Irish music-swappers admit liability

HelterSkelter

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/050804/95/fovid.html

By Matthew Clark

Eight people in Ireland have agreed to pay damages of up to EUR6,000 after settling out of court in the country's first batch of music uploading court cases.

The Irish Recorded Music Association (IRMA) said that eight of the 17 people it has accused of being among Ireland's worst offenders when it comes to music uploading have agreed to settle out of court with the organisation. According to an Irish Times report, the eight have told IRMA that they will no longer swap music over the internet, and have agreed to pay damages of between EUR2,000 and EUR6,000.

The paper says that some of the accused were parents of children who had uploaded and downloaded music over peer-to-peer file-sharing services such as Kazaa or Gnutella. There was also an instance of an employee of a firm which had been uploading tracks, exposing that company to potential legal liability. Dick Doyle, director of IRMA, said that many of the remaining nine alleged file-sharers who have not yet admitted liability have claimed that file-sharing was undertaken by someone else in their home.

Interestingly, Doyle said that IRMA now has additional information on the activities of alleged file-swappers, and he said that it may target more individuals in the coming months.

The 17 people involved in the current legal action were written to by IRMA in late July after the organisation and its backers -- which include the big music labels -- succeeded in forcing internet service providers to give up the names of file-sharers. This effort actually began in April as part of a global assault led by the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), which filed 963 new cases against file-sharers in Britain, Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Iceland, Finland, Ireland and Japan during that month.

Worldwide, the total number of cases against those accused of illegal file-sharing has hit 11,552 worldwide since the US-based Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) began its crusade three years ago.

Last month, the IFPI made rare positive comments about the digital music business, claiming that the number of songs downloaded legally over the internet had tripled to 180 million in the first six months of 2005. Conversely, illegal file-sharing continues to grow, but at a slower pace, rising just 3 percent to 900 million tracks in the first half of the year compared to the same period in 2004. The IFPI said the most cited reason for the growth of legitimate downloads is the threat of lawsuits.

"We are now seeing real evidence that people are increasingly put off by illegal file-sharing and turning to legal ways of enjoying music online," IFPI CEO John Kennedy said in a July statement. "Whether it's the fear of getting caught breaking the law, or the realisation that many networks could damage your home PC, attitudes are changing, and that is good news for the whole music industry."

dahamsta

http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&hl=en&lr=lang_en&q=chickens&btnG=Search

egan007

In fairness the music industry lost 1billion euro - poor EMI we all feel for them
Lets not get into the 50Billion the industry actually made

Blaster99

Unfortunately the law says that theft is theft regardless of how wealthy the rightful owner is.

egan007

121kmph is breaking the law but that does not bother me either.

egan007

121kmph is breaking the law but that does not bother me either.

kaizersoze

egan007 wrote:

121kmph is breaking the law but that does not bother me either.

Good man yourself :rolleyes:

the corpo

its mental

last week sony USA, a beacon of integrity in the illegal download war, is nabbed for payola, and in the same week the bbc run a story that illegal filesharers actually spend far more money on music than non illegal downloaders.

who are the real crooks in all this?

me, probably

Chalk

Blaster99 wrote:

Unfortunately the law says that theft is theft regardless of how wealthy the rightful owner is.

i could have sworn it was copyright infringement.
lucky theres no names printed or youd be in court for libel.

blorg

Blaster99 wrote:

Unfortunately the law says that theft is theft regardless of how wealthy the rightful owner is.

...theft is theft but copyright infringement is quite a different offence...

Goldstein

Chalk wrote:

i could have sworn it was copyright infringement.
lucky theres no names printed or youd be in court for libel.

Exactly, I'm sick of people using IRMAs "theft" and "stealing" media buzzwords.

mcgovern

the corpo wrote:

and in the same week the bbc run a story that illegal filesharers actually spend far more money on music than non illegal downloaders.

Thats been established for a long time now, more than a year, its just RIAA etc keep it quiet.

Gegerty

They must have some super duper broadband service nobody else in Ireland has heard of if they can upload and be considered *serious* uploaders LOL! People try to grab files off me but they give up after 5 mins of 1K speeds

Gegerty

You'd be an idiot to settle out of court anyway. Any evidence they have is basically a text file of logs, which anybody can just put together. I doubt very much it'll stand up with outdated Irish laws.

egan007

I wonder is this a tactic by IRMA
i.e. These people don't actually exist - hence the settlements

Chalk

Gegerty wrote:

You'd be an idiot to settle out of court anyway. Any evidence they have is basically a text file of logs, which anybody can just put together. I doubt very much it'll stand up with outdated Irish laws.

hehe,
which court do you preside over?

high court, circuit court?

grumpytrousers

Gegerty wrote:

You'd be an idiot to settle out of court anyway. Any evidence they have is basically a text file of logs, which anybody can just put together. I doubt very much it'll stand up with outdated Irish laws.

Fine to say that from your vantage point...however, it would be ballsy in the extreme to tell 'em to shove it and you'll take your chances in court. You might win. You just might lose and have to pay their costs as well.

While the law doesn't legislate per se for copyright infringement over the internet using peer to peer networks, assuming IRMA can prove you committed copyright infringement by
a) subpoenaing somebody from the ISP to say that such an IP address corresponds to a certain person
b) getting expert testimony that certain logs mean that you (or somebody at that IP address) did do x, y, or z

then the burden of proof will shift to the alleged file sharer to provide his own witnesses and rebut the accusations.

might be tricky enough...

Gegerty

Chalk wrote:

hehe,
which court do you preside over?

high court, circuit court?

em, Judge Judy's court

Blaster99

Chalk wrote:

i could have sworn it was copyright infringement.
lucky theres no names printed or youd be in court for libel.

Lucky me.

In my book copyright infringement equals theft, particularly this form of copyright infringement. But it's fairly irrelevant what I think as it's illegal either way. I don't know how the courts treat it but I seem to recall that in the States they multiplied the number of downloads with the value of the song and offered to settle for a lot less out of court. A couple of grand sounds pretty cheap to avoid going to court.

Gegerty

The fact that most of them were parents says it all. It's fear tactics, people fear what they don't understand. They're homing in on people's ignorance and trying to squeeze money out of them. It's another sign of thier greediness. F*CK THE SYSTEM, FIGHT THE REVOLUTION!!! Try paying the artists 2 million instead of 10 million, WHO'S THE FOOKING THIEF HERE?????

btw, Whoever uses gnutella is just asking for it anyway . Before the world wide web there was usenet.......nuff said.

mrblack

Gegerty wrote:

You'd be an idiot to settle out of court anyway. Any evidence they have is basically a text file of logs, which anybody can just put together. I doubt very much it'll stand up with outdated Irish laws.

I am curious about their evidence as well. Since its not a criminal offence IRMA only have to provide enough evidence that is reasonable to an ordinary person-But I wonder has anyone ever actually contested their logs/files etc in a court where a technically informed barrister could cross examine their experts and introduce enough doubt that no reasonable man could find the defendant guilty. I would assume that most of the logging evidence has been gathered in the USA

At the very least a defence of having been hacked or a virus or maybe someone accessing your wireless network might provide enough doubt to sway a judge/jury.

Maybe one of the 17 is a solicitor/barrister and we will find out some answers down the line.

PS I am not a solicitor/barrister so don't take this as any form of legal advice whatsoever and is purely a personal opinion of mine, which is not intended to damage IRMA or condone copyright infringement

Zapho

Blaster99 wrote:

Lucky me.

In my book copyright infringement equals theft, particularly this form of copyright infringement. But it's fairly irrelevant what I think as it's illegal either way. I don't know how the courts treat it but I seem to recall that in the States they multiplied the number of downloads with the value of the song and offered to settle for a lot less out of court. A couple of grand sounds pretty cheap to avoid going to court.

If copyright infringement was the same as theft, the gardaí would have shown up at their houses, put the 'criminals' in hand-cuffs and marched them off to prison, then they would need someone to bail them out. This of course doesn't happen because copyright infringement is not the same as theft. It is simply an excuse for IRMA to create and inforce their own laws because they have so much money.

