IRMA fail to force UPC to block illegal downloads (Court Ruling)

Helix

Mousey- wrote: »

well most people who own an ipod have thousands of euros worth of illegal music. if you really want to stop music piracy do random scans of i Pods, an then the computers they were loaded off, itll never happen but could work

youd have to prove they were illegally obtained versions

all the person has to say is "yup, have all the albums there at home"

theyre not going to ask them to bring their cds in, and if they did youd just say "jaysus, would you believe ive no idea where they are. looked everywhere and cant find them. good thing i have this legal backup of my purchases on my ipod for such a situation!"

Helix

gizmo wrote: »

Simply allowing music to be streamed freely ensures that the potential customer can hear the music before they buy it and the artists IP remains intact, everyone wins so I don't see the problem with it at all.

streaming still downloads it though, and if you know how, you can find it on your computer. youre still downloading it

Terry

ScumLord wrote: »

I don't really consider most music to be art, a person I consider to be an artist was Da Vinci most of what he did was for his own benefit and curiosity and the rest of the world befitted from that.

I wouldn't pay for most music and find the advertising that aimed at children to be no better than propaganda that should be monitored, the fact is most music is well produced muck engineered for maximum sales. They don't deserve the money.

I agree to a certain extent.
I believe that people who play instruments, and compose their own music on said instruments are artists. I believe that people who compose words in a manner which pleases a lot of people are also artists.

People who appear on the x factor and the like are attention whores. They are only puppets of money hungry record companies. The unfortunate thing is that the talent behind the songs are paid very little money for their work, while the record companies make far more than they deserve.

Record companies are just advertising executive. Nothing more.

I get a lot of work through word of mouth. If someone gets me a lot of work or a big job, I'll throw them a few quid based on a percentage of what I earn.

This is basically what record companies do. They generate word of mouth advertising through larger mediums. There is no way that they deserve a larger percentage of the revenue than the artists they pimp.

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

great news, cant see eircom maintaining much customers in the future

Unfortunately they are the only viable option for me.
I live 10 miles from the largest city in the country, and less than 1Km from the Dublin border, yet I cannot avail of UPC's fibre line or Eircom's NGB (even though they are charging me for an 8Mb NGB line, but I'm still getting 7Mb DSL).
I had UPC's 20Mb line. It was about 14Mb in reality, and went down for hours about 3 times a week.
Apart from the really crappy router they gave me, and the line rental, I have no complaints about eircom.

Things were a lot different back in 1987.
There was one really big band who fought against the record company prices, but were defeated.
This band released an EP and only wanted to charge their fans $5.98 for it.
The record companies basically told them to piss off and charged the fans $10. The excuse was that "This is just the name of the EP".
By the time it got to Ireland, we were charged £15 or thereabouts.
To paraphrase Aldous Snow, "Go sue Napster, you record company twats!".
Click.

Money changes people for the worse.

BaconZombie

This proves that the figures the *IAA/IRMA/etc give out are bull****, plus Download DOES NOT = LOST SALE!!!!

"According to the RIAA, the Pirate Bay has stolen about 46 times more dollars than actually exist on Earth"

http://www.cracked.com/funny-4003-the-pirate-bay/?wa_user1=1&wa_user2=topic&wa_user3=topic&wa_user4=topics


Oh and Don't forget " Home Taping Is Killing Music "

And Floppy Disk Copying is Killing the Software/Games Industry :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up863eQKGUI

gizmo

Helix wrote: »

wouldnt you rather pay a fiver, all of which going to the artist instead of them getting pennies from your tenner though?

Oh of course, however realistically that won't happen. Who would pay for the recording sessions, the CD mastering, the cover art printing and the distribution? Then when it sells, who will pay for the touring? Bands simply can't afford that and hence need a label of some sort to front the costs.

