I got a Copyright Infringement Notice from UTV Internet

CiaranC · 28-05-2009 10:41PM

Cabaal wrote: »

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.

Where exactly did anyone say this is "ok"?

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

Right, we have an unrealistic view. I see.

watty · 28-05-2009 11:45PM

Flyboy!!! wrote: »

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.

Guess what.

If you "cover" a song you have to pay royalty to the song writer/publisher.

You might get away with it in a pub. But if you publish it they will pursue you.

American publishers did reprint European work in the past without paying royalty. They don't any more as they found no-one in Europe would distribute their impressions nor republish their Authors.

We have International Conventions now that even countries that don't talk to each other now uphold.

Johnboy1951 · 29-05-2009 12:02AM

Copyright was introduced -- why?
Who decided it was a good idea?

Are those good ideas still valid for society today?

As I remember it, copyright was considered to be a good idea because it was thought that it would foster more artistic work if the artists were given a short period of time with which to make sufficient money to allow them to live and continue generating artistic work that was pleasing to society.
Outside of that all such works were in the public domain, and the intention was that such works, after a predetermined short time would also go into the public domain.

At the sight of the money big business got involved, lobbied for even longer copyright terms and more draconian punishments for those who broke someone's copyright. At first of course it was only those who it could be proved had made a profit out of breaking the copyright that were persued.

Roll on the years and now we have a situation where the copyright is said to last the whole lifetime of the artist, and a lot more with it in some jurisdictions.

That was never the INTENT of the law in the first place.
The intent has been corrupted by big business.
The time has come for people to take back their right to have such works in the public domain.

There are laws against piracy, but breaking copyright does not break any of them. This is pure FUD by big business to make such an act seem much worse than it is.

Until big business got involved there were no damages to be paid for an individual who supposedly broke copyright and made no financial gain from it.

It is coming near the time that either all copyright is abolished -- meaning that society takes back the privilege it granted to artists to allow them to exclusively sell copies of their work -- or that society determines that they will continue to grant to artists a copyright privilege but on terms that the people wish to grant.

This idea being put forward in this thread that because it is now illegal to copy something, or has been for some time past, is no guarantee or proof of right that such a situation should or will continue indefinitely.

To all you artists out there ..... you were granted a privilege by society which allowed you to exclusively sell copies of your product for a specified time. You would do well to remember that, as it appears now that society is coming to the conclusion that you have abused your privilege and that privilege could well be withdrawn in your lifetime. It is pointless for artists to say -- oh its not us it is the record companies (or whatever big business you are in bed with) --- tough say I; the negative effects are too much for society to continue allowing you this privilege.

I hope you are prepared to change jobs just like others have had to do before you.

Flyboy!!! · 29-05-2009 12:11AM

watty wrote: »

We have International Conventions now that even countries that don't talk to each other now uphold.

Governments uphold, not people...

seanabc · 29-05-2009 12:18AM

When you get a warning like that from your service provider it's time to look at getting a new service provider. Cheeky feckers!

enfant terrible · 29-05-2009 12:33AM

Out of curiosity is the stuff i keep on my sky+ box copyright infringement or legal

29-05-2009 02:46AM

enfant terrible wrote: »

Out of curiosity is the stuff i keep on my sky+ box copyright infringement or legal

Aiding and abetting, I assume (but they're a big company, so much like Google, they have nothing to worry about).

vibe666 · 29-05-2009 09:00AM

enfant terrible wrote: »

Out of curiosity is the stuff i keep on my sky+ box copyright infringement or legal

it's legal.

you can even record some of the content off your sky+ box onto a dvd recorder if you want, but you'll find it doesn't work with some of the premium content like movies, because that is protected. you can play it back on your sky+ box, but not record it off onto other media, but as I said it depends on what exactly it is.

as far as the whole copyright thing goes, people deserve to be paid for their own hard work, be it cleaning the streets, working on ahelpdesk, building houses or creating and performing music, end of story.

the people who make the laws (i.e. your democratically elected representatives) believe this to be true too and have laws protecting the rights of these artists that give them the right to protect their creations and get paid for them.

this whole "the music WANTS to be free" crap is exactly that, crap. I'm sure most artists would tell you that they are what they are out of a love of it, not to make money, but I bet every single one of them still thinks that they deserve to get paid for their efforts just like anyone in any other trade.

I'm not telling you not to download music, because if I did I'd be a hypocrite (not to mention nobody would listen to me anyway:)), I've done it myself, but I still buy CD's if I find someting I really like an artist, so I don't feel too bad about it.

However, this notion that there's nothing wrong with it and it's not stealing is totally ridiculous. downloading music without paying for it is no different than downloding movies, TV shows, books or software. it's piracy and it's wrong because you are taking something you do not legally have the right to own because you haven't paid for it and any way you slice it that's illegal and therefore wrong.

unless you want to get into politics and change the law so that all music is free, you just don't have a valid argument for what you are saying.

right, I'm off to download some illegal music, but I'm under no illusions as to the fact that I'm breaking the law and it's wrong.

O'Coonassa · 29-05-2009 09:17AM

When nobody can make and distribute content for material gain anymore people will make and distribute content for fame and prestige just as humans have always done. It'll be more varied and diverse than that which is currently controlled and offered by the corporate system. They hi-jacked the music but it's coming back to us

Cabaal · 29-05-2009 09:19AM

CiaranC wrote: »

Where exactly did anyone say this is "ok"?

Right, we have an unrealistic view. I see.

Interesting dodgy, read my post again and actually answer me if you think its ok to reproduce my work without permission.

You think its ok to do it for music so surely you have no problem admitting its ok with photos.

CiaranC · 29-05-2009 09:44AM

Cabaal wrote: »

Interesting dodgy, read my post again and actually answer me if you think its ok to reproduce my work without permission.

You think its ok to do it for music so surely you have no problem admitting its ok with photos.

I have no problem with people emailing photos to each other, it doesnt bother me in the least.

You suggested that I had said it was OK to reprint your photos and sell them, which I most certainly did not.

Cabaal · 29-05-2009 10:00AM

CiaranC wrote: »

I have no problem with people emailing photos to each other, it doesnt bother me in the least.

You suggested that I had said it was OK to reprint your photos and sell them, which I most certainly did not.

My example also covered,
- I sell a photo
- Person I sold it to does not have permission to copy it re-print it
- Yet they re-print it and copy it and give it to friends
- They may also resell copies of it

Nice to see you think its ok for all artists to be fecked over, and in my example to rip-off my work. Your a nice type of person

Also nice to see that there are so many other complete fools who breach the law on a daily basis and yet think its ok.

CiaranC · 29-05-2009 10:46AM

Cabaal wrote: »

My example also covered,
- I sell a photo
- Person I sold it to does not have permission to copy it re-print it
- Yet they re-print it and copy it and give it to friends
- They may also resell copies of it

Nice to see you think its ok for all artists to be fecked over, and in my example to rip-off my work. Your a nice type of person

Also nice to see that there are so many other complete fools who breach the law on a daily basis and yet think its ok.

You are insisting I am advocating commercial piracy. I am not, but by all means ignore that.

*Sigh*

If you can make a living selling information in the information world, great, best of luck to you. If not, you will go out of business and have to do something that has enough value that people are willing to pay for it.

Personally, I think the "fools" are the ones who are doing something akin to trying to sell ice in Antartica and then complaining when people scoop up their own.

The world has fundamentally changed with the introduction of the information age, and the media distribution models of the past are dead. Youll just have to accept it. Nobody cares that the poor old artists are going to go broke.

Cabaal · 29-05-2009 11:32AM

CiaranC wrote: »

You are insisting I am advocating commercial piracy. I am not, but by all means ignore that.

You say its ok to copy copyright material, this is saying piracy is ok
Present law states that downloading copyright material is piracy yet your trying to say this model is dead, this model is still alive and as such it is still very much illegal to download copyright material.

People can wish and hope this will change but I guarantee the rights holder will never have their rights taken away in the manner in which if they produce work anybody can copy it without any problems.

The rights holder will always retain rights to their work within their lifetime and rightly so (unless otherwise agreed by that specific person as part of some contract or agreement)

Personally, I think the "fools" are the ones who are doing something akin to trying to sell ice in Antartica and then complaining when people scoop up their own.

Oh I get you, your saying that if I take a photo and process it and do all the work and sell it your saying that any old Joe on the street can also take that EXACT same photo and process it in the EXACT same way so by them copying mine its ok.

It doesn't happen, no two photos are EXACTLY the same.

Your logic is heavily flawed on this one, your examples also fails for music too.

Both you and I know that some band in a back room do not have the same production values when compared to the likes of U2.
As such they cannot be compared like for like as they are nothing alike.

Cabaal · 29-05-2009 11:43AM

Blindpew wrote: »

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.

Really?

Its all very well and good to say artists can make their money from concerts but how do you expect the artists to get the backing to fund starting a tour or concert if they can't make any money from their music other then concerts or t-shirts, posters etc.

T-shirt sales are not going to fund their concerts, so for example take an artist in Ireland who's music is extremely popular in other European countries but not in Ireland.

How exactly do you expect them to get the funding to make or advertising themselfs or any of their gear (t-shirts etc) before they can be sold, in addition how do you expect them to get money to travel to other countrys to do concerts?

Its clear you've never looked at the costs involved in merchandising when compared to what the artist makes and the same for concerts.

These things like any business require a great deal of initial investment and the fact that a number of complete idiots suggest music should now be free for everyone means that artists are not going to risk getting a loan to do this stuff and no third party will want to take the risk in investing in them because they have seen no returns by the artists works.

jor el · 29-05-2009 12:29PM

I think the off-topicness has gone far enough now. Back to the subject of the notice from UTV please. Further off-topic posts will simply be deleted.

Cabaal · 29-05-2009 12:34PM

jor el wrote: »

I think the off-topicness has gone far enough now. Back to the subject of the notice from UTV please. Further off-topic posts will simply be deleted.

Fair enough actually, we did go a fair bit off topic alright.

This forum is Broadband after all....not law or politics.

In respect of UTV's warnings, this is actually the first time I've heard of them warning a user for breach of their T&C's.

I have however heard of BT doing it in the past, more specifically they telephoned a friend of mine and warned him he was in breach of their T&C's and further breaches would result in termination of service.

I also know for a fact that a number of ISP's have issued warnings via e-mail letter over the years in the UK.

Though I've only ever heard of a handful of accounts being terminated, none of which I've ever heard about in Ireland though

Onikage · 29-05-2009 03:21PM

Flyboy!!! wrote: »

Seeing as we're not bothered listening to an argument and providing a constructive rebuttal, we'll just kill the discussion.

That seems perfectly logical. Why continue banging your heads off a wall?

FWIW I know two people who received this type of letter from UPC a couple of years back. Nothing ever came of it.

jor el · 29-05-2009 03:43PM

Flyboy infracted and post deleted. Which part of back on topic was unclear?

bealtine · 29-05-2009 06:22PM

Cabaal wrote: »

In respect of UTV's warnings, this is actually the first time I've heard of them warning a user for breach of their T&C's.

I have however heard of BT doing it in the past, more specifically they telephoned a friend of mine and warned him he was in breach of their T&C's and further breaches would result in termination of service.

I'd just like to point out that the Telecomms Package has said that internet access is a fundamental right and cannot be withdrawn without an order of the court. So ISPs that do this (threatening letters) are currently in breach of EU legislation.

Sorry to continue the "off topic-ness" of this discussion.

vibe666 · 29-05-2009 06:42PM

Onikage wrote: »

FWIW I know two people who received this type of letter from UPC a couple of years back. Nothing ever came of it.

the internet is a different place now than it was back then. since eircom caved in tot he demands of record companies all bets are off imho. mind you, we don't really know what's going to happen with that either yet do we?

has anyone actually tested the eircom 3 strikes rule to see if they are actually enforcing it?

might even be a good way to get out of your contract if you were thinking of moving anyway.

Valentia · 30-05-2009 10:28AM

watty wrote: »

There are commercial, social and personal things that are "unfair", or even unjust, or immoral. Doing as you please doesn't correct injustice, but erodes the Morality and Rule of law in Society even more.

Hmm. Very limiting and ultra conservative way of looking at it me thinks. Would you say that charging exorbitant concert prices, grossly overpriced cds and dvds is "unfair" or "unjust"? The model of society that we have now patently doesn't work. It's biased towards maximising profits and dividends for shareholders. And we've seen what that can do haven't we?

Erodes the Morality and Rule of law in Society even more

I wouldn't consider myself ultra left wing or anti establishment (I'm actually part of it) but that is just plain nonsense. What's wrong is that the laws should be made for the better good of ALL and they are not.

I know quite a few (fairly famous) people in the music industry and everyone of them downloads stuff "illegally". I bet if a lot of the people mouthing off in the industry are truthful they would admit it too. Imagine a rock star thrashing an hotel and then getting all hot and bothered because someone downloaded one of his songs without paying. We keep forgetting. Laws should be for the greater good of the people, not to facilitate the greed of the few.

Valentia · 30-05-2009 10:31AM

dub45 wrote: »

(By the way I know Christ did this but he only did it the once!)

He may have only did it once but his reps here on earth apparently do it everyday

vibe666 · 30-05-2009 10:51AM

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

It usually happens eventually .....

yes, but unfortunately, we don't get to pick and choose which laws we think are right and which ones we think are wrong.

unfair or not, the law is the law and breaking the law is exactly that BREAKING the law, regardless of how we personally feel about it.

you can't just say "ah well, i don't agree with that law so it's okay to break it" because if everyone did that nobody would be obeying any laws.

by all means feel free to carry on doing what you like, but don't try and kid yourself that what you're doing isn't wrong.

Cabaal · 30-05-2009 10:52AM

Next person to start this off-topic nonsense again gets banned for a week, jor el gave a warning and peoiple are ignoring it

97i9y3941 · 30-05-2009 11:14AM

emule has an reward system,if you dont throttle the upload amount you can download faster,so rule is throttle your upload...

Firetrap · 30-05-2009 01:26PM

The thing I'm wondering about re. a letter like this is what further action can be taken? Will people arrive around to your house and seize your computer to make sure you did delete that Green Day album or the complete series of Heroes? What date did they detect your IP address uploading copyright material? Does this mean that if you were unfortunate enough to be fingered three times before you got your letter, that you'll be disconnected?

watty · 30-05-2009 02:52PM

No they can't come to your house without a court order & warrent.

However since the T&C forbid infringing copyright, they can decide to terminate your contract if they are satisfied you are ignoring the warning. Nothing worse.

Then to get re-connected you would have to sue then via civil process and they would have to prove that you where in breach of contract after they warned you.

They can't pass your details to a 3rd party due to the Data protection act, so the RIght's holders can't sue you unless by some independent manner gather evidence.

Actually we have had these discussions repeatedly in this forum. Do a search.

I'm no lawyer and I can't offer legal advice, but I believe the burden of proof has only to be "reasonable" rather than the "conclusive" needed for a criminal case.

97i9y3941 · 30-05-2009 09:36PM

im sure it be a warning and that be the end of it,could be a 3 strikes rule like some parts of europe have,the cost of bringing someone to court along with the proof who was useing the computer at the time would waste court time let alone they dont want to get an backlash of sueing a 12 year old for example, if they sent out a letter of telling a 12 year old to stop downloading so they sue the isp's instead to get on the publics side.

Oracle · 30-05-2009 09:55PM

Your response should be to terminate your contract with UTV at the earliest opportunity, and switch provider.

I got a Copyright Infringement Notice from UTV Internet

Comments