Record companies going after eircom to stop illegal downloading

tech77

What are your views on this?
Do you think they'll be successful?

Mossy Monk

I think they are idiots.

Bren_M.Records

tech77 wrote: »

What are your views on this?
Do you think they'll be successful?

Iv just finished reading an article about this action taken by the four majors in one of todays rags.
Even if there is a successful outcome in favour of the majors in this case I still dont think it will make much difference in terms of illegal downloading and file sharing.
Iv also got problems with possible civil liberties infringements if this action is successful, I feel it could set a dangerous precedent going forward.

Cant agree with Mossy Monk though that its all down to the labels being idiots.
As I said I dont think this is the way for the majors to go but then again if individuals werent robbing labels and by extension the artists by illegaly downloading and file sharing then this kind of ill-advised case wouldnt be before the courts in the first place.

andrewh5

Bren_M.Records wrote: »

if individuals werent robbing labels and by extension the artists by illegaly downloading and file sharing then this kind of ill-advised case wouldnt be before the courts in the first place.

If record companies didn't insist on ripping us off price wise perhaps people wouldn't illegally download in the first place. CD's here and in the UK cost far more than they do in the States and cost peanuts for the record companies to produce en mass.

quickg

I find it amusing to see two large corporate entities both of whom daily screw jo public fighting it out. Its a bit like watching two drug dealers fighting, you want to watch but you feel guilty enjoying it!!:rolleyes::D

BaZmO*

Bren_M.Records wrote: »

Cant agree with Mossy Monk though that its all down to the labels being idiots.

Bullsh1t! They are idiots. It's obvious to anybody with a brain that it's gone too far along the line to try and stop illegal downloads. Sure bands are now offering free downloads of new material, something that'll become the norm soon enough.

Record companies have been ripping off consumers for years now. CDs were supposed to herald a new revolution in the way music is produced culminating in cheap music for everybody. And all the introduction of CDs achieved was a way for record companies to make even bigger profits from people replacing their old vinyl collections. By the looks of it that cash cow has now dried up and the record companies are scarred sh1tless because they have bothered investing in bands like they used and their just grasping at straws now.

GhostInTheRuins

Copy and paste from another thread:

rte wrote:

the Irish music industry was experiencing a "dramatic and accelerating decline" in income.
He said sales in the Irish market dropped 30% in the six years up to 2007.

First of all - lol at "Irish music industry".

In my opinion people that buy cds are still going to buy them anyway. The majority of people that download music wouldn't have bought the stuff they download if they didn't have the option of downloading. I think the vast majority of their loss of income is because people are wising up to the extremely overblown cd prices in this country. Why the hell would I pay €20+ for an album in hmv/golden discs/sound cellar/virgin etc when I can get the exact same thing for €7 or €8 delivered directly to my door?

Bren_M.Records

BaZmO* wrote: »

Bullsh1t! They are idiots. It's obvious to anybody with a brain that it's gone too far along the line to try and stop illegal downloads. Sure bands are now offering free downloads of new material, something that'll become the norm soon enough.

Record companies have been ripping off consumers for years now. CDs were supposed to herald a new revolution in the way music is produced culminating in cheap music for everybody. And all the introduction of CDs achieved was a way for record companies to make even bigger profits from people replacing their old vinyl collections. By the looks of it that cash cow has now dried up and the record companies are scarred sh1tless because they have bothered investing in bands like they used and their just grasping at straws now.

For starters.........a very selective use of my post on this issue to get your point across.

Now of course there are economies of scale and the more cd's you produce the cheaper they are per unit but thats a totally different question to how much it costs to make an album/cd here in Ireland.

This idea that some people seem to have that it costs **** all to get a cd on to the store shelves is quit frankly a complete load of bollox.

It CAN of course cost **** all depending on how you want to go about it but if your going the full-hog eg. studio/producer, PR etc etc. it is an expensive business not only in financial terms but also in terms of the amount of work and endeavor required to bring the whole thing together as professionally as possible.

BaZmO*

The bulk of the costs are in promotion of a CD, i.e. advertising etc. And even then it's not guaranteed in achieving sales. That's the reason why record companies prefer re-issue CDs rather than trying to promote new music.

Bren_M.Records

BaZmO* wrote: »

The bulk of the costs are in promotion of a CD, i.e. advertising etc. And even then it's not guaranteed in achieving sales. That's the reason why record companies prefer re-issue CDs rather than trying to promote new music.

Who are these "record companies" your talking about Baz?
You seem to be under the impression that there is one unified block out there and that they all working to the same economies of scale with the same objectives musically and financially.

You are however right that the PR process in many cases can be more expensive than the actual music making process, so why penalize labels because PR companies are charging them such high rates?

You are also right that theres no guarantee of sales at the end of it, for alot of lables its a punt, so again your penalizing people who are prepared to take a punt on something they believe in.

BaZmO*

Bren_M.Records wrote: »

Who are these "record companies" your talking about Baz?

The "record companies" that are mentioned in the thread title

YourPlasticPal

Hi folks. Just opened this one and I think it's well funny.

It is a bit like watching 2 drug dealers fighting but I don't feel guilty for watching. I believe that cd's are outragiously priced. However I still collect the ones I like the most. Nothing like having the original. I admit to a little bit of downloading but for 2 reasons. It's almost as quick and easy to download an album in MP3 format as it is to transfer it yourself. I would download certain songs that I liked and couldn't buy or wouldn't buy cos the rest of the album is crap.

As for the majors suing Eircom, good luck with that. Sure if they do, people will just go somewhere else. Look what happened when they slapped Napster on the wrist. Then there was Morpihius, then WINMX and god knows how many others. It just means another kick in the arse for Eircom.

They'll never stop the illegal sharing of music though. I wouldn't like to be Eircom's CEO right now though.

:pac:P:pac:E:pac:N:pac:S:pac:I:pac:O:pac:N

Bren_M.Records

YourPlasticPal wrote: »

Hi folks. Just opened this one and I think it's well funny.

It is a bit like watching 2 drug dealers fighting but I don't feel guilty for watching. I believe that cd's are outragiously priced. However I still collect the ones I like the most. Nothing like having the original. I admit to a little bit of downloading but for 2 reasons. It's almost as quick and easy to download an album in MP3 format as it is to transfer it yourself. I would download certain songs that I liked and couldn't buy or wouldn't buy cos the rest of the album is crap.

As for the majors suing Eircom, good luck with that. Sure if they do, people will just go somewhere else. Look what happened when they slapped Napster on the wrist. Then there was Morpihius, then WINMX and god knows how many others. It just means another kick in the arse for Eircom.

They'll never stop the illegal sharing of music though. I wouldn't like to be Eircom's CEO right now though.

:pac:P:pac:E:pac:N:pac:S:pac:I:pac:O:pac:N

Next time someone lifts your wallet because he cant be arsed working or they are only hiring in MacDonalds and he's above that kind of graft be sure to post here so we can all have a good chuckle.
Cheers.

Bren_M.Records

BaZmO* wrote: »

The "record companies" that are mentioned in the thread title

Again a very selective lift from my post without address the questions I asked but I guess we each know where the other is coming from on this issue by now so no worries.

catch--22

Where I can understand completely why record companies etc are aggrieved about the downturn in the market I can't help but feeling they are going about this all the wrong way. Attacking the ISP's is the equivalent of suing An Post for delivering illegal items through its postal system.

I can't help but feel that the music industry simply missed the boat when online first began to rear it’s head. They now know this and are desperately hitting back in a failed attempt to claw back the market. Attempts like this is just trying to turn the tide in the music industry. It's not going to help, it's not going to solve the problem, its only get them a few quick bucks now and not further down the line.

Recent examples by NIN and Radiohead of trying to come up with new ideas on how to distribute their music are promising (but only viable for large, established artists). But it's the record companies who need to start thinking 'outside the box' in these terms and looking to what they can earn in the future by moving the online industry forward and not backwards.

Personally I'll always buy CD's and vinyl. I love owning and storing my music this way. But the market is not of the same opinion and the industry needs to start coming up with better ideas than this one to keep themselves in the game.

calex71

I can see the record companys point but attacting an internet provider is a bit senseless as much as i loth eircom.

What they dont seem to get is that it often the case where it is actually easier to find the music you want illegally than to get it legally, even if you where willing to pay for it!

DerekD Goldfish

Next time someone lifts your wallet because he cant be arsed working or they are only hiring in MacDonalds and he's above that kind of graft be sure to post here so we can all have a good chuckle.
Cheers.

Its not the same thing
you "downloading" music does not deprive someone else of the original
In many cases music downloading can increase sales.
There are 2 main types of music downloader (I realise im genralising greatly but for the sake of argument its not that far a jump in reality)
Type 1: Person who now and again downlaods a few songs they have heard on the radio and like and put on their I-pod shuffle.
These people now rarely buy albums and their income is lost to the music industry.
These perople in the past would mainly be people who bought singles even in thier heyday singles made far less profit than albums and altough they have droped of massively and caused a signifant drop in turnover of Majors I dont beleive its going to have a long term effect on thier profitability.
Companies used singles to promote the album which is where the profit is made.

Type 2: These people download maybe a dozen albums a month. These albums while sometimes a major release are often old out of print stuff or new stuff they haven't heard before.
If I download an out of print album the record company gets nothing from it
If I buy the album second hand they get nothing out of it.
There have been many times where I have downloaded an album I couldn't have bought new I gone on to buy other related releases or seen the artist in concert giving money to the record company/artist they otherwise would not have had.
Record companies should put thier whole back catelouge advailable online for download for cut price say €2 an album this (less royalties) would be nearly all profit as they would have no additional recording/distributing costs
As for new albums many people download albums of up and comming bands they wouldnt take a chance on buying because tehy haven't heard them they then go on and buy some subseqewnt releases and gigs more money they wouldnt have got without "iligal downloading"
I spent about 4-5K a year on music and I should be punished because of the lack of advailibility of old records or lack of place to hear new music I reckon I wouldnt spent half that money without downloading.
In the old days people copied albums on tape copies were passed around to mates and introduced each other to new bands making millions more for th industry in internet/downloads is just a larger group of global friends

Record Company profits are not down because of downloading
Its because
-All the Big name re-issue have been milked dry
-More competition from DVD/Computer games
apologies for the long uninstructed rant and the poor spelling

Nailz

I have only one thing to say on this matter... They're both a stupid shower of bàstards!

Makaveli

What record companies are going after Eircom?

Bren, I take it you're looking at this from an independant point of view, and as such you're points are valid. Illegal downloading can cause serious problems for indies but I'd hazard a guess that it's majors that are taking this up with Eircom because they have the money to be able to do things like this. I have little sympathy for major record lables, they have done their best to exploit the consumer of the years and it's coming back to haunt them now.

Digital distribution is the way forward. Yes a lot of people will still want something physical to hold onto so CDs and Vinyl wont be going away anytime soon but to many others all they want is the music and don't need another case cluttering up their room or they don't care about the artwork that comes with a release. Had the lables been smart enough to embrace the emergence of digital distribution back in the time Napster became huge they probably wouldn't be in this situation. Instead they ignored it or feared it and now they're suffering from it.

If you take the porn industry as an example, it took full advantage of the internet and digital distribution. I'd say a hell of a lot more porn is bought and downloaded from sites than dvds sold.

Bubs101

But as embarresed as you feel buying S-Club Juniors' latest hit single it's still not as bad as porn

Yap Stam

Alan sugar (who was on a programme called 'the apprentice' for a while) was the owner of the 'amstrad' company for years; i think he's sold it since. His company were brought to court in the u.k.-1987, i think (it went as far as the house of lords- which suggests that this case could go all the way to the top) by record companies (CBS Songs, emi, etc.) because he was selling stereos which had two tape-decks in them (which meant you could record stuff on to blank tapes).

Here is an extract of the ruling:

Under s.21(3) Copyright Act 1956, an authorisation is a grant of the right to do an act. The defendant conferred the power to copy but did not grant the right to copy, therefore did not authorise the infringement. Joint infringers were two or more persons who acted in concert with one another pursuant to common design in the infringement. In this case there was no common design.

==>The crucial part in these cases relates to the notion of 'common design'. That is, if more than 2 people conspire to copy large amounts of material to the point where wealth can be obtained by the conspiritors by using materials (i.e. recorded music) which are not 'theirs' (or they at least do not have property rights to the materials) and when they knowingly do so without contributing adequate royalties to the creators of the materials.

The record companies involved in this case will only achieve success if they highlight the fact that downloading sites can sometimes be large operations which require such an amount of maintenance and overseeing that it could be deemed akin to a full-time occupation.

Whining about musicians not making enough money will get sour looks from most of the judges in this country.

smackyB

"That is, if more than 2 people conspire to copy large amounts of material to the point where wealth can be obtained by the conspiritors by using materials (i.e. recorded music) which are not 'theirs' (or they at least do not have property rights to the materials) and when they knowingly do so"

That's not the same thing as downloading from P2P sites. The above description is more akin to someone selling bootleg cds as they're infringing someone else's copyright to create their own wealth. The people who operate torrent sites don't make money from any of the material downloaded (though they may make a small bit from text ads, but thats an indirect income).

The main concern I have with ISP's trying to filter out copyrighted material is that the filtering hardware and software used is not to a high enough standard as to be deemed adequate and so a lot of perfectly legal material is going to be caught by this system.

I have very limited sympathy with record companies as they were the ones who came up with the evil that is DRM. They need to ditch this ASAP (thankfully it looks like they're now waking up to this) and also get iTunes DRM-free(at no extra cost) because I think a lot of people are being put off legal downloads because there's such a lot of confusion out there as to whether this track from this site will work with my mp3 player etc..

Cardinal

Make DRM free, losslessly compressed music available for download for a reasonable price and they'll see their revenues pick up more than any amount of trying to stop piracy.

The thing about trying to stop piracy is that you can't. Even this effort would be woefully inadequate at stopping piracy. BitTorrent + encrypted packets would easily get around it. They need to offer something the pirates can't. They need to provide a superior service.

stovelid

Cardinal wrote: »

Make DRM free, losslessly compressed music available for download for a reasonable price and they'll see their revenues pick up more than any amount of trying to stop piracy.

You're right. The problem with the music industry is that they are trying to apply pre-tech models to music consumption, and are becoming obsolete as a result.

Hence the sh*t quality DRM'd MP3s that basically cost as much a CD track in real terms.

They had the chance to embrace technology and the sea change in music consumption and said no.

Individual persecution of P2P users is a busted flush, so this is their last roll of the dice.