The alternative is, of course, primarily digital distribution of all of their music. Without labels you still run into high recording and touring costs and then need to factor in additional promotion and hosting costs. With labels well all it would be is a change of format so I don't see how it could change things.

I also don't subscribe to the notion that the entire industry is bad. There are a bunch of smaller labels serving each genre who actually work hard for the bands that sign to them. Sure there is an emphasis on mass market appeal and commercialisation from the larger labels and that's something I can't condone, but why should the smaller labels and hence the bands they sign, suffer from some misguided desire to tear down the entire industry?

Helix wrote: »

streaming still downloads it though, and if you know how, you can find it on your computer. youre still downloading it

Even with services like Spotify there are ways the local cache of songs can be ripped, despite the difficulty in doing so but again that's another example of greedy consumers. They're now getting music streamed for free with the occasional short ad every couple of songs and yet they still want more?

Since when was Ashley Cole doing ads about piracy on floppy disc

shinfujiwara

gizmo wrote: »

This point has come up a few times and it continues to amuse me. It's basically saying it's okay if you break the law but not okay if they break the law to find out you're doing it. :pac:

Now you're just being or pretending to be stupid. If you really think that downloading songs, a worldwide act practiced by almost anyone, can be compared to the capacity to know the entire life of someone you don't even know... Well...

If they could in fact just know if you're downloading songs illegally, I wouldn't be too worried. Of course I still think they shouldn't, but I understand it's very different. But the fact remains: They can't do only that!

To be able to know you're doing it, they need to know everything you do... if you're OK with that you must have problems. Because I don't know a single person who would be dandy with this kind of thing. And since Ireland is supposed to be, or at least sell the image to be a democracy, that would be just dumb.

As you may have noticed, almost nobody would agree with you here on this forum or in the streets. Which means you're the minority, correct? So... whether or not you're the right or wrong person here, the majority is what matters in a democracy system. That's my point. This is well beyond you and me.

Warner Chappell concluded that the new release style was a financial success.

Last week, to celebrate the one year anniversary of World of Goo’s release, we decided to run a little experiment and for one week, offer World of Goo to the world for whatever price people want to pay for it. The birthday sale has been a huge success so far, and because of that, we are extending our little experiment/celebration until sunday, October 25.

That two quotes in the links provided by Butterbumps wasn't good enough for you, was it? Artists...

Helix

gizmo wrote: »

Oh of course, however realistically that won't happen. Who would pay for the recording sessions, the CD mastering, the cover art printing and the distribution? Then when it sells, who will pay for the touring? Bands simply can't afford that and hence need a label of some sort to front the costs.

home recording is insanely cheap these days, and you can do it to a phenomenally high standard if you know what youre at. a few grand split between band members - much less than studio time - would be sufficient to produce a high quality end result... with the caveat you know what youre doing

gizmo wrote: »

The alternative is, of course, primarily digital distribution of all of their music. Without labels you still run into high recording and touring costs and then need to factor in additional promotion and hosting costs. With labels well all it would be is a change of format so I don't see how it could change things.

you dont need a label to set up a tour. your management company could do that. thats one of the last things labels are trying to cling onto, but theyre not needed for it. there are alternatives

gizmo wrote: »

why should the smaller labels and hence the bands they sign, suffer from some misguided desire to tear down the entire industry?

they dont need to suffer, they just need to change with the industry. a lot of them are doing it quite well, others not so well. the big ones are COMPLETELY messing the change up, choosing to stick to their guns and fail miserably. there's room for inventive labels, but the old school style is dead, and thats no bad thing

gizmo wrote: »

Even with services like Spotify there are ways the local cache of songs can be ripped, despite the difficulty in doing so but again that's another example of greedy consumers. They're now getting music streamed for free with the occasional short ad every couple of songs and yet they still want more?

consumers always want more. its up to labels or bands to figure out how to get them to pay for stuff. someone will figure it out, and theyll make themselves a lot of money

gizmo

shinfujiwara wrote: »

Now you're just being or pretending to be stupid. If you really think that downloading songs, a worldwide act practiced by almost anyone, can be compared to the capacity to know the entire life of someone you don't even know... Well...

