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
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

UPC victory in piracy case

12467

Comments

  • #92
    seanogseanog
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7 ✭seanogseanog


    Well done UPC!! shame on pathetic Eircom for not even contesting the music industries challenge. No Industry should ever censor the net. I recently cleared out my CD collection and found a crappy drum and base CD from HMV that cost £28.99 Irish pounds!!!

    we'd still be there if the greedy music industry had its way. There's a direct channel to your audience now as a musician. The record labels are just middle men that got screwed by advances in technology.


  • #93
    Forest Master
    Registered Users Posts: 1,466 ✭✭✭Forest Master


    Alofthedunnes wrote: »
    Like I said earlier Devore, I'm not a serial downloader. I've downloaded a couple of seasons of a TV show that I now watch religiously on TV. It was and always has been shown for free on TV - I could just as easily have waited a year to record repeats - Would this have been ok in your eyes? I was just playing catch up. And I only downloaded because none of my mates had the boxset and the video shop doesn't stock it for rental.

    And I'm not a musician. A wanna be one yes, but I'm far far from being anywhere near a musician :D:D

    Al.

    You're still a complete hypocrite. You don't even see why, do you? Those TV shows were shown on TV with commercials, which generates the revenue from their broadcast. They are then released on DVD/Bluray which you pay for. It's the EXACT same as music being played on the radio with commercials in between, and also being released on a CD which you pay for. Your logic is 100% flawed. Yes - 100%. You don't have the right to own that media for free just because it was on TV. By that logic, I can own music for free just because it was on the radio at some stage. You can't have it both ways - "video is okay to download, music isn't" - it makes no sense on any level.

    And you say you're not a "serial" downloader - and you're moaning about people who are. So can you please tell me EXACTLY where the cut-off point is between "serial" and "acceptable" downloading? Please tell me exactly where the line is drawn. 3hrs of content per week is okay? 4hrs isn't, etc? Thanks in advance for your specific & well-thought-out answer.


  • #94
    Bi6N
    Closed Accounts Posts: 58 ✭✭Bi6N


    maccored wrote: »
    The problem is what do you do when people stop producing that media due to not being able to make a living from producing it (since it gets downloaded for free)?

    They seem to be getting along just fine. The large business groups earn too much as it is, most independant small labels/artists understand there is more money in touring and merch in this day and age.

    If anything it helps solo/indepentdant artists get their media out into the world fast for no cost.


  • #95
    hardCopy
    Registered Users Posts: 5,969 ✭✭✭hardCopy


    Forest Master wrote: »
    You're still a complete hypocrite. You don't even see why, do you? Those TV shows were shown on TV with commercials, which generates the revenue from their broadcast. They are then released on DVD/Bluray which you pay for. It's the EXACT same as music being played on the radio with commercials in between, and also being released on a CD which you pay for. Your logic is 100% flawed. Yes - 100%. You don't have the right to own that media for free just because it was on TV. By that logic, I can own music for free just because it was on the radio at some stage.

    I don't think it's actually possible to affect advertising revenue unless you have a Neilsen box attached to your telly


  • #96
    senordingdong
    Registered Users Posts: 10,673 ✭✭✭✭senordingdong


    hardCopy wrote: »
    I don't think it's actually possible to affect advertising revenue unless you have a Neilsen box attached to your telly

    This is my understanding too.
    It's also well known that the Nielson style system is greatly flawed.

    And apprently there is no such system in Ireland.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,660 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    Bi6N wrote: »
    They seem to be getting along just fine. The large business groups earn too much as it is, most independant small labels/artists understand there is more money in touring and merch in this day and age.

    If anything it helps solo/indepentdant artists get their media out into the world fast for no cost.

    So you think theres no need for a solution then, all's fine as it is? I wouldnt agree with that. this needs to be thought through from all angles and not just from the 'them and us' way of thinking.
    senordingdong wrote:
    If tv/film and music companies are losing so much money from downloads, I think they will just stop investing so much money in these things.

    ... and they'll be replaced by others, again though in some form of framework that works. theres just the problem of working out what that framework is.

    there seems to be a lot of half thought out 'oh but the rich made too much money anyway' thinking going on in this thread. thats completely missing the point.


  • #98
    DamagedTrax
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,277 ✭✭✭DamagedTrax


    maccored wrote: »

    there seems to be a lot of half thought out 'oh but the rich made too much money anyway' thinking going on in this thread. thats completely missing the point.

    i agree 100% (but maybe not for the same reasons?)

    as ive already said, the larger corps are going nowhere, illegal downloads or not. the only reason that warner et all are concerned about illegal downloading is to protect their profits.

    the real victim of illegal file sharing is the little guy. all you have to do is engage your brain for a minute and think of the knock on effect it has on the smaller set-ups, many of whom we have seen disappear in the last few years: bands, smaller studios, small distribution companies, small local record stores...

    there is a world of differance between illegally downloading the latest BMG release and downloading a small indie release. both are stealing, make no mistake about that but people need to raise their moral noisefloor.

    if you are going to keep downloading then at the very least think before you do it.

    while on one hand you may be putting the smallest dent in a multinational's profit margin, on the other you may be taking food out of the mouth of someone just like yourself and that is low... very very low     :mad:


  • #99
    Clanket
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Clanket


    Forest Master wrote: »
    You're still a complete hypocrite. You don't even see why, do you? Those TV shows were shown on TV with commercials, which generates the revenue from their broadcast. They are then released on DVD/Bluray which you pay for. It's the EXACT same as music being played on the radio with commercials in between, and also being released on a CD which you pay for. Your logic is 100% flawed. Yes - 100%. You don't have the right to own that media for free just because it was on TV. By that logic, I can own music for free just because it was on the radio at some stage. You can't have it both ways - "video is okay to download, music isn't" - it makes no sense on any level.

    And you say you're not a "serial" downloader - and you're moaning about people who are. So can you please tell me EXACTLY where the cut-off point is between "serial" and "acceptable" downloading? Please tell me exactly where the line is drawn. 3hrs of content per week is okay? 4hrs isn't, etc? Thanks in advance for your specific & well-thought-out answer.

    Ok firstly Forest Master, let me ask you a question (which I'd like an answer to before I continue any discussion with you). Are you someone who downloads whatever they want, when they want, with no consideration for the people who've produced it?

    If the answer is yes, then I do not want to have a discussion with you because you'll never see my point of view. You're just too selfish.

    If the answer is no then let me explain. I did not watch some series of shows that were shown on TV in times gone past for whatever reason. So they get to season 5 and I watch a couple on TV after hearing from friends that it's a great show. I'm intrigued so I decide I'll go back and watch from Season 1. So I go to the video shop to see if I can rent it and they don't have it. So what's the alternative? Buy the boxset? The digital age is here. I do not want bulky box sets taking up room in my small apartment. I've enough of them already from times gone past. So I download to catch up. I watch the downloads and delete them once watched. I've now caught up with the TV and watch future episodes on TV. SO call me what you want, I'm contributing. You ask for the definition of "the line". It's not that easy and you know it. If everything in life was that easy the world would be a very boring place.

    I always try to watch new series I've heard good things about on TV but as with most people, my life is hectic, so a lot of the time TV schedules don't suit me. In the last few years with the advent of Sky + and NTL's HD recorder, we're able to record things we don't have the time to watch. Where do you stand on that? Is that wrong?

    We all know the old model is dead for both the music and film/tv businesses. Looking at them seperately the main problems are:-

    Movies/TV: - People want to be able to access programmes/films when they want (on demand), at a reasonable price. The new model is emerging with RTE player/Love film etc. The sooner everything is available on demand, at a fair price, the better.

    Music: It's already available on demand but people still do not think it's at a fair price. So they download for free.

    You can all call me a hypocrite if you like. It's not going to change the way I am. I always respect the makers of media and contribute more than most to TV companies, broadband providers, video shops, cinemas and of course music companies.

    I rarely download music. And when I do, it's only ever to see what an album from a new/obscure act is like. If I even half like if I'll buy it. If it's not for me it gets deleted immediately.

    There's no easy solution to the problems of illegal downloading. But the scrotes who are downloading everything they watch/listen to without contributing anything are clearly selfish bástards with no consideration for anyone but themselves. And the people uploading everything (and I mean everything) are worse. Something needs to be done to stop this madness.

    Artists need to be paid (using a fair model). The people who've said in this thread that art should be a love and not a trade are morons. I'd like to hear what they're dream job is. And how they would reconcile that to making money to survive.

    And you're welcome for my specific & well-thought-out answer.


  • #100
    Android 666
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,577 ✭✭✭Android 666


    DamagedTrax wrote: »
    i agree 100% (but maybe not for the same reasons?)

    as ive already said, the larger corps are going nowhere, illegal downloads or not. the only reason that warner et all are concerned about illegal downloading is to protect their profits.


    while on one hand you may be putting the smallest dent in a multinational's profit margin, on the other you may be taking food out of the mouth of someone just like yourself and that is low... very very low     :mad:

    I think you're in moral quicksand here. It's more acceptable in your eyes to steal from the big company than the indie? Whatever reasons that the artists might have had for signing to the major label are their own but the material is still copyrighted. Downloading the album from the major label for free is still denying the artist revenue and I'm sure you're well aware how many more albums the guy signed on the major label would have to sell to make the same money back for himself as the indie guy.

    The record industry and the major labels are undeniably corrupt but its that little guy with the sh1tty record deal from the major that's going to suffer the most with illegal downloads. He'll probably get dropped by his label after one album, be completely disillusioned and never make another piece of music again.


  • #101
    DamagedTrax
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,277 ✭✭✭DamagedTrax


    Android 666 wrote: »
    I think you're in moral quicksand here. It's more acceptable in your eyes to steal from the big company than the indie? Whatever reasons that the artists might have had for signing to the major label are their own but the material is still copyrighted. Downloading the album from the major label for free is still denying the artist revenue and I'm sure you're well aware how many more albums the guy signed on the major label would have to sell to make the same money back for himself as the indie guy.

    The record industry and the major labels are undeniably corrupt but its that little guy with the sh1tty record deal from the major that's going to suffer the most with illegal downloads. He'll probably get dropped by his label after one album, be completely disillusioned and never make another piece of music again.

    i think you need to go back and read what i wrote again.

    nowhere did i say it was more acceptable. infact i clearly stated that both are stealing.

    what i was trying to get across is that the situation isnt going to change anytime soon so if people are going to steal then at least think of the knock on effects before they do so.

    my idea of those knock on effects may differ from yours but a differance of opinion is not tantamount to condoning stealing.


  • Advertisement
  • #102
    DOC09UNAM
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,305 ✭✭✭DOC09UNAM


    Alofthedunnes wrote: »
    http://www.independent.ie/national-news/upc-scores-landmark-victory-in-illegal-downloads-case-2374221.html

    It's a shame really because it would have been the saviour of the music business in Ireland (and probably the world as other countries followed suit). Now they'll have to wait until the government passes legislation to force the service providers to block illegal downloading. Good luck with that.....

    I'll be the first to admit that I use torrents to download TV shows that have already been shown on TV. I never download music as it's robbing the artists of valuable income.

    The only way the music business is going to thrive again is by stopping large scale copyright theft. And the only way to do this is to force the ISP's to stop illegal downloading.

    What's your opinion on what way this is going to pan out? Will they ever be able to stop torrents?

    You are robbing actors of royalties for every dvd/boxset.

    Using your logic, i'm only downloading music that has been shown on the music channels, i'm not stealing.


  • #103
    Clanket
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Clanket


    DOC09UNAM wrote: »
    You are robbing actors of royalties for every dvd/boxset.

    Using your logic, i'm only downloading music that has been shown on the music channels, i'm not stealing.

    Ah good ol logic. Can justify anything to anybody.


  • #104
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Alofthedunnes wrote: »
    And you're welcome for my specific & well-thought-out answer.

    Your so full of it.
    You download TV shows and boxsets and use torrents, yet you take the moral highground when it comes to music artists because?????........oh you are robbing them of their income (which is gained really from idiots who buy the album then realise its crap and bin it).
    You are stealing from the artists because you download and listen to the whole album before deleting it (yeah right:pac:), as you don't buy the album as you have already listened to it and thought "your not having my money."


  • #105
    DOC09UNAM
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,305 ✭✭✭DOC09UNAM


    Alofthedunnes wrote: »
    Ah good ol logic. Can justify anything to anybody.

    Well i'm using the logic you used, you download tv shows, probably alot more expensive than anything I would download, as I don't have the internet speed for it.

    You can't have one rule for you, and one rule for another.


  • #106
    Bi6N
    Closed Accounts Posts: 58 ✭✭Bi6N


    maccored wrote: »
    So you think theres no need for a solution then, all's fine as it is?

    I won't loose sleep over it thats for sure, much bigger atrocities hardly get this amount of public debate. Systems always break, this one is broken.
    But its certainly not dead, I've been a musician for years, nearly every gig I've played was free. I also work, anything I could ever make from music was a blessing.

    Now I live on the side of the line I call reality, some issues are so complex they can't be controlled or solved, but may evolve into something better.
    I support free media, that is my opinion.

    maccored wrote: »
    there seems to be a lot of half thought out 'oh but the rich made too much money anyway' thinking going on in this thread. thats completely missing the point.

    I'm very happy for UPC and its pirate customers.
    What is "the point"? Please enlighten me.


  • #107
    DamagedTrax
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,277 ✭✭✭DamagedTrax


    RVP 11 wrote: »
    Your so full of it.
    You download TV shows and boxsets and use torrents, yet you take the moral highground when it comes to music artists because?????........oh you are robbing them of their income (which is gained really from idiots who buy the album then realise its crap and bin it).
    You are stealing from the artists because you download and listen to the whole album before deleting it (yeah right:pac:), as you don't buy the album as you have already listened to it and thought "your not having my money."

    while i dont exactly agree with alofthedunnes' thinking on the matter, i fear you may have seriously misinterpreted what the guy was trying to say.


  • #108
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    DamagedTrax wrote: »
    while i dont exactly agree with alofthedunnes' thinking on the matter, i fear you may have seriously misinterpreted what the guy was trying to say.

    Don't think so.
    He thinks it's ok to download TV shows off torrents but disagrees with downloading music and would call it stealing despite doing it himself and deleting it afterwards and if he likes the album buys it.:pac:
    It's still copyright theft even if he does buy the album after(BS).


  • #109
    DamagedTrax
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,277 ✭✭✭DamagedTrax


    RVP 11 wrote: »
    Don't think so.
    He thinks it's ok to download TV shows off torrents but disagrees with downloading music and would call it stealing despite doing it himself and deleting it afterwards and if he likes the album buys it.:pac:
    It's still copyright theft even if he does buy the album after(BS).

    discounting what he said about tv (its not a subject im interested in talking about to be honest as my business is in music, not tv), lets look at his statements on music downloading for a second.

    you claim its BS but yet its actually a pretty decent way of doing things (again discount the tv thing, he's clearly in the wrong there). its how i generally do things too. i own thousands of cds, vinyls and LEGAL downloads and the majority of these in the last 5 years are purchased because i downloaded the album first and liked it. i too will delete it if i dont like it.
    i have a close friend who operates on the same principals and he owns (at last count) nearly 10,000 vinyls and god knows how many cds. are you going to say that what we do is wrong and hurting the industry?

    the whole situation is so messed up right now that anything that leads to sales in those figures is a good thing.

    the problem does not lie with people like ourselves but with people that will NEVER spend money on music. people that think that free music is their god given right.. infact i take that back, these people dont even think anymore as far as i can see.. i think society has destroyed their inbuilt moral compass to a point where they BELIEVE that what they're doing isnt wrong or affecting anybody.


    and before anyone says it, YES i am taking the moral highground on this and if you've spent half as much money as i have on music or put half as much work into the industry (often with little returns) then you're very welcome to join me up here. its warm and dry but the view isnt very nice :-/


  • #110
    Android 666
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,577 ✭✭✭Android 666


    Alofthedunnes wrote: »
    If the answer is no then let me explain. I did not watch some series of shows that were shown on TV in times gone past for whatever reason. So they get to season 5 and I watch a couple on TV after hearing from friends that it's a great show. I'm intrigued so I decide I'll go back and watch from Season 1. So I go to the video shop to see if I can rent it and they don't have it. So what's the alternative? Buy the boxset? The digital age is here. I do not want bulky box sets taking up room in my small apartment. I've enough of them already from times gone past. So I download to catch up. I watch the downloads and delete them once watched. I've now caught up with the TV and watch future episodes on TV. SO call me what you want, I'm contributing.

    And you're welcome for my specific & well-thought-out answer.

    Em, you're not really contributing, you can actually download series from ITunes and pay for them. You're saying that you download the series, watch them and delete them so that's not really stealing because well the boxsets take up too much space on your shelf. But the fact of the matter is that you had to pay for the boxsets and when you think about are you ever going to watch the boxset of a series more than once?

    It's not really a well thought out answer. It's just the one that appeals the most to you and the one that justifies your wooly thinking on the issue.


  • #111
    Clanket
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Clanket


    RVP 11 wrote: »
    (yeah right:pac:),

    Just because you might not be able to do it doesn't mean it's not true.
    DOC09UNAM wrote: »
    Well i'm using the logic you used, you download tv shows, probably alot more expensive than anything I would download, as I don't have the internet speed for it.

    You can't have one rule for you, and one rule for another.
    RVP 11 wrote: »
    Don't think so.
    He thinks it's ok to download TV shows off torrents but disagrees with downloading music and would call it stealing despite doing it himself and deleting it afterwards and if he likes the album buys it.:pac:
    It's still copyright theft even if he does buy the album after(BS).

    I'll re-point you to my last post

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68461861&postcount=99

    RVP, I'll ask you the same question I asked Forest Master. Are you someone who downloads whatever they want, when they want, with no consideration for the people who've produced it?


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    Minstrel27
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,818 ✭✭✭Minstrel27


    Alofthedunnes wrote: »
    Are you someone who downloads whatever they want, when they want, with no consideration for the people who've produced it?

    Who are you to judge seeing as you seem to download television shows whenever it suits you?


  • #113
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Alofthedunnes wrote: »
    Just because you might not be able to do it doesn't mean it's not true.





    I'll re-point you to my last post

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68461861&postcount=99

    RVP, I'll ask you the same question I asked Forest Master. Are you someone who downloads whatever they want, when they want, with no consideration for the people who've produced it?

    I don't download copyrighted material at all unless i've paid for it.
    I have a massive collection of Blu Rays and DVD's and support the industry.
    I don't pre-download the movies and TV shows to preview them first either.


  • #114
    Clanket
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Clanket


    Android 666 wrote: »
    Em, you're not really contributing, you can actually download series from ITunes and pay for them. You're saying that you download the series, watch them and delete them so that's not really stealing because well the boxsets take up too much space on your shelf. But the fact of the matter is that you had to pay for the boxsets and when you think about are you ever going to watch the boxset of a series more than once?

    It's not really a well thought out answer. It's just the one that appeals the most to you and the one that justifies your wooly thinking on the issue.

    If you can download the series I'm talking about (Entourage) from Itunes it's a new thing because you certainly couldn't when I wanted it.

    Call it what you want. I'm not taking any moral high ground. I'm just outlining my circimstances and dealings with illegal downloading. My main point being that I don't agree with it when people download absolutely everything, all the time.

    I doubt there's very many people left who have not downloaded something illegally at some stage or another.


  • #115
    Clanket
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Clanket


    RVP 11 wrote: »
    I don't download copyrighted material at all unless i've paid for it.
    I have a massive collection of Blu Rays and DVD's and support the industry.
    I don't pre-download the movies and TV shows to preview them first either.

    Well fair play to you then. You're a better person than I.


  • #116
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Alofthedunnes wrote: »
    You're a better person than I.

    Obviously.:)


  • #117
    coach22
    Registered Users Posts: 518 ✭✭✭coach22


    long may illegal downloading continue. any music ive downloaded the artist is minted anyway so couldnt careless.


  • #118
    DOC09UNAM
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,305 ✭✭✭DOC09UNAM


    Alofthedunnes wrote: »
    Just because you might not be able to do it doesn't mean it's not true.





    I'll re-point you to my last post

    http://m.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68461861&postcount=99

    RVP, I'll ask you the same question I asked Forest Master. Are you someone who downloads whatever they want, when they want, with no consideration for the people who've produced it?

    That post is the biggest load of bullshít ever.

    You want a series 1-5 of a program, so you download it, and you don't pay for it.
    Lets say on average that would be 15-20 euro a box set, which is 100 euro.

    I download maybe 7-8 albums a year, not that many really, and last year I went to 4 gigs and oxegen, so the music industry more than made there money back from me.


  • #119
    Android 666
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,577 ✭✭✭Android 666


    Alofthedunnes wrote: »
    If you can download the series I'm talking about (Entourage) from Itunes it's a new thing because you certainly couldn't when I wanted it.

    Yes you can
    Alofthedunnes wrote: »
    Call it what you want. I'm not taking any moral high ground.

    Yes you are. You said:

    RVP, I'll ask you the same question I asked Forest Master. Are you someone who downloads whatever they want, when they want, with no consideration for the people who've produced it?

    Looks like moral high ground to me
    Alofthedunnes wrote: »
    I'm just outlining my circimstances and dealings with illegal downloading. My main point being that I don't agree with it when people download absolutely everything, all the time.

    I'm in full agreement with you.
    Alofthedunnes wrote: »
    I doubt there's very many people left who have not downloaded something illegally at some stage or another.

    I have downloaded stuff illegally. There I have said. It's like a weight off my shoulders…


  • #120
    DamagedTrax
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,277 ✭✭✭DamagedTrax


    coach22 wrote: »
    long may illegal downloading continue. any music ive downloaded the artist is minted anyway so couldnt careless.

    since any artist you've downloaded is "minted", you're taste in music must be obviously 1 dimensional and limited to maybe 50 cds? so i ask you, why bother getting involved in a debate like this, when those 2 brain cells you've just killed when typing your message could clearly be put to better use elsewhere? is it really wise to waste them on something so trivial as stealing? :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    Clanket
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Clanket


    I think most honest people do it on the basis of convenience and price. It's a hell of a lot easier to download than to physically buy (have to take a trip to the shops or wait on a delivery) and if the price isn't right people wont pay.

    Music is still overpriced but bargains can be found in different places.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement