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

Torrent users beware

123457»

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,419 ✭✭✭nadir


    mm, yeah, in the end internet users will win.
    I just hope these companies dont cause too much hardship before they realise they are stupid and cant win.

    actually, just thinking, wouldnt it be fun, to... check this out.

    make it seem like you were uploading ****loads of copyright stuff. but in actual fact you are just uplaoding files with names the same as copyright stuff ( to various friends), someting about the right size, but just blank data, and try your best to get caught.
    then when they try to get you, you counter sue.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 17,208 ✭✭✭✭aidan_walsh


    Sure, because file extensions are all they'll be looking at. Not data footprints, MIME types, etc.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,573 ✭✭✭Infini


    nadir wrote:
    mm, yeah, in the end internet users will win.
    I just hope these companies dont cause too much hardship before they realise they are stupid and cant win.

    actually, just thinking, wouldnt it be fun, to... check this out.

    make it seem like you were uploading ****loads of copyright stuff. but in actual fact you are just uplaoding files with names the same as copyright stuff ( to various friends), someting about the right size, but just blank data, and try your best to get caught.
    then when they try to get you, you counter sue.

    Haha, play the greedy bastards at their own game, I like! :D


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 14,483 ✭✭✭✭daveirl


    This post has been deleted.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,489 ✭✭✭Pa ElGrande


    TORONTO - Ireland's tradition of granting full-time professional artists tax-free status on their income may be in for some changes.

    The country's Labour Party is suggesting that writers, artists and musicians earning more than 100,000 euros (about $156,000) a year should lose their tax-free status.

    The call for changes was prompted by Monday's release of new figures detailing about 1,500 people who benefited from the scheme between 1998 (when the country's Freedom of Information Act came into law) and 2001. Since 2002, all artists applying for the exemption have been informed that their names could be made public at some point.

    Labour Party finance spokesperson Joan Burton told the Irish Times that although she didn't want to make "a blanket judgment" about the scheme, she didn't "see an argument as to why [these artists] should not be making tax contributions to the state.

    "And maybe that money should be redirected towards struggling artists," she added.

    In his budget announcement in December, Irish Finance Minister Brian Cowen said that the artistic tax break is one of several schemes up for review by independent consultants this year. The review has yet to begin.

    The Irish Arts Council is arguing in favour of the artistic exemption, saying that it is needed to support struggling artists who make less than minimum wage and have an income that can vary drastically from year to year. According to the council, more than half of the tax-exempt artists in 2001 earned less than $15,600 a year.

    Introduced in 1969, the tax scheme has attracted a number of high profile artists to Ireland over the years, including novelist Frederick Forsyth, rocker Elvis Costello, and members of the band Def Leppard.

    The government estimates that the tax scheme costs approximately $54.7 million in lost taxation revenue each year.

    Source: http://www.cbc.ca/story/arts/national/2005/03/29/Arts/irishtax050329.html

    Net Zero means we are paying for the destruction of our economy and society in pursuit of an unachievable and pointless policy.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,489 ✭✭✭Pa ElGrande


    Spies trace music swappers
    By Kirsty Needham, Consumer Reporter
    December 3, 2004

    Hundreds of thousands of Australian users of Kazaa are being stalked online
    by the music industry's hired gun, an American company that tracks down and
    then remotely enters home computers it finds swapping songs.

    The Federal Court heard yesterday that the major record labels are also
    engaged in a program of actively disrupting the file-sharing network by
    bombarding it with billions of decoys and spoofs that pose as song files.

    The success of the spoof war meant as few as 7 per cent of a given artist's
    tracks found on the network were usable, according to record industry memos
    read out in court.

    Tom Mizzone, vice-president of data services for Media Sentry, said his New
    York company was asked in March 2003 to search Kazaa for users located in
    Australia and download evidence they were swapping copyrighted material. Up
    to 600 scanners were turned to the task, and the internet addresses of the
    users recorded and checked against a database of internet service providers
    in Australia.

    "You are spying on a person?" asked Justice Murray Wilcox.

    Mr Mizzone replied: "We look for people who are sharing or distributing."

    Media Sentry then returns 10 minutes later in an automated process and asks
    the computer to view the person's full collection of music files.

    Outside the court, Michael Speck, the general manager of Music Industry
    Piracy Investigations, said 300,000 Australian Kazaa users had been caught
    and sent an instant message that read "Internet file sharing is theft" and
    warned they had exposed their computer to outsiders.

    But although the US music industry last September sued 261 people it had
    tracked, Mr Speck said no legal action would be taken against individual
    file-sharers in Australia.

    Executives for BMG Australia and Sony Australia said under cross-examination
    that they had no knowledge of spoof campaigns conducted for their record
    labels by another US company, Media Defender.

    Damian Rinaldi, director of business affairs for Sony Music Australia, said
    someone else had drafted the wording of an affidavit he had signed that said
    spoofs made up only a small number of files on the network and had not
    limited illegal activity.

    But Media Defender reports and record company memos read out in court by
    Stephen Finch, SC, for Altnet, one of several defendants, stated nine out of
    10 attempts to access song files on file-sharing networks failed because of
    spoofs.

    Karen Don, director of legal and business affairs for Universal, said she
    was aware of the spoof campaigns but, because of the expense, "we are only
    able to do it for a very small number of titles at a time".

    Mr Finch said an email addressed to her in November 2003 read that
    protection by spoofing campaigns was still very successful and the average
    level of usable song files on the network had dropped to 6.7 per cent.

    Ms Don said: "It only relates to the very limited number of titles that are
    being protected."

    Just one or two of the latest releases would be chosen to be protected, and
    then only for a limited time, she said.

    A decoy is a file that looks like a song but plays only a repeated sound or
    a warning against piracy. A spoof points a user to a different internet
    address, and was likened by Justice Wilcox to a wild-goose chase.

    "The consumer gets frustrated ... there's nothing really there," Ms Don
    said.

    Earlier, 12 affidavits that demonstrated lawful use of Kazaa by musicians,
    universities and businesses were withdrawn by the defence after Justice
    Wilcox said any remedies granted to the record industry could not adversely
    affect the rights of others who legitimately supply products to Kazaa that
    did not involve copyright infringement. The judge said it was important that
    any legal remedy did not trespass on freedom of communication. "You are
    entitled to protect copyright. You are not entitled to control the
    internet," he said.

    Net Zero means we are paying for the destruction of our economy and society in pursuit of an unachievable and pointless policy.



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 61 ✭✭mimix


    i have heard unoffically today that all ISP's are going to fight IRMAs request for customer details.

    has anybody seen anything official


  • Registered Users Posts: 43,757 ✭✭✭✭Basq


    Didn't hear anything about this... but i really doubt it considering the fine for with-holding that information is pretty steep.

    And even if it was true.. i still think Eircom would sell us down the river in a minute! (not literally, of course!) :D


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,997 ✭✭✭The_Bullman


    and also considering that digiweb cut you off if you are downloading movie torrents I wouldn't hold much faith in the isp's


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,502 ✭✭✭MrPinK


    basquille wrote:
    Didn't hear anything about this... but i really doubt it considering the fine for with-holding that information is pretty steep.
    How can a company be fined for not giving out their customers' private details to some lobby group that just comes along and asks for them? They could only get fined if they refused to do it after being ordered to by a judge. Something that certainly hasn't happened yet.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 61 ✭✭mimix


    basquille wrote:
    Didn't hear anything about this... but i really doubt it considering the fine for with-holding that information is pretty steep.

    And even if it was true.. i still think Eircom would sell us down the river in a minute! (not literally, of course!) :D

    As it is only a Civil action and not Criminal, ISP's should not have to release information. Does the fine still apply for civil matters?

    Also has anybody been contracted by their ISP's to believe downloading and uploading copyrighted (and who is to say what is) material is illegal.

    What about the government have they explicitly told us that sharing data was illegal, how are we to know what is copyrighted or not unless we buy the CD/DVD with the printed warning.


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 8,679 Mod ✭✭✭✭Rew


    Coz they wont just ask for them they will get court orders for them and then go to the ISPs.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 58 ✭✭sillild


    Has anybody really been sued?
    Is the 13yr old girl in the US just a silicone Urban Legend?

    They are using fear.

    Fear is not working.

    What we know we learn from newspapers and websites.
    Independent news is just a facade for propaganda.

    In relation to Music and movies, there is not News Company on this earth that is not compromised.

    You can trace every News Corp/Company back to a media giant.

    Prove me wrong if you like.

    They have lost against the creators of P2P Software
    They are loosing again against P2P users

    They are now using pardon the cliché Scare Tactics.

    YOU CANNOT ADMINISTER THE INTERNET


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,509 ✭✭✭digitaldr


    Read your ISPs terms and Conditions!


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,462 ✭✭✭Peanut


    basquille wrote:
    ...
    And even if it was true.. i still think Eircom would sell us down the river in a minute! (not literally, of course!) :D

    And spread fear & uncertainty among their broadband users as to whether or not they would be next to be sued?

    Never mind your serial leechers, the bad publicity would affect the average household user who wouldn't have the time or inclination to police their teenager's p2p activity.

    I don't think they would be too quick to respond to something that would have a big negative hit on demand, that's not even mentioning the erosion of trust that would come about from providing details to an arbitrary industry organisation.


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 8,679 Mod ✭✭✭✭Rew


    http://go.theregister.com/feed/http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/04/19/bpi_p2p_lawsuits/
    A British judge today ordered five ISPs to name another 33 music file sharers. The individuals concerned had uploaded more than 72,000 music files to the internet, according to a statement by the BPI (British Phonographic Industry), which sought the court order as part of its broader legal offensive against illegal downloading on P2P networks.

    The ISPs concerned have two weeks to give the UK record companies' trade association the names and addresses of the file sharers. The case brings the number of people in the UK to face legal action for illegal file sharing up to 90. These people will face claims for compensation and the legal costs in pursuing them, the BPI warns.


Advertisement