Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Five recording companies have sued an Augusta man in federal court claiming he illegally pirated and shared copyrighted music downloaded from the Internet.
Scott Hinds, 23, is a defendant in one of a number of lawsuits by Recording Industry of America affiliates seeking to halt illegal sharing of copyrighted songs -- a once-widespread practice some maintain was "fair use," encouraged by certain computer software.
Recording industry spokeswoman Amanda Hunter said 18,000 individuals have been sued since September 2003, but Hinds is one of only six defendants in Maine.
Hinds said he is not yet represented by a lawyer. "Why choose me?" he said Monday.
"Every single person has done this," he said, saying he doesn't listen to music online presently.
The lawsuit, filed last week in U.S. District Court for the District of Maine, alleges Hinds illegally downloaded:
The allegation is that Hinds used an "online media distribution system" to download tunes, then distributed the copyrighted material to others.
The lawsuit doesn't identify the download service Hinds allegedly used, nor does it identify individual users who allegedly obtained the copyrighted music from Hinds.
According to the association, "online investigators searched for copyrighted recordings made available by individuals on peer-to-peer networks."
They then filed a lawsuit against Internet service providers, prompting them to identify individuals who allegedly shared music files.
Hinds faces a minimum civil penalty of $750 per song. There can be criminal penalties too.
If guilty, Hinds would hardly be the first person found downloading music on the Internet, which has had numerous sites offering free music over the years.
The best-known site -- Napster, founded in 1999 by 18-year-old college dropout Shawn Fanning -- signed up 25 million users in its first year.
In 2000, the Recording Industry Association of America sued Napster, charging "tributary copyright infringement" -- an allegation that Napster was not violating copyright itself, but was contributing to and facilitating other people's infringement.
Napster later was shut down by court rulings and resurfaced as a pay-per-song service, joining dozens of new players -- such as Apple's popular iTunes service -- that generally have the blessing of the music industry.
The lawsuit against Hinds has been assigned to U.S. District Court Judge John A. Woodcock in Bangor.
Reader comments
Sort by: Oldest first | Newest First
Get your facts straight. File Sharing is not theft; at worse it is an "infringement" of the privilege or right to make a copy/duplicate or representation but NO ONE has had anything stolen. However even if your arguement is valid that the behavior is illegal; then certainly the punishment does not fit the crime. It is possible to deal with infringers in a manner that would impart a measure of compensation to the Industry and not legally extort from those accused of the infraction. If the RIAA were so concerned about the injury to its artists then why hasn't ONE CENT of the so called damages collected been contributed to those artist? No it goes into a fund to pay lawyers and generate more lawsuits.
You post, here, spouting latin phrases: why do you do independant research and see for yourself that the so called "devastating damages" the RIAA claims it incurred are false. So much so that their statics have been thrown out of French Courts. So much for your "mental gymnastics" sentiment.
As far as I am concerned file sharing is no different than recording a song off the radio. I have no sympathy for the RIAA or the RATS that support it.
Long Live File Sharing and Death the RIAA!!!report abuse
You really need to bone up on logical fallacies.
To assert that artists make "nothing" on the sale of their work product is the epitome of ignorance; to assert that you're somehow justified in stealing based on that erroneous assumption is the height of arrogance based on that ignorance.
Did it ever occur to you that, by stealing the music, you subvert the altruistic motives by which you purport to be driven? If you steal the music, you're not only stealing from the record companies, you're stealing from the artists, too.
All the mental gymnastics in the world don't change the fact that stealing copyrighted material is theft. Res ipsa loquitur -- the thing speaks for itself.
How the companies and artists choose to market their products is of no concern to you. You don't have a vested interest in the sale of the products, and so your opinion is irrelevant.
Recording artists sign contracts with their labels; they know exactly how much they're going to make per unit sold. They sign those contracts willingly, knowing full well what their rights are and what they're giving up if they sign. Nobody forces them to sign.
And they certainly haven't asked you petty thieves to fight for their cause by stealing their work product. They're virtually united in their desire to protect their work from the likes of you pirates.
If you're downloading music without paying for it, you're stealing. Period. Making excuses or channeling vitriol and hate at those from whom you're stealing doesn't change the fact that you're a thief.
If you can't afford to buy the music, get a job and save some money until you can.
If fewer of you were stealing the music -- if you were paying for it as you should be -- then it most certainly would cost less than $17 for a new CD.
report abuse
You must be a registered user of MaineToday.com to post a comment. Register or log in.