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

IRMA fail to force UPC to block illegal downloads (Court Ruling)

Options
24

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    gizmo
    Registered Users Posts: 8,405 ✭✭✭gizmo


    Another Breaking News article, this one a bit more looney than the last. Pay particular attention to the last paragraph...
    UPC has won a legal action taken in the High Court by record labels over illegal downloading and file-sharing.

    Warner Music, Universal Music, Sony BMG and EMI Records had been attempting to force internet service providers to adopt a “three strikes” rule to halt copyright infringement and piracy by internet users.

    The High Court ruled that laws to identify and cut off internet users illegally copying music files were not enforceable in Ireland.

    In a judgment published today, Mr Justice Peter Charleton said recording companies were being harmed by internet piracy.

    “This not only undermines their business but ruins the ability of a generation of creative people in Ireland, and elsewhere, to establish a viable living. It is destructive of an important native industry,” he said.

    However, the judge said laws were not in place in Ireland to enforce disconnections over illegal downloads despite the record companies’ complaints being merited. He also said this gap in legislation meant Ireland was not complying with European law.

    In a statement, UPC said it would work to identify and address the main areas of concern in the file-sharing debate.

    "UPC has repeatedly stressed that it does not condone piracy and has always taken a strong stance against illegal activity on its network. It takes all steps required by the law to combat specific infringements which are brought to its attention and will continue to co-operate with rights holders where they have obtained the necessary court orders for alleged copyright infringements," it said.

    "Our whole premise and defence focused on the mere conduit principal which provides that an internet service provider cannot be held liable for content transmitted across its network and today’s decision supports the principal that ISPs are not liable for the actions of internet subscribers."

    ISPs have been awaiting the outcome of the case against UPC. However, it is not yet known what effect the UPC judgment will have on Eircom's agreement with record labels, which it settled on out of court last year.

    Irish Recorded Music Association director-general Dick Doyle said his office would pressure the Government to reform the law in favour of record labels.

    “The High Court has acknowledged that Irish artists, composers and recording companies are sustaining huge losses and internet providers are profiting from the wholesale theft of music,” Mr Doyle said. “The judge made it very clear that an injunction would be morally justified but that the Irish legislature had failed in its obligation to confer on the courts the right to grant such injunctions, unlike other EU states.

    “We will now look to the Irish Government to fully vindicate the constitutional rights of copyright holders and we reserve the right to seek compensation for the past and continuing losses from the State.”

    The State? What ****ing planet are IRMA on?


  • Options
    #33
    shinfujiwara
    Closed Accounts Posts: 106 ✭✭shinfujiwara


    Put your music for free on the web, then ask for donations, it's the best way that I can think of. If your music is good, you'll even be able to live of it. Isn't that enough? If you are VERY good, millions of fans would pay €1.00 for an album of yours, which means you can even be millionaire.

    Ok, it will be hard to be millionaire without a great company helping you, but why should you in the 1st place? Why a random artist can have that much money doing something relatively simple, and another reaaaally studied/hardworking person can't?

    I think they have to deal with it, they can't extort us anymore. That's better for everyone. These people would think twice before starting a ridiculous band, they would concentrate on making good songs so they can attract more fans. Just like any other business, why music should be special?

    I can't believe that people like Lady Gaga earn that much money with such a comercial music, for example. And I don't know why they're so worried with this industry, it hasn't change a lot yet.

    Bottom line, accessible content would be better for all of us and would create a more balanced economy, wouldn't it?


  • Options
    #34
    gizmo
    Registered Users Posts: 8,405 ✭✭✭gizmo


    shinfujiwara wrote: »
    Put your music for free on the web, then ask for donations, it's the best way that I can think of. If your music is good, you'll even be able to live of it. Isn't that enough? If you are VERY good, millions of fans would pay €1.00 for an album of yours, which means you can even be millionaire.
    Would you say the same thing to an artist or sculptor who worked on a piece for a number of months? Here's a £1, be happy you get it?
    shinfujiwara wrote: »
    Ok, it will be hard to be millionaire without a great company helping you, but why should you in the 1st place? Why a random artist can have that much money doing something relatively simple, and another reaaaally studied/hardworking person can't?
    I'm guessing you don't play any instruments then? Or have you actually ever created something useful? I'm not trying to be smart here, both quoted posts just show a distinct lack of understanding for the value placed on something someone creates.


  • Options
    #35
    i_love_toast
    Registered Users Posts: 194 ✭✭i_love_toast


    imro thinks it helping Irish bands by getting broadband providers to block illegal downloads however it does more harm than good. Illegal downloading gives Irish bands a chance to get their music heard all over the world. At the end of the day they only sell a couple of hundred albums in Ireland anyways.

    take for example the Irish band the delorentos. Illegal downloading helped down enormously. There album was downloaded around 10,000 time all over the world. and from that they were offered 2 tours of japan and a tour of america.

    Illigal downloading is good for irish bands unless your u2...


  • Options
    #36
    Mikey23
    Registered Users Posts: 277 ✭✭Mikey23


    Lest anyone has the time or inclination to read the judgment: http://www.scribd.com/doc/39104491/EMI-v-UPC


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Helix
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,661 ✭✭✭✭Helix


    gizmo wrote: »
    Would you say the same thing to an artist or sculptor who worked on a piece for a number of months? Here's a £1, be happy you get it?

    a million people cant buy the same sculpture though


  • Options
    #38
    gizmo
    Registered Users Posts: 8,405 ✭✭✭gizmo


    i_love_toast wrote: »
    imro thinks it helping Irish bands by getting broadband providers to block illegal downloads however it does more harm than good. Illegal downloading gives Irish bands a chance to get their music heard all over the world. At the end of the day they only sell a couple of hundred albums in Ireland anyways.

    take for example the Irish band the delorentos. Illegal downloading helped down enormously. There album was downloaded around 10,000 time all over the world. and from that they were offered 2 tours of japan and a tour of america.

    Illigal downloading is good for irish bands unless your u2...
    The downloading doesn't have to be illegal though. They could offer excerpts from their album for free on their website and on the strength of that people could be given the ability to download the album. Alternatively, allow people to stream songs from the album on the bands site giving them the same level of exposure. This is the point many people are making about the industry as a whole, it needs to change the way it distributes music if they're going to dissuade people from downloading material.
    Helix wrote: »
    a million people cant buy the same sculpture though
    True, the point is not the value of the physical item though, it's the work that's gone into it.


  • Options
    #39
    Duggy747
    Registered Users Posts: 13,295 ✭✭✭✭Duggy747


    Heh, it's funny............(obviously this doesn't apply to all acts) but new & upcoming acts embrace the downloading to get their music out, established names are indifferent to it, and big name acts are completely against it.

    It seems the richer & more famous you get, the less you like people downloading your stuff. :pac:


  • Options
    #40
    Helix
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,661 ✭✭✭✭Helix


    gizmo wrote: »
    True, the point is not the value of the physical item though, it's the work that's gone into it.

    yeah but have you any idea how much of a pittance a band sees from a record sale anyway? its not that imro are protecting the bands, theyre protecting the labels firstly, and themselves secondly, they dont care about the bands, they care about their cut


  • Options
    #41
    smokedeels
    Registered Users Posts: 2,883 ✭✭✭smokedeels


    I'll always support the "download, listen, buy or delete" method of discovering music.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    NullZer0
    Registered Users Posts: 1,629 ✭✭✭NullZer0


    gizmo wrote: »
    Would you say the same thing to an artist or sculptor who worked on a piece for a number of months? Here's a £1, be happy you get it?

    Yes.

    Would you say - heres X amount for every album you sell because you deserve it. You deserve it not because you put your heart and soul into this music but because you are a business?


  • Options
    #43
    thebigbiffo
    Registered Users Posts: 2,941 ✭✭✭thebigbiffo


    Mark200 wrote: »
    Well the point is, who are you to say "you're making too much"? It doesn't mean you have the right to download their products for free. You don't go into a Tesco and steal a bottle of coke and say "Ah sure, they make too much money anyway". I know it's slightly different with music because you aren't really 'stealing' anything as such, and if you were never going to buy the music in the first place then no one really loses out if you download it... but the argument that they're "making obscene money" doesn't wash.

    my point is that the music should be the reason you like the band and want to support them by seeing their gigs, buying their gear etc. i just dont see why the rolling stones, U2 or whoever need my 10 quid for an album i would never buy in a shop anyway. i've spent €95 on a ticket to see you - plenty of money to give to 4 lads in a year imo


  • Options
    #44
    gizmo
    Registered Users Posts: 8,405 ✭✭✭gizmo


    Helix wrote: »
    yeah but have you any idea how much of a pittance a band sees from a record sale anyway? its not that imro are protecting the bands, theyre protecting the labels firstly, and themselves secondly, they dont care about the bands, they care about their cut
    Oh I completely agree. That being said, the link in that chain that some people seem to forget is that album sales will dictate the scope of the tour a band can go on. So more album sales = bigger tour = more money for band but also more exposure for band = more album sales = more money for labels. If you cut out the album sales then labels will be more reluctant to fork out for tours which harms the bands income.
    iRock wrote: »
    Would you say - heres X amount for every album you sell because you deserve it. You deserve it not because you put your heart and soul into this music but because you are a business?
    No, the point I'm trying to make is that I don't think the artist should just have money thrown at them for their work and be told it'll do them. It's insulting given the time and effort that would have went into creating their music.
    iRock wrote: »
    I enjoy my work and create extremely useful things everyday that the entire country relies on. I'm happy to offer my skills for a reasonable amount - i.e. enough money to have a roof over my head and feed myself.

    Why is this never the case with recording artists?
    I think you'll find that, given the choice, most people aren't like that. The difference is, recording artists are seeing their income reduced illegally through the acquisition of their work. If your boss, for instance, decided to just take X% of your paycheck away for no good reason but you were still able to afford that food over your head and food, would you still be happy?


  • Options
    #45
    NullZer0
    Registered Users Posts: 1,629 ✭✭✭NullZer0


    gizmo wrote: »
    I'm guessing you don't play any instruments then? Or have you actually ever created something useful? I'm not trying to be smart here, both quoted posts just show a distinct lack of understanding for the value placed on something someone creates.

    I enjoy my work and create extremely useful things everyday that the entire country relies on. I'm happy to offer my skills for a reasonable amount - i.e. enough money to have a roof over my head and feed myself.

    Why is this never the case with recording artists?


  • Options
    #46
    Helix
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,661 ✭✭✭✭Helix


    gizmo wrote: »
    Oh I completely agree. That being said, the link in that chain that some people seem to forget is that album sales will dictate the scope of the tour a band can go on. So more album sales = bigger tour = more money for band but also more exposure for band = more album sales = more money for labels. If you cut out the album sales then labels will be more reluctant to fork out for tours which harms the bands income.

    not true

    both bloc party and arctic monkeys, as 2 examples of bands who embrace online culture, both sold out particularly big tours before they were signed on the strength of downloads

    its doable, it just needs a creative business model


  • Options
    #47
    smokedeels
    Registered Users Posts: 2,883 ✭✭✭smokedeels


    The record industry is no longer able to cherry-pick singles, influence what we hear via radio stations, and decide which review sites/magazines get the first copies of new releases. Music, like everything should, is being judge freely and on it's own terms, free of corporate influence. That's the issue, we all know that statistically the biggest downloaders are also the biggest spenders, if revenue is down, it might be the standard of the product.


  • Options
    #48
    gizmo
    Registered Users Posts: 8,405 ✭✭✭gizmo


    Helix wrote: »
    not true

    both bloc party and arctic monkeys, as 2 examples of bands who embrace online culture, both sold out particularly big tours before they were signed on the strength of downloads

    its doable, it just needs a creative business model
    Yes but there are very few examples of bands being able to do that and become successful. If every band had to do the same thing then there would be a raft of talent going completely unnoticed. At least now those who like the majority of mainstream music have a raft of either independent or smaller labels supporting the bands they follow.


  • Options
    #49
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20101011/tuk-internet-provider-in-legal-victory-e1cd776.html
    One of the state's largest internet providers has scored a landmark victory against record labels over illegal music downloads.

    Four powerful industry firms - Warner Music, Universal Music, Sony BMG and EMI Records - pushed for a "three strikes and you're out" rule to stop massive piracy by UPC customers. But the High Court ruled that laws to identify and cut-off internet users illegally copying music files were not enforceable in Ireland.

    The decision may have serious implications for an out-of-court agreement the record labels secured with Eircom last year.

    It is understood Vodafone and Meteor are in talks over the threat of illegal downloads while O2 and 3 Ireland were also awaiting the outcome of the case.

    Mr Justice Peter Charleton warned that the business of recording companies was being devastated by internet piracy.

    "This not only undermines their business but ruins the ability of a generation of creative people in Ireland, and elsewhere, to establish a viable living. It is destructive of an important native industry," he said.

    But the judge said laws were not in place in Ireland to enforce disconnections over illegal downloads despite the record companies' complaints being merited. He also said this gap in legislation meant Ireland was not complying with European law.

    He said a substantial portion of UPC's 150,000 customers were illegally downloading music.

    UPC said it would work with all parties to identify and address main areas of concern over downloads. A spokesman said: "UPC has repeatedly stressed that it does not condone piracy and has always taken a strong stance against illegal activity on its network."

    The four music labels have seen sales fall by 64 million euro from 2005 to 2009.


  • Options
    #50
    Mark200
    Registered Users Posts: 3,536 ✭✭✭Mark200


    gizmo wrote: »
    Another Breaking News article, this one a bit more looney than the last. Pay particular attention to the last paragraph...



    The State? What ****ing planet are IRMA on?

    Actually if you read the Irish Times article that I posted in this thread, you'd have seen that the judge in this case actually said that Irish piracy law is not in line with European Law, and that was the reason for his decision today... that he felt there was nothing in Irish law to rule with the record companies.
    shinfujiwara wrote: »
    Why a random artist can have that much money doing something relatively simple, and another reaaaally studied/hardworking person can't?

    First of all, I'm sure the vast majority of singers/bands would be extremely offended at your implication that they are not hardworking. Second of all, it doesn't matter how much you try. If you're good, then you're probably going to get more money than someone who's not as good... regardless of how hard they try.
    i_love_toast wrote: »
    imro thinks it helping Irish bands by getting broadband providers to block illegal downloads however it does more harm than good. Illegal downloading gives Irish bands a chance to get their music heard all over the world. At the end of the day they only sell a couple of hundred albums in Ireland anyways.

    take for example the Irish band the delorentos. Illegal downloading helped down enormously. There album was downloaded around 10,000 time all over the world. and from that they were offered 2 tours of japan and a tour of america.

    Illigal downloading is good for irish bands unless your u2...

    Bands are capable for deciding themselves if they want to put their stuff on the internet for free or not. No one forces them to sign with record labels. They do it because they obviously feel it's a better option for them.
    thebigbiffo wrote: »
    my point is that the music should be the reason you like the band and want to support them by seeing their gigs, buying their gear etc. i just dont see why the rolling stones, U2 or whoever need my 10 quid for an album i would never buy in a shop anyway. i've spent €95 on a ticket to see you - plenty of money to give to 4 lads in a year imo

    No one is forcing you to buy the album. The picture being painted in this thread seems to be one of record labels holding a gun to peoples heads and forcing them to give over money for an album. People go into a shop or online of their own free will, and voluntarily pay for these things. If you think €95 is enough for 4 lads for a year then fine, don't buy any more of their stuff for a year. Doesn't mean you have any right to illegally download any of their work.
    iRock wrote: »
    I enjoy my work and create extremely useful things everyday that the entire country relies on. I'm happy to offer my skills for a reasonable amount - i.e. enough money to have a roof over my head and feed myself.

    Why is this never the case with recording artists?

    FFS, not all recording artists are millionaires you know.


  • Options
    #51
    gizmo
    Registered Users Posts: 8,405 ✭✭✭gizmo


    Mark200 wrote: »
    Actually if you read the Irish Times article that I posted in this thread, you'd have seen that the judge in this case actually said that Irish piracy law is not in line with European Law, and that was the reason for his decision today... that he felt there was nothing in Irish law to rule with the record companies.
    I did indeed read that and was quite confused to say the least. As far as I'm aware there is an EU law (Telecoms Package) which specifically prohibits the disconnection of people due to illegal downloading and when the French brought it in there was a ruckus because of this fact. :confused:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Dark_by_Dezign
    Closed Accounts Posts: 111 ✭✭Dark_by_Dezign


    Music companies need to move with the times and stop resorting back to how easy they had it 10 years ago

    illegal downloading trough my eyes will never end!


