Watch out IRMAs about - IRMA about to knock on 23 doors

damien

http://unarocks.blogspot.com/2007/06/irma-to-pursue-and-prosecute-23-people.html

IRMA to pursue and prosecute 23 people for illegally sharing music online

The High Court has given the go ahead today for six ISPs (Digiweb, BT, Smart Telecom, Irish Broadband, NTL, Eircom and Imagine) to provide the names and addresses of 23 individuals IRMA (Irish Music Rights Association) has been monitoring over a six month "major antipuracy operation."

The total number of music files illegally distributed is 180,000, with five individuals responsible for 108,000 illegal tracks. One individual was responsible for 37,500 files.

‘They are stealing from our artists and affecting the livelihood of many people in the music industry. We will not tolerate this and will do everything in our power to ensure they are brought to justice’, said Dick Doyle, Director General of IRMA. Mr. Doyle also warned parents to be ever vigilant with the family computer as many young people were involved in file sharing probably unbeknownst to their parents.

So far I believe everyone that has been contacted settled out of Court. I wonder what would happen if the person decided to go to Court.

Dankoozy

I'm stupid and banned.

dub45

Dankoozy wrote:

I'm stupid and banned.

Very constructive remarks indeed - and I suppose if you were a musician you would have absolutely no problem at all with people distributing your stuff?

Dankoozy

none at all!

dub45

Dankoozy wrote:

none at all!

Easy to be so glib when you are not affected by it!:rolleyes:

uncle_sam_ie

This won't stop file sharing though. If the music industry were to get really serious about going after people, then filing sharing would just move to the next phase. Encrypted P2P. I don't think they want it to go there. This is all meant to scare the mainstream nothing more.

Moriarty

Dankoozy banned.

dub45

uncle_sam_ie wrote:

This won't stop file sharing though. If the music industry were to get really serious about going after people, then filing sharing would just move to the next phase. Encrypted P2P. I don't think they want it to go there. This is all meant to scare the mainstream nothing more.

Maybe I am naive but surely 108,000 tracks between a few individuals is not the ''mainstream'' ?

CuLT

What in the heck is "antipuracy".

JPA

dub45 wrote:

Very constructive remarks indeed - and I suppose if you were a musician you would have absolutely no problem at all with people distributing your stuff?

If a musician is small enough to actually be affected by the loss of sales then they are small enough to be happy to receive any exposure they can. If that makes any sense.

dub45

JPA wrote:

If a musician is small enough to actually be affected by the loss of sales then they are small enough to be happy to receive any exposure they can. If that makes any sense.

No none at all:rolleyes:

When could you last eat exposure?

uncle_sam_ie

dub45 wrote:

Maybe I am naive but surely 108,000 tracks between a few individuals is not the ''mainstream'' ?

Sorry to confuse you. By going after a few individuals the industry hopes to scare the mainstream population. I bet anything this will be blasted all over the news the day they start knock-en.

JPA

dub45 wrote:

No none at all:rolleyes:

When could you last eat exposure?

Do you know any musicians who are going hungry as a result of illegal downloading? They are losing potential income not real income.

uncle_sam_ie

dub45 wrote:

No none at all:rolleyes:

When could you last eat exposure?

Don't musicians make most of their money doing concerts. More exposure means more concerts goers=food and fast cars and woman and .....!!!:eek: :eek:

dub45

uncle_sam_ie wrote:

Sorry to confuse you. By going after a few individuals the industry hopes to scare the mainstream population. I bet anything this will be blasted all over the news the day they start knock-en.

So what is wrong with getting the point across to the mainstream that stealing music is wrong?

uncle_sam_ie

dub45 wrote:

So what is wrong with getting the point across to the mainstream that stealing music is wrong?

Nothing, it's just that it has never worked in stopping file sharing. Instead of going after a few teens why don't they go after the real crooks. The east Asian gangs cranking out millions of pirated CD' a day.

dub45

uncle_sam_ie wrote:

Nothing, it's just that it has never worked in stopping file sharing. Instead of going after a few teens why don't they go after the real crooks. The east Asian gangs cranking out millions of pirated CD' a day.

Prosecuting people doesn't stop murder, house breaking, drunken driving etc. etc. are you suggesting that's a good enough reason to stop?

There is nothing to suggest that they are going after a few teens in this particular case. And even if it were teens why shouldn't they go after them given the number of files involved?

uncle_sam_ie

dub45 wrote:

Prosecuting people doesn't stop murder, house breaking, drunken driving etc. etc. are you suggesting that's a good enough reason to stop?

Well, if the music industry goes by your philosophy it won't last long in it's present form. The genie is out of the bottle now. So, if they want to survive their going to have to face facts and rethink their whole business model.

dub45

uncle_sam_ie wrote:

Well, if the music industry goes by your philosophy it won't last long in it's present form. The genie is out of the bottle now. So, if they want to survive their going to have to face facts and rethink their whole business model.

What exactly is my philosophy then? I wasn't aware that I had expressed any? Is pointing out that the illogic of an argument some sort of philosophy? No matter what way a business model is rethought stealing is stealing.

You haven't answered my question should we stop prosecuting offenders because previous prosecutions in the particular area (murder, drunken driving etc havent worked)? And your point about facing facts? What exactly does that mean? Accept that the means to steal music exist and ignore it?

damien

See here: http://www.digitalrights.ie/2007/06/07/23-filesharers-to-be-identified-but-concerns-remain/

paulm17781

Artists make a paltry amount out of each CD sold, as said above, the smaller ones mainly think file sharing is good. Ever hear of Arctic Monkeys? Fastest selling debut album of all time, all down to file sharing. The people who lose out from file sharing are the record labels, they are realizing artists don't need their funding anymore as they can use the internet for publicity.

FWIW I buy CDs, I may download a couple of tracks and if I like it I'll buy the album, if I don't I delete it, I have a whopping 30mp3s on my PC and own about 300CDs. Now, I agree file sharing is still stealing, but using the "artists suffering" line is rubbish, the record labels are becoming irrelevant, nothing more.

dub45

paulm17781 wrote:

Artists make a paltry amount out of each CD sold, as said above, the smaller ones mainly think file sharing is good. Ever hear of Arctic Monkeys? Fastest selling debut album of all time, all down to file sharing. The people who lose out from file sharing are the record labels, they are realizing artists don't need their funding anymore as they can use the internet for publicity.

FWIW I buy CDs, I may download a couple of tracks and if I like it I'll buy the album, if I don't I delete it, I have a whopping 30mp3s on my PC and own about 300CDs. Now, I agree file sharing is still stealing, but using the "artists suffering" line is rubbish, the record labels are becoming irrelevant, nothing more.

If artists wish to share their music then that is their but let them be the ones who do it. It is not up to the 'general public' to decide what music should be shared.

No one can know for definite what makes an album a best seller - how can anyone 'prove' that the success of a particular album is down to file sharing?

And even if it was so what? Does that in itself just mass file sharing?

We now have a whole generation of people who have no appreciation that music has to be paid for. It is glib to say that the only ones who lose out from file sharing are the record labels as if that was some sort of excuse for the stealing. Without record labels (with all their faults over the years) there would have been no recorded music industry.

How much money have the ITunes wing of Apple invested in finding new artists or promoting them or developing their careers?

Is a record label like www.acerecords.co.uk to be considered irrelevant now?

Artists lose money too. I read an interview recently with the jazz trumpeter Dave Douglas who recounted that a fan had recently asked him to autograph a cdr of one of his albums.:rolleyes:

And what about people who have spent their lives trying to make a go of an independent record shop? Are they not suffering?

From the New York Times 16 July 2006:

The bite that downloading has taken out of CD sales is well known -- the compact disc market fell about 25 percent between 1999 and 2005, according to the Recording Industry Association of America, a trade organization. What that precipitous drop indicated by the figures doesn't reveal is that this trend is turning many record stores into haunts for the gray-ponytail set. This is especially true of big-city stores that stock a wider range of music than the blockbuster acts.

''We don't see the kids anymore,'' said Thom Spennato, who owns Sound Track, a cozy store on busy Seventh Avenue in Park Slope, Brooklyn. ''That 12-to-15-year-old market, that's what's missing the last couple of years.''

Without that generation of buyers, the future looks bleak. ''My landlord asked me if I wanted another 10-year lease, and I said no,'' Mr. Spennato said. ''I have four years left, then I'm out.''

Since late 2003, about 900 independent record stores have closed nationwide, leaving about 2,700, according to the Almighty Institute of Music Retail, a marketing research company in Studio City, Calif. In 2004, Tower Records, one of the nation's largest chains, filed for bankruptcy protection.

Greta Perr, an owner of Future Legends, a new and used CD store on Ninth Avenue in Hell's Kitchen, said that young people never really came back to her store after the Napster file-sharing upheaval of the late 90's; she has responded by filling her windows with artists like Neil Young and Bruce Springsteen. ''People come in and say: 'I remember when I was 20, Steve Miller's second record came out. Can I get that?' '' she said.

paulm17781 wrote:

a........ Now, I agree file sharing is still stealing, but using the "artists suffering" line is rubbish, the record labels are becoming irrelevant, nothing more.

What exactly is your basic argument then if you agree that file sharing is stealing?

event

dub45 wrote:

And what about people who have spent their lives trying to make a go of an independent record shop? Are they not suffering?

well perhaps if they lowered prices people wouldnt be so keen download.

Why is it that a shop can charge over €20 euro for a CD around 36 minutes long, yet online it can be bought legally for around half that?

this is what needs to be looked at, the price of music these days, even older albums. I have been in music shops and seen 4 year old albums for their original price. I dont know of any other industry that does this, does not drop their prices as something gets older.

But back OT, i thought you could only be done if you were uploading, that downloaders would be left alone

paulm17781

dub45 wrote:

What exactly is your basic argument then if you agree that file sharing is stealing?

Do you read posts or just the bits you want so you can argue? I said clearly, in the sentence you quoted, it is stealing but not from the artists so much as the record labels.

My point (as stated in the first and last line of my post) was don't claim artists suffer as a reason not to file share. If anything time has proved that small artists benefit from file sharing, much like they did from copying tapes in the 80s. Granted, I had forgotten about record shops but do you honestly think that record companies care about the artists or their record shops? No, they care about their profits, nothing more.

Dub45 wrote:

No one can know for definite what makes an album a best seller - how can anyone 'prove' that the success of a particular album is down to file sharing?

Please, please stop arguing the whole time, I used the Arctic monkey as an example. They had never released anything save a couple of tunes on their website and myspace. Fastest selling record of all time Do you really think by sheer coincidence, 300,000 people walked in to record shops and decided "hey, I'll buy this for no reason."

As for acerecords, I would be amazed if the 12-15 year olds mentioned in your article are the reason they are suffering (if they indeed are).

Now, feel free to be against file sharing, I do not download albums, I buy CDs, from online retailers, it is cheaper than high street stores. But if you are going to be against it, please don't claim artists are suffering. That is a line that record companies have vomited up to try to make the public feel guilty, the same was said about blank tapes in the 80s.

dub45

event wrote:

well perhaps if they lowered prices people wouldnt be so keen download.

If you consider a price too high you dont buy it. Simple as that. Are high prices say in BT2 a justification for shop lifting?

event wrote:

Why is it that a shop can charge over €20 euro for a CD around 36 minutes long, yet online it can be bought legally for around half that?

Transport, support staff, rent of the record shop, insurance, tax, and nuisance things like staff wages.

event wrote:

this is what needs to be looked at, the price of music these days, even older albums. I have been in music shops and seen 4 year old albums for their original price. I dont know of any other industry that does this, does not drop their prices as something gets older.

Music is cheaper now than it has ever been. There are a zillion older albums at mid price and budget price. Look around you for Gods Sake the shops are full of products in all areas that have been out there for years with no reduction in price. How old is Coca Cola? Corn Flakes? levi Jeans and so many others - what has age go to do with their pricing structure?

dub45

paulm17781 wrote:

Do you read posts or just the bits you want so you can argue? I said clearly, in the sentence you quoted, it is stealing but not from the artists so much as the record labels.........

Now, feel free to be against file sharing, I do not download albums, I buy CDs, from online retailers, it is cheaper than high street stores. But if you are going to be against it, please don't claim artists are suffering. That is a line that record companies have vomited up to try to make the public feel guilty, the same was said about blank tapes in the 80s.

Of course it is stealing from the artists - if an artist records a cd he or she is entitled to royalites from it - it is as simple as that. It doesn't matter if the artist is Bruce Sprigsteen Dave Douglas or someone who invests money to promote themselves by producing a cd for sale at gigs etc. Not alone that but because music is stolen less cds will be made and therefore not alone will musicians lose out but ultimately music lovers will lose out because music will not be recorded and made available to them.

Akula

Getting away from the rights and wrongs I think one of the biggest barriers here is the lack of legitimate alternatives. Yes iTunes sells here... but none of the subscription services do last time I checked....

And there is a pitiful choice when it comes to getting movies/tv shows.

Cabaal

dub45 wrote:

Music is cheaper now than it has ever been. There are a zillion older albums at mid price and budget price. Look around you for Gods Sake the shops are full of products in all areas that have been out there for years with no reduction in price. How old is Coca Cola? Corn Flakes? levi Jeans and so many others - what has age go to do with their pricing structure?

Hang on, mid priced range and budget priced stuff ain't new music, your saying music is cheaper then it ever was but are you comparing new albums now with new albums say 8-9 years ago?

paulm17781

I'm not going to quote, Dub45, read what I said about reading the full post before deciding to argue. Small artists and independent artists are making more money now then before, they get publicity due to file sharing. Record companies are the ones suffering in all of this, not the artists.

What you are saying about "less music will be available" is rubbish. I and many of my friends have bought so much "underground" music lately. We didn't guess it, we found it on the internet be it a website, myspace or other. The CDs I have bought lately are all small artists on small labels. I guarantee you these people are not cursing file sharing, record companies are. As posted above, they need to realize times are changing, perhaps if they reduced the ~70% profit the record companies make on CDs their artists sales would go up. The artists suffering are generally large ones with teenage fans, €20 per cd is too much for most people that age, perhaps if the record companies earned the same as the artists and album went down to about €5 they would see a huge increase in sales.

Now, my point, which was not aimed at you in the first place, is that the music industry for most artists is thriving as a result of file sharing on the internet. The people who are suffering are the big record companies, this is their own fault as they refuse to reduce their profit margins. My original point of artists are not suffering so much as record companies is still valid. Unless you can tell me countless artists who have lost vast sums of money as a result of file sharing, please stop arguing.

Cabaal

paulm17781 wrote:

Unless you can tell me countless artists who have lost vast sums of money as a result of file sharing, please stop arguing.

The artists that do moan don't really help themselfs when they go onto such ****e programs as MTV Cribbs, while pirating is wrong I believe the affects that the industry say it has are over-rated.

Remember people, home taping is killing the music industry!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Taping_is_Killing_Music

Home Taping Is Killing Music” was the slogan of a 1980s anti-copyright infringement campaign by the British Phonographic Industry (BPI), a British music industry trade group. With the rise in cassette recorder popularity, the BPI feared that home taping would cause a decline in record sales. The logo, consisting of a skull and crossbones formed from the silhouette of a cassette, also included the words And It’s Illegal.

Oh wait it didn't kill it did it?.....

event

dub45 wrote:

Transport, support staff, rent of the record shop, insurance, tax, and nuisance things like staff wages.

sorry you're right

online stores dont have transports costs, support staff, rent of the warehouse, insurance, tax and stuff like paying wages. how silly of me

dub45 wrote:

Music is cheaper now than it has ever been. There are a zillion older albums at mid price and budget price. Look around you for Gods Sake the shops are full of products in all areas that have been out there for years with no reduction in price. How old is Coca Cola? Corn Flakes? levi Jeans and so many others - what has age go to do with their pricing structure?

oh for gods sake :rolleyes:

i was comparing it to stuff in the same sort of medium, like DVD's and games. They will be usually a lot more reduced in price in relation to CD's are after a year.

but this has gone really OT, so im leaving it now.