UPC won there Court case with IRMA

stereo_steve

jor el wrote: »

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.

ISP's do monitor everything. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_2006/24/EC

However they couldn't care less what you download. It would hurt their bottom line to disconnect customers.

stereo_steve

stereo_steve wrote: »

ISP's do monitor everything. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_2006/24/EC

However they couldn't care less what you download. It would hurt their bottom line to disconnect customers.

They very well may store data on users for up to 12 months but i think Jor El was hinting that they don't actually monitor your useage until something has been brought to thier attention about illegal useage.

Gonzovision

More sites like Bandcamp are the way to go. Sufjan Stevens new album for 5.75 euro. Can't go wrong with that price.

BrianD

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.

This analogy holds no water. A musical work is not a physical product and therefore can not be protected in the same way as a physical product in a retail store store. It requires other forms of protection. The laws against stealing from a retail store are quite clear, it appears that people don't yet get the laws on copyrighted material. In any case, if we were to use your example of copying the shirt you are stealing the actual shirt but you are still denying the retailer a sale of his shirt (i.e. income) so it doesn't really support your arguement!

The end result is the same. If you steal a shirt in a retail outlet, the retailer loses both his income and the cost of the stock. If you download copyrighted material that requires payment without payment then you denying the musician his or her income.

Interesting to note that in a recent court comment, that a judge suggested that a major retail outlet should do it's own policing of shoplifters and not be pushing the cost onto the state by seeking criminal convictions of the perpetrators. My read of this is that shops should deal with the problem through better anti-theft systems and by sorting out thieves by themselves (perhaps by banning from store). Not unlike the Eircom 3 strikes and your out which is a fair way od dealing with copyright thieves without bothering the courts.

jor el

stereo_steve wrote: »

ISP's do monitor everything. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_2006/24/EC

However they couldn't care less what you download. It would hurt their bottom line to disconnect customers.

Keeping records is not the same as monitoring. Records are kept in case there is a requirement for them to be used in a criminal case at some later date. Monitoring would involve actively watching everything that is downloaded.

z0oT

BrianD wrote: »

Interesting to note that in a recent court comment, that a judge suggested that a major retail outlet should do it's own policing of shoplifters and not be pushing the cost onto the state by seeking criminal convictions of the perpetrators. My read of this is that shops should deal with the problem through better anti-theft systems and by sorting out thieves by themselves (perhaps by banning from store). Not unlike the Eircom 3 strikes and your out which is a fair way od dealing with copyright thieves without bothering the courts.

Somehow I don't think the courts would entertain the idea of shop owners having their word as absolute in a guilty until proven innocent mantra similar to that of the 3 strikes for alleged "shoplifters".

Peanut

Indeed, why bother with the hassle of the judicial system at all?

The important point of all this has nothing to do with music or even copyright - it's about not ceding public access control of a utility to unaccountable corporations.

It would be exactly the same if Microsoft were to argue that net access be denied to IPs where non-licensed copies of Windows are installed. No doubt some posters would relish such an idea....

UPC should not be obliged to kick someone off their network just because some foreign corp. says so. They can do, if they so wish, but they shouldn't be obliged to by the laws of the state.

BrianD

z0oT wrote: »

Somehow I don't think the courts would entertain the idea of shop owners having their word as absolute in a guilty until proven innocent mantra similar to that of the 3 strikes for alleged "shoplifters".

Read this Irish Times article Judge Hits Out At Store Over Shoplifting (Irish Times 5/10/2010). It seems in this case that the judge would prefer that the retailer put their oen policing system in place. It actually didn't state explicitly in the article, but how else could a retailer stop a shoplifter other than banning him from their outlet or from their shopping centre. Denying them the ability to enter the store denies the ability to steal.

The 3 strikes system is very desirable as it keeps people out of the criminal system, saves money for the taxpayer and gives musicians and their agents their deserved income. win win win really!

BrianD

BTW, here's the latest release from IRMA that landed in my inbox including a statement from Paul McGuinness:

Yesterday, the High Court ruled that Irish Laws do not permit the courts to force Internet service providers to block illegal downloading and file sharing of copyrighted material in a case taken by the 5 major record companies EMI Records (Ireland), Universal Music Ireland, Warner International, Sony Music taken against internet provider UPC.

Mr Justice Charlton made it clear than an injunction would be morally justified but said ‘ I cannot grant the injunction because I have no legal power to do so’

As IRMA (Irish Recorded Music Association ) meet today to consider their position, U2 manager Paul McGuinness added his voice of support for a call to change the Irish legislation.

"This is extremely bad for the international reputation of Ireland as a jurisdiction with appropriate legal protection for all kinds of Intellectual Property and copyright generally. Though today's court ruling is clearly a major blow to the recorded music industry and the movie industry, there are many other Irish based businesses and industries threatened nowadays by copyright theft, (software, games, technology,etc etc), and the government must now as a matter of urgency, do its job properly and implement the required EU legislation without further delay. Justice Charleton's judgement could not be clearer on where the responsibility lies."

Paul McGuinness


Issued : 12th October on behalf of IRMA.

jos22

BrianD wrote: »

Read this Irish Times article Judge Hits Out At Store Over Shoplifting (Irish Times 5/10/2010). It seems in this case that the judge would prefer that the retailer put their oen policing system in place. It actually didn't state explicitly in the article, but how else could a retailer stop a shoplifter other than banning him from their outlet or from their shopping centre. Denying them the ability to enter the store denies the ability to steal.

The 3 strikes system is very desirable as it keeps people out of the criminal system, saves money for the taxpayer and gives musicians and their agents their deserved income. win win win really!

lol

3 strikes is based on allegations and is far from a fair punishment for something as petty as file sharing. and is only a win for protecting a dead business model. which it would fail to do anyway.

z0oT

BrianD wrote: »

The 3 strikes system is very desirable as it keeps people out of the criminal system, saves money for the taxpayer and gives musicians and their agents their deserved income. win win win really!

You make it sound as if it's all roses.

It is, lets not forget, based on the fact that guilt is assumed until innocence is prooved. Also the evidence that's used has been prooved to be extremely flimsy in most cases (and can also be doctored very easily). Just look at the abundance of people who got accused in the wrong by the likes of ACS:Law in the UK for example.

nudist

Now that eircoms at a disadvantage whats going to happen on their end-will their 3 strikes rule be rescinded?

iknorr

Also how do they know that you are downloading music? If i force encryption on my filesharing, and the irma can view it, isnt that a breach of privacy?

Maybe alot of these artists and record companies dont realise that alot of people dont like their music and blame *scary voice* INTERNET PIRACY!!!!! ?

blubloblu

BrianD wrote: »

Read this Irish Times article Judge Hits Out At Store Over Shoplifting (Irish Times 5/10/2010). It seems in this case that the judge would prefer that the retailer put their oen policing system in place. It actually didn't state explicitly in the article, but how else could a retailer stop a shoplifter other than banning him from their outlet or from their shopping centre. Denying them the ability to enter the store denies the ability to steal.

The 3 strikes system is very desirable as it keeps people out of the criminal system, saves money for the taxpayer and gives musicians and their agents their deserved income. win win win really!

The IRMA version is more like banning you from every shop in the country (and internationally), over an allegation in one shop, that has made many false accusations in the past.

BrianD

z0oT wrote: »

You make it sound as if it's all roses.

It is, lets not forget, based on the fact that guilt is assumed until innocence is prooved. Also the evidence that's used has been prooved to be extremely flimsy in most cases (and can also be doctored very easily). Just look at the abundance of people who got accused in the wrong by the likes of ACS:Law in the UK for example.

But is it not a pretty generous system? For the vast majority of people it makes zero difference to how they use their broadband. Even if you do manage to slip up through that unsecured broadband, that wayward teenagers or just through not knowing any better you have to do it three times and you get three warnings before you're 'out'. That's a pretty lenient regime by any ones standard. Even better it keeps people out of the courts.

The innocent 'till proven guilty arguement is irrelevant here. There's no onus proof required as it's not going to a court of law. All the ISP is doing is switching you off for repeated breaches of the terms and conditions of the contract that you agreed to when you signed up.

blubloblu wrote:

The IRMA version is more like banning you from every shop in the country (and internationally), over an allegation in one shop, that has made many false accusations in the past.

You may choose to assert this as a fact and you have no evidence to support your assertion but I can't see the relevance of it in any case. My reference to the retail situation is pointing to a situation where the judge would prefer that commercial business do it's own policing and not put the cost onto the state. So if a retailer finds a thief throw them out and ban them and is an ISP catchs a copyright thief cut them off. It is possible to prove copyright theft and gain a conviction. Given the cost to everyone involved it is preferable that other more rational forms of policing are used.

blubloblu

BrianD wrote: »

You may choose to assert this as a fact and you have no evidence to support your assertion but I can't see the relevance of it in any case. My reference to the retail situation is pointing to a situation where the judge would prefer that commercial business do it's own policing and not put the cost onto the state. So if a retailer finds a thief throw them out and ban them and is an ISP catchs a copyright thief cut them off. It is possible to prove copyright theft and gain a conviction. Given the cost to everyone involved it is preferable that other more rational forms of policing are used.

It's an analogy, not a claim. My point was quite obvious. Cutting off someone off legitimate uses of the Internet completely unrelated to the music business is disproportionate. If a company has a dispute with you, they should settle it with you using the proper channels. They could choose to not do business with you, or pursue you legally. Instead, IRMA pressure a third party into interfering with your utilities as a crude punishment.

I'm sure it would be more cost efficient to do away with the courts entirely and just assume every accusation, civil or criminal, is correct. This is ridiculous, and so is three strikes.

blubloblu

Standard Toaster wrote: »

http://taint.org/



Literally pulling figures out of their arses.

And feeding them to politicians

z0oT

BrianD wrote: »

But is it not a pretty generous system?

You've a strange sense of the word 'generous'. :rolleyes:

jor el

iknorr wrote: »

Also how do they know that you are downloading music? If i force encryption on my filesharing, and the irma can view it, isnt that a breach of privacy?

No, no, no, no, no. It's been said too many times now, read the thread.

Johnboy1951

This is an article - in my view well written and an interesting read - which addresses a lot of the issues around sharing generally.

In essence it says it is impossible to prevent sharing, and introducing law after law to try to prevent it is useless.

It is written by an 'artist' who has found a use for that sharing which help him sell his product.

The topic I leave my family and my desk to talk to people all over the world about is the risks to freedom arising from the failure of copyright giants to adapt to a world where it's impossible to prevent copying. Because it is impossible. Despite 15 long years of the copyright wars, despite draconian laws and savage penalties, despite secret treaties and widespread censorship, despite millions spent on ill-advised copy-prevention tools, more copying takes place today than ever before.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2010/oct/05/free-online-content-cory-doctorow

BrianD

blubloblu wrote: »

It's an analogy, not a claim. My point was quite obvious. Cutting off someone off legitimate uses of the Internet completely unrelated to the music business is disproportionate. If a company has a dispute with you, they should settle it with you using the proper channels. They could choose to not do business with you, or pursue you legally. Instead, IRMA pressure a third party into interfering with your utilities as a crude punishment.

I'm sure it would be more cost efficient to do away with the courts entirely and just assume every accusation, civil or criminal, is correct. This is ridiculous, and so is three strikes.

We can use analogies till the cows come home but the bottom line is that it is not going to make a wrong into a right. Using your broadband as a conduit to steal and distribute copyright material illegally will never be a right. Furthermore, you are in breach of your terms and conditions so it is your service provider enforcing your contract so the correct channels are being pursued. It's between you and the ISP. I am failing to see why you continue to assert that there is a legal issue here or that a burden of proof similar to a court case is required. Cutting off your Internet is not disproportionate if you've been given three opportunities to modify your behaviour. This has been upheld by the courts as well.

It would not be cost efficient to pursue all copyright theft in the courts no more than it is efficient to pursue the theft of a bottle of wine through the courts. Theft is still theft but it would be better if the courts could pursue more serious crimes especially when private business can put appropriate, proportional and reasonable deterrents in place. The Three strikes ticks all these boxes.

z0ot wrote:

You've a strange sense of the word 'generous'

I can't see anything unfair about the 'Three strikes' rule. It couldn't be more generous!

johnboy1951 wrote:

It is written by an 'artist' who has found a use for that sharing which help him sell his product.

Again this is a typical piece of misinformation. If you read the article what he actually says is "For me, the answer is simple: if I give away my ebooks under a Creative Commons licence that allows non-commercial sharing, I'll attract readers who buy hard copies. It's worked for me – I've had books on the New York Times bestseller list for the past two years"

That may well work now where we are in the transition phase from book to ebook, CD to download. In a few years time, we'll be fondly looking back on the days of the hard copy be it a paperback or a CD. It will be digital sales only. I'd like to see how his non-commercial sharing will fund his subscription to the New York Times e-paper so he can check if he's a bestseller or not.

At the same time, it doesn't prevent any artist from making some of their work available free to download so that the masses can sample it. However, it should always be at the choice of the artist whether they want to make a track free or not and what channels they want to make it freely available.

iknorr

jor el wrote: »

No, no, no, no, no. It's been said too many times now, read the thread.

jor el wrote: »

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.

Ok i have had a speed read. Have i missed something?

Even though the ISP is not monitoring a person , its using a third party to do so . - Im incorrectly using monitoring but i dont know exactly how they do it.
Are the ISPs still not getting info from a third party that are invading the privacy of others-especially if the data is encrypted on and leaving the users network?

jor el

iknorr wrote: »

Are the ISPs still not getting info from a third party that are invading the privacy of others-especially if the data is encrypted on and leaving the users network?

No. There is no invasion of privacy. The downloads are being monitored at source, so encrypting will do nothing. There is no privacy when you download in a torrent. Any peer can see who you are.

hightower1

jor el wrote: »

No. There is no invasion of privacy. The downloads are being monitored at source, so encrypting will do nothing. There is no privacy when you download in a torrent. Any peer can see who you are.

Is it ironic that you need to keep pointing out the same thing over and over and over sounding like a broken record on a thread about music piracy!?:D

z0oT

BrianD wrote: »

I can't see anything unfair about the 'Three strikes' rule. It couldn't be more generous!

Then your definition of the word "unfair" is a little lenient aswell. I'd probably be in more of an agreement with you were the process based on convictions with proper evidence, rather than accusations with flimsy evidence.

jor el

jor el wrote: »

No. There is no invasion of privacy. The downloads are being monitored at source, so encrypting will do nothing. There is no privacy when you download in a torrent. Any peer can see who you are.

I think you should put all the important points in your sig mate, otherwise you will be posting the same thing over and over.;)

wires

i dont think people realise how much work is involved in prosicuting someone in court. the music industry has realised that pursuing prosecutions for all offenders is unrealistic so they concentrate their efforts on making it difficult or risky to download illegal copies. i dont understand some peoples issues with this, its a bit like getting caught drink driving and then complaining about the manner in which u were caught. if your up to no good then you deserve what u get. however i seriously doubt that illegal downloads are really hurting the industry...i have downloaded illegally in the past (lots), when i found something i liked i bought it. now i dont dowload illegally but i also havent bought a cd in at least 3 years. so you tell me how my actions have affected their profits?? (might have something to do with the crap these guys are pushing these days but maybe not) i dont download any more so i never find anything i like = i dont buy any cds or legit downloads.

the whole argument is pointless as the isp has the right to disconnect you if they believe you have breached the t&c of usage so stop wasting your time discussing the rights and wrongs and concentrate your efforts on campaigning the industry to provide a reasonable means to sample music. ie. if i find something i like = i will buy it

if i am interested in a game i get the demo...if i like the demo i buy the game. why cant music be the same???because most of it is dung

the problem with that from the music industries perspective is that if you were able to sample the album before you bought it you would realise that most of it is crap. the whole system is heading for some big changes but you should get used to the fact that big business will always do whats good for big business.

CptSternn

jor el wrote: »

No. There is no invasion of privacy. The downloads are being monitored at source, so encrypting will do nothing. There is no privacy when you download in a torrent. Any peer can see who you are.

Unless you are running something like Peer Guardian or one of the other new peer blocking/encryption apps which does hide your IP from everyone.

http://phoenixlabs.org/pg2/

CptSternn

Another scenario which the record companies seem to be omitting is the fact it is hard to get many types of music on CD in Ireland. I like Gothic/Darkwave/EBM music. I have to order it through obscure shops in America and have it shipped over here. It takes six to eight weeks to get here. I have to pay almost the same price for shipping as I do the CD's I order.

Do I sometimes download tunes off the albums while I am waiting two months for my CD's to get here? You bet. Because no one in the whole country stock this type of music, this is what I have to go through to hear a new release in the genre.

And it's not just me. I have mates into Death Metal, Speedcore, Electroclash, and other more fringe music types and you just can't get it here in Ireland. Many people into these types of music have no idea where to find it - as many shops still don't have an online presence and you have to order via a mail order (paper) catalog. Others, especially the young crowd, can't afford to pay €35-€40 for a CD (once you add-on shipping from 5000 miles away, it gets expensive).

This factor is compounded by the fact the listener only wants a track or two off the CD, so they have to find a place to order it, contact them via phone, get the catalog by post, order it, pay €40, and then wait two months.

...or go online and Google it and download it now for free.

Yet this issue for this demographic is often left out of the discussion when it comes to this very topic.

Gonzovision

CptSternn wrote: »

Unless you are running something like Peer Guardian or one of the other new peer blocking/encryption apps which does hide your IP from everyone.

http://phoenixlabs.org/pg2/

The problem with the likes of PeerGuardian or PeerBlock which it is now, if a companies objective is to monitor torrents, I'm pretty sure they know about this software and could easily check their ip address against the blacklist.