Torrent users beware

Infini

Pa ElGrande wrote:

Mind you under that same section you can be done for having a CD-Burner in your PC.

Oh dear god half of dublin will be stuffed in the joy! :eek:

dahamsta

Peanut wrote:

Around 20% of all adults claim to have purchased blank CDs at some point.

Out of curiousity, does anyone know if a a levy is placed on blank media in Ireland, to cover the artists for possible abuse? They have it in many other countries, and Michael Geist proved in the article I linked earlier that the levy in Canada more than covered the genuine losses to artists caused by P2p activity.

adam

Jammer

Torrent users beware .......

Infini

Jammer wrote:

Torrent users beware .......

LOL!

rsynnott

skkatter wrote:

I wonder what percentage of these users they are hoping to sue are under 18? What happens then, their parents get sued? Case is dropped? Kid has to give IMRO 75% of their pocket money for the next 25 years?

They'll have more trouble doing that here than in the US. (Note that they haven't really done it elsewhere). The US child protection laws seem to be somewhat lax in this regard.

Rew

rsynnott wrote:

They'll have more trouble doing that here than in the US. (Note that they haven't really done it elsewhere). The US child protection laws seem to be somewhat lax in this regard.

My cousin works in the US with drug addicted mothers/famillys and she was telling me that Bush basicly striped away what ever rights kids had left over there..

lomb

yep i believed they have fried 12year olds in the electric chair........

Basq

Looking at all the cases in different countries.. it all seems relatively low (apart from Denmark) but then you reach Germany at 401 cases!!

What are they feckin' sharing?... Kraftwerk, David Hasselhoff and various mixes of '99 Red Balloons'?! :eek:

The quick breakdown for each targeted country:

* Austria - 50 criminal and civil cases
* Denmark - appx. 200 cases
* Finland - 28 cases
* France - 60 cases
* Germany - 401 cases
* Iceland - 23 cases (all using Direct Connect or DC++)
* Ireland - 17 civil cases
* Italy - 26 cases
* Japan - 44 cases
* Netherlands - 50 cases
* United Kingdom - 31 cases

rsynnott

lomb wrote:

yep i believed they have fried 12year olds in the electric chair........

They've just banned that, as it happens, becoming the last UN recognised government on the planet to do so. (The situation in the US with the Supreme Court liberal and the government loonie-right is interesting; as the government introduces abstinence initiatives the Court legalises homosexuality in the last few states to ban it, as the government says it can torture people as long as it doesn't call it torture, the Court bans killing children... Amazing country altogether).

Rew

basquille wrote:

Looking at all the cases in different countries.. it all seems relatively low (apart from Denmark) but then you reach Germany at 401 cases!!

Sounds like there mainly test cases, except for the crazy Germans...

Pa ElGrande

Phillip Boucher Hayes on 5-7 live on Tuesday 12 April

Well, After a long time saying they were going to get tough, today IRMA appear to have taken the first step towards getting tough against downloaders of music from the internet. They, the Irish Recorded Music Association who are supposed to protect creative artists from copyright abuse are seeking damages and injunctions against a list of individuals. Dick Doyle of IRMA on the news at one this afternoon, explains these first steps that they have taken.

[Dick Doyle]
Ah, today we announced that we have started litigation against 17 individuals.
The first stage of that litigation is to write to the internet service providers to ask for the names and addresses of these 17 major file sharers, major distributors. We have obviously their user names, we have their ip addresses and so we are asking the ISP's to give us their names and addresses.

[PBH]
He went on to say exactly when they'll get the actual names of those that they are tracking.

