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

Eircom enacts three strikes rule

191012141519

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,002 ✭✭✭jimi_t2


    tiocimarla wrote: »
    So Celebs can put it up their noses and tell us they have it hard. Ye right. Priorities are messed up.

    A ridiculously small fraction of the proceeds goes towards the artist. The labels are a dinosaur who existed because a lot of very rich men had the distribution channels tied up pre-internet. Similarly, the means of production was controlled to a wide extent as the barriers to entry were so high that some level of co-operation was needed

    Now music has gone digital and the distribution channels are wide open.

    The artists still make shag-all money. True that the labels have taken a hit from their *SUPER NORMAL PROFITS* (economics term, look it up) but because of the internet, and the free distribution of music, the LIVE performance revenues of artists are skyrocketing - especially for electronic musicians or DJs.

    UK-music-industry-revenue.png

    The people who are putting it up their noses are the pricks who lob complete nonsense into the charts because its the most cost effective thing to do.

    Musicians are making more now then they ever were

    http://labs.timesonline.co.uk/blog/2009/11/12/do-music-artists-do-better-in-a-world-with-illegal-file-sharing/

    This is almost WHOLLY attributed to filesharing by a number of leading academics and independent, neutral bodies.

    The problem here is not starving musicians. It seems that people have a set budget constraint for music, and when the parts of it that can be captured in a file-format fall in price, it simply diverts that savings into other forms of music spending. The problem now is that the artists are getting a bigger chunk of the pie and that is not how the record industry is supposed to work!

    I'm a gigging musician and DJ and I wholly disregard any and all of the actions of the so called ''IRMA'' as being of any benefit to me, or the many extremely talented musicians and performers in Ireland. We've been taken for a ride around the paddock as a generation of artists and we finally have the ability to stop the nonsense - unfortunately a lot of very very rich people are going to take umbrage with that.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 92 ✭✭wanrek


    750,000 Eircom Broadband users...I wonder if they'll even have 10% of that this time next year...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 11,631 ✭✭✭✭Hank Scorpio




  • Closed Accounts Posts: 217 ✭✭johanz


    nuxxx wrote: »
    Time to drift the seas and plunder the booty.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 241 ✭✭tiocimarla


    Im not gonna quote it again buts its just beutiful;)


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,277 ✭✭✭poisonated


    How stupid can a company be. They are really just asking for people to switch their network provider.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25 jgjkl


    well done Eircom


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 217 ✭✭johanz


    poisonated wrote: »
    How stupid can a company be. They are really just asking for people to switch their network provider.
    Sucks for people who still have a long contract time


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,536 ✭✭✭Mark200


    wanrek wrote: »
    750,000 Eircom Broadband users...I wonder if they'll even have 10% of that this time next year...

    Of course they will :confused:

    Anyone who knows the reality of what the three strike rule is, won't be going anywhere.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,847 ✭✭✭take everything


    As a former employee of Eircom I can honestly say I wish them nothing but bad luck and harm.

    Jim? ;)


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,124 ✭✭✭Amhran Nua


    Mark200 wrote: »
    Of course they will :confused:

    Anyone who knows the reality of what the three strike rule is, won't be going anywhere.
    Are you and the couple of others in the merry gang still pushing your nonsense? Some hard spinning going on here and no mistake. Ah to live in the happy fairyland where companies don't have to obey laws.

    Actually I'm really glad I don't live there.

    I think 10% is too high though, hopefully they'll not only lose most of their customer base but the last mile connection will be renationalised. Long overdue to be honest, Singapore Telecom overpaid for it anyway.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,462 ✭✭✭Peanut


    Got a nice email today :pac:
    From: onlinewinback@eircom.ie

    Dear Customer,

    You are now successfully back with eircom!
    ...

    facepalm-self


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 151 ✭✭einshteen


    All of these people saying it doesn't affect them... if IRMA can do this to one ISP they can, and WILL, do it to the rest of them.

    The way I see it, regardless of your feelings about piracy, this move amounts to internet censorship by a private special interest company. Legislation is lagging far behind the technology, and at this time we do not have recognition of internet access as a fundamental right, so we will have to fight for it through other means.

    So, how's about we stop ****eing about on the internet and steer this thread towards actually doing something about it?

    In my assessment, the best approach is to actively discourage people from buying from the big 4 labels (Warner, Sony/BMG, EMI, Universal). The IRMA has 50+ members so we can't target them all, but can encourage people to contact the smaller labels to let them know that they won't be buying any of their stuff.

    The IRMA are doing this as their function is to protect profits for the music industry, so if we can make the IRMA a liability instead of an asset to them, then we stand a fighting chance.

    Anyone who realises that the free flow of information is the best thing to happen in the last 20 years, and is worth fighting for, PM me or reply on thread.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 15,914 ✭✭✭✭tbh


    Amhran Nua wrote: »
    Are you and the couple of others in the merry gang still pushing your nonsense? Some hard spinning going on here and no mistake. Ah to live in the happy fairyland where companies don't have to obey laws.

    Actually I'm really glad I don't live there.

    I think 10% is too high though, hopefully they'll not only lose most of their customer base but the last mile connection will be renationalised. Long overdue to be honest, Singapore Telecom overpaid for it anyway.

    here's the deal. If the European court overturn this anytime in the next....I'm gonna say three years, I'll donate 200 euro to your party or the charity of your choice.

    IF they don't, or if they indicate that they won't - you agree never to post on boards ever again.

    deal?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,124 ✭✭✭Amhran Nua


    tbh wrote: »
    here's the deal. If the European court overturn this anytime in the next....I'm gonna say three years, I'll donate 200 euro to your party or the charity of your choice.

    IF they don't, or if they indicate that they won't - you agree never to post on boards ever again.

    deal?
    Seems a bit one sided doesn't it? Most people would hardly miss €200, but the opportunity to let people know when private companies are trying to sidestep the law and courts of justice might well be called priceless, to a civic minded individual.

    To give your offer credit though, its the first time anyone has mentioned hard cash in relation to stopping me posting. I'll take that as a positive sign.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 15,914 ✭✭✭✭tbh


    Amhran Nua wrote: »
    Seems a bit one sided doesn't it? Most people would hardly miss €200, but the opportunity to let people know when private companies are trying to sidestep the law and courts of justice might well be called priceless, to a civic minded individual.

    To give your offer credit though, its the first time anyone has mentioned hard cash in relation to stopping me posting. I'll take that as a positive sign.

    ok 500. do we have a deal? oh and I'm not offering you the money to stop you posting. You get to keep posting, and you get e500.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,124 ✭✭✭Amhran Nua


    tbh wrote: »
    ok 500.
    Make it seven hundred and fifty thousand, a euro for every Eircom customer that got shafted, and donate it to Eircom, they'll need it.

    On second thoughts, maybe just look up priceless.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 15,914 ✭✭✭✭tbh


    Amhran Nua wrote: »
    Make it seven hundred and fifty thousand, a euro for every Eircom customer that got shafted, and donate it to Eircom, they'll need it.

    On second thoughts, maybe just look up priceless.

    you're fcking full of it dude. Are you going to put your money where your mouth is, and stand over what you've been saying on this thread?

    Do. We. Have. A. Deal?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,124 ✭✭✭Amhran Nua


    tbh wrote: »
    you're fcking full of it dude. Are you going to put your money where your mouth is, and stand over what you've been saying on this thread?
    I have no particular need to stand over the facts in the thread, since facts stand entirely by themselves, needing no assistance from me or anyone else.
    tbh wrote: »
    Do. We. Have. A. Deal?
    Whats the absolute most you would put towards this wager? And I mean the most.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 15,914 ✭✭✭✭tbh


    Amhran Nua wrote: »
    I have no particular need to stand over the facts in the thread, since facts stand entirely by themselves, needing no assistance from me or anyone else.


    Whats the absolute most you would put towards this wager? And I mean the most.

    I'll put my account on the line. I win, you never post again. You win, I never post again.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 29,930 ✭✭✭✭TerrorFirmer


    Amhran Nua wrote: »
    No court of law is involved, no proof is required, no intervention from the justice system. Indeed, you don't even need to be pirating anything, if you are downloading open source ISOs you can be cut just as quickly.

    There is no proxy, no encryption and no possible disguising of your internet browsing habits against this, if the company that is providing internet access thinks you are acting suspiciously, they can and will cut you off.

    On general principles I just got off the phone with a very nice man in BT about transferring over our internet connection, I'll save money on a faster service and have been assured that BT has no intention of enacting a three strikes rule. Took about ten minutes.
    Under the pilot scheme, Eircom customers who illegally share copyrighted music will get three warnings before having their broadband service cut off for a year.

    Irma is using a third-party firm, Dtecnet, to identify Eircom customers who are sharing, and not simply downloading, a specific list of its members’ copyrighted works on peer-to-peer networks. The operation of the scheme will be reviewed after three months.


    Sorry, what am I missing here? About Eircom randomly cutting off poor innocent people downloading open source software? Surely you meant to say 'Eircom will be cutting off people who are continuously caught sharing illegally obtained files and whose details they will receive via third party'. Seriously, talk about drivel. Do you know anything about this? Eircom will recieve a list of IPs from a third party, and act on those. And, um, you know, at the end of the day, these people are committing a crime and stealing material, so why the sense of injustice?

    Trust me, BT aren't your 'friend' either by any stretch.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,124 ✭✭✭Amhran Nua


    tbh wrote: »
    I'll put my account on the line. I win, you never post again. You win, I never post again.
    So, since you didn't argue with the statement that posting on boards allows "the opportunity to let people know when private companies are trying to sidestep the law and courts of justice" - in fact by increasing your offer you recognised the value that said sentiment has and attempted to match it - you therefore in the context of the thread support private companies making up their own laws to sidestep the recognised judiciary and legislation of the people of Ireland (struck down by the European Parliament no less) and are willing to give up your own account in support of this.

    Nice.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 15,914 ✭✭✭✭tbh


    :rolleyes:


    it's quite simple. If the european court overturn this step, I'll never post on boards again.
    If they don't, or indicate that they won't, you'll never post again.

    one more time. Do we have a deal?

    please just answer yes or no.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,124 ✭✭✭Amhran Nua


    Sorry, what am I missing here?
    About seventeen pages of discussion. Start at page one and work your way up. ;)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,536 ✭✭✭Mark200


    Do you know anything about this?

    The answer to that question has been established long ago. The answer is no.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,124 ✭✭✭Amhran Nua


    tbh wrote: »
    :rolleyes:

    one more time. Do we have a deal?
    Tell me, do you always make bets with people you can't out-debate in order to silence them?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,124 ✭✭✭Amhran Nua


    Mark200 wrote: »
    The answer to that question has been established long ago. The answer is no.
    Yeah, these people would like to disagree with you on that one.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 15,914 ✭✭✭✭tbh


    just as I suspected.

    you're full of it. In fairness to you dude, you'd make an excellent politician. You quite obviously don't have the first clue what you're talking about, and yet you manage to be pompous about it on an unbelievable level. Made for Leinster house I'd say.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,536 ✭✭✭Mark200


    Amhran Nua wrote: »
    Tell me, do you always make bets with people you can't out-debate in order to silence them?

    You refusing to accept facts about the law can hardly be described as debate.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 15,914 ✭✭✭✭tbh


    Mark200 wrote: »
    You refusing to accept facts about the law can hardly be described as debate.

    anyone can talk sh1te as long as nobody calls them on it. It's when people call them on it the true colours show. I think AN has shown his true colours very openly tonight.

    oh and ps:

    (29) Directive 2002/22/EC (Universal Service Directive) neither mandates nor prohibits conditions imposed by providers, in accordance with national law, limiting end-users’ access to and/or use of services and applications, but lays down an obligation to provide information regarding such conditions. Member States wishing to implement measures regarding end-users’ access to and/or use of services and applications must respect the fundamental rights of citizens, including in relation to privacy and due process, and any such measures should take full account of policy goals defined at Community level, such as furthering the development of the Community information society.



    Maybe his contacts in Brussels pointed that out to him.


Advertisement