[Article] Music-swapping sites to be blocked by internet providers

Cabaal wrote: »

They see it as a lost sale and if I say produced software that I sold for 50e and you downloaded it for free I'd see you as stealing it too.

Regardless of how the media or companys see's it, if you download copyright material without permission it is against the law, end of

You are completely missing the point.

No one is saying that downloading copyrighted material is/should be legal. As per your example, if you developed some piece of software and sold it for €50 on the shelves, then 10 guys download it from the Internet without a license. 5 of then have no jobs and no income, and would never buy it in the first place. Why would you then say you just lost 10 sales? Then, one of the people who downloaded the software also shared it with 4 friends, only one of the friends use it, the others just store it in their warez collection. Are those also loss of sales?

Are you saying you would get the money if these guys didn't download?

Mathiasb wrote: »

You are completely missing the point.

Are you saying you would get the money if these guys didn't download?

I am afraid it is you missing the point, its not about money, its about legalities, it is illegal. Full stop.

Nate

Cabaal wrote: »

Basically yeah, the average user will stop downloading if they hear their ISP will warn and terminate them....we've seen reports of people stopping already and it'll make it harder for the average user to start downloading if they can't access popular sites.

Thats the idea behind this, though I don't personally agree with censoring sites in this manner

The average use isn't the one downloading MUCH, the average user is probably using some p2p software and downloading random songs and the occasional movie. Not much of interest. Sure, these people might stop when they hear from their ISP.

The real downloaders however, don't use crappy p2p software, at worst they use torrents, at best, some encrypted file transfer method (SCP, <insert protocol here> tunneled over SSH, etc), and they will never get caught.

Some people will start using proxies. There is _no way_ that ISPs can stop filesharing. One way would be to cap the bandwidth (already at 18th century speed, considering the upload), but come on, because some people fileshare, we cap all ISP customers? Hell no, chairs will be flyin'.

I'm not saying that artists shouldn't get their money, I'm saying that the music industry needs to come up with a way to sell SOMETHING to their customers that the customers actually will buy. People don't want to buy overpriced CDs, but they do want to go to concerts, and happily pay for them. It's evolution - if people stop using CDs, they will die out, another medium will take over.

Simple.

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

I am afraid it is you missing the point, its not about money, its about legalities, it is illegal. Full stop.

Nate

Shutting down websites that hosts FREE content isn't illegal? That's what eircom's going to do.

Mathiasb wrote: »

The average use isn't the one downloading MUCH, the average user is probably using some p2p software and downloading random songs and the occasional movie. Not much of interest. Sure, these people might stop when they hear from their ISP.

The real downloaders however, don't use crappy p2p software, at worst they use torrents, at best, some encrypted file transfer method (SCP, <insert protocol here> tunneled over SSH, etc), and they will never get caught.

Some people will start using proxies. There is _no way_ that ISPs can stop filesharing. One way would be to cap the bandwidth (already at 18th century speed, considering the upload), but come on, because some people fileshare, we cap all ISP customers? Hell no, chairs will be flyin'.

I'm not saying that artists shouldn't get their money, I'm saying that the music industry needs to come up with a way to sell SOMETHING to their customers that the customers actually will buy. People don't want to buy overpriced CDs, but they do want to go to concerts, and happily pay for them. It's evolution - if people stop using CDs, they will die out, another medium will take over.

Simple.

The average user isn't downloading much, the average user base is downloading by far the majority. On a tuesday morning, go search heroes on a pirate site. And you will about 300,000 peers on the current weeks episode.

Cabaal

Mathiasb wrote: »

You are completely missing the point.

No one is saying that downloading copyrighted material is/should be legal. As per your example, if you developed some piece of software and sold it for €50 on the shelves, then 10 guys download it from the Internet without a license. 5 of then have no jobs and no income, and would never buy it in the first place. Why would you then say you just lost 10 sales? Then, one of the people who downloaded the software also shared it with 4 friends, only one of the friends use it, the others just store it in their warez collection. Are those also loss of sales?

Are you saying you would get the money if these guys didn't download?

If I was the dev I'd rather take my chances of people buying it then freely have it shared out on the net...after all it was shared without permission.

Its not upto a third party to decide if my software is shared out, its upto me.

Given they went looking for the software and downloaded it I'd still personally see it as a lost sale....if they didn't want/were interested in it they wouldn't download/copy it to start with

In reality I don't dev any software but I can honestly see the logic in looking for lost sales, and bottom line is they shouldn't have the software if they didn't buy a license

Another example is I'm a photographer, say I sell a popular photo for 60e and somebody gets a digital copy and shares it to friends/family....thats lost sales as they've enjoyed it/used it without paying me a fee and I didn't give the first person rights to share it in that manner.

aidan_walsh

Mathiasb wrote: »

Shutting down websites that hosts FREE content isn't illegal? That's what eircom's going to do.

They're not shutting anyone down.

Mathiasb wrote: »

Shutting down websites that hosts FREE content isn't illegal? That's what eircom's going to do.

This is exactly what the discussion SHOULD be, not the old piracy/copyright infringement argument that has been done to death.

This sort of censorship is much much more important a topic that really needs to be addressed, not the old rehashing of the same old tired argument on piracy.

Nate

Cabaal

Mathiasb wrote: »

Shutting down websites that hosts FREE content isn't illegal? That's what eircom's going to do.

Again its clear the vast majority of content on the pirate pay is links to torrent files that allow users to download copyright material.

Want legal torrents then use places like http://www.legaltorrents.com/

I'm curious just how much legal free content you download via bittorrent in a week, do us all the pleasure and make a list

Cabaal

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

This is exactly what the discussion SHOULD be, not the old piracy/copyright infringement argument that has been done to death.

This sort of censorship is much much more important a topic that really needs to be addressed, not the old rehashing of the same old tired argument on piracy.

Nate

Nobody has said that blocking sites is right, infact we have already suggested you deal with the likes of Digital Rights Ireland to perhaps create a campaign against it http://www.digitalrights.ie/

Cabaal wrote: »

Again its clear the vast majority of content on the pirate pay is links to torrent files that allow users to download copyright material.

Want legal torrents then use places like http://www.legaltorrents.com/

I'm curious just how much legal free content you download via bittorrent in a week, do us all the pleasure and make a list

So? This justifies the censorship, is that your argument? Letting an unaccountable body, decide for you what you can and can't access is OK with you? Where does this stop?

Nate

Edit:- just read the post above, ignore this post

Orion

Cabaal wrote: »

If you are downloading copyright material there's no technically about it, its illegal end of......you can try legitimize it anyway you want but its still illegal to for example.

- Download a copyright movie
- Downloading the latest episode of heroes
- Downloading MS office

Its also against the T&C's of your ISP.

I'm actually not sure it is technically illegal. You are not making a copy of it - you are receiving someone else's copy. That's why any court case anywhere in the world has been for distribution not for downloading. Using bittorrent, however, puts you firmly into the distributing category by default which is illegal. This is not to say that downloading isn't against the T&C of your SP.

Iago

Mathiasb wrote: »

There is _no way_ that ISPs can stop filesharing.

ISPs don't want to stop filesharing. It's one of the main reasons that people sign up for broadband and use broadband services.

Various interest groups want to stop filesharing, and the ISPs want to avoid being made responsible on any level for potential liabilities as a result. So they will implement any court ordered proceedings and tick the boxes.

but like everyone else that's tried this, the only people that'll be caught are those that don't really know what they're doing and are only copying what others told them to do.

Jeebus Nate, get a grip. Since when are the Irish Courts unaccountable?
And when did it become the duty of boards.ie ltd to stand up and fight for your rights?
Go talk to DRI about it.

Cabaal wrote: »

Again its clear the vast majority of content on the pirate pay is links to torrent files that allow users to download copyright material.

Want legal torrents then use places like http://www.legaltorrents.com/

I'm curious just how much legal free content you download via bittorrent in a week, do us all the pleasure and make a list

People don't have any choice but to download rips from the internet when the sold DVDs aren't released simultaneously all over the world (I have to wait a month or more for movie X to be released here compared to USA?! Then I might just aswell download it!), the DVDs are crippled with content that can't be skipped (FBI warnings, commercials, trailers for other movies etc). I can't even legally listen to my bought music (CDs) on my MP3 player, because MAFIAA considers it to be stealing.

No way. When the music industry stops treating me like a criminal, and gives me what I want, I'll happily pay for it.

Capt'n Midnight

ionix5891 wrote:

If you are an Eircom customer, switch tell them they suck, they quickly change their minds once stupid decisions not based on legal precedent backfire on them and shave their profit margins

It's a great way of offloading some of the warez monkeys / heavy downloaders / complainers onto other ISP's. It's all win-win for them. They keep the all the light users and placid customers.

And besides since €ircom own the copper they still get the wholesale rate on almost every ADSL line in the country regardless so like I said it's win-win for them.

And if I read it right they aren't shopping anyone , they are just pulling the plug.

On a side note , since the default password on the eircon netopia routers can be figured it's probably important to warn users about that in relation to the three strikes rule.

Mathiasb wrote: »

People don't have any choice but to download rips from the internet when the sold DVDs aren't released simultaneously all over the world (I have to wait a month or more for movie X to be released here compared to USA?! Then I might just aswell download it!)

Well, technically, you do actually have a choice; you can just not watch it.
I mean, it's not like you'll be put in jail if you don't download the rip from the 'net, is it?

Mathiasb wrote: »

People don't have any choice but to download rips from the internet when the sold DVDs aren't released simultaneously all over the world (I have to wait a month or more for movie X to be released here compared to USA?! Then I might just aswell download it!), the DVDs are crippled with content that can't be skipped (FBI warnings, commercials, trailers for other movies etc). I can't even legally listen to my bought music (CDs) on my MP3 player, because MAFIAA considers it to be stealing.

