all the copyrighted pictures on Queenzone.com (which are stored on its server), is that ok with you?
(personally I dont mind, but the fact remains that many pictures breach copyright on Queenzone.com)
2) What about linking to copyrighted material to (as with lyrics for instance, the same as with ANY video material of copyrighted songs) Earls Court 1977 or any of the Magic Tour, Crazy Tour, The Works Tour etc etc, material offered as Rapidshare or Torrent? This material is subject to copyright in its entirity, or do you have other arguments to oppose this?
Stefan
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]TRS-Romania wrote: [/QUOTENAME]John,
You made some very good points...
some questions:
1) What about all the copyrighted pictures on Queenzone.com (which are stored on its server), is that ok with you?
(personally I dont mind, but the fact remains that many pictures breach copyright on Queenzone.com)
2) What about linking to copyrighted material to (as with lyrics for instance, the same as with ANY video material of copyrighted songs) Earls Court 1977 or any of the Magic Tour, Crazy Tour, The Works Tour etc etc, material offered as Rapidshare or Torrent? This material is subject to copyright in its entirity, or do you have other arguments to oppose this?
Stefan
[/QUOTE]
To be honest - I genuinely do not know the answers to your questions. This is not my home, and I am not the Queenzone policeman - and I certainly do not wish to be viewed as some sort of killjoy. I am just someone who loves and cares for this site, and hopes to preserve this un-official haven. If that means protecting it from itself - then so be it, but that is a really sorry state to degenerate to.
I personally feel that there was always some room for a 'margin of error' - a bit like speeding in a car really.
It used to be that if you were travelling at 65 miles per hour in a 60 mile limit, most police would turn a blind-eye, as (informally) the driver was viewed to be within that 10% margin of error.
However, someone speeding outside that margin of error (say 70 miles per hour) would be prosecuted. Now that we have these dreaded GATSO camera's I do not know if this holds true anymore.
So I guess what I am saying is that, we all speed, even I, but let's slow down to a reasonible limit.
Likewise, I am sure that 'the powers that be', turn a blind eye to the odd discretion (we are a fan-site after all), however, I think lately we have been pushing it so far, that we are now drawing attention to ourselves - and as such, we know what happens if we continue.
But as I said in my opening sentence, I genuinely do not know.
You made some very good points...
some questions:
1) What about all the copyrighted pictures on Queenzone.com (which are stored on its server), is that ok with you?
(personally I dont mind, but the fact remains that many pictures breach copyright on Queenzone.com)
2) What about linking to copyrighted material to (as with lyrics for instance, the same as with ANY video material of copyrighted songs) Earls Court 1977 or any of the Magic Tour, Crazy Tour, The Works Tour etc etc, material offered as Rapidshare or Torrent? This material is subject to copyright in its entirity, or do you have other arguments to oppose this?
Stefan
[/QUOTE]
To be honest - I genuinely do not know the answers to your questions. This is not my home, and I am not the Queenzone policeman - and I certainly do not wish to be viewed as some sort of killjoy. I am just someone who loves and cares for this site, and hopes to preserve this un-official haven. If that means protecting it from itself - then so be it, but that is a really sorry state to degenerate to.
I personally feel that there was always some room for a 'margin of error' - a bit like speeding in a car really.
It used to be that if you were travelling at 65 miles per hour in a 60 mile limit, most police would turn a blind-eye, as (informally) the driver was viewed to be within that 10% margin of error.
However, someone speeding outside that margin of error (say 70 miles per hour) would be prosecuted. Now that we have these dreaded GATSO camera's I do not know if this holds true anymore.
So I guess what I am saying is that, we all speed, even I, but let's slow down to a reasonible limit.
Likewise, I am sure that 'the powers that be', turn a blind eye to the odd discretion (we are a fan-site after all), however, I think lately we have been pushing it so far, that we are now drawing attention to ourselves - and as such, we know what happens if we continue.
But as I said in my opening sentence, I genuinely do not know.
The pictures on QZ are uploaded by the users and it's assumed they are public domain unless someone proves otherwise. No pictures with copy right logos or watermarks are validated, also no pics with the names of other websites on them (for example, Queenonline). Sometimes copyrighted pics are uploaded and the copyright logo was cut away. In such cases the picture is removed when the owner complains. For example, Brian May's pictures from brianmay.com cannot be uploaded but sometimes they are and Jen sends an email. The picture is then removed. Mostly, this is not a big problem because the pictures can be freely downloaded from brianmay.com and it's not about the distribution of the picture, it's just about ownership and exclusive hosting.
With pictures Richard has the same attitude as with other shares - they are shared by fans for other fans and everyone should enjoy them. Other fan websites have watermarks to protect their pics from reuse but I think it also takes away the joy of looking.
With pictures Richard has the same attitude as with other shares - they are shared by fans for other fans and everyone should enjoy them. Other fan websites have watermarks to protect their pics from reuse but I think it also takes away the joy of looking.