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

Eircom to cut broadband over illegal downloads - READ POST#1 WARNING

18911131433

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,775 ✭✭✭Spacedog


    Cabaal wrote: »

    Wrong!
    This applys to the default WEP key on a OLD eircom routers only.

    However all new routers don't have this issue and they don't even use WEP anymore instead they use WPA-PSK.

    Atleast if your going to comment on stuff then please get your facts straight before you attempt scaremongering and generalizations

    Any idiot kid with half a brain can search google for a backtrack live CD or for aircrack_ng/airscript and waltz into any eircom router and take what they want. the point is not to scaremonger but to educate people that the techniques used for identifying these 'illegal' users are circumstantial.

    My friend is a normal guy, he does not care about logging into his router and doing eircoms job for them, as far as he is concerned the e-mail works, and that's all that matters, he only called me to fix it after recieving this letter.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5 oulira


    Peanut wrote: »
    Over what time period do the infringements have to happen in order to count? 4 intentional or not infringements in a year may be a lot, but over a number of years?

    I'm not quite sure I understand this question fully, if my answer isn't satisfactory maybe rephrase it and I could help then! Right here goes..

    The time period is anytime from Tuesday this week effectively. DTecNet will be observing torrent and gnutella network traffic constantly and they will have automated software which will alert them effortlessly of any Eircom IP that is engaging in the transfer of data. They will then check the contents of the data being transferred to verify it as breach of copyright (well at least, that's what they're SUPPOSED to do...)

    For the first three months from the past Tuesday it will be a pilot programme, with a limit of 50 IP addresses per week that they can notify of infringements. This limit is just pre defined in order for Eircom to test their resources and see would they be able to find ways to prepare the handling of much larger volumes of IP addresses after these three months. Once this time has passed they will increase greatly the number of IPs they can handle. Technically though, for the first three months, they will only be able to notify or 'catch out' 0.08% of their consumer base.

    Once you get your first warning that's it then - it doesn't magically 'disappear' after 2 years like penalty points would (although I think they should do something like this.. it would be much fairer).

    I hope I've answered your question - if not - just ask again rephrased!

    Peace.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5 oulira


    Jumpy wrote: »
    Would you ban a taxi if they gave a lift to someone carrying stolen goods? Essentially the taxi driver is being forced by the courts to boot out passengers with no proof that they comitted any crime (sorry "civil issue").

    The funny thing is, people always view piracy as theft.
    To me, piracy is the illegal distribution of copyrighted material with the intent of making profit - that's wrong, that's unlawful and that should be cracked down upon at ALL costs.

    What the IRMA are cracking down on here is the supposed illegal distribution of data. Sure, they may see it as illegal - but it's about time these laws changed.

    The internet has revolutionized how data is transferred and shared amongst its users and it practically voids the entire purpose of a record company. With the internet, the need for a record company is practically useless. They're just jealous at the downfall in their profits due to a better more economical distribution system - because NO record company can compete with free.

    I've read many general surveys with great interest online that suggest that these so called 'pirates' end up spending more for the artists than ANY other person. Without piracy I'm sure that these intent listeners would never have found 80% of the music they listen to - youtube, iTunes and all this 30 second preview crap just doesn't work.

    People like to experience the full thing given the chance for free. They also feel no criminal damage has been done if they do not physically HAVE the product - and if the product can be transferred without them being at a loss.

    In fairness what artist would be AGAINST their work being appreciated by a much wider audience and getting rave reviews everywhere? If it wasn't for 'piracy' then there would be no Justin Bieber, No Esmée Denters, No Charice, No Marié Digby ..I could go on..

    Another thing record companies fail to address is the threat to the environment CDs pose, and the lack of CD quality LOSSLESS downloads for those of us who prefer lossless as opposed to crap quality, compressed mp3.
    They always overlook subjective preference and I think that's a complete denial of service to buying customers. They think they have the right to limit our enjoyment of our favourite artists with every release they make.

    *How many time have you walked into a CD store not being able to find the CD you want?

    *How many times have you been disappointed to know that your favourite artist made 3 other tracks that are available in Japan only?

    *How many times has iTunes or Amazon sold LOSSLESS downloads?

    *How many times have you admittedly found or tried what you thought was a new band/act/artist from merely browsing in a CD store?

    The answer to those above questions will be little or none.....

    The IRMA know this yet they continue to shoot themselves and Eircom right into the chest. Eircom will and are losing cutomers, and the IRMA will and are unknowingly destroying the healthy distribution of music and art through the medium of the internet.

    Piracy and free mp3 downloads will never ever stop. It doesn't hurt or physically harm any people. In fact the only people who lose out are greedy drug infested american pop stars and ludicrous record companies who drain enough as it is.

    And if any of them are reading this, be known that if there was a private torrent site that asked for monthly payments for unlimited downloads of a variety of codecs - then I would GLADLY pay the amount monthly - if not more.

    Also, how many of you actually know that TRENT REZNOR, the lead singer of NIN was also a member of a famous private torrent tracker that got shut down a year ago, lol.

    I hate when people merely call this THEFT and have no considerations for the opinion of the billions of people that are apparently guilty of it. The people are saying in their billions what they want - and money grabbing companies are just not listening - it's so sad...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,221 ✭✭✭BrianD


    Jumpy wrote: »
    Would you ban a taxi if they gave a lift to someone carrying stolen goods? Essentially the taxi driver is being forced by the courts to boot out passengers with no proof that they comitted any crime (sorry "civil issue").

    Not a good analogy. However, if I knew that a certain taxi firm was knowingly ferrying stolen goods or drugs around the city, would you not expect action to be taken?

    In the case of Eircom, action is only being taken against those who presistently steal copyright material. They don't take this action without the appropriate proof. Even when they do have proof you get a warning and it escalates from there.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,523 ✭✭✭✭Nerin


    BrianD wrote: »
    Not a good analogy. However, if I knew that a certain taxi firm was knowingly ferrying stolen goods or drugs around the city, would you not expect action to be taken?

    In the case of Eircom, action is only being taken against those who presistently steal copyright material. They don't take this action without the appropriate proof. Even when they do have proof you get a warning and it escalates from there.

    I find their proof more than a little suspect. As do i find their methods.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,092 ✭✭✭Le King


    BrianD wrote: »
    Not a good analogy. However, if I knew that a certain taxi firm was knowingly ferrying stolen goods or drugs around the city, would you not expect action to be taken?

    Funny you mention that. How would the Taxi driver/company know who was transporting illegal goods? They have no right to search to search the person before they enter the taxi.


    Nor do any ISP's, they have no right to look at any content I'm downloading or outsource another company to search at what content I'm downloading.


    If they want to stop piracy, they should be going down to the markets to take and fine the people who are selling them for profit.

    Eircom will lose countless of customers over this and let's hope the other ISP's have the balls to stand up to the IRMA over this.

    Thank god I'm out of this country...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,517 ✭✭✭axer


    Osu wrote: »
    Funny you mention that. How would the Taxi driver/company know who was transporting illegal goods? They have no right to search to search the person before they enter the taxi.
    If they were constantly being reported by the manufacturer of the stolen goods then they know.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,092 ✭✭✭Le King


    axer wrote: »
    If they were constantly being reported by the manufacturer of the stolen goods then they know.

    How would the manufacturer know conclusively without checking the taxi's individually or the person(s) entering the taxi(s)?

    They would have to infringe on your privacy to come to the conclusion that the Taxi's are transporting stolen goods.

    Imagine being stopped in a Taxi, by an American company who were employed by the taxi company to search you.

    Would you travel with that taxi company again? I think not.

    Would you feel your privacy was invaded? Yes.

    Is it wrong? Yes.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,221 ✭✭✭BrianD


    oulira wrote: »

    I hate when people merely call this THEFT and have no considerations for the opinion of the billions of people that are apparently guilty of it. The people are saying in their billions what they want - and money grabbing companies are just not listening - it's so sad...

    There's no other word for it and just because its theft over the Internet makes no odds. Theft is still theft no matter how you do it. All the Internet has done is made it easier - just like cassettes made it easier compared with vinyl, CDs instead of cassettes etc. The music industry has always been under threat from technology. It has always been one step behind when a new technology comes out but eventually gets one step ahead.

    The traditional record model may well be over. What the Internet allows anybody who produces music to sell it worldwide or where they want with ease. It doesn't matter whether you are an artist, a small label or a major. It's a great leveller. I believe that every musician has a right to make a living from selling their work. Copyright is of huge importance to this and piracy is a theft of their income.

    It's all very well to point to the big bands. many of these bands have made their money through traditional sales of hard copies or are likely to have an audience that will prefer to buy a phsyical copy (the so called 50 quid bloke). While not right, they don't feel the pain of illegal downloads as much as younger artists where digital distribution is essential for them to get music to their fan base. So its not the "ludicrous record labels" as you describe them as, its the next wave of musicians who are being hurt and deprived of a living.

    People have adequate chance to sample artists works for free - switch on the radio for a start, browse digital stores, MySpace, Last FM, online publications.... there's a plethora of traditional and online means of discovering new music that these rules will have no effect on. Of course there will always be a percentage of piracy - the mixtapes of the future - that will never be detected but that doesn't mean or justify the entire catalogue of every artist being given away. Then music has no value, especially for the creators.

    As for those who would point to the 'live performance' business model for bands. Certainly this has been a boom for bands in the past decade. Probably, because it can't be downloaded and shared. Having said that, look at live music now at every level - Marlay Park gone forom 8 to 1 gigs in a summer, the number of smaller gigs have declined around town.

    As for lossless downloads, I see no reason other than efficiency that these could not be made available in the future. The mass market uses pretty low quality audio equipment so the kind of quality that is around doesn't bother them.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,221 ✭✭✭BrianD


    Osu wrote: »
    How would the manufacturer know conclusively without checking the taxi's individually or the person(s) entering the taxi(s)?

    They would have to infringe on your privacy to come to the conclusion that the Taxi's are transporting stolen goods.

    Imagine being stopped in a Taxi, by an American company who were employed by the taxi company to search you.

    Would you travel with that taxi company again? I think not.

    Would you feel your privacy was invaded? Yes.

    Is it wrong? Yes.

    Does it a favour and quit the nonsense and please contribute to the discussion. The commercial provision of broadband is a different matter entirely. As you well know.

    However, it doen't take a genius to work out what would happen if a taxi service became a known way of transporting criminals or stolen goods around the city.


    the bottom line is Eircom know that their pipe is being used for theft of copyright material. It's been pointed out to them by copyright holders and now they have to act accordingly. There is no invasion of privacy. Afterall, practically every other action that you do online is being logged and stored for years.

    Who cares if the detection company is American or not? Most people don't seem to discrimatate on country of orgin when they are stealing music!


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,092 ✭✭✭Le King


    BrianD wrote: »
    Does it a favour and quit the nonsense and please contribute to the discussion.

    Is that even English? The rest of that garbage is, I'm just not quite sure what to make of it.

    Absolute dire crap.


    Cry me a river, downloading is here to stay


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,517 ✭✭✭axer


    Osu wrote: »
    How would the manufacturer know conclusively without checking the taxi's individually or the person(s) entering the taxi(s)?
    Because they bought some of the stuff those in that taxi were selling i.e. they shared it out.
    Osu wrote: »
    They would have to infringe on your privacy to come to the conclusion that the Taxi's are transporting stolen goods.
    Not if you were sharing the stolen goods to any randomer who wanted to take them.


  • Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,502 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    Osu & BrianD I'd advise you against starting a scrap in this forum,

    Osu , your example given in http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=66094931#post66094931 is crap and as already pointed out by axer is heavily flawed, the company acting on behalf of IRMA is acting within the law and acting within an agreement with Eircom, as such is it illegal...no.

    Is downloading copyright material without permision legal...of course it isn't and you'd be a complete idiot to think that it is. This is fact.

    In relation to the privacy side of things we've already seen that the data protection commissioner has reviewed these actions and has found them to be fine, until the data protection commissioner says otherwise then your talking out your hat.