No way. When the music industry stops treating me like a criminal, and gives me what I want, I'll happily pay for it.

You could, you know, wait?

Also where did you read that bull**** about putting music on your mp3 player?

Sparks wrote: »

Well, technically, you do actually have a choice; you can just not watch it.
I mean, it's not like you'll be put in jail if you don't download the rip from the 'net, is it?

Nah. I want to watch it. But unless the industry gives me something that I want to buy, they're not getting my money.

It's basic evolution. Companies vanish because no one buys their products - instead different companies pop up (places that sell CHEAP and FREE high quality music files (FLAC, no DRM **** etc) and take over.

Digital Rights Ireland have an article on this with open comments; probably of interest to everyone here...

Sparks wrote: »

Jeebus Nate, get a grip. Since when are the Irish Courts unaccountable?
And when did it become the duty of boards.ie ltd to stand up and fight for your rights?
Go talk to DRI about it.

I don't remember asking boards.ie ltd for any such thing, I am discussing the topic at hand. As for the accountability ..

"Under the terms of an agreement between Eircom and Irma, Eircom will not oppose any court application, meaning that the orders will be automatically granted. A spokesman for Eircom confirmed that Eircom ‘‘will not oppose any application [Irma] may make seeking the blocking of access from their network’’ to blacklisted websites"

This to me would suggest that IRMA can make any application they like, it will not be processed in court but will be acted upon by eircom anyway. Perhaps you have a different interpretation?

Nate

Donald-Duck wrote: »

You could, you know, wait?

Why? If it's translation problems then the Americans should wait until the subs or whatever is finished - then the DVD should be released world wide at the same time.

Of course, the thing about DVD regions is that it's RETARDED. Get rid of it. Release the discs world with at one date.

Just look at games - a lot of piracy is just because games are released earlier in other regions, someone torrent it and get to play it 2 weeks before local release.

nacimroc wrote: »

I've read every post of the 9 pages so far and I'm honestly amazed at the mods 'opposing' arguments. If its a case of being worried about legal action, surely its wiser to remain quiet. If its a case of sponsorship funds, then it should be stated!!!

I realise you will argue the point, but if you go back over the last 9 pages and substitute the mods usernames with Eircom it doesn't look out of place.

I seen alot of people stating inaccurate details and needed correcting as it should, but theres a very obvious stance here. I'm shocked anyone would lean to the side of internet censorship in any form regardless of its legalities.

No ones saying it should be censored. They're saying the reasons behind it.

Mathiasb wrote: »

Why? If it's translation problems then the Americans should wait until the subs or whatever is finished - then the DVD should be released world wide at the same time.

Of course, the thing about DVD regions is that it's RETARDED. Get rid of it. Release the discs world with at one date.

Just look at games - a lot of piracy is just because games are released earlier in other regions, someone torrent it and get to play it 2 weeks before local release.

No, games are pirated because people don't want to buy the game. Very rarely is there a difference in release date, not in any big releases which are the most pirated ones.

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

This to me would suggest that IRMA can make any application they like, it will not be processed in court but will be acted upon by eircom anyway. Perhaps you have a different interpretation?

Yes, I think it says that IRMA can make any application they like and it will not be opposed in court by Eircom.

Donald-Duck wrote: »

No, games are pirated because people don't want to buy the game. Very rarely is there a difference in release date, not in any big releases which are the most pirated ones.

I think people think the games are too expensive. The PS3, Wii and 360 are selling well though. Granted, games for the 360 can be copied very easily (are "modchips" allowed in Ireland?, I heard they got banned in the UK a while back), but people still make money of making games for the consoles.

This could mean that devs stop making games for the PC, since the profit is less compared to consoles sales.

Too expensive? PC games are 40 euro to buy new now, often cheaper.

nacimroc wrote: »

I've read every post of the 9 pages so far and I'm honestly amazed at the mods 'opposing' arguments.

What opposition? Someone said it was illegal; it was pointed out that it isn't. Someone said the courts weren't involved; it was pointed out that they were. The mod in here is agreeing with the philosophy that you shouldn't mangle access to the net like this, but there's a line, and it's that boards.ie can't do things that are illegal, and it's his job to enforce that in here.

If its a case of being worried about legal action, surely its wiser to remain quiet.

Which would be boards.ie censoring boards users...

I realise you will argue the point, but if you go back over the last 9 pages and substitute the mods usernames with Eircom it doesn't look out of place.

Does to me...

I seen alot of people stating inaccurate details and needed correcting as it should, but theres a very obvious stance here. I'm shocked anyone would lean to the side of internet censorship in any form regardless of its legalities.

Yeah, that's why the links to protest groups against this stuff were posted, because the mods support this stuff. FFS...

Sparks wrote: »

Yes, I think it says that IRMA can make any application they like and it will not be opposed in court by Eircom.

So in effect we have a non-state entity deciding what you can and can't access on the internet, with no oversight by the state. This is a dangerous precedent.

Nate