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

watty

6digitnumber wrote: »

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?

The French President tried to bring it in and the Courts ruled that it was unconstitutional.

In the US they can't get it. The RIAA can't even get Radio Stations to pay Royalties to Artists. So US artists get nothing from Airtime royalties outside US in retaliation as the US Radio don't pay US or Foreign Royalties.

The US historically had a similar issue with Book royalties. They reprinted European texts without royalty and the Europeans then refused to distribute the American publishers.
To this day "The United States treatment of mechanical royalties is in sharp contrast to international practice."

The USA and everyone else has a different concept of "Performance" and "Mechanical"

It should be noted that in the United States only the composer and the publisher are paid performance royalties and not performing artists (digital rights being a different matter). Likewise, the record label, whose music is used in a performance, is not entitled to royalties in the US on the premise that performances lead sales of records.

An "Internet Tax" would fit well with the US concept, but not the rest of the world where Artists are paid a Performing Royalty for TV/Radio/Streaming.

lmimmfn

Some_Person wrote: »

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.

not only that, a broadband tax will be another nail in the coffin of the current irish workforce particularly those of us with long commute times and can telework on weekends or whatever

I for one will march straight to the Dail if that ever happens.

watty

lmimmfn wrote: »

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.

Because at the time the alternative to the Eircom deal seemed a worse precedent. Which is what they are also trying to do. To me at the time it seemed a much lesser evil and a pragmatic solution as ultimately it didn't really commit eircom to anything due to Data Protection Act and lack of per person Court Orders.

As WELL as the "3 strikes" they want ISPs to block sites and monitor users. This is unacceptable.

Also in the detail of the the eircom deal it actually meant NOTHING! eircom was not going to monitor or block, only warn twice and 3rd time out.

BUT
eircom was not to say who the IP reported belonged to
The same IP may not be the same person.
The Right holders had to take eircom's word that ANYONE was getting cut off.

It was an out of court settlement so set no legal precedent. eircom had done some very silly advertising and might have lost in court.

This time round the labels want more. They have picked on someone able to fight back not compromised by stupid advertising campaigns.


I've hardened my stance to a less compromising position as the "rights holders" have got greedy.

lmimmfn

watty wrote: »

I've hardened my stance to a less compromising position as the "rights holders" have got greedy.

Thats reasonable enough but the RIAA and similar would have never stopped at that, they want nothing more than the internet to be destroyed as a means of protecting their business.

I do like Moby's comment on downloading his own material lol - http://techdirt.com/articles/20090622/0026265308.shtml

Nick_oliveri

watty wrote: »

I've hardened my stance to a less compromising position as the "rights holders" have got greedy.

In all honestly Watty they were always very outspoken about their greed.
I still believe that the only rights holders need to be the Artists themselves, especially in an age where the "product" can be digital. They never cared about the art. It was all about the Benjamins.

I've lost faith in these ISP's, they will back down/sell out/bow down to the suits.

Onikage

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

I've lost faith in these ISP's, they will back down/sell out/bow down to the suits.

Eircom gave a worthless promise and UPC have vowed to fight. How is that backing down?

The ISPs understand that giving in would damage their product's quality and reputation. They won't be bowed so easily.

Nick_oliveri

Onikage wrote: »

Eircom gave a worthless promise and UPC have vowed to fight. How is that backing down?

IMO, they will back down eventually. Nothing like a legal threat...

watty

UPC (Liberty Global) is x10 to x20 bigger than eircom and in maybe more than 15 countries.

They won't back down unless it's to give a promise more worthless than eircom's

GigaByte

reunion wrote: »

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.

You can pretty much guarantee we'll all be paying a broadband tax once we have 100% coverage.

You can guarantee not one cent of the broadband tax will be used for for your idea. :rolleyes:

reunion

watty wrote: »

Copyright Infringement isn't Theft.

.....

lmimmfn wrote: »

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.

Yes they need to update their BUSINESS model. How is it the copyright holders fault exactly?

I doubt microsoft wanted they're operating system to be pirated.... (especially when there is a free alternative).

Also in the US they get access to hulu and to last fm/panamoria(ah i can't remember its name), which is free streaming tv and music for free, with some ads. That is definetly a reasonable cost and is available to all US citizens, whenever they want it. So if someone still downloads tv shows illegally in the US, the studios have a right to sue.


also i remember reading somewhere (i cant remember where) that the studios have contracts with companys (such as xtravision) to have content after its been in the cinema etc, thats why we dont see the latest movies on itunes. So if you really want to blame someone blame your local xtravision who are stopping you from getting your movie online legally.

Some_Person wrote: »

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.

yeah i know, that why i said it should be optional (because if you don't download things illegally then why pay). actually watty gives a better explaination then i could...

watty wrote: »

UPC (Liberty Global) is x10 to x20 bigger than eircom and in maybe more than 15 countries.

They won't back down unless it's to give a promise more worthless than eircom's

Plus i think UPC is a subsiduary of its parent company and wouldn't want to spend like a couple of hundred million euro on a legal battle that wouldn't be beneficial to the company.

Well don't forget that the American movie association might help the Irish one too, because if this went to the european court, and it won it could affect all of europe...


I doubt it will happen tho.

UPC should win