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

I read the mod post at the start but I don't understand how they will differentiate between legal large downloads on filesharing networks like open source stuff, and illegal stuff?

RangeR

Dunder Mifflin wrote: »

Fake quote!

Funny guy

bluewolf wrote: »

I read the mod post at the start but I don't understand how they will differentiate between legal large downloads on filesharing networks like open source stuff, and illegal stuff?

Has been explained many times in this thread.

blubloblu

bluewolf wrote: »

I read the mod post at the start but I don't understand how they will differentiate between legal large downloads on filesharing networks like open source stuff, and illegal stuff?

At this stage I feel like making a little info-graphic. :P
IRMA gives Dtecnet (Danish firm) a list of copyrighted works they want tracked. Dtecnet then go around torrent sites and other networks looking for those works. They connect to a swarm and collect IP addresses involved. If any of these fall within ranges that IRMA are interested in, they get forwarded on. IRMA then give any eircom IPs over to eircom for them to process. Eircom match up IPs to an account and send out warning letter.
At no stage is eircom spying on your oonnection, nor does the size of the file matter.

blubloblu

blubloblu wrote: »

At this stage I feel like making a little info-graphic. :P
IRMA gives Dtecnet (Danish firm) a list of copyrighted works they want tracked. Dtecnet then go around torrent sites and other networks looking for those works. They connect to a swarm and collect IP addresses involved. If any of these fall within ranges that IRMA are interested in, they get forwarded on. IRMA then give any eircom IPs over to eircom for them to process. Eircom match up IPs to an account and send out warning letter.
At no stage is eircom spying on your oonnection, nor does the size of the file matter.

Thanks

BrianD

Osu wrote: »

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

With due respect, if you are going to advocate the theft of other peoples work and source of income then any rational arguement, commonsense, codes of practice and the law are going to be lost on you! Let's face it the average house breaker does it for his own reasons irrespective of the laws of the land.

As regards to "rest of that garbage" do point out where I am wrong as opposed to not wanting to agree what I am saying.

johanz

There is no way to stop piracy without hurting the customer.
If you block something, that's bad.
If you spy on someone's traffic, that's bad too.

There is no win/win situation.
And ISPs who don't do any of this **** will get more customers.

Really, poo is a censored word?

BrianD

Peanut wrote: »

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.

But this IRMA/Eircom initiative has no affect on this. If a band wants to distribute their music without charge via blogs, their own site, and so on they still can.

In regard to the 'live element', it is more than obvious that the live scene is not as lucrative as it was a few years back. This is for economic reasons - people don't have the disposable income and it seems to me that the smaller shows are feeling the pinch. It may seem odd but people will still spend on the big ticket shows as they believe they will get guaranteed big for the buck.

All bands should be able to maximise their income all aspects of their creativity be that download sales, merchandising and live performances.

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.

There is no correlation between illegal downloading i.e free music and becoming a committed fan. The fact that music had to be purchased in the past and bands could build up large fan bases demonstrates that the opposite is true.

briany

This will be a fiasco. If it becomes a case of pensioners and printers getting the blame, well, you can only laugh really. Not that there aren't any pensioners who aren't downloading, mind you.

It can't be list of protected works can it? More like anything on these labels is fair game? How many torrents and P2P files would that be in all? Would Dtec be using some sort of special crawler to monitor all of this and if that is so, would it be centrally implemented? And if we don't know this stuff already, how long before a hacker finds out?

BrianD

johanz wrote: »

There is no way to stop piracy without hurting the customer.
If you block something, that's bad.
If you spy on someone's traffic, that's bad too.

There is no win/win situation.
And ISPs who don't do any of this **** will get more customers.

Really, poo is a censored word?

How does it hurt the customer? Like most things in life I would prefer if I got them for free - food, a place to live, fuel ...

It's not as if the consumer is getting nothing for buying a download. There is no blockage in the flow of music content from the creators to those who enjoy it.

FloatingVoter

BrianD wrote: »

But this IRMA/Eircom initiative has no affect on this. If a band wants to distribute their music without charge via blogs, their own site, and so on they still can.

That point touches on the related point of the IMRO looking for money from blogs, discussed here..http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=65647851

BrianD

FloatingVoter wrote: »

That point touches on the related point of the IMRO looking for money from blogs, discussed here..http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=65647851

And if the bloggers get a licence - be it a waiver, nominal fee or the scale proposed by IMRO - then there is no issue and they continue what they are doing.

Peanut

BrianD wrote: »

But this IRMA/Eircom initiative has no affect on this. If a band wants to distribute their music without charge via blogs, their own site, and so on they still can.

That wasn't the issue. The question was "Does file sharing have an especially bad effect on upcoming artists?" - and you suggested that it does.

I am just looking for evidence that this is the case, considering that most new bands need as much exposure as possible at the start to have a chance of longer-term success.

BrianD wrote: »

There is no correlation between illegal downloading i.e free music and becoming a committed fan. The fact that music had to be purchased in the past and bands could build up large fan bases demonstrates that the opposite is true.

Except that people DID also exchange "free" music before.

johanz

BrianD wrote: »

How does it hurt the customer? Like most things in life I would prefer if I got them for free - food, a place to live, fuel ...

It's not as if the consumer is getting nothing for buying a download. There is no blockage in the flow of music content from the creators to those who enjoy it.

Then I guess enjoy your ISP sniffing what you browse, what you download and everything else.
Internet is not real life, it shouldn't be compared to one.

johanz

Peanut wrote: »

Except that people DID also exchange "free" music before.

Thank god home taping didn't kill music [/sarcasm]

O no, now this new singer won't be able to afford 10th villa and one more motorboat, what horror.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3jkUhG68wY

Nerin

BrianD wrote: »

If a band wants to distribute their music without charge via blogs, their own site, and so on they still can.

BrianD wrote: »

And if the bloggers get a licence - be it a waiver, nominal fee or the scale proposed by IMRO - then there is no issue and they continue what they are doing.

Heh. Well played.

Why the hell should a music blogger pay IMRO for the right to promote a band that has already given them permission to do so.

Why should IMRO charge for something that the actual creator has already given away for free for promotion?

And why the hell would any blogger want to pay such arseholes (IMRO) for doing joe small band a favour. Screw that.

Already around the web, people who don't even download are against this.
So even if the pro IRMA/Eircom crowd want to keep pointing at illegal activities, this is a B.S point.
People are against it for more reasons that they're pirates.

I'm on Meteor wireless. I can't pirate. My download cap is used up nearly every month simply by surfing,playing games on Kongregate,working on my site and using youtube,google video and vimeo. This, as well as being a software magpie (through download.com) means i don't have the option to download any mp3s.

If i want to post about whatever silly post the pirate bay makes on their site,i want to be able to screen shot it,quote it, direct from the source. Eircom wouldn't allow me do this. meteor does, for now. (im well aware of eircoms aquisition of meteor btw)

I'm against this because its wrong. IRMA is wrong IMO to be allowed do this. The third party company is wrong to do this. Eircom is wrong to do this.

Its principal. I disagree wholeheartedly with this. And if it come to it, i will probably move to some other provider if they start blocking sites and acting like vigilantes.

you wanna arrest pirates? Fine, build a case against someone and take it to court. But **** this G.I Joe bull****, playing around on the web like some sort of undecover agent downloading torrents to get ips.

As for record labels, they've proved to me that they are fundamentally on the side of wrong, with money grabbing and dirty tactics. (such as the "child porn is great" comments coming from them. As for Eircom, they've proved themselves as asshats when questioned about censorship and providing a decent service.

It doesn't matter to me if Eircom is watching you, or IRMA or 3rd parties. Its wrong to me. And i'll be advising anyone, pirate or preacher, to not only boycott them, but to how bad IRMA and Eircom are.

Jev/N

blubloblu wrote: »

At this stage I feel like making a little info-graphic. :P
IRMA gives Dtecnet (Danish firm) a list of copyrighted works they want tracked. Dtecnet then go around torrent sites and other networks looking for those works. They connect to a swarm and collect IP addresses involved. If any of these fall within ranges that IRMA are interested in, they get forwarded on. IRMA then give any eircom IPs over to eircom for them to process. Eircom match up IPs to an account and send out warning letter.
At no stage is eircom spying on your oonnection, nor does the size of the file matter.

I have reiterated the above in the AH thread, but being devils advocate on the matter, the US situation has proven that they make mistakes, and lots of them! With the RIAA, they ended up accusing, among others, dead people and people without access to the Internet.

Also @Nerin, IMRO can ask for money because they own they have the right to - if the music royalties are collected by IMRO, even if an artists has given express permission to the blogger, but they're under IMRO, money has to be paid; it's a contractual arrangement. In addition, you can't seem to back up you're assertions relating to the fact that everyone is "wrong"


(PS> I'm against a lot of these actions, I'm just setting out the facts as there's enough misinformation already flying around)

Nerin

Jev/N wrote: »

relating to the fact that everyone is "wrong"

Bit of misinformation there yourself. when did i say everyone? :pac:

I said IRMA, Eircom and the 3rd party company in my opinions are wrong to do this. I didn't say they were wrong in the eyes of the law, in the eyes of the great Cthulu or in the eyes of the Mongolians peoples republic.

IRMA being the biggun. Eircom being the beatch in the relationship, mostly because of a silly ruling, but also because they are dicks. The 3rd part company,well they are least to "blame" imo,its their business, but it doesn't mean it's right in my eyes. Just like veggies don't like beef farmers.

Just because its a contractual with IMRO doesn't make it "right" either.

Mathiasb

Nerin wrote: »

text

Finally a post that makes sense.

blubloblu

Jev/N wrote: »

I have reiterated the above in the AH thread, but being devils advocate on the matter, the US situation has proven that they make mistakes, and lots of them! With the RIAA, they ended up accusing, among others, dead people and people without access to the Internet.

Also @Nerin, IMRO can ask for money because they own they have the right to - if the music royalties are collected by IMRO, even if an artists has given express permission to the blogger, but they're under IMRO, money has to be paid; it's a contractual arrangement. In addition, you can't seem to back up you're assertions relating to the fact that everyone is "wrong"


(PS> I'm against a lot of these actions, I'm just setting out the facts as there's enough misinformation already flying around)

There's a study by the University of Washington that managed to get DMCA warnings issued to printers! http://dmca.cs.washington.edu/
A good quote from it:

Practically any Internet user can be framed for copyright infringement today.

Even without being explicitly framed, innocent users may still receive complaints.

Jev/N

Nerin wrote: »

Bit of misinformation there yourself. when did i say everyone? :pac:

I said IRMA, Eircom and the 3rd party company in my opinions are wrong to do this. I didn't say they were wrong in the eyes of the law, in the eyes of the great Cthulu or in the eyes of the Mongolians peoples republic.

IRMA being the biggun. Eircom being the beatch in the relationship, mostly because of a silly ruling, but also because they are dicks. The 3rd part company,well they are least to "blame" imo,its their business, but it doesn't mean it's right in my eyes. Just like veggies don't like beef farmers.

Just because its a contractual with IMRO doesn't make it "right" either.

Look I won't get into an argument over moral rights vs. legal rights, that's something which could go on for years and anyway I've already said I don't agree with the settlement which has been arranged or with IMRO's stance re blogs, we're on the same side of the fence!

When I said everyone relating to your post, I meant it figuratively i.e. all the parties involved in the action ("everyone") - perhaps I should have been clearer, I know you can't read my mind and posts aren't always clear in that respect.

Eircom had their own decision to make, the court only ruled on the data protection issues, which were resolved. As I said in AH, Eircom chickened out by offering the settlement, even with a probable win coming their way in the '09 case. If it had gone to a full ruling, there would have been a lot more issues raised and deliberated, it was far from a cut and dried case.

There is a lot wrong with the recording industry for more than the last few decades and it's not going to turn around soon, although I'd hope it would. Their archaic, backwards business models and continuous errant decisions regarding new technology have forced them into the situations they are in today.

If and when UPC win the case taken against them, the Eircom settlement will fall apart anyway

stevek93

At this stage you don't know what is illegal an legal anymore on the internet, im not boasting about what i have downloaded but Ive downloaded a fair bit over the years and as i was saying I don't know now what is illegal anymore, you'll get a site claiming legal downloads and before you know it eircom will be on your back, before they set this ban on downloading we should be shown what is an not illegal.

jor el

stevek93 wrote: »

At this stage you don't know what is illegal an legal anymore on the internet, im not boasting about what i have downloaded but Ive downloaded a fair bit over the years and as i was saying I don't know now what is illegal anymore, you'll get a site claiming legal downloads and before you know it eircom will be on your back, before they set this ban on downloading we should be shown what is an not illegal.

If you're downloading commercial products without paying for them, you can be pretty damn sure it's illegal. The "I didn't know it wasn't legal" argument will not fly, and it's pretty stupid to try to claim that. There isn't a ban on downloading either, nor is anything legal effected by this.

blubloblu

Reporters Without Borders aren't impressed

Reporters Without Borders is disturbed to learn that Eircom, one of Ireland’s main Internet Service Providers, has become the first ISP in Europe to voluntarily introduce a “graduated response” procedure under which clients who download music illegally could end up losing their Internet connection.
Announced on 24 May, the decision was motivated by business concerns and lacks any legal legitimacy. It is the result of an agreement between Eircom and the Irish Recorded Music Association (IRMA), which represents 55 music industry companies including Sony, Universal, EMI and Warner.
“The current tendency is to put Internet Service Providers at the centre of efforts to combat illegal downloading,” Reporters Without Borders said. “This is also the case with the ACTA, the proposed international treaty against counterfeiting that is currently being discussed. The disastrous effect of these initiatives is to turn the ISP into an Internet policeman.”
The press freedom organisation added: “It is the ISP that, flouting the right of defence and presumption of innocence, arbitrarily decides to interrupt Internet access, which is a fundamental right. Eircom reluctantly agreed to this pilot project in order to avoid legal sanctions under a lawsuit brought by Irish copyright holders that accused it of failing to take any steps to combat illegal downloading. ”
…

martinstatic

Oh for christ sake, this is just overhyped crap

This was january LAST YEAR
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2009/0129/1232923373331.html

and THIS YEAR
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2010/0524/1224271013389.html

It's almost a tradition now...a tradional scare.

stevek93

It will happen not now but in the future id say, remember the b0xes told us they were going to cut them off and eventually they did tho has nothing to do with eircom just making a point.

FloatingVoter

Theres a 3 week high court hearing scheduled involving upc starting in the middle of June. It wouldn't surprise me if things stay calm until thats over, one way or the other.

BrianD

Nerin wrote: »

Heh. Well played.

Why the hell should a music blogger pay IMRO for the right to promote a band that has already given them permission to do so.

Why should IMRO charge for something that the actual creator has already given away for free for promotion?

And why the hell would any blogger want to pay such arseholes (IMRO) for doing joe small band a favour. Screw that.

At the risk of going off topic. Bloggers are using copyright material for their own puposes. The "free promotion" is only a by the way. Bloggers have the right to distribute tracks given to them without royalty not to use it without royalty. Big difference.

johanz wrote:

Then I guess enjoy your ISP sniffing what you browse, what you download and everything else.
Internet is not real life, it shouldn't be compared to one.

The Internet is real life and rules, regulations and laws apply. It's not some sort of free for all wild west divorced from reality. My ISP is already 'sniffing' what I browse and retaining that information for a period of time.

Jev/N

martinstatic wrote: »

Oh for christ sake, this is just overhyped crap

This was january LAST YEAR
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2009/0129/1232923373331.html

and THIS YEAR
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2010/0524/1224271013389.html

It's almost a tradition now...a tradional scare.

LOL it's the same thing, it just couldn't be implemented because of the queries of the data protection commissioner, which were resolved on 19th April this year

mneylon

BrianD wrote: »

My ISP is already 'sniffing' what I browse and retaining that information for a period of time.

Which ISP are you using??