Irma has identified Pirate Bay, the world’s biggest file swapping website, as the first site that it will seek to have blocked. It will then move on to ‘‘similar websites’’.
Pub07 wrote: » LOL come off it the lot of yez. Acting all concerned that Eircom are violating peoples human rights as they start 'censoring the internet'. The only thing that has you guys so worked up is that you will no longer be able to download thousands of Euros worth copyrighted material. You are trying to divert this issue into some freedom of speech argument, which some here have suggested this is the approach you should be taking, as you know you haven't a leg to stand on when it comes to your main issue which is defending your right to rip off copyrighted material.
AntiRip wrote: » My God! "What a silly silly post! No longer able to download thousands of euro" How old are you at all? Downloading or uploading will never stop on the internet because thats what it was built for. This is a censoring issue not anything else.
Mathiasb wrote: » The Internet was built to connect networks together, and thus computers. Probably meant to share information, not copyrighted material.
CiaranC wrote: » Now that the internet exists, there is no practical difference between "information" and "copyright material". There is no measure anyone can take, legal or technical, to reverse that. The genie is out of the bottle, and it isnt going back in. The death of the music industry as we know it is inevitable, and frankly, Im glad.
Cabaal wrote: » Yeah thats lovely and all but if you download copyright material without permission you are breaking the law, simple...you can try twist it all you want but that does not change that very fact.
CiaranC wrote: » If I cross the street at a point other than a pedestrian crossing I am breaking the law also, but that doesnt really bother me either.
Now that the internet exists, there is no practical difference between "information" and "copyright material". There is no measure anyone can take, legal or technical, to reverse that. The genie is out of the bottle, and it isnt going back in. The death of the music industry as we know it is inevitable, and frankly, Im glad.
Cabaal wrote: ..angry ranting...
CiaranC wrote: » :rolleyes: Where did I admit I downloaded copyright movies, episodes, music and software? I was merely comparing the act of jaywalking to that of downloading. Doesnt really bother most people, lots of people do it, and the likelihood of being caught or charged with it is negligible. Cool your jets chief
watty wrote: » Read Animal Farm before you try to kill it, please, and before you throw a party because you are "glad".
Cabaal wrote: » Oh I see what you did, your cool...no wai.... :rolleyes: Jaywalking is nothing like downloading copyright material, just because lots of people do it does not make it legal. Go to some third would country where lots of people steal, murder etc that does not make it legal. You might want to untwist your mind because you have some issues with your morals.
CiaranC wrote: » Im not going to get into an existential argument on morality with you. I dont see duplicating a group of ones and zeros which represent sound as a particularly big deal. Sure it upsets some people trying to create capital from monopolising distribution of it, i dont really care. Its an outdated model and it will soon die. Music existed before there were people like IRMA to sell it to us you know, artists created a living just fine.
CiaranC wrote: » Well its a "twisted view" shared by several hundreds of millions of people on the internet, which you can see by connecting to any P2P service. Right or wrong, its here to stay.
Take that advert they annoyingly (broadcast to people who have just paid to see a movie, in a move typical of the MPAA etc.) play in the cinema every time you go: "You wouldnt steal a car" etc. Well to be honest, if I could duplicate a Ferrari exactly, and leave the original owner with his Ferrari, and not face any consequences for it, then maybe I would. And if I didnt, someone else certainly would.
Cabaal wrote: » Ah yes I see your logic, all the cool kids are doing it so its ok...thats your justification. Its no wounder teenagers steal cars in some dodgy citys around the world and joy ride, all the cool kids they know do it so its ok to do it to. :rolleyes:
You would, use of Ferrari design/name without authorization at the very least.
As for startrek lets leave that kind of crap in the Sci Fi forum
Bottom line steal remains unchanged, its illegal and it breaks the law.
nilhg wrote: » Lots of heat and not much light here...... The issue here IMHO is simple, a commercial organisation wants to censor our internet connections for its own financial benefit even though it has the full force of Irish law behind it to seek redress for any damages it has suffered in the normal way. This is the tip of a very slippery slope, I've emailed the minister to express my concern even though I've no faith that he will do anything.
nilhg wrote: » The issue here IMHO is simple, a commercial organisation wants to censor our internet connections for its own financial benefit even though it has the full force of Irish law behind it to seek redress for any damages it has suffered in the normal way.
