Irish Government is set to censor the internet

COYW · 19-12-2011 04:00PM

dlofnep wrote: »

Torrent sites are not used purely for illegal content. They are also used for genuine content like ISOs for open source operating systems, free games, open source software, etc.. It is a futile exercise - you block one tracker, another will popup. And you certainly can't block a protocol like bittorrent.

Stupid move.

Complete agree. Perfectly safe and legal content available for download on those sites. Typical knee jerk nonsense from the powers that be. Someone high up in the music industry must be pally with FG or Labour.

I doubt that it will take too much time to find a way around whatever genial :rolleyes: measures they put in place.

hooradiation · 19-12-2011 04:04PM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

They can profit from it by doing gigs, selling paraphernalia like t-shirts and collectibles. They can request that people pay if they like their work. They can also seek payment on the assurance that more composition will follow.
Copying music is not like stealing in the traditional sense because nothing is being taken. If a TV or Radio program use a song to promote itself then the composer should be remunerated.

But seeing as you want the concept of intellectual property done away with what onus is there on people to do any of this?
If there is no legal protection for the people who create content, why would anyone pay? The proliferation of pirated material is ample evidence that when offered the opportunity people will simply take what they want and justify it afterwards.
Am I to believe that you expect people to stop that because deep down they're all making a woefully ignorant protest on the concept of intellectual copyright?

Chuck Stone wrote: »

In it's current guise intellectual property is stifling creativity and innovation. Look at Microsoft. It has a total stranglehold on the computer software market due to it's state granted privilege in the form of copyright. They've been in court in the US and EU for anti-trust transgressions.

Yeah, you're not going to get anywhere with this argument. It's predicated on a massive lie that Microsoft have some magical stranglehold on the computer software market.
And yet, here I am on a machine with a highly varied mix of programs from various developers, and surrounded by machines running a variety of robust OS's. If it's a stranglehold they have it's a pretty weak one.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

The unrestricted transfer of information and media. The internet revolution.

Oh, that.
Here's me thinking you were serious.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Recently wrinkly millionaire Cliff Richard had copyright laws pushed out from 50 to 75 years (I think) against the wishes of entire countries in the EU.

So effectively you and I pay to protect his privilege.

I'm against privilege.

So the solution to you disagreeing with the current setup of copyright laws, presumably based on the idea that wrinkly people ought not to be trusted, is to throw the whole idea out?
What about reforming the laws or is it too much like hard work to think of a solution that might be workable rather than simply castigating the entire system and using that as a cloak of morality to justify theft?

Seachmall · 19-12-2011 04:11PM

hooradiation wrote: »

It's predicated on a massive lie that Microsoft have some magical stranglehold on the computer software market.[...] If it's a stranglehold they have it's a pretty weak one.

The EU courts disagree.

The hold Microsoft have on the industry may not be as strong as some imagine but it's still a massive one.

hooradiation · 19-12-2011 04:24PM

Seachmall wrote: »

The EU courts disagree.

The hold Microsoft have on the industry may not be as strong as some imagine but it's still a massive one.

That's the "they bundled WMP with windows" thing, isn't it.

I'm not saying they're fucking saints or anything, but the idea that they've "stifled creativity" as chuck was claiming is a false one - the horrible practice of inflicting windows media player on people not with standing.

Though that decision has lead to the 'N' variants of all microsoft OS's - which cost the same as the regular versions and you almost always end up installing WMP anyway in order to get a hold of certain codecs.... so, yay for the consumer.... I guess?

eilo1 · 19-12-2011 04:37PM

Should probably ban libraries too. . .

eoferrall · 19-12-2011 04:40PM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Most people don't partake in something that gives them joy for profit.

Creativity is unlikely to fade with the ending of copyright.

Indeed the internet has allowed talent to flourish while traditional sources are bombarding us with rubbishy boy bands and x-factor manufactured shite.

Roll on the revolution. (it will not be televised).

Same wonderful internet that produced justin beiber? if that is the revolution then count me out - rubbish music is rubbish no matter where it comes from.

Record companies should embrace the web and have the song available for download on a trial basis - if you like you pay, if not you delete. must be a way of doing that easily without too much 'spying' on your computer. like the trail file can only be played 10 times.

This is how I use online music, if i like I buy the actual album (in a sale or something). and I buy more than I used to, paying 20+ for an album and hearing one song of it was too risky in the 'old days' so never bothered as too often I bought album and the single was the only good song.

reward the good artists and no money to crap artists. works for me.

Chuck Stone · 19-12-2011 04:50PM

hooradiation wrote: »

But seeing as you want the concept of intellectual property done away with what onus is there on people to do any of this?

In it's current guise yes. Read this excerpt by Joseph Stiglitz.

In 1995 the Uruguay round trade negotiations concluded in the establishment of the World Trade Organization, which imposed US style intellectual property rights around the world. These rights were intended to reduce access to generic medicines and they succeeded. As generic medicines cost a fraction of their brand name counterparts, billions could no longer afford the drugs they needed. For example, a year's treatment with a generic cocktail of AIDS drugs might cost $130 (£65; €170) compared with $10 000 for the brand name version.1 Billions of people living on $2-3 a day cannot afford $10 000, though they might be able to scrape together enough for the generic drugs. And matters are getting worse. New drug regimens recommended by the World Health Organization and second line defences that need to be used as resistance to standard treatments develops can cost much more.

http://www.bmj.com/content/333/7582/1279.full

Clearly IP in this situation is immoral and hurting people.

If there is no legal protection for the people who create content, why would anyone pay? The proliferation of pirated material is ample evidence that when offered the opportunity people will simply take what they want and justify it afterwards.

Just about anyone if they try could get their music free but they choose not to. We're still creating millionaire music stars like Lady Gaga and Rihanna in spite of illegal downloading so I don't see how your argument that replacing IP with some other system will result in poverty stricken performers.

So the solution to you disagreeing with the current setup of copyright laws, presumably based on the idea that wrinkly people ought not to be trusted, is to throw the whole idea out?

Alternatives should be explored. IP and Copyright is a state granted privilege.
As I said I'm against privilege.

Eric Cartman · 19-12-2011 04:54PM

considering id rather wait till a movie was on film4 and record it than pay for a fckin dvd Im technically not costing the industry anything since I was never a customer.

yet another great idea by labour , or green party 2.0 as their known

Sgt. Bilko 09 · 19-12-2011 05:01PM

there so stupid they'll try censor a typewriter

only fine labour are allowed download illegal songs.

Fighting Irish · 19-12-2011 05:18PM

later10 wrote: »

Sounds reasonable.

As much as lots of people enjoy free downloads, a company ought to be perfectly entitled to protect their sales.

Not quite censoring the internet, the government are simply putting a procedure in motion that will allow the courts to decide what is legal and what is not.

Wait til the list grows over time and you end up like you're living in China

Fighting Irish · 19-12-2011 05:20PM

hooradiation wrote: »

Yeah, I mean the notion of being able to own and profit from the works you create? Madness, amirite?
I mean, seriously, fuck those guys, making things and expecting to be paid for it.......

Thats fine, i'm not uploading anything to the net that doesn't belong to me, but don't prevent me from access to certain sites

19-12-2011 05:28PM

My music budget for the year is now going to the household charge. We have bigger things to worry about then music.

hooradiation · 19-12-2011 05:33PM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

In it's current guise yes. Read this excerpt by Joseph Stiglitz.
Clearly IP in this situation is immoral and hurting people.

I am interested in how an argument about internet piracy has now moved to an appeal to emotion involving medicine.
How much further do you plan on moving those goalposts?

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Just about anyone if they try could get their music free but they choose not to. We're still creating millionaire music stars like Lady Gaga and Rihanna in spite of illegal downloading so I don't see how your argument that replacing IP with some other system will result in poverty stricken performers.

This is, unsurprisingly a non-sequitur. You are advocating, in case you've forgotten, that the very concept of intellectual property should be done away with, not "replacing it with some other system" the complete removal of the very concept of intellectual property
Now, if we enact this plan, what is there to entice people to purchasing content? Or to stop any content they might produce being taken and then mass produced by a third party, effectively cutting the original artist out entirely.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Alternatives should be explored. IP and Copyright is a state granted privilege.
As I said I'm against privilege.

Oh for fucks sake - you're not a damned libertarian, are you?

Chuck Stone · 19-12-2011 05:45PM

hooradiation wrote: »

Oh for fucks sake - you're not a damned libertarian, are you?

Nope. I like some of their ideas and would like to see more free market principles applied (starting with the top of society rather than the bottom).

As I said I'm anti-privilege.

I have a nasty hangover so I'll come back to this later because at the moment I couldn't be bothered trawling for sources that criticize IP and offer alternatives.

hooradiation · 19-12-2011 05:54PM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Nope. I like some of their ideas and would like to see more free market principles applied (starting with the top of society rather than the bottom).

As I said I'm anti-privilege.

I have a nasty hangover so I'll come back to this later because at the moment I couldn't be bothered trawling for sources that criticize IP and offer alternatives.

Take your time, there's no rush.

Chuck Stone · 19-12-2011 06:05PM

hooradiation wrote: »

Take your time

I will.

bleg · 19-12-2011 06:14PM

Yup prohibition works so well in all other areas of life, it's obvious that it will work on the internet.

Millicent · 19-12-2011 06:59PM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I believe the death of the concept of intellectual property is inevitable.

The sooner the better imo.

Sorry, Chuck but I'm going to have to strongly disagree with you here. I'm a writer and I have had my intellectual property stolen before. I am not privileged in any way. I bust my (proverbial!) balls trying to earn a living off what I enjoy. It sucks massively to have someone then take that work, that is my intellectual property, that I have stressed over, researched, poured a massive amount of energy into, and basically say "nyoink! That's mine now."

Whether someone is earning massively from their creative pursuits or earning a tiny amount is irrelevant; the point is it's theirs to earn on. It's not "privilege" to demand those rights be protected.

You made a point in another post that creative people will still create, even if they are not profiting on it--they won't, at least not if they can't afford to feed themselves because they are having to support themselves with some crap job to finance their passion. What will happen there is that those who don't have the money to be able to afford time to create will stop, and the balance of power will tip creatively to the "haves" and the "have nots" will suffer. People like the boy bands and X Factor pop artists who you despise, will actually be the only ones who will be funded enough to stay creative. Poorer artists, singers, writers etc. be damned.

You wouldn't nick an ornate table or bookshelf from a carpenter and then tell him to sell photos of it if he wants to make a profit, would you? That's basically what you're advising musicians to do in your second post on the matter.

pragmatic1 · 19-12-2011 08:48PM

hooradiation wrote: »

Yeah, I mean the notion of being able to own and profit from the works you create? Madness, amirite?
I mean, seriously, fuck those guys, making things and expecting to be paid for it.......

Musicians make their money through touring, not album sales.

Liam Byrne · 19-12-2011 09:04PM

Sgt. Bilko 09 wrote: »

there so stupid they'll try censor a typewriter

Cues up Alanis Morrisette CD......

Hobbes · 19-12-2011 09:35PM

I remember many years back when IOL was taking off this subject came up. The short end of it was it is too much work for the ISP to filter. Also if they filter one subject matter, they have to filter everything, or they become liable.

Also Eircom got recently shot down for 3 strikes.
http://www.siliconrepublic.com/comms/item/25072-eircom-has-21-days-to/

silvine · 19-12-2011 09:48PM

Torrents are so 2002.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet

pm. · 19-12-2011 09:59PM

silvine wrote: »

Torrents are so 2002.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet

what about sites like rapidshare, fileserve can they trach these ?? i didnt think they could

pm. · 19-12-2011 10:00PM

silvine wrote: »

Torrents are so 2002.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet

what about sites like rapidshare, fileserve can they track these ?? i didnt think they could

MagicSean · 19-12-2011 10:05PM

later10 wrote: »

Sounds reasonable.

As much as lots of people enjoy free downloads, a company ought to be perfectly entitled to protect their sales.

Not quite censoring the internet, the government are simply putting a procedure in motion that will allow the courts to decide what is legal and what is not.

Have you seen how this has developed in the US? If a user on a site posts something that is copyright protected the whole site can be shut down.

AnonoBoy · 19-12-2011 10:09PM

MagicSean wrote: »

Have you seen how this has developed in the US? If a user on a site posts something that is copyright protected the whole site can be shut down.

Really? Is that why Rapidshare et al have been closed down recently?

Oh wait.... nope, they're still there.

MagicSean · 19-12-2011 10:14PM

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Really? Is that why Rapidshare et al have been closed down recently?

Oh wait.... nope, they're still there.

The Bill hasn't been passed yet

maccer666 · 19-12-2011 10:52PM

This is just pure scaremongering,as we all know eircom already 'blocked' piratebay and anybody with a bit of sense knew how to get onto it if they really wanted to.
There are countless numbers of these sites out there and from a goverment that cant even link some of their own departments together how do they expect us to believe that they will pull this off.

Ciaran0 · 19-12-2011 11:28PM

pragmatic1 wrote: »

Musicians make their money through touring, not album sales.

They do today, but before torrenting they made the majority of their money through album sales. Torrenting ripped the music industry to shreds!

It's great though! I love free stuff. When I'm a rockstar I'm gonna give my music away for free, just to be cool like.

pragmatic1 · 19-12-2011 11:58PM

Ciaran0 wrote: »

They do today, but before torrenting they made the majority of their money through album sales. Torrenting ripped the music industry to shreds!

It's great though! I love free stuff. When I'm a rockstar I'm gonna give my music away for free, just to be cool like.

Not unless they sold ****loads of albums and by ****loads I mean multi platinum.

Irish Government is set to censor the internet

Comments