Chalk

Blaster99 wrote:

Lucky me.

In my book copyright infringement equals theft, particularly this form of copyright infringement. But it's fairly irrelevant what I think as it's illegal either way. I don't know how the courts treat it but I seem to recall that in the States they multiplied the number of downloads with the value of the song and offered to settle for a lot less out of court. A couple of grand sounds pretty cheap to avoid going to court.

etc, etc,
this isnt the states, etc etc.

obviously your book isnt the big book of irish law,
so i guess it is irrelvant...

Gegerty

Does anybody know which ISP's are handing out personal details to IRMA??? Are UTV amongst those by any chance??? I know there's a lot of people on the boards stuck in contract with those shower of sh*tes and if they're handing out personal information then thats a nice excuse to get out of the contract

ButtermilkJack

Blaster99 wrote:

Unfortunately the law says that theft is theft regardless of how wealthy the rightful owner is.

Oh, and charging €25 for the latest 'pop idol' idiot is not theft? Don't get me started... :rolleyes:

paulm17781

ButtermilkJack wrote:

Oh, and charging €25 for the latest 'pop idol' idiot is not theft? Don't get me started... :rolleyes:

Well, technically it's not. A waste? Perhaps. Theft? No.

Blaster99

Chalk wrote:

etc, etc,
this isnt the states, etc etc.

obviously your book isnt the big book of irish law,
so i guess it is irrelvant...

Pretty much. But I suppose the good news for me is I don't have to sit here and come up with various excuses why breaking the law is justifiable, I can just sit back and enjoy the show.

My understanding, and I admittedly don't care too much about this stuff other than poking fun at guys like Chalk, is that they can get details from any ISP once they've caught somebody. The ISP's don't go after illegal activity, lawyers do.

Gegerty

paulm17781 wrote:

Well, technically it's not. A waste? Perhaps. Theft? No.

It's theft and you know it and don't go quoting the law here you know what he means. Are you going to say if you don't like the prices then don't buy it? Eh, well ok so I'll download it for free.

Chalk

Blaster99 wrote:

Pretty much. But I suppose the good news for me is I don't have to sit here and come up with various excuses why breaking the law is justifiable, I can just sit back and enjoy the show.

My understanding, and I admittedly don't care too much about this stuff other than poking fun at guys like Chalk, is that they can get details from any ISP once they've caught somebody. The ISP's don't go after illegal activity, lawyers do.

i dont get it,
how are you poking fun at me?

i havent come upo with any reasons justifying anything,
i merely commented that you could be considered a law breaker in terms of libel,
nothing else,

you then claimed ignorance of the legal situation.
which pretty much sums up the relevance of you posting on the subject,
does it not?

paulm17781

Gegerty wrote:

It's theft and you know it and don't go quoting the law here you know what he means. Are you going to say if you don't like the prices then don't buy it? Eh, well ok so I'll download it for free.

You may want to reread all of what he and I wrote.

He said

Oh, and charging €25 for the latest 'pop idol' idiot is not theft? Don't get me started...

and I said

Well, technically it's not. A waste? Perhaps. Theft? No.

How is cahrging €25 for something theft?

Where did I quote the law?

I would neither buy nor download pop idol related "merchandise".

ButtermilkJack

Gegerty wrote:

It's theft and you know it and don't go quoting the law here you know what he means.

Exactly, just making a point really.

Gegerty wrote:

Are you going to say if you don't like the prices then don't buy it? Eh, well ok so I'll download it for free.

Spot on!! That's the whole arguement here. I don't mean to sound jealous or anything here, but what gives an artist the "right" to earn €10m per album. Ok, he/she/they have a talent, but I have a talent for what I do but I don't ask my employer for €10m per year. If they are good, they will earn enough to live a modest lifestyle. If they are crap they will have to take an office job and the music lovers will be forever greatful. You've got to work hard for your money, not become a millionaire overnight because you're a one-hit-wonder.

That's what the Lotto is for

paulm17781

ButtermilkJack wrote:

Exactly, just making a point really.

