Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

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

12345679»

Comments

  • Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,522 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    towel401 wrote: »
    not really. i got around 20gb of music sitting around I downloaded with wget -r on the off chance there might be something good in there. most of it will end up deleted because it's crap. bandwidth is cheap, might as well use it.

    Ok so you download illegal stuff just for the hell of it, thats the most retarded thing I've heard all day


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 425 ✭✭Mathiasb


    Cabaal wrote: »
    Price is not justification for breaking the law though, again you can't twist things just to justify it to yourself

    Are you deliberatly being ignorant? Have you read anything at all of what I've written in this thread? I have never said that price is a justification for breaking the law, and I don't twist anything to justify it for myself.

    It's up to the record labels, people are going to CONTINUE to copy music until they come up with something that they can sell. OBVIOUSLY they CANNOT sell CDs, so, ditch that.

    With what? I don't know, it's not my problem.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,807 ✭✭✭✭Orion


    Mathiasb wrote: »
    Are you deliberatly being ignorant? Have you read anything at all of what I've written in this thread? I have never said that price is a justification for breaking the law, and I don't twist anything to justify it for myself.

    It's up to the record labels, people are going to CONTINUE to copy music until they come up with something that they can sell. OBVIOUSLY they CANNOT sell CDs, so, ditch that.

    With what? I don't know, it's not my problem.

    He has a point Cabaal. Mathiasb has been far from the worst on this thread. Personally I object to the ludicrous prices charged in this country. I do not make excuses - I know the law and that downloading it is a copyright violation - and I believe Mathiasb agrees with this. I do believe that there would be a lot less illegal downloading if the music companies would embrace the technology instead of fighting it. It will never be eradicated of course. There will always be people who will fight da power - towel401 would be a case in point.

    An example I'll give here is games - I have never - ever - downloaded a game. I did once get a copy of a game from a friend who had downloaded it but I ended up buying that game (it was FEAR btw). I don't find the prices of games extortionate. I will, however, buy them from the cheapest source - whether that be Play.com (with their 71p/€ rate) or somewhere else. WRT to music tho the money being charged - even on legal download sources - is too high. And there is no way on earth I will ever buy music with DRM built in. That includes Sony/BMG CDs. When I buy music I will choose how I listen to it. I have no CD player in my house - only computers - too many computers :D. Luckily they are all Linux so Sony's rootkits never had a chance anyway but the principle applies.

    No to meander back towards the topic - IRMA/IMRO are doing themselves and the music industry no favours at all with a censorship action. They have both proven themselves in the past to be overly fanatical even to the extent of comparing file sharers to drug dealers. All they will end up doing is publicising the existence of file sharing to people that hadn't heard of it. And we Irish are infamous for resistance to authority. If they press ahead with this there will be a lot of people who will download music out of spite.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 605 ✭✭✭PaddyTheNth


    ADSL which means money to eircom regardless of which ISP you use :(

    Changing from Eircom to another ADSL ISP is not hurting eircom, changing to 3G is painful
    Yeah I know. Highest disconnect charges per user in Europe I believe...awesome regulation :(

    Still gonna change to another ADSL provider though...long term a higher percentage of my fees won't go to Eircom so that's all that matters really.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,053 ✭✭✭jos22


    irma has also being threating hosting providers

    but Hosting provider Blacknight ain't scared and noted on its blog that that if IRMA has a problem with one of its clients, it can get a court order rather than resort to scaremongering.

    the company was also nice to enough
    to print threating letter on thier website
    sourced
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/25/irma_letter_to_isps_blacknight_solutions/


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,443 ✭✭✭Red Sleeping Beauty


    http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/feb/26/read-me-first-pirate-bay
    The Pirate Bay trial is the collision of 'can I?' and 'should I?'

    Andrew Brown The Guardian, Thursday 26 February 2009

    People who don't speak Swedish are missing almost all the interest of the Pirate Bay trial, which is supplied by the frankly unsavoury nature of the defendants. The money man, Carl Lundström, on whose servers The Pirate Bay was housed, is straight out of the crime novels of Stieg Larsson. He inherited a fortune built on crispbread, and has a long history of involvement with extreme rightwing politics. In the 1980s, he was a member of "Keep Sweden Swedish", an anti-immigrant fringe group; he has financially backed the Sweden Democrats, a would-be populist and anti-immigrant party; and only this month the managing director of one of his companies was charged with a robbery in a small west-coast town, part of a feud within a neo-Nazi group. Lundström told the Metro news*paper (http://bit.ly/metro) after he sacked the man that he had known he was a party member, but not that he had gone to collect another member's computer with a submachine gun.

    Gottfrid Svartholm Varg and Frederik Neij, the nerds who run The Pirate Bay itself, have also been accused by the prosecutor of tax evasion, but deny that they were making any money from their business. Their attitude of sneering entitlement towards the government is all of a piece with their attitude towards the big content companies. But I can't see The Pirate Bay as morally superior to the Disney corporation. Both are out to grab everything they can get away with, and so, of course, are the majority of their users. Yes, there are legitimate uses for the Bit*Torrent protocol, but the demand for free as in beer far outstrips that for free as in speech. What's odd in a historical perspective is that all this should be going on in Sweden, which was within living memory a social democratic country with a genuinely leftwing orthodoxy. I know that a little bit of the rhetoric around The Pirate Bay sounds leftwing – the idea that it is wrong for "international capital" to push Sweden around – but that's just populist, and could be found in the rhetoric of the kind of parties that Carl Lundström has supported too.

    The overwhelming impression is of a clash between two rightwing views, one that says it is all right to steal from the state, and one which says it is sinful to steal from corporations. You don't find people arguing that there might be such a thing as soc*iety that is larger than both the owners and the consumers of copyrighted material. On the contrary, it is a more or less explicit assumption that in a borderless digital world there isn't any legitimate global authority. Yet the overwhelming fact about Swedish society, when I lived there, was exactly this belief that authority was, and had to be, legitimate. Perhaps this goes back to the country's Lutheran past as a militaristic superpower: "Fear God and honour the King" says the inscription on one of the churches in Stockholm Old Town. But wherever it came from, the conformism, and the stifling respect for authority that it produced, were the characteristics that most distinguished Sweden from most of the rest of Europe. That may have been a bad thing – I certainly thought so when I lived there – but looking at the modern country you realise that it's possible to have too little of a bad thing.

    The Pirate Bay trial is part of a global problem in which we all are implicated. One of the reasons we got into this mess was the absence of any kind of government that could stand above the immediate economic interests of the players involved. In the US the copyright laws were repeatedly extended not because any benevolent ruler sat down and asked what arrangement was best for society, but because it is easy to rent politicians in the US. Hardly anyone who pirates material asks themselves whether they are plundering the system that ensures that some people at least are paid for their creative labours. The pressing question, when you sit at a keyboard, is hardly ever "should I?", but "can I?" But you can't build a society – you can't even build a market – unless almost everyone in it asks themselves "should I?" In its clumsy way, that's what the Pirate Bay trial is trying to remind us.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/feb/26/read-me-first-pirate-bay

    ThePirateBay's little cartoon on their front page today is worthy of a mention.


  • Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,522 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    Mathiasb wrote: »
    Are you deliberatly being ignorant? Have you read anything at all of what I've written in this thread? I have never said that price is a justification for breaking the law, and I don't twist anything to justify it for myself.

    It's up to the record labels, people are going to CONTINUE to copy music until they come up with something that they can sell. OBVIOUSLY they CANNOT sell CDs, so, ditch that.

    With what? I don't know, it's not my problem.

    Ok so you said.
    You have to be kidding right? 10 euro for a DRM crippled album? It should be half of that, MAXIMUM. Why? Because there are no other costs like CD production, album art printing, booklet, shipping the CDs etc.

    But yeah, until prices come down on DRM free content, we have no option.

    So your telling me that by saying "But yeah, until prices come down on DRM free content, we have no option." is NOT saying that because the price is high people have no other option but to download?

    Your kidding me right?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 94 ✭✭Bubba HoTep


    A lot of people here are missing the point COMPLETELY!

    Downloading copryrighted material is illegal, this is a fact.

    Bit Torrent technology is 100% legal, a fantastic technology at that, and not everybody uses it to break copyright laws, there is such a thing as creative commons and open source, these are the facts.

    the implications of any copyright law breaking should be on the uploader/downloader only, HOWEVER, the music and film distribution industries have done little on their end to protect the copyrighted material itself other than the joke that is DRM and dvd encryption, both easy to get around.

    now the logical thing to do would be for them to release their albums and films in a proprietry hard copy format only, which can only be played on their corresponding proprietry players only, and not on recordable media that anymember of the public can buy like dvds/cds/blurays (and therefore readable on pcs)

    but this would cost them time, effort, and more importantly money, so they wont do this, so f*ck em....

    NOW ON THE THE REAL ISSUE

    eircom are blocking the pirate bay. now what the pirate bays content is, is irrelevant, the pirate bay is a website, and eircom are now blocking websites! this website is not in anyway illegal under irish law, and on the word of irma, eircom will censor any site it says to!

    EIRCOM IS CENSORING THE INTERNET! this isnt communist f*cking china!

    if you are an eircom customer, write them an angry letter and disconnect from them (they are the most expensive and slowest isp anyway!)


    quote from torrentfreak.com
    "Eircom could be digging an even deeper hole for itself.
    By agreeing to censor the Internet at the behest of not the police, but a private and commercially driven organization, it has effectively dumped its own common carrier protection.

    Furthermore, The Pirate Bay (or any other sites Ericom intend to block) have never been deemed illegal in Ireland. This has to be seen as a very worrying development.



    So, open the floodgates, everyone is going to want sites blocked soon and if you’ve got enough cash, it’s on the cards with Eircom. At the very least, let’s hope Eircom is going to make its list of banned sites public, along with their reasons for blocking each and every site, properly referenced under the law.


    And let’s hope the rest of Ireland’s ISPs stand up for themselves."


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,119 ✭✭✭Donald-Duck


    Bolding half your post sort of removes the emphasis that bolded font provides.

    And your whole post ignores the fact that nothing will be blocked without a court order. But then again, I'm not suprised considering how much **** has been posted in this already, most of it being sensationalist drivel.

    And you'd see people whinging to no end if they did spend a huge amount on making ripping cds etc harder, because it in turn would raise the costs.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,341 CMod ✭✭✭✭Nody


    TL/DR for Bubba's post though I skimmed it. No protection in any form for media can work for one simple reason. No matter what you need to be able to access (view/listen) the material which means it has to have an exist point. That exist point means I can rip it as it is sent through it by pretending to be a TV/Decoder/Security chip/Speakers etc.

    DRM will simply never work and any attempt to implement it will make it less likely that people buy it. I know gamers who're pissed that as legal, buying, customers they get a worse piece of software then the hacked version (no cd required, no security questions, no bugs around the DRM or rootkits). Buy it legal and get a worse product OR download it for free and get a better playing experience? Talk about dropping the ball...


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 94 ✭✭Bubba HoTep


    Bolding half your post sort of removes the emphasis that bolded font provides.

    And your whole post ignores the fact that nothing will be blocked without a court order. But then again, I'm not suprised considering how much **** has been posted in this already, most of it being sensationalist drivel.

    And you'd see people whinging to no end if they did spend a huge amount on making ripping cds etc harder, because it in turn would raise the costs.


    everything bolded needed to be bolded, and no they dont need a court order, eircom have stated they will comply with any request IRMA makes of them

    people need to be angry bout this


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 94 ✭✭Bubba HoTep


    Nody wrote: »
    TL/DR for Bubba's post though I skimmed it. No protection in any form for media can work for one simple reason. No matter what you need to be able to access (view/listen) the material which means it has to have an exist point. That exist point means I can rip it as it is sent through it by pretending to be a TV/Decoder/Security chip/Speakers etc.

    DRM will simply never work and any attempt to implement it will make it less likely that people buy it. I know gamers who're pissed that as legal, buying, customers they get a worse piece of software then the hacked version (no cd required, no security questions, no bugs around the DRM or rootkits). Buy it legal and get a worse product OR download it for free and get a better playing experience? Talk about dropping the ball...


    i completely agree with you, but making it harder , and therefore less commonly done, is better than what it is now, ridiculesly easy

    plus i already said DRM is a joke, a completely new read only format is needed


    all that is trivial compared to the fact that the internet is being censored!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,119 ✭✭✭Donald-Duck


    everything bolded needed to be bolded, and no they dont need a court order, eircom have stated they will comply with any request IRMA makes of them

    people need to be angry bout this

    No, eircom said they wouldn't challenge them in court.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 94 ✭✭Bubba HoTep


    @donald duck, from what ive read, (looking for the page now...) eircom initially said that they would fight for their customers in court, but then did a 360 and will now block any site at irmas request

    no court involved


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,119 ✭✭✭Donald-Duck


    @donald duck, from what ive read, (looking for the page now...) eircom initially said that they would fight for their customers in court, but then did a 360 and will now block any site at irmas request

    no court involved

    Source?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 94 ✭✭Bubba HoTep


    @donald duck, did you read the part in my reply where it says (looking for the page now...) ?

    im still looking...

    wheres yours?

    i get the feeling your just trolling

    or work for eircom :pac:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 94 ✭✭Bubba HoTep


    @donald duck

    granted it seems eircom changed their mind again according to your arstechnica link

    "This might sound like a contradiction of previous reports that the blocking would start soon, and without a court order, but it's a bit less than it seems."

    and the torrent freak link is where i got my info to begin with...

    im still bemused as how you seem to be cool with the fact that it is even being entertained at all...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,119 ✭✭✭Donald-Duck


    @donald duck

    granted it seems eircom changed their mind again according to your arstechnica link

    "This might sound like a contradiction of previous reports that the blocking would start soon, and without a court order, but it's a bit less than it seems."

    and the torrent freak link is where i got my info to begin with...

    im still bemused as how you seem to be cool with the fact that it is even being entertained at all...
    Do you really think the IRMA will easily get the court orders?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 94 ✭✭Bubba HoTep


    @donald duck

    why wouldnt they? this is ireland after all

    who do you think IRMA represent, it isnt just damien rice and U2

    they represent all the record companies worldwide, in ireland, theres a bit of clout in that wouldnt you say

    it was the swedish equivalent that got the piratebay to court, and the judges there are having a hard time even grasping what bit torrent even is

    what judge here would deny the court order? they here the word piracy and the order is served


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,713 ✭✭✭✭jor el


    no court involved

    The original article in this thread stated that eircom would not contest a court case, but a court would make the decision as to whether or not sites would be blocked. The request doesn't go from IRMA to eircom directly, it comes from a court order.

    This is different to the other IRMA/eircom agreement, where IRMA supply IP addresses of copyright infringers to eircom, and eircom warn and eventually disconnect repeat offenders. No court is involved in that decision.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 10,012 ✭✭✭✭thebman


    Do you really think the IRMA will easily get the court orders?

    In this country, it depends how well you know the judge if you know what I mean ;)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 94 ✭✭Bubba HoTep


    jor el wrote: »
    The original article in this thread stated that eircom would not contest a court case, but a court would make the decision as to whether or not sites would be blocked. The request doesn't go from IRMA to eircom directly, it comes from a court order.

    This is different to the other IRMA/eircom agreement, where IRMA supply IP addresses of copyright infringers to eircom, and eircom warn and eventually disconnect repeat offenders. No court is involved in that decision.


    thats already been cleared up thanks to donald ducks links

    the situation seems to be this

    1st eircom said they would need a court order, and would fight it

    then eircom said they would do it simply at IRMAs request

    and now apparently they have gone back to position one


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 605 ✭✭✭PaddyTheNth


    the situation seems to be this

    1st eircom said they would need a court order, and would fight it

    then eircom said they would do it simply at IRMAs request

    and now apparently they have gone back to position one
    No, you're getting confused between the disconnection/3 strikes issue and the website blocking (censorship) issue.

    Two different things.

    They (Eircom) were initially going to challenge the disconnection requests, then decided not to.

    They never - from what I have seen in any of the articles linked in this thread - said that they would challenge the court order for censorship, though they were originally going to block websites without such an order. How much of a formality an application for a court order which is never contested will be remains to be seen.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 94 ✭✭Bubba HoTep


    No, you're getting confused between the disconnection/3 strikes issue and the website blocking (censorship) issue.

    Two different things.

    They (Eircom) were initially going to challenge the disconnection requests, then decided not to.

    They never - from what I have seen in any of the articles linked in this thread - said that they would challenge the court order for censorship, though they were originally going to block websites without such an order. How much of a formality an application for a court order which is never contested will be remains to be seen.


    thats what i said in my original post!


    lookit, as it stands IRMA wants eircom to censor the internet court order or not

    now what i want to know is what can be done about this?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,713 ✭✭✭✭jor el


    now what i want to know is what can be done about this?

    Petition eircom to fight the court case, if and when it comes. Petition your ISP, if you're not with eircom, to fight any such action against them. Contact Digital Rights Ireland to see if there's anything being done, or to see if it can be started. Contact Ireland Offline group and see if there's anything they can do. Petition the minister for communications to get involved. Contact Comreg to see if there's anything they can do to get eircom to fight the court action. Contact the media to let them know of your concerns, and see if they're willing to get a public debate going. Radio shows like Jerry Ryan, Joe Duffy, Ray D'Arcy and The Last Word, would be a start.


  • Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,522 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    jor el wrote: »
    Petition eircom to fight the court case, if and when it comes. Petition your ISP, if you're not with eircom, to fight any such action against them. Contact Digital Rights Ireland to see if there's anything being done, or to see if it can be started. Contact Ireland Offline group and see if there's anything they can do. Petition the minister for communications to get involved. Contact Comreg to see if there's anything they can do to get eircom to fight the court action. Contact the media to let them know of your concerns, and see if they're willing to get a public debate going. Radio shows like Jerry Ryan, Joe Duffy, Ray D'Arcy and The Last Word, would be a start.

    Never a truer word said


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 94 ✭✭Bubba HoTep


    jor el wrote: »
    Petition eircom to fight the court case, if and when it comes. Petition your ISP, if you're not with eircom, to fight any such action against them. Contact Digital Rights Ireland to see if there's anything being done, or to see if it can be started. Contact Ireland Offline group and see if there's anything they can do. Petition the minister for communications to get involved. Contact Comreg to see if there's anything they can do to get eircom to fight the court action. Contact the media to let them know of your concerns, and see if they're willing to get a public debate going. Radio shows like Jerry Ryan, Joe Duffy, Ray D'Arcy and The Last Word, would be a start.


    Cheers! :pac:

    i hope a few out there will join me, itll be a sad day when the net is censored:(


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,341 CMod ✭✭✭✭Nody


    jor el wrote: »
    Petition eircom to fight the court case, if and when it comes. Petition your ISP, if you're not with eircom, to fight any such action against them. Contact Digital Rights Ireland to see if there's anything being done, or to see if it can be started. Contact Ireland Offline group and see if there's anything they can do. Petition the minister for communications to get involved. Contact Comreg to see if there's anything they can do to get eircom to fight the court action. Contact the media to let them know of your concerns, and see if they're willing to get a public debate going. Radio shows like Jerry Ryan, Joe Duffy, Ray D'Arcy and The Last Word, would be a start.
    Can we create a new post and sticky that in the forum please with a suitable attention grabbing title.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 94 ✭✭Bubba HoTep


    thats an excellent idea!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,087 ✭✭✭Duiske


    , and no they dont need a court order, eircom have stated they will comply with any request IRMA makes of them

    Can you please link to something/anything that can verify what you have highlighted in bold ?

    The situation is this. IRMA will apply to the courts for an order to compel Eircom (and possibly other ISP's) to discontinue access to certain sites over its network. Eircom have stated that they will not contest the application for this order. Therefore, its up to IRMA to convince the court that the sites referred to are actually doing something illegal.
    If IRMA are successful, and the order is granted, it will be served on Eircom, who will comply with it.

    And don't forget that the other ISP's may choose to contest these applications, and I'm sure that other interested parties may also like to get a word in.

    Anyway, my main point is that what you have said above is incorrect*

    *in bold because it needed to be said.

    Edit : Just seen your reply to Jor El.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 275 ✭✭Griffin87


    i just found this

    im not sure if it was posted before i done a search and i couldnt find anyting.

    http://www.enn.ie/story/show/10125049

    you can view the letter that irma are sending to the isps


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,807 ✭✭✭✭Orion


    Slashdot
    "The Australian Government's plan to introduce mandatory internet censorship has been scuttled, following an independent senator's decision to join the Greens and Opposition in blocking any legislation needed to start the scheme. Anti-Gambling Senator Nick Xenophon previously supported the filter because it could also block gambling web sites, but today withdrew support saying "the more evidence that's come out, the more questions there are on this". This week surveys found only less than 10% of Australians supported the censorship. Censorship Senator Stephen Conroy has consistently ignored advice from technical experts saying the filters would slow the internet, block legitimate sites, be easily bypassed and fall short of capturing all of the nasty content available online. Conroy expanded the list to block Adult R18+ and X18+ web sites, and this week said it would also block sites depicting drug use, crime, sex, cruelty, violence or "revolting and abhorrent phenomena" that "offend against the standards of morality". Last week an anti-abortion website was added to the blacklist, and Conroy said he was considering expanding the blacklist to 10,000 sites and beyond."

    This is where going down the censorship path brings you to. Who decides what is moral and what isn't? Thought police?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,713 ✭✭✭✭jor el


    A few good points there guys, but we're moving all discussion to the new sticky thread, over here.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement