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

z0oT

zerks wrote: »

A solution will have to be found-if a cd is 15 to 20 yo yo's in a shop and one click of a mouse away online,you can guess what most people will do..

I think I've said this previously in this thread. People are not fundamentally dishonest, people are more than happy pay for a superior product at a competitive price. The issue is that p2p is incredibly easy, and arguably provides a superior product than the paid solution the way it stands now, especially if you're to talk about physical media.

dub45

z0oT wrote: »

I think I've said this previously in this thread. People are not fundamentally dishonest, people are more than happy pay for a superior product at a competitive price. The issue is that p2p is incredibly easy, and arguably provides a superior product than the paid solution the way it stands now, especially if you're to talk about physical media.

I admire your optimism. Many people now expect unlimited entertainment for free it is a simple as that. Music/Films on physical media has never been as cheap nor has there ever been a bigger range available (Trust me I have been buying it for forty years). Any charge is too much now for many people.

And sadly the 'concern' expressed here for civil/legal rights not to mention the worry over 90 year olds's wireless networks being ruthlessly breached stems from a fear of a threat to free entertainment nothing more.

dub45

vibe666 wrote: »

at the end of the day, whether what Eircom are doing is legal or not, they are doing it to deter ILLEGAL file sharing. no, two wrongs don't make a right but just sitting on here complaining about it isn't going to make the damndest bit of difference.

if you don't like it then vote with your feet and move to another ISP, simple as that. you can have the same service from another ISP (just without the letters) and probably save money at the same time.

Or you could start paying for your entertainment?:rolleyes:

Cantona's Collars

@Z0ot- That was my argument all along.Wonder how many people will simply stream media as opposed to downloading? A lot of people can't wait for the tv shows from the U.S to come to tv over here and will hit download,just take a look at the televison thread to see examples of this with posters discussing shows within hours of them airing in the States.If the supply is there we will always have a demand.Youtube host a vast amount of copyright material yet that has escaped censure,will eircom block that?

z0oT

dub45 wrote: »

I admire your optimism. Many people now expect unlimited entertainment for free it is a simple as that. Music/Films on physical media has never been as cheap nor has there ever been a bigger range available (Trust me I have been buying it for forty years). Any charge is too much now for many people..

And there's the issue there, plain and simple. Reliance on Physical Media. Also, to imply most people are parasitic freeloaders that think everything in the line of entertainment should be free is a bit of a bold statement to say the least.

Lastly, the following IMAGE is a great illustration of a pirated copy being superior to a legit copy. (I think I've posted this here too)

dub45

z0oT wrote: »

And there's the issue there, plain and simple. Reliance on Physical Media. Also, to imply most people are parasitic freeloaders that think everything in the line of entertainment should be free is a bit of a bold statement to say the least.

Lastly, the following IMAGE is a great illustration of a pirated copy being superior to a legit copy. (I think I've posted this here too)

It may be a bit of a bold statement in your view but all you have to do is talk to people and you will find out how true it is. I know people with hard drives full of music that class themselves as "music lovers" and never paid a cent for it - its very easy to love stuff when you get it for nothing!

And why exactly is reliance on physical media a problem? There are many people who are very happy with physical media for one reason or another not to mention the huge numbers of people without access to infrastructure to download stuff even if it was legitimately available for downloading.

And I am a afraid that quoting a 'trailer' at the start of a film as proof that there is something inherently wrong with physical media is nonsense.

You ignore the fact completely that physical media can offer amazing sound and picture that only a few years ago seemed like a fantasy for home entertainment.

dub45

zerks wrote: »

@Z0ot- That was my argument all along.Wonder how many people will simply stream media as opposed to downloading? A lot of people can't wait for the tv shows from the U.S to come to tv over here and will hit download,just take a look at the televison thread to see examples of this with posters discussing shows within hours of them airing in the States.If the supply is there we will always have a demand.Youtube host a vast amount of copyright material yet that has escaped censure,will eircom block that?

Why would Eircom block it?

Cantona's Collars

This will make you all stop illegal downloads (as if)
http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/you-wouldnt-steal-a-car-but-i-would-internet-piracy/

Cantona's Collars

Eircom told to cut down on illegal downloads-correct.I can go on youtube and watch or listen to any amount of copyright material without paying a penny for it,just because I didn't download it would I be any better than the person that did?

z0oT

dub45 wrote: »

It may be a bit of a bold statement in your view but all you have to do is talk to people and you will find out how true it is. I know people with hard drives full of music that class themselves as "music lovers" and never paid a cent for it - its very easy to love stuff when you get it for nothing!

True, and if I'm honest among the circle of people I know the same is true for me too when it comes to the select few that download stuff, but yet there are countless studies out there that all consistantly point to file sharers buying and consuming more music - they can't all be sprouting falsehood. One's personal experience does not apply to everyone.

And why exactly is reliance on physical media a problem? There are many people who are very happy with physical media for one reason or another not to mention the huge numbers of people without access to infrastructure to download stuff even if it was legitimately available for downloading.

Because it's on the way out, just look at the popularity of mobile devices such as mp3 players etc. as a paradigmatic illustration of that. Remember if everybody had a 100% respect for intelluctual property laws, things like the iPod would never have happened - there was no legal music to put on them in the first place, so what was the point?

And I am a afraid that quoting a 'trailer' at the start of a film as proof that there is something inherently wrong with physical media is nonsense.

That wasn't the point, the image was an illustration of a pirated copy being superior to a paid copy, not some "inherent flaw" with physical media.

You ignore the fact completely that physical media can offer amazing sound and picture that only a few years ago seemed like a fantasy for home entertainment.

And you ignore the fact that that is true for digital copies too.

dub45

z0oT wrote: »

True, and if I'm honest among the circle of people I know the same is true for me too when it comes to the select few that download stuff, but yet there are countless studies out there that all consistantly point to file sharers buying and consuming more music - they can't all be sprouting falsehood. One's personal experience does not apply to everyone.

I have yet to meet any filesharer who buys additional music and if all these filesharers were buying additional music then surely sales would not be down?:rolleyes:

z0oT wrote: »

Because it's on the way out, just look at the popularity of mobile devices such as mp3 players etc. as a paradigmatic illustration of that. Remember if everybody had a 100% respect for intelluctual property laws, things like the iPod would never have happened - there was no legal music to put on them in the first place, so what was the point?

Nonsense absolute nonsense. I have an ipod (several of them in fact) all full of music that I paid for and ripped myself.

z0oT wrote: »

That wasn't the point, the image was an illustration of a pirated copy being superior to a paid copy, not some "inherent flaw" with physical media.

And you ignore the fact that that is true for digital copies too.

How does that image illustrate that a pirated copy is superior to a paid copy?

Where can you legitimately download a film that will give you all the options of a blue ray disc or a music file that will give you a full surround experience of an sacd? The potential to download any type of file is there of course but for many people it is simply not an option.

Also downloading as a replacement for physical media is not the issue or the problem -the problem is that people don't want to pay for entertainment.

briany

zerks wrote: »

Eircom told to cut down on illegal downloads-correct.I can go on youtube and watch or listen to any amount of copyright material without paying a penny for it,just because I didn't download it would I be any better than the person that did?

That's an interesting point and it's definately one of the grey areas of the debate. If you watch a YT video then you are in effect downloading it. If I watch say a HD music video then move onto another page, then hit the back button to the music video again where the progress bar is solid red that means the video is stored in my browser's temp folder as a flash file. I could theoretically take that file, extract the audio, convert it if need be and I have myself an mp3. Now I know that's the hard way but I was talking about an offline method so to speak . Would what you were doing constitute a violation of copyright? And if so how would anyone know?

dub45

briany wrote: »

That's an interesting point and it's definately one of the grey areas of the debate. If you watch a YT video then you are in effect downloading it. If I watch say a HD music video then move onto another page, then hit the back button to the music video again where the progress bar is solid red that means the video is stored in my browser's temp folder as a flash file. I could theoretically take that file, extract the audio, convert it if need be and I have myself an mp3. Now I know that's the hard way but I was talking about an offline method so to speak . Would what you were doing constitute a violation of copyright? And if so how would anyone know?

There are plenty of sites that will convert the soundtrack of youtube video to mp3 for you.

'If a tree falls in the forest..............."

briany

dub45 wrote: »

There are plenty of sites that will convert the soundtrack of youtube video to mp3 for you.

'If a tree falls in the forest..............."

I am aware of that:) As I said, the method I described was the hard method....Or harder method anyway.

Cantona's Collars

Exactly,in Firefox theres an add-on that lets you extract the mp3 file from a youtube video with one click.What would happen if you sat beside an irma employee and watched a youtube clip if a music video? Are you open to legal proceedings?

blubloblu

dub45 wrote: »

I have yet to meet any filesharer who buys additional music and if all these filesharers were buying additional music then surely sales would not be down?:rolleyes:

Also downloading as a replacement for physical media is not the issue or the problem -the problem is that people don't want to pay for entertainment.

Unfortunately, your "I haven't personally met someone" opinion is at odds to many independent studies by various universities and other organisations which show that pirates buy (ranging from) the same as non-pirates, to ten times as much. Proper thorough studies have been conducted, and I would believe them over your gut feeling any day.

z0oT

dub45 wrote: »

I have yet to meet any filesharer who buys additional music and if all these filesharers were buying additional music then surely sales would not be down?:rolleyes:

Again, one's personal experience does not apply to everyone and everything else. As for why sales are down, the finanicial downturn might be a factor which, interestingly enough is always omitted from any reports the entertainment industry churn out. Also, unless I'm mistaken the big jump in sales of music happened right when CDs became affordable, and people needed to go out and replace their vinyl and cassette collections. After a few years of that, it makes sense that the market should drop away.

Nonsense absolute nonsense. I have an ipod (several of them in fact) all full of music that I paid for and ripped myself.

Ah yes, but the ripping process of the CD is illegal thanks to copyright law is it not?

How does that image illustrate that a pirated copy is superior to a paid copy?

All the crud one has to sift through to get to the actual movie in the legit case is a dead give-away I would have thought.

Where can you legitimately download a film that will give you all the options of a blue ray disc or a music file that will give you a full surround experience of an sacd? The potential to download any type of file is there of course but for many people it is simply not an option.

I would say you've answered that question there yourself.

Also downloading as a replacement for physical media is not the issue or the problem -the problem is that people don't want to pay for entertainment.

True for a portion definitely. But how many download stuff via p2p etc. to begin with? Studies seem to show that it's a minority, and then out of that minority it seems to be that the majority actually buy more content.

storm2811

I just found out I have a dynamic IP,as in it changes regularly.
What's the story with these?Will eircom be able to trace them?
I know a lot of people have them.

blubloblu

storm2811 wrote: »

I just found out I have a dynamic IP,as in it changes regularly.
What's the story with these?Will eircom be able to trace them?
I know a lot of people have them.

Most people have them. IRMA supply a specific time for the accused copyright infringement, eircom have a record of which account was allocated which IP address at what time.

BrianD

zerks wrote: »

.Fair enough it can be abused and illegal activity does take place,but if you got 3 strikes say for your driving would you expect your car to be taken from you? The 3 Strikes policy in UK is in line to be revoked as it was rushed in and voted for by people who didn't even bother to turn up for the debates.

Wrong analogy, they wouldn't take your car but they would take your licence.

Eircom merely rolled over as soon as pressure was put on them to disconnect file sharers.Lets burn the books in case we read something we shouldn't,the internet is beyond borders and as much as big business and government want it can't be controlled.

Big business already control it. What has happened is that they haven't exercised much control on user to date. You don't have unconditional access. There is now a culture shock of finding out that this 'pipe' isn;t as free as it was and nor will it be in the future.

The vast majority of people whether you like it or not regard anything on the net as 'free' with little thought of how it got there.It's gone from buying dodgy cd's and dvd's from the 'guy with the gear bag' to the stage that more people have internet access and bypass the middleman by downloading content despite it being legal or illegal and little thought goes to the consequences.
The 3 strikes will be irrelevant as users simply switch isp or use vpn as soon as they feel the pinch from eircom.

As long as they are allowed by big business.

Cabaal

storm2811 wrote: »

I just found out I have a dynamic IP,as in it changes regularly.
What's the story with these?Will eircom be able to trace them?
I know a lot of people have them.

They assign you the dynamic IP, they can tell who has what IP at what time/date

So yes they can, the VAST majority of residential ISP's only provide dynamic IP's

Cabaal

zerks wrote: »

burn the books in case we read something we shouldn't,the internet is beyond borders and as much as big business and government want it can't be controlled.

The internet is not some wild west where no laws apply,

Companys and the goverment can control the internet because they pay for it, who do you think lays the cables, pays for hardware and bandwidth?

It sure isn't you or me,

By your very logic child porn is ok on the internet as the internet cannot and should not be controlled :rolleyes:

Cantona's Collars

By your very logic child porn is ok on the internet as the internet cannot and should not be controlled

That's a bit of a generalisation and unfair statement-child porn is unacceptable and has no place anywhere!! Unfortunately the internet gives it an ideal platform as it is nigh on impossible to regulate.The beyond borders statement I made simply states fact.
The argument here is about Eircom disconnecting filesharers,if it's so easy to track them for sharing music etc. how come they can't track scum sharing child porn? I'll probably get shot down here but is it because business doesn't lose money from what these guys share? Just a thought.

Cantona's Collars

On a lighter note-I found a way around Eircom cutting people off:D:D:D

Nerin

You seem to forget that its the record companies that love/are pro the CP cabaal, not the other way around.

boingboing.net/2010/04/28/music-industry-spoke.html

Cabaal

zerks wrote: »

That's a bit of a generalisation and unfair statement-child porn is unacceptable and has no place anywhere!!

Yes its an extreme example but its still something thats against the law, so your saying its ok to pick and choose the laws regarding whats illegal?

If thats the case can I dump my rubbish on the side of the road now?

Unfortunately the internet gives it an ideal platform as it is nigh on impossible to regulate.The beyond borders statement I made simply states fact.

If an ISP wants to block something they can so it can very well be regulated and restricted if network providers wanted to do it.

The argument here is about Eircom disconnecting filesharers,if it's so easy to track them for sharing music etc. how come they can't track scum sharing child porn?

Ok lets break this down
- The vast majority of file sharers are idiots and do so openly on public networks....child porn users clearly don't

- child porn users can be tracked but its harder, none the less such users have been identied and the gardai have details. There's an irish times peice on this buit I can't find it at present

- Both uses of a eircom connection are both against Eircom's T&C's and against the law

I'll probably get shot down here but is it because business doesn't lose money from what these guys share? Just a thought.

Its because child porn users being disconnected and caught doesn't bother the average joe on the street as it doesn't affect them and is clearly not something that a child porn user is going to complain about on boards.

So in short, it happens but nobody cares if a child porn user is disconnected as they see it as a good thing prior to the legal proceedings that will be taken against him/her.

However with file sharing copyright material its clear that people here are pissed off because it affects them directly...hence this thread and the people complaining on it and asking what way is safe to download etc

Nerin

You can't complain about something if it doesnt have any effect on your life? Pah. So i can't give out about racism or gay rights because i'm a straight white guy?

Cabaal

Nerin wrote: »

You can't complain about something if it doesnt have any effect on your life? Pah. So i can't give out about racism or gay rights because i'm a straight white guy?

I never said you can't complain about something that has an affect on your life, I said child porn users are clearly not going to complain here yet people who file share copyright material will. Complaining that they will be affected if they break the law is kind of idiotic though in fairness.

You can give out about racism and gay rights all you want because as you said your a straight white guy but within the law and not on this forum

However last time I checked it was legal to be gay and it was legal to be black....and you can be proesecuted depending on what you say about both

In this case its not legal to file share copyright material and it Eircom's T&C's also say its against them to do so also, so complaining when your service is terminated for such use its kind of pointless when you know the reality that its not legal to do so.

Cantona's Collars

The internet is not some wild west where no laws apply,

Of course there are laws but the internet is as close to the wild west as we get.Where else would you get people saying and doing stuff that would get you locked up if it was on the street.
Just look at that facebook page set up in honour of Raul Moat,the eejit that set it up thought "it were funny" because he shot 3 people and police took so long to track him down.If you stood on a corner making statements like that you'd soon be put straight.
Back on topic. Serious file-sharers won't be the ones disconnected,they're to clever for that-it's the kids using mummy and daddy's internet to download the latest Justin Beiber album are the ones going to get caught.

Cabaal

zerks wrote: »

Back on topic. Serious file-sharers won't be the ones disconnected,they're to clever for that-it's the kids using mummy and daddy's internet to download the latest Justin Beiber album are the ones going to get caught.

Likely very true,
Anybody that actually knows what they are doing doesn't even use the likes of rapid share.

You've just confirmed what they want to mainly stop, they want to stop casual file share.

So if little Jimmy downloads an album and his mother gets a warning from eircom little Jimmy likely will be killed if he does it again