So I've been blocked by Sean Sherlock for asking about EMI vs UPC...

Downlinz · 30-05-2013 12:34PM

It's of continuing concern that Sherlock and his antics gets very little coverage in the mainstream media, was talking with my parents before who are well up on their political news and they hadn't even heard of the "Irish SOPA".

Meritocracy Wins · 30-05-2013 12:59PM

DeVore wrote: »

Nope, we're not. For a start my name is Tom Murphy and I've been happy to stand on stage and debate this point

Secondly Boards is not a hive mind... we're a community of people with every opinion under the sun. I can TOTALLY live with that. I love differing opinion and robust arguments and debates. That only every brings out good ideas (trolling and abuse, not good, never confuse the two). So, if you have a contrary opinion, or just want to add to the discussion... thats great. That was kinda the idea behind Boards anyway!

What I'm opposed to is the "stick-head-in-sand" approach which capitulates to foreign companies and blocks homegrown entrepreneurs like they are "bothersome". Its the political attitude which has us paying bankers bad gambles for example.

This is another example of it here (albeit considerably less country-wrecking ).

The Queen bee is leading the march towards it..

Cody Pomeray · 30-05-2013 01:07PM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

She also has an equally poor understanding of reproduction.

She has managed to weave an entire career out of being a hysteria junkie.

Her contributions to the Seanad are usually based around calls for emergency legislation on whatever moral crisis takes her fancy. Joe Duffy seems to be her greatest inspiration, from what I can gather.

She's actually a valuable public reminder of what where we have come from, and why we must never go back to that terrible place.

rovoagho · 30-05-2013 01:43PM

cursai wrote: »

What was the incident involving David Mc Savage that people are referring to?

I'd like to know this too.

Ste- · 30-05-2013 01:49PM

Did anyone call Joe Duffy ?

Wompa1 · 30-05-2013 02:08PM

DeVore wrote: »

But his successor will think twice before "poking" the Internet again.

Probably not...

Ireland is corrupt to the core. This kind of issue and the actions of the people who are there to serve "our" interests as a community just further highlights that.

At this point it would be very difficult to elect somebody who is not out for themselves or on the take in some way. It appears the conventional outlets that produce our politicians breed these kinds of personalities. We probably need to stop looking at Teachers, Lecturers, Solicitors, Career Politicians etc. to lead the country.

Dempsey · 30-05-2013 02:11PM

justryan wrote: »

This pretty much sums up our current governments lack of knowledge of the Internet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypBGI2_YXeo

"Fraping...were your raped on Facebook"

Lets just storm the Dail and overthrow these clowns!

She's a good reason to rid of the Seanad. Hard to believe thats an "elected" official of this country! :mad:

md23040 · 30-05-2013 02:26PM

Paddy Cow wrote: »

When are music execs going to learn that it's pointless going after people for illegeally downloading music. They could shut down every torrent site and it would be an expensive waste of time unless they manage to get YouTube taken off line as well. Such douchery only encourages people to illegally download more out of spite.

Without being a cheerleader for the record industry it seems the actions against Pirate Bay and also the introduction of copyright alert systems in certain jurisdictions (three strikes Ireland) has had an effect of diverting internet traffic to legitimate music sites, as since 2012/13 music sales have increased for the first time in over 14 years.

Paddy Cow wrote: »

If they want to make money, then they need to change their business model and move with the times. They can no longer charge €20 for a cd with a couple of good songs and a load of filler. With the internet, even people who pay for music can listen to the album first and decide to only buy the one or two good tracks. They can blame illegal downloads for declining sales all they want but people have been stealing music since long before the internet.

They have totally changed their business model. There are no albums out there costing €20+ that can't be sourced elsewhere. Apple sales have been increasing exponentially at 21million down loads per day (63% digital music market share) with 33 million sold per day throughout the internet (source) also with the likes of subscirption services like Spotify and soon to be lauched Apple i-Radio are providng more options.

Paddy Cow wrote: »

I remember shouting at the dj to shut the hell up and stop ruining the song I was taping with his mindless chatter :pac:

Tigger wrote: »

we were told that din jacks would be the end of the record industry
then double decks
then cd tape combos
and now its the internet

industry should just be proactive rather than reactive
whats gonna happen when we are all wearing cheap Chinese copies of Google glass and streaming everything to each other and we look at a tv or listen to a radio?

It seems that all forms of copying music prior to the introduction of broadband were not an issue for the record companies according to the enclosed graphs. It's obvious internet piracy and the ability to clone perfect copies was the turning point that the industry didnt react to too well back in 2008, and are only really getting to grips with the change in market structures.

http://stopmusictheft.wdfiles.com/local--files/music-sales-analysis/EquivAlbums750.png

http://qzprod.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/music-sales-chart5.png?w=1024&h=643

Wibbs · 30-05-2013 02:27PM

Allyall wrote: »

The most frustrating thing about this whole thing, for me is: It's one man, seemingly backed by nobody.

Oh he's backed alright. Various content industries(music/film) for a start.

Prodigious · 30-05-2013 02:29PM

Puts the whole music industry into context:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZUSn7I-zNo

bleg · 30-05-2013 02:45PM

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

She has managed to weave an entire career out of being a hysteria junkie.

Her contributions to the Seanad are usually based around calls for emergency legislation on whatever moral crisis takes her fancy. Joe Duffy seems to be her greatest inspiration, from what I can gather.

She's actually a valuable public reminder of what where we have come from, and why we must never go back to that terrible place.

After watching that video I had to send her an email letting her know how much of a dangerous person I think she is. She shouldn't be involved in legislating for ideas she obviously has no clue about!!!

KyussBishop · 30-05-2013 02:53PM

Well, there's a surprise. They can't even block The Pirate Bay (a site that doesn't even host any copyrighted content - torrents are legally equivalent to website links), with this kind net-neutrality-destroying, free-speech-threatening legal instrument, as there are hundreds of proxies out there to pick from, which are found within seconds on Google (you can even download the entire pirate bay database at around ~90mb as well).

There is an immediate chilling effect with this law, which allows third parties to effectively censor websites, by threatening frivolous legal action which will financially harm ISPs.

Sherlock is nothing more than a lobbyist receptacle really; his office should be forced to keep records of meetings with all industry lobbyists, which are published publicly on the department website. That would be quite a list.

wonderfulname · 30-05-2013 02:57PM

md23040 wrote: »

http://stopmusictheft.wdfiles.com/local--files/music-sales-analysis/EquivAlbums750.png

http://qzprod.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/music-sales-chart5.png?w=1024&h=643

Just to point out, the make up of sales also has a lot to do with this, before the mp3 people updated their music collection, buying CD copies of records they already owned, for example, it was also a lot easier to render a tape unplayable than it is a file, these had to be replaced.

In addition the volume of illegal downloads do not remotely translate to lost sales. There is a loss alright but it's not as big as it's made out to be.

Prodigious · 30-05-2013 02:58PM

wonderfulname wrote: »

In addition the volume of illegal downloads do not remotely translate to lost sales. There is a loss alright but it's not as big as it's made out to be.

Didn't you hear?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZadCj8O1-0

KyussBishop · 30-05-2013 02:59PM

Kichote wrote: »

Sean Sherlock is "doing the road" in my area. He will get re-elected because he "did the road" and his father helped keep Mallow hospital open

Typical Irish politics, throw a few sops at the voters in your constituency and then screw them over on a national level with things like his SI

You can stop him getting re-elected, by doing the road yourself, such as with an organized group co-ordinated on boards maybe, to canvas against him.

Such a group could organize a short leaflet, which would inform people on the role Sean Sherlock played in allowing the recording industry to threaten Internet freedoms (net neutrality, chilling effect on free speech), and small ISPs etc., and his poor attitude to criticism/questions on the issue.
Get a commercial printer to put out thousands of these leaflets, and have volunteers go door-to-door throughout his whole constituency, posting these leaflets.

You could even have more knowledgeable volunteers read up on the topic deeply, and not just post leaflets but knock on doors and directly talk to people, to explain what Sherlock is about.

Seriously, if people want to hurt Sherlock politically, this is the best way to do it; I'd donate a few bob for this cause (I'm sure most of boards would too, maybe even some affected ISPs).
I think the next local elections there are 2014 sometime, so that's a lot of time to inform people about him and why he shouldn't be re-elected.

rovoagho · 30-05-2013 03:27PM

md23040 wrote: »

Without being a cheerleader for the record industry it seems the actions against Pirate Bay and also the introduction of copyright alert systems in certain jurisdictions (three strikes Ireland) has had an effect of diverting internet traffic to legitimate music sites, as since 2012/13 music sales have increased for the first time in over 14 years.

I went to the toilet 6 times yesterday instead of 5.
I saw a brown dog.
Brown dogs make you pee more.

Cool_CM · 30-05-2013 03:34PM

Maybe he's just feeling down and needs somebody to make him a compilation tape of songs recorded from the radio.
Somebody should do it and send it to him.
He'd love that.

Allyall · 30-05-2013 03:35PM

Another thing that bugs the cr@p out of me. How much pressure was actually put on Sherlock to sign that?
Loads or little?

It is disgrace that record companies demand so much cash. They milked it for years, they have had their day. If "The People" caused as much of a stir as they should, CD's would never have been as high as €90 for a boxset, nor would they have got as high as €20 for a "Collectors Single". (Possibly higher). Nothing against the collectors, they're the ones being milked.

The record industry thinks it has some sort of right to sue, because they conned an average thinking musician, back in the day, to sign some agreement that allowed the company to own their music.

They got away with it, but it can be taken back, now that people know what they did. They have some pair of b**ls on them to sue.

All this talk about Piracy, and loss of earnings.. - ARSE.

Look at 2012 Highest earning musicians for 2012
THIS IS HOW MUCH THEY EARNED IN 2012 ALONE

Dr. Dre ($110 million)
Roger Waters ($88 million)
Elton John ($80 million)
U2 ($78 million)
Take That ($69 million)
Bon Jovi ($60 million)
Britney Spears ($58 million)
Paul McCartney ($57 million, tie)
Taylor Swift ($57 million, tie)
Justin Bieber ($55 million, tie)
Toby Keith ($55 million, tie)

So somebody, somewhere is getting seriously ripped off. We only accept the price of Concert Tickets and Albums because we think that's what they are worth.
They're not.
Obviously if they sold for 1/4 of what they did last year, then they would still be making Millions.
And the Movie Industry and Record Companies who haven't been mentioned are earning more.

I remember listening to one of the Corrs giving out about Piracy, and the like. ONLY BECAUSE SHE HAD A VOICE. She was talking cack.
I wanted to ask her does she think her CD's are worth €15 (at the time) and her Concerts worth €60 (at the time). - She could have argued that "Ya didn't have to pay, it's an option." - But that wouldn't have been an answer.. Aah, I could go on.

And that's not the main issue with Sean Sherlock..

This whole thing disgusts me. You could talk about it for hours, and not scratch the surface.

For Sean Sherlock to sign that away, without so much as a decent thought about it.......

:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

I am not Pro-Piracy. I am Anti-BeingRippedOff.

Plumbers should agree to charge these feckers €2,000 for a call out, etc..

expectationlost · 30-05-2013 06:50PM

see this pointed out by lawyer fred logue "Irish NGO Digital Rights Ireland denied amicus curiae standing in Irish High Court Pirate Bay injunction action" http://courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/09859e7a3f34669680256ef3004a27de/352fd12d66fa458b80257b7500497fe1?OpenDocument

and he and I noticed that

one of the reasons given by justice kelly was

Mr. McIntyre addressed members of the public on his website and asked for support for the campaign being conducted under the Stop SOPA banner. I think it is particularly significant and somewhat disturbing that his website contained a redacted section of the UK Ofcom report showing a way of circumventing blocking orders made by the United Kingdom Courts.

reffering to this, where Ofcom republished a report but only made the background black and didn't actually remove the text so it was copy and pastable, which tjmcintyre pointed out for the purposes of showing how difficult it is to block thingshttp://www.tjmcintyre.com/2011/08/site-blocking-what-uk-government-would.html

tjmcintrye then went through the foi procedure even though he read the whole report to show the nonsens of trying to keep the offficial report redacted https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/uncensored_version_of_site_block?unfold=1#incoming-205032 and it was released and the foi office atleast decided that "the release of the aforementioned document
will not significantly prejudice the conduct of public affairs" and released the documents weeks later.

and that ofcom report is now available unredacted here http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/internet/site-blocking.pdf

not good enough for judge kelly

somehow judge jelly thinks that publishing a government report talking about blocking and obvious necessity to talk about general ways these restriction might be gotten round when discussing implementing them is "disturbing", republishing parts of a public uk government report is disturbing to him, and will kill off all the starving musicians emi is trying to protect once and for all?

this is what we're fighting with ignorant and inaccurate and arrogant judges and politicians

expectationlost · 30-05-2013 06:52PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

You can stop him getting re-elected, by doing the road yourself, such as with an organized group co-ordinated on boards maybe, to canvas against him.

