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

Cabaal

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

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.

Doing so won't be cost affective, thats like saying record companys should still produce vinyl records for those people that still want them.

If the average joe doesn't know what it is then there isn't enough demand for it, so it makes no sense to offer it as its a waste of time to offer it.

A business works on offering a service people want, if people don't know what flac is then they don't want it and as such there is no demand.

For the rest of the business model people want music, the industry produces it and people buy it or if their cheap commit copyright theft and they copy it and claim they are a fan but don't support the artists...go figure.

z0oT

Cabaal wrote: »

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

Since that's come up and FOSS and Linux have come up too. This is an illustration I think needs be made, consider a large professional piece of software like Adobe Photoshop or a DAW package like Steinberg Cubase, Apple Logic etc. One might wonder why they cost the huge prices they do, but consider this:

The real people behind the software are the developers, UI designers, testers etc. Lets say for argument sakes that Adobe have 100 developers, and 10 testers working full time on Photoshop. Say they all earn €100,000 a year each, which may be too generous or not generous enough as I'm not a developer myself. Now lets say all of them have to closely together for 2 years to produce a new stable version of Photoshop. That's $2,200,000 of a cost straight away. And that's not factoring the cost of marketing, advertising or any other of the costs associated with it. This is also the reason that you don't tend to get professional grade FOSS software, there are a few exceptions (eg. Ardour) but they're few and far between. The same is true for the Music Industry with the exception being that only the artists that sell sufficiently high amounts of Albums/Singles actually make a tangible amount of money of the sales of their physical media.

So yes, while the whole "Free Culture" arguments are nice, one has to turn a profit somehow to survive whatever industry it is.

ShadowHearth

right... sorry but i cant see eircom shooting themself in a foot.

90% of people have downloaded, downloading, or will download something pirated.

Eircom throwing away so many customers? Nah, sorry, but i cant see it happening...

It will be in the books, but i really doubt eircom will actually take some seriuos action on a fella who ninja'ed Lady Gaga'tranny album...

RangeR

ShadowHearth wrote: »

90% of people have downloaded, downloading, or will download something pirated.

Where are you getting this figure from?

Regardless, the powers that be only have to make a few examples in the hope that most people will stop.

Again, and I'll say it for a third time [and hopefully the last], people are hugely over estimating the number of people eircom will lose over this. It will be minuscule compared to their existing customer base.

watty

ShadowHearth wrote: »

right... sorry but i cant see eircom shooting themself in a foot.

90% of people have downloaded, downloading, or will download something pirated.

And 50% of Statistics are made up.

The highest I have seen quoted in a survey was 33%, not 90%. In UK it's Closer to 15%.

Of course, oddly, IRMA, RIAA and the "Freetards" always want to pick the higher figures, either to justify "Numptyism" (This is Terrible, end of Civilisation etc) or "Freetardism" (Everyone is doing it, so it's OK).

Decent surveys suggest it's not a huge problem because
* Only a minority do it.
* The lost sales are in reality negligible.

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Eircom throwing away so many customers? Nah, sorry, but i cant see it happening...

If you read the Register article they calculate how likely it is

ShadowHearth

watty wrote: »

And 50% of Statistics are made up.

The highest I have seen quoted in a survey was 33%, not 90%. In UK it's Closer to 15%.

Of course, oddly, IRMA, RIAA and the "Freetards" always want to pick the higher figures, either to justify "Numptyism" (This is Terrible, end of Civilisation etc) or "Freetardism" (Everyone is doing it, so it's OK).

Decent surveys suggest it's not a huge problem because
* Only a minority do it.
* The lost sales are in reality negligible.





If you read the Register article they calculate how likely it is

well to be honest, that is the figure i came up in my head. figurative speech...
damn, next time i will post something i will cover it with 2 pages of facts, which will be proven by 20 independent organisations...

Allmoust all people i know have downloaded something. i dont believe its only 15-30%, its really interesting how they find out that figure?

i use to download allmoust everything back in the day, but now i can afford to buy stuff. To be honest... i cant be arsed to download anymore... just buying it in the shop, or ordering it online... :rolleyes:

axer

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Allmoust all people i know have downloaded something. i dont believe its only 15-30%, its really interesting how they find out that figure?

Its interesting how you think it is 90% just because "Allmoust all people i know have downloaded something".

Nobody is expecting "2 pages of facts, which will be proven by 20 independent organisations...". Just at least give one (being pulled out of your ar$e is not one).

