[Article] Eircom to cut off Music File Sharers ..

Orion

sdevine89 wrote: »

Why would you stop its a three strike rule to really think there going to take the millions of people in Ireland to court. They will go after those who download to sell.

Law didn't even get passed in the UK cause they said how could they arrest teenagers in their bedrooms there is absoulty nothing to worry about

Also after talking to a solicitor they reckon that the fact that wireless internet is very hackable will get most people off

What? Can someone translate please? If I get the gist of the first paragraph then there is no court case involved. They won't be taking anyone to court - they will simply be cutting them off.

Sparks

Macros42 wrote: »

What? Can someone translate please? If I get the gist of the first paragraph then there is no court case involved. They won't be taking anyone to court - they will simply be cutting them off.

From the Sunday Business Post yesterday:

Irma, which represents major music groups EMI, Sony-BMG, Warner and Universal, is to begin compiling lists of websites that it claims are damaging its business. It will then apply for a court order, requiring Eircom and other internet providers to block access to these sites.

In other words, they are going through the courts. It's just that Eircom have agreed not to oppose them in court when they do so. But they're still going to get court orders.

Red Sleeping Beauty

Fred83 wrote: »

,but as usual there will be a crowd that will not pay for music..

And probably wouldn't have in the first place anyway!

RKQ wrote: »

This out of Court Agreement:
I understand where the record companies are coming from but if the price of CD's had been as cheap as US etc then downloads might not have become so popular.

We are the only country in Europe (or the world) with this type of "agreement".
It is true to say that we have always had a strong history of Censorship in this country. Look at the films and books that were banned for so long.

?

That's very true but that was the church's stronghold on the country, I think this is more to do with money. I'd accept though that the point still stands as our politicians seem to be so inept as they can't/don't like to stand up to corportations/BIIIIG Business

Donald-Duck wrote: »

I don't see why it can't be done, considering they have a child porn blacklist in England. Completely different levels of illegaility, but both are illegal.

Donald-Duck wrote: »

Are you sure about that? I was pretty sure that was for England, not Ireland.

Can I just be pedantic here and ask ye to clarify if you are talking about "England", "Britain" (England, Wales, Scotland) , "England& Wales" (the one legal entity) or the United Kingdom of Britian and Northern Ireland?

Infini wrote: »

This is the kinda crap that makes me hate the likes of IRMA RIAA MPAA etc. Id have to laugh tho if their case backfires due to violating some EU law on freedom of speech expecially if the pirate bay turns out as a victory for the defendants.

I think IRMA a few years ago sued about 12 people who had been using Limewire to download thousands of songs. Can't remember exactly when or what happened (might've been settled out of court) but they said at least 2 (or 3) of them were Dj'ing with the "stolen" music.

Cabaal wrote: »

Well we know if you own the CD and copy it to say a ipod this is basically "ok" as ipods are for sale, but you are correct when you say if you ripp a CD and then sell this CD you no longer own the rights to listen to the copy and its essentially no different then downloading this copy

If I buy a CD , rip it to my player/computer and then give away the CD to my neighbour .... how does that figure into things ?

Also, what about the second hand market ? Am I allowed sell a CD on ? To a second hand record shop who then make a profit from it?
It would be interesting if a judge where to say "well, if you're suing him then you need to sue everyone who rips their CDs, gives them away, sells them on ebay etc.

Donald-Duck wrote: »

That won't last long, because having poor wireless is your own fault. Like leaving your front door open and getting robbed.

It's like renting a house/flat but the landlord giving you a front door with a poor quality lock.

Donald-Duck

I'm not sure whether its England or the UK, it was mentioned in the news recently with regards to the BBC losing an old tv show.

Red Sleeping Beauty

It was probably the United Kingdom but Scotland has it's own Parliament so it may or may not have seperate copyright laws or a different approach to them. Probably not though, just curious really

My name is URL

There's a post about this on TorrentFreak - http://torrentfreak.com/music-industry-orders-bittorrent-blackout-090223/

ffs, Eircom roll over easier than a retarded dog when threatened with litigation. Isn't it in a businesses best interest to protect it's customers? What a joke.

CaptSolo

Upward Spiral wrote: »

There's a post about this on TorrentFreak - http://torrentfreak.com/music-industry-orders-bittorrent-blackout-090223/

ffs, Eircom roll over easier than a retarded dog when threatened with litigation. Isn't it in a businesses best interest to protect it's customers? What a joke.