Spot on!! That's the whole arguement here. I don't mean to sound jealous or anything here, but what gives an artist the "right" to earn €10m per album. Ok, he/she/they have a talent, but I have a talent for what I do but I don't ask my employer for €10m per year. If they are good, they will earn enough to live a modest lifestyle. If they are crap they will have to take an office job and the music lovers will be forever greatful. You've got to work hard for your money, not become a millionaire overnight because you're a one-hit-wonder.

That's what the Lotto is for

If you sell enough of anything you should become wealthy. If you sell 50m records you deserve money. The likes of the pop idol "artists" don't make anywhere near that amount of money. Most of the 1 hit wonders probably earn about 50,000 max.

Blaster99

Chalk wrote:

i dont get it,
how are you poking fun at me?

i havent come upo with any reasons justifying anything,
i merely commented that you could be considered a law breaker in terms of libel,
nothing else,

you then claimed ignorance of the legal situation.
which pretty much sums up the relevance of you posting on the subject,
does it not?

From my perspective the fun bit is in not really caring, but you seem to get a bit worked up and defensive about it, talking about libel and stuff. Which is perhaps ever so slightly over the top would you agree?

Chalk

to quote someone from the other day,
"sarcasm doesnt work on the internet anymore"

ah well,
ill get over the loss.
was just pointing out the ironing in your post

PiE

Blaster99 wrote:

In my book copyright infringement equals theft, particularly this form of copyright infringement.

Ever loaned a book to a friend? Recorded a tv show? Made a mix-tape for a friend?

Burn in hell, thief.

grumpytrousers

ButtermilkJack wrote:

Exactly, just making a point really.

Spot on!! That's the whole arguement here. I don't mean to sound jealous or anything here, but what gives an artist the "right" to earn €10m per album. Ok, he/she/they have a talent, but I have a talent for what I do but I don't ask my employer for €10m per year. If they are good, they will earn enough to live a modest lifestyle. If they are crap they will have to take an office job and the music lovers will be forever greatful. You've got to work hard for your money, not become a millionaire overnight because you're a one-hit-wonder.

That's what the Lotto is for

Of course the artist has a right to make money; if the punters want something and are willing to pay a price, then the artist should benefit.

Now - whether some cnut with a coke habit, a ponytail and a loud hawaiian shirt deserves to make money in his job as a record company exec is another story entirely...and I guess I'd perhaps have the same reservations about Mr HMV

For my money Paul McCartney, Johnny Cash, the bloke that wrote 'Baby One More Time'...Killswitch Engage...I don't care; if they're producing something and people like it, they ARE entitled to
a) get paid
b) get rich

your argument that you don't demand extortionate money from your boss is fundamentally flawed in that in comparative terms, you have not achieved anything in your job which is the equivalent of writing one decent song. Much less a decent song that cleans up on royalties/sales worldwide...

ButtermilkJack

paulm17781 wrote:

If you sell enough of anything you should become wealthy. If you sell 50m records you deserve money....

I couldn't agree more, but my point is 'How much money?' What's wrong with selling 50m records at €1 each, or 10m records at €1 each. That's a healthy profit (ok ok, minus costs/manufacturing etc...). I think the word we're all looking for is 'Greed'. Pure and simple!

EDIT:

grumpytrousers wrote:

Of course the artist has a right to make money; if the punters want something and are willing to pay a price, then the artist should benefit.

Now - whether some cnut with a coke habit, a ponytail and a loud hawaiian shirt deserves to make money as a record company exec is another story entirely...and I guess I'd perhaps have the same reservations about Mr HMV

For my money Paul McCartney, Johnny Cash, the bloke that wrote 'Baby One More Time'...Killswitch Engage...I don't care; if they're producing something and people like it, they ARE entitled to
a) get paid
b) get rich

your argument that you don't demand extortionate money from your boss is fundamentally flawed in that in comparative terms, you have not achieved anything in your job which is the equivalent of writing one decent song. Much less a decent song that cleans up on royalties/sales worldwide...

Yes, I can see your point. I'm not comparing my situation to a recording artist at all.

I should be venting my anger towards the producers/record companies. I agree if you produce something unique that there is a demand for, you deserve money. Somewhere along the line though, everybody thinks they deserve their share and the price goes up!

Dinner

Gegerty wrote:

Does anybody know which ISP's are handing out personal details to IRMA??? Are UTV amongst those by any chance??? I know there's a lot of people on the boards stuck in contract with those shower of sh*tes and if they're handing out personal information then thats a nice excuse to get out of the contract

AFAIK UTV have UK IP addresses and wouldnt be of any interest to the IRMA. I suppose when the UK equivalent continues their cases UTV customers might be included in that. Hopefully, they'll just forget about UTV customers because we're Irish. Never know.

Gegerty

grumpytrousers wrote:

Of course the artist has a right to make money; if the punters want something and are willing to pay a price, then the artist should benefit.

Now - whether some cnut with a coke habit, a ponytail and a loud hawaiian shirt deserves to make money in his job as a record company exec is another story entirely...and I guess I'd perhaps have the same reservations about Mr HMV

For my money Paul McCartney, Johnny Cash, the bloke that wrote 'Baby One More Time'...Killswitch Engage...I don't care; if they're producing something and people like it, they ARE entitled to
a) get paid
b) get rich

your argument that you don't demand extortionate money from your boss is fundamentally flawed in that in comparative terms, you have not achieved anything in your job which is the equivalent of writing one decent song. Much less a decent song that cleans up on royalties/sales worldwide...

The fact is that so long as a CD costs more than €5 people are going to copy CD's, copy songs off the radio and download music. Sue people all you want it's not going to stop the machine.

Talk to people in the US on other forums such as newtorrents.info and you'll see that letters threatening legal action are common and are just ignored by the majority of people. Obviously the heavy offenders are clamped down on and it usually involves busting their door down and actually confiscation the PC. What does that tell you about the legality of their "evidence". Also I made a point earlier, how IRMA can consider any Irish uploader a *serious* uploader is a joke! We just don't have the bandwidth! This is a publicity thing and they're trying to take attention away from the fact that the pop idol approach of signing artists is killing off any chance of decent talented artists making a breakthrough. TBH file sharing is the music industry's only hope and they're just too damn greedy to see it.

paulm17781

ButtermilkJack wrote:

I couldn't agree more, but my point is 'How much money?' What's wrong with selling 50m records at €1 each, or 10m records at €1 each. That's a healthy profit (ok ok, minus costs/manufacturing etc...). I think the word we're all looking for is 'Greed'. Pure and simple!

Manufacturing (cd pressing, inlay card, cd cover), distribution, recording time, shop staff wages, shop, shop profit. All made from a euro, I see you have thought this out well! :rolleyes:

As was said above however, record companies could certainly take a pay cut. I think (not certain though) an artist get approximately 3 dollars of every album sold. The only thing that is unfair about that is that the artist (song writer) should really be getting most of the profit. Hence why I always try to buy cds direct from smaller bands.

Goldstein

PiE wrote:

Ever loaned a book to a friend? Recorded a tv show? Made a mix-tape for a friend?

Burn in hell, thief.

Might I add:
photocopied a page from a book? (or been given one - school/college/work) lent a CD? lent a DVD? recorded something off the radio? used an iPod/iRiver/Zen/any other MP3 player? burned a CD to your computer?...

Dam thieves eh? They're a scurge on this Earth alright.


(Of course they're not quite as bad as the hypocrites)

chorus techy

Gegerty wrote:

Does anybody know which ISP's are handing out personal details to IRMA??? Are UTV amongst those by any chance??? I know there's a lot of people on the boards stuck in contract with those shower of sh*tes and if they're handing out personal information then thats a nice excuse to get out of the contract

The 17 involved in the recent legal action were Eircom and BT customers however, it won't be too long until all ISPs are forced to hand over customer details. I mean, do you reall expect ISPs to face legal action just to protect the rights of someone who might pay them €30 a month for an internet connection? I doubt it.

Gegerty

chorus techy wrote:

The 17 involved in the recent legal action were Eircom and BT customers however, it won't be too long until all ISPs are forced to hand over customer details. I mean, do you reall expect ISPs to face legal action just to protect the rights of someone who might pay them €30 a month for an internet connection? I doubt it.

