Major music labels in court move to force internet providers to act on downloads

none

THE BIG four music labels have launched legal proceedings against Ireland’s second-largest telco, BT Ireland, and largest cable operator UPC Ireland, to force them to act against illegal music downloads by their subscribers.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2009/0620/1224249188923.html

Firetrap

I can't say I'm surprised. It was only going to be a matter of time before this happened. There was a thread on this forum a few weeks ago from someone with UTV internet who got a warning letter about downloading copyright material.

none

none wrote: »

THE BIG four music labels have launched legal proceedings against Ireland’s second-largest telco, BT Ireland, and largest cable operator UPC Ireland, to force them to act against illegal music downloads by their subscribers.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2009/0620/1224249188923.html

.

Colm Donnely

none wrote: »

THE BIG four music labels have launched legal proceedings against Ireland’s second-largest telco, BT Ireland, and largest cable operator UPC Ireland, to force them to act against illegal music downloads by their subscribers.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2009/0620/1224249188923.html

Crazy! I saw an article on torrentfreak.com about a Dutch government report that said filesharing had positive short and long term effects. In Holland sharing for personal use is legal... at least for now! Maybe we should all move to Amsterdam??

vibe666

10 years of trying to sue music downloaders and downloading websites and apps and the problems have got exponentially worse.

when will they figure out they needed to provide an effective alternative for people BEFORE the whole world and their auntie started downloading music illegally.

jos22

none wrote: »

THE BIG four music labels have launched legal proceedings against Ireland’s second-largest telco, BT Ireland, and largest cable operator UPC Ireland, to force them to act against illegal music downloads by their subscribers.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2009/0620/1224249188923.html

should this even be going to court.
did the EU rule that the 3 strike law is not an option for the EU member states.
let Hope UPC and BT tell IRMA to F right off and not bend over take it like Eircom did

dunworth1

A spokeswoman for UPC said the firm “has made its position clear from the outset – it will not agree to a request that goes beyond what is currently provided under existing legislation”.

She added: “There is no basis under Irish law requiring ISPs to control, access or block the internet content its users download. In addition, the rights-holders’ proposal gives rise to serious concerns for data privacy and consumer contract law.”

UPC proposed to Irma that a “stakeholder forum” be formed between ISPs, the Data Protection Commission, the National Consumer Agency and relevant government departments to find an alternative solution but Irma rejected this.

“UPC intends to vigorously defend its position in court.”

it doesnt look like they are going to bend over and take it

jos22

dunworth1 wrote: »

it doesnt look like they are going to bend over and take it

true but eircom had that stance at first too. but BT and UPC provide BB to more than just ireland and have more to loose by giving in

jor el

Forcing ISPs to police people's Internet usage is like forcing car manufacturers to make sure people don't speed. They are going about this the wrong way, but sure, it's their money to waste on continual court cases if they want.

vibe666

sure, they can just use the millions they squeeze out of penniless single mothers in US piracy court cases to fund it.

smellslikeshoes

Where does the recent european court cases leave their previous agreement with Eircom?

I was under the impression that those rulings made it essentially pointless to continue to pursue ISP's.
I hope UPC and BT don't bow to the pressure like Eircom did.

hightower1

Its all a bit one sided here? I mean I would probably be the last person to defend the tripe that the music industry pumps out these days but at the same time downloading without paying is ILLEGAL? Why should they provide an alternative to it before they try and stop it?

Human trafficing is illegal, does this mean the governments of the world should provide and alternative before they try and stop it? Of coarse not.

People have become occustomed to downloading illegally so much so its common place but that does not make it legal. They are well within their rights to "attmept" to stop it. You make it sound like they are vile people robbing milk money from school kids? A bit dramatic really, yes they are wealthy but that doesnt mean they still dont have the right to try and defend their investments.

Because its common place doesnt make it legal. The attitude here is trying to defend an illegal act. The law is on their side.

Infini

Honestly i hope UPC and BT win this. I have no support for organisations that sue dead ppl and 12 year old girls. Even that fine with that woman in america is a prime example of these music companies retarded attitude towards the internet and filesharing in general. They complain of lost CD sales yet CD's are a relic now just like casette tapes were when CD'd began coming out. If they had any sense they should be lookin for a legal P2P network for €10 a month or something.IRMA can just **** off for all i care they DONT control the internet and have no right to. EU has already said the internet is a fundamental right anyways so hopefully this kinda bull**** of suing the ISP's for 3 strikes is thrown out of court provided UPC and BT dont cave in like €ircom -_-

flanree

that's a fair point hightower. I think where this debate always suffers is that the face of the 'prosecution' is a bunch of label executives. None of their artists will endorse the complaint openly as they dont want to be the bad guy to their fans, e.g. Lars Ulrich. Its a bit melodramatic, but if illegal downloaders saw an example of an artist they liked on the ropes financially from lack of legit sales they might see things a little differently. I don't see this happening in a hurry though.

jor el

hightower1 wrote: »

Human trafficing is illegal, does this mean the governments of the world should provide and alternative before they try and stop it? Of coarse not.

No, but making the ISPs responsible for the behavior of their customers is not the solution, any more than making publicans responsible for drink driving.

ISPs provide a service, and like many services and products, it can be abused. It's not in their remit to control or limit Internet access beyond current legislative restrictions, or what they want themselves.

smellslikeshoes wrote:

Where does the recent european court cases leave their previous agreement with Eircom?

The outcome of that case was that there is no EU legislation to force ISPs to monitor their customers, but I don't believe it stops the ISPs from forming an agreement with IMRO or any other body if they chose to. It's just not a requirement.

hightower1

jor el wrote: »

No, but making the ISPs responsible for the behavior of their customers is not the solution, any more than making publicans responsible for drink driving.

ISPs provide a service, and like many services and products, it can be abused. It's not in their remit to control or limit Internet access beyond current legislative restrictions, or what they want themselves.

Good point but I think you missed mine a little, I am not saying trying to attack ISP's is the solution but thats not my point. It was stated that an alternative needs to be found before they attempt anything...but if the problem in the first place is illegal why should people need an alternative they should respect the rule of law.

I do definitely agree though about going after the ISP's, its obviously the easiest and most cost effective way of trying to stem the flow of illegal downloading alright but easiest doesn't make it right ether.

z0oT

This copyright BS has all got well out of hand, the kind of tripe the music industry gets up to nowadays is a joke frankly.

Tillotson

Trying to get a tree strike rule implemented:

arstechnica

UPC spokesperson to Irish Times:
"there is no basis under Irish law requiring ISPs to control, access or block the internet content its users download" and that the ISP would fight the case in court.

Mikey23

Fair play to UPC. If the music industry are going to continue their costly court proceedings, let's hope it gets a full trial this time and lead to some genuine debate.

Leaving the inevitable freeloaders argument aside, it's hard to see how the position adopted by Eircom following their capitulation settlement was in any way fair to the average user.

watty

UPC a division of Liberty Global has rather deeper pockets and more lawyers than eircom.

12 European Countries
Chile
USA (Puerto Rico)
54% of an Austrialian outfit
30%+ of a Japanese outfit.

UPC will not settle for anything that doesn't suit them.

About the only sillier thing would be someone suing the Murdoch Empire.

I am totally against copyright infringement.
BUT the labels go too far. DCMA and DRM go too far and remove rights of "fair use" under Geneva conventions and lock the material past expiry of copyright.

Also an ISP is a "Pipe" a carrier. It is entirely up to the rights holder to prove a case against an individual. If the "Rights Holders" got their way, even innocent people would be paying for the ISPs extra monitoring costs.

If someone is a Carpenter do you take away their tools because they used them to break into a shop?

Typically Broadband serves a family or whole house. Collective Punishment is against various conventions. Also cutting off Internet for Right violation is like taking away all someones mugs and glasses because they where suspected of being drunk.

If someone is Drunk & Disorderly, the proper thing is to prosecute. Not automatically ban them from Every supermarket with no judical process.

This is like insisting every shop tests every customer for Alcohol & Drugs and automatically ban them from the shop if positive, with no Judicial process.

The Rights Holders want the ISP to do THEIR job. Which would cost all users.

reunion

To be honest, i think we all should pay an internet tax, (or at least have the choice to) of about €10 a month to download or stream whatever you want legally. it would just make sense (harder for the photograpic/book/music/movie industry to split up the costs).

Maybe a hulu for europe might be IS what is needed.


It would definetly cut down on piracy, the music/movie etc industry need to start living with the times and not keep trying to live in their former business models.

BigEejit

I certainly hope that IRMA get their asses handed to them. As the UPC spokesman said, there is no legal requirement so they can run and jump.

I agreed with what watty said except for one thing:

watty wrote: »

If someone is a Carpenter do you take away their tools because they used them to break into a shop?

er, yes, they wont need them in prison :pac:

reunion

watty wrote: »

If someone is a Carpenter do you take away their tools because they used them to break into a shop?

Yes you do actually... you use it in court as evidence....

watty wrote: »

Typically Broadband serves a family or whole house. Collective Punishment is against various conventions.

Thats true broadband serves a whole house, much like a car can serve a whole house, if the parents get taken off the road becuase of penalty points (i.e three strikes in the case of the internet....) what about the children? Should they be allowed to drive now because their parents can't?

Also broadband is in someone's name, not the household. So it may supply a house or neighbourhood, but who ever pays it, is responsible...

watty wrote: »

Also cutting off Internet for Right violation is like taking away all someones mugs and glasses because they where suspected of being drunk.

You should bring up that point next time you are thrown out of a pub/nightclub for being drunk....

watty wrote: »

If someone is Drunk & Disorderly, the proper thing is to prosecute. Not automatically ban them from Every supermarket with no judical process.

This is like insisting every shop tests every customer for Alcohol & Drugs and automatically ban them from the shop if positive, with no Judicial process.

I believe if you are drunk and disorderly you can be put in a jail cell for the night. And shops have their own process, a shop can have you barred if they wish for being drunk and disorderly if they want (i.e your drunk and disorderly in tesco = ban nationwide). That isn't up to the courts...

watty wrote: »

The Rights Holders want the ISP to do THEIR job. Which would cost all users.

Correction the rights holders want the ISP's to do the gardai's job. Gardai enforce the law, the law says you aren't allowed to steal. Which would actually get the tax payer more value for money if the gardai started to catch more people




Oh btw i am actually for a neutral internet, but believe the industries need to improve their current revenue model.

jor el

Threads merged.

vibe666

i don';t think anyone is going to side with the record companies after all the stunts they've pulled over the last few years. it's not like they're nazi's or anything, but their movites, methods and ethics leave a lot to be desired regardless of where you stand on the issue and someone handing them their a$$ on a plate is well overdue imho, and long may it continue until they get the message.

lmimmfn

reunion wrote: »

Thats true broadband serves a whole house, much like a car can serve a whole house, if the parents get taken off the road becuase of penalty points (i.e three strikes in the case of the internet....) what about the children? Should they be allowed to drive now because their parents can't?

Also broadband is in someone's name, not the household. So it may supply a house or neighbourhood, but who ever pays it, is responsible...

so a 70 year old with an eircom wifi connection is responsible for everyone hooking into his connection and downloading copyright material?

Moby has it right, its the copyright holders fault, if they provided the material to download for everyone for a reasonable cost there would be no issue but they wont do that for the simple fact that they are dinosaurs and afraid of losing their niche rather than embracing technology they want to destroy it.

watty

Copyright Infringement isn't Theft. It's a civil issue. The RIghts holder has to sue. It's not to say it isn't serious, it often can be 10 to 100 times higher "costs" awarded to "right holder".

In a Criminal case the State decides to Prosecute and retains the fine.

I'm totally against illegal downloads, but I am also totally against the ISP monitoring or blocking.

I'm 100% against both a mandated Internet tax and an optional one:
1) Increased costs for those uninterested in Music or video Downloads
2) Only helps Labels/Studios in short term and the decoupling of Purchase and Artist/Music/Film kills creativity and rewards only the status quo.
3) No incentive for good Artists or Producers / Directors and no incentive for Marketing / Labels to innovate or invest in risks
4) No-one can be successfull
5) The existing studios / labels etc become a monopolistic Cartel. No new entrants.

6digitnumber

Have they managed to get this law enforced in any other countries?

Why are they going after Irish ISPs specifically? Why wouldn't the RIIA have pushed this through in the states already?

watty

It's not the Copyright holders fault if someone infringes. That's the fault of the downloader/uploadrer.

The issue of Digital Distribution, Retail pricing etc always comes up as some kind of justification. It's trite, but two wrongs DON'T make a right.

Let's campaign SEPARATELY for lower prices and better Distribution (and Digital Distribution should only be a complement or alternative, not a replacement of physical media)

This should ONLY be about:

Is it right for the Rights Holders to bypass the courts and put the onus on ISPs to monitor / block.

Is it right for Broadband to be blocked because one user (Lets drop the stupid Insecure WiFi Red Herring) is infringing copyright, without any Judicial Process?

Is it right for Broadband to be removed unless the SOLE reason is proved in Court that the user has it only for Serious Criminal actions (Hacking the ESB, running a botNet, A spam campaign, Pedo Picture Server etc).?

lmimmfn

watty wrote: »

Copyright Infringement isn't Theft. It's a civil issue. The RIghts holder has to sue. It's not to say it isn't serious, it often can be 10 to 100 times higher "costs" awarded to "right holder".

In a Criminal case the State decides to Prosecute and retains the fine.

I'm totally against illegal downloads, but I am also totally against the ISP monitoring or blocking.

why have you changed your mind on the issue? when the initial Eircom case was resolved you didnt seem that bothered? im not trying to be an ass im honestly just curious as it was obvious all along that this was going to happen.

Im 110% against the RIAA and IRMA for the simple fact that they are only trying to hinder progress rather than embracing it and imposing rules and regulations on people that are a breech of their civil rights, everyone should be entitled to internet access. It should never be upto anyone to ensure their network is secure for the simple fact that nothing can be 100% secure.

Id love to have a Steam like option for movies on a saturday night at a reasonable cost, but thats not going to happen anytime soon.

Some_Person

reunion wrote: »

To be honest, i think we all should pay an internet tax.

You've got to be joking, broadband prices here are already ridiculous compared to other countries.That's what the internet is about, an info and data resource for everybody.