No, in business' best interests is to get as much money as possible (and sustain its income). Getting in bed with record companies might help (get money or at least not loose it). Majority of people are unlikely to switch away from Eircom just b/c of its deal w. IRMA and therefore do not threaten Eircom's income.

It is in customers interests to protect their rights.

PaddyTheNth

Upward Spiral wrote: »

Isn't it in a businesses best interest to protect it's customers? What a joke.

It's the responsibility of the directors of Babcock and Brown to act in the best interest of their shareholders.

Nody

Donald-Duck wrote: »

I'm not sure whether its England or the UK, it was mentioned in the news recently with regards to the BBC losing an old tv show.

They have a similar list in Denmark for pedophilia, works great, they ban competly irrelevant web sites and you have no way of challenging it because the list is secret (to avoid people going around it intentionally). Oh and my all time favorite is the Thai one (also implemented against pedophilia), last year they did not ban a single pedophile web site but over 1000 of "anti monarchy" web sites.

To Cabaal, no, you are not allowed as per RIAA to rip a CD to your ipod because the owners of the copyright material have not give you the express permission to convert the media that way. This is per RIAAs own words when they challenge the right to make a back up of a CD/DVD/VHS (they are cheap enough to buy a new copy and unlikely to fail) or rip to a CD (you don't have the right but they have simply not chased people on it yet).

watty

The conditions companies put on packaging and in the content are not always legally enforceable.

No statement printed on packaging or contained in content can remove rights. They have to sue in court to prove their conditions are enforceable. Removing "fair use" won't be.

So lets not have red herrings.

Nody

MUSIC The iPod has revolutionised the way we listen to music, but it has also opened a legal minefield. “As it stands in Irish law, it seems to be illegal for you to make a private copy of a CD that you’ve bought, so it’s illegal to copy a CD on to your iPod,” says TJ McIntyre of Digital Rights Ireland. “Needless to say, the music industry would like to be in a position where they sold you the music once on vinyl, once on cassette, once on CD and they’d now like to make you pay for the privilege of listening to it on your iPod.”

In May, the British Phonographic Institute (BPI) recommended that the law be changed to reflect a new reality in which people routinely convert their purchased CDs into MP3s. However, Sean Murtagh of Irma, the Irish equivalent of the BPI, says it has no plans to make a similar recommendation here. …

Linky.

But lets take it one step further, lets qoute the law.

Copyright and Related Rights Act, 2000, Section 50 wrote:

(4) In this Part, “fair dealing” means the making use of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, film, sound recording, broadcast, cable programme, non-electronic original database or typographical arrangement of a published edition which has already been lawfully made available to the public, for a purpose and to an extent which will not unreasonably prejudice the interests of the owner of the copyright.

Above from here; the bolded section is mine obviously. This is what RIAA is arguing, that this is a to big impact on the copyright owners if people are allowed to transfer the material.

Cabaal

Nody wrote: »

Linky.

But lets take it one step further, lets qoute the law.
Above from here; the bolded section is mine obviously. This is what RIAA is arguing, that this is a to big impact on the copyright owners if people are allowed to transfer the material.

Actually in Ireland the RIAA is arguing nothing, its IRMA that is fighting for the music industry in Ireland. Two different organizations

watty

Nody wrote: »

[ the bolded section is mine obviously. This is what RIAA is arguing, that this is a to big impact on the copyright owners if people are allowed to transfer the material.

a) The RIAA or IRMA can argue what they like about fair use. They have to prove it in court. They don't decide what is fair use.

b) The copyright issue is not personal copies but out and out piracy/file sharing. Personal use is not an issue and you won't be sued.

c) This is irrelevant to the two main issues, which themselves are quite separate:

1) eircom cutting off people
2) IRMA getting sites blocked

The issues involved in
(1) are about people's IP getting reported in Copyright infringement. (Nothing to do with personal copies). The agreement doesn't much affect anything really as the the rights holders have no transparency on what eircom does with reported IPs and and never know who it is. eircom opened themselves to this by already having in the T&C that you must not use the service to infringe copyright.

(2)Is about IRMA getting sites blocked. That's not sensible or right. It's easily circumvented and not the job of the ISP. If IRMA don't like a Site, it's up to them to take that site to court. Site blocking can have unexpected effects. You must not block IPs as they can be shared. Even a domain name can be shared among different organisations. It's censorship, stupidity and wrong. It also has nothing to do with personal copies.

(*A personal copy is where you buy the CD /DVD and transfer it to a different device. If you sell or dispose the original the copy must be destroyed. Software is different as if you have 4 people in the house and install it on four PCs you should get four copies. Though many MS applications allow you to install on PC and laptop as long as you use both exclusively. Music or Video unlike software is a shared family experience. When you play the video, the entire family may watch. They don't each have to buy a copy, that's an example of "fair use".

Many retail DVDs and VHS tapes are played in Schools. Many USA Companies expressly forbid this on the insert played at start of video. However that does not make it law and Study is fair use)

jor el

Macros42 wrote: »

What? Can someone translate please? If I get the gist of the first paragraph then there is no court case involved. They won't be taking anyone to court - they will simply be cutting them off.

I couldn't quite understand it either, but there's nothing to suggest that IRMA are targeting individuals at this point.

Sparks wrote: »

In other words, they are going through the courts. It's just that Eircom have agreed not to oppose them in court when they do so. But they're still going to get court orders.

IRMA are going to petition the courts to get eircom to block access to certain sites. They are not getting court orders to search and seize, or to prosecute individual downloaders.

CiaranC

Mr.S wrote: »

While this is anoying, its not going to really DO much.

First of all, there are hundreds of torrent sites, i dout they will block all of them.

Second, Could you just not use a simple proxy, to access TPB to get the required torrent file, sure it would be slow, but only downloading that little file to get the download, and then turn off the proxy and use your normal internet to download the propper file via BitTorrent?

The point is not the technicalities, but the principles involved. Allowing a corporate body to allow/disallow what private citizens access on the internet is a disgrace.

thebman

It will just be a case that for every one they close down, 10 more will pop up. Same as napster and if it does end up with no decent place to go, a new method will start up to get around the problem.

Essentially there is a market for piracy and the market will find a way.

skelliser

sorry, my bad

CiaranC

Its not about downloading illegal content, its about connecting to a website which hosts files which may potentially allow you to download illegal content. Thats three steps removed from downloading illegal content.

Downloading illegal content is already illegal, if some law is being broken and IRMA wants to chase that individual, thats what we have a courts system and due process for.

Canis Lupus

Mr.S wrote: »

Why?

I mean yeah, your point would be fair if this wasn't about downloading illegal content, but thats exactly what we're doing.

It's not really the most appropriate analogy but it's like the police installing cameras in everyones house to " detect and prevent crime".

You COULD say that I don't commit crime so it's alright but then as you would agree it's something you wouldn't allow.

EDIT: It sets in motion something and you don't know where it will end is possibly a better ending for my post.

jor el

Mr.S wrote: »

Why?

I mean yeah, your point would be fair if this wasn't about downloading illegal content, but thats exactly what we're doing.

What IRMA should do, is prove the site's content is illegal, and then have the site shut down. What they're going to try to do, is have the site blocked, which will likely be easier and require less evidence. It is a worrying situation, as the site being targeted has no way to object, which they would if they were actually being sued.

97i9y3941

might backfire,i wonder will it be over senstive,anything containing downloaded material will be blocked,or as we already seen people are moving away from eircom in their droves because of this court case

My name is URL

Eircom have said they won't block sites without a court order -

http://www.pcworld.com/article/160114/irish_isp_we_wont_block_the_pirate_bay.html

Spear

Upward Spiral wrote: »

Eircom have said they won't block sites without a court order -

http://www.pcworld.com/article/160114/irish_isp_we_wont_block_the_pirate_bay.html

Eircom have also said they won't oppose the court order which makes them a formality.

Nody

Can we lock the other thread as the debate between this and the other thread have crossed paths over and over again. This not only makes it hard to keep track on the current thread, the person debating and the previous arguments used in the thread but in general it is the same people arguing in both threads on the same issue(s).

RKQ

There's another thread?
I'm only reading this one. Over 800 posts so far - pity to lock it!

Enjoyed article from Upward Spiral... interesting stuff.... thanks

PaddyTheNth

IMO the 2 separate threads are valid, because the issues are different.

I agree there's been a lot of crosstalk and confusion between them though.

jor el

Both threads closed, and discussion moved to here.