The BPI is after damages from the 28 and is seeking injunctions to stop them being able to upload tunes to file-sharing networks. The BPI claim the file-sharers were "major uploaders" and posted tunes to a variety of peer-to-peer sites including Kazaa, Grokster and WinMX.
The association took the action after warning file-sharers over IM that they faced legal action if they continued to upload songs illegally - in total, over 350,000 of the messages were sent out.
After the messaging campaign and a final warning in March, when the BPI warned the action was in the pipeline, the association says it has been forced to take the matter to the courts.
A BPI spokesman said they had targeted the "illegal dealers" who were making "piracy possible on a large scale". He added that the BPI has targeted uploaders rather than downloaders to "cut the problem off at its source."
One file-sharer told silicon.com: "It's a matter of risk. There are millions of us out there, if they pick off a few what are the chances of getting caught? I think they're trying to scare people, which is why they're only going for a handful of cases to start with. I'm not scared."
Although the BPI is hoping the legal action will deter music piracy, it says the number of illegal files being uploaded to the internet is dropping anyway.
It's thought that the recent boom in legal music download services, including iTunes, Napster and Karmadownload, is the key reason behind that. Apple's iTunes alone sold over 125 million songs in the UK, France and Germany since its launch earlier this year and the UK download industry now has its very own download chart.
Several bands have come out in favour of illegal file-sharing, including best-selling Mercury Music Prize winners Franz Ferdinand.
Their singer Alex Kapranos recently told Rolling Stone: "Downloading is a great way to find out about music. I'm not going to criticise somebody for loving music. People come up to me and say, 'I downloaded your album, and I can't wait to go out and buy it'."
The BPI spokesman said "you've got to respect an artist's views... but the reason they're able to produce brilliant music is because a record company believed in them and backed them."
The BPI's litigation comes as part of a Europe-wide move by record industry associations across the continent, with 459 legal actions being taken.
The BPI's Stateside equivalent, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), has sued over a thousand people - most famously including a 12-year old girl.
The RIAA has suffered a backlash from music fans after they brought suits against 5,000 sile sharers -which saw the MyDoom virus wage a denial-of-service attack on the association's website.
The BPI spokesman said: "We don't want to be unpopular... but we're not in it to win a popularity contest, we're in it to send out a message [that file-sharing is wrong]," he said.
In other news, a Lanarkshire man has been sent to jail for nine months for producing counterfeit Adobe and Microsoft software.
This article is poorly researched and full of inaccuracies.
First: Spell check before submission.
Peer to peer 'sites' do not exist. The nature of peer-to-peer 'networks' is that they are dynamically formed, and share the searches and files between the users themselves.
Peer-to-peer networks themselves are not illegal. It is the people that make available content that infringes on copyrighted works on those networks that are committing illegal activities.
There is a growing body of artists that have realised that the RIAA, MPAA, BPI, MPA and like minded industry bodies involved in distribution are making massive profits from the artists' content, and the artists have chosen to utilise the peer-to-peer networks as their only method of distribution, cutting out the middle man. Imagine the price of CDs and DVDs if the middle man was chopped out - yep you've guessed it - the legal Internet distribution channels charge approximately 99 cents per tune. No wonder the court cases are coming thick and fast - somebody is missing out on a lotta loot!
It is not the artists that are bringing this action. It is the distribution industry that has had its monopoly on distribution challenged by the efficiency and low cost methods used by peer-to-peer software. They only pay a pittance to the artist and rake in the millions. "If you don't toe the line, you don't get anything" was the norm, but that is now under serious challenge.
They are fighting back as fast as they can. You are witnessing the death throes of an obsolete industry, same as the typewriter, and more recently the Kodak photographic film unit. Shed a tear for them.
You say that 5000 people have been sued in the US. How many cases have actually been won? Yes, I still have some counting fingers left over. You are perpetuating the bluff.
Why is it that somebody can download a release from the peer-to-peer networks long before it is available to buy in the shops - obviously the current distribution methods are obsolete and too inefficient. The NOW generation is insatiable. You better listen carefully to the consumer if you want to survive, not sue the hand that feeds you.
Peer-to-peer software is not the culprit. You can share legal content also. Witness the recent action brought in the US against Grokster etc, which was thrown out by the courts. It is not the peer-to-peer software itself that is illegal, just the use to which it is put. As a comparison, should cars be banned because some are used illegally to kill and maim pedestrians?
The Lanarkshire (sic) man has been wrongly sent to jail if he has produced 'counterfeit Adobe and Microsoft software' - what I think you meant to say is he made 'counterfeit copies of Adobe and Microsoft software'. If he 'made' Adobe or Microsoft software, he would possibly be hailed as an industry champion - we do enjoy the benefits that real competition brings.
Now that the industry has worked out a "sort of" reliable, trustworthy way to charge for content over the Internet, you will have to convince the great unwashed masses that what they have had for free for so long will need to be paid for. You face a long, uphill battle, as the horse bolted a long, long time ago.
We watch and wait the results of the Kazaa court battle here in Australia with interest, given the precedents and actions overseas. I'm sure public opinion as well as that of our learned judges is going towards the understanding that it is not the software itself that is illegal, but the uses to which it is being put that is the culprit.
As always, this is always about that dirty word "money".