No I was referring to the reality of the situation where firms are hired to jump onto active torrents, pull IPs from the swarm and use that to identify people. Many argue that said evidence is legally insufficient to obtain a judgement against someone hence my point above.

They don't need to know everything you do on the internet in the slightest which makes the rest of your rant completely redundant but if it makes you feel any better I'd be completely opposed to that.

shinfujiwara wrote: »

That two quotes in the links provided by Butterbumps wasn't good enough for you, was it? Artists...

As for the these links, regarding the Radiohead issue we were simply debating different points, I was not referring to overall revenues, simply letting people pay what they want for content will never work because when given the choice, the majority of people will pay nothing for it.

As for the issue of piracy in games, I gave my counter argument to the World Of Goo link with the follow up Humble Indie Bundle story which involved the same game. There is also the issue of the initial piracy rates of WoG game being around the 80% mark from the developers. I could also give the Machinarium example where they recently had a "piracy amnesty" where they offered the game for 75% off due to an astronomical piracy rate initially. Bearing in mind this made the game $5 so even at full price and especially given the quality of the game, it was hardly ripping people off.

Helix wrote: »

home recording is insanely cheap these days, and you can do it to a phenomenally high standard if you know what youre at. a few grand split between band members - much less than studio time - would be sufficient to produce a high quality end result... with the caveat you know what youre doing

Home recording may be in far better shape than it was in the last number of years but it would still be a step down in terms of what bands could produce in a proper studio setting.

Helix wrote: »

you dont need a label to set up a tour. your management company could do that. thats one of the last things labels are trying to cling onto, but theyre not needed for it. there are alternatives

And then management companies are the ones who siphon off funds from the band and become the next target for people.

Helix wrote: »

they dont need to suffer, they just need to change with the industry. a lot of them are doing it quite well, others not so well. the big ones are COMPLETELY messing the change up, choosing to stick to their guns and fail miserably. there's room for inventive labels, but the old school style is dead, and thats no bad thing

And I completely agree with this, the industry as a whole needs to change, the major labels especially need to either do this or risk dying out. The smaller labels are adapting though, allowing their music to be licensed out to streaming sites and going for a more fan-driven approach. Hence my point, why call for the destruction of the industry as a whole when people's resentment is aimed at a small number of, admittedly large, companies?

Helix wrote: »

consumers always want more. its up to labels or bands to figure out how to get them to pay for stuff. someone will figure it out, and theyll make themselves a lot of money

Exactly and so I ask the same question I've asked before, what would it take to stop people from downloading music illegally? The answer seems to be nothing unfortunately, as long as it's there for free people will continue to try and take it so there's effectively nothing that can be done. All they can hope to do, according to some people, is offer it for free and hope people chose to pay for it. From an artists perspective, however, they simply can't live like that.

franklyshocked

Blocking access to music will kill the industry faster than "piracy"

Or file sharing.

minidazzler

TBH, I don't illegally download music anymore, haven't done so in nearly 2 years I think. But if UPC had introduced the 3 strikes rule, as much as I love their service, I would change services. I don't like the idea of my info being handed to anyone!

Helix

gizmo wrote: »

Home recording may be in far better shape than it was in the last number of years but it would still be a step down in terms of what bands could produce in a proper studio setting.

i respectfully disagree. im a big music tech head, and have studied both music tech and sound engineering, and some well spent money and a lot of knowledge will get you results that can sound better than all but the most highly tooled studios

gizmo wrote: »

And then management companies are the ones who siphon off funds from the band and become the next target for people.

not really. the management companies are the ones who put on the shows, theyre needed if you want to see the band - unless the band decide to do it themselves, which would be a logistical nightmare. no issue with them, labels do nothing the band couldnt do for themselves though

gizmo wrote: »

Hence my point, why call for the destruction of the industry as a whole when people's resentment is aimed at a small number of, admittedly large, companies?

its the big labels who are making the most noise about the whole thing. the smaller labels who are adapting are moving away from being what we traditionally call labels anyway, so i wouldnt class them in there. labels in the traditional sense are as good as dead, and only for their massive influence still hanging on theyd have been gone long ago - which, imo, would be far better for bands, consumers and music

gizmo wrote: »

Exactly and so I ask the same question I've asked before, what would it take to stop people from downloading music illegally?

if i had that answer id be a very rich man

gizmo wrote: »

The answer seems to be nothing unfortunately, as long as it's there for free people will continue to try and take it so there's effectively nothing that can be done

i dont think theres no answer to it, or that nothing can be done. look at the resurgence in vinyl sales for example, which has led to more and more releases on the format

gizmo wrote: »

All they can hope to do, according to some people, is offer it for free and hope people chose to pay for it. From an artists perspective, however, they simply can't live like that.

if theyre good enough, and smart enough, theyll make more than enough money from gigs. i think we've seen the end of obscenely rich bands however, apart from the ones who appeal to the teenybopper market (justin bieber for example pockets $300,000 per show)

Mark200

minidazzler wrote: »

TBH, I don't illegally download music anymore, haven't done so in nearly 2 years I think. But if UPC had introduced the 3 strikes rule, as much as I love their service, I would change services. I don't like the idea of my info being handed to anyone!

Eircom aren't handing anyones information to anyone.

BaconZombie

The Original Pirate....

gizmo

Helix wrote: »

i respectfully disagree. im a big music tech head, and have studied both music tech and sound engineering, and some well spent money and a lot of knowledge will get you results that can sound better than all but the most highly tooled studios

Interesting indeed. But surely the entire point of having studios is so that every band doesn't need to worry about this themselves? They simply go into the studio and, with the help of an engineer and producer, work on their album having paid for the privilege.

Helix wrote: »

not really. the management companies are the ones who put on the shows, theyre needed if you want to see the band - unless the band decide to do it themselves, which would be a logistical nightmare. no issue with them, labels do nothing the band couldnt do for themselves though

Surely the management companies aren't the ones who front the millions (a figure I don't agree with by the way) which go towards the larger world tours of artists? All you ever hear in interviews is "the label" did this and that. While management is certainly a part of it I never assumed they invested as much as the labels?

Helix wrote: »

its the big labels who are making the most noise about the whole thing. the smaller labels who are adapting are moving away from being what we traditionally call labels anyway, so i wouldnt class them in there. labels in the traditional sense are as good as dead, and only for their massive influence still hanging on theyd have been gone long ago - which, imo, would be far better for bands, consumers and music

While I'd be happy to see the larger labels loose their destructive influence I simply can't agree with the comments regarding the smaller labels. Smaller and independent labels such as Century Media, Nuclear Blast and Trustkill Records have not only helped artists get their albums recorded but also ensured that they are heard by fans who in turn know what labels to revisit when they want more music. I'd suggest going to some of the music sub-forums and asking around there to see if they'd like to see their preferred labels treated with either the same contempt or indifference as some would wish.

Helix wrote: »

if i had that answer id be a very rich man

Is it not telling that no one else has come up with it yet though? With the likes of online stores with wide selections of music such as iTunes, streaming services such as Spotify and Rdio and subscription services like Zune, are not all logical bases covered?

Helix wrote: »

i dont think theres no answer to it, or that nothing can be done. look at the resurgence in vinyl sales for example, which has led to more and more releases on the format

Quite true however I'd regard the people who would buy vinyl as the people who would be less likely to download music or, to be more precise, would probably fit into the category of customer described above - one who would pay over the odds for their favourite music.

Helix wrote: »

if theyre good enough, and smart enough, theyll make more than enough money from gigs. i think we've seen the end of obscenely rich bands however, apart from the ones who appeal to the teenybopper market (justin bieber for example pockets $300,000 per show)

If this were true and bands could make it on their own, or at least make enough money to survive, then why are there so many failed bands out there? Bands which would have been critically well received but simply couldn't keep going because they weren't making enough money to survive.

As for the Bieber example, the music snob inside me wishes he wasn't making as much money and that the amount of exposure he gets thanks to his labels would be redirected to more worthy musicians but at the same time, he's that popular because the teenyboppers love him and to deny them that would be equally wrong.

Sparks

Mikey23 wrote: »

Lest anyone has the time or inclination to read the judgment: http://www.scribd.com/doc/39104491/EMI-v-UPC

Folks really should read it; calling this case a victory for UPC is just plain wrong.
Charleton's judgement is... well, it doesn't make good reading. He basicly accuses UPC of planning illegal behaviour, he states that IRMA are correct, that piracy is destroying a native Irish business, he states that IRMA's detection software is accurate, and then goes on to say that he really, really, really wanted to hang UPC by the toenails but the Irish legislation won't let him do so and that that should be addressed. Hence the IRMA press release calling for lobbying of the Dail to do so.

http://www.michele.me/blog/archives/2010/10/11/is-the-upc-decision-a-victory/

nommm

I can't believe the record companies haven't copped yet that there's no stopping the big scary monster that is the internet from stealing all their money. They need to stop fighting it and adapt. If they had done that when this first became a problem they wouldn't be in the situation they are in now.

I admit that I download music illegally on a weekly basis but I also buy about 6 albums a month which is a lot more than my 'buys a few songs a month off itunes' friends. I remember the first album I downloaded illegally was Muse - Origin of Symmetry about 8/9 years ago. (I gave the family computer a virus in the process :pac:) But since then I've travelled half the world to see them, bought all their albums, singles, merch. I would have never heard of them if it wasn't for the internet and downloading. I can think of a lot of other bands that I've downloaded albums from that I've become a huge fan of after downloading and ended up buying countless gig tickets, cd's etc.

johnnyskeleton

Papa_Lazarou wrote: »

Would Eircom be able to appeal the judgement made on them because of this?

No.

By settling a case they have entered a contract to do certain things and not to permit illegal downloading etc. They are now contractually obliged to stick to that claim.

Really, it wouldn't have cost them all that much in legal fees compared to the loss in revenue to people moving to UPC.

Helix

gizmo wrote: »

Interesting indeed. But surely the entire point of having studios is so that every band doesn't need to worry about this themselves? They simply go into the studio and, with the help of an engineer and producer, work on their album having paid for the privilege.

i think the whole engineer/producer thing is changing too. most people who are into the music creation side of things tend to dabble in production these days, whether its just recording themselves and their guitar, or programming tracks - the drop in cost and increase in power of computers means that its possible for a fraction of the price it was even a few years ago. the way computer hardware is going you'll be able to have gear that outperforms the best studios in the world right now all contained in a single box within the next 5 years

gizmo wrote: »

Surely the management companies aren't the ones who front the millions (a figure I don't agree with by the way) which go towards the larger world tours of artists? All you ever hear in interviews is "the label" did this and that. While management is certainly a part of it I never assumed they invested as much as the labels?

a label function is to release and promote. if theyre doing the tour side of things too, thats an additional function that doesnt really fall under the label remit as such. it might be that theyre paying for these tour management companies to do it, but i foresee a time when theyre completely marginalised and you've got tour organisers who do nothing but

gizmo wrote: »

Smaller and independent labels such as Century Media, Nuclear Blast and Trustkill Records have not only helped artists get their albums recorded but also ensured that they are heard by fans who in turn know what labels to revisit when they want more music.

these are labels who have adjusted to the changing landscape though

gizmo wrote: »

Is it not telling that no one else has come up with it yet though? With the likes of online stores with wide selections of music such as iTunes, streaming services such as Spotify and Rdio and subscription services like Zune, are not all logical bases covered?

i wouldnt say all logical bases are covered. it always looks that way til someone comes up with the idea that proves otherwise

gizmo wrote: »

Quite true however I'd regard the people who would buy vinyl as the people who would be less likely to download music or, to be more precise, would probably fit into the category of customer described above - one who would pay over the odds for their favourite music.

not true. i download music, but buy vinyl of stuff i really like

gizmo

Helix wrote: »

i think the whole engineer/producer thing is changing too. most people who are into the music creation side of things tend to dabble in production these days, whether its just recording themselves and their guitar, or programming tracks - the drop in cost and increase in power of computers means that its possible for a fraction of the price it was even a few years ago. the way computer hardware is going you'll be able to have gear that outperforms the best studios in the world right now all contained in a single box within the next 5 years

All true, but one could look at the advent of applications like Pro Tools in both positive and negative lights. In the context of this discussion however, I do think it'll always be good to have trained staff on hand to aid in the recording of an album.

Helix wrote: »

a label function is to release and promote. if theyre doing the tour side of things too, thats an additional function that doesnt really fall under the label remit as such. it might be that theyre paying for these tour management companies to do it, but i foresee a time when theyre completely marginalised and you've got tour organisers who do nothing but

And that would certainly be a situation I'd welcome.

Helix wrote: »

these are labels who have adjusted to the changing landscape though

Indeed, however their primary role is still the to aid in the discovery, releasing and promotion of a band and it's music. These are the labels I hate to see lumped in with the larger ones when people grab their pitchforks.

Helix wrote: »

i wouldnt say all logical bases are covered. it always looks that way til someone comes up with the idea that proves otherwise

True however, technically speaking the next step after free streaming is free downloading which we've covered already. If something appears in the future which changes that then I reckon I'll welcome it with open arms. I still think the allofmp3 service was by far the best I've ever used so fingers crossed it's in a similar vein.

Helix wrote: »

not true. i download music, but buy vinyl of stuff i really like

Sorry, I was referring to the mass downloaders who pay for nothing.

Anyway, while related, this is quite off topic so to reiterate. Yay for UPC standing up to them, boo to three strikes policies, wtf at IMRAs reaction regarding State reparations and holy **** at the judges actual reaction.

marco_polo

Sparks wrote: »

Folks really should read it; calling this case a victory for UPC is just plain wrong.
Charleton's judgement is... well, it doesn't make good reading. He basicly accuses UPC of planning illegal behaviour, he states that IRMA are correct, that piracy is destroying a native Irish business, he states that IRMA's detection software is accurate, and then goes on to say that he really, really, really wanted to hang UPC by the toenails but the Irish legislation won't let him do so and that that should be addressed. Hence the IRMA press release calling for lobbying of the Dail to do so.

http://www.michele.me/blog/archives/2010/10/11/is-the-upc-decision-a-victory/

Yes your honour, dtecnet is wonderful technology that would have all the mass downloaders quaking in their boots. :rolleyes:

Great if the solution to internet piracy does in fact lie in catching less technically savy casual downloaders, and teenagers torrenting behind their parents back.

Oh and is it really so implausible that Aslans last album simply sold much less than average because it was s*te?

WalterMitty

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-15871961

Lone Stone

yay, But i still dont get why they dont just make music files ****ing massive so if anyone was to download one it would take so long you wouldnt be arsed.

Voodu Child

Lone Stone wrote: »

yay, But i still dont get why they dont just make music files ****ing massive so if anyone was to download one it would take so long you wouldnt be arsed.

Someone would just convert it to MP3 @ 320kbps or whatever, same as they do now.

What is big anyway? Plenty of people download couple of hundred GB a month.

Tar.Aldarion

people would just change the file handily enough, plus they have to fit on cds yeah :P