[Dick Doyle]
Probably in 6 to 8 weeks time, we will be able to talk about that, we haven't been able to profile them yet because we don't have enough information, from their user name or ip address, but I can tell you a little bit about them, in that the most serious offender has more that 3000 songs that they're sharing worldwide, and thats more that 300 albums in real terms, , they could be sharing with anywhere between 2 hundred thousand and 2 million people, depending on the number of people there are on that software
at that moment in time. That's the scale of the problem, the top 6 offenders of those 17 have an average of 2 thousand songs, on thei, that they're sharing worldwide

[PBH]
Dick Doyle of IRMA. Now that's about file sharers on the internet, but lets move this thing on a little bit, if you are among the many who have purchased the must have accessory of the moment, an iPod. IRMA says that you too could be breaking the law. Ian Montgomery runs a company called CDTOMP3.NET who copy CD's to iPods for people, who are, well, too lazy to do it themselves, and he says that they will be fighting any legal action. He joins me now. Ian do you interpret what IRMA are saying as the people copying from CD to iPod through your service are breaking the law?

[Ian Montgomery]
Ah, well, first of all Phillip, I would like to state that the issue that IRMA has raised today is completely seperate to the service we provide. They are talking about people who are illegally uploading and downloading music from the internet...

[PBH]
As I have just said, but they have also asserted today that your service breaks the law and that they could be coming after you in the future.

[IM]
OK. Well, the service we provide is a simple transfer of music, this is peoples private music collections, that they have already legally purchased, that they have paid the copyright on, the service that cdtomp3 offers is simply a transfer service, we'll come to their home or their business, pick up music that they have already legally purchased and transferred on to their mp3 players for them.

[PBH]
Remarkable to think that some people are so lazy that they can't get around to doing it themselves, but fair play to ya' for spotting the niche. now IRMA say that you are breaking the law in so doing. What is your understanding of the copyright law?

[IM]
Well...I am not in a position to give you the definative legal answer, I'm not a solicitor, the legal advice that we have taken has assured us that we are doing nothing illegal, again we are just providing a simple transfer service, these people our customer have already paid the copyright for the music we're just transferring it on to their devices for them, because as you say, perhaps they don;t have the time to do it themselves.

[PBH]
But iTunes, which is the other means, set up on the 'net by Apple, for people to transfer music to their iPods. IRMA say that they have legal agreement, you don't have..?

[IM]
The, big difference between CDTOMP3 and iTunes. iTunes sell music. We do not sell music we are not involved in the uploading or downloading of music of any kind. The service that we provide is a simple transfer service for people who own CD's. We come, take the CD's, transfer them on to their MP3 players, and thats it. We do not sell music over the internet.

[PBH]
So why are IRMA saying you are breaking the law? Whay are IRMA, it would appear to me at face value criminalising iPod users who avail of your service?

[IM]
That's a question I think that would probably need top be put to ah., representatives of IRMA. They certainly have not been in direct consultation with myself, Amm, again..

[PBH]
Because the copyright act, seems to define infringement as the unauthorised copying of music that is made available to the public. You are not in essence making music available to the public are you? , just to the private user of their own CD collection?

[IM]
That's correct, Ah, We're not involved in selling music to the public at all, this is just a service that we provide for the individual who has already paid for the music who is legally entitled to listen to the music. This is just facilitating the tranfer of the music on to an MP3 device which can be for some a laborious process.

[PBH]
You presumably have been following developments in the United States, where very similar copyright infringement cases are being played out through the courts, though they are considerably further down the road, than we are here.
It seems that the technology companies are getting behind people who provide services like you, whereas the enetertainment industry is standing shoulder to shoulder, with its artists. But the technology companies appear at the moment to be winning. Do you think that thats going to replicate itself here in Europe?

[IM]
Ahm, to be honest I don't know the answer to that, ah, certainly in both the States and also in the United Kingdom, there's a number of companies that provide the same type of service that we provide, in America there seems to be no legal issues, both here in Ireland and in the UK, it would appear that some issues still need to be ironed out.

[PBH]
Do you feel though that perhaps IRMA and organisations like them, which, while in seeking to protect the creative interests of artists, are in some way quashing technological innovation?

[IM]
Ahm, Having spoken to number of people about this, my own personal opinion is that for a number of years,, IRMA represents record companies which for a number of years after the introduction of digital music, rtificially kept the price of CD's high.
CD's were always cheaper to manufacture than blank cassettes, so for quite a while the record companies had it very well. Let the good times roll in as much as they were able to produce CD's amd sell them at vastly inflated prices.

[PBH]
So. Anyway to conclude if IRMA do come after you. You presumably are going to pursue this through the courts?

[IM]
Our legal advice is that we are doing nothing unlawful.

MrPinK

doodle_sketch wrote:

Which would work, to a point. Afterall, BT trackers can pick and choose what IPs they want to allow to download, so if someone was issued a digital reciept on purchase, they could use this access the files. The tracker will know when the entire file has been downloaded, so the download code embedded in the reciept can be retired at that point. If handled properly, a keychain of reciepts can be kept on a users machine if they need to prove purchase for redownload, and the tracker can be set to require manual validation for redownloading, so that the system can't(!!) be abused.

The only problem here is how you would sign a reciept to an individual, and not a machine, which is the root of all modern DRM issues...

It's only a problem if you want to allow redownloading. I don't see the need to, people should be responsible for backing up their own files. This of course means removing the DRM tying playback to certain devices, which doesn't work anyway. Low prices and convenience would reduce piracy a lot more than any DRM system, which currently do little but frustrate paying customers.

Kazaanova

Its amazing to think that people are so stupid or lazy that they cant transfer their own music themselves. But its absoloutly astounding to think that the IMRA are suing the genius who started the Irish version. I've never heard of cdtomp3 before, are they doing good business? I'd actually hire them if I had several million to spare, and had a record collection of over 1000. I suppose an extra 100 to 150 could make the gift of an mp3 player, that bit more special if you had to kind of money to spend.

Peanut

Pa ElGrande wrote:

[Dick Doyle]
...and thats more that 300 albums in real terms, , they could be sharing with anywhere between 2 hundred thousand and 2 million people, depending on the number of people there are on that software at that moment in time.

A nice accurate summary of filesharing there, all the broadband users on their connections with 128k upload sharing with 2 million people.... I don't think so..

He even says "at that moment in time". F*cking hell.

There is such a thing as being slightly wide of the mark, but this guy has put solid fuel boosters on the facts and launched them on a trajectory to the moon.

Superman

my defense to this whole thing is:

The person who made the piona/guitar didn't ask for royalties, why should the person who merely plays the instrument be entitle to them!

Rew

MrPinK wrote:

people should be responsible for backing up their own files

You missing the point of all this. The idea is that you are no longer buying a physical item (such as a CD) you are bying the contents. Same goes for files. If you have bought the right to the song then you should be able to redownload.

DRM is a load of rubbish, its a fundimentally flawed and is never going to work. Sooner they reailse thaty and get on with it the better.

aidan_walsh

Kazaanova wrote:

Its amazing to think that people are so stupid or lazy that they cant transfer their own music themselves.

Whats even more amazing is how counter-intuitive software interfaces are becoming in the eyes of people who don't use computers often. Whats even worse is how non-standard they're becoming. Microsoft set down L&F specifications with Windows 95 for good reason, to keep different applications familiar. Nowadays, even they can't follow their own recommendations.

But thats a different rant. Don't blame a person for not having the knowledge. Blame the vendor for not giving it to them.

aidan_walsh

Superman wrote:

my defense to this whole thing is:

The person who made the piona/guitar didn't ask for royalties, why should the person who merely plays the instrument be entitle to them!

:rolleyes: No, but they asked for payment for the use of the skills that they trained years to hone and perfect. Should the person who plays not be entitled to the same?

Infini

Ahm, Having spoken to number of people about this, my own personal opinion is that for a number of years,, IRMA represents record companies which for a number of years after the introduction of digital music, rtificially kept the price of CD's high.
CD's were always cheaper to manufacture than blank cassettes, so for quite a while the record companies had it very well. Let the good times roll in as much as they were able to produce CD's amd sell them at vastly inflated prices.

One of the real reasons why they've been losing money. People arent paying for things that are overpriced not just because of P2P. Noticed a similar thing with movies. The DVD versions were dearer than the VCR versions.

aidan_walsh

Rew wrote:

The idea is that you are no longer buying a physical item (such as a CD) you are bying the contents.

You were always buying the content from the artist. You just had to pay an extra charge for the physical medium it was put on.

ixoy

Superman wrote:

The person who made the piona/guitar didn't ask for royalties, why should the person who merely plays the instrument be entitle to them!

Ever worked in a shop? I imagine you didn't make the sweets/papers/items you sold. You merely transferred them into the hands of a customer. Should you have been paid?

Kazaanova

doodle_sketch wrote:

Don't blame a person for not having the knowledge. Blame the vendor for not giving it to them.

I see what you're saying but c'mon, I cant speak for other MP3 players, but you really cant get easier than an iPod.

MrPinK

Rew wrote:

The idea is that you are no longer buying a physical item (such as a CD) you are bying the contents

How does that automatically equate to the supplier being responsible for replacing the contents if you've lost them?

Infini

doodle_sketch wrote:

:rolleyes: No, but they asked for payment for the use of the skills that they trained years to hone and perfect. Should the person who plays not be entitled to the same?

True but they should be entitled to 50% of the royalties. The only reason they're (Record labels) kicking up about this is because people are getting smart and are sick of their bull. If it werent for their sluggish adoption of technology there would probably much less P2P usage today.

rew wrote:

DRM is a load of rubbish, its a fundimentally flawed and is never going to work. Sooner they reailse thaty and get on with it the better.

TBH DRM is something that would ENCOURAGE people to go looking for songs on P2P. They're shooting themselves in the foot the feckin' muppets.

Peanut wrote:

A nice accurate summary of filesharing there, all the broadband users on their connections with 128k upload sharing with 2 million people.... I don't think so..

Quick called the canadians they're exaggerating the facts again!

Rew

MrPinK wrote:

How does that automatically equate to the supplier being responsible for replacing the contents if you've lost them?

It dosn't but admitidly

But its a digtal product that they are hosting in their libray anyway so why not provide good customer service and provide redownloads.

condra

fcuk irma

Agent Smith

Just keep a spare hard disc with windows me on it,


if they come knocking, they will think your a complete retard.....

rsynnott

MrPinK wrote:

How does that automatically equate to the supplier being responsible for replacing the contents if you've lost them?

You're not buying the content; you're licensing them. You are buying a perpetual right to personal use of the content.

Red Alert

Look quite honestly DRM is not going to work. I blatently refuse to allow any corporate entity the right to control what goes on in MY computer, hence why I can't purchase anything with DRM on it. As we've seen with JHymn and DeCSS and the like, any DRM scheme will be broken by someone somewhere who's got a great brain and a copy of MATLAB!

**** the pop brigade (personally i'm mainly into House and Rock), in the niche markets the indie labels etc. will probably allow free downloading and make a lot of the money from gigs, t-shirt sales, posters, and CD's (hardened fans will always want the real thing) etc. DRM won't be needed in this case.

IRMA are trying to stop the passage of time. The record companies aren't needed any more, just like the Commodore 64!!

rsynnott

Red Alert wrote:

Look quite honestly DRM is not going to work. I blatently refuse to allow any corporate entity the right to control what goes on in MY computer, hence why I can't purchase anything with DRM on it. As we've seen with JHymn and DeCSS and the like, any DRM scheme will be broken by someone somewhere who's got a great brain and a copy of MATLAB!
!

Don't bet on it. The first wave of DRM systems (CSS, various MacroVision things, CD protection) were very naive. They'll get better and better; after all, the industry has plenty of money to throw around. Expect to see hardware-level DRM.