[Article] Eircom to cut off Music File Sharers ..

dub45 · 30-01-2009 5:56pm

Upward Spiral wrote: »

If a Trade Union reported it it would be investigated by whoever is in charge of implementing the outcome.

"...

Not necessarily - there are various bodies that a Trade Union may make representations to - the employer, a rights officer and even in extreme cases the Gardai. The latter two would not be in charge of implementing the outcome of any investigation.

tororosso · 30-01-2009 5:58pm

dub45 wrote: »

Surely a demonstrable inability to face up to reality (its not right or wrong but it has crippled three industries! oh and by the way I downloaded 4 discographies last night!) should be explored in the Personal Issues forum?

In fairness, downloading stuff off the internet has not "crippled" any industry. Thats a bit of an extreme description of what downloading has done to the music industry. The poster who downloaded 4 discographies did so with a clean conscience because even though it is written in law that it is illegal the 'majority' of people do NOT view it as a morally bad act :cool:(a poll in todays Herald Am is just one example of this).

My name is URL · 30-01-2009 5:59pm

dub45 wrote: »

Not necessarily - there are various bodies that a Trade Union may make representations to - the employer, a rights officer and even in extreme cases the Gardai. The latter two would not be in charge of implementing the outcome of any investigation.

But it would still be investigated by an independent body before any action is taken against the accused party...

PaddyTheNth · 30-01-2009 6:00pm

DeVore wrote: »

My favourite game (LotRO) uses torrenting to distribute very very large updates. As does Wow. As does most Blizzard games.

Are they going to discriminate or is all P2P and torrent traffic fair game?

DeV.

dude...

zenno · 30-01-2009 6:01pm

tororosso wrote: »

In fairness, downloading stuff off the internet has not "crippled" any industry. Thats a bit of an extreme description of what downloading has done to the music industry. The poster who downloaded 4 discographies did so with a clean conscience because even though it is written in law that it is illegal the 'majority' of people do NOT view it as a morally bad act :cool:(a poll in todays Herald Am is just one example of this).

correct

dub45 · 30-01-2009 6:01pm

Upward Spiral wrote: »

I neither agree nor disagree with them. :pac:

What do you want me to say?

My point in all of this is that I don't agree with the way Eircom plan on implementing these proposals, it goes against things that I believe in, such as a fair trial if I were to be punished for an alleged crime.

My views on the T&C's are moot when it comes to this issue.

But nobody knows yet how Eircom will go about implementing the proposals.

However in broad terms a service provider (and not just an isp) cannot stand over providing 'unlimited services' and by unlmited I mean a service without any limitations at all.

For example if a rental car company suddenly discovered that a customer was hiring its fastest car every week for a bank robbery (very hypothetical I know but there has been arguments on here that no service provider should have any restrictions of the service it provides) should it just continue hiring out the cars?

watty · 30-01-2009 6:03pm

DeVore wrote: »

My favourite game (LotRO) uses torrenting to distribute very very large updates. As does Wow. As does most Blizzard games.

Are they going to discriminate or is all P2P and torrent traffic fair game?

DeV.

If eircom fought in court and lost and had to install monitoring gear, yes that would be a concern.

But in terms of how the 3rd party Agencies gather IPs with date/Time you would have to be P2P copyright material when another client was really an Agency Bot or downloading (possibly fake or watermarked) copyright material from a "honeypot" server. Or they may hack servers etc.

It's very unlikely to affect legal P2P such as Sky's Kontitki, BBC, C4, Linux ISOs via BT, Blizzard, Steam etc etc as for P2P they will use tracker info offering their Copyright materials, the bot client connects P2P and as P2P traffic proceeds content, source IP and date/time are logged.

There ARE issues I outlined earlier of transparency and appeal. Not just for subscribers, but ironically for the Rights Holder. There is no mechanism I can see for them to know what eircom does with reported IPs.

dub45 · 30-01-2009 6:08pm

tororosso wrote: »

In fairness, downloading stuff off the internet has not "crippled" any industry. Thats a bit of an extreme description of what downloading has done to the music industry. The poster who downloaded 4 discographies did so with a clean conscience because even though it is written in law that it is illegal the 'majority' of people do NOT view it as a morally bad act :cool:(a poll in todays Herald Am is just one example of this).

Downloading music and other copyrighthed material has demonstrably damaged many people in the entertainment industry from helping in the closure of small shops to depriving musicians of royalties. Three distributors of cds and dvds closed in England in the last year. And there are many many more music companies than the Sonys and Emis of this world who are finding it a struggle.

So morality is now to be decided on what is convenient for the majority of people? Not so long ago 'the majority of people' were not too worried about the rights of minorities for example. And the day we base our morality on polls in Herald AM is a sad day indeed!:(

Cabaal · 30-01-2009 6:11pm

Upward Spiral wrote: »

I neither agree nor disagree with them. :pac:

What do you want me to say?

My point in all of this is that I don't agree with the way Eircom plan on implementing these proposals, it goes against things that I believe in, such as a fair trial if I were to be punished for an alleged crime.

My views on the T&C's are moot when it comes to this issue.

Just curious really, if your an eircom subscriber or for that matter any ISP's subscriber then you'll have already agreed you won't use the connection to download copyright material

So clearly you do agree if you use the service :pac:

dub45 · 30-01-2009 6:15pm

Upward Spiral wrote: »

But it would still be investigated by an independent body before any action is taken against the accused party...

Yes and there is no guarantee that any action will be taken against the third party either. And as I and others have pointed out here there are no details yet of how Eircom will actually implement this agreement.

So how the rights of any person 'complained against' will be handled are simply unknown at this stage.

aidanodr · 30-01-2009 6:16pm

http://www.siliconrepublic.com/news/article/12189/new-media/isps-query-big-four-eircom-deal

ISPs say Eircom and Big Four music deal could hit potholes

"The industry group representing 12 independent telecoms operators in Ireland says Eircom’s settlement with the Big Four record labels – unprecedented in history – could run into a quagmire over privacy rights.

The chairman of the Alternative Licensed Telecoms Operators (ALTO) group Ronan Lupton said that if a test case was brought by a group by Digital Rights Ireland (DRI), for example, issues over breaches of privacy over IP addresses could be raised.

ALTO’s members include BT Ireland, Magnet Networks, NTL, Chorus, Smart Telecom, Budget Telecom, Cable & Wireless, Colt Telecom, Complete Networks, Digiweb, ESB Telecoms, Verizon and 3 Play Plus.

Lupton said that Wednesday’s agreement between Eircom and the record labels was a direct action against Eircom and is not enforceable on Ireland’s other broadband providers."

“While we obviously do not condone illegal downloading or any illegality on or over the internet, we firmly disapprove of any draconian measures that would compromise the privacy, speed or services offered to broadband users. We do not need measures to further impede the development of next-generation broadband in Ireland,” Lupton stated yesterday.

Aidan

tororosso · 30-01-2009 6:18pm

dub45 wrote: »

Downloading music and other copyrighthed material has demonstrably damaged many people in the entertainment industry from helping in the closure of small shops to depriving musicians of royalties. Three distributors of cds and dvds closed in England in the last year. And there are many many more music companies than the Sonys and Emis of this world who are finding it a struggle.

So morality is now to be decided on what is convenient for the majority of people? Not so long ago 'the majority of people' were not too worried about the rights of minorities for example. And the day we base our morality on polls in Herald AM is a sad day indeed!:(

The example to the Herald Am was only used to give an indication of what the majority of people feel about downloading of materials such as songs off the internet. I wont go down the road of how things are defined as moral or immoral but all I was saying was that the majority of people simply do NOT have a problem with downloading songs and other stuff off a P2P site:) Yes some companies fail but this happens in ALL sectors of business and is never due to 1 lone factor. The music that is being downloaded is normally the artists(sorry let me repeat that because an artist makes works of art such as Michelangelo:D)...singers who are really well known and owned by the Massive Corporations who can weather online downloading because they are preposterously well off....

Hank Scorpio · 30-01-2009 6:24pm

People can download 400 Movies of about 250 gigs but 1 mp3 could get them a warning?

My name is URL · 30-01-2009 6:27pm

Cabaal wrote: »

Just curious really, if your an eircom subscriber or for that matter any ISP's subscriber then you'll have already agreed you won't use the connection to download copyright material
So clearly you do agree if you use the service :pac:

I never once said that I did download copyrighted stuff. My beef is not with the subject of this case, but the outcome, which could later affect our privacy rights, and also with how readily Eircom agreed to something which affects it's customers.

dub45 · 30-01-2009 6:29pm

tororosso wrote: »

The example to the Herald Am was only used to give an indication of what the majority of people feel about downloading of materials such as songs off the internet. I wont go down the road of how things are defined as moral or immoral but all I was saying was that the majority of people simply do NOT have a problem with downloading songs and other stuff off a P2P site:) Yes some companies fail but this happens in ALL sectors of business and is never due to 1 lone factor. The music that is being downloaded is normally the artists(sorry let me repeat that because an artist makes works of art such as Michelangelo:D)...singers who are really well known and owned by the Massive Corporations who can weather online downloading because they are preposterously well off....

So when you become 'rich enough' its ok to steal your copyright material?
So could you tell us at what level it becomes permissiable? Should people who download files from artists just setting out be prosecuted while others who download files from the rich and famous are striking a blow from the downtrodden and oppressed?

And is it ok to break into rich people's houses and steal stuff because they are 'proposterously' well off?

There is a lot of nonsense written in this thread about the supposed large amounts of money paid for the cd which go to the record company. These posters forget about the costs of transport, storage, printing, manufacturing not to mention the profits necessary to keep the shops open. All of these activities of course provide jobs for ordinary people. Also record companies depend on the hits to keep their other activities going. For example several years ago the unexpectedly huge hit that Norah Jones had literally saved the Blue Note label from going under. A label of vast historical importance to Jazz Fans.

And by the way what rights have the peope who download stuff 'without a thought' to ignore the views expressed here:

http://www.musicunited.org/3_artists.html

dub45 · 30-01-2009 6:31pm

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

Yeah, like that Mettalica guy... he was hella poor.

I dont believe it was down to 1 factor either tororosso. Good post.
Immoral, the fooking record companies are immoral, I know im harping on about the greed and all but it really couldnt be any more obvious.

Perhaps you could define this immorality?

And perhaps you could say how such claimed immorality on their part justifies you ripping off artists?

Nick_oliveri · 30-01-2009 6:41pm

I never said I was downloading ****. Your assuming.
I have already pointed out the immorality of the record companies in both my previous links. Or is it just good business?

watty · 30-01-2009 6:47pm

aidanodr wrote: »

http://www.siliconrepublic.com/news/article/12189/new-media/isps-query-big-four-eircom-deal

ISPs say Eircom and Big Four music deal could hit potholes

“While we obviously do not condone illegal downloading or any illegality on or over the internet, we firmly disapprove of any draconian measures that would compromise the privacy, speed or services offered to broadband users. We do not need measures to further impede the development of next-generation broadband in Ireland,” Lupton stated yesterday.

Translation:
We aren't changing what we do unless forced to and it's legal (Data Protection act).

Cabaal · 30-01-2009 6:51pm

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

I never said I was downloading ****. Your assuming.
I have already pointed out the immorality of the record companies in both my previous links. Or is it just good business?

Once again off topic and thats why your last post was deleted.

Your views on the morality of record companys, how much artists get paid etc is off-topic in this thread

briany · 30-01-2009 7:08pm

What id like to know is exactly what methods the copyright holders have to log IPs. Is it some man in a mediasentry t-shirt and briefs sitting at the comp at three in the morning scribbling IP numbers from Utorrent or do they have some more sophisticated method? Is it totally random?

The-Game · 30-01-2009 7:21pm

From the articles it seems to be anyone on an open P2P community will be caught, the likes of private trackers or Usenet will be safe

Plus there is no way to stop people using Rapidshare or Zshare as sources for downloads.

Tyrant^ · 30-01-2009 7:40pm

Thought id share this.... its probably somewhere in this massive thread already

UK will not legislate on piracy

Feargal Sharkey, ex-pop star and now head of the pan-industry body UK Music, has said that he believes 80% of file-sharers would be prepared to pay for a legitimate file-sharing service.

The challenge for the UK music industry was to find a way to "unlock the true potential of digital music", he said at an industry talking shop at the beginning of the year.

Its up to the record companies to keep there music safe not the ISP.
Im sure the record companies will find legit method of file sharing that will make everyone money

christophicus · 30-01-2009 8:02pm

The amount of missleading "information", speculation, and egotistical back and forth in this thread has me constantly Facepalming.

I had kept up with the thread up to page 24, but I just can't take anymore of the rediculous crap that is in here.
Fair play to the mods and the rest of the people doing their best to try and keep the info as accurate as possible, and the thread on track , you certainly have your work cutt out for you !

telemakus · 30-01-2009 9:57pm

yoshytoshy wrote: »

sorry but the same goes for food. do you steal food that is made by multinationals ?
thats the type of stuff that peniless students come up with ,so they can leech off everyone.

I mean, thats just silly saying stuff like that.
Music originates in the mind. cabbage, or biscuits do not!

Your missing the point! And people can see that.

telemakus · 30-01-2009 10:08pm

Cabaal wrote: »

Atleast somebody has sense here,
People will try and twist it all they want but it does not change the very fact its illegal. There's nothing wrong with stating this fact.

Sure alot of people do it but that does not make it ok and ISP's and the music industry are allowed to protect themselfs and enforce the laws, they are doing nothing wrong

Hang on, its not just your business if you are breaking the law,
which would you prefer
1. eircom warning people under new system
2. Gardai tracking people down and using the full force of the law to prosecute under copyright infringement?

If you break the law the people affected have the right to try and stop you and as a tax payer I;d rather eircom terminate your account then you waste Gardai time and resources due to your inability to realise that your breaking the law..ignorance is NOT an excuse!

Sorry cabaal thats just silly. Im going out on a limb here, but i reckon that most people will think either solution overkill.

If you have records that are not selling it might be because your music sucks. Not because people are "stealing" it.

Am i to beliece you have NEVER downloaded ONE single track for free? Or an album? Coz if you have done it more than 3 times, you really should be offline now, But only according to your appettite for enforcing their rules.

PaddyTheNth · 30-01-2009 10:12pm

telemakus wrote: »

If you have records that are not selling it might be because your music sucks. Not because people are "stealing" it.

Why do you have 'stealing' in inverted commas here? Downloading a song that is still protected by copyright when you haven't paid for it...if that isn't 'taking unlawfully' or 'taking without the owner's consent' exactly what is it?

97i9y3941 · 30-01-2009 10:15pm

it went beyond a joke,ejits downloading the lastest album/movie,this hit the sales,no wonder they looked at the net for blame

telemakus · 30-01-2009 10:22pm

dub45 wrote: »

So you should not try to stop theft as it reduces the numbers of users of your particular product or service?:rolleyes:

Paddy45 what we have here is very simple, you just see music simply as a product stacked on shelves by the looks of things.

Comparing the art form of music to other "Products" is silly.

And, if you remember Lars from metallica, had your same attitude. And look where it got them! 8 years later!

Im pretty sure, not alienating your fans by sending them to jail or getting them kicked of the internet is a pretty good place to start in fan relations!

PaddyTheNth · 30-01-2009 10:31pm

telemakus wrote: »

Paddy45 what we have here is very simple, you just see music simply as a product stacked on shelves by the looks of things.

Comparing the art form of music to other "Products" is silly.

And, if you remember Lars from metallica, had your same attitude. And look where it got them! 8 years later!

Im pretty sure, not alienating your fans by sending them to jail or getting them kicked of the internet is a pretty good place to start in fan relations!

Like it or not, you're a member of society. Rage against the machine all you want...if you really have a problem with it, start a movement to change the copyright/IP laws, or move to another country.

I get paid for building a house. Or writing software. Or sorting out someone's taxes. These are skills that I have. If people want to utilise what I can produce/accomplish, they can pay for them.

Musicians create music. They create things that I can't do. I have no problem with the fact that if I obtain and/or distribute that music without paying for it, I am stealing from them.

Please explain your contention that 'comparing the art of music to other "products" is silly.'

telemakus · 30-01-2009 10:46pm

Cabaal wrote: »

dub45, I know we've had our differences in the past but your making sense in this thread

Erm...well read closer!!! Is talking about child porn not going a bit off topic? is he not pruning others comments about going off thread while leaving in his own? Someone mentioned that talking about limewire is off topic....even though its not....making sense? Im appaled at his attitude. Comparing music to a base economic unit? Silly it is! Just because hes a mod, does not mean he is right. which applies to all.

[Article] Eircom to cut off Music File Sharers ..

Comments