UPC won there Court case with IRMA

Hellrazer

seamus wrote: »

I am. Almost every study has found that illegal downloads have very little effect on actual music sales and in many cases, particularly for musicians not in the top-30 mainstream, illegal downloads can result in increased music sales.

Yes, CD sales have been declining rapidly. But I have yet to see a single independent study to agree that it's the fault of illegal downloads.

Have to agree wholeheartedly with Seamus on this.In the past I have downloaded music however if I like the artist I`l buy the cd.If I dont I delete it.

If I hadnt tested the waters so to speak by illegally downloading the album I may never have bought the cd and it would have been a lost sale anyway.

evercloserunion

First I would like to say that if I download a copyrighted file I have not committed 'theft', contrary to what has been posted above.

While I agree that they are different things, it's interesting to note that Judge Charleton, who deals with all these copyright cases, said before that he regards unauthorised copying of copyrighted material as theft.

'Copyright' as its name implies is a right granted to some members of society who produce some specific categories of works.
That this 'right' is saleable is a corruption of the right.
The whole basis of the media industry is corrupted.

Eh, no, I really don't see where you are getting that. I agree that there are a lot of unscrupulous players in the media industry, but why is being able to sell a right a corruption of that right?

watty

There should be no such injunction.

it's up to the Copyright holders to take down the source. Not the ISPs to dig up roads.

In meatspace you don't block road to a shop or car boot sale with copyright infringing content. You "block" the content by closing shop or car owner after warrent for search and then sue or prosecute.

CrazyRabbit

You can't beat the pirates. Illegal downloading is not coming to an end regardless of the final outcome of this battle.

If there is a risk with using P2P, then people will eventually stop using it and use other, more anonymous tools. Technology will always move faster than the laws of a country.

I've read up on a few new'ish technologies that can completely hide your internet activity both as a downloader and uploader. Check this out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freenet

Kinda scary in a sense in that these new technologies can be used for the most vile purposes, but also reassuring in that they truly protect free speech. I guess we have to take the bad with the good.

CptSternn

It amazes me that in todays world when drugs are illegal, yet readily available pretty much worldwide that people think passing draconian laws involving copyrights will somehow magically get rid of file sharing.

Look at China and their Great Firewall, or Iran and their blockade of mainstream media - they can't even keep CNN out, no matter how hard they try - and you think anyone can block/shutdown teens from downloading music?

Anyone who thinks they can actual stop file sharing in todays society is cracked and trying to sell you something. The IRMA, RIAA, MPAA are not just record industry groups, but groups of solicitors/lawyers. Thats what they are. Of course they will argue the problem can be fixed in the courts because 100% of the money they make comes from the courts.

Artists don't see a penny of what is recovered in 'enforcement' cases, it goes 100% to groups of lawyers, who in turn call for more laws so they can go after more money.

Talk about a broken system - forget about the record industry business model - the enforcement model is setup by solicitors/lawyers, for solicitors/lawyers.

calex71

I'm splitting my sides here at the report there on TV3 news, they used aslan as an example. In their Hey day they sold 35,000 copies of an album. The last one sold 6,000 yet 22,000 wnet to see them live, Guess someone forgot to tell them they suck and people only go to see them play a 'hit' from years ago

md23040

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

First I would like to say that if I download a copyrighted file I haveWith regard to hurting 'artists' ........ the majority have sold/assigned their rights in the copyright

Correct. The music companies have been ripping off their artists for many years, and now the same is happening them. It's understandable people have little sympathy.

Signing to record companies is tantamount to slavery as Prince highlighted, that's why many established acts and new artists are bypassing them and going down the independent route. However, no matter what peoples view are on the vilification of the music industry, illegal downloading is still wrong and protections are required. Artists incomes must be proctected, they will be in full control of the recorded industry in the near future.

watty wrote: »

In meatspace you don't block road to a shop or car boot sale with copyright infringing content. You "block" the content by closing shop or car owner after warrent for search and then sue or prosecute.

No matter what you think or theorise the major record companies will successfully draft law that will be written into legislation sooner rather than later and will most probably be a rehash of Digital Economy Act.

CrazyRabbit wrote: »

I've read up on a few new'ish technologies that can completely hide your internet activity both as a downloader and uploader. Check this out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freenet

My knowledge of computer technology is fairly limited but someone told me the record companies are looking at the DNS profile and this is hard to disguise.

listermint

Did anyone hear on the news that IRMA will be holding the government responsible for all past and future earnings lost through illegal downloading without new legislation being drafted.

Are these people for real??!!

blubloblu

The EU have been very clearly against three-strikes and there's a directive that must be implemented in May that explicitly forbids the practice. IRMA might be able to get Irish politicians in their pocket, but the EU have been in vocal support of citizens.

z0oT

listermint wrote: »

Are these people for real??!!

One would really have to wonder at times. Their actions are very much akin to a spoilt child who can't get his/her way.

Elessar

Good on UPC. Surely, what the IRMA want is illegal in Ireland - the IP addresses and account info of people allegedly downloading copyright material - since this would be a breach of privacy without a court order?

For anyone thinking this eventually means the end of internet piracy in its current capacity - you're living in the clouds. I remember when no one knew what torrents were. Now practically everyone knows. And that's just one avenue! Look at limewire etc.

If anything internet piracy is only going to get bigger and people will continue to follow new trends and ways of getting their hands on it. I'm willing to bet money on this.

For the rest of us there's always Usenet - try pinning someone to that :pac:

Sarn

IRMA were saying that their sales are down significantly. Could this also be attributed in part to people buying albums online from outside of the country?

I've tried to buy mp3s online from some UK sites, the albums I was looking at were over half the price cheaper compared to the online Irish sites. Of course due to IP restrictions I couldn't buy them. VAT doesn't make that big a difference and overheads would be the same as an online shop can be based anywhere. Why are the Irish being gouged for identical digital files? If they stopped ripping us off then maybe piracy might be reduced.

(I eventually got the standard album I wanted in a bricks and mortar shop in a sale, only 50% more expensive then the digital deluxe version from the UK)

28064212

Markronan wrote: »

How can isps track what your downloading if it isnt labelled?

Very easily. Everything you do on the internet (unless you have some seriously heavy-duty security) is easily traceable. Fileshare hosts are just as susceptible to tracking as p2p (Limewire) or torrents, they just haven't been seriously targeted yet

lmimmfn

nowadaysthe media is saturated with music, tv programs have loads of the latest songs, you can listen to online radio stations with the type of music you prefer, video games have loads of music as do movies, ads etc. and the old radio of course.

Now if only IRMA and the likes could cop on and realise that the music industry is already making a fortune through those alternative media streams instead of holding onto a long dead philosophy that everyone wants to spend a fortune on music.
The huge sales of the 80s are long gone now that people can effectively listen to most tunes from an album through online radio stations or the albums website and see the video

Even if they do get a ban on illegal downloading it wont help one bit. I havnt bought a CD in years mainly because
1. Most of the music is junk nowadays but i dont see myself buying a CD in the forseeable future either.
2. Hoarding junk, why have a huge CD rack in your living room when you can have everything on your media PC or ipod/whatever.
3. Theres already so much exposure through gaming/listening to the radio that i have no interest in acquiring new albums when i enjoy listening to the 200+ albums i already own.

Get over it IRMA most people arent interested in buying CD's.

The internet killed the radio star.

Markronan

28064212 wrote: »

Very easily. Everything you do on the internet (unless you have some seriously heavy-duty security) is easily traceable. Fileshare hosts are just as susceptible to tracking as p2p (Limewire) or torrents, they just haven't been seriously targeted yet

How do eircom actually monitor what you download?Do they track and read into every site you visit or what because it seems like alot of work on there part.Say im with eircom glad im not being with upc for years.So i download a freeware program thats about 100mb or so do eircom look into what it is and check if its music and know what programs your installing?Whats the stance on movie downloads because i admit i do download alot of films but i do also buy dvds and blurays because theres nothing like the real thing.

The_Thing

If you have a 128 bit encrypted connection to a server how will anyone know what is being downloaded - all your ISP will see is a stream of apparently random data.

Johnboy1951

Markronan wrote: »

How do eircom actually monitor what you download?Do they track and read into every site you visit or what because it seems like alot of work on there part.Say im with eircom glad im not being with upc for years.So i download a freeware program thats about 100mb or so do eircom look into what it is and check if its music and know what programs your installing?Whats the stance on movie downloads because i admit i do download alot of films but i do also buy dvds and blurays because theres nothing like the real thing.

Eircom don't monitor what you are downloading ..... the agreement with big media is that if Eircom are supplied with an IP address of someone big media says was downloading copyrighted content, then Eircom will tell that account holder they have been logged doing so ...... after three of those warnings the account gets terminated ....... maybe ......

Markronan

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Eircom don't monitor what you are downloading ..... the agreement with big media is that if Eircom are supplied with an IP address of someone big media says was downloading copyrighted content, then Eircom will tell that account holder they have been logged doing so ...... after three of those warnings the account gets terminated ....... maybe ......

Who are big media and how they they know what your downloading??Do they monitor every website you visit and log your ip and see what youve been up to?Its sounds if your any bit smart at computers you could avoid getting warnings from eircom.Its probably all the newbies who download music will be the ones who get nabbed.

MackDeToaster

For those looking for links..

Arstechnica.com reporting 'The US government finally admits most piracy estimates are bogus'.
http://tinyurl.com/y3qgtzz

Techdirt article on about a GAO study concluding 'Piracy stats are usually junk, Piracy can help sales'
http://tinyurl.com/3y5lhjw

And the actual GAO study itself ..
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-423

And a similar 2007 Canadian study..
http://tinyurl.com/bt3unc

Interesting Arstechnica article on the history of the histrionics against new technologies..
http://tinyurl.com/38qwdl2

jor el

The_Thing wrote: »

If you have a 128 bit encrypted connection to a server how will anyone know what is being downloaded - all your ISP will see is a stream of apparently random data.

That's not how it works, and this thread is not going to descend into the kind of wildly inaccurate posts that all previous threads like this have. Can people please get it into their heads that the ISPs are NOT MONITORING ANYTHING.

Markronan wrote: »

Who are big media and how they they know what your downloading??Do they monitor every website you visit and log your ip and see what youve been up to?Its sounds if your any bit smart at computers you could avoid getting warnings from eircom.Its probably all the newbies who download music will be the ones who get nabbed.

The monitor P2P traffic from it's source.

The_Thing

Sorry jor el for not being clearer in my previous post - I was not talking about P2P.

jor el

The_Thing wrote: »

Sorry jor el for not being clearer in my previous post - I was not talking about P2P.

OK, but they don't actually monitor anything, the rights holders employ third parties to do all monitoring, and it's done at source and not on your connection to the ISP.

Standard Toaster

calex71 wrote: »

I'm splitting my sides here at the report there on TV3 news, they used aslan as an example. In their Hey day they sold 35,000 copies of an album. The last one sold 6,000 yet 22,000 wnet to see them live, Guess someone forgot to tell them they suck and people only go to see them play a 'hit' from years ago

MackDeToaster wrote: »

For those looking for links..

Arstechnica.com reporting 'The US government finally admits most piracy estimates are bogus'.
http://tinyurl.com/y3qgtzz

Techdirt article on about a GAO study concluding 'Piracy stats are usually junk, Piracy can help sales'
http://tinyurl.com/3y5lhjw

And the actual GAO study itself ..
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-423

And a similar 2007 Canadian study..
http://tinyurl.com/bt3unc

Interesting Arstechnica article on the history of the histrionics against new technologies..
http://tinyurl.com/38qwdl2

http://taint.org/

Aslan’s hard times, from the UPC judgement
Oh dear. Quoting Mr Justice Charleton’s judgement in favour of UPC vs. EMI, Sony, et al:

‘This scourge of internet piracy strongly affects Irish musicians, most of whom pay tax in Ireland. ‘Aslan’ is a distinguished Irish group which has a loyal fan base; but not all of them believe in paying for music.Previous sales of their albums were excellent, about 35,000 per album, and in respect of one called “Platinum Collection”, a three CD box set, 50,000 copies were sold. More recently, an album called “Uncased” was released and only 6,000 copies were sold.Perhaps, it might be thought, the album was not popular and did not sell well? In contrast, a search was made to see how many illegal downloads had been made on the internet from that album, and 22,000 were traced.’

Aslan, eh?
So, that would be about the same figure as EMI quoted in a press statement in July 2009, which ‘Gambra’ on the thumped.com boards thoroughly debunked at the time:

‘I’ve just been listening to the first minute or two of this and have done a mere 10 minutes of googling to try verify the claim of 25,000 downloads. The EMI press statement mentioned that they’ve tracked that amount of downloads “through Torrents Nova and Pirate Bay alone.” The first problem with that is that there’s no such site as Torrents Nova (I presumed they meant mininova but Aslan gets zero hits over there) but never mind, we’ll carry on. Next I search for ever possible permutation for downloads of the new Aslan album and I kept getting the same result which is “Aslan – Uncase’d (2009) KompletlyWyred Dhz.inc” which was uploaded to thepiratebay. However this file only has a grand total of 9 seeders and 6 leechers and has been alive since the 26th of June. There’s no way of telling how many times it’s been leeched exactly but even if it was 6 new leechers every day it’d be a total of 108 downloads. It is fair to assume that only 9 of these bothered to seed back so I’d say the total is right.
Wondering still where the hell they got their mystical 25,000 total from I just searched for “Aslan Uncased” and was surprised to see 5 links to torrents of the album in the first two pages of results. However 4 of the 5 just link back to the one on TPB with 9 seeders. The 5th is where I think they got their mystical 25,000 total from:
http://www.nowtorrents.com/torrents/aslan-uncased.html
This is the 7th result you get on google for the album title and when you click it you actually get “No Matches were found” but up at the top are FAKE results that are actually just ad links. You could search for anything and you’ll get those exact same four ad results.
http://www.nowtorrents.com/torrents/gambra-thumped.html
If you refresh the totals change each time so it’s safe to say they found this link by googling the name, added up the total of listed downloads they got (which is totally random) and are using that to moan about their loss of sales. Incredible.’

Indeed, according to the site, a search for ‘Justin Mason on the nose flute’ has been downloaded 24,752 times — I never knew! Where’s my cheque?
Some quality facts and figures from EMI there, I suspect.

Literally pulling figures out of their arses.

jimmycrackcorm

I don't think I'm alone in saying this but If I download music it does not imply that I would have bought any of it if I couldn't have that opportunity. I'm one of the supposedly few people who like listening to the radio which also plays music for free. Before the advent of downloadable music, I bought as many cds as I do now.

I simply do not believe I'm stealing if I download music any more than if I'm listening to the radio instead.

Freddie59

seamus wrote: »

Any kind of mainstream illegal downloading is coming to an end. Its days are numbered, there's no doubt about it.

It will always be there - just like bootlegs and copies always have been - but your average joe on the street will find it more difficult to download anything illegally without exposing himself and so will go for the legit operations.

I imagine that the vast majority of music consumers are not involved in music downloading anyway. There is a segment of people in the 16-25 age group who have both the technical skills and personal righteousness to download music illegally, but the vast majority of people simply don't know how to. They will Google for "download Justin Bieber songs" and they'll see a link to iTunes. Then they pay for convenience. The Napster and Bearshare days are gone, it's no longer a matter of installing a client, searching for your favourite bands and clicking "download".

Just like when cassettes became mainstream, the music industry has vastly overestimated the impact of illegal music downloads on music sales. Sure, it makes it *easier* to get your hands on music for free, but it doesn't make it any more likely for people to do it.

Yes, music sales have been sliding for a long time, but study after study has found no significant causal link between illegal downloads and falling sales.

If anything the recording industry themselves are to blame for making it difficult for new bands to breakthrough into the mainstream and for existing bands to make good money by relying on forumlaic music and guaranteed money-spinners.

I wouldn't agree with that. Personally I don't illegally download - i wouldn't risk it - but this 'phenomenon' will only get worse as Internet access and speeds explode.

I do agree, however, that it is stealing. there was a programme on TV recently about the Pirate Bay in Sweden. The amount of BS about how trying to enforce this was an 'infringement on civil liberties' was ridiculous. It is stealing - plain and simple.

However, if I were the music industry, I would open a site offering the same tracks for, say, 20-30c per track. OK, everyone won't pay - but a huge percentage will. look at iTunes - it celebrated its ten BILLIONTH download last year. Better to get something rather than nothing. You could be in court forever - and gain nothing at all.

The landscape has changed dramatically - and the record companies need to recognise this. the Internet has changed EVERYTHING - forever.

Freddie59

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I don't think I'm alone in saying this but If I download music it does not imply that I would have bought any of it if I couldn't have that opportunity. I'm one of the supposedly few people who like listening to the radio which also plays music for free. Before the advent of downloadable music, I bought as many cds as I do now.

I simply do not believe I'm stealing if I download music any more than if I'm listening to the radio instead.

But Jimmy, if you walk into Dunnes tomorrow and walk out with a shirt/whatever without paying (just because you could) would you consider that to be the same? Even though you had plenty of shirts already, which you had bought in other shops?

colinod0806

Freddie59 wrote: »

But Jimmy, if you walk into Dunnes tomorrow and walk out with a shirt/whatever without paying (just because you could) would you consider that to be the same? Even though you had plenty of shirts already, which you had bought in other shops?

if you take a shirt from dunnes thats stealing because they no longer have the shirt to sell. Completely different to downloading. If you could make an exact copy of the shirt and bring it home how would that harm dunnes.

lensman

putting aside the issue of downloading be it illegal or legal I say it's a good judgement,..there is a constant effort by big corps & indeed country's to get control over the www & what we the people do with it & god help us if they ever succeed.
Alas we actually do the job for them sometimes,..from what I see on this very forum we censor what we can say & what we can mention from certain concert promoters to set top boxes

BoB_BoT

colinod0806 wrote: »

if you take a shirt from dunnes thats stealing because they no longer have the shirt to sell. Completely different to downloading. If you could make an exact copy of the shirt and bring it home how would that harm dunnes.

It's more along the lines of, you take the shirt, you bring it home, you make a copy of it, then return the shirt. Dunnes have just gained nothing by stocking that shirt, despite their overheads.

You're thinking no harm done if you just copy it, but what about the costs of producing a song/album, marketing, spending your time writing and practicing for years. Sure, no skin off the artists nose.

jor el

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I don't think I'm alone in saying this but If I download music it does not imply that I would have bought any of it

This has always been a problem with the music industry's argument; they equate each and every download to lost sales. I don't believe the real loss is anything more than 10% of that figure (I have no stats or figures to back this opinion, it's just an opinion). Given that a lot of the down-loaders will do everything they can to avoid paying, I think it's a good estimate. If the music wasn't available for free, then most people will simply go without.

colinod0806 wrote: »

if you take a shirt from dunnes thats stealing because they no longer have the shirt to sell. Completely different to downloading. If you could make an exact copy of the shirt and bring it home how would that harm dunnes.

Yes, copyright theft is responsible for a loss in potential revenue, but not a loss in actual revenue. On the other hand, it does cost money to produce music in the first place, and by downloading (and not paying) that initial cost cannot be recouped, and therefore there is an indirect loss of money for the producer.

lensman wrote: »

from what I see on this very forum we censor what we can say & what we can mention from certain concert promoters to set top boxes

There was an embargo on discussing MCD, simply because there was an ongoing court case between MCD and Boards.ie, so any discussion of MCD was banned so as not to prejudice that case. Any discussion of illegal set top boxes is prohibited, as is discussion of a lot of illegal activities, especially the methods and means of discussing illegal activities. If people are allowed to give instructions on how to get free cable or satellite TV, free broadband, etc, in an illegal fashion, then it won't be long before this site gets sued and shut down.

This is a privately owned forum, and the owners decide what can and cannot be discussed. You are not anonymous, and you cannot say and do as you please.