    They need to find new ways of making money ie. Concerts , Merchandising , Advertising and all that crack


    And as far as i know you cannot be prosecuted for downloading music ,its only if you upload and make files available for other to download is when your in trouble
    but knowing me im probably wrong :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #53
    El Weirdo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,647 ✭✭✭✭El Weirdo


    Dark_by_Dezign wrote: »
    illegal downloading trough my eyes will never end!
    What download speeds can I expect to get from this technology?

    Where do I get the client?




    Edit: Also, should the title not be changed? Don't think IMRO had anything to do with this case. It was IRMA, was it not?


  • Options
    #54
    Amhran Nua
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,124 ✭✭✭Amhran Nua


    gizmo wrote: »
    I did indeed read that and was quite confused to say the least. As far as I'm aware there is an EU law (Telecoms Package) which specifically prohibits the disconnection of people due to illegal downloading and when the French brought it in there was a ruckus because of this fact. :confused:
    Correct, the European Parliament has several times ruled that private companies cutting people off without recourse to the justice system was not acceptable. The judge is talking out his or her arse, which isn't out of the way for Irish judges, we had the one in Galway recommending Tesco set up its own legal system the last day.


  • Options
    #55
    pablomakaveli
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,752 ✭✭✭pablomakaveli


    gizmo wrote: »
    Another Breaking News article, this one a bit more looney than the last. Pay particular attention to the last paragraph...



    The State? What ****ing planet are IRMA on?

    As soon as i saw that the judges decision i knew that IRMA were going to try and lobby the government to make the laws. These guys won't let it rest.


  • Options
    #56
    Gonzovision
    Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 4,725 Mod ✭✭✭✭Gonzovision


    More websites like Bandcamp are the way to go. 5.75 euro for Sufjan Stevens new album, can't go wrong with that.


  • Options
    #57
    danniemcq
    Registered Users Posts: 14,163 ✭✭✭✭danniemcq


    pablomakaveli wrote: »
    As soon as i saw that the judges decision i knew that IRMA were going to try and lobby the government to make the laws. These guys won't let it rest.

    We need a pirate party… although a different shower than we have in charge now


  • Options
    #58
    JJ
    Registered Users Posts: 2,055 ✭✭✭JJ


    Mark200 wrote: »
    Actually if you read the Irish Times article that I posted in this thread, you'd have seen that the judge in this case actually said that Irish piracy law is not in line with European Law, and that was the reason for his decision today... that he felt there was nothing in Irish law to rule with the record companies.

    IRMA are free to lobby the government to change our laws just like any other person or organisation. I think most people have no problem with that but they are way OTT saying that they want "to seek compensation for the past and continuing losses from the State." In the current economic climate, they are living in cloud cuckoo land and their method of calculating what they've supposedly lost revenue-wise from illegal downloads is dubious at best.


  • Options
    #59
    Logical Fallacy
    Registered Users Posts: 5,933 ✭✭✭Logical Fallacy


    iRock wrote: »
    I enjoy my work and create extremely useful things everyday that the entire country relies on. I'm happy to offer my skills for a reasonable amount - i.e. enough money to have a roof over my head and feed myself.

    Why is this never the case with recording artists?

    Because we are all greedy bastards?

    Or, alternatively, you work in a job that a lot of people good do, people who make music make the music that only they can make.

    It's a little more complicated that you being a martyr i reckon. :D


  • Options
    #60
    danniemcq
    Registered Users Posts: 14,163 ✭✭✭✭danniemcq


    JJ wrote: »
    IRMA are free to lobby the government to change our laws just like any other person or organisation.

    But if they do lobby the government and the laws are changed would that not mean that Ireland is breaking EU law in that case? Would Eircom be breaking EU Law if they disconnect someone or am I misreading some of the earlier posts?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    JJ
    Registered Users Posts: 2,055 ✭✭✭JJ


    danniemcq wrote: »
    But if they do lobby the government and the laws are changed would that not mean that Ireland is breaking EU law in that case? Would Eircom be breaking EU Law if they disconnect someone or am I misreading some of the earlier posts?

    That made little or no sense to me and I won't pretend to know the ins and outs of Irish or EU law but what we know from their statement is that at some point, IRMA are going to look for some compensation from tax payers and the record companies' calculations for their supposed losses are likely to be inflated. I seem to remember reading an article that attacked these figures that the media often quote but I'm not sure where I read it.


Advertisement