IRMA fail to force UPC to block illegal downloads (Court Ruling)

danniemcq

K so i just heard in the news that the same group of music people (Sony, Universal etc) that got Eircom to cut off/ban anyone that illegally downloads their stuff has failed to get UPC to do the same.

Despite the Judge saying that the music industry was being devestated he said Ireland didn't have the laws in place to enforce them. Tried looking for an online link but can't see anything up yet, just heard on the news at 12 there now just

Keith186

Fairplay to UPC for not bending over like eircom did.
Hope this news is true.

Sanjuro

The music industry is handling this whole situation badly. Instead of looking for a viable solution to illegal copying and downloading, they're trying to disrupt the free nature of the internet, and targeting average joes with ridiculous lawsuits. Fair dues to UPC for doing what Eircom should have done. Eircom are idiots.

Papa_Lazarou

Would Eircom be able to appeal the judgement made on them because of this?

Sea Sharp

Hurrah,

A victory for 1.7 mb/second torrent download rates.

D_BEAR

http://www.teic.ie/2010/10/irma-loses-in-bid-to-force-three-strikes-on-upc/

Stercus Accidit

Papa_Lazarou wrote: »

Would Eircom be able to appeal the judgement made on them because of this?

Eircom gives up customer data to third parties and cuts off entire families connections voluntarily.

Papa_Lazarou

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

Eircom gives up customer data to third parties and cuts off entire families connections voluntarily.

Ill take that as a no then

NothingMan

Papa_Lazarou wrote: »

Would Eircom be able to appeal the judgement made on them because of this?

As far as I know Eircom just bent over and did what the record companies asked. They never contested the request and I'm sure lost some customers in the process.

1.7MB/sec? I have 30Mb so that's 3.3MB/sec . Not that I download of course....:cool:

NullZer0

Papa_Lazarou wrote: »

Would Eircom be able to appeal the judgement made on them because of this?

They seem to be able to appeal everything else.
In fact I would guess that they have their own "appeals" team at this stage.

A joke!

danniemcq

Eircom,

Grabbing customers by the balls since 1984

Gunsfortoys

This is great. As a result of free downloads a lot more recording artists get more exposure over the big artists such as U2. Half the bands I listen to now would never have gotten a listen if i couldn't download them. I have always tried to buy some stuff of theirs if I like them.

I welcome this and it will give UPC great publicity. Eircom are a sinking ship and they have only themselves to blame.

Sea Sharp

NothingMan wrote: »

As far as I know Eircom just bent over and did what the record companies asked. They never contested the request and I'm sure lost some customers in the process.

1.7MB/sec? I have 30Mb so that's 3.3MB/sec . Not that I download of course....:cool:

Niice!

Mark200

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

Eircom gives up customer data to third parties and cuts off entire families connections voluntarily.

That's more than stretching the truth. They were taken to court, and 8 days into the trial they most likely thought they were going to lose the case to made a deal with the record companies to soften the blow. If they did lose the case, things might have been worse. It's ridiculous to imply that Eircom just one day out of nowhere rang up the record companies and said "hey, lets make a deal".

danniemcq

Gunsfortoys wrote: »

This is great. As a result of free downloads a lot more recording artists get more exposure over the big artists such as U2. Half the bands I listen to now would never have gotten a listen if i couldn't download them. I have always tried to buy some stuff of theirs if I like them.

I welcome this and it will give UPC great publicity. Eircom are a sinking ship and they have only themselves to blame.

Agreed, I have seen heaps of bands thanks to downloading some of their songs, and at gigs i then by tshirts etc there spread the word to friends and the process starts again

M.J.M.C

Fair play to UPC for standing up to this.

Regardless of how you feel on the matter - companies shouldn't just hand over information to a 3rd party because they want it.

Mark200

Here's an Irish Times article about it:

UPC has won a legal action taken in the High Court by record labels over illegal downloading and file-sharing.

Warner Music, Universal Music, Sony BMG and EMI Records had been attempting to force internet service providers to adopt a “three strikes” rule to halt copyright infringement and piracy by internet users.

The High Court ruled that laws to identify and cut off internet users illegally copying music files were not enforceable in Ireland.

In a judgment published today, Mr Justice Peter Charleton said recording companies were being harmed by internet piracy.

“This not only undermines their business but ruins the ability of a generation of creative people in Ireland, and elsewhere, to establish a viable living. It is destructive of an important native industry,” he said.

However, the judge said laws were not in place in Ireland to enforce disconnections over illegal downloads despite the record companies’ complaints being merited. He also said this gap in legislation meant Ireland was not complying with European law.

In a statement, UPC said it would work to identify and address the main areas of concern in the file-sharing debate.

"UPC has repeatedly stressed that it does not condone piracy and has always taken a strong stance against illegal activity on its network. It takes all steps required by the law to combat specific infringements which are brought to its attention and will continue to co-operate with rights holders where they have obtained the necessary court orders for alleged copyright infringements," it said.

"Our whole premise and defence focused on the mere conduit principal which provides that an internet service provider cannot be held liable for content transmitted across its network and today’s decision supports the principal that ISPs are not liable for the actions of internet subscribers."

ISPs have been awaiting the outcome of the case against UPC. However, it is not yet known what effect the UPC judgment will have on Eircom's agreement with record labels, which it settled on out of court last year.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/1011/breaking32.html

M.J.M.C

Thread title is a bit misleading to someone who might not know the facts.
Gives a kinda "free for all" impression which is incorrect.

danniemcq

From Breaking news

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/record-companies-fail-in-bid-to-force-upc-to-block-illegal-downloading-477226.html

11/10/2010 - 12:10:24
Several record company giants have failed in their High Court bid to force UPC to block illegal internet downloading.

The court said that Ireland does not have the necessary laws in place to block, divert and interrupt internet piracy.

Eircom last year settled a deal with four record companies to cut off its broadband subscribers if they are caught sharing certain copyrighted music online.

In this case, EMI, Sony, Universal, Warner and WEA international went to court to force UPC to do likewise.

In his judgement, Mr Justice Peter Charleton said he was satisfied that their business was being devastated by illegal downloading.

Despite those views, he said that the Court could not grant injunctive relief, saying Ireland does not have the laws in place to block internet copyright theft.

"It is not surprising that the legislative response laid down in our country in the Copyright and Related Rights Act 2000, at a time when this problem was not perceived to be as threatening to the creative and retail economy as it has become in 2010, has made no proper provision for the blocking, diverting or interrupting of internet communications intent on breaching copyright," stated the judgement.

"In failing to provide legislative provisions for blocking, diverting and interrupting internet copyright theft, Ireland is not yet fully in compliance with its obligations under European law.

"Instead, the only relevant power that the courts are given is to require an internet hosting service to remove copyright material. Respecting, as it does, the doctrine of separation of powers and the rule of law, the Court cannot move to grant injunctive relief to the recording companies against internet piracy, even though that relief is merited on the facts.

"The Court thus declines injunctive relief."

Mark200

If I remember correctly, part of Eircom's deal with the Record Companies was that other ISPs would have to implement a similar deal. If that's not going to be the case, then Eircom may be off the hook.

danniemcq

M.J.M.C wrote: »

Thread title is a bit misleading to someone who might not know the facts.
Gives a kinda "free for all" impression which is incorrect.

Changed, realised it was a bit vague but got point across, think its better now though

Papa_Lazarou

Could someone clarify this for me. Was the deal eircom made to cut off people who just shared music online i.e seeded it for other people or for those who downloaded for themseleves and provided the material for others?

thebigbiffo

i'm delighted. the whole music industry is wrong imo. bands making obsene money for recordings alone is wrong (especially considering 'obsene' is a fraction of what the record company makes). i have great respect for artists but touring and merchandising (ie. working for your money) is where they should be focused. record corporations throwing massive amounts of money at over produced acts to enhance their image, appeal etc is not 'real' music, its profiteering and is done at the expense of genuine new talent.

i dont care how many billions the music industry loses - they dont employ anyone i know of and the more i download U2's albums the more warm and fuzzy i feel at the fact that they might have to put their plans for another villa on hold.

'big' acts, are you listening? record companies not paying you enough cos of downloading? tour more, with more dates at cheaper tickets prices, sell stuff to your fans who want to give you their cash - dont expect me to care about some suit and your %

Mark200

thebigbiffo wrote: »

i'm delighted. the whole music industry is wrong imo. bands making obsene money for recordings alone is wrong (especially considering 'obsene' is a fraction of what the record company makes). i have great respect for artists but touring and merchandising (ie. working for your money) is where they should be focused. record corporations throwing massive amounts of money at over produced acts to enhance their image, appeal etc is not 'real' music, its profiteering and is done at the expense of genuine new talent.

i dont care how many billions the music industry loses - they dont employ anyone i know of and the more i download U2's albums the more warm and fuzzy i feel at the fact that they might have to put their plans for another villa on hold.

'big' acts, are you listening? record companies not paying you enough cos of downloading? tour more, with more dates at cheaper tickets prices, sell stuff to your fans who want to give their cash - dont expect me to care about some suit and your %

Well the point is, who are you to say "you're making too much"? It doesn't mean you have the right to download their products for free. You don't go into a Tesco and steal a bottle of coke and say "Ah sure, they make too much money anyway". I know it's slightly different with music because you aren't really 'stealing' anything as such, and if you were never going to buy the music in the first place then no one really loses out if you download it... but the argument that they're "making obscene money" doesn't wash.

Notorious97

People are always going to download, they cant stop it. They can block 20 sites today, 30 more will replace it tomorrow. They should just accept it. Me personally i will buy my favourite artists work, always have and always will, but i do usually download it as its available online before it is in a shop (im too impatient to hear it)! I will always buy the people i like regardless of downloading it, they put time and effort in and should be paid.

the expression to combat piracy....'you wouldnt download a car'......i would if i fu*king could mate. :pac:

thebigbiffo

thebigbiffo wrote: »

i'm delighted. the whole music industry is wrong imo. bands making obsene money for recordings alone is wrong (especially considering 'obsene' is a fraction of what the record company makes). i have great respect for artists but touring and merchandising (ie. working for your money) is where they should be focused. record corporations throwing massive amounts of money at over produced acts to enhance their image, appeal etc is not 'real' music, its profiteering and is done at the expense of genuine new talent.

Agree with this.

They want to earn they can go out and tour and actually work. I've seen plenty of musicians playing their songs for free on youtube etc... thats what its meant to be about, making music because you love it and want to spread it.
The more you spread it, the more chance people will show up at a gig you might play in that locality.

fozz

Ha!...v funny Notorious. We'd download our dinner if we could

I agree with the sentiments here....the recording studios are going at this 21st century digital issue with 20th century physical laws and ideologies.
Before it was the lad selling bootleg albums from his car boot...now it is the lad upping data that other punters then download.
Their whole industry has changed but they are slow to embrace the change, and so backlash against it.
It's like when they say 'X number of people downloaded this movie so we lost x times cost-of-a-ticket-to-see-movie' because of this illegal activity.
Well, yes, but only if everyone who watched the bootleg was willing to poay for the movie experience (I wont even touch on the difference between a movie seen in proper surroundings versus a telesynch with bad sound & vid quality watched on a laptop of iPhone).
Now that's a movie-download issue but the same applies to music. Whereas before we had physical disks/tapes, now we have 1's and 0's.

How about they price digital downloads appropriately?
What's an album these days on iTunes?
A Tenner? (I honestly don't know but a quick google search says I'm close).
Now what do they have to do to get that album to you?
Before they had to package the CD, ship it, host it in a shop, pay staff to sell it to you, issue receipt, deal with damaged goods etc.
That's all gone now and they still want to change the same price, or maybe up to 50% less?
They need to embrace the Digital age.
Charge a euro for an album....10c a song....we all know the vast majority of this goes into Corporate pockets so they refuse to g this way as they are ruled by the bottom line, and any short term hit to that will look bad in the quarterly results so what CEO will accept that?
More t the point, would many free down loaders be willing to pay that for 'legit' copies of their albums/songs with proper album art and whatever else comes with downloading the actual content?

It's basic Capitalism that wont budge and embrace change...sell at way way less profit margins but ship more units...it will take a while and lets be honest, they will make less profits so it will be a hard sell to the shareholders but it's the way to limit piracy (it can never be stopped) and get on with business.

kirving

Eircom do not give out your information to third party companies.

What happens is - IMRO, well a third praty compnay on behalf of IMRO put up a fille and see who is downloading it.

If the IP address of the computer dowloading is one of eircom's(easily attainable info), IMRO will pass the IP address to eircom for a warning(or three) to be handed out. Once you reach three, your cut off.

I dont agree with it, and neither do eircom. (An internal email which was shown in court basically said all that IRMO were doing was giving artist more money for cocaine and women)

Eircom couldn't afford to fight it in court, whereas UPC, Europe's larges ISP/TV company (I think) could.

I hope eircom can no tell IRMO where to go....

Duggy747

Bah, torrents are like the town whore, everyone's had a crack at her, some have gotten viruses while others have been caught by the fuzz.

Direct downloads all the way! :pac:

fozz

Duggy747 wrote: »

Bah, torrents are like the town whore, everyone's had a crack at her, some have gotten viruses while others have been caught by the fuzz.

Direct downloads all the way! :pac:

Disagree there Duggy.
Direct downloads, like RapidShare are quite unreliable.
RS are deleting em all the time and stuff only stays online for a short enough period.
Sure, piratebay and suchlike public torrents are no good.
But private tracker torrent sites, like IPT.com are superb.
The content is almost al good (as is uploaded by controlled uploaders), they are always well seeded and they stay active for a lot longer.
But this is taking the thread off-topic.

In the end it matters little what method of 'illegal downloading' you engage in.
The Recording Studios want you to stop an just accept their massively inflated prices that you had to accept in the pre-Internet era.....now be a good lad and just do that.
What they certainly don't want to do is remould their pricing model to try eliminate much of the need for piracy.
If someone is not willing to use a quality legit online service to get albums they want for about €1 (a speculative price I made up) then they are not willing to pay at all for it so they are not a lost customer.
If they want to download RAR files, unrar em, mess with file downloaders and uTorrent etc, then let em.
But most people don't want to do that and would pay for stuff they 'actually wanted' (key requirement) if it as made cheap and efficient. As in, make it as easy to do as update facebook. And make it s easy to xfer to your media player if choice. These re the key issues facing the studios as I see it but they are unwilling to even try...they would rather just use all stick to try beat you back to the 80's/90's.

..Brian..

Kevin Irving wrote: »

Eircom couldn't afford to fight it in court, whereas UPC, Europe's larges ISP/TV company (I think) could.

I hope eircom can no tell IRMO where to go....

Just FYI, UPC are actually the European branch of Liberty Global, a world wide broadcasting company so they well have the muscle to stand up to the likes of IRMA.

gizmo

Another Breaking News article, this one a bit more looney than the last. Pay particular attention to the last paragraph...

UPC has won a legal action taken in the High Court by record labels over illegal downloading and file-sharing.

Warner Music, Universal Music, Sony BMG and EMI Records had been attempting to force internet service providers to adopt a “three strikes” rule to halt copyright infringement and piracy by internet users.

The High Court ruled that laws to identify and cut off internet users illegally copying music files were not enforceable in Ireland.

In a judgment published today, Mr Justice Peter Charleton said recording companies were being harmed by internet piracy.

“This not only undermines their business but ruins the ability of a generation of creative people in Ireland, and elsewhere, to establish a viable living. It is destructive of an important native industry,” he said.

However, the judge said laws were not in place in Ireland to enforce disconnections over illegal downloads despite the record companies’ complaints being merited. He also said this gap in legislation meant Ireland was not complying with European law.

In a statement, UPC said it would work to identify and address the main areas of concern in the file-sharing debate.

"UPC has repeatedly stressed that it does not condone piracy and has always taken a strong stance against illegal activity on its network. It takes all steps required by the law to combat specific infringements which are brought to its attention and will continue to co-operate with rights holders where they have obtained the necessary court orders for alleged copyright infringements," it said.

"Our whole premise and defence focused on the mere conduit principal which provides that an internet service provider cannot be held liable for content transmitted across its network and today’s decision supports the principal that ISPs are not liable for the actions of internet subscribers."

ISPs have been awaiting the outcome of the case against UPC. However, it is not yet known what effect the UPC judgment will have on Eircom's agreement with record labels, which it settled on out of court last year.

Irish Recorded Music Association director-general Dick Doyle said his office would pressure the Government to reform the law in favour of record labels.

“The High Court has acknowledged that Irish artists, composers and recording companies are sustaining huge losses and internet providers are profiting from the wholesale theft of music,” Mr Doyle said. “The judge made it very clear that an injunction would be morally justified but that the Irish legislature had failed in its obligation to confer on the courts the right to grant such injunctions, unlike other EU states.

“We will now look to the Irish Government to fully vindicate the constitutional rights of copyright holders and we reserve the right to seek compensation for the past and continuing losses from the State.”

The State? What ****ing planet are IRMA on?

shinfujiwara

Put your music for free on the web, then ask for donations, it's the best way that I can think of. If your music is good, you'll even be able to live of it. Isn't that enough? If you are VERY good, millions of fans would pay €1.00 for an album of yours, which means you can even be millionaire.

Ok, it will be hard to be millionaire without a great company helping you, but why should you in the 1st place? Why a random artist can have that much money doing something relatively simple, and another reaaaally studied/hardworking person can't?

I think they have to deal with it, they can't extort us anymore. That's better for everyone. These people would think twice before starting a ridiculous band, they would concentrate on making good songs so they can attract more fans. Just like any other business, why music should be special?

I can't believe that people like Lady Gaga earn that much money with such a comercial music, for example. And I don't know why they're so worried with this industry, it hasn't change a lot yet.

Bottom line, accessible content would be better for all of us and would create a more balanced economy, wouldn't it?

gizmo

shinfujiwara wrote: »

Put your music for free on the web, then ask for donations, it's the best way that I can think of. If your music is good, you'll even be able to live of it. Isn't that enough? If you are VERY good, millions of fans would pay €1.00 for an album of yours, which means you can even be millionaire.

Would you say the same thing to an artist or sculptor who worked on a piece for a number of months? Here's a £1, be happy you get it?

shinfujiwara wrote: »

Ok, it will be hard to be millionaire without a great company helping you, but why should you in the 1st place? Why a random artist can have that much money doing something relatively simple, and another reaaaally studied/hardworking person can't?

I'm guessing you don't play any instruments then? Or have you actually ever created something useful? I'm not trying to be smart here, both quoted posts just show a distinct lack of understanding for the value placed on something someone creates.

i_love_toast

imro thinks it helping Irish bands by getting broadband providers to block illegal downloads however it does more harm than good. Illegal downloading gives Irish bands a chance to get their music heard all over the world. At the end of the day they only sell a couple of hundred albums in Ireland anyways.

take for example the Irish band the delorentos. Illegal downloading helped down enormously. There album was downloaded around 10,000 time all over the world. and from that they were offered 2 tours of japan and a tour of america.

Illigal downloading is good for irish bands unless your u2...

Mikey23

Lest anyone has the time or inclination to read the judgment: http://www.scribd.com/doc/39104491/EMI-v-UPC

Helix

gizmo wrote: »

Would you say the same thing to an artist or sculptor who worked on a piece for a number of months? Here's a £1, be happy you get it?

a million people cant buy the same sculpture though

gizmo

i_love_toast wrote: »

imro thinks it helping Irish bands by getting broadband providers to block illegal downloads however it does more harm than good. Illegal downloading gives Irish bands a chance to get their music heard all over the world. At the end of the day they only sell a couple of hundred albums in Ireland anyways.

take for example the Irish band the delorentos. Illegal downloading helped down enormously. There album was downloaded around 10,000 time all over the world. and from that they were offered 2 tours of japan and a tour of america.

Illigal downloading is good for irish bands unless your u2...

The downloading doesn't have to be illegal though. They could offer excerpts from their album for free on their website and on the strength of that people could be given the ability to download the album. Alternatively, allow people to stream songs from the album on the bands site giving them the same level of exposure. This is the point many people are making about the industry as a whole, it needs to change the way it distributes music if they're going to dissuade people from downloading material.

Helix wrote: »

a million people cant buy the same sculpture though

True, the point is not the value of the physical item though, it's the work that's gone into it.

Duggy747

Heh, it's funny............(obviously this doesn't apply to all acts) but new & upcoming acts embrace the downloading to get their music out, established names are indifferent to it, and big name acts are completely against it.

It seems the richer & more famous you get, the less you like people downloading your stuff. :pac:

Helix

gizmo wrote: »

True, the point is not the value of the physical item though, it's the work that's gone into it.

yeah but have you any idea how much of a pittance a band sees from a record sale anyway? its not that imro are protecting the bands, theyre protecting the labels firstly, and themselves secondly, they dont care about the bands, they care about their cut

smokedeels

I'll always support the "download, listen, buy or delete" method of discovering music.

NullZer0

gizmo wrote: »

Would you say the same thing to an artist or sculptor who worked on a piece for a number of months? Here's a £1, be happy you get it?

Yes.

Would you say - heres X amount for every album you sell because you deserve it. You deserve it not because you put your heart and soul into this music but because you are a business?

thebigbiffo

Mark200 wrote: »

Well the point is, who are you to say "you're making too much"? It doesn't mean you have the right to download their products for free. You don't go into a Tesco and steal a bottle of coke and say "Ah sure, they make too much money anyway". I know it's slightly different with music because you aren't really 'stealing' anything as such, and if you were never going to buy the music in the first place then no one really loses out if you download it... but the argument that they're "making obscene money" doesn't wash.

my point is that the music should be the reason you like the band and want to support them by seeing their gigs, buying their gear etc. i just dont see why the rolling stones, U2 or whoever need my 10 quid for an album i would never buy in a shop anyway. i've spent €95 on a ticket to see you - plenty of money to give to 4 lads in a year imo

gizmo

Helix wrote: »

yeah but have you any idea how much of a pittance a band sees from a record sale anyway? its not that imro are protecting the bands, theyre protecting the labels firstly, and themselves secondly, they dont care about the bands, they care about their cut

Oh I completely agree. That being said, the link in that chain that some people seem to forget is that album sales will dictate the scope of the tour a band can go on. So more album sales = bigger tour = more money for band but also more exposure for band = more album sales = more money for labels. If you cut out the album sales then labels will be more reluctant to fork out for tours which harms the bands income.

iRock wrote: »

Would you say - heres X amount for every album you sell because you deserve it. You deserve it not because you put your heart and soul into this music but because you are a business?

No, the point I'm trying to make is that I don't think the artist should just have money thrown at them for their work and be told it'll do them. It's insulting given the time and effort that would have went into creating their music.

iRock wrote: »

I enjoy my work and create extremely useful things everyday that the entire country relies on. I'm happy to offer my skills for a reasonable amount - i.e. enough money to have a roof over my head and feed myself.

Why is this never the case with recording artists?

I think you'll find that, given the choice, most people aren't like that. The difference is, recording artists are seeing their income reduced illegally through the acquisition of their work. If your boss, for instance, decided to just take X% of your paycheck away for no good reason but you were still able to afford that food over your head and food, would you still be happy?

NullZer0

gizmo wrote: »

I'm guessing you don't play any instruments then? Or have you actually ever created something useful? I'm not trying to be smart here, both quoted posts just show a distinct lack of understanding for the value placed on something someone creates.

I enjoy my work and create extremely useful things everyday that the entire country relies on. I'm happy to offer my skills for a reasonable amount - i.e. enough money to have a roof over my head and feed myself.

Why is this never the case with recording artists?

Helix

gizmo wrote: »

Oh I completely agree. That being said, the link in that chain that some people seem to forget is that album sales will dictate the scope of the tour a band can go on. So more album sales = bigger tour = more money for band but also more exposure for band = more album sales = more money for labels. If you cut out the album sales then labels will be more reluctant to fork out for tours which harms the bands income.

not true

both bloc party and arctic monkeys, as 2 examples of bands who embrace online culture, both sold out particularly big tours before they were signed on the strength of downloads

its doable, it just needs a creative business model

smokedeels

The record industry is no longer able to cherry-pick singles, influence what we hear via radio stations, and decide which review sites/magazines get the first copies of new releases. Music, like everything should, is being judge freely and on it's own terms, free of corporate influence. That's the issue, we all know that statistically the biggest downloaders are also the biggest spenders, if revenue is down, it might be the standard of the product.

gizmo

Helix wrote: »

not true

both bloc party and arctic monkeys, as 2 examples of bands who embrace online culture, both sold out particularly big tours before they were signed on the strength of downloads

its doable, it just needs a creative business model

Yes but there are very few examples of bands being able to do that and become successful. If every band had to do the same thing then there would be a raft of talent going completely unnoticed. At least now those who like the majority of mainstream music have a raft of either independent or smaller labels supporting the bands they follow.

Biggins

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20101011/tuk-internet-provider-in-legal-victory-e1cd776.html

One of the state's largest internet providers has scored a landmark victory against record labels over illegal music downloads.

Four powerful industry firms - Warner Music, Universal Music, Sony BMG and EMI Records - pushed for a "three strikes and you're out" rule to stop massive piracy by UPC customers. But the High Court ruled that laws to identify and cut-off internet users illegally copying music files were not enforceable in Ireland.

The decision may have serious implications for an out-of-court agreement the record labels secured with Eircom last year.

It is understood Vodafone and Meteor are in talks over the threat of illegal downloads while O2 and 3 Ireland were also awaiting the outcome of the case.

Mr Justice Peter Charleton warned that the business of recording companies was being devastated by internet piracy.

"This not only undermines their business but ruins the ability of a generation of creative people in Ireland, and elsewhere, to establish a viable living. It is destructive of an important native industry," he said.

But the judge said laws were not in place in Ireland to enforce disconnections over illegal downloads despite the record companies' complaints being merited. He also said this gap in legislation meant Ireland was not complying with European law.

He said a substantial portion of UPC's 150,000 customers were illegally downloading music.

UPC said it would work with all parties to identify and address main areas of concern over downloads. A spokesman said: "UPC has repeatedly stressed that it does not condone piracy and has always taken a strong stance against illegal activity on its network."

The four music labels have seen sales fall by 64 million euro from 2005 to 2009.

Mark200

gizmo wrote: »

Another Breaking News article, this one a bit more looney than the last. Pay particular attention to the last paragraph...



The State? What ****ing planet are IRMA on?

Actually if you read the Irish Times article that I posted in this thread, you'd have seen that the judge in this case actually said that Irish piracy law is not in line with European Law, and that was the reason for his decision today... that he felt there was nothing in Irish law to rule with the record companies.

shinfujiwara wrote: »

Why a random artist can have that much money doing something relatively simple, and another reaaaally studied/hardworking person can't?

First of all, I'm sure the vast majority of singers/bands would be extremely offended at your implication that they are not hardworking. Second of all, it doesn't matter how much you try. If you're good, then you're probably going to get more money than someone who's not as good... regardless of how hard they try.

i_love_toast wrote: »

imro thinks it helping Irish bands by getting broadband providers to block illegal downloads however it does more harm than good. Illegal downloading gives Irish bands a chance to get their music heard all over the world. At the end of the day they only sell a couple of hundred albums in Ireland anyways.

take for example the Irish band the delorentos. Illegal downloading helped down enormously. There album was downloaded around 10,000 time all over the world. and from that they were offered 2 tours of japan and a tour of america.

Illigal downloading is good for irish bands unless your u2...

Bands are capable for deciding themselves if they want to put their stuff on the internet for free or not. No one forces them to sign with record labels. They do it because they obviously feel it's a better option for them.

thebigbiffo wrote: »

my point is that the music should be the reason you like the band and want to support them by seeing their gigs, buying their gear etc. i just dont see why the rolling stones, U2 or whoever need my 10 quid for an album i would never buy in a shop anyway. i've spent €95 on a ticket to see you - plenty of money to give to 4 lads in a year imo

No one is forcing you to buy the album. The picture being painted in this thread seems to be one of record labels holding a gun to peoples heads and forcing them to give over money for an album. People go into a shop or online of their own free will, and voluntarily pay for these things. If you think €95 is enough for 4 lads for a year then fine, don't buy any more of their stuff for a year. Doesn't mean you have any right to illegally download any of their work.

iRock wrote: »

I enjoy my work and create extremely useful things everyday that the entire country relies on. I'm happy to offer my skills for a reasonable amount - i.e. enough money to have a roof over my head and feed myself.

Why is this never the case with recording artists?

FFS, not all recording artists are millionaires you know.

gizmo

Mark200 wrote: »

Actually if you read the Irish Times article that I posted in this thread, you'd have seen that the judge in this case actually said that Irish piracy law is not in line with European Law, and that was the reason for his decision today... that he felt there was nothing in Irish law to rule with the record companies.

I did indeed read that and was quite confused to say the least. As far as I'm aware there is an EU law (Telecoms Package) which specifically prohibits the disconnection of people due to illegal downloading and when the French brought it in there was a ruckus because of this fact.