Such a group could organize a short leaflet, which would inform people on the role Sean Sherlock played in allowing the recording industry to threaten Internet freedoms (net neutrality, chilling effect on free speech), and small ISPs etc., and his poor attitude to criticism/questions on the issue.
Get a commercial printer to put out thousands of these leaflets, and have volunteers go door-to-door throughout his whole constituency, posting these leaflets.

You could even have more knowledgeable volunteers read up on the topic deeply, and not just post leaflets but knock on doors and directly talk to people, to explain what Sherlock is about.

Seriously, if people want to hurt Sherlock politically, this is the best way to do it; I'd donate a few bob for this cause (I'm sure most of boards would too, maybe even some affected ISPs).
I think the next local elections there are 2014 sometime, so that's a lot of time to inform people about him and why he shouldn't be re-elected.

sherlock dynasty voters don't care about the internet, they only care about protecting their guy.

Paddy Cow · 31-05-2013 04:38AM

md23040 wrote: »

Without being a cheerleader for the record industry it seems the actions against Pirate Bay and also the introduction of copyright alert systems in certain jurisdictions (three strikes Ireland) has had an effect of diverting internet traffic to legitimate music sites, as since 2012/13 music sales have increased for the first time in over 14 years.

They have totally changed their business model. There are no albums out there costing €20+ that can't be sourced elsewhere. Apple sales have been increasing exponentially at 21million down loads per day (63% digital music market share) with 33 million sold per day throughout the internet (source) also with the likes of subscirption services like Spotify and soon to be lauched Apple i-Radio are providng more options.

It seems that all forms of copying music prior to the introduction of broadband were not an issue for the record companies according to the enclosed graphs. It's obvious internet piracy and the ability to clone perfect copies was the turning point that the industry didnt react to too well back in 2008, and are only really getting to grips with the change in market structures.

http://stopmusictheft.wdfiles.com/local--files/music-sales-analysis/EquivAlbums750.png

http://qzprod.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/music-sales-chart5.png?w=1024&h=643

Sales were declining long before 2008. The internet didn't just make illegally downloading easier, it also provided easier access to popstars/celebrities. Nowadays popstars can't seem to take a sh!t without announcing it on twitter so there is no mystery about them. Before the internet it was easier to build hype around someone and convince everyone that their album was the next big thing. People (especially younger ones) got sucked into buying an album without actually knowing whether or not they would like it.

They can't get away with that now and popstars have become celebrities who make the big bucks through endorsements and sponsorship deals. Record companies have 360 deals to get their cut and no matter how much bitching and moaning they do about illegally downloading affecting sales, they need to cop on and realise that even if they managed to somehow eradicate all illegal downloading, the glory days of artists selling millions of albums are over.

md23040 · 31-05-2013 09:21AM

Paddy Cow wrote: »

Sales were declining long before 2008.

Sales within the record industry started to nosedive post 1998 (my mistake in earlier post) after the advent of Napster and introduction of broadband. Napster and such sites evolved with broadband as speeds previously were 4kb per second and songs took over 12 minutes to download through dialup.

The industry IMO is not on its knees since digital download seems to be growing exponentially.

http://musicindustryblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/itunes-and-download-sales.png

Also the industry in conjunction with distribution internet companies like Apple etc are adapting quickly through the likes of freeiums that allows people to listen for a while before deciding what to buy, then there are many other new services evolving likes of Spotify or i-Radio etc.

Admittedly, a lot of the mess within this industry has been caused by not reacting quickly enough to the advent of the internet, and many record companies were caught with their pants down and didn't survive. For those that did over 10 years has passed before they fully realised how to monetise this new model of trade.

History is littered with companies that failed to adapt to new technologies, look at ice companies in the early 20th century that flourished prior to the advent of the fridge, Kodak etc and digital pictures/camera’s.

----

The one thing that’s hard to comprehend is that people talk about the libertarianism of the internet and this being eroded through such laws i.e.open the door to censure a tiny bit and it gets pushed open more and more.

Also people believing that media content companies should go after the websites rather than the users. But where do you draw the line or should there be a line at all? Are the actions of someone at home doing something in a private space somehow exempt from any repercussions or moral responsibility? What about a paedophile? Does that fall under the same framework of solely going after the content provider as it's a chicken and egg scenario?

Not trying to correlate illegal content downloading and child porn in a similar vein, but want to know where the line should be drawn between what's right on the internet from what is clearly wrong and needs addressed through the courts.

Boards.ie has to have censorship on its site, rightly so with libel laws out there, that's just the nature of the internet.

It's no dreamland, libertarian, free for all, no responsibility type vehicle that's precluded from any actions from third parties whose business might be effected whether people agree or not subjectively to the affect.

Addon - Off topic but to date the digital market has been hugely effected by computing and the internet, but that will change very soon with the proliferation of digital 3D printers that will cause huge carnage to patent holders of physical content. The next 10 years are going to be a real revolution to many households and corporations are going to have to evolve quickly and not stick their head in the sand over this threat. The biggest loser will be China.

Printed Bicycle on YouTube and with Moores Law applying to this space progress will be astounding in shorter time frames with amazing feats of engineering.

.

Son Of A Vidic · 31-05-2013 10:02AM

DeVore wrote: »

What I'm opposed to is the "stick-head-in-sand" approach which capitulates to foreign companies and blocks homegrown entrepreneurs like they are "bothersome". Its the political attitude which has us paying bankers bad gambles for example. .

Nail on the head.

KyussBishop · 31-05-2013 01:42PM

md23040 wrote: »

The one thing that’s hard to comprehend is that people talk about the libertarianism of the internet and this being eroded through such laws i.e.open the door to censure a tiny bit and it gets pushed open more and more.

Also people believing that media content companies should go after the websites rather than the users. But where do you draw the line or should there be a line at all? Are the actions of someone at home doing something in a private space somehow exempt from any repercussions or moral responsibility? What about a paedophile? Does that fall under the same framework of solely going after the content provider as it's a chicken and egg scenario?

Not trying to correlate illegal content downloading and child porn in a similar vein, but want to know where the line should be drawn between what's right on the internet from what is clearly wrong and needs addressed through the courts.

Boards.ie has to have censorship on its site, rightly so with libel laws out there, that's just the nature of the internet.

It's no dreamland, libertarian, free for all, no responsibility type vehicle that's precluded from any actions from third parties whose business might be effected whether people agree or not subjectively to the affect.

Addon - Off topic but to date the digital market has been hugely effected by computing and the internet, but that will change very soon with the proliferation of digital 3D printers that will cause huge carnage to patent holders of physical content. The next 10 years are going to be a real revolution to many households and corporations are going to have to evolve quickly and not stick their head in the sand over this threat. The biggest loser will be China.

Printed Bicycle on YouTube and with Moores Law applying to this space progress will be astounding in shorter time frames with amazing feats of engineering.

The problem can largely be whittled down to: enforcement.

You can't enforce copyright laws on the Internet, because there is always a really really easy way around it, and if you try, then you start eroding all of the principles that make the Internet what it is (net neutrality, ability to freely use/host any links - not content), eroding civil rights (privacy, free speech - does not include freedom to pirate), even eroding fair competition in business (small ISPs that can't afford legal suits, vs big ISPs; small websites that can't afford to police links (not even content, just links), vs big websites that can).

It does not matter how far you go trying to enforce it either, because you can never successfully enforce it, and you destroy so many important legal/moral principals for society/business/the-Internet without having any success enforcing it, that it is only damaging, and there is no good to come from it.

md23040 · 31-05-2013 02:28PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

You can't enforce copyright laws on the Internet, because there is always a really really easy way around it, and if you try, then you start eroding all of the principles that make the Internet what it is (net neutrality, ability to freely use/host any links - not content), eroding civil rights (privacy, free speech - does not include freedom to pirate), even eroding fair competition in business (small ISPs that can't afford legal suits, vs big ISPs; small websites that can't afford to police links (not even content, just links), vs big websites that can).

Can understand where you're coming from but in reality what are the principles behind the internet and where have they come from? It is not some Neverland exempt from normal constraints of everyday life just because someone sits in the privacy of their own home believing in their own anonymity. Internet users are subject to the laws within their own jurisdiction that are pretty uniform throughout most countries. Again, the internet is no different than taking ananarchistic point of view and deciding it’s your right to drive at 100mph since no government created the space to govern the space. Just because something is intangible like the internet and the products digital and intangible too does not mean companies don’t have the right to protect their interests (although 3d printers will affect tangible goods soon too).

Of course people can use torrents to get around ISP identification with TOR and Mgenie but the average Joe soap is not conversant in this and can’t be arsed to do so and too scared someone’s going to come knocking. Anecdotally, my daughter and her friends would have downloaded for free a couple of years ago, but now as there's loads of legitimate sites and the price relatively acceptable they decide to buy rather than take the chance - also they buy quite a bit of music from current stuff back to the Beatles which is encouraging.

From my own POV if there's an Album of interest then buy it on CD Wow for €9.99 put it on the iPod then sell straightaway on Amazon for €7.99. After commissions the music costs less than €3.00. But each to their own.

NTMK · 31-05-2013 02:38PM

md23040 wrote: »

Also people believing that media content companies should go after the websites rather than the users. But where do you draw the line or should there be a line at all? Are the actions of someone at home doing something in a private space somehow exempt from any repercussions or moral responsibility? What about a paedophile? Does that fall under the same framework of solely going after the content provider as it's a chicken and egg scenario?

Id be perfectly happy with companies going after the site. I have a problem with the likes of EMI trying to make isp's police the internet. also torrenting content is still a grey area as for example ive dl'd games/music/movies that i already own because

1) i cant be arsed to rip it myself
2) archiving stuff
3) to get around DRM on games i own

child pornography has no grey area really so i expect the authorities to go to the country of hosting and make arrests and get ip's to track

For me and piracy its a service issue. I consume a lot of digital content if the service isnt up to scratch ill pirate it. I cant afford to drop £10 an album and go to concerts with my wide taste in music.

Spotify is a prime exmple since i started paying for it i havent pirated music because its less hassle than a torrent and itunes

Netflix/love film dont have enough quality for me to convert solely to them

If the Media industries pulled their finger out and offered a good digital service instead of trying to maintain the status quo then piracy would be a non issue

Cody Pomeray · 31-05-2013 02:39PM

md23040 wrote: »

Internet users are subject to the laws within their own jurisdiction that are pretty uniform throughout most countries.

Exactly!

And all anyone is asking is that normal prcedure applies online, just as it does to everyday life.

If anything, organizations like EMI would like to go further and enact laws that prevent the group dynamic from arising - they want to cut out the individual responsibility because it's too onerous for them to pursue.

Sorry, in real life, you either make the economic decision to pursue an individual through the courts, or you don't. Injunctive court orders to make everyone put down their keyboards all at once is the equivalent of dismissing those individual rights and responsibilities as an afterthought.

KyussBishop · 31-05-2013 04:30PM

md23040 wrote: »

Can understand where you're coming from but in reality what are the principles behind the internet and where have they come from? It is not some Neverland exempt from normal constraints of everyday life just because someone sits in the privacy of their own home believing in their own anonymity. Internet users are subject to the laws within their own jurisdiction that are pretty uniform throughout most countries. Again, the internet is no different than taking ananarchistic point of view and deciding it’s your right to drive at 100mph since no government created the space to govern the space. Just because something is intangible like the internet and the products digital and intangible too does not mean companies don’t have the right to protect their interests (although 3d printers will affect tangible goods soon too).

Of course people can use torrents to get around ISP identification with TOR and Mgenie but the average Joe soap is not conversant in this and can’t be arsed to do so and too scared someone’s going to come knocking. Anecdotally, my daughter and her friends would have downloaded for free a couple of years ago, but now as there's loads of legitimate sites and the price relatively acceptable they decide to buy rather than take the chance - also they buy quite a bit of music from current stuff back to the Beatles which is encouraging.

From my own POV if there's an Album of interest then buy it on CD Wow for €9.99 put it on the iPod then sell straightaway on Amazon for €7.99. After commissions the music costs less than €3.00. But each to their own.

You have failed to read my post here; I'm not defending any kind of anarchistic principles for the Internet, I have pointed out that it is an enforcement problem.

You can not successfully enforce copyright laws on the Internet (you don't even need Tor to sidestep attempts), no matter how hard you try, and the harder you try, the more you trample on others rights, and on other important legal/moral principals, while getting nowhere.

By all means, copyright infringement can stay a crime, which people can be prosecuted for when it is discovered; I haven't said otherwise, I have pointed out that it is not possible to fully enforce it, and that the harder you try, the more you trample on other principals/rights in a very draconian way.

DeVore · 12-06-2013 11:45AM

So, today UPC and 5 other ISPs (UPC, Imagine, Vodafone, Digiweb, Hutchison 3G Ltd and Telefonica O2 Ireland Ltd.) have been ordered to block a website on the internet because of alleged wrong doing through the use of that website.

The road-builders just became responsible for policing the cars that drive on their roads.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/music-firms-secure-orders-blocking-access-to-pirate-bay-1.1425810

http://www.independent.ie/business/technology/high-court-orders-six-internet-service-providers-to-block-pirate-bay-access-29339933.html

Kylo Ren · 12-06-2013 11:47AM

The battle on piracy is surely over now.

So I've been blocked by Sean Sherlock for asking about EMI vs UPC...

Comments