No I don't expect the Irish ISP's to stick up for their customers that's for sure! It's good to know I can break my 6 month BT contract when I switch over to them though (although I'm hoping they will at least be a half decent service :-)). Handing out personal information is most definitely cause for termination of contract.

ButtermilkJack

paulm17781 wrote:

Manufacturing (cd pressing, inlay card, cd cover), distribution, recording time, shop staff wages, shop, shop profit. All made from a euro, I see you have thought this out well! :rolleyes: ...

Ok, wow, where do I start? I don't really have time to sit down with my pencil and calculator , I'm just trying to make a point. I agree, €1 is ridiculously low, but like I said, this thread is moving so fast we are all just making points here.

I think if we all showed the same 'passion' shown here towards each other, the record companies might just take notice

chorus techy

Gegerty wrote:

Handing out personal information is most definitely cause for termination of contract.

Well, yes it is because you'd be breaking the contract
Pretty much all ISPs now have a clause in their contract about how the service is not to be used to transmit any data which is defamatory or if it infringes on the copyright of others, in which case it would be as you would be transmitting copyrighted music and data files.

Gegerty

chorus techy wrote:

Well, yes it is because you'd be breaking the contract
Pretty much all ISPs now have a clause in their contract about how the service is not to be used to transmit any data which is defamatory or if it infringes on the copyright of others, in which case it would be as you would be transmitting copyrighted music and data files.

If I was caught yeah. I'm sure BT would have no problem ending the contract mutually! I meant if they turn out to be as sh*ite as UTV then I can break the contract on the grounds that it has become apparent to me that they have a policy of handing out personal information without permission.

paulm17781

ButtermilkJack wrote:

Ok, wow, where do I start? I don't really have time to sit down with my pencil and calculator

Nor did I!

I think we can all agree CDs are too expensive. The sad thing is it is the record companies (mainly) who are making money off of them and they are probably the involved people who least deserve it. Sad thing is downloading music won't show them.

As someone said above, file sharing isn't going to go away until music becomes much cheaper. Sad thing is I doubt this will happen any time soon.

grumpytrousers

PiE wrote:

Ever loaned a book to a friend? Recorded a tv show? Made a mix-tape for a friend?

Burn in hell, thief.

We've all done the book/album/DVD borrowing but the difference is that engaging in that behaviour historically hasn't caused a noticable fall in sales of the original products.

The contention (and I aint' saying it's true or not) is that wholesale file transferring means that overall MORE people will spend LESS on SOMETHING...

And while we all like to rail against 'The Man', ultimately if you don't pay for an album the writer/performer/producer (the talented ones!) lose out...unfortunately the untalented coke-snorting muppets I alluded to above win if you DO pay, but them's is the breaks...

Cuauhtemoc

grumpytrousers wrote:

We've all done the book/album/DVD borrowing but the difference is that engaging in that behaviour historically hasn't caused a noticable fall in sales of the original products.

Just out of interest, the fall in sales that has been reported in Ireland, is this over the counter sales only?
Or is the fall maybe explainable by cheaper internet sales/legal downloads/cd wow etc which they conveniently leave out of Irish sales figures?

chorus techy

Cuauhtemoc wrote:

Just out of interest, the fall in sales that has been reported in Ireland, is this over the counter sales only?
Or is the fall maybe explainable by cheaper internet sales/legal downloads/cd wow etc which they conveniently leave out of Irish sales figures?

An excellent point! I, probably like many others, have given up paying rip off over-the-counter prices and have resorted to paying much less for the exact same high quality over-the-counter sale from CD buying websites and now I buy ALL my cds over the net. If just 100 people moved to CD websites, that could be a prety hefty "drop" in sales. And of course, sales of CDs from foreign countries plus sales of CDs from websites are not included in the sale figures of the overall CD sales in Ireland.

is_that_so

My take on it is that it was inevitable, difficult to condone but a very widespread activity. The fact that cdwow, play and many others do good business suggests that we don't get much value for money.