UPC victory in piracy case

Clanket

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/upc-scores-landmark-victory-in-illegal-downloads-case-2374221.html

It's a shame really because it would have been the saviour of the music business in Ireland (and probably the world as other countries followed suit). Now they'll have to wait until the government passes legislation to force the service providers to block illegal downloading. Good luck with that.....

I'll be the first to admit that I use torrents to download TV shows that have already been shown on TV. I never download music as it's robbing the artists of valuable income.

The only way the music business is going to thrive again is by stopping large scale copyright theft. And the only way to do this is to force the ISP's to stop illegal downloading.

What's your opinion on what way this is going to pan out? Will they ever be able to stop torrents?

maccored

it didnt work in the uk and it wont work here. suing people and cutting them off isnt the answer.

The boys in monty python have the right idea

http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/01/23/free-monty-python-videos-on-youtube-lead-to-23000-dvd-sale-increase/ (i still wonder if thats a piss take though)

Clanket

So what you reckon? Provide your stuff for free and hope people will buy it??

It might work for marketing stuff that's been around for ages (bringing it to a newer audience) but what about new up and coming acts? It's hardly going to work for them

maccored

i reckon the internet is here and the music industry has to deal with it.

maccored

whats the music industry doing for up and coming acts anyway? not much besides ripping them off. X-Factor is what the music industry is doing for 'new; acts and thats about it.

death1234567

Alofthedunnes wrote: »

So what you reckon? Provide your stuff for free and hope people will buy it??

Provide your stuff for free and then if people like it they (or bars/clubs etc.) will pay to go to your gigs.

I'll be the first to admit that I use torrents to download TV shows that have already been shown on TV. I never download music as it's robbing the artists of valuable income.

I think that's whats referrred to as having your cake and eating it too.

to force the ISP's to stop illegal downloading.

1. Why is it up to ISP's to stop it, they are just providing a service to access the interweb.
2. ISP's can't stop it even if they wanted to, e.g. anonymous IP's

Clanket

death1234567 wrote: »

I think that's whats referrred to as having your cake and eating it too.

It's a matter of opinion. I've no problem downloading a show that's already been shown on TV but I've just missed it for whatever reason. But each to their own.

I was really only asking how you see things going in the next few years. If things continue the way they are, it's going to get harder and harder for new acts to emerge. Fact. And the argument that all music should be free and bands can make their money touring is utter nonsense.

28064212

The music industry's approach since Napster came on to the scene has always been all stick, no carrot. I pay a yearly subscription to a file-sharing site and get all the downloads I want, in the quality I want, with the options I want. I don't particularly want to do this, it is illegal after all, but where's the industry's counter-offer? I'd be more than willing to pay a premium for an offically-sanctioned equivalent service. Even the best of the 'official' offerings, the iTunes store, is out-dated, not very user friendly, expensive, and doesn't offer great options.

The TV providers are at least starting to move with the times, with streaming and on-demand offerings (although there's still no reasonable, lawful alternatives to DVDs), but the music industry is stuck in the mud and can't seem to realise they have to move on

ronkmonster

Alofthedunnes wrote: »

It's a shame really because it would have been the saviour of the music business in Ireland (and probably the world as other countries followed suit).
...
What's your opinion on what way this is going to pan out? Will they ever be able to stop torrents?

No it won't. A lot of people would never buy anyway. Not every pirate download is a lost sale.

The government brings in a 3 strikes rule and downloaders switch to fast private VPN/Proxy in a country where there is no such rule.

Clanket

Yep very true. A legal alternative would be one of the best solutions. A flat monthly fee of whatever, that gets distributed to artists on the basis of downloads.

However, will this stop illegal downloading? I doubt it. Some sort of action on the part of the ISP's is going to be needed.

Clanket

ronkmonster wrote: »

No it won't. A lot of people would never buy anyway. Not every pirate download is a lost sale.

The government brings in a 3 strikes rule and downloaders switch to fast private VPN/Proxy in a country where there is no such rule.

So there's no solution? Illegal downloading (on a mass scale) is here to stay?

ronkmonster

Alofthedunnes wrote: »

So there's no solution? Illegal downloading (on a mass scale) is here to stay?

