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

blubloblu

Little Jimmy was using Napster ten years ago, little Jimmy is using Limewire now, little Jimmy will use something else after that. To think otherwise is naïve.

Cantona's Collars

No fear of me dowloading Justin Beiber.Lol. Just goes to show how many parents actually haven't a clue what their kids are up to online,takes a letter through the door to open their eyes.
I download dance music by independent dj's that would normally never see the light of day,they're happy to share it just to get the exposure.Most commercial music isn't even worth the bandwidth.

Cabaal

blubloblu wrote: »

Little Jimmy was using Napster ten years ago, little Jimmy is using Limewire now, little Jimmy will use something else after that. To think otherwise is naïve.

Little Jimmy didn't have his parents being told that their DSL will be terminated if he continues to do it, infact little Jimmy's parents didn't know what he was dong "on that internet thing" at all.

Now they will when Eircom tell them

If little Jimmy doesn't have a Broadband connection anymore because either his parents won't allow him or no provider will give it to him for a year (could happen yet) I'm curious how he'll manage to continue doing so

jor el

blubloblu wrote: »

Little Jimmy was using Napster ten years ago, little Jimmy is using Limewire now, little Jimmy will use something else after that. To think otherwise is naïve.

Napster was closed down, the Bottorrent network is not. No one needs to move to a new application to get their warez, because it's all still there. The big difference now, and far more serious for any music pirate, is that your Internet connection will be taken away.

You can move ISP of course, but what's stopping the other ISPs from following suit? I think it's only a matter of time before they all do. UPC say they will fight the case, but that doesn't mean they'll win. Eventually, music pirates will run out of "friendly" ISPs, and then what will they do? The answer is; Stop. To think you can continue the free ride indefinitely is also naïve.

dub45

jor el wrote: »

Napster was closed down, the Bottorrent network is not. No one needs to move to a new application to get their warez, because it's all still there. The big difference now, and far more serious for any music pirate, is that your Internet connection will be taken away.

You can move ISP of course, but what's stopping the other ISPs from following suit? I think it's only a matter of time before they all do. UPC say they will fight the case, but that doesn't mean they'll win. Eventually, music pirates will run out of "friendly" ISPs, and then what will they do? The answer is; Stop. To think you can continue the free ride indefinitely is also naïve.

It never ceases to amaze how indignant people on here get about the 'threat" to their "entitlement' to unlimited free entertainment.

Taking out a bb contract does not entitle anyone to unlimited free entertainment excerpt where that entertainment is not copyrighted of course!

There is rarely a mention that downloading copyrighted material is a breach of the terms and conditions of your contract with your isp which you willingly sign up to.

There have been all sorts of anguished cries about civil rights and legal rights being breached but there is never a mention of the civil and legal rights of copyright owners and artists and musicians whose work is being "shared" without their permission.

There is rarely a mention of the obligation to observe the law or the terms and conditions you have freely signed up to.

There is never a mention that downloading copyrighted material skives of the
people who actually pay for their entertainment. If everyone downloaded then there would be no industry to produce material. So the whole downloading scam is dependent on honest people paying for their entertainment.

Again I smile when I see censorship mentioned:rolleyes: In the longer run downloading will result in economic censorship because the less return there is to people who invest in producing artistic material the less material there will be.

And people appear to delight in saying there will be alternative ways to download. Does that mean that when the law is being broken that no attempt should be made to stop the people who do it because ways will invariably found around those efforts?

johnnyjb

dub45 wrote: »

Again I smile when I see censorship mentioned:rolleyes: In the longer run downloading will result in economic censorship because the less return there is to people who invest in producing artistic material the less material there will be.

Do we really need another xfactor or another one of SKYs Got To Dance or Have To Sing rubbish.

I know if i was a musician id want money to but the reality of it if you play something on the radio or telly it is gonna be "pirated". I think alot of people these days just want to be famous or wanna make just the money. I would luv millions too by the way.

I just hate when you see young people about 15 telling simon cowell its their "life long dream" ( at 15:rolleyes:) to be a singer when you know the wanna be famous for the attention.

A simple soloutrion to stop people getting free music is to stop making it.The industry is hardly ruined. Any one see the South Park mocking britney spears etc.. over illegal downloads ruining their bank accounts

briany

I don't think that the likes of Britney Spears or U2 or the top suits of the labels will feel too personally affected by dwindling sales. They should be able to lead relatively comfortable lives till their dying days. But I suppose who would be affected the worst would be those who make a living recording music ; the producers, the recording engineers, the receptionist/secretary at the studio. Their situation will worsen as bands decide to DIY more in order to reduce overheads. This could lead to the a new wave of very average music recorded without the proper know how applied.

The genie is most certainly out of the bottle though. If a generation has downloaded for free without consequence, it's hard to tell them that they now must face consequences because before they take that point, they will try every avenue they can to continue and avoid the consequence. Putting down roadblocks will just make the people who want it and the people who supply it that much smarter. It's the same argument with trading illegal substances, people will just find the path of least resistance.

To people who look upon Limewire/Bittorrent users as plebeian well it's the most hassle free way to do it for them isn't it? Why would they invest in a more thought intensive method if they aren't seeing consequence in the one they are using? The day when "Johnny uTorrent" can no longer be that, he will then become "Johnny Rapidshare", "Johnny Usenet", "Johnny IRC", "Johnny VPN", "Johnny Tor2P" "Johnny i2P", "Johnny sneakernet", "Johnny Wifi cracker" etc.

What's Eircom and Dtecnet going to do about stopping the next generation of tech savvy kids coming along to circumvent their block?

Cantona's Collars

It will be back to taping off the radio just like the good old days.According to Prince the internet was just a fad and will die out.:D Get your next Metallica album free in the Daily Mail.

dub45

johnnyjb wrote: »

Do we really need another xfactor or another one of SKYs Got To Dance or Have To Sing rubbish.

I know if i was a musician id want money to but the reality of it if you play something on the radio or telly it is gonna be "pirated". I think alot of people these days just want to be famous or wanna make just the money. I would luv millions too by the way.

I just hate when you see young people about 15 telling simon cowell its their "life long dream" ( at 15:rolleyes:) to be a singer when you know the wanna be famous for the attention.

A simple soloutrion to stop people getting free music is to stop making it.The industry is hardly ruined. Any one see the South Park mocking britney spears etc.. over illegal downloads ruining their bank accounts

A simple solution might be to engage the brain before posting???

There is more to "music" than Brittany Spears. And what people forget is that it is the money that companies make from the likes of Britney Spears that allows them to invest in other artists. The Beatles U2 etc etc were all signed because the investments in other musicians had paid off.

blubloblu

jor el wrote: »

Napster was closed down, the Bottorrent network is not. No one needs to move to a new application to get their warez, because it's all still there. The big difference now, and far more serious for any music pirate, is that your Internet connection will be taken away.

You can move ISP of course, but what's stopping the other ISPs from following suit? I think it's only a matter of time before they all do. UPC say they will fight the case, but that doesn't mean they'll win. Eventually, music pirates will run out of "friendly" ISPs, and then what will they do? The answer is; Stop. To think you can continue the free ride indefinitely is also naïve.

You don't see the possibility that maybe a new network might be on the way (or already here) that provides anonymity for its users? You think the existent networks are just going to stay the same?

thebullkf

please forgive me but i haven't read the whole thread.
there is more to music... you're right.
its money,power and influence.
i would guess most 'powers that be' first and foremeost thoughts are.."how much will i /can i make" from a particular,artist,album,song.
afaik the beatles only received 4% of their income...{was in the biog i think ..??}
i think the reason most people download is because CD prices in this countryare prohibitive.


or am i wrong here???

blubloblu

Most people don't download something instead of buying, they do both. File-sharers buy more than non file-sharers, and they buy up to ten times as much.

I think prices are more than fair over here. 99c for a single, a tenner or less for an album.

thebullkf

tenner for ten songs = album.?

maybe i should've said I download first, if i like it i buy the album.

if i don't then it costs me nothing.

z0oT

blubloblu wrote: »

You don't see the possibility that maybe a new network might be on the way (or already here) that provides anonymity for its users? You think the existent networks are just going to stay the same?

The word of mouth is that the detection process employed by the likes of Dtecnet is only done with the actual torrent trackers. Apparently those who go "trackerless", ie. rely solely on DHT and PEX, can circumvent it.

I myself don't see how that could be the case, because once you connect to a peer your IP is on show regardless of how you do it, but nonetheless if that holds water, the detection methods used have already been defeated.

blubloblu

thebullkf wrote: »

tenner for ten songs = album.?

Number 1 album this week: Eminem - Recovery. 17 tracks, €9.79 on 7digital

That's a very reasonable price.

Cantona's Collars

That's cheap - don't go sharing it with anyone now:)

thebullkf

that is cheap.


its 14 euro in Tower and the list price on HMV.com is ST£16.99.
so now its a matter of shopping around.
Imagine the prices if file sharing didn't exist?

Cantona's Collars

Here's an interesting set of stats as to where our money goes.



This represents the major record labels which funnily enough are the ones that cry loudest about piracy and file sharing.

BrianD

zerks wrote: »

Here's an interesting set of stats as to where our money goes.



This represents the major record labels which funnily enough are the ones that cry loudest about piracy and file sharing.

And not surprisingly! Take the 63% that the record companies get. Then factor in the vast sums that are spent on all aspects of getting the artist to market - marketing (advertising, PR etc), distribution (plugging and physical distribution of product - the chart quoted doesn't state whether this is included or not) and operational costs (legal etc) plus the monies spent in developing the artist.

There are very few artists who are a DIY success e.g. from the Internet. To achieve mass market success they need investment and quite often the supposed "internet star" is often the spin that the vast amounts spent on marketing will use.

blubloblu

BrianD wrote: »

And not surprisingly! Take the 63% that the record companies get. Then factor in the vast sums that are spent on all aspects of getting the artist to market - marketing (advertising, PR etc), distribution (plugging and physical distribution of product - the chart quoted doesn't state whether this is included or not) and operational costs (legal etc) plus the monies spent in developing the artist.

There are very few artists who are a DIY success e.g. from the Internet. To achieve mass market success they need investment and quite often the supposed "internet star" is often the spin that the vast amounts spent on marketing will use.

Read the rest of this article: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100712/23482610186.shtml

All the label's costs are passed on to the artist.

dub45

blubloblu wrote: »

Read the rest of this article: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100712/23482610186.shtml

All the label's costs are passed on to the artist.

And is this supposed in some way to justify downloading copyrighted material?

So instead of getting a relatively "small amount" its ok for musicians to get nothing?

BrianD

blubloblu wrote: »

Read the rest of this article: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100712/23482610186.shtml

All the label's costs are passed on to the artist.

Pretty lopsided arguement there and selective economics. The author seems to forget its a competitive market and there are numerous labels out there. Sure the labels do handsomely out of it.

The bottom line is that 'greedy record labels' are irrelevant to the discussion because even if the artist is only getting 1% of revenues they get still get nothing if you steal it.

Cantona's Collars

The 'pay if you think it's worth it' idea could catch on,save money on marketing,greedy record labels etc.Not too expensive to advertise online either.You see the song/album you want and pay as much you think it's worth so most of the money goes to the artist.There will always be people who won't pay for anything but the majority will.

BrianD

zerks wrote: »

The 'pay if you think it's worth it' idea could catch on,save money on marketing,greedy record labels etc.Not too expensive to advertise online either.You see the song/album you want and pay as much you think it's worth so most of the money goes to the artist.There will always be people who won't pay for anything but the majority will.

No it wouldn't, if the "pay what you think it's worth" idea stood some merit it would be widely used both online and offline. Radiohead, I recall, did this once and it was universally seen as a nice gimmick but a flop. Radiohead could only do it because they have benefited from substantial record company investment.

Advertising online is going to get an artist nowhere. The response rates for online advertising a very low and an indie artist would have to buy inventory worldwide and cover just about every angle. If they plan world domination they are still going to have to have a masterplan for every territory - get radio airplay, press coverage, buy offline advertising etc etc. This is where the clout and expertise of the greedy record company comes in and somewhat explains why they take the percentage that they do.

Le King

BTW guys when is UPC going to court over this?

Cabaal

blubloblu wrote: »

Read the rest of this article: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100712/23482610186.shtml

All the label's costs are passed on to the artist.

Nice twisted logic, don't you think its up to the artists to fight that fight?
By you downloading and paying nothing the artist gets nothing....now how does this help the artists?

Cabaal

zerks wrote: »

The 'pay if you think it's worth it' idea could catch on

err no it won't, the fact that you download it shows that you think its worth a listen, yet I don't see you rushing to give the artist money

The artist is entitled to be paid for their work, do you not agree?

Cantona's Collars

The artist is entitled to be paid for their work, do you not agree?

I never said the artist wasn't entitled to be paid,was just musing about a solution to illegal downloads and threw the idea of a Radiohead scheme of pay what you want out there to see what others opinions on it were.As long as there is 'net access there will be piracy and as long as the powers that be fight it the more the pirates adapt to stay one step ahead.
With all the arguing about the morality of filesharing on this thread,nobody has come up with a solution/compromise that would keep both sides happy-maybe there isn't one?

watty

Good stuff... relevant background
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/19/sabip_copyright_report/

z0oT

BrianD wrote: »

There are very few artists who are a DIY success e.g. from the Internet. To achieve mass market success they need investment and quite often the supposed "internet star" is often the spin that the vast amounts spent on marketing will use.

And it's also worth mentioning the few that have had success in that regard, would have been with a lable previously.

Yes it's very well known that the Labels have been scamming the artists for decades now and while the whole Death to Greedy Corporate Middlemen argument (or whatever other name you want to put on it) is all grand and dandy, but who's going to provide the necessary investment to bring said product to market?

Cabaal wrote: »

Nice twisted logic, don't you think its up to the artists to fight that fight?
By you downloading and paying nothing the artist gets nothing....now how does this help the artists?

Nicely put and the answer is that it doesn't at all, however it does show that to blindly accept everything these unions such as the IRMA or RIAA say is silly.