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

billy the squid

If they are ordered by the courts to do it then they wont have a choice.

This is a theft issue, not censorship issue. When they start putting the squeeze on the likes of indymedia then you know it is time to leave the country. this hasn't happened,

wes

Liam Byrne wrote: »

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.

The RIAA and there ilk don't see the difference. We already can't easily or even legally in some places format shift DVD/Blurays due to DRM. We have seen attempts to do the same with CDs, where root kits have been installed on peoples machines. Just look at some of the "features" of Windows 7, and the amount of control we lose over our machines, if they make it into the final version. The whole piracy things is just a cover to take a much control away from the customer as possible. Basically I own at least about 200 or so DVDs (probably more at this stage) and if I were to watch a DVD on a fully OSS Linux machine in the US, I would be breaking the law. Our fair use rights were thrown out the window age ago at this point and basically people who want to watch there content on Linux or format shift are criminals. Its all the same to them.

Also, under current copy right law, whether something isn't being sold anymore doesn't really matter. Its still copy right infringement according to them.

**EDIT**
Also, copy right infringement doesn't necessarily equal lost earnings. Theres no guarantee, the person who is infringing the copy right would have bought the stuff, if it was not available online. Now, it doesn't make it right by an stretch, but the claims made by the IRMA etc about lost earning are not in anyway accurate.

Run_to_da_hills

billy the squid wrote: »

When they start putting the squeeze on the likes of indymedia then you know it is time to leave the country. this hasn't happened,

Wait for this years G20.

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/90666

Duiske

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 availible for copying on programmes such as limewire and the like.

They are being asked to block entire sites. Link.

Disconnecting users was an agreement reached last month regarding, as you say, Limewire and the like.

Run_to_da_hills wrote:

They just wanted to do it to lick their as**es and then realized the potential backlash and backed out of it.

Not so sure. I suspect the last paragraph from the link you posted a while ago may be very near the truth.

Eircom's agreement with the labels, then, appears designed to give the company a bit of moral high ground—"we don't censor websites, and the labels will have to haul us to court to make that change!"—even as it ensures that getting such a court order is simple.

If IRMA go to court looking for an order to force Eircom to block certain sites, Eircom will not oppose them.

RedPlanet

Liam Byrne wrote: »

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 ?

Firstly, i'm not the person that brought up the car and legal speed limit analogy and I'm not particularly convinced by it.
While i don't know the science, i'd hazard a guess that RPM and horse-power can be translated into speed, but also can be translated into pulling power (pulling a load), so i'm not sure proposing limiting the "max speed" of a vehicles engine, would be a workable solution. Unless there was some sort of device that prevented the wheels from turning past a certain RPM?
But maybe someone that knows more about the sciences of engines and cars could say more.

Back to the topic at hand, there certainly ARE legal uses for torrents.

And wes, could you explain more about rootkits on CDs?

wes

RedPlanet wrote: »

And wes, could you explain more about rootkits on CDs?

Rootkits: the latest in DRM from Sony

**SNIP**

---

For the uninitiated, a rootkit is a program or set of programs that allow a usually malicious user to maintain access to an compromised computer by sinking deep hooks into the OS. In the case of Windows, a rootkit will attempt to shield changes to the registry along with files from the user, and more importantly, from antivirus or spyware detection software. In so many words, letting someone install an undetected rootkit on your system is not a good thing.

---

**SNIP**

The above article goes into more detail than the quote I have given above. It also explains it far better than I ever could.

djpbarry

wes wrote: »

No, but you can find the MP3s via Google easily enough.

So perhaps Google should take steps to ensure that they don’t link to pirated material?

RedPlanet wrote: »

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.

Indeed you did, but of course, I wasn’t actually referring to any one particular website in that post.

RedPlanet wrote: »

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.

See above.

RedPlanet wrote: »

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?

Well, the owners of Pirate Bay are currently standing trial for assisting copyright infringement, so we’ll find out soon enough.

RedPlanet wrote: »

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.

Pirate Bay does not advocate piracy, no, of course not :rolleyes:.

wes

djpbarry wrote: »

So perhaps Google should take steps to ensure that they don’t link to pirated material?

Well considering the nature of there technology, it would be impossible for them to do so. They do take steps when the copy right holders complain, but even then there is just too much information for them to catch all of it, in fact I reckon they actually catch very little considering how easy it is to find stuff via Google.

djpbarry

wes wrote: »

Well considering the nature of there technology, it would be impossible for them to do so. They do take steps when the copy right holders complain...

And therein lies the difference. Google take steps to counter illegal activity, whereas Pirate Bay tell the copyright holders, quite literally, to go **** themselves.

RedPlanet

djpbarry wrote: »

And therein lies the difference. Google take steps to counter illegal activity, whereas Pirate Bay tell the copyright holders, quite literally, to go **** themselves.

Factually incorrect.
Please note it is also NOT an offense to have a domain name, with the word "Pirate" in it.

murphaph

SeanW wrote: »

the more of this I see the more I think we're on the road to Fascism.

......without the decent infrastructure :pac:

OhNoYouDidn't

billy the squid wrote: »

This is a theft issue, not censorship issue.

What is being stolen here?

djpbarry

RedPlanet wrote: »

Factually incorrect.

How so?

wes

djpbarry wrote: »

And therein lies the difference. Google take steps to counter illegal activity, whereas Pirate Bay tell the copyright holders, quite literally, to go **** themselves.

Well, I don't know the relevant laws where the Pirate Bay are based, but they believe that there is no legal requirement that they have to do what the copyright holders demand and we will ultimately find out if there right at the conclusion of there trial.

Of course the RIAA and there ilk don't want any trials and would rather just have such sites banned on a accusation alone. Basically they won't have to prove any illegal activity has taken place, the accusation is apparently proof of guilt, which is what I have a huge problem with.

Also, there are torrents site that do take things down, when it is asked for.

Boggle

At the end of the day, the net is all about copyright infringement to one extent or another. Simply put, unless you stop people being able to copy and paste (pictures, text, etc) or even printing out a webpage, then copyright infringement is essentially what the web is all about.

The trouble with the music industry is that they can no longer justify their excessive profits in a web age, due to the fact that any idiot can now compile and release his own album for almost nothing. They see this and want it stamped out before its too late.

---

Anyway, what I want to know is whats the point of getting skyplus if its illegal to record whats on tv? How long till this is banned??
(thinking of getting it in but don't wanna be sued by IRMA when I record music on it!!)

thebman

Can't thepiratebay or another site the eircom might censor (I know they haven't yet) sue for loss of earnings?

Most of their income comes from advertising and since they are not hosting illegal content, there is no legitimate reason for blocking them (at least it is questionable). They are now losing out on all the hits and clicks from Irish eircom users (most of our broadband users) so would be entitled to compensation if eircom have done this and their justification is wrong.

Since justification comes from IRMA, eircom aren't even coming up with their own reason are assuming the their reasons are legitimate because they were unable to obtain a court order even though nobody is challenging the court order on the users behalf.

djpbarry

Boggle wrote: »

The trouble with the music industry is that they can no longer justify their excessive profits in a web age, due to the fact that any idiot can now compile and release his own album for almost nothing. They see this and want it stamped out before its too late.

The whole "big, bad music industry" thing is a little tiresome. Whether you like it or not, they own the copyright to their music, which, let us not forget, was transferred to them by the artists. If you want the music, you have to pay for it - simple as.

OhNoYouDidn't

djpbarry wrote: »

The whole "big, bad music industry" thing is a little tiresome. Whether you like it or not, they own the copyright to their music, which, let us not forget, was transferred to them by the artists. If you want the music, you have to pay for it - simple as.

But its very clearly not that simple.

Technology has moved on. I, the consumer, can share digitalised music with my friends. Thats not 'theft'. What the record companies have decided is rather than meet the challenge of new technology and utilise it, they want us to roll back technical advances to allow them continue their business model.

Why should we allow one industry and one industry only to hold back technology? They adapt or die like everyone else, and going to the courts like this is a deathrattle of record companies like we know them.

djpbarry

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Technology has moved on. I, the consumer, can share digitalised music with my friends. Thats not 'theft'.

Maybe not theft, but it is certainly copyright infringement. It is no different to you photocopying a book and distributing it to all your friends. The owner of the copyright is quite entitled to object.

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

What the record companies have decided is rather than meet the challenge of new technology and utilise it, they want us to roll back technical advances to allow them continue their business model.

That's a ridiculous statement. Some media companies have been instrumental in advancing audio, visual and gaming technology, e.g. Sony.

OhNoYouDidn't

djpbarry wrote: »

Maybe not theft, but it is certainly copyright infringement. It is no different to you photocopying a book and distributing it to all your friends. The owner of the copyright is quite entitled to object.

Bad example. I can legally photocopy pages from a book. So why is copyright for music different?

Your example would be relevent if a publishing house were suing Xerox.

djpbarry wrote: »

That's a ridiculous statement. Some media companies have been instrumental in advancing audio, visual and gaming technology, e.g. Sony.

Good for them. But IMRA are in court trying to block new technology that hurts their business model, and its the global tactic of a failing industry.

Did travel agents sue because of the proliferation of direct online booking facilities? No, they adapted and specialised or folded. Every industry in the world had to adapt to web based technology. Why are record companies a protected species?

Consumers finally have one on big business and their response is an attempt to criminalise them.

Liam Byrne

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

I can share digitalised music with my friends

As I stated earlier, copying and sharing are 2 different things. If you share something, you either (a) play it somewhere both of you can hear it or (b) loan it to the friend, which means you can't hear it at the same time.

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Bad example. I can legally photocopy pages from a book. So why is copyright for music different?

Legally, you are NOT entitled to photocopy or scan a WHOLE book. http://www.ncirl.ie/downloads/library/Student%20FACTS4U%207%20Copyright.pdf

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Did travel agents sue because of the proliferation of direct online booking facilities? No, they adapted and specialised or folded.

Completely different argument.....high street travel agents vs online booking equates to high street record stores vs iTunes or play.com

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Consumers finally have one on big business and their response is an attempt to criminalise them.

Consumers of what, exactly ? Those businesses' products ? Why exactly should those "consumers" get stuff that people have worked on for free ? Surely the individuals who worked on it deserve to get paid ?

There are 3 angles to this issue:

1) Given that certain sites also have legal uses, can RIAA have them blocked ? Answer should be no

2) Should people have the right to copy music for their own use (iPod, etc) ? Answer should be yes

3) Should people be entitled to copy stuff and so-called "share" it ? No....unless possibly when it's no longer available to buy, as no-one is losing a sale if they haven't offered to sell it.

djpbarry

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Bad example. I can legally photocopy pages from a book.

If it’s for your own private study or research, then yes, you can. However, you cannot make multiple copies of a copyrighted work and distribute it at your leisure.

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

But IMRA are in court trying to block new technology that hurts their business model...

No, they are exercising their rights under copyright law in attempting to prevent copyright infringement.

thebman

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Legally, you are NOT entitled to photocopy or scan a WHOLE book. http://www.ncirl.ie/downloads/library/Student%20FACTS4U%207%20Copyright.pdf

Correct assuming the book is copyrighted. You can share some books, same as open source or unlicensed music and video. People can release these under public license if they wish people to get them for free.

Completely different argument.....high street travel agents vs online booking equates to high street record stores vs iTunes or play.com

Correct but they refused to allow the likes of iTunes for years before iTunes was around. Then they tried to force DRM on people to restrict them in many other ways.

Then they tried to push the price up when the model showed to be working for them.

The simple facts are that piracy is so widespread because of there greed and refusal to change and adapt to the market. There was a massive demand for fair online distribution model and they refused to provide it so the market found a way.

Now they are asking people to give up getting it for free since they have finally gotten the message that offering an inferior product and charging for it, will not stop piracy. Like it or not (and legal or not) they have to compete with piracy as it will always exist. That is the risk of their business and one they've been crap at fighting since it started because their general tactic has been to harm the paying consumer and not the pirate.

This is still the case, attempting to become censors of websites that don't distribute the content directly and which also contain legal content is punishing not their customers but the ISP's.

I know and would freely admit that the site being blocked is basically promoting piracy from the very way it is setup but it is not an illegal site. There is no proof that this is what it is setup to do.

Everything on their website could have been setup for freely licensed material and the name isn't relevant so the measure is unjust.

Consumers of what, exactly ? Those businesses' products ? Why exactly should those "consumers" get stuff that people have worked on for free ? Surely the individuals who worked on it deserve to get paid ?

Why should people who pay for there ISP for Internet access be censored by another organisation? That is essentially what is happening here. --edit-- The consumer of the ISP is being punished for the copyright owners inability to protect their copyright and there refusal to adapt to what the market wants.

Anyway you look at it that is just plain b*ll*cks IMO.

There are 3 angles to this issue:

1) Given that certain sites also have legal uses, can RIAA have them blocked ? Answer should be no

2) Should people have the right to copy music for their own use (iPod, etc) ? Answer should be yes

3) Should people be entitled to copy stuff and so-called "share" it ? No....unless possibly when it's no longer available to buy, as no-one is losing a sale if they haven't offered to sell it.

1 agreed.

2 agreed.

3 agreed for copyright content.

OhNoYouDidn't

Liam Byrne wrote: »

As I stated earlier, copying and sharing are 2 different things. If you share something, you either (a) play it somewhere both of you can hear it or (b) loan it to the friend, which means you can't hear it at the same time.

My point is its technically illegal to lend someone a CD. Which leads us onto:

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Legally, you are NOT entitled to photocopy or scan a WHOLE book. http://www.ncirl.ie/downloads/library/Student%20FACTS4U%207%20Copyright.pdf

I never said you were, but again, why the difference in copyright between a book and a piece of music. You can lend a book, copy bits of it, read bits publically etc. Why not with music?

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Completely different argument.....high street travel agents vs online booking equates to high street record stores vs iTunes or play.com

Accepted, but my issue is that other industries have been hit hard by web technology and reacted differently.

And didn't the music industry fight tooth and nail to block itunes?

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Consumers of what, exactly ? Those businesses' products ? Why exactly should those "consumers" get stuff that people have worked on for free ? Surely the individuals who worked on it deserve to get paid ?

Yes. But the point is that the record companies have seen hundreds of millions of consumers change how they use a product and rather than try and get in on it, they are trying to criminalise and stop the use of the technology. Its bad business as well as ethically dubious.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

There are 3 angles to this issue:

1) Given that certain sites also have legal uses, can RIAA have them blocked ? Answer should be no

Agreed.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

2) Should people have the right to copy music for their own use (iPod, etc) ? Answer should be yes

Agreed.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

3) Should people be entitled to copy stuff and so-called "share" it ? No....unless possibly when it's no longer available to buy, as no-one is losing a sale if they haven't offered to sell it.

Agreed, but I am a hypocrite and a cheapskate

Liam Byrne

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

My point is its technically illegal to lend someone a CD.

Where did you get that idea ? It is illegal to "lend" someone a COPY of a CD, or to lend them it so that they can copy it, but you can loan someone the original.

If you never made a copy and loaned the CD to your friend, this is completely legal.

Source: http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/350273

RedPlanet

djpbarry wrote: »

How so?

You've stated:

Pirate Bay tell the copyright holders, quite literally, to go **** themselves.

But, Pirate Bay do not literally tell copyright holders to go ***** themselves, as far as i can ascertain from their website.
All you have to do, is show me where on their website they do.
Of course, you cannot because your claim that they do, is mere hyperbole and sensationalist rubbish.

Boggle

There are 3 angles to this issue:

1) Given that certain sites also have legal uses, can RIAA have them blocked ? Answer should be no

2) Should people have the right to copy music for their own use (iPod, etc) ? Answer should be yes

3) Should people be entitled to copy stuff and so-called "share" it ? No....unless possibly when it's no longer available to buy, as no-one is losing a sale if they haven't offered to sell it.

While everyody agrees in theory that an artist is entitled to make a profit from his music, you have to firstly demonstrate an actual loss and secondly play fair if you expect anyone to care about your concerns.

When I say that they have to demonstrate a loss, you cannot assume that me downloading 50 tracks means that i would have otherwise purchased even a fraction of those tracks. From my own experience, I gave up purchasing music years ago when I got sick of an album with one or two decent tracks being stuffed with "fillers". The last 2 albums I bought were because I downloaded a band I had never heard about and decided I liked them. (Therefore the piracy worked as free advertising) Therefore, while their own practices had lost me forever as a customer, piracy brought me back in a lmited capacity ( I wont buy rubbish albums).
(Note - I would be more of a movie man and even though I download loads of movies, I also purchase them when I like them. To that end I now have well over 100 dvd's when previously I had bought maybe one or two)
So I do not accept that downloading costs them any money - at all...

Then when I mention fairness, I'm talking about simple things like allowing someone to exchange broken cd's for newer ones at reduced cost (since I've already paid the copyright fee), allowing me to upgrade to a newer media ata reduced cost, giving artists a fair share of the proceeds and also in reducing prices dramatically to reflect the negligible cost of distributing digital music.
Put it this way, when cd's came out there was no mention of allowing people swap their tapes for cd's at a nominal cost.

djpbarry

RedPlanet wrote: »

You've stated:

Pirate Bay tell the copyright holders, quite literally, to go **** themselves.

But, Pirate Bay do not literally tell copyright holders to go ***** themselves, as far as i can ascertain from their website.
All you have to do, is show me where on their website they do.

In a response to Keats, McFarland & Wilson, representing Dreamworks:

As you may or may not be aware, Sweden is not a state in the United States of America. Sweden is a country in northern Europe. Unless you figured it out by now, US law does not apply here. For your information, no Swedish law is being violated.

Please be assured that any further contact with us, regardless of medium, will result in
a) a suit being filed for harassment
b) a formal complaint lodged with the bar of your legal counsel, for sending frivolous legal threats.

It is the opinion of us and our lawyers that you are ....... morons, and that you should please go sodomize yourself with retractable batons.

Please also note that your e-mail and letter will be published in full on http://www.thepiratebay.org.

Go **** yourself.

Polite as usual,
anakata

http://static.thepiratebay.org/dreamworks_response.txt

RedPlanet

djpbarry wrote: »

In a response to Keats, McFarland & Wilson, representing Dreamworks:

The way i read that, is PB is telling moronic American's that send threatening letters while quoting US Law, to go ***** themselves.
But that's being pedantic.

touché

Run_to_da_hills

Leak out of Music industry's Irish ISP nasty letter.

An internet hosting company has published a copy of the nasty-gram Ireland's music industry lawyers bulk-mailed to that country's internet service providers, demanding they begin blocking access to any website accused of piracy or else.

http://blog.blacknight.com/irma-thre...rish-isps.html