A 3 strikes rule would make it hard for casual downloaders to get away with it. And some people would never pay for a VPN just to get pirated materials. But then theres direct passing on copies either in person or through IM, shared hosting online etc. They'll never be able to stop it without some low price legal alternative. I pirate less games now, partially cause I can afford them now, but also cause of services like Steam where I get games very cheap during sales. If they price it right they can stop a lot of mass downloading,

maccored

HOME TAPING IS KILLING MUSIC

its the same thing, different era

jay-me

Alofthedunnes wrote: »

So what you reckon? Provide your stuff for free and hope people will buy it??

It might work for marketing stuff that's been around for ages (bringing it to a newer audience) but what about new up and coming acts? It's hardly going to work for them

How about doing live performances to earn your money and not expecting to make it from a copy of a copy of a copy etc etc.

splitrmx

Alofthedunnes wrote: »

It's a matter of opinion. I've no problem downloading a show that's already been shown on TV but I've just missed it for whatever reason. But each to their own.

But you do have a problem with people downloading a piece of music that's already been played on the radio which they have missed for whatever reason?

TelePaul

We're already seeing a change in the revenue model. Prince and Radiohead, for instance, are two hugely high-profile acts that have released albums for free, largely because the ensuing publicity will ensure the success of touring and all that goes with it (merchandising etc). I'm curious as to whether we'll see a situation whereby album releases serve only to support a tour as opposed to the former opposite.

CiaranC

Alofthedunnes wrote: »

So there's no solution? Illegal downloading (on a mass scale) is here to stay?

Yes it is.

This is a great victory for internet freedom, I for one am delighted.

Neurojazz

Well the downloading phenomena seems to have stripped people of any sense of respect for peoples property and find all sorts of excuses to justify theft.

I personally care not what people take, but i've seen musicians downloading gigs and gigs of apps - are these people even taking their life seriously? - no.

Having been on the receiving end of these void like successes in music (only working day and night for over 20 years now) have found that people don't go and buy the music if they like because the majority are lazy - it's too easy to forget to download a track among thousands you've stolen.

I was lucky enough to have sold some music when it was pretty much still physical only and can see the difference now as being a massive drop in income. As I haven't been going out live - where does that leave me... oh, in the trusting hands of belligerent thieving individuals.

If you can't afford it, and it's not yours, stop stealing - or keep stealing and don't let it worry your tiny little mind at night, i'm sure i might be able to afford to fix the boiler this year *prays*

Sadly also, because even when you own physical *actual purchased* copies of an album that some tart still nicks it... i'm on my 3rd copy (legit) of some albums.

Nolimits

Alofthedunnes wrote: »

It's a matter of opinion. I've no problem downloading a show that's already been shown on TV but I've just missed it for whatever reason. But each to their own.

Your a hypocrite, the people who make the tv programs also need to be paid, they are paid by the networks who make money selling advertisements. Dont fool yourself into thinking that it's ok to download tv programs for free but draw the line at music it's still stealing. And that's coming from someone else who downloads

maccored

Neurojazz wrote: »

Well the downloading phenomena seems to have stripped people of any sense of respect for peoples property and find all sorts of excuses to justify theft.

I personally care not what people take, but i've seen musicians downloading gigs and gigs of apps - are these people even taking their life seriously? - no.

Having been on the receiving end of these void like successes in music (only working day and night for over 20 years now) have found that people don't go and buy the music if they like because the majority are lazy - it's too easy to forget to download a track among thousands you've stolen.

I was lucky enough to have sold some music when it was pretty much still physical only and can see the difference now as being a massive drop in income. As I haven't been going out live - where does that leave me... oh, in the trusting hands of belligerent thieving individuals.

If you can't afford it, and it's not yours, stop stealing - or keep stealing and don't let it worry your tiny little mind at night, i'm sure i might be able to afford to fix the boiler this year *prays*

Sadly also, because even when you own physical *actual purchased* copies of an album that some tart still nicks it... i'm on my 3rd copy (legit) of some albums.

I dont think anyone argues that things have changed, but they have. the music industry and musicians have to find the silver lining to this particular cloud. Giving out about and threatening to sue people over it - like the music industry has done up to now - wont fix it. The other side is that the internet has helped people reach many they never would have reached before, and taken the monoply of distribution out of the hands of the major labels.

Neurojazz

maccored wrote: »

and taken the monoply of distribution out of the hands of the major labels.

That also, but then stuffed them being able to get momentum via the lavish PR and advertising - is that a balancing force?, the bonus that the big labels had was that it was a centralized service - now it's a fragmented mess with few clues as to where to start in the minefield of music.

Getting all that stuff sorted by an individual is almost as arduous as a journey into self discovery.

Dotsie~tmp

From a technical point of view yes there is no solution. Tunneled encrypted proxies and distributed networks when widespread will make even quantifying impossible, let alone stopping it. After 12 or so years the music industry still hasnt been able to come up with a viable product. What efforts they have made have only turned people further away (DRM that spies on you, breaks things).

Their metric for their losses are laughable. Do you really think teenagers with €5000 woth of music on their computer would ever really have enough money to pay a fraction of that if illegal downloading wasnt available? Assuming that all €5000 is a real material loss is nonsense and they know it.

People have a fixed budget to entertainment. Young people especially have a voracious appetite for music though conversely the least ability to pay for what they want. Though it pales compared to music companies appetite for ever bigger profits. Right now they arent getting their slice of that entertainment budget through sheer stubborness.

I will say this. If evey person sharing that music was somehow magically disconnected the companies wouldnt see one extra penny. They untapped revenue they think is there is merely a phantasm. No more real than the digital bits on a hard drive that make up their product. Instantly copied, shared, deleted. Try doing that with a car or a TV! Of course thats their real problem. They sell an unphysical product. An idea, that used to be physically tied to a hard media (vinyl, tape, cd). The hard part has evaporated and its a difficult thing getting people to pay for an idea.

Clanket

splitrmx wrote: »

But you do have a problem with people downloading a piece of music that's already been played on the radio which they have missed for whatever reason?

Nolimits wrote: »

Your a hypocrite, the people who make the tv programs also need to be paid, they are paid by the networks who make money selling advertisements. Dont fool yourself into thinking that it's ok to download tv programs for free but draw the line at music it's still stealing. And that's coming from someone else who downloads

I do watch TV series on the TV. And I also buy them from Amazon etc, rent them from video shops, borrow them from mates and download a couple. I'm not a serial downloader so you can all argue with me till the cows come home, I'll still have a clear consience.

My problem is with people who have absolutely no regard for other people's intellectual rights. Everyone knows downloading everything for free is wrong. And people that do it every day with everything they watch/listen to need be stopped.

maccored

Neurojazz wrote: »

That also, but then stuffed them being able to get momentum via the lavish PR and advertising - is that a balancing force?, the bonus that the big labels had was that it was a centralized service - now it's a fragmented mess with few clues as to where to start in the minefield of music.

Getting all that stuff sorted by an individual is almost as arduous as a journey into self discovery.

i think it'll even out - people will find out just how hard distro is to do properly, and then revert back to those who know how to do it best. But - it doesnt get away from the fact that some forward thinking is now required by all concerned.

jtsuited

I'm releasing vinyl from now on (and much of it will be vinyl only). You wanna protect your art, make vinyl the medium of choice for your music.

Clanket

jtsuited wrote: »

I'm releasing vinyl from now on (and much of it will be vinyl only). You wanna protect your art, make vinyl the medium of choice for your music.

Bet someone somewhere will convert it to mp3 and upload it to a torrent site.

maccored

which means more people will hear it and those who like their music with artwork and the proper product will seek it out and buy it. Ive done that a zillion time in regards music.

Bi6N

The old System is broken, man is in the digital age, no more can information be caged.

The age of the Pirate is only at its cusp.
I'm very happy with the results, one of the greatest things about UPC is the freedom. Go forth and download!

FREE MEDIA F*CK YEA

maccored

Bi6N wrote: »

FREE MEDIA F*CK YEA

The problem is what do you do when people stop producing that media due to not being able to make a living from producing it (since it gets downloaded for free)?

Alofthedunnes

Alofthedunnes wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/upc-scores-landmark-victory-in-illegal-downloads-case-2374221.html
The only way the music business is going to thrive again is by stopping large scale copyright theft.

Ever think the music business was getting too much money in the first place ?

CiaranC

maccored wrote: »

The problem is what do you do when people stop producing that media due to not being able to make a living from producing it (since it gets downloaded for free)?

Art is not motivated by profit. Its pre-dated the distribution cartels and will live on long after them.

DamagedTrax

CiaranC wrote: »

Art is not motivated by profit. Its pre-dated the distribution cartels and will live on long after them.

ill remember that next time my kid is hungry. ill feed him some of my "art".

Android 666

CiaranC wrote: »

Art is not motivated by profit. Its pre-dated the distribution cartels and will live on long after them.

Bullshít. Art has always been motivated by profit. The biggest lie of the twentieth century was art as a therapeutic pursuit. Michelangelo didn't make David for the hell of it. Beethoven didn't write his symphonies because he was feeling a bit inspired after aligning his chakra.

Android 666

DamagedTrax wrote: »

ill remember that next time my kid is hungry. ill feed him some of my "art".

Daddy, not vinyl and chips again!!!

CiaranC

DamagedTrax wrote: »

ill remember that next time my kid is hungry. ill feed him some of my "art".

Or you could get a real job and get over the fact that the world doesnt owe you a living.

DamagedTrax

CiaranC wrote: »

Or you could get a real job and get over the fact that the world doesnt owe you a living.

ahh yes. the typical answer of an ignorant asshole. well done you.

i have a real job and i work every hour that i possibly can.... but if ****, like yourself, keep trying to destroy our industry it wont last very long.

but like i said, good for you for being a disgusting thieving prick.

KindOfIrish

"Art belong to people." V.Lenin

DamagedTrax

KindOfIrish wrote: »

"Art belong to people." V.Lenin

"artists are people." ME.

CiaranC

DamagedTrax wrote: »

ahh yes. the typical answer of an ignorant asshole. well done you.

i have a real job and i work every hour that i possibly can.... but if ****, like yourself, keep trying to destroy our industry it wont last very long.

but like i said, good for you for being a disgusting thieving prick.

Good riddance to your industry tbh. A free and open internet is far more important than your "right" to make money from selling zero-value copies of your music or whatever. Every case won like this is a step closer to the day we wont have to put up corporate interests attempting to destroy the greatest information advance in mans history.

Someone should write a song about it. They already did - A great day for freedom

Android 666

KindOfIrish wrote: »

"Art belong to people." V.Lenin

'There are no morals in politics; there is only expedience. A scoundrel may be of use to us just because he is a scoundrel' Lenin

DamagedTrax

CiaranC wrote: »

Good riddance to your industry tbh. A free and open internet is far more important than your "right" to make money from selling zero-value copies of your music or whatever. Every case won like this is a step closer to the day we wont have to put up corporate interests attempting to destroy the greatest information advance in mans history.

Someone should write a song about it. They already did - A great day for freedom

and eventually you'll have no music of any quality left to listen to. it'll be xfactor sheep all the way. idiots like yourself who wouldnt understand good music if it slapped you in the face.

music is not information, its the hard work of artists looking to make a living in the only way that they know how. no differant to doctors, police, teachers.. whatever. i wont expect you to understand as you've already proven your complete lack of intelligence in this thread.

if you have an issue with the business model then take it out on the labels and shops that screw everyone over. buy direct from artist websites. cut out the middle man... cause its certainly not the average musician making the money.

and as an aside, i am personally not in the business of selling music. get your facts straight - if you're gonna come to a gun fight, shooting water pistols probably isnt gonna do you any good.

Welease

The problem is... the music industry expects ISP's and the communications industry to absorb the cost for protecting their products, while the music industry itself does little to address the problem.. In most cases, the ISP's wont do anything unless they are forced via legislation, and why should they?

If the ISP's are forced to do something, then the cost will be passed to me the consumer.. Why should I pay to ensure an artist doesn't lose income (if I don't illegally download music)?

I don't agree with piracy.. I don't agree with ignoring people's copyrights.. but if I rolled up to Sony and told them to pay for locks on my doors so people didn't steal my property... they would tell me to f**k off...

CiaranC

DamagedTrax wrote: »

and eventually you'll have no music of any quality left to listen to. it'll be xfactor sheep all the way. idiots like yourself who wouldnt understand good music if it slapped you in the face.

music is not information, its the hard work of artists looking to make a living in the only way that they know how. no differant to doctors, police, teachers.. whatever. i wont expect you to understand as you've already proven your complete lack of intelligence in this thread.

if you have an issue with the business model then take it out on the labels and shops that screw everyone over. buy direct from artist websites. cut out the middle man... cause its certainly not the average musician making the money.

and as an aside, i am personally not in the business of selling music. get your facts straight - if you're gonna come to a gun fight, shooting water pistols probably isnt gonna do you any good.

The anger is strong in you. Btw, how do you know anything about my taste in music or how I consume it?

Do you really think someone who sells copies of songs is the same as a doctor or policeman? LOL.

Ill tell you the difference chief, the two latter fellas there have a viable business model from which to make a living, e.g. there is an actual demand for what they do and it cant be replicated for absolutely zero cost in an instant.

DamagedTrax

CiaranC wrote: »

The anger is strong in you. Btw, how do you know anything about my taste in music or how I consume it?

Do you really think someone who sells copies of songs is the same as a doctor or policeman? LOL.

Ill tell you the difference chief, the two latter fellas there have a viable business model from which to make a living, e.g. there is an actual demand for what they do and it cant be replicated for absolutely zero cost in an instant.

thats all great. you're still a thieving knacker. jog on asshole

DeVore

Android 666 wrote: »

Bullshít. Art has always been motivated by profit. The biggest lie of the twentieth century was art as a therapeutic pursuit. Michelangelo didn't make David for the hell of it. Beethoven didn't write his symphonies because he was feeling a bit inspired after aligning his chakra.

So why did he do it? (genuine question, please give a genuine answer).


Was he planning on mass producing Davids and flogging them to every tom dick and harry?




Oh and lol at the hypocrisy of the OP's "I download TV and films but people who download music are thieves". No, mate, you arent stealing video and tv, you're just taking something that doesnt belong to you. And not paying for it.

Somehow music is different to films and tv? oh yes, thats right, I forgot you're a musician, thats the obvious difference.

DeV.

DamagedTrax

Welease wrote: »

The problem is... the music industry expects ISP's and the communications industry to absorb the cost for protecting their products, while the music industry itself does little to address the problem.. In most cases, the ISP's wont do anything unless they are forced via legislation, and why should they?

If the ISP's are forced to do something, then the cost will be passed to me the consumer.. Why should I pay to ensure an artist doesn't lose income (if I don't illegally download music)?

I don't agree with piracy.. I don't agree with ignoring people's copyrights.. but if I rolled up to Sony and told them to pay for locks on my doors so people didn't steal my property... they would tell me to f**k off...

totally agree.

this is a moral issue and a very high % of people have no morals.

i personally am glad to see this ruling. im all for people downloading an album. 20 euro is a lot to spend on a **** album! but for gods sake go buy it if you enjoy it. if you didnt enjoy it just hit that delete button.fair is fair.

Lukker-

A victory for common sense.

Android 666

DeVore wrote: »

So why did he do it? (genuine question, please give a genuine answer).

Because he was paid to. It was a commission that he worked on for 3 years. Seriously it's not that hard to guess…

ronkmonster

Where are the options to download music at the same quality as CDs?
As in full uncompressed music. I can pay a premium for getting CDs(which probably has more songs than I want or buy lower quality compressed music online.

DamagedTrax

ronkmonster wrote: »

Where are the options to download music at the same quality as CDs?
As in full uncompressed music. I can pay a premium for getting CDs(which probably has more songs than I want or buy lower quality compressed music online.

you can buy wav files from all music stores online for years now. wav is cd quality.

jill_valentine

Alofthedunnes wrote: »

If things continue the way they are, it's going to get harder and harder for new acts to emerge. Fact. And the argument that all music should be free and bands can make their money touring is utter nonsense.

Here's some facts for you.

a) People who download music illegally spend more on music than people who don't.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/illegal-downloaders-spend-the-most-on-music-says-poll-1812776.html

b) Before the advent of Napster 97% of the acts on a major label made less than $600 a year from it. "And these were the lucky lotto winners, the tiny fraction of 1% who made it to a record deal."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2010/oct/05/free-online-content-cory-doctorow

The old model is dead, and good riddance to it. I want talented artists to get paid for what they do, but that clearly wasn't happening under the old system. The new system we're moving into will produce less superstars, but is far better suited to supporting far more acts with a living wage. Filesharing has only helped smaller artists develop some recognition without the help of a label's infrastructure or PR budget - the only ones it hurt have been the big established names who are too closely tied into the old static major label model to adapt.