High Court moron forces ISP's to block Torrent sites

Sin City · 13-06-2013 01:20PM

desertcircus wrote: »

This is where things may get interesting. An act that gets a lot of attention may be able to use something like Kickstarter to fund a tour and to identify the places it makes sense for them to play. Strip out touring entourages and the various entities taking their percentage, and artists could make a decent living - or could continue their normal life alongside their music if they wanted. All without record companies taking 80% of the money

Thats the thing, strip away the money men and the artist makes money.

The internet is going to continue to revolutionize the way we use or media and the way artists do business. Im sure this would scare the money men in the business

Sin City · 13-06-2013 01:21PM

Anyone wrote: »

What is everyone talking about music for? This is about porn.

Ah you beat me to it:D

MarkY91 · 13-06-2013 01:22PM

piratebay is working but not kat.ph

desertcircus · 13-06-2013 01:29PM

dub_skav wrote: »

I find this very perplexing.
On the one hand I think that they are attempting to block people from doing illegal things - fair enough.
On the other hand I think that getting the ISPs to do this seems an odd way of going about it. I also worry that this process may be abused

However, I can't help but think that those engaging in piracy are a major part of the problem.
The record companies have conclusive proof of illegal activity, they also have conclusive proof of TPB being used for illegal activity.
On the back of this proof they have used the Irish government and courts as tools to get ISPs to block sites.

All the people talking about erosion of freedoms, censorship and dangerous precedents need to take a long hard look in the mirror. If nobody was using torrent sites to break the law - or at least if it wasn't so widespread - then this case wouldn't have made it to court.

There's no unimpeachable moral case for downloading being illegal; it's simply how the industry happens to be structured at the moment. A side effect of that same industry is the enrichment of gatekeepers and the impoverishment of artists; the entire record industry has been behaving like a huge department store everyone goes to for music, and charging artists criminally high rents for being in there. Now the artists and consumers have started meeting up in the square opposite the department store, the industry is furiously trying to criminalise the square.

Celly Smunt · 13-06-2013 01:33PM

Bit late to jump on the bandwagon here and haven't looked up too much on this topic as of yet,excuse my ignorance but does this only apply to the pirate bay?

Prodigious · 13-06-2013 01:35PM

UPC made an *ahem* statement.

Cody Pomeray · 13-06-2013 01:36PM

We have to awaut the judgement on this. It's a pity there won't be an appeal, and it's a pity that UPC didn't challenge this, becuase the ruling scarcely seems compatible with a similar ruling in a the Court of Justice of the European Union:

In a 2011 case, the CJEU delivered a judgment on the legality of injunctions issued by national courts that forced a Belgian ISP to block sites which breach copyright law. The Court said that the Belgian ISP in that case had been obliged to establish a complex, costly and permanent filtering system at its own expense, which amounted to a serious infringement of its freedom to conduct its business as a service provider.

So, the court said, although YES there is a right to intellectual property enshrined in EU Law, HOWEVER forcing an ISP to install and maintain a filtering system would be an unfair and unduly burdensome task to offload on a third party.

In other words, to paraphrase MadsL at the beginning of this thread, the court said "you can't petition a photocopier manufacturer to stop his machines photocopying certain books"... that would be an unfair burden to impose on someone conducting business.

So why the ISPs didn't challenge this and cite this case (which was lauded when it was delivered, and is well known in intellectual property law) is beyond me, maybe someone else knows.

Prodigious · 13-06-2013 01:39PM

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

So why the ISPs didn't challenge this and cite this case (which was lauded when it was delivered, and is well known in intellectual property law) is beyond me, maybe someone else knows.

Cowardly, or else money changed hands.
However, there are thirty days still, and I expect UPC to be preparing a case.

dub_skav · 13-06-2013 01:39PM

desertcircus wrote: »

There's no unimpeachable moral case for downloading being illegal; it's simply how the industry happens to be structured at the moment. A side effect of that same industry is the enrichment of gatekeepers and the impoverishment of artists; the entire record industry has been behaving like a huge department store everyone goes to for music, and charging artists criminally high rents for being in there. Now the artists and consumers have started meeting up in the square opposite the department store, the industry is furiously trying to criminalise the square.

It's more like the artists are protesting in the square while the consumers steal from the store room.

There doesn't need to be a moral case, there is a legal one. Large numbers of people are stealing copyrighted material and by so doing are ensuring no money goes to anybody including the artists.

The consumers have decided they don't like the price and rather than pay it or lobby for alternative delivery models / pricing schedules / removing of price fixing, are instead just stealing.

People can dress this up any way they want; antiquated business models, fat cats, reaching a wider audience. But the fact is that the records, TV shows and movies are distributed legally in a certain way and they are choosing to instead get them for free.

Like I said in my previous post, any worrying laws or precedents brought in on the back of these will have the law breakers largely to blame.

Wile E. Coyote · 13-06-2013 01:47PM

Sin City wrote: »

As far as I am aware, artists get the majority of their income from touring , what the recieve in record sales is tiny

That is more than likely the case but if you remove the record companies, how many up and coming bands can afford to fund themselves full time to make/release albums and get radio airplay to gain a sufficient fanbase that would allow them to tour? How many big bands can you name would still be around today if they hadn't signed to a label?

b318isp · 13-06-2013 01:56PM

The reality is that streaming data will be the future; the record and film companies will have to realise their traditional business model will be obsolete very soon.

People having shelves full of LPs/Tapes/CDs, DVDs/etc. is already behind us.

People having GBs of hard drives in their houses full of songs/films/pictures/software is already on the way out.

Both torrenting and bricks & mortar sales will be a thing of the past sooner rather than later to a significant degree.

Look at the whole Apps revolution on smartphones/tablets. Easily distributed, common platform and cheap data is the way of the future - and if certain companies don't see this coming, then it's their own fault. Similarly, on-demand music and video will negate torrents in may ways.

Caliden · 13-06-2013 02:01PM

dub_skav wrote: »

It's more like the artists are protesting in the square while the consumers steal from the store room.

There doesn't need to be a moral case, there is a legal one. Large numbers of people are stealing copyrighted material and by so doing are ensuring no money goes to anybody including the artists.

The consumers have decided they don't like the price and rather than pay it or lobby for alternative delivery models / pricing schedules / removing of price fixing, are instead just stealing.

People can dress this up any way they want; antiquated business models, fat cats, reaching a wider audience. But the fact is that the records, TV shows and movies are distributed legally in a certain way and they are choosing to instead get them for free.

Like I said in my previous post, any worrying laws or precedents brought in on the back of these will have the law breakers largely to blame.

To use a very popular TV show as an example.
Game of Thrones - Season 2, season finale original air date June 3rd 2012. Box set for the season was released Feb 19th 2013.
That's 8 months later...

Friends of mine had their cards at the ready to buy the box set but they had to wait 8 months to get it. Needless to say they didn't wait 8 months to get a copy and they didn't pay for it.

It's the most pirated show in history and the above explains why. In a time of gigabit internet and streaming movies, people WILL not wait 8 months for a dvd release of something.

Wile E. Coyote wrote: »

That is more than likely the case but if you remove the record companies, how many up and coming bands can afford to fund themselves full time to make/release albums and get radio airplay to gain a sufficient fanbase that would allow them to tour? How many big bands can you name would still be around today if they hadn't signed to a label?

Macklemore?

DipStick McSwindler · 13-06-2013 02:05PM

This post has been deleted.

Wile E. Coyote · 13-06-2013 02:15PM

Caliden wrote: »

Macklemore?

Ah come on. I ask for big bands and you give me a guy who's had 1-2 hits recently *even though he's been on the go since 2000 and has only started going places since 2010 when he teamed up with Ryan Lewis and signed up with an International Booking company*

*Had to pull that off Wikipedia cause I know sweet FA about him....

desertcircus · 13-06-2013 02:15PM

dub_skav wrote: »

It's more like the artists are protesting in the square while the consumers steal from the store room.

There doesn't need to be a moral case, there is a legal one. Large numbers of people are stealing copyrighted material and by so doing are ensuring no money goes to anybody including the artists.

The consumers have decided they don't like the price and rather than pay it or lobby for alternative delivery models / pricing schedules / removing of price fixing, are instead just stealing.

People can dress this up any way they want; antiquated business models, fat cats, reaching a wider audience. But the fact is that the records, TV shows and movies are distributed legally in a certain way and they are choosing to instead get them for free.

Like I said in my previous post, any worrying laws or precedents brought in on the back of these will have the law breakers largely to blame.

Except most artists are ambivalent at best about chasing pirates, and large swathes are positively encouraging people to download. The old model is grossly inefficient, and efforts to keep it standing have virtually nothing to do with either the artist or consumer and virtually everything to do with the middleman. Pirating is a long way off perfect, but I suspect it's better than the status quo.

Cody Pomeray · 13-06-2013 02:16PM

Prodigious wrote: »

Cowardly, or else money changed hands.
However, there are thirty days still, and I expect UPC to be preparing a case.

They adapted a 'neutral' stance in the latest application by EMI & Sony, so I think it's unlikely there will be any legal challenge, all of which I actually find inexplicable.

Prodigious · 13-06-2013 02:17PM

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

They adapted a 'neutral' stance in the latest application by EMI & Sony, so I think it's unlikely there will be any legal challenge, all of which I actually find inexplicable.

If they are preparing an appeal for the high court it is probably in their interests to stay quiet until they present their defence.

Celly Smunt · 13-06-2013 02:19PM

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

They adapted a 'neutral' stance in the latest application by EMI & Sony, so I think it's unlikely there will be any legal challenge, all of which I actually find inexplicable.

Since it's a blanket ban of all ISP's i can see why they wouldn't challenge it.If UPC was singled out and it was available to other ISP's,it could cause a loss in custom for UPC due to customers moving to other ISP's who'd still provide access to torrent sites.But since no other ISP's will be providing a service which UPC won't,there's no need for them to panic.

Prodigious · 13-06-2013 02:20PM

pmcmahon wrote: »

Since it's a blanket ban of all ISP's i can see why they wouldn't challenge it.If UPC was singled out and it was available to other ISP's,it could cause a loss in custom for UPC due to customers moving to other ISP's who'd still provide access to torrent sites.But since no other ISP's will be providing a service which UPC won't,there's no need for them to panic.

Sky will.

Celly Smunt · 13-06-2013 02:22PM

Prodigious wrote: »

Sky will.

As far as i'm aware though (could be wrong) they don't have as high speeds as upc.

mbur · 13-06-2013 02:24PM

desertcircus wrote: »

Except most artists are ambivalent at best about chasing pirates, and large swathes are positively encouraging people to download. The old model is grossly inefficient, and efforts to keep it standing have virtually nothing to do with either the artist or consumer and virtually everything to do with the middleman. Pirating is a long way off perfect, but I suspect it's better than the status quo.

I think the future of music will look something like this

Prodigious · 13-06-2013 02:24PM

pmcmahon wrote: »

As far as i'm aware though (could be wrong) they don't have as high speeds as upc.

Torrents with low speed > High speed and no torrents, for many people.

Celly Smunt · 13-06-2013 02:27PM

Prodigious wrote: »

Torrents with low speed > High speed and no torrents, for many people.

It's going to be quite easy to bypass the restriction (which i'm sure UPC realise and won't secure too heavily) so torrents will still be available at high speed downloads.

Wile E. Coyote · 13-06-2013 02:28PM

desertcircus wrote: »

Except most artists are ambivalent at best about chasing pirates, and large swathes are positively encouraging people to download.

The only 'artists' who don't care about their material being pirated or are encouraging people to download instead of paying for the work are the one's who have already made it big and have more money than they need.

Prodigious · 13-06-2013 02:29PM

pmcmahon wrote: »

It's going to be quite easy to bypass the restriction (which i'm sure UPC realise and won't secure too heavily) so torrents will still be available at high speed downloads.

Joe soap is unaware of these methods.

Prodigious · 13-06-2013 02:30PM

Wile E. Coyote wrote: »

The only 'artists' who don't care about their material being pirated or are encouraging people to download instead of paying for the work are the one's who have already made it big and have more money than they need.

Untrue. Look at Immortal technique for one.

Celly Smunt · 13-06-2013 02:30PM

Wile E. Coyote wrote: »

The only 'artists' who don't care about their material being pirated or are encouraging people to download instead of paying for the work are the one's who have already made it big and have more money than they need.

I'd say it's quite the opposite,look at metallica for instance.

Celly Smunt · 13-06-2013 02:31PM

Prodigious wrote: »

Joe soap is unaware of these methods.

True,but i'm sure after some promotion that will change.

DipStick McSwindler · 13-06-2013 02:31PM

This post has been deleted.

runawaybishop · 13-06-2013 02:34PM

Prodigious wrote: »

Joe soap is unaware of these methods.

Not really, joe soap can use google.

High Court moron forces ISP's to block Torrent sites

Comments