4 record companies in bid to compel Eircom to stamp out illegal downloads

thelordofcheese wrote: »

I don't think they have a leg to stand on really.
P2P programs like uTorrent are perfectly legal and have many legitimate uses, for example i've downloaded linux distros, open source software and game mods via torrents and it's a great system for getting this sort of stuff and bypassing the sometime atrocious traffic on websites.
Basically, p2p traffic isn't inherently illegal, it just depends on what the user is doing.
Think of it like owning a car, it's perfectly fine to drive your car down to the local school, but quite another to drive into the school and start doing doughnuts in the middle of the schoolyard during break time.

I can only imagine that EMI, Sony et al are just chancing their arms hoping to get some kind of bizzare ruling in their favour, but in reality it sounds like some crotchety old men complaining about kids today and their rap music and how it gives them the brain damage......

While that may be true, i myself download lynux distos through torrents, that doesn't stop some of the biggest telecommunications companies in the world from blocking bit torrent, or other traffic, regardless of whether it contains legal info or not. They don't discriminate, they just block/slow all of it i.e comcast. lots-o-news here

surely they don't stand a chance of winning this case?

I think the music industry did this to themselves. I mean how much cheaper is it for them cost-wise to sell music as a download, compared with a CD. Yet the price of music on I-tunes is the same if not more (not forgetting with added DRM). A backlash was inevitable.

I think people would prefer to buy their music legally but at a fair price. I think its probably correct to say that a majority of people who download music illegally would not consider the prices set in most online stores as fair & hence choose to the illegal option.

Look at how well allofmp3.com did. The key to their success was that the prices were fair in the mind of consumers. The music industry may be just about waking up to the fact that the landscape has changed forever. I think its the Movie/TV industry's turn now.

User45701 wrote: »

Well i dont download music so this does not effect me, ive downloaded a few things in the past but if the music is good i will pay for the soundtrack or to go see the person/band.

TV shows is another story. There is nothing wrong with downloading them if they are enw episodes because tv shows should be worldwide release, this would solve allot of problems with downloading.

Another problem is people putting DVD collections online because if you love a show you should pay for it, although the retail mark up in this country is stupid. Things like splitting seasons in 1/2 and making double the proffit. **** that.

The thing is, American TV companies do allow Americans to download their newest shows free (Fox, CBS et al).
If RTE were to do the same with shows they buy from other countries, I would gladly sit through the ads.
Until they do that, I'll still use bittorrent.

ednwireland wrote: »

i have a load of vinyl and they've all got home taping is killing music on the labels strange how it didnt it might have reduced the record companies profits. its all about protection of trade. i can never understand how itunes has got so popular as stated before (bitrates cost etc) i have never in the last 10 years ripped an mp3 at such a low bit rate you do notice the quality differencethat low. if the companies offered a good product at a reasonable price (ie less than a cd considering you get less information and no physical product) they would have much less of a problem. the industry hasnt moved with the times just tried to maintain their profit margin, i buy a lot more music since i found allofmp3 and other related sites than i ever did before. anyway the technology will outflank the industry again if this gets passed i have no doubt

I was in my friends car earlier and there was a cascada Cd in it (his G/F is a complete skanger).
I looked at it and the price was €20.
It was just a load of remixes of other songs.
Charging this for what is essentially a half arsed attempt at making music (let's be honest, you might like the music, but it's just old songs with a bit more synth) is a complete rip off.

What incentive is there to buy CD's when you can go to Tesco and buy blanks at 20c a pop?

I'm guilty of stealing music, but ni my defence, I have only ever downloaded stuff I had previously payed for and either lost or the disc was scratched, tape broke etc.
I'm still missing more than half my formerly extensive collection and will continue to replace it in what is essentially an illegal manner.

Before the internet was even viable in Ireland, I was forced to buy these albums over and over again.

The record companies can go anf **** themselves.
Give the money back to the artst by going to their gigs and buying their merchandise.
Screw the middle man.

IFPI: "I CAN HAS LAWSUIT?!?"

JUDGE: "You can has lawsuit but you cannot has win".

Great quote I just read:

Technically it should be easier to sue a gun company before an ISP, yet some whiny assed fat motherfcuking label gets all up in arms that they’re not balls deep in every customer’s ass with exhorbitant profits from selling cookie cutter albums. You know what? If I couldn’t download any media, I definitely wouldn’t buy it either. Better for the artist to be heard instead of spurned because of overpriced material.

the ONE point that everyone on the planet seems to have missed is that people no longer want to buy albums. iTunes is successful because you could buy the songs off an album you wanted & leave the crap behind.

If the industry accepted this fact, & also didn't shell out ridiculous money on trying to get short term returns on cabbage patch artists they'd be laughing. They are not making any more artists like the Rolling stones, madonna etc - they don't see long term. even look at the frequency with which artists are expected to turn around new albums now ....... it was not unusual for artists to have 2 or 3 years between records.

Another factor is - they claim artists are being screwed. We are all now well aware of how little out of an 18 euro album an artist gets. The average pop act now is lucky if they see less than one euro out of that.

I mean - the entertainment industry is crying foul ..... ask yourself this; why is it young successful artists who are multi-million album sellers (or in heath ledger's case multi million box office/dvd sellers) not as financially well off as you think? Heath Ledger only had 75,000 bucks to his name when he died ......... now it is not as if some fat git in a suit kicking back with a cigar was what sold the movie to fans now was it?????

A trick the music industry used to placate artists in the early part of this decade was to 'give them their own labels' as part of recompense, which was nothing more than a sham by making them feel more important than they were where everyone was like "I got my own label, signing my own artists etc"; meanwhile the deals were actually costing the artists money, which then in turn went to the parent label who was gaining MORE money from the album distro deals.

The whole thing is a sham. If is also one of the few industries who's products you can buy, be unhappy with & have NO comeback & NO return .......

These fat overweight middle aged p***ks who run these companies need to get with the now, & move with the times. it is almost as laughable as that fat git who manages U2 McGuinness turning around & saying that Apple were selling 'music theft boxes'. he wasn't saying that when Apple gave them the ONLY artist branded iPod (which was a record seller in iPod history) with all of U2's music on it with a huge kickback to the band ........

Besides - artists make more money from touring & personal appearances, or backstage meet & greets than they ever will from their album sales.

The whole thing stinks to high heaven ..................



:::: ven0mous ::::