[Article] Eircom to cut off Music File Sharers ..

telemakus · 30-01-2009 10:48pm

Upward Spiral wrote: »

lol, classy move... comparing this to Child Pornography.

Everything you mentioned above are considered to be criminal acts, copyright infringement is a civil matter, so my point still stands.

If people were profiteering from filesharing, then it would be a criminal matter.

Exactly!

telemakus · 30-01-2009 10:55pm

dub45 wrote: »

Downloading music and other copyrighthed material has demonstrably damaged many people in the entertainment industry from helping in the closure of small shops to depriving musicians of royalties. Three distributors of cds and dvds closed in England in the last year. And there are many many more music companies than the Sonys and Emis of this world who are finding it a struggle.

So morality is now to be decided on what is convenient for the majority of people? Not so long ago 'the majority of people' were not too worried about the rights of minorities for example. And the day we base our morality on polls in Herald AM is a sad day indeed!:(

The large labels, have little or no regard for small music shops, in most cases, the large companies think they are a nuisance, a middle man, who they have to bargain with. If they are removed, higher percentage of pure profit goes to the Record company. So its never been a real concern. Cd' and DVD's will go the way of the 8track. Thats how humans progress.

If you can fire up google, you can read about how 2nd hand music shops were being asked to repay royaltys from the "2nd sale" of an album. Which of course, threathened to put many of them out of business.

telemakus · 30-01-2009 11:00pm

PaddyTheNth wrote: »

Like it or not, you're a member of society. Rage against the machine all you want...if you really have a problem with it, start a movement to change the copyright/IP laws, or move to another country.

I get paid for building a house. Or writing software. Or sorting out someone's taxes. These are skills that I have. If people want to utilise what I can produce/accomplish, they can pay for them.

Musicians create music. They create things that I can't do. I have no problem with the fact that if I obtain and/or distribute that music without paying for it, I am stealing from them.

Please explain your contention that 'comparing the art of music to other "products" is silly.'

I would...but it'll get the off topic notice! Have you downloaded anything ever?

PaddyTheNth · 30-01-2009 11:02pm

telemakus wrote: »

I would...but it'll get the off topic notice! Have you downloaded anything ever?

You're a troll and all your statements are trollish. I'd explain what I meant but it'd just get off topic.

telemakus · 30-01-2009 11:10pm

PaddyTheNth wrote: »

You're a troll and all your statements are trollish. I'd explain what I meant but it'd just get off topic.

Where are the mods on this?? That's a bit nasty and uncalled for to be honest!

You cant wind me up old bean!

All people have to do is read, and your rebutted!

PaddyTheNth · 30-01-2009 11:16pm

telemakus wrote: »

Where are the mods on this?? That's a bit nasty and uncalled for to be honest!

You cant wind me up old bean!

All people have to do is read, and your rebutted!

Ah, no. You're basing your argument on the contention that 'comparing the art of music to other "products" is silly.'

But you won't explain yourself.

I produce an explanation of my position on your point, which although you say is 'going off topic' is in fact answering your original point that somehow downloading music that you have paid for isn't wrong...ie putting the word 'stealing' in inverted commas to suggest that it isn't an appropriate term for what is happening.

That sort of non-substantiated argument is effectively trolling.

telemakus · 30-01-2009 11:28pm

PaddyTheNth wrote: »

Ah, no. You're basing your argument on the contention that 'comparing the art of music to other "products" is silly.'

But you won't explain yourself.

I produce an explanation of my position on your point, which although you say is 'going off topic' is in fact answering your original point that somehow downloading music that you have paid for isn't wrong...ie putting the word 'stealing' in inverted commas to suggest that it isn't an appropriate term for what is happening.

That sort of non-substantiated argument is effectively trolling.

Just because your think you have explained your argument, does not mean it is correct. "Troll" through Google for the past 5 years worth of documents that rebutt you!!! Im not doing it for you.

It is silly, that Your whole argument to me is about the word "stealing" and my use of inverted commas. But People will see that.

If i think the way you think about music, as in a product on a shelf, then the definition of stealing is pretty straight forward and does not require commas.

However as many many other people think about music in regards to online usage, "stealing" is not a clearly defined area. Hence stealing went in to commas. For instance when rap musicians use tracks for their songs! Stealing? or Re Use?

*(this has obviously been settled at this stage, but many many years ago was a bone of contention between record companies and rap/hiphop types)

telemakus · 30-01-2009 11:38pm

PaddyTheNth wrote: »

Ah, no. You're basing your argument on the contention that 'comparing the art of music to other "products" is silly.'

But you won't explain yourself.

What is there to explain with that statement?? Pretty easy!!

We see things differently. Thats all.

To me, music is an art form.

To you, it appears to be little different from supermarket products. Which is ok, but i dont have to subscribe to your view and i dont.

and Maybe im strange in that respect, but i dont classify Beans, pasta, biscuits, potato's, and other things that belong on shelves as artforms.

That is why i say it is silly reduce or to compare music to other products!

Its not hard to comprehend. That's just our difference, no big deal really and i dont think im alone in having that view.

PaddyTheNth · 30-01-2009 11:39pm

telemakus wrote: »

Just because your think you have explained your argument, does not mean it is correct.

Correct. But refusing to explain your contention makes it entirely worthless.

telemakus wrote: »

"Troll" through Google for the past 5 years worth of documents that rebutt you!!! Im not doing it for you.

Sure...I'll go and do the research to explain your position :pac:

telemakus wrote: »

It is silly, that Your whole argument to me is about the word "stealing" and my use of inverted commas. But People will see that.

If i think the way you think about music, as in a product on a shelf, then the definition of stealing is pretty straight forward and does not require commas.

However as many many other people think about music in regards to online usage, "stealing" is not a clearly defined area. Hence stealing went in to commas.

This is a simple situation. In the country in which we live - I'm assuming you live in Ireland - is it currently legal to download and/or upload copyrighted material without paying for it? This is a question which has a simple yes or no answer.

telemakus wrote: »

For instance when rap musicians use tracks for their songs! Stealing? or Re Use?

*(this has obviously been settled at this stage, but many many years ago was a bone of contention between record companies and rap/hiphop types)

Yeah the issue there was people re-using other people's work and then making money from that...which was sorted out fairly quickly. How long do you think musicians can use a sample of another artist's music for without paying them royalties and not get in trouble? Link

So again, I'll direct you to the relevant question - In the country in which we live - I'm assuming you live in Ireland - is it currently legal to download and/or upload copyrighted material without paying for it? This is a question which has a simple yes or no answer.

PaddyTheNth · 30-01-2009 11:40pm

telemakus wrote: »

To me, music is an art form.

And in the country in which we live, is art protected by copyright?

vibe666 · 30-01-2009 11:42pm

telemakus wrote: »

However as many many other people think about music in regards to online usage, "stealing" is not a clearly defined area. Hence stealing went in to commas. For instance when rap musicians use tracks for their songs! Stealing? or Re Use?

*(this has obviously been settled at this stage, but many many years ago was a bone of contention between record companies and rap/hiphop types)

it still is. anyone sampling other peoples music for their own gain still has to pay royalties, nothing has changed there at all.

and regardless of your or my own personal views of what exactly constitutes "stealing" music doesn't change the fact that it is against the law regardless of how we may feel about it, it's a criminal offence to take someone's copyrighted work without paying for it and it IS a very clearly defined area of the law with no room for misinterpretation as this recent decision between eircom and the music companies has shown.

if you don't like the law then do something to change it, but the law is there, very clearly and concisely laid out just like anything else but feel free to challenge it in court if you don't like it.

and yes i've downloaded plenty in my time and have done since before the vast majority of people even knew what the internet was and I will continue to do so for the foreseeable future but i'm not naive enough to think what I'm doing is not illegal.

the strange thing is, i buy more music now than I ever did. the only difference is, I don't buy crap i don't like because I've always had a good listen to albums and know what I like before i spend money on them.

telemakus · 30-01-2009 11:49pm

PaddyTheNth wrote: »

And in the country in which we live, is art protected by copyright?

Did i not just explain to you? I think i just did! Im pretty sure i did! Go back a post or 2!

And since we are arrogantly demanding answers to questions, i recall asking you one which you did not answer. And ill ask it again.

Q. Have you ever downloaded an album and/or song? And if you have, have you done this more than 3 times? (Totaling up all your years internet usage)

(Because if you have..... you need to get Kicked offline!!
Which is what will now happen to you!!) (which if im not mistaken is the point)

You can say what you want! But just answer that???

my reply to your question! Yes unless its a CC license i presume.

telemakus · 30-01-2009 11:50pm

vibe666 wrote: »

it still is. anyone sampling other peoples music for their own gain still has to pay royalties, nothing has changed there at all.

and regardless of your or my own personal views of what exactly constitutes "stealing" music doesn't change the fact that it is against the law regardless of how we may feel about it, it's a criminal offence to take someone's copyrighted work without paying for it and it IS a very clearly defined area of the law with no room for misinterpretation as this recent decision between eircom and the music companies has shown.

if you don't like the law then do something to change it, but the law is there, very clearly and concisely laid out just like anything else but feel free to challenge it in court if you don't like it.

and yes i've downloaded plenty in my time and have done since before the vast majority of people even knew what the internet was and I will continue to do so for the foreseeable future but i'm not naive enough to think what I'm doing is not illegal.

the strange thing is, i buy more music now than I ever did. the only difference is, I don't buy crap i don't like because I've always had a good listen to albums and know what I like before i spend money on them.

I agree with everything you have said!
But Since you have downloaded music, according to some folk on here, you now should be disconnected from the internet.
Which is the crux of this eircom/imro problem

telemakus · 30-01-2009 11:52pm

PaddyTheNth wrote: »

And in the country in which we live, is art protected by copyright?

Should beans have a copyright?

Does this take in to effect CC copyright?

PaddyTheNth · 30-01-2009 11:53pm

telemakus wrote: »

Did i not just explain to you? I think i just did! Im pretty sure i did! Go back a post or 2!

What you said in no way answers that question.

telemakus wrote: »

And since we are arrogantly demanding answers to questions, i recall asking you one which you did not answer. And ill ask it again.

Q. Have you ever downloaded an album and/or song? And if you have, have you done this more than 3 times? (Totaling up all your years internet usage)

(Because if you have..... you need to get Kicked offline!!
Which is what will now happen to you!!) (which if im not mistaken is the point)

You can say what you want! But just answer that???

my reply to your question! Yes unless its a CC license i presume.

So you admit that the activity you're defending is illegal?

And to answer your question, yes I have downloaded music. Sometimes I even paid for it. At the times when I didn't pay for it I was aware that what I was doing was illegal. And I'll still download the occasional bit of music illegally. But I won't bitch about being stopped from doing it when I know that it is illegal.

PaddyTheNth · 30-01-2009 11:57pm

telemakus wrote: »

Should beans have a copyright?

This is classic trolling.

You've said in previous posts that music was art and therefore dissimilar from products such as beans, but now you're comparing them to art by inferring that I should be defending their supposed copyright.

telemakus wrote: »

Does this take in to effect CC copyright?

I don't know what you're trying to say here.

telemakus · 31-01-2009 12:03am

PaddyTheNth wrote: »

This is classic trolling.

You've said in previous posts that music was art and therefore dissimilar from products such as beans, but now you're comparing them to art by inferring that I should be defending their supposed copyright.

I don't know what you're trying to say here.

ha! your funny! Please re-read post, and try a little harder next time. Other wise you appear silly. And we dont want that.

CC Copyright? creativecommons.org (i think ,either .org or .com)
I did suggest googling all this didnt i?
No harm!

telemakus · 31-01-2009 12:05am

PaddyTheNth wrote: »

What you said in no way answers that question.

So you admit that the activity you're defending is illegal?

And to answer your question, yes I have downloaded music. Sometimes I even paid for it. At the times when I didn't pay for it I was aware that what I was doing was illegal. And I'll still download the occasional bit of music illegally. But I won't bitch about being stopped from doing it when I know that it is illegal.

Sorry, since you have downloaded, you must now have your connection terminated, Which is the crux of the argument. Not what i think is legal or illegal.

Im not for or against downloading, illegal or legal. Read all my posts, all of them and see if i ever suggest different.

As for you using google? Thats up to you! But if you do, youll find current thinking on the matter suggests that the method of enforcement you support is wrong. Thats not my opinion, thats fact.

Cabaal · 31-01-2009 12:12am

telemakus wrote: »

Erm...well read closer!!! Is talking about child porn not going a bit off topic? is he not pruning others comments about going off thread while leaving in his own? Someone mentioned that talking about limewire is off topic....even though its not....making sense? Im appaled at his attitude. Comparing music to a base economic unit? Silly it is! Just because hes a mod, does not mean he is right. which applies to all.

Talking about limewire is not off topic its P2P, talking about how to block or hide your IP from eircom or the music industry in a public forum i Ireland like boards.ie means your thick and need to learn some sense.

telemakus, just because you post till the cows come home doesn't mean that downloading copyright material without permission is ok

You can try to justify it all you want in your twisted mind but your still wrong

its nice you see music as an art form, it really is, but do you think its ok to not pay an artist for enjoying the artists work?
For example: I take photos, you copy and use one of my photos without permission then I am well within my rights to go after you in a court of law. Its still art but I have rights

Whether another user here has downloaded any music without permission doesn't matter in this thread, the fact is do you agree that downloading copyright material without permission is ok, simple yes or no please

Your posts at this stage are just trolling

Cabaal · 31-01-2009 12:18am

telemakus wrote: »

Should beans have a copyright?

Does this take in to effect CC copyright?

I'd recommend you stop your trolling crap, infraction given!

telemakus · 31-01-2009 12:24am

Cabaal wrote: »

Talking about limewire is not off topic its P2P, talking about how to block or hide your IP from eircom or the music industry in a public forum i Ireland like boards.ie means your thick and need to learn some sense.

telemakus, just because you post till the cows come home doesn't mean that downloading copyright material without permission is ok
You can try to justify it all you want in your twisted mind but your still wrong

telemakus, its nice you see music as an art form, it really is, but do you think its ok to not pay an artist for enjoying the artists work?

I can agree with the most of what you say, but i really think its not about what i think is legal or not legal! I am not thick! I dont see the harm in mentioning limewire, p2p, which has 100% legal uses, Did i mention about blocking or hiding ip's?? please show me where i said this!

If you want to really get in to the nitty gritty of paying artists, please look at Prince and George Michael who sued for exploitation!

Some artists will get upset (lars from metallica type, others will have a different outlook, Radiohead etc)

Why is my mind twisted? I ask you the question i asked someone else

Q, Have you ever downloaded music, in any form (album or single) more than 3 times?

Because if you have....its not my so called twisted mind that will kick you off the internet! (Which once again, as far as im concerned, and if im not mistaken, is the crux of the argument.)

What i think is legal or illegal is not relevant!

regarding twisted, trolling etc etc. A lot of peope who posted in this topic could be tarnished with the same insults!!! And when they read what you write, Im pretty sure they disagree with you!

telemakus · 31-01-2009 12:37am

Cabaal wrote: »

I'd recommend you stop your trolling crap, infraction given!

Im sorry, that's a bit much!!

I've been accused of trolling, which does not mean i am trolling, especially since i explained my positions and answered all that was put to me!!

Mentioning about Creative Commons Copyright is valid in relation to this topic!!

watty · 31-01-2009 12:38am

Art is MORE valuable and harder to create than beans. The people that can produce good art are rarer and can usually produce less than bean farmers.

Maybe we should pay a lot more for Art than beans.

Actually Genetically Engineered Beans have copyright and often patents too.

Why is there no unthank icon?

Cabaal · 31-01-2009 12:43am

telemakus wrote: »

Im sorry, that's a bit much!!

I've been accused of trolling, which does not mean i am trolling, especially since i explained my positions and answered all that was put to me!!

Mentioning about Creative Commons Copyright is valid in relation to this topic!!

If you have a problem with a mods decision take it to Help Desk. do not discuss in this thread

I don't see how Creative Commons applys at all, Eircom and the music industry don't care about CC licensed material they only care about copyright material which is being downloaded without permission.

As such Creative Commons licensed material is not relevant in this thread, your welcome to perhaps discuss licensing in general in another forum such as Legal Discussions.

FredH3as, banned for a week for acting the muppet...post deleted

thefinalstage · 31-01-2009 12:43am

watty wrote: »

Why is there no unthank icon?

To the far left of the box that showed who thanked a user for a post there is an option to remove thanks.

Hank Scorpio · 31-01-2009 12:44am

seriously what can you download off limewire thats legal?

Ban the troll cabaal

PaddyTheNth · 31-01-2009 12:47am

telemakus wrote: »

ha! your funny! Please re-read post, and try a little harder next time. Other wise you appear silly. And we dont want that.

CC Copyright? creativecommons.org (i think ,either .org or .com)
I did suggest googling all this didnt i?
No harm!

Troll a little harder there kid.

Cabaal · 31-01-2009 12:49am

telemakus wrote: »

I can agree with the most of what you say, but i really think its not about what i think is legal or not legal! I am not thick! I dont see the harm in mentioning limewire, p2p, which has 100% legal uses, Did i mention about blocking or hiding ip's?? please show me where i said this!

You didn't I simply explained what is allowed on boards and what is not, your the one that assumed that all discussions of limewire is off-topic as you stated "Someone mentioned that talking about limewire is off topic....even though its not....making sense?" You clearly did not read my and other mods warnings correctly

If you want to really get in to the nitty gritty of paying artists, please look at Prince and George Michael who sued for exploitation!

Some artists will get upset (lars from metallica type, others will have a different outlook, Radiohead etc)

This thread is not to discuss your personal views (or other peoples) on the music industry or it operates in relation to artists, this thread is to discuss eircoms recent decision.
Lets stay on topic shall we?

Why is my mind twisted? I ask you the question i asked someone else

Q, Have you ever downloaded music, in any form (album or single) more than 3 times?

Because if you have....its not my so called twisted mind that will kick you off the internet! (Which once again, as far as im concerned, and if im not mistaken, is the crux of the argument.)

What i think is legal or illegal is not relevant!

I see your not taking note, this is the third time you've posted this crap,

amen · 31-01-2009 8:10pm

This is massive thread and I gave up reading after page 14 but so maybe these some of these thoughts might already have been posted and before I do post I don't condone illegal downloads (even though the musics companies current business practices are out of date)
1: Currently all the telephone providers are protected if a crime is commited using a phone i.e. ring Joe Smith and arrange to rob a bank
2: If I fax some copyright material to someone the telephone provider is protected

By agreeing to monitor certain types of communication for certain types of illegal acts I think a good case could be made be someone who has suffered loss by someone using a phone/fax to chase the servicer providers and get a settlement.

Of course the net effect of this might be to force the service providers to monitor all communications for all illegal acts thus making us the laughing stock of Europe (maybe the World) and maybe forcing a climb down.

A good start might be the Omagh bomb attack where it was organised using phone records which the garda currently have and were released by the service providers. You wouldn't even have to prove who did as long as you could provide phones were used.

The next thing would be to go after all the mobile phone providers to force them to track mobile positions at all times and force them to deny connectivity to anyone whose phone is moving a certain speed in case they are driving and thus breaking anothere law. (could be a passenger, on a train etc).

The idea being to make the whole idea stupid and to either track all illegal acts or none ( especially since copyright is non important crime compare to murder or traffic accidents)

Surely Eircom accepting a non police/judical report of wrong doing and disconnecting a customer is wrong and a violation of their contract to provide service especially since it is possible to spoof ips.

What those using a Wifi point?

John Sheehy · 31-01-2009 10:20pm

amen wrote: »

good question

I am interested to hear an answer to this.

Is it that Eircom are now legally obliged to investigate the activities of the ip addresses given to them by the recording companies? Do Eircom get paid to do this? Presumably they would need to if they are already protected by a law that says they are non-accountable for what it's customers utilizes its services for?

watty wrote: »

Art is MORE valuable and harder to create than beans. The people that can produce good art are rarer and can usually produce less than bean farmers.

Maybe we should pay a lot more for Art than beans.

Beans are valued by the cost of their production; labour, materials etc.

What you're describing is valuing something on something that physically doesn't exist or cost anything at all - an opinion.

e: Although people apply opinion's to beans as well and pay bigger buxx for brand names...

double e: I remember years ago about SNES roms, where it was legal to download but they had to be deleted after 24 hours because people were allowed to digitally back up games? Would this apply to CD's too?

[Article] Eircom to cut off Music File Sharers ..

Comments