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

The internet in ireland and china, not so different now ?

Options
24

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    thebman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,012 ✭✭✭✭thebman


    I would suggest that anyone who thinks people in here are talking crap and current copyright law is fine to read the below book which is free of charge.

    http://free-culture.cc/

    Wiki page on book here for initial info:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Culture_(book)

    also
    http://freeculture.org/manifesto/


  • Options
    #33
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    sovtek wrote: »
    This isn't law enforcement. This is enforcement by a private tyranny.
    How so? A court order would be required to “block” access to certain websites, if I understand correctly. And we are talking about websites who serially offend, again, if I understand correctly.

    Websites (or the owners thereof) are responsible for ensuring that the content they host is legal. In the same way, publishers are responsible for ensuring that, for example, the articles that they publish in magazines have not been plagiarised.
    OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »
    Are Vodafone held responsible for hoax calls made on their network?
    Vodafone are required to maintain an up-to-date database of customer information, which may be disclosed to the Gardaí (again, by court order) if required. If Vodafone’s network was facilitating illegal activity, don’t you think they’d take steps to combat this?


  • Options
    #34
    OhNoYouDidn't
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭OhNoYouDidn't


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Vodafone are required to maintain an up-to-date database of customer information, which may be disclosed to the Gardaí (again, by court order) if required. If Vodafone’s network was facilitating illegal activity, don’t you think they’d take steps to combat this?

    If I use my mobile to threaten someone, the Gardai come after me, possibly using phone logs as evidence. But the difference is they don't end up in the dock. Vodafone are not legally culpabale for illegal use of a legal service. I ask again, why are eircom being found 'guilty' for certain usage (which may or may not be legal) of the internet by its customers?

    What IMRA are doing is insisting that torrent sites, WHICH HAVE LEGITIMATE AND LEGAL USES TOO are blocked by IP providers.

    If I chose to fileshare, I'll take my chances with the music industry. Successfully going after the providers of a service is a dangerous precedent.


  • Options
    #35
    RedPlanet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,691 ✭✭✭RedPlanet


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Websites (or the owners thereof) are responsible for ensuring that the content they host is legal.
    But Pirate Bay do not host anything of the sort.
    Neither does Eircom.
    The copywrited material is on user's pc's.


  • Options
    #36
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    RedPlanet wrote: »
    But Pirate Bay do not host anything of the sort.
    No, but they do make it is easy as possible for users to find the copyrighted material. Aren't the guys who run that site in court at the moment?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Dannyboy83
    Registered Users Posts: 4,236 ✭✭✭Dannyboy83


    djpbarry wrote: »
    No, but they do make it is easy as possible for users to find the copyrighted material. Aren't the guys who run that site in court at the moment?

    Yes, they've been in court, the site was already shut down and opened up by somebody else iirc?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pirate_Bay

    Pirate Bay don't actually do anything illegal, they just act as a library catalogue.
    Many record companies employ people to upload static and fake songs.

    Anyway, you're missing the point.
    Could you imagine if the Chairman of Guinness was up for murder because you got too drunk down the pub and went drink driving?

    What the Pirate Bay do is unethical, but not illegal!
    Maybe they took lessons from Anglo Irish bank :D


  • Options
    #38
    billy the squid
    Registered Users Posts: 12,811 ✭✭✭✭billy the squid


    SeanW wrote: »
    Mother of God :eek:

    Between the bank bailouts, the handgun ban, the ever increasing mountain of government red tape and now this ... the more of this I see the more I think we're on the road to Fascism.

    what do you need a handgun for?


  • Options
    #39
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Dannyboy83 wrote: »
    Could you imagine if the Chairman of Guinness was up for murder because you got too drunk down the pub and went drink driving?
    Pretty unlikely alright and not really analogous to copyright infringement anyway. However, seeing as you started this analogy a-rollin'...

    Suppose Guinness began printing slogans on their products that encouraged drink-driving?


  • Options
    #40
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    wes wrote: »
    Terrible news, this. I think it sad that our freedoms can so easily be taken from us in this manner.

    Freedom to steal ?

    The very phrase "file sharing" is inaccurate; if you "share" a book or CD, then no-one else can use it while you are using it.

    The correct phrase would be "file copying", and therefore it's illegal.

    What eircom are being told to do is the same as putting a lock on a bank vault, and has nothing to do with censorship.

    If your livelihood depended on selling music or photos, and someone was downloading them for free, wouldn't you expect someone to stand up for you ?

    Yes, there are arguments about the costs, and yes there are lots of things that should be exempt, like "out-of-print" back-catalogues CDs that - in my view - couldn't be considered to impact on sales because no-one is selling them, but copying files is illegal.....


  • Options
    #41
    RedPlanet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,691 ✭✭✭RedPlanet


    djpbarry wrote: »
    No, but they do make it is easy as possible for users to find the copyrighted material. Aren't the guys who run that site in court at the moment?
    If that's good enough, then are they going to ban google too?
    They too make it really easy to find copyrighted material.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »
    How come the provider of the service is expected to rat on its users?

    Are Vodafone held responsible for hoax calls made on their network?

    No, but if you were getting such calls you'd surely expect them to be able to stop it ?[/QUOTE]

    OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »
    Ford for speeders?

    Interesting question, that. If the max speed limit is 120kph and they sell a car that can do more than that, then maybe they should be ?


  • Options
    #43
    RedPlanet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,691 ✭✭✭RedPlanet


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    Interesting question, that. If the max speed limit is 120kph and they sell a car that can do more than that, then maybe they should be ?
    No, can you imagine holding gun manufacturers responsible for deaths caused by owners of their guns?
    It would never fly.
    Extend that logic and you'll create a pretty scary world.


  • Options
    #44
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    RedPlanet wrote: »
    If that's good enough, then are they going to ban google too?
    They too make it really easy to find copyrighted material.
    Do they? Does Google maintain a directory of torrent files with the stated intention of disseminating pirated material?


  • Options
    #45
    Dannyboy83
    Registered Users Posts: 4,236 ✭✭✭Dannyboy83


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Do they? Does Google maintain a directory of torrent files with the stated intention of disseminating pirated material?

    Given that Google provide the means to find these sites and acts as the greatest library catalogue in the Universe............

    How about food high causing free radicals - should we sue mother nature?
    How about a child suing his parent due to a genetic defect?
    You're opening an awfully big can of worms.

    And thats not even getting started on YouTube.:D


  • Options
    #46
    SeanW
    Registered Users Posts: 8,841 ✭✭✭SeanW


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    No, but if you were getting such calls you'd surely expect them to be able to stop it ?
    Let's take this logic to the extreme. Lets say Person X gets tanked up drunk, drives home and kills a pedestrian on the way. Who is responsible? According to IRMAs logic, the bar owner, the car manufactuer, the petrol station that sold Person X his last fill-up, the driving tester who gave him a Certificate of Competency ... all in addition to the actual driver.

    IRMA simply wants (and may get) to simply have it every way the like. They can play the victim while being the opressor. They intend to block "hundreds" of websites, suggesting that rather than just overtly single purpose websites like the Pirate Bay, a large section of the 'Net will simply go black if IRMA has its way.
    Interesting question, that. If the max speed limit is 120kph and they sell a car that can do more than that, then maybe they should be ?
    Great, so if I take my car to a (legal) race or rally where higher speeds are expected, I can just go jump in the lake? Similarly if I have an emergency, medical, fire or something, and need to get someplace quickly, again tough luck?
    billy the squid wrote:
    what do you need a handgun for?
    I don't need a handgun for any reason. But some people use them in sport, and in many juristictions people are allowed to keep pistol for the defense of themselves and their property. In addition some places like Switzerland require all young adult males to maintain some kind of firearm for military/defense purposes. Which is part of why there were not overran by the Nazis in WWII.
    Yet in the U.K. (where it has been a massive failure, as gov't prohibitions tend to be) and soon Ireland, the only people who will have handguns will be the criminals ...


  • Options
    #47
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Dannyboy83 wrote: »
    Given that Google provide the means to find these sites and acts as the greatest library catalogue in the Universe...
    Are you implying that Google do not block certain sites?
    Dannyboy83 wrote: »
    And thats not even getting started on YouTube.:D
    YouTube constantly removes videos deemed to be inappropriate: http://www.youtube.com/t/community_guidelines


  • Options
    #48
    Acacia
    Registered Users Posts: 2,816 ✭✭✭Acacia


    thebman wrote: »
    Why the Chinese had to start censoring somewhere?

    This is the start of Irish censorship of the Internet.

    Not really. Correct me if I'm wrong, but these measures are being taken to prevent copyright law, and therefore, loss of profit for the record labels? How is that similar to China's censorship of the internet, which is more a matter of controlling the population/ free speech?

    Kind of reminds me of those 'PC gone mad!' and " fascist!" cries because people can't walk their dangerous dogs without a leash, for example.

    In other words, saying we're becoming in anyway like China is a bit of an insult to the Chinese people who have their freedoms heavily restricted in ways we can't even fathom.


  • Options
    #49
    wes
    Registered Users Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    Freedom to steal ?

    Copyright infringement and stealing are 2 different things and that is what the music industry is on about.

    Of course, visiting a site like the Pirate Bay is neither stealing or infringing anyones copy right. I should have every right to go to the Pirate Bay and download a Linux torrent. This freedom is being denied to me.
    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    The very phrase "file sharing" is inaccurate; if you "share" a book or CD, then no-one else can use it while you are using it.

    The correct phrase would be "file copying", and therefore it's illegal.

    Its the same as putting a lock on a bank vault, and has nothing to do with censorship.

    Of course its censorship, entire sites that are catalogues are being blocked due to the demands of the music industry.
    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    If your livelihood depended on selling music or photos, and someone was downloading them for free, wouldn't you expect someone to stand up for you ?

    The sites they want blocked do no distribute anything. They don't copy anything.
    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    Yes, there are arguments about the costs, and yes there are lots of things that should be exempt, like "out-of-print" back-catalogues CDs that - in my view - couldn't be considered to impact on sales because no-one is selling them, but copying files is illegal.....

    Once again the site they want blocked don't copy anything at all.


  • Options
    #50
    wes
    Registered Users Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Do they? Does Google maintain a directory of torrent files with the stated intention of disseminating pirated material?

    No, but you can find the MP3s via Google easily enough. In fact you can use Google to find any kind of file type you want, here is an example i found here:
    Example from http://blog.hubspot.com/:
    "internet marketing" filetype:ppt

    Using the above example you can search for a power point file, you could modify it to search for MP3's as well. Of course you don't even need to do the above, you can just type in the name of the music artist and the song name and you can find a download easy enough.

    I see no real difference between this and what torrent sites do. Both are catalogues in the end. Neither directly engages in copy right infringement, but both can be used to do it.


  • Options
    #51
    jimmycrackcorm
    Registered Users Posts: 14,339 ✭✭✭✭jimmycrackcorm


    I think Eircom chickened out because IRMA got hold of an email comment from one of Eircoms executives that appeared to support piracy and would have created a huge risk in court for them.

    As other posters have said, if they ban TFB then surely the same justification applies to ban Google. In fact Eirom should block Google and show a page instead that they are doing so to prevent piracy on behalf of IRMA and then await the outcry.

    Incidentally I used the Pirate Bay to download the Windows 7 Beta. I could have used the MicroSoft download site directly but the torrents are much quicker. Torrents <> illegal!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    wes
    Registered Users Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    Also, it should be noted the music industry, would love to take all our fair use rights away as well. According the RIAA (and some posters here who think the act of copying itself is illegal), its illegal to rip my own CDs to MP3 and put them on my iPod:

    RIAA Says Ripping CDs to Your iPod is NOT Fair Use

    This is the kind of stuff that the RIAA and the Irish equivalent want to force on all of us. I have no issues with them going after people who infringe there copy right, but I think I am well with my fair use rights to rip my own CDs to mp3 or a watch a DVD on my Linux pc (watching a DVD on a Linux pc involves cracking the DVD encryption, which is illegal in the US).


  • Options
    #53
    RedPlanet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,691 ✭✭✭RedPlanet


    Firstly, djpbarry said:
    djpbarry wrote:
    Websites (or the owners thereof) are responsible for ensuring that the content they host is legal.
    I informed you that PirateBay do not host anything of the sort.
    Then you moved the goalpost:
    djpbarry wrote:
    No, but they do make it is easy as possible for users to find the copyrighted material.
    This is certainly not illegal as Google themselves do this.
    Then you tried again:
    djpbarry wrote:
    Does Google maintain a directory of torrent files with the stated intention of disseminating pirated material?
    Firstly, is it illegal to state an intention to diseminate pirated material?
    I don't believe it is, but you're free to prove me wrong.
    Regardless, PirateBay doesn't do this, have look yourself: http://thepiratebay.org/about
    It doesn't advocate disseminating pirated material at all so your point is moot.


  • Options
    #54
    OhNoYouDidn't
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭OhNoYouDidn't


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Do they? Does Google maintain a directory of torrent files with the stated intention of disseminating pirated material?

    But thats simply not the interntion of torrent sites.


  • Options
    #55
    seclachi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 510 ✭✭✭seclachi


    turgon wrote: »
    Well in the end I wouldnt be too worried, we can all use our tin-foil hats as aerials to hook onto some broadband satellite in outer space.

    Given that one of the companies who now can specify what people can and cannot view on the internet was more than happy to install a rootkit on its cds shows just how serious this could be. I`m glad its only limited eircom, but precedence seems to be a powerful thing in the courts. As far as I can tell if irma want something stopped they just have to make a court application which eircom will not contest so it will go straight through. Im betting all they have to do is get a court form, print out every site they dont approve of and attach it.

    All this from an industry that only saw threat from the internet, when its obvious there is plenty of opportunity on the internet.

    The tin foil hat is a good one, I have probably used it myself, it definitly applies to some views. But at the same time countless people have taken the same view on something that is wrong and should be stopped.


  • Options
    #56
    BlaasForRafa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,020 ✭✭✭BlaasForRafa


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Are you implying that Google do not block certain sites?
    YouTube constantly removes videos deemed to be inappropriate: http://www.youtube.com/t/community_guidelines

    which is completely pointless because people can repost them back.

    The record companies just don't really get youtube, its not so much copyright infringement as free advertising for their artists as only relatively short clips can be posted.


  • Options
    #57
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    RedPlanet wrote: »
    No, can you imagine holding gun manufacturers responsible for deaths caused by owners of their guns?
    It would never fly.
    Extend that logic and you'll create a pretty scary world.

    Fair bit of a difference; there are legitimate uses for guns, but there's no legitimate reason for a car that can do over the maximum speed limit in a country.

    In an ideal (and unfortunately impossible) world, guns would be made so that they could only be used for legitimate purposes, or within legal limits.

    Likewise, cars should only be manufactured to do those legal limits; why put the extra power in if it's illegal, causes accidents, and drives insurance up ?

    So yeah, if someone crashes at 160kmph then the car-makers ARE partially responsible - the car shouldn't be capable of doing that.

    BUT if someone crashes @ 40kmph in a 30kmph zone, then it's not the car-makers fault - it's 100% the actions of the driver.


  • Options
    #58
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    wes wrote: »
    According the RIAA (and some posters here who think the act of copying itself is illegal), its illegal to rip my own CDs to MP3 and put them on my iPod:

    RIAA Says Ripping CDs to Your iPod is NOT Fair Use

    Just in case the above is aimed at me, let me say that I am 100% in favour of "fair use", and I firmly believe that the RIAA is completely wrong in the above link - if you've paid for something you should be entitled to watch or listen to it wherever you like...

    My posts referred to stuff that you haven't paid for and are downloading from somewhere else - and ALSO included my opinion that you should be entitled to do this if no-one is selling it anymore......you can't affect "sales" or "livelihood" if no-one was going to sell it to you.


  • Options
    #59
    Run_to_da_hills
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,009 ✭✭✭✭Run_to_da_hills


    I have kept out of this thread until now :)

    I had already started a thread on this topic in the consumer issues forum.
    My case was if Eircom blocked Pirate Bay they breached my contract as when I signed up I expected free access to my chosen torrent site.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055495518

    Pirate Bay is an excellent source for Linux users and those that seek share ware resources. It is far quicker to download from torrents than from many of the official sites.

    Incidental Eircom has backed off the blocking of Pirate Bay until such time as its is forced to do so by court injunction. Proper order.
    http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/02/eircom-no-pirate-bay-blockade-until-we-get-a-court-order.ars


  • Options
    #60
    billy the squid
    Registered Users Posts: 12,811 ✭✭✭✭billy the squid


    Eircom aren't being asked by IRMA to block entire sites. They were asked to disconnect people if they were caugh making music files availible for copying on programmes such as limewire and the like.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Run_to_da_hills
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,009 ✭✭✭✭Run_to_da_hills


    billy the squid wrote: »
    Eircom aren't being asked by IRMA to block entire sites. They were asked to disconnect people if they were caugh making music files available for copying on programmers such as limewire and the like.
    They just wanted to do it to lick their as**es and then realized the potential backlash and backed out of it.


Advertisement