    If you remain concerned about you privacy I strongly suggest you take it up with eircom and the data protection commissioner directly as ranting on a forum won't get you anywhere.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,606 ✭✭✭Jumpy


    Cabaal wrote: »

    Is downloading copyright material without permision legal...of course it isn't and you'd be a complete idiot to think that it is. This is fact.

    A grey area, you have no idea if the person distributing it has permission or otherwise and no way to prove it. I think the term you are looking for is sharing as opposed to downloading.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,244 ✭✭✭AntiRip


    BrianD wrote: »
    There's no other word for it and just because its theft over the Internet makes no odds. Theft is still theft no matter how you do it. All the Internet has done is made it easier - just like cassettes made it easier compared with vinyl, CDs instead of cassettes etc. The music industry has always been under threat from technology. It has always been one step behind when a new technology comes out but eventually gets one step ahead.

    Isn't that the whole problem there! :rolleyes: They should be leading the way with new technologies but they rather stick to the old failing model. I had to laugh at the six one news report when some member of the IRMA came on saying that this was it, the end to P2P. This is how crazy/stupid they are. They literally would have to shut down the whole internet (which they would if they could tbh) to stop people sharing. You are talking about a 3-5mb file which can be zipped/rared/encrypted etc. The younger generation grew up with bebo/youtube/streaming sites and are not going to go into a shop to buy a cd with 19 crap songs and one good one. It's over and it may be very well too late now for them as people have gotten used to getting their fix of music elsewhere.

    P.S. I'm 33 and I have bought 1 or 2 music cds in my whole life. I also don't download or share music but these are just my thoughts :) If I like a song I just look it up on youtube. So they wouldn't make money off me anyways


  • Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,502 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    Jumpy wrote: »
    A grey area, you have no idea if the person distributing it has permission or otherwise and no way to prove it. I think the term you are looking for is sharing as opposed to downloading.

    Please re-read my post, its not a gray area at all
    Is downloading copyright material without permision legal...of course it isn't and you'd be a complete idiot to think that it is. This is fact.

    I didn't give any examples, I am simply stating a fact, it is illegal to download copyright material without permission. Regardless of if your caught or anything else this is still an illegal act.

    is sharing copyright material without permission illegal, yes this is also illegal


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,606 ✭✭✭Jumpy


    Cabaal wrote: »
    Please re-read my post, its not a gray area at all


    I didn't give any examples, I am simply stating a fact, it is illegal to download copyright material without permission. Regardless of if your caught or anything else this is still an illegal act.

    is sharing copyright material without permission illegal, yes this is also illegal

    In that case I will adjust your term "download" to "duplicate". Its a bit more of a cover-all.

    Either way its a civil and not criminal matter. Still illegal but tougher to prosecute.

    Bear in mind I am against piracy, but pro digital download. I think the Recording companys have little future, but I want to see artists get their compensation for what they produce.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,092 ✭✭✭Le King


    Cabaal wrote: »
    Osu , your example given in http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=66094931#post66094931 is crap and as already pointed out by axer is heavily flawed, the company acting on behalf of IRMA is acting within the law and acting within an agreement with Eircom, as such is it illegal...no.

    Is downloading copyright material without permision legal...of course it isn't and you'd be a complete idiot to think that it is. This is fact.

    In relation to the privacy side of things we've already seen that the data protection commissioner has reviewed these actions and has found them to be fine, until the data protection commissioner says otherwise then your talking out your hat.

    If you remain concerned about you privacy I strongly suggest you take it up with eircom and the data protection commissioner directly as ranting on a forum won't get you anywhere.

    First point I'd like to make is if your trying to tell me and Brian D to stop an argument why use words such as "crap" and "talking out of your hat". I think that's a bit hypocritical.

    Nobody has pointed out how my counter-argument is flawed. It's merely his opinion which made no sense on the basis of the topic which we were discussing.

    Also the Data Protection acts are completely outdated. So why post the results of the Data Protection Commissioner?, it's the Data Protection laws that leave us in a grey area.

    Besides, it's a grey area so your opinion cannot be lawfully right, which is the issue being discussed here. So as of right now, nobody is talking out of their hat.

    And to end, I am not with Eircom, so I'm not concerned about my privacy. I'm not the one ranting here, I'm making a clear stated point, if you don't agree with it then fine.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,133 ✭✭✭FloatingVoter


    "Theft A person is guilty of theft if he or she dishonestly appropriates a property without the consent of its owner and with the intention of depriving its owner of it."

    SECTION 59, CRIMINAL JUSTICE (THEFT AND FRAUD OFFENCES) ACT, 2001

    My emphasis on the "and".

    As the deprivation of ownership is not involved in file sharing, there is no legal theft taking place. Thats the law on theft.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,606 ✭✭✭Jumpy


    "Theft A person is guilty of theft if he or she dishonestly appropriates a property without the consent of its owner and with the intention of depriving its owner of it."

    SECTION 59, CRIMINAL JUSTICE (THEFT AND FRAUD OFFENCES) ACT, 2001

    My emphasis on the "and".

    As the deprivation of ownership is not involved in file sharing, there is no legal theft taking place. Thats the law on theft.

    Cabaal wasnt talking about theft. He was talking about duplication of copyright.

    Osu - No data protection laws are broken as there is no sharing of data.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,133 ✭✭✭FloatingVoter


    Jumpy wrote: »
    Cabaal wasnt talking about theft. He was talking about duplication of copyright.

    Osu - No data protection laws are broken as there is no sharing of data.

    Not aimed @ Cabaal, just a general observation.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,092 ✭✭✭Le King


    Jumpy wrote: »
    Cabaal wasnt talking about theft. He was talking about duplication of copyright.

    Osu - No data protection laws are broken as there is no sharing of data.

    Yes, that's what I mean. People deem to be illegal, yet by the law it isn't illegal because of the Data Protection Acts.

    That was my point about it being a grey area.


  • Registered Users Posts: 385 ✭✭IRCA


    Jumpy wrote: »
    In that case I will adjust your term "download" to "duplicate". Its a bit more of a cover-all.

    Either way its a civil and not criminal matter. Still illegal but tougher to prosecute.

    Bear in mind I am against piracy, but pro digital download. I think the Recording companys have little future, but I want to see artists get their compensation for what they produce.


    Actually it is EASIER to prosecute a Civil offence. In Civil law the burden of proof is less than a criminal case, it is based upon the "balance of probability" concept, rather than "beyond reasonable doubt" in Criminal law. Hence for example in the OJ Simpson case where he was aquitted on the Criminal charge but the victims family succeeded in the Civil case.

    Just my €0.02 worth...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,221 ✭✭✭BrianD


    Jumpy wrote: »
    Either way its a civil and not criminal matter. Still illegal but tougher to prosecute.

    It is a criminal matter. The act describes it as such and you can be subject to criminal proceedings.
    Bear in mind I am against piracy, but pro digital download. I think the Recording companys have little future, but I want to see artists get their compensation for what they produce.
    IRMA or anybody else aren't against downloads. They are pro-download too. They just want you to do it legally.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,221 ✭✭✭BrianD


    "Theft A person is guilty of theft if he or she dishonestly appropriates a property without the consent of its owner and with the intention of depriving its owner of it."

    SECTION 59, CRIMINAL JUSTICE (THEFT AND FRAUD OFFENCES) ACT, 2001

    My emphasis on the "and".

    As the deprivation of ownership is not involved in file sharing, there is no legal theft taking place. Thats the law on theft.

    Incorrect. Copyright is covered by a different act. If there's one thing that copyright holders have done is to make a highly detailed and very robust piece of legislation. there are probably less legislation for murder!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,364 ✭✭✭✭Kylo Ren


    Osu wrote: »
    Funny you mention that. How would the Taxi driver/company know who was transporting illegal goods? They have no right to search to search the person before they enter the taxi.


    Nor do any ISP's, they have no right to look at any content I'm downloading or outsource another company to search at what content I'm downloading.


    If they want to stop piracy, they should be going down to the markets to take and fine the people who are selling them for profit.

    Eircom will lose countless of customers over this and let's hope the other ISP's have the balls to stand up to the IRMA over this.

    Thank god I'm out of this country...

    Great point!


  • Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,502 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    Spacedog wrote: »
    My friend is a normal guy, he does not care about logging into his router and doing eircoms job for them, as far as he is concerned the e-mail works, and that's all that matters, he only called me to fix it after recieving this letter.

    After the first 12 months of his contract lapsed the router became his property, given that the affected routers were shipped years ago its not eircoms job anymore to care about the router. However they did notify him years ago.

    Users have to take responsibility,


  • Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,502 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    Osu wrote: »
    Funny you mention that. How would the Taxi driver/company know who was transporting illegal goods? They have no right to search to search the person before they enter the taxi.

    Right lets give a proper comparison,

    First off Eircom as it stands:
    - Eircom provides a service which customers pay for
    - It is well known a percentage of customers use the service illegal
    - Using it in this manner is against eircom's T&C's and the laws of the country
    - They want to stop these types of users so rather then the eircom taking flack they aim for the users
    - They monitor users as they use the service and catch them doing stuff illegal
    - They they notify eircom who if the customer continues then terminate the customers eircom service

    Now lets try the Taxi example as well:
    - A taxi company provides a service which customers pay for
    - It becomes well known that a high percentage of this taxi companys customers use it to ferry drugs around the country
    - Using it in this manner is against Taxi companys 's T&C's and the laws of the country
    - They want to stop these types of users so rather then the Taxi taking flack and having to implement security or shutdown etc they aim for the users
    - They monitor users as they get into a taxi go to a pickup point and then make a drop off and catch them doing stuff illegal
    - They they notify the taxi company who in turn notify the customer that if they customer continues then they will be banned from using the taxi company

    No searching involved or anything,
    Nor do any ISP's, they have no right to look at any content I'm downloading or outsource another company to search at what content I'm downloading.

    You have a clear misunderstanding of how the third party is going to work with eircom, your on the internet and your IP is not your personal property as such people can see what it does.

    If that includes downloading copyright material or sharing it then you've been caught. The internet is not some wild west where no laws apply you are still bound by the laws of the country you live in and your ISP's T&C's.

    Also the company is not employed by eircom its employed by IRMA
    Eircom will lose countless of customers over this and let's hope the other ISP's have the balls to stand up to the IRMA over this.
    .

    All of which are likely either heavy users or are a liability and could end up causing eircom to go to court, as such at the end of the day eircom loosing these customers is no loss what so ever.


  • Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,502 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    Osu wrote: »
    First point I'd like to make is if your trying to tell me and Brian D to stop an argument why use words such as "crap" and "talking out of your hat". I think that's a bit hypocritical.

    I'm a mod in this forum and the forum has rules, this includes now starting arguments. your free to PM me if you have comments regarding this, I;'d request that you refrain from discussing mod actions in thread as its against boards rules


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,462 ✭✭✭Peanut


    oulira wrote: »
    Once you get your first warning that's it then - it doesn't magically 'disappear' after 2 years like penalty points would (although I think they should do something like this.. it would be much fairer).

    I hope I've answered your question - if not - just ask again rephrased!
    Thanks, yes that answers my question.

    BrianD wrote: »
    ...they don't feel the pain of illegal downloads as much as younger artists where digital distribution is essential for them to get music to their fan base. So its not the "ludicrous record labels" as you describe them as, its the next wave of musicians who are being hurt and deprived of a living.

    I would really like to see some concrete evidence for this much-repeated plea. New bands with some talent tend to have groups of fans who will pay to go to live shows, buy fan subscriptions and merchandise.

    I find it exceptionally hard to believe that you will find many musicians, and especially those starting out, who don't want their music to be heard by a wider audience.

    They realise that a downloader who becomes a committed fan is much more valuable in the long term than the cost of a potentially missed sale, and they won't get any sales or other performance/merchandise/subscription income anyway at the start unless they get enough exposure.

    I don't have a problem with IRMA/RIAA etc upholding the rights of their artists. What I do have a problem with is the doublespeak and the arrogant assumption that it's their way or the highway.


Advertisement