I got a Copyright Infringement Notice from UTV Internet

dub45 · 28-05-2009 02:59PM

CiaranC wrote: »

Who says I think little of the artists music?

You do by your attitude to paying for it - if you are not interested in paying a reasonable rate for it then you obviously do not respect it.

I am sure that if you went for a job and you were offered a lousy rate of pay you would complain that the prospective employer or consumer of your talents was not showing you respect?

CiaranC · 28-05-2009 03:06PM

dub45 wrote: »

You do by your attitude to paying for it - if you are not interested in paying a reasonable rate for it then you obviously do not respect it.

I dont find one euro per track a reasonable rate. So I dont pay it. Youll find this is the case with hundreds of millions of internet users. Welcome to reality.

I am sure that if you went for a job and you were offered a lousy rate of pay you would complain that the prospective employer or consumer of your talents was not showing you respect?

The market sets my rate of pay. Ill start to worry when technology can endless duplicate "my talents" for no cost.

sdanseo · 28-05-2009 03:11PM

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

It wasn't me your Honour. I swear....................

I think its absolutely disgraceful that ISP's are now being turned into internet copyright police. Its none of their business.

Are Eircom gonna send out letters if someone can hear your music from the other end of the phone line?

If the record companies want to check up on this, they should be doing it, not the ISP's.

Utter nonsense. The ISP provides the service and should reglate it as a matter of course.

That said, I have no issues with anyone downloading things. If copyright holders charged a fair price fine, but it's nothing short of ludicrous to pay €18 for an album. Say the artist sells 1,000,000 copies, that's €18m in income spilt between the various stakeholders - fair payment for a few months' work for a few people? My arse. It costs more to produce biscuits.

Flyboy!!! · 28-05-2009 03:38PM

Cabaal wrote: »

If you think so little of the artists music why are you even wasting your time downloading it?

The price paid for the music has nothing to do with appreciation. Whether you rip it off the net for free or buy a vinyl disc in a dusty store for hundreds, what counts is that it makes you tap your feet, wave your arms in the air and fills you with emotion. If you can't understand that, you don't understand the argument.

Musicians make music, to paraphrase Steinski, this is all just commentary, the music is gonna get made, that's why God put musicians on this planet. There will always be music, there has always been music and if you look back through history, it's the music companies that are new and arguably unnatural,n, in this day and age they are not needed or necessary for music to reach the masses. They may control what gets airplay and what makes it into the charts but with the advent of the internet, that's changing. Lilly Allen for one doesn't see a cent from record sales and that's not uncommon these days.

I'd hazard a guess that people with such blinkerd views are of an older generation more concerned with numbers in columns than with what moves their feet. Such views are anachronistic, outdated and will condemn the youth of today to criminality. Just because something is against the law does not mean it's wrong. That lesson has been preached for thousands of years, it's even in Christ's teachings, you know the parable about the good Samaritan? People are people and will be people no matter what artificial constructs you try to contain them in. Human nature always prevails. Always.

vibe666 · 28-05-2009 03:38PM

sdonn wrote: »

It costs more to produce biscuits.

yeah, but you can't rock out to biscuits.

:D:D

or can you?

watty · 28-05-2009 03:46PM

Rockbuns?

I'd agree 99c is too expensive for download. 10c to 25c would be more reasonable. But two wrongs dont cancel. You just have more wrong.

dub45 · 28-05-2009 03:56PM

CiaranC wrote: »

I dont find one euro per track a reasonable rate. So I dont pay it. Youll find this is the case with hundreds of millions of internet users. Welcome to reality.

The market sets my rate of pay. Ill start to worry when technology can endless duplicate "my talents" for no cost.

The reality is that music is copyright. And as such without paying for it you are not entitled to it. Now technology has made it possible for people to easily access material that they are not entitled to that does not make it right to use that technology.

I am sure that you would not be too happy if someone applied technology to rob your car or break into your house just because they can.

Or dare I say it if you wrote a programme for a local business and they felt free (without any agreement with you) to distribute it to other businesses and friends thereby depriving you of an income?

It is very easy to be generous with other people's property!:rolleyes:

dub45 · 28-05-2009 04:01PM

Flyboy!!! wrote: »

The price paid for the music has nothing to do with appreciation. Whether you rip it off the net for free or buy a vinyl disc in a dusty store for hundreds, what counts is that it makes you tap your feet, wave your arms in the air and fills you with emotion. If you can't understand that, you don't understand the argument.

Musicians make music, to paraphrase Steinski, this is all just commentary, the music is gonna get made, that's why God put musicians on this planet. There will always be music, there has always been music and if you look back through history, it's the music companies that are new and arguably unnatural,n, in this day and age they are not needed or necessary for music to reach the masses. They may control what gets airplay and what makes it into the charts but with the advent of the internet, that's changing. Lilly Allen for one doesn't see a cent from record sales and that's not uncommon these days.

I'd hazard a guess that people with such blinkerd views are of an older generation more concerned with numbers in columns than with what moves their feet. Such views are anachronistic, outdated and will condemn the youth of today to criminality. Just because something is against the law does not mean it's wrong. That lesson has been preached for thousands of years, it's even in Christ's teachings, you know the parable about the good Samaritan? People are people and will be people no matter what artificial constructs you try to contain them in. Human nature always prevails. Always.

Quite honestly I have rarely read such nonsense in my life:rolleyes:

I would also remind you that the Good Samaritan actually paid out money!

But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn and looked after him. The next day he took out two silver coins and gave them to the innkeeper. 'Look after him,' he said, 'and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.'

CiaranC · 28-05-2009 04:13PM

dub45 wrote: »

The reality is that music is copyright. And as such without paying for it you are not entitled to it. Now technology has made it possible for people to easily access material that they are not entitled to that does not make it right to use that technology.

Irrelevant tbh. The genie is out of the bottle, and it isnt going back in.

I am sure that you would not be too happy if someone applied technology to rob your car or break into your house just because they can.

The proper analogy is of someone using technology to duplicate items in my house at no cost to them, not "robbing" my house.

Or dare I say it if you wrote a programme for a local business and they felt free (without any agreement with you) to distribute it to other businesses and friends thereby depriving you of an income?

Id say if I wrote software which could be distributed as such Id have a pathetic business model and would go out of business overnight. Id probably, you know, adapt and sell support services and contracts etc to generate a valid revenue stream. Instead of, you know, whining endlessly about how unfair it all is and lobbying government into introducing ridiculous draconian legislation to protect my totally outdated and flawed business model as if I somehow have "the right" to make money in a free market.

I work in software support at the moment. The internet has made it possible for a technician in India to fix my customers problems the same as if he was sitting at the servers I used to have to travel to. Is a law against that next becuase I have some "right" to earn money for something that I used to do, but is now completely irrelevant, unnecessary and obsolete?

godskitchen · 28-05-2009 04:22PM

Flyboy!!! wrote: »

that's why God put musicians on this planet. [/I]

There is no evidence to support that.

Flyboy!!! · 28-05-2009 04:30PM

dub45 wrote: »

I would also remind you that the Good Samaritan actually paid out money!

You miss the point. Yeah maybe it's a little obscure but when the Samaritan pulled the injured man from the ditch, it was a Saturday, Saturday being the Jewish Sabbath, it was illegal for him to do so and that's why all the other passers by ignored the injured man.

Why is it that most people need to be told what is right and wrong, why do they need their rules written in a book? Are these the kinda people who'd leave you die in a ditch because them's the rules...?

Flyboy!!! · 28-05-2009 04:33PM

godskitchen wrote: »

There is no evidence to support that.

Yeah, I'm not a fervant supporter of such tosh either but I think you get the point!?

It's a figure of speech, a turn of phrase or some such. Maybe an old law or charter, I'm not really sure anymore...

CiaranC · 28-05-2009 05:01PM

Flyboy!!! wrote: »

Yeah, I'm not a fervant supporter of such tosh either but I think you get the point!?

