Downloading case in the High Court

BaconZombie

The best quote was from the Head of BlacKnight the last time this came up.

.......Irish ISP's will not introduce filtering without a gun been held agains their heads......

Also the main reason their do not want to start filtering is that same reason the company I work for don't either.

Simple : If you start filtering and blocking "illegal" stuff on the ISP/Company side them EVERYTHING you do not block/filter the user presumes is LEGAL, and you {The ISP/Company} is LEGALLY responsible if the user does something illegal because you did not block/filter it.

jor el

This has just been discussed on Today FM, some guy from Digital Rights Ireland and a representative of the Irish music industry. Nothing too shocking or out of the ordinary mentioned. Interesting point raised by the DRI guy that Sony were themselves sued for producing Betamax video recorders 30 years ago, as it was claimed that recording from the TV would kill the movie industry. Now Sony are involved in this action which is trying to stop pretty much what they themselves have done in the past. Also, a texter pointed out that Sony manufacture blank CDs/DVDs and copying hardware, so if they're trying to clamp down on this why don't Sony BMG sue Sony's hardware division?

Anyone who remembers the 80's will also remember the claims that tape to tape copying had the music industry on it's knees. Sound familiar?

bealtine

jmccrohan wrote: »

From rte.ie

http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9889825-7.html?tag=bl

FCC hints at taking action against Comcast
Posted by Marguerite Reardon | 8 comments

The Federal Communications Commission is edging toward taking action against cable operator Comcast for monkeying with its customers' peer-to-peer traffic, according to several news reports.

On Friday FCC Chairman Kevin Martin indicated during a speech at Stanford University's Law School that the commission may take action against the cable operator, which has been accused of blocking or slowing down the peer-to-peer file sharing service BitTorrent on its broadband network.

Martin didn't say for certain that the FCC would take action against Comcast. But he did say that he was troubled by Comcast's initial denial of slowing or blocking traffic, according to news reports from people who attended the speech. What worried him most was the fact that Comcast wasn't forthcoming to its customers about what it was doing.

"A hallmark of what should be seen as a reasonable business practice is certainly whether or not the people engaging in that practice are willing to describe it publicly," The Wall Street Journal quoted Martin as saying.

Comcast has argued that it doesn't block P2P traffic. Instead, it says it simply slows down packets so that it can better manage its network. The company has complained that file sharing software, such that used by BitTorrent, permits a few customers to use an inordinate amount of bandwidth, which degrades the network performance for the vast majority of its customers.

Martin has said he understands the need for companies to manage their networks. And he has said that reasonable network management practices are acceptable.

But video-sharing companies, academics, and public-interest groups say that Comcast's actions go beyond simple network management and actually violate several principles outlined by the FCC to ensure that traffic flows freely over the Internet. These groups have launched formal complaints against Comcast, and the FCC has been looking into these complaints.

The FCC held an open hearing last month to discuss whether or not Comcast went too far in its "traffic shaping" measures and what could be done to make the experience more transparent to consumers.

But now it looks like Chairman Martin, and by extension the commission, sees Comcast as going beyond simply managing its network. But even if the FCC decides that Comcast has violated Net neutrality principles, it's unclear what the agency can actually do to Comcast. The principles are not agency regulation. And there are no Net neutrality laws on the books, so it's hard to say what kind of enforcement the FCC can impose.

Still, if the FCC finds that Comcast has violated its Net neutrality principles, it will be a big deal. In the past, carriers have argued that regulation and new laws were not needed because network operators had not abused their power as network gatekeepers. But if the FCC acknowledges that one major broadband provider has crossed this line, then it could add more weight to the arguments of those supporting Net neutrality legislation.
Topics:
Broadband

BaconZombie

jor el;

The two dept of Sony have sued each other in the pass, can most Sony Hifi with Optical out will only left you play back any CD a max of 3 time via the Optical before it cuts it off to stop you from making copies.

jor el wrote: »

This has just been discussed on Today FM, some guy from Digital Rights Ireland and a representative of the Irish music industry. Nothing too shocking or out of the ordinary mentioned. Interesting point raised by the DRI guy that Sony were themselves sued for producing Betamax video recorders 30 years ago, as it was claimed that recording from the TV would kill the movie industry. Now Sony are involved in this action which is trying to stop pretty much what they themselves have done in the past. Also, a texter pointed out that Sony manufacture blank CDs/DVDs and copying hardware, so if they're trying to clamp down on this why don't Sony BMG sue Sony's hardware division?

Anyone who remembers the 80's will also remember the claims that tape to tape copying had the music industry on it's knees. Sound familiar?

turly

Here's how Hunter S. Thompson allegedly described the music industry:

The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs.

There's also a negative side.

;-)

bigpaddy2004

JC 2K3 wrote: »

lol

JC 2K3 Im not a software guy, I dont build these machines. I only know how to operate them. The same goes for I know how to drive a car, but I cant build one.

Your making no meaningful contribution to this thread only repeating quotes and making jestures.

mjsmyth

Ok.....

How is this software meant to work again? I can understand that if it sees an aac file, or a wma file or any other file that would generally have drm being exhcanged over a p2p network, it could scan it and see if it did indeed contain drm and if so, it could theoretically block the download.

But... and this is a big but (J Lo size even...) most file sharing of music seems to be MP3 files... MP3 files, by default don't have DRM. How will it scan that and block it? Will it just blanket block MP3 files? How will it differentiate between between legally available and free for download albums from Nine Inch Nails or the Charlatans???

I can't rememeber the last time I downloaded a music track... I generally buy all my CD's through CDWow or Play or other legal sites. I do have an iPod, but... well if I use iTunes, well then I am tied to using apple iPods from then on. I would rather have my music in a format that means I am not tide to any one player and as such, a drm free MP3 suits me fine.

MJ

ChRoMe

Can everyone please just check the box that says allow encrypted connections in their torrent client of choice so we dont have to waste any more time talking about how to protect the interests of big media companies.

Cheers

democrates

If it can be sensed it can be ripped.
If you have it you can share it.
Effective prevention requires all action be policed, and so would be totalitarian.
The war on freedom is already backfiring on the aggressors, but things may have to get worse before people pressure makes them get better.

pred racer

Guys, until the music industry can prove that if I didnt download it I would have bought it instead, as far as I am concerned Its not stolen. and all the rest is just smoke and mirrors.

On another note. If (as probably will happen) eircom are forced to do this, will the music ind. then be able to force all isps to do the same or would they have to take each company to court individually? or could Eircom then counter sue as they are the only people which have to implement this and find they only have 23 customers left?

Id just stick a couple of quid on the price of any MP3 player give that to them and tell them to STFU:D

Cabaal

pred racer wrote: »

Id just stick a couple of quid on the price of any MP3 player give that to them and tell them to STFU:D

This already happened in Canada, where they added a levy onto blank CD's, do you not think its unfair that if I buy 1000 CDr's to use to backup my system that the music industry should get some money from it cause I certainly view it as unfair

radiospan

Mr.S wrote: »

they way i understand it, most (if not all) cases that are brought to the courts, where people that had shared the copyright material, or uploaded it?

People who just download and NOT share, dont get caught?

or did i get that totally wrong..?

No individuals are being brought to court here.

I don't think eircom have any way of filtering out legal mp3s from illegal mp3s. If they are forced to do anything, it would be something like Comcast (heavily throttle Bittorrent traffic), or something like in Denmark (block access to, say, thepiratebay.org website and tracker).

watty

pred racer wrote: »

Id just stick a couple of quid on the price of any MP3 player give that to them and tell them to STFU:D

Why should honest people subsidise those that won't buy their own music, or indeed imagined inflated losses of the Music Industry? A large part of the drop of CD sales is not piracy but that people buy DVDs and computer games or whatever. People don't have unlimited money. I buy about 10 DVDs per music CD or more. Apart from one or two freebies or the odd cassette tape of radio in the late 70s, all my music is bought CDs. The majority of the population does not actually "pirate" music by downloads. For a start only a minority of households even have Internet.

JC 2K3

bigpaddy2004 wrote: »

JC 2K3 Im not a software guy, I dont build these machines. I only know how to operate them. The same goes for I know how to drive a car, but I cant build one.

Your making no meaningful contribution to this thread only repeating quotes and making jestures.

I'm sorry, but you posted this:

bigpaddy2004 wrote: »

Rubbish. Its quiet easy for an isp to block regular and encrypted file sharing programs.

Now it appears I do know a little more about the software/how this technology might work than you. Blocking the transfer of copyrighted songs is certainly not an easy task. If you're going to call my concerns "rubbish" then you'd better have superior technical knowledge than myself to do so.

JC 2K3

ChRoMe wrote: »

Can everyone please just check the box that says allow encrypted connections in their torrent client of choice so we dont have to waste any more time talking about how to protect the interests of big media companies.

Cheers

All someone has to do to get your IP address if you're downloading a torrent of something illegal is to begin downloading that torrent themselves and to jot down the IP addresses of everyone connected to them. Encrypting data packets doesn't offer that much protection.

ChRoMe

JC 2K3 wrote: »

All someone has to do to get your IP address if you're downloading a torrent of something illegal is to begin downloading that torrent themselves and to jot down the IP addresses of everyone connected to them. Encrypting data packets doesn't offer that much protection.

Of course if they wanted to they could still figure out a way to check if your in the swarm for a certain torrent (but who cares?).

I was talking about helping people bypass any throttling and/or packet inspection being done by their isp.

Anyway a IP address isint enough to base legal proceedings on (usual disclaimer IANAL)

democrates

pred racer wrote: »

Id just stick a couple of quid on the price of any MP3 player give that to them and tell them to STFU:D

Within a decade the power and flexibility of a general purpose desktop computer will be available in a small mobile form factor with wireless connectivity. Just as people swap photos via bluetooth among mobile phones today, so will they share music and video. To lock down these devices for the benefit of a few, would have a far greater cost in terms of individual freedom and technological advancement for the many.

The danger is that legislators here looking to develop a knowledge economy will buy the old line from vested interests such as big pharma that the more restrictions to protect 'IP rights', the better. The tide is turning from that model toward open standards, open source code, open specs, and open research. As this trend occurs the concentration of power is diminished to the benefit of small innovators and the diversity of market activity.

Will our legislators see that IP restrictions are the protectionist trade barriers of the knowledge economy?

vibe666

there is no way for any ISP to effectively police what people download, no matter what the industry wants to happen. best case scenario for the record industry would be for them to force all ISP's to try and start throttling traffic they believe to be BT related. everyone sees they are getting crappy torrent speeds so they start googling and find out about the 'encrypted transport' tickbox in their torrent client and how to pick random ports other than the default BT ones for their connections.

the slightly paranoid heavier BT users then start to see an increase in performance as more people join them in their encrypted ways. the record industry jumps up and down and throws it's toys out of the pram and sues some more people.

then someone with a vested interest in the industry finds a way to scan for copywrited material in encrypted streams and all the ISP's have to do a software update so they can identify the data again (maybe this has already happened, maybe it never will, I don't pretend to know).

then one of 2 things will happen.

either BT will die out and something else with better encryption will come out and take it's place...

OR people will do some more googling to try and find ways of making their torrenting more anonymous and find at least a couple of relatively easy ways to set up their torrent clients to run via a network of anonymous proxies through multiple random ssh tunnels to the point where even the people sharing the data don't know where the data is coming from or going to.

either way the record industry loses and that makes me happy.

what would really make me happy would be fore all the artists to follow the lead of bands like radiohead etc. who use the internet to promote and distribute their works and let their fans pay them directly for it.

that way, everybody wins. well, everybody who matters anyway.

not sure what the movie industry will do about their end of things, but I can't see them winning their battle any more than the record industry will.

this argument (in it's current digital form) has been going on for the best part of 10 years now since the very first incarnation of napster and kazaa etc. and the industry still doesn't get it. consumers drive the market and if the industry doesn't give them what they want, how they want it, they will get it another way. with the internet what it is today, the industry can't control how people get their content, all they can do is adapt to offer it in a format that consumers will accept. if they don't they will continue to lose out.

itunes has proved how effective legal downloads can be, but still the industry fights it. they could have been at the forefront of music downloads and put something like itunes together when this all started and it would have all been water under the bridge by now and the vast majority of people would be 'virtually' buying their music online, in a way that works for them in in the information age.

watty

ISP filtering is a fundamentally flawed idea. The Internet should be mostly stupid.

http://www.rageboy.com/stupidnet.html

everdead.ie

hey sorry if someone has already posted this but according to EU law
Eircom or any other isp can't be held responsible for the traffic their customers put on their lines. Another thing is that they cant take criminal cases against the downloaders only civil ones which are much harder to take against them (The downloaders).

Type 17

jor el wrote: »

...it's really just another attempt by the aging giants to protect their cozy little cartel now that they've realised their days are numbered. Artists don't need the record companies any more. All you need now is the talent (seriously lacking in a lot of what's in the charts) an Internet connection and MySpace. That gets you known, it gets you played, you don't need the record companies to run PR or get you on the radio any more.

This is the key here - the music industry is changing in a structural way, due to external factors (technology and the internet in particular), in the same way as the travel-agent has - more and more people are booking their own flights and hotels online instead of going to a shop in the main street and booking a package. The travel agent industry are changing by shrinking their bricks and mortar operations and by going online themselves (and by going to the wall in some cases). For the travel agency industry, there isn't much they can do, as it's not illegal to book your own holiday online.

The difference with the record labels is that they see a potential chance to stop this by going after the one of the (relatively small) causes of the structural changes in their industry, the illegal downloader and his/her ISP. The fact that this is a small part of their problems is overlooked, because it is easy to pursue, as it is illegal. The larger problems of the lack of good music, the over-marketing of fluff to pre-teens and the general bad PR from doing that, not to mention the appalling PR from suing everyone they can think of are being ignored.

I only pray for the day when the record labels run out of money from their continuing poor decisions and depart the scene, leaving music lovers everywhere to finally have direct access to the musicians that they like, and those musicians can finally enjoy all of the financial rewards that their music deserves.

brophs

Been reading this thread with interest, and have a quick question. I accessed <a site> earlier today, and logged in. Had a look around, but I didn't download anything. In fact I have never downloaded anything here at home (we have Eircom Broadband by the way). However when I went to access the site a short while ago, I keep getting the Firefox can't find the server at <a site>. error message. All other websites are fine. I assumed it was a problem at their end, but I asked a couple of people if it is working for them, and it is.

Are Eircom blocking my access to this site? If so, why? It is a pay site. Has anyone had a similar experience?

democrates

Type 17 wrote: »

I only pray for the day when the record labels run out of money from their continuing poor decisions and depart the scene, leaving music lovers everywhere to finally have direct access to the musicians that they like, and those musicians can finally enjoy all of the financial rewards that their music deserves.

That's another angle right there, p2p makes it feasible to be a widely popular indie musician as the sharers shoulder most of the distribution costs. By attacking p2p the corporates can frustrate the indie artist movement.

AlmightyCushion

Just because you pay for the music doesn't make it legal. If they pocket all the cash and don't pay any royalties to the artist then it's still copyright infringement. I've never understood why people use these illegal pay for sites. It's worse than downloading it for free.

brophs

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

Just because you pay for the music doesn't make it legal. If they pocket all the cash and don't pay any royalties to the artist then it's still copyright infringement. I've never understood why people use these illegal pay for sites. It's worse than downloading it for free.

I was under the impression <a site> was legal? Is that not the case?

AlmightyCushion

brophs wrote: »

I was under the impression <a site> was legal? Is that not the case?

I'm pretty sure it isn't.

PogMoThoin

brophs wrote: »

I was under the impression <a site> was legal? Is that not the case?

:rolleyes: If its one of those russian music sites, well then its completely legal if your a russian citizen living in russia. By russian law an artist has to register as a company and pay corporate tax in russia to be able to recieve their royalties. It was fought and lost in russian courts by the music industry.


Can't understand how people would pay for music thats not legal, if your the paying kind of person, goto itunes etc. At least its legal

brophs

Fair enough. I had been led to believe that it was ok as the royalties were being paid. Obviously not. I won't be using it again.

However I am more interested in the fact that eircom may or may not be blocking it, in spite of the fact that we have never once (and I genuinely mean that) downloaded music (legally or otherwise) here at home. Does anyone know is this a common occurrence(the blocking of sites in general not the site in question. Also why would my access be blocked, but not for say, one of you lot?

Marlow

BOFH_139 wrote: »

Simple : If you start filtering and blocking "illegal" stuff on the ISP/Company side them EVERYTHING you do not block/filter the user presumes is LEGAL, and you {The ISP/Company} is LEGALLY responsible if the user does something illegal because you did not block/filter it.

This is exactly, why providers like 3 (Hutchinson 3G) and others, that don't supply a unique public IP to the client have a problem or simply have to filter all kind of P2P.

There's no easy way of tracking, which end-user did do the downloads and the responsibility is placed with the owner/subscriber associated with the assigned public ip.

/Martin

watty

A non-unique public IP is only about penny-pinching. Simply not buying enough public IPs. Not about security, tracking or liabilities.

With a per user Public IP, the ISP records show which customer had it and when. With a shared public IP, the ISP firewall/NAT/Proxy router log can still show which customer downloaded what, just as easily.