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

z0oT

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

They are run by the older less informed generation and therefore are behind the times.

One would indeed have to question the leadership of said companies, it's unbelievable how short sited and pigheadded they are.

I think it's worth noting that the music industry is not against illegal file sharing because they lose profits (which they juice up heavily), not primarily. They are against it as it forces them to compete, to evolve. They are like a buggy cart manufacturer in a world of automobiles, trying to bend engine makers their way through extortion and intimidation as their whole business model has been made largely obsolete by the advances of technology.

That being said, whilst I think it would be nice to see the end of greedy corporate middlemen such as them for their antics down through the years (among many other reasons). At the end of the day content providers themselves just aren't going to have the money to satisfy the investement necessary to bring their product to market in a lot of cases. For instance (to use a non-music example) you don't see large commericial games marketed by the developers or designers.

dub45

Nerin wrote: »

That spanish judge doesn't see it as stealing. In fact,he likened filesharing to book lending.

I wonder will he feel the same when his house is broken into?

dub45

dub45 wrote: »

I wonder will he feel the same when his house is broken into?

That's such a ridiculous argument. File sharing is NOT stealing. I've seen it said in this thread numerous times, and it really irks me. It's not the same as stealing a TV, or a car, or whatever. It's the same as looking at somebody's TV, without touching it, and cloning it for yourself. That isn't stealing a TV; it isn't stealing because the person who you cloned your TV from isn't left without their TV.

As for the loss of revenue to the creator of this TV for your cloning of it, that's a different issue. It's a seperate argument, and the conflation of the two is a disingenuous tactic and appeal to emotion and morality.

I'm not saying file sharing is right, I'm saying it's not stealing in the typical sense of the word. It's more complicated than that, and it shouldn't be wrongly over-simplified, like you've just done here.

dub45

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

That's such a ridiculous argument. File sharing is NOT stealing. I've seen it said in this thread numerous times, and it really irks me. It's not the same as stealing a TV, or a car, or whatever. It's the same as looking at somebody's TV, without touching it, and cloning it for yourself. That isn't stealing a TV; it isn't stealing because the person who you cloned your TV from isn't left without their TV.

But you now have a tv and the manufacturer of that tv has no sale!

If you take your argument to its logical conclusion then a company makes one tv and everyone in the world can have a tv free!

As I have argued previously in the thread if Panasonic or Sony or whoever the tv maker might be find that they are investing huge amounts of money in producing tvs only for them to be copied freely then investment and supply will eventually stop!

dub45

dub45 wrote: »

But you now have a tv and the manufacturer of that tv has no sale!

If you take your argument to its logical conclusion then a company makes one tv and everyone in the world can have a tv free!

As I have argued previously in the thread if Panasonic or Sony or whoever the tv maker might be find that they are investing huge amounts of money in producing tvs only for them to be copied freely then investment and supply will eventually stop!

I agree with you in a sense, as I've said it's more complicated than just saying "downloading a song is the same as breaking into somebody's house and stealing their TV". It's far more complicated than that.

Also, your argument above isn't very effective. It's an exaggeration. It's not like musicians or actors or producers of movies and music only sell a single copy, they sell millions upon millions of copies. Musicians and actors, and especially executives, aren't some of the richest people on Earth because they've only sold one copy.

I think that the levels of piracy are an indication that things have to change. The status quo doesn't work any more, and unless those incharge of distributing and selling music and movies change their ways, piracy will continue. It's worth noting that the pirates are always at least one step ahead of the people trying to catch them. It's the pirates who pioneer and take advantage of new technology, and it'll always be that way. Piracy will continue forever, and the current levels of piracy won't decline unless distributers can offer music and movies at a far more reasonable price. It's the only way to mitigate the affect of piracy on the music and movie industries. I don't know what a reasonable price would be, but that's a different discussion.

dub45

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

I agree with you in a sense, as I've said it's more complicated than just saying "downloading a song is the same as breaking into somebody's house and stealing their TV". It's far more complicated than that.

Also, your argument above isn't very effective. It's an exaggeration. It's not like musicians or actors or producers of movies and music only sell a single copy, they sell millions upon millions of copies. Musicians and actors, and especially executives, aren't some of the richest people on Earth because they've only sold one copy.

I think that the levels of piracy are an indication that things have to change. The status quo doesn't work any more, and unless those incharge of distributing and selling music and movies change their ways, piracy will continue. It's worth noting that the pirates are always at least one step ahead of the people trying to catch them. It's the pirates who pioneer and take advantage of new technology, and it'll always be that way. Piracy will continue forever, and the current levels of piracy won't decline unless distributers can offer music and movies at a far more reasonable price. It's the only way to mitigate the affect of piracy on the music and movie industries. I don't know what a reasonable price would be, but that's a different discussion.

With all due respects this reasonable price thing is absolutely nonsense. The only reasonable price for entertainmant for many people now is ''free''

People download stuff because they can get it for free it is a simple as that. I have been buying music for forty years now and it has never been as cheap. People on here regularly quote high prices for cds and albums which indicate they have absolutely no idea of what a cd actually costs.

And no matter how rich someone is it is not a justification to steal their copy righted material.

dub45

dub45 wrote: »

With all due respects this reasonable price thing is absolutely nonsense. The only reasonable price for entertainmant for many people now is ''free''

People download stuff because they can get it for free it is a simple as that. I have been buying music for forty years now and it has never been as cheap. People on here regularly quote high prices for cds and albums which indicate they have absolutely no idea of what a cd actually costs.

Two things:

• I don't think piracy will ever die, and
• the record labels and movie studies need to change their distribution and sales models, because they obviously aren't working. This is evident by the high levels of piracy.

So, what should they do? Keep their current model and fight a pointless fight against piracy? Or, just change?

And no matter how rich someone is it is not a justification to steal their copy righted material.

I didn't say it was.

z0oT

dub45 wrote: »

I wonder will he feel the same when his house is broken into?

A better analogy than breaking into a house would be this: Say you make a trip into a shop that sells Apples, and by some virtue by having contact with an Apple, you magically conjure your own perfect replica of an Apple and walk out the door with said 'copy'. Then you show your 'copy' to all your friends/family and acquaintances and they proceed to 'copy' the Apple in the same manner, and the process repeats.

It's not exactly stealing or theft as we know it, as nobody essentially loses anything - the shop owner still has the 'original' Apple.

Cabaal

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

. I don't know what a reasonable price would be, but that's a different discussion.

Doesn't seem anybody knows what this "reasonable price" should be as I've asked a few times and nobody has suggested a price as of yet

I suppose it makes sense to not suggest a "reasonable price" when you can use this as an excuse for downloading stuff for free...

Cabaal

z0oT wrote: »

A better analogy than breaking into a house would be this: Say you make a trip into a shop that sells Apples, and by some virtue by having contact with an Apple, you magically conjure your own perfect replica of an Apple and walk out the door with said 'copy'. Then you show your 'copy' to all your friends/family and acquaintances and they proceed to 'copy' the Apple in the same manner, and the process repeats.

It's not exactly stealing or theft as we know it, as nobody essentially loses anything - the shop owner still has the 'original' Apple.

True,
However, if your friends all wanted apple's they would have bought them, the fact they copied your apple means they wanted one.

However as they've not copied it they do not need to buy it so the shop looses sales, no neither you nor your friend will need to visit the shop again for apple's as you can just use the copys

blubloblu

dub45 wrote: »

I wonder will he feel the same when his house is broken into?

This should clear things up for you:

FloatingVoter

This thread has lasted so long I'm repeating myself....

A download does not equate to a lost sale.

Just because someone is curious enough to download something does not mean they ever had the slightest intention and/or ability* to buy it.

*ability to buy includes the product not being for sale in their own country.

lukasbasic

nuxxx wrote: »

I wonder if this affects rapidshare downloads or just torrents

i can't see rapidshare being affected, i might be wrong
**** eircom anyways

wayforward

hello932 wrote: »

MOD WARNING

Since people are ignoring the in thread warnings, here it is. DO NOT ask how to get around this action by eircom. DO NOT ask what you can get away with downloading now (unless it's legal to download, and legal downloads are not effected by this anyway). DO NOT boast about all the illegal stuff you have been downloading.

There is no law to prevent anyone from discussing what one can get “away with” – which is nothing more than a discussion on one’s legal rights. Any more than there is a law preventing one making a statement to the effect that proportional self-defence against a street attacker is legal, whereas one doesn’t have the right to go around randomly murdering people.

Eircom’s proposal to cut off “file sharers” is in my view in breach of several sections of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental freedoms. As regulator of the industry, Comreg has an obligation to ensure that carriers comply with laws and regulations, including this treaty.

http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/Treaties/Html/005.htm

Article 6 – Right to a fair trial – ie everybody has a right to a fair trial – ie not to be disconnected without a legally valid court order.

Article 10 – Freedom of expression – without an internet connection, your ability and freedom to express oneself is severely restricted. While someone might suggest that you get another ISP (if you can) – if all ISPs adopt eircom’s stance on disconnection subscribers, you are switched off.

Article 13 – Right to an effective remedy – similar to 6.

As it stands, if someone criticises the big media lobby/eircom – there is nothing to stop them from conspiring to take you off the air – because it is against their interests. They don’t have to prove anything – unless people (including comreg) start taking legal action against them.

axer

FloatingVoter wrote: »

This thread has lasted so long I'm repeating myself....

A download does not equate to a lost sale.

Just because someone is curious enough to download something does not mean they ever had the slightest intention and/or ability* to buy it.

*ability to buy includes the product not being for sale in their own country.

The problem with this is you are simplifying to the other extreme.

File sharing is and isn't stealing and it is and isn't a lost sale. It is part of both.

I would think there is a correlation between lost sales and file sharing but I would not think the correlation is a perfect 1. Just because it is not a perfect correlation doesn't mean file sharing doesn't lose revenue for the record company/artist.

FloatingVoter

axer wrote: »

The problem with this is you are simplifying to the other extreme.

File sharing is and isn't stealing and it is and isn't a lost sale. It is part of both.

I would think there is a correlation between lost sales and file sharing but I would not think the correlation is a perfect 1. Just because it is not a perfect correlation doesn't mean file sharing doesn't lose revenue for the record company/artist.

I'm fully agreed with it being a grey area. I don't live in cloud cuckoo land - when something that normally costs money is free, someone somewhere is losing out. And yes, I was going to the other extreme...but equating filesharing to housebreaking was a little too much for me.

axer

wayforward wrote: »

There is no law to prevent anyone from discussing what one can get “away with” – which is nothing more than a discussion on one’s legal rights.

Yes there is:

Forum Charter wrote:

-No Warez, Hackz, Appz, Crackz or copyright Movies or TV shows (advice/sourcing or discussion via bittorrent or otherwise)

Couldn't be any clearer. Break these forum laws and face possible ban/jail.

wayforward wrote: »

blah blah ... human rights ... blah blah

It doesn't matter. You agree to the terms and conditions when signing up with eircom. If eircom have reason to suspect you are operating outside of these terms (which explicitly prohibit illegal file sharing) then they have every right to terminate your contract with them as you are in breach. Human rights do not come into it - it all comes down to your contract with eircom. If you think the contract is unfair then make a complaint but I don't see the unfairness in it.

watty

wayforward wrote: »

There is no law to prevent anyone from discussing what one can get “away with” – which is nothing more than a discussion on one’s legal rights.

There are laws that can prevent you discussing "what you can get away with". The particular laws and penalties depend on what it is.
(Examples are: How to hack PayTV. Discussion of that can be a criminal offence in Irish law. How to make a terror weapon/WMD or commit an act of terrorism, Discussing how to commit a theft, fraud or murder can be charges on Conspiracy laws).

Only a tiny proportion of infringing downloads are lost sales. That doesn't affect the morality.

Some Media companies are stupid and/or greedy. That doesn't affect the morality.

Some Content is not distributed Digitally. That doesn't affect the morality.

Internet access is not yet agreed to be a basic human right. There may be sound arguments that it should be. But I'd rather concentrate on more serious injustices. In EVERY ISP's T&C I've ever read they reserve the right to disconnect those infringing copyright. The way this scheme works is that you are more likely to win lotto that get cut off for infringing copyright, if you are a regular P2P user. If you don't use P2P then it's even less likely.

Your details are never divulged to a third party, thus other ISPs and the Record Labels / IRMA etc NEVER know who you are. This has been tested in court.

I don't personally agree with this scheme. But actually while appearing to give in, eircom has committed to very little.

Only 10% or so of people in real world will be affected at all, and the obvious "freetards" *(collective description coined by The Register) posting all the same old tired self-justifications are over reacting anyway.

Currently Articles 6, 10 and 13 don't apply to this situation. Maybe they should, but actually in reality they don't.

eircom are only doing what you agreed when you signed up. There is no abrogation of Data Protection Act or any of your rights in Irish or EU law or under Geneva conventions.

Actually over 50,000 households probably can't even get Broadband. Have you complained to your TD about that? Get some perspective.


(* what collective name should be used for "consistent abusers of Copyright on the Internet that think everything electronically copyable should be free"? That's a bit long-winded. )

FloatingVoter

Calling people "freetards" isn't helping you make your point.

Cabaal

FloatingVoter wrote: »

Calling people "freetards" isn't helping you make your point.

watty has previously made reference to nunmerous The Register storys which refer to freetards, its clear thats where he's quoting it from

for example:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/28/fone_a_freetard_flaw/

Suspected freetards will then receive a letter, email, a phone call - imagine that!*- or even a web popup.

Cabaal

wayforward wrote: »

There is no law to prevent anyone from discussing what one can get “away with” – which is nothing more than a discussion on one’s legal rights. .

You appear to be confused,
Boards.is is not some wild west where you can do and say what you want, boards.ie has rules and one of them is you won't talk about illegal activity.

As such if you do you've been warning and you will be banned.

Consider yourself infracted for not following boards rules in respect of commenting on a mods decision on thread

Eircom’s proposal to cut off “file sharers” is in my view in breach of several sections of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental freedoms. As regulator of the industry, Comreg has an obligation to ensure that carriers comply with laws and regulations, including this treaty..

Your view doesn't make it fact however, until the day its proven to be in breach of anything then it is perfectly legal

.

Article 10 – Freedom of expression – without an internet connection, your ability and freedom to express oneself is severely restricted. While someone might suggest that you get another ISP (if you can) – if all ISPs adopt eircom’s stance on disconnection subscribers, you are switched off..

Your confused again.
Your comparing freedom of expression with copyright theft? Seriously?

.

As it stands, if someone criticises the big media lobby/eircom – there is nothing to stop them from conspiring to take you off the air – because it is against their interests. They don’t have to prove anything – unless people (including comreg) start taking legal action against them.

You think if you critisize eirom they will disconnect you?
I think you left your tinfoil hat in your faraday cage...you might want to go get it
:rolleyes:

Copyright theft is not criticizing eircom, it is an illegal act....you've once again confused copyright theft with freedom of expression. You honestly need to read laws more.

watty

What collective name should be used for "consistent abusers of Copyright on the Internet that think everything electronically copyable should be free"? That's a bit long-winded of a name.

See http://search.theregister.co.uk/?q=freetard (57 results)

and http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/28/fone_a_freetard_flaw/

or
http://www.google.ie/search?q=freetard 100,000s of results

http://www.fakesteve.net/2007/07/freetards-in-deep-denial.html

Watty doesn't endorse any Website, and probabily doesn't agree with most of the opinions on most web sites.

I actually have no difficulty with using Linux or FOSS or even releasing OS SW free. But there is no logical reason why the aim or default should be to have anything that can be distributed Electronically, free. I do slightly feel uneasy about Linux because a large part of code has been written at Colleges (at Taxpayer or buisness expense) where the time could have been more profitably spent on real research and learning. There is nothing innovative about Linux, it and BSD (free before linux existed) and in a sense the whole FOSS movement only exist because UNIX was developed jointly between University and AT&T, but afterwards AT&T said they owned it all. A 1976 OS IP spat is the reason Linux is essentially a copy of a 1976 OS and FOSS exists. A bit stupid. Hence "Freetards". To go another step without any logic and then decide the goal should be to apply GNU/FOSS principles and licence to ALL software development and distribution is crazy talk. But that is what the "real" Lessing/Stallman disciples believe.

Then go another another leap and demand that ALL creative work ought to be "free" simply because it's easy to make digital copies and re-distribute them is "Retarded". The cost is substantial. People pay ALREADY a "tax" on their broadband use as the 10% to 15% of people that do this eat 90% of the traffic unless the Network is strictly managed. Even on Networks with Cap 15% can be eating 80% of traffic. That raises the cost for everyone.

Free is not a sustainable model for Content on the Internet, nor for distribution of Creative Material. It Chokes the 1st and kills the second. Everyone will end up with cat playing pianos for content if "Freetards" get their wishes.

Cabaal

Cabaal wrote: »

Doesn't seem anybody knows what this "reasonable price" should be as I've asked a few times and nobody has suggested a price as of yet

I suppose it makes sense to not suggest a "reasonable price" when you can use this as an excuse for downloading stuff for free...

I suppose that a reasonable price is completely subjective. For me, at least, paying €20 for a new DVD is far too much. Paying almost the same for a new album is again far to much. If films were available online for between €2 and €5 (depending on quality), I'd buy them. If albums were available for around the €2 mark, I'd buy them. Buying albums from most online stores is pointless, for me, because they're of low .mp3 or .aac quality. I like all of my music to be .flac, and I rip most of my albums to that.

I'll be honest and say that I have pirated several movies/albums. In my case, it doesn't specifically represent a lost sale, as I would have never gone out and bought that CD or movie in the first place. I'd hazard making an assumption that this is the case for a large proportion of file sharers. And for a large proportion of the rest, there have been studies and surveys showing that people who pirate are more likely to buy CDs and/or go to concerts (I can link to them if you want, but I'm sure you're already aware of them) than many of those who don't pirate. And, I've already linked to a scientific paper showing that there's no statistically significant correlation between the fall in music sales and the increase in online piracy. With all of this, I think there's a gross over simplification in assuming that piracy is inherently a bad and evil thing.

watty

watty wrote: »

What collective name should be used for "consistent abusers of Copyright on the Internet that think everything electronically copyable should be free"? That's a bit long-winded of a name.

How about "those who pirate", or even pirates. Freetards is a bit childish.

FloatingVoter

Communism -A theory which advocates a state of society in which there should be no private ownership, all property being vested in the community and labour organized for the common benefit of all members; the professed principle being that each should work according to his capacity, and receive according to his wants. (Oxford English Dictionary)

Why not be done with it and call us all communists

Cabaal

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

I suppose that a reasonable price is completely subjective. For me, at least, paying €20 for a new DVD is far too much. Paying almost the same for a new album is again far to much. If films were available online for between €2 and €5 (depending on quality), I'd buy them. If albums were available for around the €2 mark,

Based on your pricing model you'd expect a single track to cost..what 10c?

You expect 2e to cover production, advertising, hosting costs etc for a bands album? Do you even want the artist to get even 1c at that type of price?

I'd buy them. Buying albums from most online stores is pointless, for me, because they're of low .mp3 or .aac quality. I like all of my music to be .flac, and I rip most of my albums to that.

I get were your coming from but the average joe on the street doesn't even know what flac is,

watty

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

How about "those who pirate", or even pirates. Freetards is a bit childish.

Pirates are interested in commercial return. I think it's an insult to call "consistent abusers of Copyright on the Internet that think everything electronically copyable should be free", Pirates. Anyway i didn't invent the term.

Only wear the Cap if it fits.

Some folks have called FOSS "Communism". However real Communists want to apply it to everything, not just Electronically Distributable Creative Works. Every evidence suggests people are not perfect enough for Communism.

I have also no desire to be sent to a Gulag for refusing to publish all my code, photographs and books for free. That is where legalised free downloading/sharing of all creative work would end. Those that don't study the mistakes of history are doomed to repeat them.

Cabaal

Cabaal wrote: »

Based on your pricing model you'd expect a single track to cost..what 10c?

You expect 2e to cover production, advertising, hosting costs etc for a bands album? Do you even want the artist to get even 1c at that type of price?

I've two ways of looking at this situation:

1. The record and movie industries can continue to target and try to eliminate piracy. This, I think, is a futile attempt at solving their problems. The people who create or utilise the technology to enable the masses to pirate are always at least one step ahead of those trying to catch them, namely the music and movie industries. If the current distribution and sales models continue, people will continue to pirate for, as I see it, ever.
2. Isn't receiving €2 for an album far, far better than receiving nothing at all for it? If an online store was created which had the catalog of music that such sites as, for example, Oink's Pink Palace had, and offered this music in all qualities from low .mp3 to .flac, then I could see a large number of those who illegally share moving to such a site.

As I see it, there's only one solution.

I get were your coming from but the average joe on the street doesn't even know what flac is,

That's completely true, but an online legal source for music of as high a quality should still be offered for those that know what flac is.

watty

We can argue if it should be €2 or €5.
There are a lot more CDs and DVDs at €6 and €12 etc now rather than overpriced €20 for a CD when DVD cost more to produce and are €20 typically for new releases.

The fact is that you won't get much extra sales below a certain point. For €2 rather than €5 you might need x4 sales. That won't happen. The dedicated "Freetard" objects to paying ANYTHING.

Also while some people that download will buy more discs, they will STILL download as much and only spend about the same total amount. That's one reason why very little of Downloads is lost sales.

At the moment it's a controllable issue as it's less than 15% that do it significantly, maybe less than 10%. But if you legitimise it then the commercial market would fail completely over time and then there would be very little decent new content.

Of the 10% that download infringing material an even smaller percentage are the major providers. These are the people Governments, IRMA, IP holders, ISPs and everyone needs to go after.

Having good & sensibly priced Phyiscal and Electronic distribution is only a little part of the story. Too much can be made of Electronic Distribution. It's much cheaper to make and Mail an HD film on BluRay than distribute it via Internet at same quality.

Maybe when the whole world has fibre to living room, electronic distribution can compete with Physical Disc for SAME QUALITY. At the minute it can't

Reason for decline in Music sales maybe little related to Piracy actually. People have a limited "pot" of money to spend. Competing costs compared to 1970s now are

• Computer Games
• DVDs
• Bluray
• Drink, esp. Wine
• High Rent/Mortgage costs
• Petrol is now 75% tax
• Computers (hardly anyone had one in 1970)
• Gadgets (people rarely bought Electronics, Many TVs rented)
• Fast food and Fancy Coffee shops, Chinese (Wimpey & KFC did exist then though in N.I. at least), for regular rather than special treats.

Some things on this list didn't exist at all in 1970 or where only purchased by rich or as occasional treats.

Another reason is that maybe a lot of Music now is covers of 1950s to 1980s or simply not very good?

axer

So what do people suggest be done to tackle piracy? I don't see why people have a problem with this. It is IRMA's decision whether to fund this or not thus it is not costing anyone here anything. So whats your problem?