So I've been blocked by Sean Sherlock for asking about EMI vs UPC...

Capt'n Midnight

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LoudnessWar?from=Main.RecordOfLoudnessWar

Loudness War

Metallica's newest album Death Magnetic is so distorted and clipped that even mastering engineer Ted Jensen has criticized it, adding that he couldn't do anything since the preliminary mixes came in already "brick-walled". Interestingly, the version made for Guitar Hero 3 was based on a "rough mix" that features far more range, and those tracks have been subsequently ripped and distributed via peer-to-peer services. To sum up: Metallica, the anti-Napster poster boys, now have an album that can only be truly appreciated via piracy, and a video game featuring a guitar with 5 buttons on the fret-board is the best way to enjoy an album... the irony boggles the mind.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/KeepCirculatingTheTapes

There once was a show. You Know That Show. It was a really good show. Too Good to Last? Perhaps. Or maybe it was something else; it's just as likely that it's the Nostalgia Filter speaking. Still, you'd love to relive the memories, and share it with your friends.

One problem: It's impossible.

Watch reruns? Record them? Of course you would... if it were on.

Buy the DVD? You'd already have it on pre-order... if it existed.

Watch it online? You'd bookmark it in a second... until the company that owns the series threatens the video provider that legal consequences will ensue unless they remove the content.

What's a fan to do? It isn't that you're setting out to break copyright law... you'd be more than happy to pay to acquire it legally!

It should be so simple. The technology exists to distribute old movies, and there are people out there who want to see them. And yet every movie buff has had the experience of reading up on some great film or filmmaker, then hitting the video store and discovering that for one reason or another—rights issues, perhaps, or lack of broad public interest—the movies they want to see are unavailable on DVD.

It's a similar story with books. Unless it a bestselling author then chances are once the initial run is over the unsold books will get pulped for tax reasons. Though it's possible that it might be available on print to order (I don't want WHITE paper, it hurts my eyes) or ebooks

Allyall

I think it's ludicrous that they pander to the greedy companies.
If those companies were losing money hand over fist, then i would understand. But the fact that those companies are overcharging for everything, and pure greed is running them, I think the Governments should review all cases very very carefully before attempting any action.

Where are the Government when they see the likes of Bieber or Lady Gaga making millions per year? Surely somebody must agree that they are overcharging way too much? That somebody in the Recording industry has noticed that kids buy shít and nag their parents until most parents give in.
Where are they government protecting US?
Facebook and other platforms are optional, yes, but before most people had realised what they signed up for, they signed away their personal information, so all of these greedy companies can target them with their expensive products..

It's ridiculous.
Watch/Listen to the people first, THEN start listening to the greedy Companies.

Can the government protect my data from getting into companies databases?
I've done all i can on my side to stop it from happening, i haven't signed up for anything with my full details.

It just makes me angry, and there's so much more to it. All powered by greed. (Yes, i know what i sound like, and i have heard people saying it before, just now it is quite relevant and true.)

There is a group from Austria that seem to be getting noticed more and more. I can't for the life of me remember their name, but they are actively campaigning for a freedom on the internet, but with obvious boundaries.
They are also active in people maintaining their privacy unless they actively sign up to companies and tell them they can have their data.

They make some very good points. I heard them on the radio about a month ago, if anyone knows who I'm talking about, could you post a link please?

Lenin Skynard

Caliden wrote: »

I didn't realise you would be so anal about it so I'll rephrase; What online petitions have directly influenced anything of importance in Ireland?

He's not being anal about it at all, you narrowed the spectrum of your question drastically by making it Ireland specific after he had disproved your original theory.

Online petitions on the scale of Avaaz are a relatively new phenomena, and just because online petitions haven't greatly affected issues in Ireland in the internet's first ten/fifteen years of widespread popularity doesn't mean it can't. It's an incredibly short sighted and pessimistic attitude.

Caliden

Lenin Skynard wrote: »

He's not being anal about it at all, you narrowed the spectrum of your question drastically by making it Ireland specific after he had disproved your original theory.

Online petitions on the scale of Avaaz are a relatively new phenomena, and just because online petitions haven't greatly affected issues in Ireland in the internet's first ten/fifteen years of widespread popularity doesn't mean it can't. It's an incredibly short sighted and pessimistic attitude.

Fair enough but the blocks come into action in 30 days so I can't help but be short sighted because once they're there without resistance it's a very slippery slope and will be hard do anything about it in several years when more and more sites are up on the chopping block.

Look at the U.K., they've already started blocking sites that provide a means to access TPB. How is that different from the internet blocks that exist in China and North Korea?
Letting the Government decide what you can and can't view isn't freedom, especially when they're being lobbied by music/film groups to ban sites under the guise of piracy.

If it's not piracy, it's terrorism and if it's not terrorism it's pedophiles. Scare mongering the public and telling them, "don't worry, we know what's best" is not why the internet was created.