CiaranC wrote: » Its not a "justification", its a statement of simple fact. When it became possible to copy music for no cost, any product that relied on copying and distributing music became untenable.
Sparks wrote: » The issue here isn't really simple, and what you posted there isn't what's happening. What's happening is that one commercial organisation, bound by company law to safeguard its profits for the benefit of its shareholders (not its customers) has struck a deal with another commercial organisation, also bound by company law to act in the best interests of its shareholders (rather than its customers), in order to streamline the path through the court system taken by the first commercial body in order to seek sanctions against the customers of the second who violate copyright laws on the products of the first.
Sparks wrote: » Whether or not you think Eircom is right to have struck this deal is irrelevant, because you do not sit on the board of Eircom. You're a customer of theirs, bound by the contract for service you signed with them which prohibited you from doing what IRMA are complaining about in the first place.
Sparks wrote: » And this nonsense that Eircom should have "stuck up for their customers" is exactly that. Eircom is a private commercial company, whose directors are bound by law to look out for the shareholders - not the customers. They have absolutely no requirement, no mandate and no right to take court cases to decide on basic rights on the internet for everyone else. That job is the job of customer rights groups and groups like Digital Rights Ireland and Ireland Offline and groups like that, who are independent from service providers like Eircom.
The point is that I cannot duplicate a Ferrari at the click of a button, so Ferrari still have, you know, a business model. They dont need to enact laws to reverse technological advancement to protect their outdated revenue stream.
Bottom line is that when a critical mass of the population engage in an activity, keeping it illegal or making it more illegal is absurd. The law should reflect societal norms, not the wishes of draconian, luddite corporations seeking to make money out of nothing. Its like legislating against the printing press to keep quill makers in business: ridiculous.
Sparks wrote: » Paddy you've utterly missed my point. Eircom's job is not to provide you with perfect service and to defend your rights to it. Their job is to earn money for their shareholders. Given that they make far, far, far more money from corporate customers (who don't use bittorrent all that much) than they do from private customers; and given that taking IRMA to court over the rights of those private customers would cost enormous amounts - for no financial return- the Eircom directors were bound by the Companies Acts, as amended, and by common law to find the cheapest way to cope with it.
Sparks wrote: » You're getting angry because you feel your rights are being abused; but your rights are not Eircom's job. There are other groups who have that purpose. Complaints and financial and manpower support should be going to them. Anything else is a waste of energy.
Bottom line is that when a critical mass of the population engage in an activity, keeping it illegal or making it more illegal is absurd. The law should reflect societal norms.
MOH wrote: » While the contract might prohibit you from downloading copyright material, I'm pretty sure it doesn't prohibit you from visiting any site.
Eircom are acting for their financial benefit.
Eircom are however, as you said, a service provider, and it is not within their remit to impose censorship on communications when that censorship is not subject to due judicial review. They don't have a remit. They have no duties to the consumer beyond what's in the T&Cs and standard laws on this; nothing prohibits them from blocking sites so long as they state they're doing so and don't forbid you from cancelling your contract with them. And due judicial review is not being sidestepped either, the courts still have to sign off on all of this.
They don't have a remit. They have no duties to the consumer beyond what's in the T&Cs and standard laws on this; nothing prohibits them from blocking sites so long as they state they're doing so and don't forbid you from cancelling your contract with them. And due judicial review is not being sidestepped either, the courts still have to sign off on all of this.
MOH wrote: » What OS are you using - is it a version of Windows? Or have you ever bought any software/DVDs/music? Did you pay for it? If so, why? By your logic, any software, video, or music should just be copied, no one should pay for anything, and the producers of it should just continue doing so for free.
O...K... So cocaine should be legalised for a start. Get rid of public order offences, since most people get drunk at some stage. Oh, and there's been an increasing amount of gun and knife-related violence over recent years, we must nearly be at the "critical mass" where that should be legalised too. :rolleyes:
