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

AntiRip

Pub07 wrote: »

LOL come off it the lot of yez. Acting all concerned that Eircom are violating peoples human rights as they start 'censoring the internet'. The only thing that has you guys so worked up is that you will no longer be able to download thousands of Euros worth copyrighted material. You are trying to divert this issue into some freedom of speech argument, which some here have suggested this is the approach you should be taking, as you know you haven't a leg to stand on when it comes to your main issue which is defending your right to rip off copyrighted material.

My God! "What a silly silly post! No longer able to download thousands of euro" How old are you at all? Downloading or uploading will never stop on the internet because thats what it was built for. This is a censoring issue not anything else.

Mathiasb

AntiRip wrote: »

My God! "What a silly silly post! No longer able to download thousands of euro" How old are you at all? Downloading or uploading will never stop on the internet because thats what it was built for. This is a censoring issue not anything else.

The Internet was built to connect networks together, and thus computers. Probably meant to share information, not copyrighted material.

CiaranC

Pub07 wrote: »

LOL come off it the lot of yez. Acting all concerned that Eircom are violating peoples human rights as they start 'censoring the internet'. The only thing that has you guys so worked up is that you will no longer be able to download thousands of Euros worth copyrighted material. You are trying to divert this issue into some freedom of speech argument, which some here have suggested this is the approach you should be taking, as you know you haven't a leg to stand on when it comes to your main issue which is defending your right to rip off copyrighted material.

Anyone who know how to use a web browser can circumvent this nonsense and continue to download from the pirate pay. There are several other easier, faster and better ways to download any content you wish from the internet. People have an issue with the principal of this. Why is that so hard to grasp?

CiaranC

Mathiasb wrote: »

The Internet was built to connect networks together, and thus computers. Probably meant to share information, not copyrighted material.

Now that the internet exists, there is no practical difference between "information" and "copyright material". There is no measure anyone can take, legal or technical, to reverse that. The genie is out of the bottle, and it isnt going back in. The death of the music industry as we know it is inevitable, and frankly, Im glad.

Mathiasb

CiaranC wrote: »

Now that the internet exists, there is no practical difference between "information" and "copyright material". There is no measure anyone can take, legal or technical, to reverse that. The genie is out of the bottle, and it isnt going back in. The death of the music industry as we know it is inevitable, and frankly, Im glad.

I know. Though I don't think that the music industry is dying. Being reshaped, perhaps. Think of something like lastfm or spotify, where you can purchase albums (not just new ones, old ones aswell), and then you can stream them from wherever and whatever you want (pc laptop at home, from work, from your iphone, from any phone with internet access, or rather, any device with internet access), in at least 192kbps 44.1ghz, OGG, no DRM. For €2 an album, I might use such a service.

CiaranC

Sure, I agree, I said "the music industry as we know it". The like of IRMA only exist because they used to hold a monopoly on production and distribution of content. Production is dirt cheap now, and distribution is essentially free, so they are trying to litigate their monopoly back into place. **** them.

Cabaal

CiaranC wrote: »

Now that the internet exists, there is no practical difference between "information" and "copyright material". There is no measure anyone can take, legal or technical, to reverse that. The genie is out of the bottle, and it isnt going back in. The death of the music industry as we know it is inevitable, and frankly, Im glad.

Yeah thats lovely and all but if you download copyright material without permission you are breaking the law, simple...you can try twist it all you want but that does not change that very fact.

CiaranC

Cabaal wrote: »

Yeah thats lovely and all but if you download copyright material without permission you are breaking the law, simple...you can try twist it all you want but that does not change that very fact.

If I cross the street at a point other than a pedestrian crossing I am breaking the law also, but that doesnt really bother me either.

Cabaal

CiaranC wrote: »

If I cross the street at a point other than a pedestrian crossing I am breaking the law also, but that doesnt really bother me either.

So are you yet another person that dumb enough to admit to downloading copyright movies, episodes, music and software on a public forum....smart move..your bright. I'd suggest you ring your ISP and tell them this since it doesn't bother you.

May I suggest that if any campaign is started against site blocking that you not be involved as you'll only damage its image

Breaking and entering is also illegal but sure that wouldn't bother you if somebody did it to your house/flat....oh wait it would because that would actually affect you. Funny how people to give a crap and think its ok when it doesn't affect them directly.
:rolleyes:

Just like people who produce music, software and movies are pissed off when they expect money back on their investment and people effectively "steal" from them,

Anyway as I've said before anyone who is thick/dumb/retarded enough to turn this discussion into "its ok to download copyright music" needs to get out more as they obviously haven't a clue, this issue is about censorship and not about your ISP trying to block your fav warez site.

watty

Now that the internet exists, there is no practical difference between "information" and "copyright material". There is no measure anyone can take, legal or technical, to reverse that. The genie is out of the bottle, and it isnt going back in. The death of the music industry as we know it is inevitable, and frankly, Im glad.

That's nonsense.

The internet just makes it easier. The difference between Information and Copyright Information is the same as it always was.

The Music Industry is only one of many copyright holders. Read Animal Farm before you try to kill it, please, and before you throw a party because you are "glad".

CiaranC

Cabaal wrote:

..angry ranting...

:rolleyes:

Where did I admit I downloaded copyright movies, episodes, music and software?

I was merely comparing the act of jaywalking to that of downloading. Doesnt really bother most people, lots of people do it, and the likelihood of being caught or charged with it is negligible.

Cool your jets chief

Cabaal

CiaranC wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Where did I admit I downloaded copyright movies, episodes, music and software?

I was merely comparing the act of jaywalking to that of downloading. Doesnt really bother most people, lots of people do it, and the likelihood of being caught or charged with it is negligible.

Cool your jets chief

Oh I see what you did, your cool...no wai....
:rolleyes:

Jaywalking is nothing like downloading copyright material, just because lots of people do it does not make it legal.
Go to some third would country where lots of people steal, murder etc that does not make it legal.

You might want to untwist your mind because you have some issues with your morals.

CiaranC

watty wrote: »

Read Animal Farm before you try to kill it, please, and before you throw a party because you are "glad".

Ive read Animal Farm. How does it relate to this argument?

CiaranC

Cabaal wrote: »

Oh I see what you did, your cool...no wai....
:rolleyes:

Jaywalking is nothing like downloading copyright material, just because lots of people do it does not make it legal.
Go to some third would country where lots of people steal, murder etc that does not make it legal.

You might want to untwist your mind because you have some issues with your morals.

Im not going to get into an existential argument on morality with you. I dont see duplicating a group of ones and zeros which represent sound as a particularly big deal. Sure it upsets some people trying to create capital from monopolising distribution of it, i dont really care. Its an outdated model and it will soon die. Music existed before there were people like IRMA to sell it to us you know, artists created a living just fine.

I mean, its not like you could cause an accident while copying a file. Not like say, Jaywalking

Cabaal

CiaranC wrote: »

Im not going to get into an existential argument on morality with you. I dont see duplicating a group of ones and zeros which represent sound as a particularly big deal. Sure it upsets some people trying to create capital from monopolising distribution of it, i dont really care. Its an outdated model and it will soon die. Music existed before there were people like IRMA to sell it to us you know, artists created a living just fine.

Yeah grand thats your twisted view on things, I';d suggest that you now ring eircom and repeat all of the above and demand they do not block any sites you use for downloading copyright material.

They can do nothing more then agree with you, after all the music industry's model will die so its ok then...right? :rolleyes:

CiaranC

Well its a "twisted view" shared by several hundreds of millions of people on the internet, which you can see by connecting to any P2P service. Right or wrong, its here to stay.

Take that advert they annoyingly (broadcast to people who have just paid to see a movie, in a move typical of the MPAA etc.) play in the cinema every time you go: "You wouldnt steal a car" etc. Well to be honest, if I could duplicate a Ferrari exactly, and leave the original owner with his Ferrari, and not face any consequences for it, then maybe I would. And if I didnt, someone else certainly would.

Consider this: if the Star Trek replicator was invented today, and we had the opportunity to duplicate food and cure world hunger, would you oppose it and support legal measures by the producers of food to prevent it at all costs, up to and including damaging the civil rights of those looking to duplicate food?

Cabaal

CiaranC wrote: »

Well its a "twisted view" shared by several hundreds of millions of people on the internet, which you can see by connecting to any P2P service. Right or wrong, its here to stay.

Ah yes I see your logic, all the cool kids are doing it so its ok...thats your justification.

Its no wounder teenagers steal cars in some dodgy citys around the world and joy ride, all the cool kids they know do it so its ok to do it to. :rolleyes:

Take that advert they annoyingly (broadcast to people who have just paid to see a movie, in a move typical of the MPAA etc.) play in the cinema every time you go: "You wouldnt steal a car" etc. Well to be honest, if I could duplicate a Ferrari exactly, and leave the original owner with his Ferrari, and not face any consequences for it, then maybe I would. And if I didnt, someone else certainly would.

You would, use of Ferrari design/name without authorization at the very least.

As for startrek lets leave that kind of crap in the Sci Fi forum

Bottom line steal remains unchanged, its illegal and it breaks the law.

nilhg

Lots of heat and not much light here......


The issue here IMHO is simple, a commercial organisation wants to censor our internet connections for its own financial benefit even though it has the full force of Irish law behind it to seek redress for any damages it has suffered in the normal way.


This is the tip of a very slippery slope, I've emailed the minister to express my concern even though I've no faith that he will do anything.

CiaranC

Cabaal wrote: »

Ah yes I see your logic, all the cool kids are doing it so its ok...thats your justification.

Its no wounder teenagers steal cars in some dodgy citys around the world and joy ride, all the cool kids they know do it so its ok to do it to. :rolleyes:

Its not a "justification", its a statement of simple fact. When it became possible to copy music for no cost, any product that relied on copying and distributing music became untenable.

You would, use of Ferrari design/name without authorization at the very least.

The point is that I cannot duplicate a Ferrari at the click of a button, so Ferrari still have, you know, a business model. They dont need to enact laws to reverse technological advancement to protect their outdated revenue stream.

As for startrek lets leave that kind of crap in the Sci Fi forum

Leave out the star trek bit then. If I can duplicate food, and give it to the hungry, should I be allowed to or not?

Bottom line steal remains unchanged, its illegal and it breaks the law.

Bottom line is that when a critical mass of the population engage in an activity, keeping it illegal or making it more illegal is absurd. The law should reflect societal norms, not the wishes of draconian, luddite corporations seeking to make money out of nothing. Its like legislating against the printing press to keep quill makers in business: ridiculous.

PaddyTheNth

nilhg wrote: »

Lots of heat and not much light here......


The issue here IMHO is simple, a commercial organisation wants to censor our internet connections for its own financial benefit even though it has the full force of Irish law behind it to seek redress for any damages it has suffered in the normal way.


This is the tip of a very slippery slope, I've emailed the minister to express my concern even though I've no faith that he will do anything.

Well said.

Sparks

nilhg wrote: »

The issue here IMHO is simple, a commercial organisation wants to censor our internet connections for its own financial benefit even though it has the full force of Irish law behind it to seek redress for any damages it has suffered in the normal way.

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.

Cabaal

CiaranC wrote: »

Its not a "justification", its a statement of simple fact. When it became possible to copy music for no cost, any product that relied on copying and distributing music became untenable.

Try this then, copying copyright material and boards.ie isn't here to discuss illegal activity's and about how great they are...just as you wouldn't be thick enough to boost about going 180km in a 100km zone if you were driving when posting on boards.

PaddyTheNth

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.

You're quite right. But when you get down to basics, anything that is to Eircom's financial benefit is pretty much bound to be to the benefit of B&B's shareholders, so I don't think that how you've defined the situation is significantly at odds with what nihlg said.

Sparks wrote: »

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.

I don't think that's the case. Eircom's action in failing to oppose IRMA means that users of what is effectively a common carrier service - although Eircom have for some bizarre reason managed to have themselves excluded from that definition - are going to be bound by a censorship which is not subject to judicial review. As people who are going to be effected by that censorship we have a right to be concerned.

Sparks wrote: »

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.

Service provider. That's the key term here.

Sparks

Paddy you've utterly missed my point. Eircom's job is not to provide you with perfect service and to defend your rights to it. Their job is to earn money for their shareholders. Given that they make far, far, far more money from corporate customers (who don't use bittorrent all that much) than they do from private customers; and given that taking IRMA to court over the rights of those private customers would cost enormous amounts - for no financial return- the Eircom directors were bound by the Companies Acts, as amended, and by common law to find the cheapest way to cope with it. If they had decided otherwise, they could be taken to court by their shareholders, and their decision found to be ultra vires and thus nonbinding.

You're getting angry because you feel your rights are being abused; but your rights are not Eircom's job. There are other groups who have that purpose. Complaints and financial and manpower support should be going to them. Anything else is a waste of energy.

Nody

CiaranC wrote: »

Its not a "justification", its a statement of simple fact. When it became possible to copy music for no cost, any product that relied on copying and distributing music became untenable.

Copying the music still has a cost though, be it in terms of downloading, burning CDs etc. It is lower then before but the cost is still there. And that don't include the time spent to create it originally either.

The point is that I cannot duplicate a Ferrari at the click of a button, so Ferrari still have, you know, a business model. They dont need to enact laws to reverse technological advancement to protect their outdated revenue stream.

Did you vote? Did you raise your concern with your politicans? Did you speak to them?

Bottom line is that when a critical mass of the population engage in an activity, keeping it illegal or making it more illegal is absurd. The law should reflect societal norms, not the wishes of draconian, luddite corporations seeking to make money out of nothing. Its like legislating against the printing press to keep quill makers in business: ridiculous.

What is critical mass? If there are so many people in Ireland who want this what stops then a piracy party to start to sweep into government to get the laws changed? And if there is not enough people to sweep up the government (I'd doubt it would get past the electin barrier even but hey) what are YOU doing to change the attitude of the people in power? What have YOU done to lobby the government and ministers?

Or is whining on a online message board as far as you've been bothered to do anything and as far as you will go? You want a change? Then work on making it happen instead of complaining.

PaddyTheNth

Sparks wrote: »

Paddy you've utterly missed my point. Eircom's job is not to provide you with perfect service and to defend your rights to it. Their job is to earn money for their shareholders. Given that they make far, far, far more money from corporate customers (who don't use bittorrent all that much) than they do from private customers; and given that taking IRMA to court over the rights of those private customers would cost enormous amounts - for no financial return- the Eircom directors were bound by the Companies Acts, as amended, and by common law to find the cheapest way to cope with it.

We're definitely having a communication issue, because I said the exact same thing earlier in this thread, or another similar one in this forum.

Eircom are acting for their financial benefit. That's what I said, that's what you are saying (I think), and that's what nihlg said, although he did misrepresent it by implying that Eircom were initiating the censorship.

Sparks wrote: »

You're getting angry because you feel your rights are being abused; but your rights are not Eircom's job. There are other groups who have that purpose. Complaints and financial and manpower support should be going to them. Anything else is a waste of energy.

I fully agree that complaints and support should be going to the groups you refer to. 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.

CiaranC

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.

Hmmm, my understanding is that eircom are to block sites like TPB at the behest of IRMA. Helping IRMA prosecute copyright violators is an entirely different issue, isnt it?

MOH

Sparks wrote: »

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.

While the contract might prohibit you from downloading copyright material, I'm pretty sure it doesn't prohibit you from visiting any site.

CiaranC wrote: »

Its not a "justification", its a statement of simple fact. When it became possible to copy music for no cost, any product that relied on copying and distributing music became untenable.

CiaranC wrote: »

Im not going to get into an existential argument on morality with you. I dont see duplicating a group of ones and zeros which represent sound as a particularly big deal. Sure it upsets some people trying to create capital from monopolising distribution of it, i dont really care. Its an outdated model and it will soon die. Music existed before there were people like IRMA to sell it to us you know, artists created a living just fine.

What OS are you using - is it a version of Windows? Or have you ever bought any software/DVDs/music? Did you pay for it? If so,
why? By your logic, any software, video, or music should just be copied, no one should pay for anything, and the producers of it should just continue doing so for free.

Bottom line is that when a critical mass of the population engage in an activity, keeping it illegal or making it more illegal is absurd. The law should reflect societal norms.

O...K... So cocaine should be legalised for a start. Get rid of public order offences, since most people get drunk at some stage. Oh, and there's been an increasing amount of gun and knife-related violence over recent years, we must nearly be at the "critical mass" where that should be legalised too. :rolleyes:

Sparks

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.

Eircom are acting for their financial benefit.

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.

And due judicial review is not being sidestepped either, the courts still have to sign off on all of this.

CiaranC

MOH wrote: »

What OS are you using - is it a version of Windows? Or have you ever bought any software/DVDs/music? Did you pay for it? If so,
why? By your logic, any software, video, or music should just be copied, no one should pay for anything, and the producers of it should just continue doing so for free.

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. Software is now sold as a service, in a package with Support. IRMA exist because there previously was no other way for artists to create and distribute content, which is no longer the case.

O...K... So cocaine should be legalised for a start. Get rid of public order offences, since most people get drunk at some stage. Oh, and there's been an increasing amount of gun and knife-related violence over recent years, we must nearly be at the "critical mass" where that should be legalised too. :rolleyes:

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?

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?