S28382

There is hundreds of torrent sites why do the authorities have a hard on for TPB? I cant remember when i last went to TPB for something i use the many others out there. In saying that i dont download much maybe once every 3 months.

_rebelkid

S28382 wrote: »

There is hundreds of torrent sites why do the authorities have a hard on for TPB? I cant remember when i last went to TPB for something i use the many others out there. In saying that i dont download much maybe once every 3 months.

For the fame. TPB is known globally, so a judgement against them will make it seem like "the tide is turning against piracy"... which it isn't...

S28382

_rebelkid wrote: »

For the fame. TPB is known globally, so a judgement against them will make it seem like "the tide is turning against piracy"... which it isn't...

If anyone asked me about a torrent site to use id actually steer them away from TPB because of the attention its getting. And yeah your right the tide isnt turning at all if one site goes down another one will just pop straight back up.

jimmycrackcorm

howamidifferent wrote: »

Maybe revenue should chase these music companies now for the tax take on the €20 Million per annum they will OBVIOUSLY be getting extra per year now that the 200k people are not accessing TPB....Obviously they are now going to make that money they were losing year on year all along. :rolleyes:

It'll be interesting to see what profits they do make a year after this is enacted. I'll bet they will make less which either prices the point that piracy doesn't actually cost them or else, more worryingly, they will insist on more widespread censoring.

S28382

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

It'll be interesting to see what profits they do make a year after this is enacted. I'll bet they will make less which either prices the point that piracy doesn't actually cost them or else, more worryingly, they will insist on more widespread censoring.

This is what they will go after and thats when the country will become a real nanny state. We wont be to far off North Korea then.

120_Minutes

S28382 wrote: »

This is what they will go after and thats when the country will become a real nanny state. We wont be to far off North Korea then.

I was discussing it on my facebook feed earlier, lots of my friends kept saying "ah yeah but theres more than the pirate bay out there to get stuff from" i had to repeatedly say:

IT IS NOT ABOUT PIRACY, IT IS ABOUT CENSORSHIP.

I used this as an example:

lets say that TPB is blocked by all ISP's in ireland, and we have a rubber stamp of a court that lets lobbyists add whatever site dislike to that list. Now lets say its a few years later, and avengers 3 is hitting the cinema. grand you say, you cant get a torrent cos of the block.

now lets say that someone gets to go to an advance screening, and thinks the movie is muck and goes on their wordpress blog to say so. marvel/disney notice that this is happening and see others doing the same. they then go to our boys and say, "here add all wordpress blogs to that banned list, it's affecting our revenue"

This is where it starts. and it must be nipped in the bud, NOW.

briany

Caliden wrote: »

These dinosaurs need to educate themselves, adjust their business model and stop trying to peddle overpriced music. i.e. digital download albums 20% less than a physical copy, the profit there is disgusting.

If they educate themselves, they'll become completely enraged. They'll bound into their shiny Ford automobiles, step on their velocitators as hard as possible and be down at the offices of telecommunication ,with another summons in hand, faster than Frank Jarvis after sixteen Coca Colas.

MadsL

http://imgur.com/a/wtvZ0?gallery

[adult swim]

A recent report claims that film piracy

Costs the economy $20 billion annually

We say this is super misleading

Film piracy may cost the film industry 20 billion

but that money still goes into the economy

People will buy shoes or comic books

or cataract surgery or even baby formula

instead of spending that money on movie tickets

We say film piracy feeds babies

[adult swim]

horgan_p

II would like UPC to appeal this.

Not because I use pirate bay - I use other means to get the things which I like.

But because of this :

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.


I dont use pirate bay. But I might use the next thing they try to block.

starviewadams

Shíte,really hope UPC appeal this.

_rebelkid

Looks like the EU are going to fix all this

expectationlost

_rebelkid wrote: »

Looks like the EU are going to fix all this

that's more to do with net neutrality blocking video sites on wireless things like that isn't

_rebelkid

expectationlost wrote: »

that's more to do with net neutrality blocking video sites on wireless things like that isn't

I can't see how they would make it that specific. Blocking is blocking, so blocking access to a site which is used for "non illegal purposes" and alleged illegal purposes would be against the net neutrality they want to obtain.

wil

_rebelkid wrote: »

Looks like the EU are going to fix all this

There is a very relevant observation in that article:
"safeguards to curb the tendencies of access operators to act as gatekeepers of the Internet."

So today do we have a new police? empowered by who or what foreign commercial entities?

I blame religion:rolleyes: (I know, soft target) for if St Colmcille hadnt wished to spread the good word he wouldn't have got done for copyright on the biased advice of a censorial druid and another judge wouldn't have miscredited "his" aphorisms giving smug credence to these rulings.

"copyright" is such a whore. You can use, own it, license it, buy it if it wasn't yours, sell it to the highest bidder. You take something that could be naturally available to any person, turn it in to a service, monetise it, exploit it, shill it, market it, ignore it and if you are lucky or powerful enough, live quite a luxurious life off the proceeds of it.

Take for example that well know birthday song, that you have all illegally sung at a restaurant/workplace or family gathering outside of your home, is the biggest earning song of all time, still allegedly earning $2 million for Warner Chappell every year despite the melody being written for "Good morning to all" by sisters Patty and Mildred Hill in 1892, perhaps based on even older songs, lyriced to Happi Berth day (my sic) by students, published uncredited and uncopyrighted till 1935 then copyrighted by Preston Ware Orem and eventually owned by Time Warner and now Warner Chappell.

Actually within seconds of browsing aforementioned companies website, my ears were subjected to the most abusive language (as I have a mother and the suggested sexual suggestion is distressingly reprehensible on every level). Why did my ISP not protect me from this foul profanity. And can they charge me for inadvertently listening to that snippet from Mr Mars untreasured ditty.:rolleyes:

As you must know it is "technically" illegal for any person to listen to (copyrighted) music (and news and advertisements) at work, in public, essentially anywhere outside of a domestic environment.
Why has the IMRO not gone after broadcasters for blatantly facilitating these unlicensed abusers. I guess they realise which side of the farce they are sitting on.

So where does this all leave me? Well I dont know. If copyright could try the integrity of a saint, and I ANAL, which is very apt, because despite never knowingly using TPB, I still feel I'd be safer with my back to the wall.

Jericho.

IMRO do go after shops, pubs and other workplaces for "public performance fees".

Capt'n Midnight

wil wrote: »

I blame religion:rolleyes: (I know, soft target) for if St Colmcille hadnt wished to spread the good word he wouldn't have got done for copyright on the biased advice of a censorial druid and another judge wouldn't have miscredited "his" aphorisms giving smug credence to these rulings.

You'll always hear the story about "to every cow it's calf" but not what happened later.

Long story short the judgement was overruled on appeal and don't let anyone tell you different.

3,000 on the pro copyright side died at the Battle of Cúl Dreimhne.

http://www.thebluestockingguide.com/Belles-Lettres/files/8ebc770381218606c044dd6674dbc3d9-32.php

EoghanIRL

Proxy servers ftw .

Does anyone know if this will only affect the main ISPs or is it all of them ?

wil

Jericho. wrote: »

IMRO do go after shops, pubs and other workplaces for "public performance fees".

Whoosh.
But not the BROADCASTERS.

These rulings require the IS providers to be censors.
IMRO license the music users.

Phill Ewinn

Jericho. wrote: »

IMRO do go after shops, pubs and other workplaces for "public performance fees".

Never heard of them targeting second hand CD or record shops. Never seen anyone targeting the second hand games market. Never seen any book sharing clubs closed down. Know why?

Because this ACTA/SOPA has nothing to do with copyrights. IMRO are just a supporting cast to the media and music businesses. Fancy buying your internet back off some media company ?

Capt'n Midnight

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Never seen anyone targeting the second hand games market

http://omg.wthax.org/6g5Ygz.gif

wil

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

You'll always hear the story about "to every cow it's calf" but not what happened later.

Long story short the judgement was overruled on appeal and don't let anyone tell you different. ....etc ....

Where might I have come across this before.:)
It would be interesting to find some detail on that first appeal
BTW thanks for clarification as it became obvious to me I had misread which side had lost the 3000.

Could happen to a judge
paragraph 28.

Not only did he miscredit the quote:o, Colmcilles case was never really copyright in the real sense, as Finnian wasn't the author so didnt own the copyright, a view supported here
May have had more to do with ownership of the precious vellum and other writing materials.

I have wondered could there even be a pun involved in the quote being as it is written on vellum (calfskin)
Early copyright notions probably had more to do with censorship and control by church or state than IP ownership. How things

don't

change.

expectationlost

see alot of people quoting this tweet from sherlock last year http://i.imgur.com/5CY7zfo.png

"there is not intention by the government to introduce legislation to block access to the internet or sites I have to state the unambiguously "

this still true he hasn't made legislation to block sites, he rewrote legistlation that made it more probably that courts would order a block

stevenmu

expectationlost wrote: »

see alot of people quoting this tweet from sherlock last year http://i.imgur.com/5CY7zfo.png

"there is not intention by the government to introduce legislation to block access to the internet or sites I have to state the unambiguously "

this still true he hasn't made legislation to block sites, he rewrote legistlation that made it more probably that courts would order a block

No, its not true. The courts use that legislation to order ISPs to block sites, therefore it is legislation to block sites, and it was introduced by this government, via a statutory instrument. The fact that it is up to the courts to decide which sites to apply the legislation to does not change that.

no matter what way you look at it, this government introduced legislation to block site, despite his "unambiguous" claim that they would not.