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

jimi_t2

dub45 wrote: »

And you feel sorry for "music lovers" who can potentially no longer get music for free and what about the musicians? Do you not see any irony in your position at all?

Sorry, there's a lot of people here who have NO KNOWLEDGE of the music industry whatsoever.

The only people you are removing money from by ''illegal'' downloading is the labels themselves. When people actually like artists and their music they tend to support them.

A ridiculously small fraction of the proceeds from salsegoes towards the artist. The labels are a dinosaur who existed because a lot of very rich men had the distribution channels tied up pre-internet. Similarly, the means of production was controlled to a wide extent as the barriers to entry were so high that some level of co-operation was needed

Now music has gone digital and the distribution channels are wide open.

The artists still make shag-all money from record sales. True that the labels have taken a hit from their unsustainable level of supernormal profits but because of the internet, and the free distribution of music, the LIVE performance revenues of artists are skyrocketing - especially for electronic musicians or DJs.



The people who are losing some aspect of their obscene profits are the people who facilitate putting complete nonsense into the charts because its the most cost effective thing to do.

Musicians are making more now then they ever were, especially the smallest acts

http://labs.timesonline.co.uk/blog/2009/11/12/do-music-artists-do-better-in-a-world-with-illegal-file-sharing/

This is almost WHOLLY attributed to filesharing by a number of leading academics and independent, neutral bodies.

The problem here is not starving musicians. It seems that people have a set budget constraint for music, and when the parts of it that can be captured in a file-format fall in price, it simply diverts that savings into other forms of music spending. The problem now is that the artists are getting a bigger chunk of the pie and that is not how the record industry is supposed to work!

I'm a gigging musician and DJ and I wholly disregard any and all of the actions of the so called ''IRMA'' as being of any benefit to me, or the many extremely talented musicians and performers in Ireland. We've been taken for a ride around the paddock as a generation of artists and we finally have the ability to stop the nonsense - unfortunately a lot of very very rich people are going to take umbrage with that.

RangeR

jimi_t2 wrote: »

...stuff...

Damn interesting read

probe

While one's heart bleeds for artists whose works are circulated illegally, and who are ripped apart by the recording industry mafia, that has nothing to do with broadband availability.

Eircom has no right to "pull the plug" on someone from using an internet account without a court order. If eircom thinks one is stealing music or anything else, let them, or some other party affected by your action, take it to court, and let an independent judge decide on the facts.

We can't have a situation where someone dishes out a list to eircom and these victims find the plug pulled from their internet access. Or eircom doesn't like them because they criticize the company, and decides to plug the plug.

Eircom controls about 95% of the DSL broadband in Ireland - if they block you, you have little chance of getting re-connected.

We could end up with a situation where someone criticizes eircom and gets disconnected under this "excuse".

It could shut up freedom of speech.

No other country has this set-up. It shows the incompetence of comreg and the Dept of Communications and Fish. This is in breach of article 10 of the ECHR
http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/D5CC24A7-DC13-4318-B457-5C9014916D7A/0/EnglishAnglais.pdf

It seems to me that boards is full of people who have no time for basic human rights, and are in the pocket of eircom, UPC, gov.ie or related parties.

probe

If you are a well known shoplifter, someone like Superquinn or Dunnes Stores can't issue an instruction to the "shopping centre association of Ireland" requiring them to ban you from entering any member shopping centres. If they have a problem with a shoplifter, they have to go to court.

And the same should apply to the music/video industry.

jgjkl

eircome, well done!

dub45

There is absolutely nothing to stop musicians (or anyone else for that matter) giving away their own work. And as you point out there are now channels for them to do so.

However no one has the right to give away someone else's work if that work is copyrighted - it is as simple as that.

And it is sickening to hear of so called 'music lovers' with hard drives full of music that they never paid a cent for 'suffering'.

http://www.musicunited.org/3_artists.html

Jev/N

Doing my thesis on this area so I'm not really bothered discussing it, seeing as I see boards as a break from it!

Here's a interesting article from last year - a UK survey found illegal downloaders spent an average of £77 a year on genuine music, £33 more than those who claim never to have wrongly accessed music for free (I know it's only a survey)

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/1101/breaking36.html

Flaregon

dub45 wrote: »

http://www.musicunited.org/3_artists.html

I disagree

http://www.techspot.com/news/9499-p2p-downloading-legal-in-canada.html

http://techcrunch.com/2008/03/28/the-music-tax-details-of-the-plan-they-dont-want-you-to-know/

there are ways they get cash & we get music (almost free)

thomashood10

I assume the music company won't actually upload copyrighted material to a torrent in order to "bait" people into breaking the law.. that would be entrapment right?

hightower1

So... IRMA are trying to get..... less money? By asking an ISP to ...... cut off copyright abusers? Who..... are actually spending the most money on music?



Logic fail.

I am sorry but why in gods name would any organisation spend money in the aim to get less revenue!

And this whole thing about artists get more money these days is bull, they are getting more because the record labels cannot afford to fund them as much so they have to tour more which is the one thing copyright abusers cannot download - a live gig. So you leave out and gloss over the fact that artists now have to spend more time touring than ever before and THATS where the revenue is coming from.

You cannot build a career on touring alone, you need a labels recourses so you can develop your skills and style and get it out into the public arena in a large way through record sales.

So yeah right now artists are making more but are touring more than ever to get it, this cant go on. Young artists cannot tour for the next 10 years straight they WILL burn out and loose any creative spark. When the label which WAS providing SOME support looks for a new act you can be guaranteed they will have to look for less acts due to limited funds and will be able to provide less support for the said new acts.


Dont think because you download its just the labels you hurt because ALL artists need a label behind them, they are their support structure for an anyway meaningful career. You rob from the labels..... you rob the artists you apparently love of a support structure!?

dub45

Flaregon wrote: »

I disagree

http://www.techspot.com/news/9499-p2p-downloading-legal-in-canada.html

http://techcrunch.com/2008/03/28/the-music-tax-details-of-the-plan-they-dont-want-you-to-know/

there are ways they get cash & we get music (almost free)

You do not appear to have read the various comments on these schemes?

For example why should anyone who is willing to pay for their music also have to pay a tax to susidise those who won't?

Flaregon

dub45 wrote: »

You do not appear to have read the various comments on these schemes?

For example why should anyone who is willing to pay for their music also have to pay a tax to susidise those who won't?

I can't see anyone wanting to pay 10 euro(or what ever the price) for a CD
when you can get 100 cds worth for 5 euro a month.

I see no loss in that set up, there could be cons but I dont really listen to music (I play to many mmos) and never get any good advice on whats good.

I'm just making the point that there are option that could of been taken insted of the 3 strike system that will fail because of the way its set up.

zonad

MOD EDIT
IGNORING THREAD WARNING = 1 WEEK BAN

Upgraded to perma ban due to abuse against a mod

NUTZZ

zonad wrote: »

MOD EDIT
IGNORING THREAD WARNING = 1 WEEK BAN

I see trouble ahead....:pac:

CaraFawn

One thing that I found scandalous is the director of the Irma, Dick Doyle, saying:

"The European Parliament has been talking about internet access as a basic human right. It absolutely is not. Intellectual property protection is a right," he said.

I do not know who he thinks he is to say surfing internet is not a basic human right.

Cabaal

CaraFawn wrote: »

One thing that I found scandalous is the director of the Irma, Dick Doyle, saying:

"The European Parliament has been talking about internet access as a basic human right. It absolutely is not. Intellectual property protection is a right," he said.

I do not know who he thinks he is to say surfing internet is not a basic human right.

While I don't agree with his comments who are the users who downloading copyright material to say that its there right to download it for free without any repercussions?

If an artists creates work and wants it protected they are entitled to do so, would you not agree?

Nerin

dub45 wrote: »

There is absolutely nothing to stop musicians (or anyone else for that matter) giving away their own work. And as you point out there are now channels for them to do so.

However no one has the right to give away someone else's work if that work is copyrighted - it is as simple as that.

And it is sickening to hear of so called 'music lovers' with hard drives full of music that they never paid a cent for 'suffering'.

http://www.musicunited.org/3_artists.html

Oh really?

Q: If tracks are provided to bloggers with permission and are cleared for promo from bands, labels are these covered by this or are these outside the licence?
According to IMRO, if an artist, composer or publisher has registered with IMRO (or PRS in the UK / ASCAP in the US), then the MCPSI-IMRO (LOEL) licence must be obtained. Furthermore, if a composer, artist or publisher has done this, then they do not have the right to give full permission to allow their own track to be downloaded on a site. What I can gather, is that if a label is represented by PPI (Phonographic Performance Ireland) then an additional licence is required for use of the sound recordings. See the member list here. I’m not 100% sure if an artist can waive their rights in any circumstance above. If an artist is not affilated with IMRO or any equivalent, they can waive their rights on it.

Nialler9

CaraFawn

Cabaal wrote: »

While I don't agree with his comments who are the users who downloading copyright material to say that its there right to download it for free without any repercussions?

If an artists creates work and wants it protected they are entitled to do so, would you not agree?

I am not commenting of the fact some are acquiring commercial material for free, I am simply commenting on what he said. Which I think on its own is outrageous.

zenno

Cabaal wrote: »

While I don't agree with his comments who are the users who downloading copyright material to say that its there right to download it for free without any repercussions?

If an artists creates work and wants it protected they are entitled to do so, would you not agree?

well imo only i say tough to them. it is up to the music industry/artists to secure their work whether it be a cd/mp3. we all use security all the time for our own things. it's about time they done the same and create new security to stop people been able to download it. they are lazy when it comes to this important point. drm is cracked so no point in using that. but i'm sure with all the money the music business is making they could invest in high tech security to secure their stuff. but they won't bother to do this. it should be mandatory for music companies to insure their artists are secured with proper programming security inbedded on disc. if it get's cracked eventually they should be on the ball and have updated security ready to implement. this is simular to ntl/box security codes when people were able to watch all channels without paying. they put a stop to that after spending cash on good security. install this security on all manufactured discs and it will make it harder and harder for crackers to crack and will slow the tide of music uploads.

Shaneboyle

I can't see UPC giving into this, they are large company,
in so many European countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UPC_Broadband

axer

zenno wrote: »

well imo only i say tough to them. it is up to the music industry/artists to secure their work whether it be a cd/mp3. we all use security all the time for our own things. it's about time they done the same and create new security to stop people been able to download it. they are lazy when it comes to this important point. drm is cracked so no point in using that. but i'm sure with all the money the music business is making they could invest in high tech security to secure their stuff. but they won't bother to do this. it should be mandatory for music companies to insure their artists are secured with proper programming security inbedded on disc. if it get's cracked eventually they should be on the ball and have updated security ready to implement. this is simular to ntl/box security codes when people were able to watch all channels without paying. they put a stop to that after spending cash on good security. install this security on all manufactured discs and it will make it harder and harder for crackers to crack and will slow the tide of music uploads.

Lol, you're joking, right?

With regards NTL people just share cards instead.

Everything can/will be cracked.

Once you can listen to music you can digitise it. It is impossible to stop people copying or digitising and sharing audio cds.

.Moosejam

Cabaal wrote: »

While I don't agree with his comments who are the users who downloading copyright material to say that its there right to download it for free without any repercussions?

If an artists creates work and wants it protected they are entitled to do so, would you not agree?

Well one thing is for sure with this arrangement in place there will be a lot of new work for IRMA, you can be sure this thread is being read by them and it wouldn't surprise me if certain individuals are headhunted given their stance in this thread.

Though if contacted I would advise them to learn to differentiate between your and you're.

jor el

thomashood10 wrote: »

that would be entrapment right?

Entrapment only exists in US criminal (and possibly civil) law. This has nothing to do with that, so entrapment does not exist.

zenno

axer wrote: »

Lol, you're joking, right?

With regards NTL people just share cards instead.

Everything can/will be cracked.

Once you can listen to music you can digitise it. It is impossible to stop people copying or digitising and sharing audio cds.

well surely they can come up with something. nothing is impossible nowadays.

thund3rbird_

zenno wrote: »

................................. install this security on all manufactured discs and it will make it harder and harder for crackers to crack and will slow the tide of music uploads.

so you would accept something like the software Sony put on an Anastacia cd which installed a rootkit on any pc it was inserted into?

google anastacia+cd+rootkit - plenty of links

BrianD

Jev/N wrote: »

Doing my thesis on this area so I'm not really bothered discussing it, seeing as I see boards as a break from it!

Here's a interesting article from last year - a UK survey found illegal downloaders spent an average of £77 a year on genuine music, £33 more than those who claim never to have wrongly accessed music for free (I know it's only a survey)

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/1101/breaking36.html

This point has been raised before but I would be curious to know if this expenditure is on legal downloads or physical product e.g. CDs.

I am of the opinion that the people who are spending the above are using pirated to music but also like to have the physical copy are an older generation.

The fact of the matter is that there is a younger generation who have never stepped foot inside a record store to buy a CD and now get their music off the Internet. These are the future consumers not the people quoted in the article above. If they aren't paying then there is little future in music.

I disagree with the musician who claims that illegal music downloads only hurts the majors. It doesn't. It hurts the little guy too.

Finally, Internet is not a basic human right. I don't know how anybody coud think that.

zenno

thund3rbird_ wrote: »

so you would accept something like the software Sony put on an Anastacia cd which installed a rootkit on any pc it was inserted into?

google anastacia+cd+rootkit - plenty of links

absolutely not. not that security that installs a rootkit on any pc. I am saying surely they have some form of security out there that can make it so difficult to copy or crack that crackers would not bother because of the time and work it will take to crack it. as it might slow the tide of music uploads from new albums/cd's until they come up with a new alternative. but they are doing shag all except pretending to be the law which they are not.

jimi_t2

hightower1 wrote: »

So... IRMA are trying to get..... less money? By asking an ISP to ...... cut off copyright abusers? Who..... are actually spending the most money on music?

The so called ''copyright abusers'' tend to spend more money on average on music, just not so much on dead physical media where 96-99% of the RRP go to anyone but the artists (and no, I'm not being remotely facetious about this; they're roughly the percentages from the sale of a CD).

And this whole thing about artists get more money these days is bull, they are getting more because the record labels cannot afford to fund them as much...

Oh dear...

I'd take a wager that if everyone at the administrative level of the music industry went off coke in the morning, they could afford to give everyone with a f*cking tin whistle on the planet about a grand each.

Name another industry that has the power to bully companies outside its remit in the way the music industry can. Why? Because they have OBSCENE amounts of money

So you leave out and gloss over the fact that artists now have to spend more time touring than ever before and THATS where the revenue is coming from.

Yeah but the majority of that revenue actually ends up in their pockets as opposed to them getting nothing for touring and about 4c an album. Minus recording costs. Minus packaging and design fees (yes they pay for this). Minus their initial ''advance''.

It used to be the case that you'd tour to promote an album.

Now its the case that you release an album to promote your tour.

This is a far better situation for the vast vast majority of both artists and fans.

You cannot build a career on touring alone, you need a labels recourses so you can develop your skills and style and get it out into the public arena in a large way through record sales.

What in gods name are you ranting on about?

What possible purpose does a label now serve bar trying to artificially buy you into the charts (using the future ''revenue'' of your album) and promoting you on a dead physical media which you end up paying for?

Anyone who makes ANY money off their back catalogue makes it through mechanical rights - i.e. when its used in a movie, ad etc...

So yeah right now artists are making more but are touring more than ever to get it, this cant go on. Young artists cannot tour for the next 10 years straight they WILL burn out and loose any creative spark.

Oh right? Tell that to Leonard Cohen, U2, Bob Dylan, Rolling Stones...

will I go on?

Here's a little insight : Musicians LIKE performing. They generally do NOT like being in a studio for extended amounts of time.

When the label which WAS providing SOME support looks for a new act you can be guaranteed they will have to look for less acts due to limited funds and will be able to provide less support for the said new acts.

... :rolleyes:

Labels were there traditionally because bands couldn't afford to produce a radio friendly polished track. They'd get a ****ty demo down on a fourtrack and hope an A&R guy wouldn't make them sell their souls to get down to a proper studio. Mastering and mixing was a dark art and even entry-level equipment could set you back the price of a small house.

Now all barriers to entry are gonzo and digital distribution is the key.

Dont think because you download its just the labels you hurt because ALL artists need a label behind them, they are their support structure for an anyway meaningful career. You rob from the labels..... you rob the artists you apparently love of a support structure!?

Mobile phone and portable audio device sales through digital meta-distribution via micro-transaction, a la iTunes store etc...

Thats the support they need. Not a label that takes them for a ****ing ride around the paddock.

jimi_t2

zenno wrote: »

absolutely not. not that security that installs a rootkit on any pc. I am saying surely they have some form of security out there that can make it so difficult to copy or crack that...

If you can *hear* music you can pirate it. So no, there's pretty much no way of getting around that fact.

Bit like Mozart as a kid - he could hear a tune once and transcribe it perfectly to paper. If the ''recording industry'' was around back then they'd probably have him wearing a pair of cement boots somewhere at the bottom of the Danube fairly sharpish.

The music industry pretty much threw a tonne of money at lawyers to make sure that the DAT(Digital Audio Tape) format never made it to home use.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Audio_Tape#Anti-DAT_lobbying

Why? Because it was so small and cheap to produce and the fidelity of the audio was incredibly good, as was the dynamic range. If a digital source is copied then the DAT will produce an exact clone, unlike other digital media such as Digital Compact Cassette or non-Hi-MD MiniDisc, both of which use lossy data compression.

It had higher quality than a CD and was released in 1987


So yeah, the consumer was lumped with a ****ty inferior format (normal Tape) because the Recording Industry felt a tad threatened.

And you're trying to defend these scum?

jimi_t2

probe wrote: »

If you are a well known shoplifter, someone like Superquinn or Dunnes Stores can't issue an instruction to the "shopping centre association of Ireland" requiring them to ban you from entering any member shopping centres. If they have a problem with a shoplifter, they have to go to court.

First of all, only four countries in the world that I know of have Internet access legally determined as a human right. Of those, one is Greece which is up **** creek and another is France who has the three strikes thing as national law.


Secondly, your very analogy completely contradicts your point

If a shop has a problem with a shoplifter, they refuse them admission. They maintain that right as one of the tenants of operating a service, its usually up there in black and white on the front door

''The management reserve the right to refuse admission''

Similarly Eircom, when you enter a contract with them, have the right to deny you service if you infringe copyright. This clause means that you haven't a leg to stand on legally in relation to denial of service. Its so worded that it appears that visiting Youtube or similar streaming sites, by their very nature, is enough for them to shut you down.

Now with IRMA handing them the IPs, they have plausible deniability if they get it wrong. And who the f*ck is going to take on the record industry?