It's a figure of speech, a turn of phrase or some such. Maybe an old law or charter, I'm not really sure anymore...

Continuing your religious analogy...

Technology made it (briefly) possible for money to be made from recording and selling music. Now technology has removed that possibility.

The lord giveth, and the lord taketh away

Flyboy!!! · 28-05-2009 05:05PM

CiaranC wrote: »

Continuing your religious analogy...

Technology made it (briefly) possible for money to be made from recording and selling music. Now technology has removed that possibility.

The lord giveth, and the lord taketh away

Amen

pieye · 28-05-2009 05:12PM

I was going through some old vinyl and I found a jolly roger with tape cassette as the skull... as was is now and ever shall be.

dub45 · 28-05-2009 05:32PM

CiaranC wrote: »

Continuing your religious analogy...

Technology made it (briefly) possible for money to be made from recording and selling music. Now technology has removed that possibility.

The lord giveth, and the lord taketh away

And technology has made it possible for someone to steal your car - does that mean you can't own a car anymore? Please please think a little bit.

CiaranC · 28-05-2009 05:44PM

dub45 wrote: »

And technology has made it possible for someone to steal your car - does that mean you can't own a car anymore? Please please think a little bit.

Please expand on your brilliant analogy. Im am curious.

vibe666 · 28-05-2009 05:49PM

dub45 wrote: »

And technology has made it possible for someone to steal your car - does that mean you can't own a car anymore? Please please think a little bit.

its tough though to find the correct analogy because stealing your car isn't the same (bear with me a minute on this one).

put it this way, what if you'd spent hours and hours over the course of several months designing and building a totally unique car from scratch and tweaking it to get it just right, looking forward to making a little bit of money off the back of your hard work and feeling that pride when it's all finished and all your hard work will finally pay off.

you sell your first copy of your nice new car and feel the pride of knowing you earned the money in your pocket by your own blood, sweat and tears.

then you find out someone has invented a machine to make perfect free copies of your beloved motor and starts handing them out to all his mates for free and you get nothing from then on, because well, it was free and they didn't actually take anything off you, your original is still there where it was when you built it, so they didn't steal anything off you. or did they?

BTW I'm not saying I haven't done it myself, I'm just trying to explain why it's wrong to do it in the first place.

CiaranC wrote: »

Irrelevant tbh. The genie is out of the bottle, and it isnt going back in.

I think you'll fine I copyrighted that phrase on page 4 of this thread. you owe me one MILLION dollaaaars!

dub45 · 28-05-2009 05:59PM

CiaranC wrote: »

Please expand on your brilliant analogy. Im am curious.

Its very simple - just because technology makes some possible..............

dub45 · 28-05-2009 06:03PM

vibe666 wrote: »

its tough though to find the correct analogy because stealing your car isn't the same (bear with me a minute on this one).

put it this way, what if you'd spent hours and hours over the course of several months designing and building a totally unique car from scratch and tweaking it to get it just right, looking forward to making a little bit of money off the back of your hard work and feeling that pride when it's all finished and all your hard work will finally pay off.

you sell your first copy of your nice new car and feel the pride of knowing you earned the money in your pocket by your own blood, sweat and tears.

then you find out someone has invented a machine to make perfect free copies of your beloved motor and starts handing them out to all his mates for free and you get nothing from then on, because well, it was free and they didn't actually take anything off you, your original is still there where it was when you built it, so they didn't steal anything off you. or did they?

BTW I'm not saying I haven't done it myself, I'm just trying to explain why it's wrong to do it in the first place.

I think you'll fine I copyrighted that phrase on page 4 of this thread. you owe me one MILLION dollaaaars!

I agree that the car analogy but my I was attempting to make the poster think how he would feel if something was being stolen on him simply because technology makes it possible. Your car analogy is good but suppose too that a baker bakes a loaf and as soon as it hits the shelves the loaf is 'cloned'
and people distribute it (By the way I know Christ did this but he only did it the once!) freely - the art of baking is not going to last long.

Newspapers everywhere are going through a crisis partly because of the 'free' model where they opened their full contents to the public. Ok they made the choice and its rebounding on them but many musicians are on record as saying that they disapprove strongly of downloads.

CiaranC · 28-05-2009 06:09PM

dub45 wrote: »

Your car analogy is good but suppose too that a baker bakes a loaf and as soon as it hits the shelves the loaf is 'cloned'
and people distribute it (By the way I know Christ did this but he only did it the once!) freely - the art of baking is not going to last long.

Nonsense. Music existed for thousands of years before the current absurd model was introduced and it will last long after it disappears.

Newspapers everywhere are going through a crisis partly because of the 'free' model where they opened their full contents to the public.

This is natural and normal, the way it should be. Its called progress. Technology has made no end of things obsolete, printing news on dead trees and driving it around in combustion powered trucks is just the next in line.

dub45 · 28-05-2009 06:47PM

CiaranC wrote: »

Nonsense. Music existed for thousands of years before the current absurd model was introduced and it will last long after it disappears..

The difference was that previously the music wasn't captured for distribution.

CiaranC wrote: »

This is natural and normal, the way it should be. Its called progress. Technology has made no end of things obsolete, printing news on dead trees and driving it around in combustion powered trucks is just the next in line.

That's a matter of opinion. However what is at issue is pursuing the 'free' model has not worked for newspapers.

If a service is not paid for it cannot last.

Flyboy!!! · 28-05-2009 06:51PM

dub45 wrote: »

Your car analogy is good but suppose too that a baker bakes a loaf and as soon as it hits the shelves the loaf is 'cloned'
and people distribute it (By the way I know Christ did this but he only did it the once!) freely - the art of baking is not going to last long.

Hmmmm... Perhaps this arcane art of cloning loaves is actually the very same process by which the first loaf was created... Imagine, this nefarious activity would soon spread across the land, bakers everywhere would soon be cloning loaves till they filled shelf upon shelf in stores throughout the world. People could even do this in their own kitchens, baking their own loaves. For sure, the prisons would overflow with such criminals whilst murderers and rapists roamed the streets. Lo, the creator of the first loaf was secure in the knowledge his copyright was protected even when when he was battered, buggered and buried in a shallow grave...

Really, really, didn't you think before you posted that...? You can't lock up every person who rips music or books or other such stuff because then we'd have nowhere to put real criminals. At the end of the day, it's about as criminal as baking bread.

Unless of course you are just a wind up merchant...? I mean, really...

dub45 wrote: »

What is at issue is pursuing the 'free' model has not worked for newspapers.

If a service is not paid for it cannot last.

News is one of the least profitable areas in any media companies' operations so it's no huge surprise. Besides I doubt subscription free news websites will die, they'll always generate enough of a profit from advertising to keep going.

Besides, there're plenty of practices and preofessions that have dissapeared over the centuries. For instance we don't leech fevers anymore nor do we trample raw wool in urine before making a jumper...

dub45 · 28-05-2009 07:02PM

Flyboy!!! wrote: »

Hmmmm... Perhaps this arcane art of cloning loaves is actually the very same process by which the first loaf was created... Imagine, this nefarious activity would soon spread across the land, bakers everywhere would soon be cloning loaves till the filled shelf upon shelf in stores throughout the world. People could even do this in their own kitchens, baking their own loaves. For sure, the prisons would overflow with such criminals whilst murderers and rapists roamed the streets. Lo, the creator of the first loaf was secure in the knowledge his copyright was protected even when when he was battered, buggered and buried in a shallow grave...

Really, really, didn't you think before you posted that...? You can't lock up every person who rips music or books or other such stuff because then we'd have nowhere to put real criminals. At the end of the day, it's about as illegal as baking bread.

Unless of course you are just a wind up merchant...?

Is it really that hard for you to understand a point of view?

People baking in their own kitchens presumably buy the flour and put in the work to make a product. Thereby benefiting the flour provider and themselves if they either eat it or sell it on.

My point is that if someone can clone a service - that service will shortly disappear. Apart from the fact its stealing as the law stands and many of the owners of that cloned material object very strongly to that practise.

You in your arrogance have no problem disregarding the wishes of musicians who do not want their material distributed illegally?

And I have not suggested locking up anyone. And at he end of the day it is illegal. The day we start making our own individual laws is a sad day for society.

And I really think you should be concerned about what you did to the poor baker above. Such fantasies obviously result from watching too many illegally dowloaded horror films!:rolleyes:

Flyboy!!! · 28-05-2009 07:20PM

dub45 wrote: »

Is it really that hard for you to understand a point of view?

People baking in their own kitchens presumably buy the flour and put in the work to make a product. Thereby benefiting the flour provider and themselves if they either eat it or sell it on.

My point is that if someone can clone a service - that service will shortly disappear. Apart from the fact its stealing as the law stands and many of the owners of that cloned material object very strongly to that practise.

You in your arrogance have no problem disregarding the wishes of musicians who do not want their material distributed illegally?

And I have not suggested locking up anyone. And at he end of the day it is illegal. The day we start making our own individual laws is a sad day for society.

And I really think you should be concerned about what you did to the poor baker above. Such fantasies obviously result from watching too many illegally dowloaded horror films!:rolleyes:

I take it you'd have no problem if I were to buy the ingredients to make music, gather a few like minded individuals together and clone the music that way? I know of many such people who do, they're musicians and sometimes they play other peoples' songs, they call them covers and sometimes they will exclusively play other peoples' music in what they call a covers band.

I don't disregard musicians who wish to make money by copyrighting their music but I do realise that in this day and age that enforcing these wishes is futile. In order for a law to work, it must be enforceable. If it's not enforceable, it's pointless. Even if you do enforce it, you're right, you can't lock them all up but you do criminalise them. In America that can be enough to deny you a vote. It also wastes time and resources better spent elsewhere.

Ah yes, the buggered baker. No doubt if his murderer were ever caught, if the cops found a minute in between arresting music happy teenagers, some civic minded individuals would band together and blame it on computer games like GTA and films like Saw. Probably the same civic minded individuals who've turned a blind eye to Government corruption and paedophile Priests and more often then not, they are the very same corrupt Politicians and paedophile Priests. Predictable!

Again, I would ask you to listen to this excellant tune and then tell me that modern music is not shaped by those you brand criminals:

http://www.ubu.com/sound/dj_food.html

The same happened with the advent of the printing press and it caused revolutions. Look to history or repeat it's mistakes.

cls · 28-05-2009 07:22PM

Get your gandad to ring them pretending to be you and tell him to ask them what does downloading mean and can he get the latest Daniel O'Donnell record with that or does he have to pay.

Cabaal · 28-05-2009 09:32PM

Try this,
I'm a photographer, say I do a print and I sell it for 100e, the 100e fee includes the writes for that one person or company to display it but not copy or redistribute it without my permission.

Based on CiaranC's and others examples it is ok (due to technology) for anybody to now make a copy of my work and distribute it without my say so, they can print and resell it if they wish but apparently thats ok too.

Yet I am now out of pocket, I put in the time to make that print, process it etc

But apparently its ok to effectively"steal" from me because technology allows people?

Lads you have a unrealistic view on things, twisted morals and with no base in reality

If you think I'm alone in protecting my work post in the photography forum and the VAST MAJORITY of people will go after you if you use their work without permission. Hell do a quick search of the forum and you will see that in cases where papers have used photos without permissions they are invoiced and pursued over it

Cabaal · 28-05-2009 09:35PM

Flyboy!!! wrote: »

The same happened with the advent of the printing press and it caused revolutions. Look to history or repeat it's mistakes.

Funny you give the printing press as an example, the printing press allowed authorised copies to be made but the right holder still had control and owned the work.

People's belief here now is that it doesn't matter who owns the work they can copy and share it all they want and not give a ****e about the person who first produced the work.

Nice example...but heavily flawed,

Now try and justify "stealing" in my photography example instead and lets see how you come out.

Blindpew · 28-05-2009 10:05PM

I have about 2000 shop bought cds that I bought between 1984 and 1999. Thats about £30000 given to the record industry. Most of that music was rubbish. I also have about 300gbs of music that I have downloaded but never listened to. Most of that is probably rubbish too. Of the 300gbs I have downloaded I doubt I would have bought any of it as I had gotten sense by 1999. I'd say most stuff that people download would never have been bought by them. If the record industry wasn't still making money they wouldn't still be producing cds. People are better off paying to see bands lives and buying their t-shirts and posters at concerts instead of making record companys and shops rich. The music is only advertising.

Flyboy!!! · 28-05-2009 10:28PM

Cabaal wrote: »

Funny you give the printing press as an example, the printing press allowed authorised copies to be made but the right holder still had control and owned the work.

People's belief here now is that it doesn't matter who owns the work they can copy and share it all they want and not give a ****e about the person who first produced the work.

Nice example...but heavily flawed,

Now try and justify "stealing" in my photography example instead and lets see how you come out.

Yes the printing press allowed authorised copies to be made but if you check your history, you'd know the printing press was first used to mass produce the King James Bible so it could be distributed to the masses. That was the start of the end for the Catholic Church. By the way, that was unauthorised by the Church at the time.

You are right, push comes to shove, you ask most people if they're willing to pay a tenner for a movie they could have for free, they'll take the free one. Bring in the issue of copyright they'll hymm and haw about the legalities and depending on what they have in the bank, they'll answer one way or the other. The way the economy's going, world over, I'm pretty sure you can imagine which way that's gonna go. There are teenagers and people in their early twenties who've NEVER paid one red cent for music because it's so easy to rip them. Try convincing them to start paying for it and I guarantee you'll have a losing battle on your hands.

You sell a photograph to a company who then sells it on, you're absolutely right, they're making money off of your back. I agree 100% you're due a taste. On the other hand, some kid finds your photo on the net, sticks "LOLZ, I CAN HAZ CHEEZBRGR!?" on it and next thing you know all friends are emailing it to you, WTF are you gonna do then...? Are you gonna sue them? You can can hire a Solicitor, bring them to court, get a ruling in your favour and still not see a red cent coz, after all, we're talking a jobless teenager, but you still have your legal fees to cover. Then maybe said teenager gets on a message board, posts your details and next thing you know you're inbox is full of BigusDickus Strong'n'Hard emails and you've got maybe forty pizzas for evening tea. That'll get very tiring after a couple of weeks, or so I hear.

Now, at this point you can ask yourself are all people criminal or is this just natural human behaviour? Is trying to build walls around that which cannot be protected a good or even sane thing to do? Can you really expect people not to use freely available material for artistic expression or their own solitary enjoyment? If you think so, you'll be fighting a losing battle. Are they criminal or only Human?

Big business isn't playing fair either. They'll release an album on both sides of the atlantic but each with subtle differences in order to exploit Itellectual Property(TRIPS) laws so they can charge one market more than the other. They put region codes on DVDs to make it more awkward for those who do buy foriegn market movies. Music labels sign bands and don't give them a fair share of the profits or they decide for market reasons not to let them record because it'll interfere with another artist or band in their stable, that's unfair. We know all this, the kids out there know all this yet you're calling them the criminals. I would say anyone who stands in the way of Human progress is not just stupid but also criminal.

As one professional to another, I recognise that Photography gets hit exceptionally bad in recession times. Businesses cut back on advertising budgets and the Wedding market is saturated. If you haven't done so already, you should consider creating an online image library of your work for advertising and marketing people to buy from. They're not so likely to pay you to do a shoot but if there's something that takes their fancy and ready to go, you'll be ahead of the game.

Still, the link I posted to that tune, I recommend you check it out, as well as being an education, it's an amazing piece of music. It's about an hour long but well worth the listen!

http://www.ubu.com/sound/dj_food.html

Oh, and don't forget to avail of your Artist's Exemption if you think you can argue your work has artistic merit!

I got a Copyright Infringement Notice from UTV Internet

Comments