Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

[Article] Music-swapping sites to be blocked by internet providers

Options
1…910121415

Comments

  • Options
    #332
    Sparks
    Registered Users Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    IRMA exist because there previously was no other way for artists to create and distribute content, which is no longer the case.
    ...is no longer the case where widespread access to the Internet with sufficient bandwidth is available and laptops or other devices to connect to it are owned by everyone, you mean.
    I see where you're going, but the rest of the world will take a little while to catch up; at which point IRMA really will be defunct; but that doesn't mean that they're there yet.


  • Options
    #333
    PaddyTheNth
    Registered Users Posts: 605 ✭✭✭PaddyTheNth


    Sparks wrote: »
    Actually, it does - child pornography would be the obvious example.Yes, but my point was that they don't have any other choice, they're bound by law to do that.
    Eircom are however, as you said, a service provider, and it is not within their remit to impose censorship on communications when that censorship is not subject to due judicial review.
    They don't have a remit. They have no duties to the consumer beyond what's in the T&Cs and standard laws on this; nothing prohibits them from blocking sites so long as they state they're doing so and don't forbid you from cancelling your contract with them.
    I don't have extensive knowledge of the relevant legislation, so I can't produce evidence to back myself up on this. You're quite right that it is within anyone's power to change ISPs. Want to guess how long it'll take IRMA to take this same action against other ISPs? They've already announced that they're doing so with relation to the 3 strikes/disconnection issue (which I have no problem with at all).

    I have no doubt that they WILL follow suit, at which stage we'll have nationally imposed censorship which, in my understanding as stated below, will not be subject to judicial review.
    Sparks wrote: »
    And due judicial review is not being sidestepped either, the courts still have to sign off on all of this.

    It's my understanding that applications for censorship will only undergo review when they are challenged
    http://www.sbpost.ie/post/pages/p/story.aspx-qqqt=NEWS-qqqs=news-qqqid=39782-qqqx=1.asp
    Under the terms of an agreement between Eircom and Irma, Eircom will not oppose any court application, meaning that the orders will be automatically granted.


  • Options
    #334
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,470 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    CiaranC wrote: »
    Whoosh. There is nowhere on earth where the critical mass of people come anywhere close to accepting knife violence as the norm, nor will there ever be. An increasing number of people see no harm in duplicating binary data, one is slightly more benign than the other, no?

    Both drink and smoking are used by the vast population in almost all of the world, yet smoking bans have come into place and stronger drink laws have already come in and will get stronger as time goes by.

    Critical mass means nothing if its illegal, it simply means people are disrespectful of the laws that society are govern by. Just because people see no harm in it doesn't mean its right,

    Many people see no harm in dumping, they see it as victimless the same as you see downloading a movie or album as victimless.

    However if you were involved in making that album it would be a different story you instead would be rightly fecked off about people who in your view are "stealing" from you.

    You expect albums for free or for 2e yet other then basically nameless bands I don't see any proof that actual bands want this. Bands want the money and there';s sweet feck all money to be made from 2e an album or giving away ALL of your music unless you constantly do concerts.

    Sure radiohead did their little experiment but its easy know it didn't work because now they are selling their album the same as everyone else on iTunes etc for the same prices as everyone else.

    Although you refuse to get into it your morals come into question here because they are the basis in which you think its ok to break the law, as such your morals are twisted and you attempt to back this up by saying "sure everyone else does it"

    Its very clear your clueless in respect of this and no matter what anyone says here you will continue to trust your twisted fecked up morals and try justify it to yourself as much as you can.

    Your a lost cause,


  • Options
    #335
    CiaranC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,300 ✭✭✭CiaranC


    Your reaction to this is amusing Cabaal. You must be a very angry man if you consider there are tens of hundreds of millions just like me out there with "twisted morals".
    Both drink and smoking are used by the vast population in almost all of the world, yet smoking bans have come into place and stronger drink laws have already come in and will get stronger as time goes by.
    Drinking and smoking are not illegal.
    Many people see no harm in dumping, they see it as victimless the same as you see downloading a movie or album as victimless.
    Where are these countless millions who see no harm in dumping?
    You expect albums for free or for 2e yet other then basically nameless bands I don't see any proof that actual bands want this. Bands want the money and there';s sweet feck all money to be made from 2e an album or giving away ALL of your music unless you constantly do concerts.
    What bands want or dont want is irrelevant. I want people to give me money for playing video games and drinking beer, unfortunately thats not going to happen.
    Although you refuse to get into it your morals come into question here because they are the basis in which you think its ok to break the law, as such your morals are twisted and you attempt to back this up by saying "sure everyone else does it"
    Morals are subjective. I dont think its particularly immoral to duplicate something. So shoot me. I notice youve twice ignored when I asked would it be ok to duplicate food to give to the poor and end hunger, even if it costs food producers.
    Its very clear your clueless in respect of this and no matter what anyone says here you will continue to trust your twisted fecked up morals and try justify it to yourself as much as you can.
    Im hardly clueless on it, Im just stating my opinion on it on an Internet forum like you are (I hope youre not at work and STEALING your employers time Cabaal! ;)). Im trying to frame my opinion on it honestly. I really dont think its a huge deal to most people and I think the censorship angle introduced by IRMA is far more sinister and harmful.


  • Options
    #336
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,470 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    CiaranC wrote: »
    Your reaction to this is amusing Cabaal. You must be a very angry man if you consider there are tens of hundreds of millions just like me out there with "twisted morals".

    Again hgere you go with the "everyone else does it so its ok",
    :rolleyes:

    Drinking and smoking are not illegal.

    Smoking is illegal in work places, people can now be fined for drinking on streets.......

    Both of which would be unimaginable 20 years ago...especially the smoking ban...hell even 10 years ago people would have said it will never happen in Ireland, Scotland, England, etc


    Where are these countless millions who see no harm in dumping?.

    Numerous third world and industrialized nations (including Ireland..ever drop litter on the street CiaranC) have issues with illegal dumping and littering,

    I'm sure between the employees who do it/allow it to happen and normal households that do it there's easy a good few million perhaps billion that do it....so I guess its ok to do it then because they think its ok?

    What bands want or dont want is irrelevant. I want people to give me money for playing video games and drinking beer, unfortunately thats not going to happen.

    Right ok, atleast make a logical comparison instead of this nonsense.
    :rolleyes:

    Morals are subjective. I dont think its particularly immoral to duplicate something. So shoot me. I notice youve twice ignored when I asked would it be ok to duplicate food to give to the poor and end hunger, even if it costs food producers.

    Its not a comparable comparison, your talking about stopping somebody from starving to death everyone else is talking about somebody who obviously has enough money for internet access and should save for something if they want it and not just "steal" it and think thats ok.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #337
    Sparks
    Registered Users Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    CiaranC wrote: »
    Drinking and smoking are not illegal.
    Except when you're driving or in the workplace or in any one of a number of other situations, of course...
    What bands want or dont want is irrelevant. I want people to give me money for playing video games and drinking beer, unfortunately thats not going to happen.
    Funnily enough, that is precisely the same sentiment that IRMA and Eircom have towards you :D
    I dont think its particularly immoral to duplicate something.
    Most Treasury departments worldwide would disagree :D
    I notice youve twice ignored when I asked would it be ok to duplicate food to give to the poor and end hunger, even if it costs food producers.
    Even when those food producers are earning in the bottom quartile, like the free trade producers? Is it okay to duplicate sugar cane or coffee beans taking away the only earnings of the exceptionally poor? I think you need better analogies.
    I think the censorship angle introduced by IRMA is far more sinister and harmful.
    Blah, blah, blah. What are you going to do about it? Have you changed ISPs? Have you written to DRI? Have you donated to them, either in time or money or otherwise?


  • Options
    #338
    Sparks
    Registered Users Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    PaddyTheNth wrote: »
    I don't have extensive knowledge of the relevant legislation, so I can't produce evidence to back myself up on this. You're quite right that it is within anyone's power to change ISPs.
    Just out of interest, aside from myself, who else changed ISPs from Eircom over this issue?
    Want to guess how long it'll take IRMA to take this same action against other ISPs? They've already announced that they're doing so with relation to the 3 strikes/disconnection issue (which I have no problem with at all).
    I would guess as little time as possible. The point I had remains; concern at this development should see an upsurge in communications with (and donations to) the relevant bodies, such as Digital Rights Ireland.
    Yelling that Eircom is censoring people, IRMA is evil and boards.ie is communist... well, it's sound and fury, signifying nothing.
    It's my understanding that applications for censorship will only undergo review when they are challenged
    My understanding was different, but I'm open to correction from a solicitor, barrister or judge:
    Iago wrote: »
    IRMA believe that thepiratebay is an illegal site. They will have to build a case to prove this, then they take that to a court and the judge agrees with them or doesn't.
    If the judge agrees and places a court order then eircom and every other ISP will have no choice but to abide by that order.
    All that eircom seem to have said is that if IRMA put that case together then eircom won't lodge an objection before the case is heard. Their objection wouldn't have been on behalf of the site anyway, but rather on the whole "ISP is just a conduit and is therefore not responsible for policing file sharing on it's network" which clearly they should be.


  • Options
    #339
    PaddyTheNth
    Registered Users Posts: 605 ✭✭✭PaddyTheNth


    Sparks wrote: »
    Just out of interest, aside from myself, who else changed ISPs from Eircom over this issue?
    I will be, just as soon as I can research who can provide me with the best combination of pricing and service for 3mb broadband :)
    Sparks wrote: »
    I would guess as little time as possible. The point I had remains; concern at this development should see an upsurge in communications with (and donations to) the relevant bodies, such as Digital Rights Ireland.
    Yelling that Eircom is censoring people, IRMA is evil and boards.ie is communist... well, it's sound and fury, signifying nothing.
    I can't argue with the first part of that. I agree that hysteria solves nothing. The fact also remains that Eircom is censoring people, be it for sound corporate law reasons or otherwise.

    I wonder could Iago provide source for his opinion by way of citation or experience in the legal system...if he is correct in what he says then I have little argument with what is going to happen here.


  • Options
    #340
    Sparks
    Registered Users Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    I will be, just as soon as I can research who can provide me with the best combination of pricing and service for 3mb broadband
    I can't say if they're the best about, but I chose BT myself for the 7.6Mb (upgrading to 24Mb Real Soon Now apparently...)


  • Options
    #341
    Mathiasb
    Registered Users Posts: 425 ✭✭Mathiasb


    Cabaal wrote: »

    Right ok, atleast make a logical comparison instead of this nonsense.
    :rolleyes:

    It's logical. If no ony buys the CD/DVDs, that means that they don't want them. People download the files instead. Give them the opportunity to purchase music online with good deals, no drm, and great quality. I'd start buying.

    If people stopped buying hamburgers, McDonald's wouldn't go to the police, they'd go bankrupt.

    The music industry has to ADAPT to their customers, or they'll lose them.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #342
    MOH
    Registered Users Posts: 6,464 ✭✭✭MOH


    Sparks wrote: »
    MOH wrote:
    While the contract might prohibit you from downloading copyright material, I'm pretty sure it doesn't prohibit you from visiting any site.
    Actually, it does - child pornography would be the obvious example.

    Don't think it actually does. You couldn't actually download anything, but if the front page of such a site held no offensive material, there's nothing stopping you visting it. In Eircoms T+Cs that is - whatever other legal trouble you might be in.
    Eircom BB T+Cs wrote:
    5.3 Customers may not use the Facility to create, host or transmit
    offensive or obscene material, or engage in activities, which are likely to cause offence to others on any grounds including, but not limited to race, creed or sex.

    There's also:
    5.5 Customers may not use the Facility to create, host or transmit
    material, which infringes the intellectual property rights including, but not limited to, the copyright of another person or organisation.
    5.6 Customers may not use the Facility to engage in activities, which
    infringe proprietary rights in any software.
    There's no restriction I can see on receiving copyright material. If 5.5 was worded more like 5.6 then there would be.

    And finally:
    9. The Customer shall indemnify eircom against all claims made against
    eircom, for loss, damage or injury to any person or property occasioned by
    or arising from the use of the Facility by the Customer.
    So what's the problem? Why roll over for IRMA when they could just make IRMA prove copyright infringement, and pass any costs on to the person responsible?


    CiaranC wrote: »
    Nonsense, Im merely stating that anyone generating revenue which relies entirely on an obsolete distribution models should face the reality of the new paradigm. IRMA are not content producers, the artists signed to their member labels are, and musicians will continue to produce music one way or another. Video producers have television and movie theatre mediums to deliver their content, which is something people are happy to pay for.
    How does the music industry rely entirely on an obsolete distribution model? There's loads of sites online I can legally buy music.
    Software is now sold as a service, in a package with Support.
    Huh? Eh, in general, no, it's not.
    Youre argument here is just silly, get rid of public order offences because people get drunk, what has that got to do with copying a file?

    Nothing. It's to do with your claim that once some "critical mass" of people behave a certain way, it should be legalised. I was pointing out how daft that is - glad you agree.


  • Options
    #343
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,470 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    Mathiasb wrote: »
    It's logical. If no ony buys the CD/DVDs, that means that they don't want them. People download the files instead. Give them the opportunity to purchase music online with good deals, no drm, and great quality. I'd start buying..

    If a company produces a product and attempts to sell it and nobody buys it then fine the product must be crap..makes sense right?
    I know I agree with this

    HOWEVER if a company produces a product say DVD burning software and they sell it but nobody buys it and its leaked onto P2P networks and 1000's or millions of people get it you have to ask yourself this

    Why did they download it, if they downloaded it it means they wanted it and if they wanted it then surely they should have paid for it as the company put in the time to produce it etc Do you not agree with this?

    People here are constantly saying the music industry needs to change but yet people will still pirate software programs which are excellent and cost perhaps 10e-30e.

    A really good example is Clone DVD which I use to backup my sisters kids DVD's so the kid can use the copys and the boxed versions won't be scratched to ****e....

    Clone DVD costs around 27e and is available easily from http://www.slysoft.com/en/clonedvd.html, its an excellent piece of software and I have had a license for it for over two years which I had no problem paying for. However it is also a widespread pirated piece of software on many P2P networks and bittorrent trackers. (I'm sure you can easily verify this if you need to)

    This isn't just limited to the likes of CloneCD this applys to hundreds and thousands of quality applications and games over the years that have been pirated but are available for very reasonable prices and can easily be obtained through legal means (another example is games on steam which are priced pretty well and yet are still pirated)

    Why are they pirated you may ask, my view and the view of others is people are too cheap to pay and still want all the benefits without spending the money.

    This is why the industry calls it stealing as they view it like a consumer wanting a 28e TV but who is not willing to pay the money for it so they obtain it by other non-legal means.

    Id seriously be interested to hear your thoughts on this Mathiasb?
    :)


  • Options
    #344
    Sparks
    Registered Users Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    MOH wrote: »
    Don't think it actually does. You couldn't actually download anything, but if the front page of such a site held no offensive material, there's nothing stopping you visting it. In Eircoms T+Cs that is - whatever other legal trouble you might be in.
    In Eircom's T&C's, there this section:
    5.10 Without prejudice to the foregoing, the Facility may only be used by Customers in accordance with eircom net’s Acceptable Usage Policy available at www.eircom.net.
    And when you look up that Usage policy you find this:
    4.4 eircom net services may not be used for any activity, which contravenes the laws of Ireland, or any other applicable jurisdiction.
    Go to a kiddie porn site, in other words, and you're in violation of your T&C's (as well as other applicable laws).


  • Options
    #345
    NullZer0
    Registered Users Posts: 1,629 ✭✭✭NullZer0


    I just want online, uncensored freedom - the way the internet was meant to be.

    To be honest Im not interested in Pirating music or movies one bit even though I pirate other things.


  • Options
    #346
    Mathiasb
    Registered Users Posts: 425 ✭✭Mathiasb


    Cabaal wrote: »
    If a company produces a product and attempts to sell it and nobody buys it then fine the product must be crap..makes sense right?
    I know I agree with this

    HOWEVER if a company produces a product say DVD burning software and they sell it but nobody buys it and its leaked onto P2P networks and 1000's or millions of people get it you have to ask yourself this

    Why did they download it, if they downloaded it it means they wanted it and if they wanted it then surely they should have paid for it as the company put in the time to produce it etc Do you not agree with this?

    People here are constantly saying the music industry needs to change but yet people will still pirate software programs which are excellent and cost perhaps 10e-30e.

    A really good example is Clone DVD which I use to backup my sisters kids DVD's so the kid can use the copys and the boxed versions won't be scratched to ****e....

    Clone DVD costs around 27e and is available easily from http://www.slysoft.com/en/clonedvd.html, its an excellent piece of software and I have had a license for it for over two years which I had no problem paying for. However it is also a widespread pirated piece of software on many P2P networks and bittorrent trackers. (I'm sure you can easily verify this if you need to)

    This isn't just limited to the likes of CloneCD this applys to hundreds and thousands of quality applications and games over the years that have been pirated but are available for very reasonable prices and can easily be obtained through legal means (another example is games on steam which are priced pretty well and yet are still pirated)

    Why are they pirated you may ask, my view and the view of others is people are too cheap to pay and still want all the benefits without spending the money.

    This is why the industry calls it stealing as they view it like a consumer wanting a 28e TV but who is not willing to pay the money for it so they obtain it by other non-legal means.

    Id seriously be interested to hear your thoughts on this Mathiasb?
    :)

    I can't speak for CloneDVD since I only use free software myself, but I get your point.

    Yes, people who pirate software are lazy and cheap. But NO, one downloaded copy of CloneDVD does NOT equal one lost sale for that company. So they don't lose money per every download which is what the companies are trying to say, which is what nags me.

    Just because people download, for example, Top250 IMDB doesn't mean they'd go out and buy every movie on there.

    It's wrong, though. If the music industry want to keep making money, give 50% to the artists and 50% to the rest, whatever that may be. Has there been a decline in CD and DVD sales? Then lower the prices, remove the DRM and trailers and that other crap, which treats you like a criminal. (if you BUY the DVD, why should you have to watch 2342323423 warnings from FBI/whatever saying that copying the DVD is illegal? You gave them your money, right?)

    Earlier in the thread I've given an example of how the artists could make money (note: not the record companies - they are not needed unless the artists need their services, like ads etc), which was along the lines of Spotify or LastFM. With LastFM you can pay a subscription fee every month or so and listen to your music much like a radio, except you get to choose the songs. This works.

    The people that used to buy DVDs and CDs are still gonna do it if they really want it in a physical format. It's just that, I don't want it in a physical format because my laptop is connected to my stereo (or I use my Squeezebox), or I play the music on my phone. If they want to have my money, then they should enable me to buy the music for a good price, DRM-free, high quality, let me copy it to all my devices (why should I have to buy that album for that PC, buy it again for my MP3 player, then for my CD player, etc?).


  • Options
    #347
    nilhg
    Registered Users Posts: 5,133 ✭✭✭nilhg


    Sparks wrote: »
    The issue here isn't really simple, and what you posted there isn't what's happening. What's happening is that one commercial organisation, bound by company law to safeguard its profits for the benefit of its shareholders (not its customers) has struck a deal with another commercial organisation, also bound by company law to act in the best interests of its shareholders (rather than its customers), in order to streamline the path through the court system taken by the first commercial body in order to seek sanctions against the customers of the second who violate copyright laws on the products of the first.

    Whether or not you think Eircom is right to have struck this deal is irrelevant, because you do not sit on the board of Eircom. You're a customer of theirs, bound by the contract for service you signed with them which prohibited you from doing what IRMA are complaining about in the first place.

    And this nonsense that Eircom should have "stuck up for their customers" is exactly that. Eircom is a private commercial company, whose directors are bound by law to look out for the shareholders - not the customers. They have absolutely no requirement, no mandate and no right to take court cases to decide on basic rights on the internet for everyone else. That job is the job of customer rights groups and groups like Digital Rights Ireland and Ireland Offline and groups like that, who are independent from service providers like Eircom.

    Feck's sake, it's like saying that bus drivers should be bringing in more bus routes and more buses for the city. You are yelling yourself blue at the wrong people.

    Where did I mention Eircom?

    IRMA want the courts to stop people accessing sites which hold legal material (OK I know that they hold much more illegal stuff).

    If people in this country download copyright material then IRMA can follow then for loss and damages, in the same way as every other organisation and citizen.

    This is not about filesharing, its much bigger than that, look at the state this country is in ATM, caused by big commercial concerns doing as they liked in the pursuit of immediate profit, should our courts bow down and say yes sir, what can we do for you sir, to IRMA?

    Next thing we'll be banging up people cause of what they might do.


  • Options
    #348
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,470 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    iRock wrote: »
    I just want online, uncensored freedom - the way the internet was meant to be.

    To be honest Im not interested in Pirating music or movies one bit even though I pirate other things.

    The Internet was created as a network to share resources in respect of military and science, it was not created as a wild west where you could say and do anything you wanted.

    It did however create its own system of sites and resources that changed over the years and allowed "freedom of speech" etc but it was not built with this in mind at the beginning


  • Options
    #349
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,470 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    Mathiasb wrote: »
    I can't speak for CloneDVD since I only use free software myself, but I get your point.

    Yes, people who pirate software are lazy and cheap. But NO, one downloaded copy of CloneDVD does NOT equal one lost sale for that company. So they don't lose money per every download which is what the companies are trying to say, which is what nags me.

    Can you not see the industrys logic though?
    If you didn't want it and didn't have an interest in it then why did you download it? If you wanted it and had an interest in it why did you not buy it instead?

    As such the industry see's this as somebody too cheap to buy the item but they still wanted it

    Just because people download, for example, Top250 IMDB doesn't mean they'd go out and buy every movie on there.

    IMDB is not about sales and is about movie ratings from bought, rental and cinema viewings
    It's wrong, though. If the music industry want to keep making money, give 50% to the artists and 50% to the rest, whatever that may be. Has there been a decline in CD and DVD sales? Then lower the prices, remove the DRM and trailers and that other crap, which treats you like a criminal. (if you BUY the DVD, why should you have to watch 2342323423 warnings from FBI/whatever saying that copying the DVD is illegal? You gave them your money, right?)

    Thousands of songs at decent quality on iTunes with no DRM I'm surprised nobody is suggesting this. Also iTunes albums are much cheaper then a CD.

    Take Radiohead, they manage themselfs and their music is on iTunes at the normal prices which means they are getting the money yet people still pirate it....surely that makes no sense?
    Earlier in the thread I've given an example of how the artists could make money (note: not the record companies - they are not needed unless the artists need their services, like ads etc), which was along the lines of Spotify or LastFM. With LastFM you can pay a subscription fee every month or so and listen to your music much like a radio, except you get to choose the songs. This works.


    The industry has tried this....remember when the Napster modeled relaunched...nobody wanted this model of getting music.

    You can't expect to pay say a 15e subscription and download 1000's of songs for that price on a subscription model. You have to cover production costs, bandwidth, hosting, advertising, travel etc

    Also its not upto the consumer to decide how they get an artists work its upto the artists to decide this,

    Its the same as if I have a photo and I want to sell it to people I decide the format size etc and any changes would be agreed with the consumer if they wanted it different.

    If the person just took it from me without permission and used it then I'd see them in court.


  • Options
    #350
    Sparks
    Registered Users Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    nilhg wrote: »
    Where did I mention Eircom?
    Ooooo, clever argument. I counter with my +5 question of "Where did I mention that I was talking to you?". :rolleyes:
    IRMA want the courts to stop people accessing sites which hold legal material (OK I know that they hold much more illegal stuff).
    Of course they do. Whether or not that's going to happen isn't down to IRMA or Eircom though; it's down to the courts. And neither Eircom nor IRMA are the groups to appeal to. Both of them are paid to have the opinions they have, argument will not dissuade them. What you need to do is to get DRI involved, and if you really feel there's a wrong here, put your money where your mouth is and donate to them (either with actual money or with your time) so they can fight the case on your behalf.
    And if you don't want to do that, then this doesn't really matter to you, and why the hell should anyone waste any further time discussing it with you?
    Next thing we'll be banging up people cause of what they might do.
    Take a read of the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act 1990 when you've a spare ten minutes - it did precisely that nearly twenty years ago.


  • Options
    #351
    PaddyTheNth
    Registered Users Posts: 605 ✭✭✭PaddyTheNth


    Cabaal wrote: »
    Can you not see the industrys logic though?
    If you didn't want it and didn't have an interest in it then why did you download it? If you wanted it and had an interest in it why did you not buy it instead?
    Tbh Cabaal the argument of one download = one lost sale is utterly ludicrous.

    There are plenty of good explanations of why it is invalid around, some of which I'll dig up if I get the chance this evening, but that argument only holds up when the downloaders in question all have an unlimited amount of disposable income.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #352
    nilhg
    Registered Users Posts: 5,133 ✭✭✭nilhg


    Sparks wrote: »
    Ooooo, clever argument. I counter with my +5 question of "Where did I mention that I was talking to you?". :rolleyes:

    The fact that you quoted me might do it ;)
    Sparks wrote: »
    Of course they do. Whether or not that's going to happen isn't down to IRMA or Eircom though; it's down to the courts. And neither Eircom nor IRMA are the groups to appeal to. Both of them are paid to have the opinions they have, argument will not dissuade them. What you need to do is to get DRI involved, and if you really feel there's a wrong here, put your money where your mouth is and donate to them (either with actual money or with your time) so they can fight the case on your behalf.
    And if you don't want to do that, then this doesn't really matter to you, and why the hell should anyone waste any further time discussing it with you?

    So IRMA have nothing to do with the fact that they are taking a injunction?

    As for my interest in this, you can be sure that I'll figure out some way to have my opinion heard......

    Thanks for the suggestion though.
    Sparks wrote: »
    Take a read of the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act 1990 when you've a spare ten minutes - it did precisely that nearly twenty years ago.

    Bit of a difference between shooting and bombing and downloading the next episode of Heroes .


  • Options
    #353
    blubloblu
    Registered Users Posts: 1,226 ✭✭✭blubloblu


    I wonder what effect the Italian precedent will have on this? IFPI tried to do the exact same thing, but the courts overruled it because blocking people access to certain Internet sites is illegal. http://torrentfreak.com/court-deems-pirate-bay-block-to-be-illegal-081009/

    As an aside, it should be noticed that traffic to the site increased after the block. Banning things is a very bad way to discourage certain types of behaviour, it almost always backfires, especially on the Internet.

    Edit: Another link I always try to include whenever this topic is being discussed: http://www.eff.org/wp/better-way-forward-voluntary-collective-licensing-music-file-sharing
    It's a solution proposed since 2003 by the EFF, the ones you always see in the US standing up to the RIAA's litigation campaigns. They are currently trying to have a file-sharing trial broadcasted live to show the world how the record labels operate. Unsurprisingly, they do not want these proceedings to occur under the light of day.


  • Options
    #354
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,470 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    PaddyTheNth wrote: »
    Tbh Cabaal the argument of one download = one lost sale is utterly ludicrous.

    <SNIP> but that argument only holds up when the downloaders in question all have an unlimited amount of disposable income.

    Oh I get you, if the person who downloads has unlimited income then its not ok to download it because they should buy it as they can easily afford it

    BUT if your on limited income and can#'t afford to buy it you should download it for free.....
    wow....just WOW :rolleyes::rolleyes:

    Your living in a weird world,


  • Options
    #355
    Sparks
    Registered Users Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    nilhg wrote: »
    The fact that you quoted me might do it ;)
    And the fact that you were talking about what is happening now might identify that it's Eircom you're on about, but if you want to play silly buggers, I have the ignore button right here.
    So IRMA have nothing to do with the fact that they are taking a injunction?
    Who's taking what injunction?
    As for my interest in this, you can be sure that I'll figure out some way to have my opinion heard
    Grand so. And the principals will listen to your opinion, say they listened to the concerns of their customers, and then they'll file them away and get on with things. You really want to see this not happen? "Having your opinion heard" won't cut it. Go write to the Times or Indo letters page and get read by everyone - it won't change the deal.
    Bit of a difference between shooting and bombing and downloading the next episode of Heroes .
    The Act, had you read it, would have informed you that you can be arrested by a Garda for possession of an object (any object) with (in the Garda's opinion) intent to commit a crime (any crime). And in court, depending on the object, you may have to prove to the court that the Garda was wrong (in other words, you're not innocent until proven guilty).

    In other words, the situation you're so concerned about came into existance 19 years ago.


  • Options
    #356
    Mathiasb
    Registered Users Posts: 425 ✭✭Mathiasb


    Cabaal wrote: »
    Can you not see the industrys logic though?
    If you didn't want it and didn't have an interest in it then why did you download it? If you wanted it and had an interest in it why did you not buy it instead?

    As such the industry see's this as somebody too cheap to buy the item but they still wanted it




    IMDB is not about sales and is about movie ratings from bought, rental and cinema viewings



    Thousands of songs at decent quality on iTunes with no DRM I'm surprised nobody is suggesting this. Also iTunes albums are much cheaper then a CD.

    Take Radiohead, they manage themselfs and their music is on iTunes at the normal prices which means they are getting the money yet people still pirate it....surely that makes no sense?




    The industry has tried this....remember when the Napster modeled relaunched...nobody wanted this model of getting music.

    You can't expect to pay say a 15e subscription and download 1000's of songs for that price on a subscription model. You have to cover production costs, bandwidth, hosting, advertising, travel etc

    Also its not upto the consumer to decide how they get an artists work its upto the artists to decide this,

    Its the same as if I have a photo and I want to sell it to people I decide the format size etc and any changes would be agreed with the consumer if they wanted it different.

    If the person just took it from me without permission and used it then I'd see them in court.

    When I said "download IMDB Top250" I meant if someone downloaded the movies on IMDB Top250.

    About iTunes, no, it doesn't work. Is it really DRM free? I mean, can I get FLAC files of any album, copy it to any device that I want? (my laptop, my mp3 player, burn it on a CD and put it in my car)

    If not then I don't buy it.

    And don't get me started on the program itself (iTunes), it's so horrid, have you ever tried it on Windows? It cripples the PC and installs Quicktime etc. If I bought an album, I should be able to do whatever I want with it. Play it in any program. Put it on any device. Burn a CD and give to a friend (which is exactly what copying a tape is - and that's legal).


  • Options
    #357
    Mathiasb
    Registered Users Posts: 425 ✭✭Mathiasb


    Sparks wrote: »
    The Act, had you read it, would have informed you that you can be arrested by a Garda for possession of an object (any object) with (in the Garda's opinion) intent to commit a crime (any crime). And in court, depending on the object, you may have to prove to the court that the Garda was wrong (in other words, you're not innocent until proven guilty).

    In other words, the situation you're so concerned about came into existance 19 years ago.


    So. I can be arrested by Garda for posession of a PC, because it might be used to download copyrighted files, which is illegal.

    It's bit of a stretch - but it could happen?


  • Options
    #358
    PaddyTheNth
    Registered Users Posts: 605 ✭✭✭PaddyTheNth


    Cabaal wrote: »
    Oh I get you, if the person who downloads has unlimited income then its not ok to download it because they should buy it as they can easily afford it
    No, you have completely misunderstood me.

    The argument that one download = one lost sale is invalid because many people download things that they simply would not pay for...by lack of desire..."I wonder what XXX's new album is like but I really couldn't be bothered paying for it"...or by lack of ability..."I wonder what XXX's new album sounds like but I can't afford it"
    Cabaal wrote: »
    BUT if your on limited income and can#'t afford to buy it you should download it for free.....
    wow....just WOW :rolleyes::rolleyes:

    Your living in a weird world,
    I don't know where you are drawing that inference from. I didn't say it, and have in fact made my opinion on the subject of copyright infringement perfectly clear in this and other threads, but the fact that you read that into what I said makes you come across as illogically as the people you have (justly) accused of tinhattery in threads on this topic.


  • Options
    #359
    nilhg
    Registered Users Posts: 5,133 ✭✭✭nilhg


    Sparks wrote: »
    Who's taking what injunction?

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=59140740&postcount=1

    Might be worth reading the OP


  • Options
    #360
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,470 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    Mathiasb wrote: »
    When I said "download IMDB Top250" I meant if someone downloaded the movies on IMDB Top250.

    About iTunes, no, it doesn't work. Is it really DRM free? I mean, can I get FLAC files of any album, copy it to any device that I want? (my laptop, my mp3 player, burn it on a CD and put it in my car)

    If not then I don't buy it.

    Lets see...iTunes DRM songs
    - Copied to as many PC's as you want
    - Copied to as many PM3 players as you want
    - Burn to as many CD's as you want

    Don't believe they are in FLAC but I could be wrong (perhaps you should check apple.com/itunes), given the average joe doesn't know what FLAC is iTunes is selling to the normal joe on the street and selling DRM free songs without the restrictions which makes everyone happy.


    And don't get me started on the program itself (iTunes), it's so horrid, have you ever tried it on Windows? It cripples the PC and installs Quicktime etc. If I bought an album, I should be able to do whatever I want with it. Play it in any program. Put it on any device. Burn a CD and give to a friend (which is exactly what copying a tape is - and that's legal).

    I'd agree iTunes on Windows isn't perfect, its miles ahead on Macs though and feels alot less clunky and buggy and yes if you download a DRM free album then you can as you so put it "do what you want" :)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #361
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,470 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    PaddyTheNth wrote: »
    No, you have completely misunderstood me.

    The argument that one download = one lost sale is invalid because many people download things that they simply would not pay for...by lack of desire..."I wonder what XXX's new album is like but I really couldn't be bothered paying for it"...or by lack of ability..."I wonder what XXX's new album sounds like but I can't afford it"

    wtf, so its ok to download copyright material because you can';t be bothered or afford to pay....your still talking crap

    Just because you couldn't be bothered or are unwilling/unable to pay does not make it ok to download copyright material.......

    do you also see it as ok to download Windows Vista just because you can't afford it because your logic states its ok if
    a: you want to try it but can';t be bothered paying
    b: you want to try it but can't afford it

    Of course this is not about "trying it" the problem is people download it and keep it and never buy the real thing even when they do have the money.

    If your downloading something it means you want it and if you want it you should pay for it, for example...I want a new TV so I should pay for it

    We all want stuff for free but the world is not like that and we all can't live if everyone got everything for free


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement