Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

UK Gang Caught After $750K Online Music Fraud Scam

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the dj-felonious dept.

The Almighty Buck 101

LSDelirious writes "10 individuals in the UK have been arrested in connection with an online fraud gang, whereby the group created several songs, had the songs uploaded to iTunes and Amazon, then used thousands of stolen credit cards to repeatedly purchase the songs from these services. It is estimated that they charged approximately $750,000 worth of fraudulent purchases, netting the group over $300,000 in royalties payments."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Whos says the online music model works (5, Funny)

P1aGu3ed (979864) | more than 5 years ago | (#28304681)

I say we go back to the outdated model of printing CDs and using stolen credit cards to buy boxes of them. So much easier, and they would never have been caught. No really.

And this is differnt how? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28304683)

Normal way of the music biz

so eat my shorts slashdot !!

Re:And this is differnt how? (-1, Flamebait)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 5 years ago | (#28305611)

It is interesting, how one group of people (i.e., a big media corporation) selling CDs is considered to be a legitimate business worthy of legal protection, yet a group of poorer people with less opportunities, doing what they can to make a living** is considered a criminal act, worthy of fines/imprisonment. We can argue about copyright licenses etc. all day, but in reality, when people are poor, they have a right to etch out some sort of living. I guess it comes down to that old argument of whether two people should be punished equally, when one steals for fun, and one steals to feed his family.

** I'm sure the $750k "damages" figure is MUCH higher than what they actually gained.

Re:And this is differnt how? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28305899)

Regardless of how you feel about the RIAA and big music, trying to equate their business activities with stealing credits cards and using them to purchase tracks as part of a fraud operation is moronic.

Re:And this is differnt how? (1, Funny)

GeorgeStone22 (1532191) | more than 5 years ago | (#28306481)

Moronic LIKE A FOX!

Re:And this is differnt how? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28307363)

lol! really! :)

Re:And this is differnt how? (1)

DinDaddy (1168147) | more than 5 years ago | (#28312259)

Explain to me the fundamental difference between this and the RIAA program where they tried to have universities pay them and then charge students increased fees for music downloadable through the university network. Even if the students didn't want to.

Re:And this is differnt how? (2, Insightful)

stewbacca (1033764) | more than 5 years ago | (#28310415)

Credit card fraud is a crime, regardless of your socioeconomic status, and regardless if you try to dismiss is as "trying to make a living". You don't have a right to etch out "some sort of living" by purchasing stuff with stolen credit cards.

Re:And this is differnt how? (3, Insightful)

hmar (1203398) | more than 5 years ago | (#28310497)

This is NOT copyright infringement. This is fraudulently using someon else's credit card to purchase products. Night and day difference, and the riaa is not involved, as far as I can tell (how can they be? these people put their own music up, and purchased it). The $750,000 is not damages, it is fraudulent charges. By taking this incredibly thin excuse to push your agenda, you discredit it.

Follow the money (3, Interesting)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 5 years ago | (#28304689)

A new creative way to get cash off credit cards. Woop. At least it's better than getting goods delivered to a drop house and selling them at a pawn shop.

Re:Follow the money (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28304943)

Is it? A good drop house is a useful thing, and if you fence the goods properly, you're not easily traceable. It requires feet on the ground to catch you.

This, on the other hand, is retarded. There's a simple digital "paper trail" right to your bank.

Re:Follow the money (3, Insightful)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 5 years ago | (#28304961)

If you're a moron, yes.

Money laundering is all about getting suckers to do your banking.

Re:Follow the money (1)

vertinox (846076) | more than 5 years ago | (#28307199)

Money laundering is all about getting suckers to do your banking.

I got a spam email a few months back that sounded something to this effect. Basically they were looking to hire someone to deposit checks into someone else's bank accounts.

Can't seem to find it so must have deleted it, but I thought it amusing because it basically was money laundering.

Re:Follow the money (1)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 5 years ago | (#28307843)

It's the second stage of the phishing scam. They break into people's accounts, transfer the money into your account, then you transfer it to them by Western Union or similar, or you buy stuff with the money and send it to them.

When the phishing victim complains, the transfer is reversed and you are left out of pocket.

Re:Follow the money (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28309533)

I had a friend who had exactly that happen to him (but in real life). Basically, they asked him to deposit a check in to an account, then take the money out and give it to them and he got $5k. He did it, got arrested, tried as an adult, and got sent to jail for fraud for a couple months.

Re:Follow the money (1)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 5 years ago | (#28307755)

Usually you need to register the credit card to the same drop house. That can sometimes work, but it does make things more difficult, and there is a limit to the number of cards you can have at one address.

Re:Follow the money (2, Interesting)

physicsphairy (720718) | more than 5 years ago | (#28304987)

Either way it is stupid to have some nexus to all of your crimes. The least they could have done was to buy iTunes gift certificates and *then* buy their own songs so it's not like the victim's credit card companies are sending them a bill saying a thousand songs were purchased from such and such band.

They are also taking a big hit on their percentage.

After thinking about it for a bit, this is my idea: you sell stuff on ebay that you don't have, but when someone buys it, you use the stolen credit card to buy it from a different seller and have it sent to them. Your purchases on the stolen card will be tied only to a variety of addresses and entities which have no connection to each other or to you, and you play the international game there may be little chance of the police ever talking to the recipients. Even if you're caught they have to do detective work on every transaction made to the account to establish that it was ultimately based on a stolen credit card. (Presumably all the payments being made to you are being made legally.) But if it is at all possible to shuffle money between bank accounts in an anonymous way (I have no idea whether it really is?) it should be possible to do this without being caught.

Re:Follow the money (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 5 years ago | (#28305011)

I think you just described one of those "Make $$$ From Home" schemes that the botnets run.

Yes, that's right, there's scams that are not being run by *people* but by a network of infected computers. Depending on how many contingencies and upgrade paths for command and control there are, these things can be insanely difficult to shut down. There's something about computers hiring people to perform jobs that seem legitimate with no concept of the overall scam that is strangely erotic.

Re:Follow the money (3, Insightful)

julesh (229690) | more than 5 years ago | (#28305263)

But if it is at all possible to shuffle money between bank accounts in an anonymous way (I have no idea whether it really is?)

Yes it is. You use an advanced mechanism that isn't very popular these days, called "cash".

Re:Follow the money (1)

jimicus (737525) | more than 5 years ago | (#28305361)

Yes it is. You use an advanced mechanism that isn't very popular these days, called "cash".

The problem with any serious quantity of cash - certainly in the UK where this fraud took place - is that people start to ask awkward questions. (In fact, at banks they're legally obliged to start asking awkward questions)

Which is not to say there aren't other ways to launder money. Buy a car, insure it then drive it into the wall and abracadabra! You don't have £30,000 in unmarked notes which raises eyebrows. You've got a cheque for £20,000 from an insurance company. Yes you've lost £10,000 but you always lose a fair bit when laundering money.

Re:Follow the money (3, Funny)

themaneatingcow (1430127) | more than 5 years ago | (#28306511)

If your laundered money is shrinking, then you're doing it wrong. Never put it in the dryer; you should always hang it out to dry.

Re:Follow the money (1)

adf92343414 (1332481) | more than 5 years ago | (#28316531)

Yes, but what did you use to buy the car? Buy a car worth over $10000 USD and the dealer will have to fill out a form describing the source of the funds. I don't think private parties have to do this, though.

Re:Follow the money (1)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 5 years ago | (#28308071)

That won't work. You need to set up something that means you receive money from a legitimate account. With the ebay sales, the money is coming to you direct from the stolen credit card, with only the plausible deniability that you didn't know it was from a stolen card. That transaction can still be reversed.

Re:Follow the money (1)

Golddess (1361003) | more than 5 years ago | (#28310527)

With the ebay sales, the money is coming to you direct from the stolen credit card

Sounded to me more like Person B sells item to Person C (an item they do not have), Person C pays Person B through whatever, Person B then buys item from Person A using stolen credit card, then negotiates the shipping such that Person A ships direct to Person C.

Re:Follow the money (1)

tattood (855883) | more than 5 years ago | (#28309807)

The problem with this, is that you either need to buy the cards at an Apple store or online. If you buy it at the store, you need an actual credit card, and usually they only have the number and not the real card. This also exposes a person to another person, who could possibly be a witness. If you buy it online, Apple will ship you the physical iTunes gift card. You don't get the number online, so there is still an address that can be traced back to someone.

Re:Follow the money (1)

hmar (1203398) | more than 5 years ago | (#28310581)

I buy itunes cards at walmart. They take cash (so does the Apple store)

Re:Follow the money (1)

Ironica (124657) | more than 5 years ago | (#28313123)

I buy itunes cards at walmart. They take cash (so does the Apple store)

True, but we're talking about how to use a stolen credit card number to buy them.

Nothing new... (5, Insightful)

Manip (656104) | more than 5 years ago | (#28304699)

Just traditional money laundering via a slightly new route. They used to do similar things with Auction Houses, they'd list an item of no real value and then buy it. Dirty money into clean money!

Re:Nothing new... (1)

Sulphur (1548251) | more than 5 years ago | (#28304807)

Just traditional money laundering via a slightly new route. They used to do similar things with Auction Houses, they'd list an item of no real value and then buy it. Dirty money into clean money!

Maybe they can get music piped into the prison laundry.

Re:Nothing new... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28305459)

~\o People love it when you lie, they love dirty laundry ~\o

(I'm probably dating myself..)

As elvis costello says, "theres no such thing as an original sin"

Probably a higher yield in laundering money through the pet shop.. there's a lot of "opportunities"..

Re:Nothing new... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28306821)

They used to do similar things with Auction Houses, they'd list an item of no real value and then buy it.

Not too different from pretty much any auction dealing with modern art.

Well, they do have a good example... (5, Funny)

santax (1541065) | more than 5 years ago | (#28304701)

When compared to the 'guys who stick up for artists (and take 95+ % of the earnings' these guys are saints. Give them a medal! At least they made their own music!

Re:Well, they do have a good example... (2, Funny)

bitt3n (941736) | more than 5 years ago | (#28307189)

Furthermore, who's to say that all those credit card holders wouldn't have bought these songs anyway? Perhaps they should all get charged an extra convenience fee.

Re:Well, they do have a good example... (1)

Ironica (124657) | more than 5 years ago | (#28313385)

Furthermore, who's to say that all those credit card holders wouldn't have bought these songs anyway? Perhaps they should all get charged an extra convenience fee.

I'm sure the RIAA's position would be that the legitimate card holders would have paid good money to buy the songs if these meddling criminals hadn't gotten in the way of the transaction... and if the band had been represented by a major label.

Of course, what I wonder is, do the original card holders now own a license to listen to the music?

Way to think small (1)

Antidamage (1506489) | more than 5 years ago | (#28304703)

$30k each just doesn't seem worth it. What a waste of criminal talent.

Re:Way to think small (2, Interesting)

carlzum (832868) | more than 5 years ago | (#28304823)

Yeah, they should have just put the song on a Russian MP3 site and sued them for $1.65 trillion [cybernetnews.com]

Re:Way to think small (3, Insightful)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 5 years ago | (#28304953)

$30k each just doesn't seem worth it. What a waste of criminal talent.

Talent? These guys are morons. You make it sound like they were Lex Luthor or something. Truthfully, I think Pinky and the Brain would of come up with a better plan.

They created an artificial product. Maybe that is too harsh, I dunno. Their music could be decent for all we know. Putting this product up for sale on iTunes and then generating what was probably 99.99% fraudulent sales was a huge tip off. The fraud investigators would certainly label the musicians as prime suspects with such a percentage.

Follow the money. Good judges do that, and so do good detectives.

The person committing the fraud as the customer was receiving no money, just product. Is it a coincidence that nearly all of the customers were using fraud to obtain the product? Highly unlikely.

The musicians selling their product to these customers, were receiving the money, laundered even.

With so many damaged parties involved, I find it laughable that these criminals thought that nobody would even suspect the "musicians" of fraud and start to investigate them.

Re:Way to think small (2, Insightful)

Antidamage (1506489) | more than 5 years ago | (#28305173)

You sound like you read way too much into an offhand comment.

Re:Way to think small (1)

jonnyt886 (1252670) | more than 5 years ago | (#28306359)

You sound like you read way too much into an offhand comment.

Ah, you must be new here. Welcome to Slashdot ;)

Re:Way to think small (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28307279)

Ah, you must be new here.

"Antidamage (1506489)" <— I'd say that's a "yes".

"jonnyt886 (1252670)" <— however, it looks like you are, too (relatively speaking).

Re:Way to think small (1)

SupremoMan (912191) | more than 5 years ago | (#28306807)

Yes they were stupid. The real masterminds are the guys who sold them the credit cards.

Re:Way to think small (1)

icoer (960357) | more than 5 years ago | (#28313779)

Not to mention that NOBODY uses a stolen credit card to pirate music even if they liked it. They'd hop on the P2P of their choice and download it. Any song with that many "Sales" would be on all of them.

Re:Way to think small (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#28306679)

On the contrary, $30K each seems too much. Make it $5 each, and how many people will query it? Even if they do, the credit card companies are more likely to just eat the loss than pursue it (it will cost way more than $5 to recover it). With this sort of scam, hitting a lot of people for a small amount is a lot more lucrative (and less likely to get you caught) than hitting a smaller number for more.

And yet... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28304731)

The Spice Girls remain at large.

They used stolen credit cards (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28304745)

...or stolen credit card *numbers*? TFA and TFS claim "cards". How exactly to you steal thousands of cards?

Re:They used stolen credit cards (2, Funny)

Plunky (929104) | more than 5 years ago | (#28305647)

...or stolen credit card *numbers*? TFA and TFS claim "cards". How exactly to you steal thousands of cards?

Now listen carefully I will say this only once. Copyright infringement is not stealing!

thousands of credit cards? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28304757)

"...then used thousands of stolen credit cards to repeatedly purchase..."
Shouldn't that be thousands of credit card numbers to repeatedly purchase since I doubt that they phsically stole thousands of credit cards.

Were the songs any good? (5, Funny)

Shag (3737) | more than 5 years ago | (#28304759)

...and where can I get a torrent of them?

Re:Were the songs any good? (1)

NotQuiteReal (608241) | more than 5 years ago | (#28304837)

Seriously - are the songs still on iTunes and Amazon?

With all this publicity, it's chance to sell them to the curiosity seekers (at least one copy...)

Re:Were the songs any good? (1)

zobier (585066) | more than 5 years ago | (#28304865)

I don't see why not, it's not as if the music is illegal.
I'm curious who this is and what the music sounds like too.

Re:Were the songs any good? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28307839)

Pure Genius!

1. Create "music"
2. Launch huge publicity stu^W^Wcredit card fraud
3. ???
4. Profit!

Re:Were the songs any good? (3, Informative)

Anenome (1250374) | more than 5 years ago | (#28304851)

They were all third rate covers of "Money, money, money, money!"

Re:Were the songs any good? (2, Funny)

flonker (526111) | more than 5 years ago | (#28305141)

They sold so many copies, these songs were HOT!

Re:Were the songs any good? (1)

YourExperiment (1081089) | more than 5 years ago | (#28305747)

So third rate, in fact, that they managed to get the number of "Money"s in the title wrong.

Unless this is a medley of Pink Floyd's "Money" with Abba's "Money, Money, Money"? I'd pay good money to hear that.

Re:Were the songs any good? (1)

Stormwatch (703920) | more than 5 years ago | (#28306889)

Add that song by Barrett Strong, and that other song by John Lee Hooker, and you'll get the medley: "I Need Some Money, Money, Money, Money, Money, Money (That's What I Want)".

Re:Were the songs any good? (1)

daashton (1206008) | more than 5 years ago | (#28308261)

I believe he was referring to "For the Love of Money" aka the money song by the O'Jays

Re:Were the songs any good? (1)

YourExperiment (1081089) | more than 5 years ago | (#28308347)

If that were the case, surely he would have said something along the lines of "They were all third rate covers of 'For the Love of Money' aka the money song by the O'Jays"?

Re:Were the songs any good? (1)

Megane (129182) | more than 5 years ago | (#28313983)

Especially if they could get Eddie Money to do the vocals.

Re:Were the songs any good? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28306819)

Mushroom! Mushroom!

Re:Were the songs any good? (1)

Anenome (1250374) | more than 5 years ago | (#28316485)

Essentially, they invented a crappy form of money-laundering. It's actually fairly inventive and will become a larger problem with the expansion of small-time produced media.

No doubt this is occurring on a smaller scale already. These guys got caught not really by Itunes but by the stolen credit cards. If the source of the money were not stolen, there would be no effective way to detect this. It's like 21st century pork-belly future!

Re:Were the songs any good? (1)

xaosflux (917784) | more than 5 years ago | (#28306171)

If they had any quality they are are likely out there. It would be interesting to find out how prevalent they are, so these 'artists' can come up with a figure for how much all that illegal file sharing is costing them!

Simple Solution (0, Offtopic)

Jamie's Nightmare (1410247) | more than 5 years ago | (#28304795)

This is why music should never be sold for money. This [youtube.com] is the only song you will ever need and it's free.

Re:Simple Solution (1)

NotQuiteReal (608241) | more than 5 years ago | (#28304843)

In all seriousness, that sounds like a lame Sunday school song. Is this how religions get started?

Re:Simple Solution (1)

nausea_malvarma (1544887) | more than 5 years ago | (#28304955)

Too late. Google "Church of Emacs".

Re:Simple Solution (1)

perryizgr8 (1370173) | more than 5 years ago | (#28305005)

oh no! now i've seen everything.

Re:Simple Solution (1)

iron-kurton (891451) | more than 5 years ago | (#28305013)

Thank you for this. I am still wiping tears from my eyes lol

So, you think you can troll? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28304877)

You think you can troll? Want a chance to prove it? Several experienced and dedicated trolls needed for long term project against a group of thin skinned assholes.

Interested parties can contact at Goodbye.To.You.531@gmail.com

Like premium rate phone lines (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28304903)

Remember when they first came in in the UK?

The premium rate phone number renter was paid their cut monthly by BT.

But ordinary subscribers are billed quarterly.

So here's how some people made a lot of money.....

Start two companies. One of them rents a load of premium rate numbers and phone lines. The other rents a load of ordinary phone lines.

Company 2 then calls Company 1's premium rate lines incessently.

For three months in a row, Co1 gets cheques from BT.

At the start of Month 4 both companies get phone bills.

At around the start of Month 6 Co 2 gets final reminders, and is possibily cut off from service and threatened with all sorts of legal actions.

But, no matter, both Companies have vanished with around 6 hefty BT cheques.

Profit!

Re:Like premium rate phone lines (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28307367)

Listen to this one then; you open a company called the Arse Tickler's Faggot Fan Club. You take an advert in the back page of some gay mag, advertising the latest in arse-intruding dildos, sell it a bit with, er... I dunno, "does what no other dildo can do until now", latest and greatest in sexual technology. Guaranteed results or money back, all that bollocks. These dills cost twenty-five each; a snip for all the pleasure they are going to give the recipients. They send a cheque to the company name, nothing offensive, er, Bobbie's Bits or something, for twenty-five. You put these in the bank for two weeks and let them clear. Now this is the clever bit. Then you send back the cheques for twenty-five pounds from the real company name, Arse Tickler's Faggot Fan Club, saying sorry, we couldn't get the supply from America, they have sold out. Now you see how many of the people cash those cheques; not a single soul, because who wants his bank manager to know he tickles arses when he is not paying in cheques!

-- Tom

Re:Like premium rate phone lines (2, Interesting)

bertoelcon (1557907) | more than 5 years ago | (#28312223)

Why do the most ridiculous plans happen to sound the most plausible. Any less and it would be an obvious scam but for some reason you turn up the insane knob past 100% and the suspicion meter drops to like 5%.

Re:Like premium rate phone lines (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28308627)

Wow, I hope you get your enter key fixed soon; it seems to be pressing on its own.

So, uh... (1)

theTerribleRobbo (661592) | more than 5 years ago | (#28304921)

... Were the songs any good?

Copy(right)cat (5, Insightful)

nausea_malvarma (1544887) | more than 5 years ago | (#28304947)

A criminal gang that scams people out of their money with recorded music? Looks like the RIAA is inspiring copycat crimes.

So... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28304959)

Do Apple/Amazon keep their cut?

Re:So... (1)

nuckin futs (574289) | more than 5 years ago | (#28305763)

i don't see why not. In Apple's case, they don't own the music, they just charge for the bandwidth usage and credit card transaction fees. Not sure if Amazon is the same way.
It would be the right thing for them to return their cut since it's only chump change for them, but who knows if they'll actually do it.

Re:So... (2, Informative)

mike2R (721965) | more than 5 years ago | (#28306867)

Hmm, I'd have thought quite the reverse. iTunes and Amazon are the merchants here as I understand it; they've charged the cards and hold the funds. Presumably they have then paid out commission to these crooks for the "sales".

So now that the fraud has been spotted, the card holders will obviously do chargebacks, and since they obviously had no part in these transactions their card issuers will refund them, same as for any other fraudulent use of a card.

And as for any other chargeback, the banks will simply recover the money from the merchant, who as always bears 100% of the losses (plus transaction fees probably).

So as I see it: Apple and Amazon lose the money, and are out not only their profit, but the commissions paid to the crooks, and any other costs they have incurred as a part of these transactions. They will presumably attempt to recover what they can during these thieves prosecution.

The victims of card fraud are not the card holders (as long as they spot the fraudulent transaction), but whatever poor sod charged the cards and is now out the goods/services they provided.

iPhone apps (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28305019)

If they were smart they would have gone this route. You can control the cost and you get a much higher percentage of the money... It's a trade off of slightly more noticeable transactions for fewer overall transactions.

Re:iPhone apps (1)

Chatterton (228704) | more than 5 years ago | (#28305281)

And if the App is any kind of good, they can make more money than they laund :-)

BBC is reporting nine people not ten... (1)

VinylRecords (1292374) | more than 5 years ago | (#28305031)

The BBC is reporting that nine people were arrested. Six men and three women. And not ten like many other articles are reporting.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/8094748.stm [bbc.co.uk]

Nevertheless what everyone is really waiting other than the name's of the individuals arrested obviously...are the names of the albums that they put up.

As soon as their real and DJ names are released we can find out what albums they worked on and see if those compilations were actually good. I wonder if they'll get enough downloads from real sales to pay for their lawyers and court fines? I also wonder if Amazon/I-Tunes will have to forfeit the money? And also if the artists used in the compilation mixes will get to keep any money that they made as well?

Re:BBC is reporting nine people not ten... (1)

cyssero (1554429) | more than 5 years ago | (#28305177)

Wow, this changes everything!

Re:BBC is reporting nine people not ten... (1)

julesh (229690) | more than 5 years ago | (#28305289)

I also wonder if Amazon/I-Tunes will have to forfeit the money?

You mean from any legit sales they get? I'd imagine not, but the gang themselves probably wouldn't be allowed to benefit -- the money owed to them would likely be seized using the Proceeds of Crime Act, which gives the government very wide ranging powers to take criminals' posessions without having to actually prove they were obtained illegaly.

On the whole, though, Amazon and iTunes will lose out here. They'll have had thousands (if not more) chargebacks, which will have cost them more to deal with than they earned in the first place.

Re:BBC is reporting nine people not ten... (2, Funny)

SnowZero (92219) | more than 5 years ago | (#28305709)

The BBC is reporting that nine people were arrested. Six men and three women. And not ten like many other articles are reporting.

That's because Keyser Soze got away.

How come when we copy music, we're "sharing" it... (0, Troll)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 5 years ago | (#28305345)

but when they copy credit card numbers, they're "stealing" them?

It's all just data, right? Right?

Re:How come when we copy music, we're "sharing" it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28305741)

I'm gonna bite....

Depends if the card was physically stolen. If not they normally refer to it as "card cloning" not stealing.

The real theft is when the card is used without the owners permissions and their money is used to buy things.

They can repay it all.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28305397)

.. if they just post another song called 'Slashdot Effect'. I think we'd all pay to see a band of credit card fraudsters.

They got only 300k$ for 750k$ sells? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28305621)

Wait a minute, does this means iTunes & Amazon keep more than 60% of the price for themselves and give the rest to the artists?
I'm gonna quit my job and launch an online music store!

Real Digital Gangster Rap!! (1)

drx (123393) | more than 5 years ago | (#28305825)

Where dem tracks at?? This should be the most authentic gangster music!! Almost sounds like a project vom Weird Al ...

They should have uploaded the songs to TPB (1)

Klistvud (1574615) | more than 5 years ago | (#28306079)

Probably, at least some of the cops/prosecutors/judges prosecuting them would have downloaded the stuff illegally, thus opening some interesting possibilities for an out-of-court settlement or, better still, a full-fledged countersuit. With any luck, the copyright infringing cops/prosecutors/judges would soon end behind bars and compelled to pay tens of millions to the gang when they come out.

What were the songs? (1)

pbooktebo (699003) | more than 5 years ago | (#28306305)

I would really love to have one of these songs (I often use musically esoteric materials in my classroom). The article doesn't mention what the music was. Anyone know? From other sources?

from the dj-felonious dept. (4, Funny)

Speare (84249) | more than 5 years ago | (#28306689)

I think "from the felonious-monk dept." has a better ring to it.

Apple Called a few months ago (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28306705)

Apple called a few months ago and asked whether I'd bought an iPhone "yesterday" and had it shipped to Miami and whether I was trying to purchase 5 songs right now.

I don't own any Apple products and told him that. Further, I hadn't used that credit card since visiting Buenos Aires about 8 months earlier. I wasn't very nice to the poor Apple guy. Phone calls out of the blue like that are unwanted here.

He retained his composure and explained it to me - their fraud team had detected the transactions in near real-time and he was protecting me from unusual activity. He blocked the song transactions and refunded the iPhone cost. I contacted my bank and they cancelled the card and issued a new one. I wouldn't be liable for anything.

When my CC statement arrived, it was just as Apple said. Charges then refunds. Makes me want to deal with Apple as a client once they stop partnering with crap AT&T, fix the dog software and stop over charging for their hardware.

orly? (1)

JackSpratts (660957) | more than 5 years ago | (#28306829)

it's pretty much how every label started.

And that's nothing (5, Funny)

Punto (100573) | more than 5 years ago | (#28307463)

that's nothing, in the process of pulling off this scam, they lost $2 billion to piracy! nobody's safe!

Clever (2)

Drone69 (1517261) | more than 5 years ago | (#28307959)

Sounds like something Metallica would do.

Number of songs "stolen"? (3, Funny)

noidentity (188756) | more than 5 years ago | (#28308497)

UK Gang Caught After $750K Online Music Fraud Scam

Let's see, at $150K per song [geek.com] , that comes out to 5 songs.

As a cash scheme. . . (1)

Fantastic Lad (198284) | more than 5 years ago | (#28309659)

As a form of basic theft, that has got to be one of the all-time dumbest, most inefficient ways to steal money. --Giving a massive percentage to Amazon and to the manufacture of CDs. It's also one of those schemes which isn't even a scheme; you'd think that an important part of any basic plan to commit a crime would be to get away with it afterwards. It seems that they left the whole, "Don't Get Caught" portion off the menu, because really, how the heck did they expect to NOT get caught when leaving such an idiotically obvious number of money trails all pointing directly at them?

What this smacks of is more simply a group of guys who don't want to be thieves so much as famous musicians. Because now they have press and street cred, (for being stupid?), and if the songs are any good, they might just end up with music careers. After they get out of prison.

Oh, whatever. They were probably just stoned and not thinking clearly.

And they probably need haircuts. Off my lawn.

-FL

Re:As a cash scheme. . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28315953)

How does buying digital music give a massive percentage to CD manufacturers?

them fools (1)

Khashishi (775369) | more than 5 years ago | (#28312331)

Honestly, did you think you would get away with it? Anything involving digits and plastic is easy to trace. You are better off robbing for cash.

oh really (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28317071)

wow, thats all you can say, smart, but stupid.... come on'

http://www.iPhoneNewsStand.com

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?