ShadowHearth

axer wrote: »

Its interesting how you think it is 90% just because "Allmoust all people i know have downloaded something".

Nobody is expecting "2 pages of facts, which will be proven by 20 independent organisations...". Just at least give one (bring pulled out of your ar$e is not one).

my arse is so amazing.

In fact, i was wrong. every single person i know have downloaded something. So if i do survey of people i know it will be 100%.

I still wount believe surveys, as people are not honest on those, specially when it will be about piracy.

surveys are not accurate, for example: there was a thread on games forum that avarage gamers age is 32... as much as i would love to believe it its innacurate. why? Becouse survey was done on internet forums by some company. Now how many mature fellas playing on Pcs, who have access to those forums, and how much kids playing xboxes, who newer even knew there is such thing...

ZeRoY

watty wrote: »

Decent surveys suggest it's not a huge problem because
* Only a minority do it.
* The lost sales are in reality negligible.

^^ That.

Also that TheRegister article summed it up quite nicely i thought:

Let's summarise. If you're a music fan, you're not getting any new or innovative new music services. If you're a copyright holder, the public will soon rumble that the threat is empty, so infringement wouldn't decline. If you're an ISP, you have an added layer of processes and bureaucracy to handle.

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

conor.hogan.2

Hey anyone is welcome to break into my computer and take money out of my account - if they like pirates then go on to buy more stuff from me so I get more money in the long run.

Equating piracy to physically breaking into a house is plain stupid.

conor.hogan.2

Cabaal qoute -

-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?

Technology allows for cheaper productions and even for smaller artists to ditch the label and make the money direct.

While I think 2euro is too low for albums - the cheaper and easier it is to get means more sales which in the long run means more money.

5 euro should be the lowest that itunes or anyone else should sell it for - if it is a bad album no one will buy it so no tears shed there.
If the artist is making no money they can sell it direct on their website or at shows.

2009 - 95% according to ifpi - http://www.tomsguide.com/us/mp3-downloads-music-piracy-ifpi,news-3315.html

conor.hogan.2

The photoshop argument is bs.

Adobe and Photoshop are self-advertising. It is the de-facto program in its field, no money should be spent on advertising as it is not needed, or if they insist on it put it on their own website for free.

Ok lets take you $2,200,000 price tag. It costs about 1300 dollars to be if im not mistaken.

It sells much much more than 1692 copies - so huge huge profits.

And ''FOSS and Linux'' do make money and also there are companies around it like canonical and redhat and sun/oracle.

what language would photoshop be written in if not c++ based on c which was made for unix?

blubloblu

axer wrote: »

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?

Have you read this thread at all?

conor.hogan.2

can people either read up on f(l)oss software and gnu license etc or just stop bringing them up - the rampant nonsense spouting against them is not needed.

it adds nothing to the discussion and only takes away.

axer

blubloblu wrote: »

Have you read this thread at all?

Yes, this is my 51st post in this thread. The first fifty posts pretty much have been correcting people's misguided views and fears - all of which were unfounded and full of ignorance.

Nobody has yet given a good reason why there is something wrong with IRMA/Eircom doing this. If people think it will not be effective then so what? that's IRMA's (and Eircom's) prerogative.

Everyone knows its illegal to illegally share music and Eircom are fully within their rights to disconnect people's connections - this was agreed upon signing up to the service.

No privacy is being invaded, no information being passed to third parties, people have the opportunity to defend themselves via the hotline and will be given help to fix any security risks, nobody will be cut off until the third time it happens (no excuse for getting caught that many times), it will be phased in slowly so people will be well aware (not that that needs to be done since illegal is illegal. I am asking, what's people's problem then?

z0oT

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

The photoshop argument is bs.

Adobe and Photoshop are self-advertising. It is the de-facto program in its field, no money should be spent on advertising as it is not needed, or if they insist on it put it on their own website for free.

Ok lets take you $2,200,000 price tag. It costs about 1300 dollars to be if im not mistaken.

It sells much much more than 1692 copies - so huge huge profits.

Admittedly advertising may not be needed for a product like Photoshop, but remember photoshop is only an example I picked at random. And regardless of whatever argument you choose, good quality software is only produced when experienced developers (ie. those that get paid large salaries because of their skill set) work closely together on it for long periods of time, simple as.

And ''FOSS and Linux'' do make money and also there are companies around it like canonical and redhat and sun/oracle.

True but said companies are very few and far between. Red Hat do quite well, but they're one of few. Few enough can survive by open sourcing the entirity of their main product for anyone to replicate at will, and in the face of that, still turn a hefty profit.

what language would photoshop be written in if not c++ based on c which was made for unix?

I'm an Engineer not a developer, so I've no idea.

watty

C++ and C development funded by AT&T
The original C++ compiliers all AT&T IP.

AT&T -> upset Universities -> GNU & BSD forks -> Linux -> Stallman -> Lessing & CC -> General Belief among certain people against all logic that ALL digital content should be Free. UNIX was not and is not Free. Hence the "Forks".

It does add to the discussion. Though most of the discussion is fairly pointless with people
a) Trying to justify copyright infringment.
b) People over-reacting just as stupidly as IRMA. There is almost no risk of getting cut off if you are infringing. The possibility has ALWAYS been in the T&C, and no ISP will know you are "cut off" by eircom for Infringing unless you tell them. IRMA will never know who the infringers are or if they are cut off.

conor.hogan.2

Ye Canonical are tiny as were Sun (bought out by Oracle but that is because they were huge and innovative).

Google and Android are a small too.

Sarcasm.

Neelie kroes cam out for open standards recently too.

There are many many pieces of software that get released by people who work for little or no money, they do it because the need that software and then release it for others and worry about money from donations, ads or making it paid only later.

Many musicians do this also - then they get signed and then get greedy.

conor.hogan.2

Of course UNIX is not open source and yes it was funded by ATT/Bell.

The philosophy was open - and led to many many open and ''free'' offshoots of all varieties.

Every major programming language is now freely available and most are derivative of each other.

who owns UNIX now? who cares? k&r don't, nobody except the the people looking to make a quick buck trying to sue anyone they can because they ''own'' bits and peices.

z0oT

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

Ye Canonical are tiny as were Sun (bought out by Oracle but that is because they were huge and innovative).

Google and Android are a small too.

Sarcasm.

Google aren't going to open source their search algorithms though are they? Google's main business has been delivering people to advertisers fro a premium, always has been. And Canonical, the last I heard, hadn't actually managed to turn a profit yet (that might have changed since though).

There are many many pieces of software that get released by people who work for little or no money, they do it because the need that software and then release it for others and worry about money from donations, ads or making it paid only later.

Yes but many FOSS applications tend to be half baked copies of their proprietry counterparts. For instance you can't really compare the likes of Microsoft Office 2007 to Openoffice. I use Linux all the time myself (Debian/Slackware), but FOSS applications will only take you so far, I still have to boot into Windows for a whole plethora of stuff. There's a great blog post detailing the problems of "Free" software in comparison to its closed source counterpart here:
http://www.lambdassociates.org/blog/the_problems_of_open_source.htm

1. Good software arises when one or more very good programmers work closely full time together over a period of time developing, maintaining and improving it.
2. If you give your software away under GPL (free as in free speech) its very difficult to charge for it and so it ends up being free as in free beer. Ditto for FOSS.

blubloblu

axer wrote: »

Yes, this is my 51st post in this thread. The first fifty posts pretty much have been correcting people's misguided views and fears - all of which were unfounded and full of ignorance.

Nobody has yet given a good reason why there is something wrong with IRMA/Eircom doing this. If people think it will not be effective then so what? that's IRMA's (and Eircom's) prerogative.

Everyone knows its illegal to illegally share music and Eircom are fully within their rights to disconnect people's connections - this was agreed upon signing up to the service.

No privacy is being invaded, no information being passed to third parties, people have the opportunity to defend themselves via the hotline and will be given help to fix any security risks, nobody will be cut off until the third time it happens (no excuse for getting caught that many times), it will be phased in slowly so people will be well aware (not that that needs to be done since illegal is illegal. I am asking, what's people's problem then?

You are presumed guilty until you prove yourself innocent.

There is no due legal process. No judge, jury etc.

Disconnection is disproportionate.

It's not going to stop piracy.

Why should the music labels have this power exclusively? Should I be allowed to cut off your internet if I think something you said on here was libellous? Of course not. The labels should settle their legal disputes in court like everyone else.

The European Parliament, Reporters Sans Frontières, countless consumer groups and the French Constitutional Council agree.

Conseil Constitutionnel wrote:

La liberté de communication et d'expression, énoncée à l'article 11 de la Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen de 1789, fait l'objet d'une constante jurisprudence protectrice par le Conseil constitutionnel (voir dernièrement décision n °2009-577 DC du 3 mars 2009). Cette liberté implique aujourd'hui, eu égard au développement généralisé d'internet et à son importance pour la participation à la vie démocratique et à l'expression des idées et des opinions, la liberté d'accéder à ces services de communication au public en ligne.

Basically: freedom of communication, outlined in article 11 of the 1789 Declaration of the rights of man and the citizen, is applicable to access to the Internet, seen its importance in participation in democratic life and the expression of ideas and opinions.

Or les articles 5 et 11 de la loi déférée confiaient à la commission de protection des droits de la HADOPI des pouvoirs de sanction l'habilitant à restreindre ou à empêcher l'accès à Internet à des titulaires d'abonnement. Ces pouvoirs pouvaient donc conduire à restreindre l'exercice, par toute personne, de son droit de s'exprimer et de communiquer librement. Dans ces conditions, le législateur ne pouvait, quelles que soient les garanties encadrant le prononcé des sanctions, confier de tels pouvoirs à une autorité administrative dans le but de protéger les titulaires du droit d'auteur. Ces pouvoirs ne peuvent incomber qu'au juge.

Three strikes (french version, see HADOPI) gave an agency the power to restrict or prevent a subscribers' acces to the Internet. These powers could therefore restrict that person's right to express themselves and communicate freely. These powers should only be given to a judge.

L'article 9 de la Déclaration de 1789 pose le principe de la présomption d'innocence duquel il résulte que la loi ne saurait, en principe, instituer de présomption de culpabilité en matière répressive (n° 99-411 DC du 16 juin 1999). Or, aux termes de la loi déférée, seul le titulaire du contrat d'abonnement à internet pouvait faire l'objet des sanctions instituées. Pour s'exonérer, il lui incombait de produire des éléments de nature à établir que l'atteinte portée au droit d'auteur procède de la fraude d'un tiers. En méconnaissance de l'article 9 de la Déclaration de 1789, la loi instituait ainsi, en opérant un renversement de la charge de la preuve, une présomption de culpabilité pouvant conduire à prononcer contre l'abonné des sanctions privatives ou restrictives du droit.

Article 9 of the 1789 declaration guarantees the presumption of innocence. Under three strikes, contrary to the declaration, the accused would have to prove they are not guilty.

Le Conseil constitutionnel a également examiné les pouvoirs d'avertissement confiés à la même autorité. Ces pouvoirs sont exercés à la suite de la transmission, par les sociétés d'auteur, de traitements de données à caractère personnel relatives aux infractions. Il s'ensuit que les traitements de données à caractère personnel s'inscrivent dans un processus de saisine de juridictions compétentes et ne sont pas contraires à la Constitution. Le Conseil a cependant formulé une réserve pour rappeler qu'il appartiendra à la CNIL, lorsqu'elle sera saisie de la demande d'autorisation de ces traitements de données à caractère personnel, de veiller à ce qu'ils respectent cette finalité.

Three strikes would involve a third party holding on to personal data. The french equivalent to the Data Protection Commissioner should be in charge of holding the data, instead of the third party, to ensure that personal data is secure.

Zascar

blubloblu wrote: »

You are presumed guilty until you prove yourself innocent.

There is no due legal process. No judge, jury etc.

Disconnection is disproportionate.

It's not going to stop piracy.

Exactly.

Considering The Pirate Bay changed their home page showing Irish customer that they can use IPREDator to encrypt your traffic and still do what you want, seems a bit silly

axer

blubloblu wrote: »

You are presumed guilty until you prove yourself innocent.

Nope, evidence is shown that you are guilty but not only are you given a chance to defend yourself, you are also given the chance to be guilty another time. There is no excuse for getting caught a third time.

blubloblu wrote: »

There is no due legal process. No judge, jury etc.

This is a service contract that the customer is breaching. It is not a crimminal charge that is being brought against you. Don't illegally share music and you will be fine. There is nothing to defend but you are free to sue if you want - i doubt you would get far though.

blubloblu wrote: »

Disconnection is disproportionate.

Nope. you breach the contract and it is very clear in the terms and conditions of the contract that you agree to not share music (amongst other things) illegally. Breach this term and you agree that your contract will be terminated.

blubloblu wrote: »

It's not going to stop piracy.

Its none of your business whether it does or not. It is not your decision to make whether IRMA (and Eircom) take this route. It is there choice what route to take to try and tackle it. I belive that this will make it slightly more difficult for those on the fringes of piracy who struggle to setup torrents etc. They are hoping to frighten them and make it more difficult for them but it doesn't matter whether you think it will work as they have a right to try it.

blubloblu wrote: »

Why should the music labels have this power exclusively?

Im sure movie studios will follow too but there is clear evidence that illegal music sharing is happening thus they have the right to protect their IP. You have the right to protect your IP too.

blubloblu wrote: »

Should I be allowed to cut off your internet if I think something you said on here was libellous? Of course not. The labels should settle their legal disputes in court like everyone else.

So you would rather that they do what is happening in the USA and bring people to court for thousands instead? I think this approach is a much fairer approach that that.

blubloblu wrote: »

The European Parliament, Reporters Sans Frontières, countless consumer groups and the French Constitutional Council agree.

I don't see any laws that make internet access a human right.

This is not a government law - it is a company enforcing their terms & conditions. There is nothing stopping a customer taking Eircom to court if they think they are not breaching their contract and Eircom and terminating without just cause. This is not the same as France.

I still don't see the problem.

axer

Zascar wrote: »

Exactly.

Considering The Pirate Bay changed their home page showing Irish customer that they can use IPREDator to encrypt your traffic and still do what you want, seems a bit silly

Lol, TPB is blocked by Eircom anyway so how are going to see that?

I have no problem with this change by Eircom but I strongly object to them blocking The Pirate Bay website. I think that was much much worse than the three strikes rule. People should be focusing their energies on that rather than this.

blubloblu

axer wrote:

Nope, evidence is shown that you are guilty but not only are you given a chance to defend yourself, you are also given the chance to be guilty another time. There is no excuse for getting caught a third time.

So, yes, you agree with me. You must prove yourself innocent.

This is a service contract that the customer is breaching. It is not a crimminal charge that is being brought against you. Don't illegally share music and you will be fine. There is nothing to defend but you are free to sue if you want - i doubt you would get far though.

Nope. you breach the contract and it is very clear in the terms and conditions of the contract that you agree to not share music (amongst other things) illegally. Breach this term and you agree that your contract will be terminated.


So you would rather that they do what is happening in the USA and bring people to court for thousands instead? I think this approach is a much fairer approach that that.

I don't see any laws that make internet access a human right.

This is not a government law - it is a company enforcing their terms & conditions. There is nothing stopping a customer taking Eircom to court if they think they are not breaching their contract and Eircom and terminating without just cause. This is not the same as France.

I still don't see the problem.

Would you object to it if it was passed by law? IRMA have made a private agreement with Eircom, because their proposals have been democratically defeated in other jurisdictions, for example, the European Parliament, the voice of 375 million people. It is not any more acceptable just because Eircom's contract allows it.

Its none of your business whether it does or not. It is not your decision to make whether IRMA (and Eircom) take this route. It is there choice what route to take to try and tackle it. I belive that this will make it slightly more difficult for those on the fringes of piracy who struggle to setup torrents etc. They are hoping to frighten them and make it more difficult for them but it doesn't matter whether you think it will work as they have a right to try it.

Im sure movie studios will follow too but there is clear evidence that illegal music sharing is happening thus they have the right to protect their IP. You have the right to protect your IP too.

If someone infringes on my copyrights online, I cannot tell eircom to disconnect them. Why are IRMA's copyrights more important than mine, or anyone else's? Should we extend these disconnections upon accusations to other areas of law too? Clause 5.4 of eircom's contract states
"Customers may not use the Facility to create, host or transmit offensive or obscene material, or engage in activities, which are likely to cause offence to others on any grounds including, but not limited to race, creed or sex."
Should I be allowed disconnect you if I accuse you of offending me? The contract allows it, so in your eyes, that is perfectly acceptable, isn't it?

axer

blubloblu wrote: »

So, yes, you agree with me. You must prove yourself innocent.

Eircom inform you the first two times and even help you to make sure your security is ok. After that how could it not be hosts on your network illegally sharing music? This is a breach of contract and eircom have the right to terminate. You have the right to counter sue if you think that eircom breached the contract by terminating it prematurely. There is no innocent or guilty. This is not criminal law.

blubloblu wrote: »

Would you object to it if it was passed by law? IRMA have made a private agreement with Eircom, because their proposals have been democratically defeated in other jurisdictions, for example, the European Parliament, the voice of 375 million people. It is not any more acceptable just because Eircom's contract allows it.

Yes, I would be opposed to it becoming law as it no longer becomes a civil matter but a criminal matter. There is a massive difference between the two. This is the fairest way to do it.

Let me ask you, what way should they do it instead? Would you prefer they took people to court for thousands like in the USA? Do you think people should be able to get away with illegally distributing IP unchallenged?

blubloblu wrote: »

If someone infringes on my copyrights online, I cannot tell eircom to disconnect them. Why are IRMA's copyrights more important than mine, or anyone else's? Should we extend these disconnections upon accusations to other areas of law too? Clause 5.4 of eircom's contract states
"Customers may not use the Facility to create, host or transmit offensive or obscene material, or engage in activities, which are likely to cause offence to others on any grounds including, but not limited to race, creed or sex."
Should I be allowed disconnect you if I accuse you of offending me? The contract allows it, so in your eyes, that is perfectly acceptable, isn't it?

IRMA are a much bigger organisation thus have more negotiating power than an individual person. You could bring Eircom to court like IRMA did and try and sue. If you did they might come to an agreement with you too.

blubloblu

axer wrote: »

Let me ask you, what way should they do it instead? Would you prefer they took people to court for thousands like in the USA?

People should be tried for breaking the law. The punishment should fit the crime. Fines of hundreds of thousands of dollars for a dozen songs make a mockery of justice and undermine the credibility of everyone involved.

Just because I might not like the way the court system works, doesn't mean I can take the law into my own hands, or create my own laws and penalties.

Implement some sort of voluntary licensing scheme that would generate revenue from file-sharing. This would massively reduce those acting illegally. Those that remain can be dealt with using the proper legal channels.

IRMA are a much bigger organisation thus have more negotiating power than an individual person.

Might makes right?

You could bring Eircom to court like IRMA did and try and sue. If you did they might come to an agreement with you too.

You know as well as I do how that will end.

axer

blubloblu wrote: »

People should be tried for breaking the law. The punishment should fit the crime. Fines of hundreds of thousands of dollars for a dozen songs make a mockery of justice and undermine the credibility of everyone involved.

Damages have to be calculated some way. The suing party will always sue for the maximum possible damages in each case but a judge would not generally agree to that high as it would be disproportionate as damages.

blubloblu wrote: »

Just because I might not like the way the court system works, doesn't mean I can take the law into my own hands, or create my own laws and penalties.

Nobody is being fined or punished in any way. If the contract is breached then Eircom have the right to terminate. If you want to challenge that then you can take them to civil court.

blubloblu wrote: »

Implement some sort of voluntary licensing scheme that would generate revenue from file-sharing. This would massively reduce those acting illegally. Those that remain can be dealt with using the proper legal channels.

People are using those channels because they do not want to pay, simple as. How will this voluntary licensing scheme work exactly? What would stop people using a different method to share the files? Do you suggest pay if you want to pay type of licensing scheme?

I don't think piracy can be stopped. I do understand that IRMA cannot just sit back and do nothing as they are supposed to fight for their clients. I think what they are doing with Eircom may have a small impact and possibly frighten some on the fringe of piracy who do not really understand what they are doing thus will not be sure they will be safe from getting caught if they continue downloading from torrents.

Someone mentioned IPREDator above. My understand is that this service costs 5 euro per month. I can see that being a problem for some to sign up to - especially teens that don't have a cc. Then there are the others that won't want to pay.

blubloblu wrote: »

Might makes right?

You know as well as I do how that will end.

This is why we have unions etc. You are more than entitled to sue Eircom for IP infringement. You will have to provide proof though.

Do you honestly think that some innocent soul will have their internet connection disabled after being warned twice already?

BrianD

blubloblu wrote: »

People should be tried for breaking the law. The punishment should fit the crime. Fines of hundreds of thousands of dollars for a dozen songs make a mockery of justice and undermine the credibility of everyone involved.

Just because I might not like the way the court system works, doesn't mean I can take the law into my own hands, or create my own laws and penalties.

Eircom are breaking no law. They are entitled to police their own commercial service as per the terms and conditions that you have signed up to and accepted as a customer. What they have put into action is a very reasonable and scalable response to abuse of their network. It couldn't be much fairer.

Implement some sort of voluntary licensing scheme that would generate revenue from file-sharing. This would massively reduce those acting illegally. Those that remain can be dealt with using the proper legal channels.

Why on earth should we do that? The artist is in entitled to charge what they like for their work and there's no reason why you can't buy it from their store.

While IRMA represent the majors, 1000s of other independent labels and artists are going to benefit from the knock on effects of this initiative.

Le King

Can I ask a question, why are they just going after p2p?