irma suing irish downloaders

filejunky

Irma have printouts of the shared files, the ip addresses, and usernames of the 17 uploaders.
this is all they need
more than likely they have several times when the 17 where online (serial uploaders),
after showing this info to high court last friday- 8/7/2005 the judge ordered the isps (bt and eircom) to divulge names and addresses.
a further order is due to be issued next friday 4pm telling irma what they can do with the names ie. publisise them or treat them privately between irma and the 17
Irma want 3 to 5 grand settlement maybe more!!!, a promise never to upload or download illegally again, and the removal of offending software and files from the pc
they will probably ask for individuals to go public say how sorry they are and to warn others of the impending doom to all filesharers

Tar.Aldarion

why bother dl when you can borrow the cd from somebody and do the biz with that,if your worried that is...

Pa ElGrande

The Irish Times wrote:

Mary Carolan
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/ireland/2005/0709/1304986737HM4CTMUSICORDER.html (subscription required)

People who copy music from the internet without paying artists or record companies face the prospect of legal action following a High Court ruling yesterday. The order, the first of its kinds here, paves the way for music companies to sue 17 people whom they believe are illegally uploading thousands of music tracks onto file-sharing networks.
It was alleged a minimum of 500 songs were being uploaded from each of the 17 computers which were potentially available to millions of internet users.
At the Commercial Court yesterday, Mr. Justice Peter Kelly ordered that Eircom and BT Communictions Ireland Ltd. disclose to four record companies within one week the names, addresses and phone numbers of the 17 persons who are subscribers to the two companies' services.
He noted an undertaking by the record companies that the information would be used only for the purpose of seeking redress for alleged infringement of the copyright of sound recordings and granted the orders on that basis.
The orders were sought by EMI Records Ireland Ltd, Sony BMG Music Ireland Ltd, Universal Music Ireland Ltd, and Warner Music Ireland Ltd, all members of the Irish Recorded Music Association (IRMA), who between them claim to supply 78 per cent of the pop music CDs sold to Irish consumers. Welcoming the court's decision, Dick Doyle of IRMA said uploading activities have made a substantial contribution to a €28 million decline in record sales here between 2001 and 2004.
In granting the orders, Mr. Justice Kelly stressed there was no suggestion of wrongdoing by either Eircom or BT in the matter. They had not opposed the making of the orders but had sought undertakings, which the record companies gave, that the identities of the 17 people will not be publically disclosed except in the context of any legal proceedings which may be taken.
He said the four plantiff companies belonged to IRMA which had retained a New York Corporation, MediaSentry, to investigate and gather evidence.
The judge said he was satisfied from expert evidence given to the court that certain computers connected to the internet via the defendant companies' facilities had been used to make sound recordings available to the public.
The investigating computer analyst had downloaded sample recordings and had been able to identify the internet protocol numbers of 17 computers. Only the defendant companies could identify the names and addresses of the holders of those numbers.
The judge said he was satisfied that there had been a prima-facie demonstration of a wrongdoing, an infringement of copyright.
While the defendant companies had duties of confidentiality to their subscribers under the Data Protection Act and other measures, those obligations could be legitimately breached by court orders.
These rights must give way where there was prima-facie evidence of wrongdoing.
The judge added that he was also not satisfied that BT's policy here of informaing any subscriber of whom complaints of copyright infringement were made of those complaints and requesting that they desists from such activity, was sufficient to deprive the plaintiff companies of their rights to seek redress. BT had said its policy was effective in most cases and the alleged infringements of copyright desisted. It also said that, in circumstances where it could not contact the subscriber, it discontinued service to that subscriber.
The judge said the policy did not deal with past infringements and could not deprive the plaintiffs of their entitlement to seek damages should they choose to do so. Mr. Paul Gallagher SC, for the companies, had said they were unaware of the BT service but would avail of it. The record companies had claimed the Irish record industry now faces "a very real threat" from such uploading and copying activities. Mr. Willie Kavanagh, managing director of EMI records, said that the Irish market for sound recordings had suffered a decline in total sales from €146 million in 2001 to €118 million in 2004 and he believed a very substantial portion of that decline was due to the increasing availabilty of broadband access here. He noted a survey carrioed out for IRMA in January 2004 concluded that some 250,000 Irish adults had downloaded music and only 1 percent had claimed to have paid for it. The survey also found that once people tried that source for music tracks, they used it more regularly. He was therfore concerned that the activity would escalate.
Counsel for both companies cautioned that the name and address of the company's internet account holder may be different to the name of the telephone account customer. In those circumstances, the information provided by the defendant companies might relate to an entirely innocent person as well as an alleged wrongdoer, they said.

FYI

zuma

At least BT have come up with a proper alternative...eircom appear not to give a shít and will do anything IRMA want as long as they themselves dont get sued.

BT must realise that if their customers in Ireland get screwed over by the record companies, with almost identical laws in existence in the UK, their British customers might jump ship to other ISP's potentially causing them huge losses in their home market!!!

So the ISP's have a deadline for the start of next week to hand over the names/addresses of the 17 accused "Super Pirates"....it will be interesting to see which ISP hand over the PRIVATE data first or at all or will BT's proposal seem the smartest with mabye a non-disclosure being signed by the 17 to keep all internet users scared???

StRiKeR

stas wrote:

Same as if buying, say, a stolen laptop, you can get away, but will be done if caught. Admittedly in the case of music the chances are very slim and offense is miniature...

but the buyer's may not know that the music are stolen though

are they?

filejunky

Great post PA El Grande
so does this mean all other isps; ntl, utv, smart, wireless providers, ect went unchecked
media sentry it seems only looked at the big 2s bank of ip addresses

zuma

filejunky wrote:

Great post PA El Grande
so does this mean all other isps; ntl, utv, smart, wireless providers, ect went unchecked
media sentry it seems only looked at the big 2s bank of ip addresses

NTL and UTV have UK IP's so IRMA were not interested in those.
Safety in numbers and such...the UK is far far far worse due to some providers like AOL and LLU providers offering unlimited downloads...basically a ticket to pirate.

Smart/Digiweb/Netasource have such a small market share that on stats alone eircom/BT were going to have customers who get caught...though it is possible that one of the 17 doesnt have a eircom/BT!

filejunky

zuma wrote:

NTL and UTV have UK IP's so IRMA were not interested in those.
Safety in numbers and such...the UK is far far far worse due to some providers like AOL and LLU providers offering unlimited downloads...basically a ticket to pirate.

Smart/Digiweb/Netasource have such a small market share that on stats alone eircom/BT were going to have customers who get caught...though it is possible that one of the 17 doesnt have a eircom/BT!

Cutting from pa elgrandes post;

At the Commercial Court yesterday, Mr. Justice Peter Kelly ordered that Eircom and BT Communictions Ireland Ltd. disclose to four record companies within one week the names, addresses and phone numbers of the 17 persons who are subscribers to the two companies' services

This suggests they are all bt/ eircom subscribers
also this doesn't give irma the right to demand names from other isps

Robbo

filejunky wrote:

also this doesn't give irma the right to demand names from other isps

If it appears that their is a prima facie case for copyright infringement. The relevance of me posting the link to a story about a similar case in the Netherlands was that over there, the evidence provided by MediaSentry was deemed not enough to proceed with the case.

hjr

So how exactly can they tell how many files you have uploaded? The fact that you have files in your shared folder does not necessarily mean that they were uploaded. Surely they would have to monitor you over a period of time to see how many files you were uploading. How is anybody supposed to work out how many songs have been uploaded? Is there a time frame they are using? Surely if you have had a P2p program for a number of years it would be very easy to upload hundreds of sings. Also, if you notice on some P2p programs only a portion of the song may be taken from you. Does this count as a full upload? There's a lot of questions that need answering I guess. BTW does anybody else use Ares, as it doesnt seem to be very popular.

AdMMM

Will be interesting to see how many of the 17 downloaders are from boards

Adviser

Peer Guardian 2 A little program you may be interested in...

filejunky

hjr wrote:

So how exactly can they tell how many files you have uploaded? The fact that you have files in your shared folder does not necessarily mean that they were uploaded.

They only have to be made available for upload

filejunky

|.Murderer.| wrote:

Will be interesting to see how many of the 17 downloaders are from boards

I'd say there's quite a few holding their breath

hjr

They only have to be made available for upload[/QUOTE]

But how can they scan whats in your shared folder without actually uploading it? They would need to already know that you exist, what your nickname is, etc. I can't see how its gonna work. What kind of technology do they have that can scan computer hard drives? Anyone know what the main p2p's are in the enquiry and what the file level is cos 17 is a funny number to choose? around 1,000 I reckon.

zuma

hjr wrote:

But how can they scan whats in your shared folder without actually uploading it? They would need to already know that you exist, what your nickname is, etc. I can't see how its gonna work. What kind of technology do they have that can scan computer hard drives? Anyone know what the main p2p's are in the enquiry and what the file level is cos 17 is a funny number to choose? around 1,000 I reckon.

Right then,
If I were to lets say, use Limewire for P2P, I could see you IP and if I choose also have a look at the files in your shared folder.
On limewire its easy...must be simple to do it with dedicated software used by MediaSentry.
They cant scan your entire hard drive, unless you dont have a firewall and other spyware killing progs, plus it would be illegal to attempt to view files that must be hacked into illegally!
Shared folders in P2P is like giving everyone a key to your SHARED files only.

BT and Eircom it appears are the 2 targeted ISP's and the progs targeted were Kazaa and Gnutella clients.

17 was probable the best they could get with enough proof.
If you havent used a prog like peerguardian while using P2P then your IP could be in their database with thousands of others!!!!

beller b

Anyone know just how effective peerguardian is??

zuma

beller b wrote:

Anyone know just how effective peerguardian is??

Honestly I dont know...but if your peerguardian list is up to date then you should be OK.
MediaSentry has tried to scan me mabye 50 times in total, but all were blocked.

With peerguardian you are far safer than without it!!!

My shared folder is empty when i use the prog and the 2 or 3 files I might download are then moved to another folder...efectivey even if I was scanned there would be only 2 or 3 files in it!!
Bad for the P2P network I know...but keeps me out of trouble!

hjr

If there concentrating on the fasttrack(kazaa) and gnutella clients does that mean that other p2p's weren't covered in the enquiry? I have on occasion(ahem) used Ares so am wondering since this is not Fasttrack of gnutella if it was covered. My computer is off about 20 hours a day anyway, and ares is off most of the time as well, but I would have a large database of songs which I legally bought and ripped to my computer.Oh the innocence of it all!

filejunky

Quote "I have on occasion(ahem) used Ares so am wondering since this is not Fasttrack of gnutella if it was covered."

I believe ares is a fasttrack client although I don't believe it was monitored??

Quote "I would have a large database of songs which I legally bought and ripped to my computer."

It don't matter if you bought them, if they're in your shared folder and you make them available for upload that's illegal

hjr

Ares was part of Gnutella when it was set up but left it in 2002 to go it alone. It runs independent of gnutella and fasttrack. On this basis it should be ok, I hope!! According to the May Issue of Hotpress, Mr. Doyle said that they posted messages on the p2p systems so that when you downloaded a song a message popped up saying it was illegal. Never saw this on ares.

MiCr0

Quick Q to people here:
Many of you must work for small irish companies/multinationals who produce software/products that are sold world wide.
Many more of you are students studying computers/IT, and will go on to write code/design products.

Would you be bothered if people started to distribute illegal copies of these products?

Would it bother you if your payrise/bonus was hit due to this?

filejunky

hjr wrote:

Mr. Doyle said that they posted messages on the p2p systems so that when you downloaded a song a message popped up saying it was illegal. Never saw this on ares.

Ares has PMs (personal mesasges) swithed off by default unless activated you'd never have received the message

Still I think ares survived this one

beller b

I think as far as IMRA are concerned its illegal even to rip them to your HDD....

Zuma, I can understand you playing it safe but if we all do that it exactly what IMRA want...I'm sure more new software will surface soon

Adviser

You can never have complete security, but it's better than nothing. You can see how many ip's are blocked when you look at the list. The blocklist is updated frequently...

beller b wrote:

Anyone know just how effective peerguardian is??

filejunky

MiCr0 wrote:

Quick Q to people here:
Many of you must work for small irish companies/multinationals who produce software/products that are sold world wide.
Many more of you are students studying computers/IT, and will go on to write code/design products.

Would you be bothered if people started to distribute illegal copies of these products?

Would it bother you if your payrise/bonus was hit due to this?

Leading questions :mad:

WOULD TURKEYS VOTE FOR XMAS

Many future rock stars will have been inspired by music they download now but couldn't have afforded to buy

aidan_walsh

filejunky wrote:

Leading questions :mad:

WOULD TURKEYS VOTE FOR XMAS

Put it a different way then. Had you created something original, and decided to sell it, would you be put out to find someone offering free, unauthorised copies?

chump

My question is this...

Let's say you connect to limewire (gnutella 1) say for 3 hours, sharing a few files and DL'ing a few. After that 3 hours you disconnect and turn pc off (and broadband modem). SO you reconnect, different IP address.

Now is there any way they might have tracked a particular user through a series of IP addresses?

Also if some is connected for just 3 hours, say with an average upload of 10KB/s (generous bastid) . So maybe you were uploading parts of maybe 10 files.

10KB/s * 60 (-> mins) * 60 (-> hrs) * 3 (3 hours) = 108000 KB's = 108 MB's

Am I right?

Say 6MB's per song, about 18 songs.
Now I doubt they'd really be interested in a file sharer like this...


Now I personally doubt they are going to track candidates down whose IP address changes every 18 songs.

So I'm guessing unless your an all-week long, constant IP kind of DL'er you'll be grand.

But I do remember reading here a bit back about some of us boards users who were DL'ing over 100gigs a month. That means they could have uploaded a fair amount, and are likely to be people with constant IP addresses (meaning they leave pc's on overnight etc.). I'd imagine they're the people who are in trouble...

Well I hope they are

beller b

Its not all about it being free its about being ripped off..For years we are overcharged for music, for years we have seen the same albums etc sold in other countries for far less etc etc etc. (DVD region coding is another example but thats for another thread) .We are ripped off year in year out. Christmas comes along & all of a sudden the old christmas CDs are dearer than new releases ,the same happens on valentines etc etc etc....They have been too greedy for too long & now its too late for them. The internet was designed for file sharing , it can never be stopped so the best defense for IMRA is to compete & stop ripping everyone off..

zap

so hav eircom and bt informed the 17?

aidan_walsh

chump wrote:

Now is there any way they might have tracked a particular user through a series of IP addresses?

If you're on Eircom, go to dslstats.eircom.net and login. Then click on a month name to examine the traffic for that month. You'll see that each session is marked by Session Start Time, Session End Time, IP Address, Time Online, Bytes Uploaded, and Bytes Downloaded. Now I'm sure they will have more information than all that tucked away somewhere as well.

aidan_walsh

beller b wrote:

Its not all about it being free its about being ripped off.

So drop LimeWire et al and use iTunes, et cetera instead. No claim of being ripped off when you only pay 99c per song, or €10 for an album. If you continue to download for free when you know there are cheaper alternatives out there, your reasoning is a nice story, and little more.

dahamsta

MiCr0 wrote:

Would you be bothered if people started to distribute illegal copies of these products?

Absolutely! I want those bastards to pay my distributors 300% or 400% of the value of my packaged and marketed product, because I need the the 10% of the final sale price they give me!

(By the way, copyright infringement is still primarily a contract breach in Ireland, which is a civil issue, not criminal. Calling it illegal is subscribing to propaganda, which is another way of saying that people that call it illegal are gullible and naive. That being said, you're free to call me a "pirate" if you wish, as long as you send me an eyepatch and a headscarf. And a parrot. Talk Like A Pirate Day isn't that far off. Arrrr!)

adam

beller b

I have no problem paying 99c per song providing its mine to do with as i please..If I have already paid for I CD why should I have to pay againif I want to play it on my IPOD or have a copy on CD to play in my car etc.... You see more rip off

Capt'n Midnight

StonedParadoX wrote:

or ZDelete or whatever its called

sdelete www.sysinternals.com/Utilities/SDelete.html - to wipe free space or secure delete.
Darik's Boot and Nuke http://dban.sourceforge.net/ - to wipe an entire drive.
Eraser www.tolvanen.com/eraser

not too sure I'd trust windows encryption to be totally secure since the NSA (and probably others) may possibly have back doors that could in theory leave your encryption key encrypted elsewhere on the system. Something like http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=254651

MiCr0

dahamsta wrote:

(By the way, copyright infringement is still primarily a contract breach in Ireland, which is a civil issue, not criminal. Calling it illegal is subscribing to propaganda, which is another way of saying that people that call it illegal are gullible and naive. That being said, you're free to call me a "pirate" if you wish, as long as you send me an eyepatch and a headscarf. And a parrot. Talk Like A Pirate Day isn't that far off. Arrrr!)

adam

completely OT - but my birthday is TLAP day
Arrrrh!

filejunky

chump wrote:

My question is this...



Now is there any way they might have tracked a particular user through a series of IP addresses?


Well I hope they are

I think that's why they didn't go after Limewire, no username to track user by. Wheras some other gnutella clients do have usernames (bearshare) and all fasttrack clients do have usernames

filejunky

aidan_walsh wrote:

Put it a different way then. Had you created something original, and decided to sell it, would you be put out to find someone offering free, unauthorised copies?

Let's stick to music;
Damien Rice couldn't get a record contract, produced his own record, it gets copied, uploaded / downloaded he ends up a massive star with his songs used in a major movie. I doubt he'd have made it as big without filesharing.
Would Paddy Casey have filled Vicar street with a special under 18s evening based on the number of them buying his music!!
Similarly I wouldn't have gone to the recent Embrace / Good charlotte concerts without friends giving me copies of their songs.
This is how musicians get noticed these days they need to emrace technology or they may find it dificult to sell seats never mind cds

As for S/w
small programers produces shareware, freeware, open source ie free or donate
medium programers produce solutions for business, niche, not copied
large progamers produce operating systems, spread****e, word-processing(MS)and games (all of which are availabe free from the open source movement only without the bugs and quicker.

So to answer the question, if I produced a few lines of software I felt worth sharing I would, in fact I hope the few original lines of html/script I have written have been copied and pasted, as has most of the code on the planet!!

DemonOfTheFall

It's now in law that ISPs keep track of what you do online, so you can bet your ass that they know everything you're downloading.

MrPinK

aidan_walsh wrote:

So drop LimeWire et al and use iTunes, et cetera instead. No claim of being ripped off when you only pay 99c per song, or €10 for an album.

I would say you are being ripped off using iTunes. At least with a CD you can be fairly sure you'll still be able to listen to your music in 10 years time. With the DRM'd files that are being sold you have no such guarantees. When there's a chance you'll have to pay for it all again in a years to come, I'd say their prices are pretty high. Of course there are ways of removing DRM, but those are technically illegal.

dahamsta

DemonOfTheFall wrote:

It's now in law that ISPs keep track of what you do online, so you can bet your ass that they know everything you're downloading.

Moreover, the traffic and location data can be used "for the purpose of civil proceedings in any court" (see the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Bill (PDF), Section 64 (1) (d)).

Good old McDowell covering all the bases there, and opening up the possibility of a world of spurious legislation into the bargain!

adam

Boggle

Many of you must work for small irish companies/multinationals who produce software/products that are sold world wide.
Many more of you are students studying computers/IT, and will go on to write code/design products.

Would you be bothered if people started to distribute illegal copies of these products?

Would it bother you if your payrise/bonus was hit due to this?

If those users decided that it was a worthwhile program then I would like them to buy it yes. Saying that, if the package was exhorbitantly overpriced by the distributor then I'd understand it being copied.

However, if someone downloads an album, and decides its below par (doesn't listen to it) then the record industry should not complain. If someone likes the album then they should be allowed to pay a contribution to the artist in question....

Like snowpatrol's last album - I heard it was good so downloaded it. When I liked it I proceeded to buy it. Is that not fair?? Thing is I bought in Singapore for half the price of here. I'll buy the Killers one next time I'm abroad too...

The long and short of the problem is that you cannot justify E20 for a cd and as long as it's so overpriced, people will naturally rebel by getting the song throughh other means.

MorningStar

I didn't read the whole long thread so don't kill me for repeating. I bought records and when the CD came out I had to buy another version of the same item, I paid royalty, distribution, publishers etc.. twice and an additional charge for future development of music technology. The CD still has this charge built into the price. Many people are unaware of this charge or forgot about it. Whn I went to replace my records I was never offered away to get a refund for my previous format and payment to the artist. If I sratch a CD there is limited replacement facilities if you can find them and a large admin charge.
The record industry is in the middle of a chage in the same way the hollywood studios had did when the old contract basis for actors.
Prince tried it too early and lost his fan base yet bands like Marrilion have managed to do it succesfully.
The recod companies have brought this on themseleves and will ultimately loose. THey limited consumer choice and screwed it's customers.

beller b

MorningStar wrote:

I didn't read the whole long thread so don't kill me for repeating. I bought records and when the CD came out I had to buy another version of the same item, I paid royalty, distribution, publishers etc.. twice and an additional charge for future development of music technology. The CD still has this charge built into the price. Many people are unaware of this charge or forgot about it. Whn I went to replace my records I was never offered away to get a refund for my previous format and payment to the artist. If I sratch a CD there is limited replacement facilities if you can find them and a large admin charge.
The record industry is in the middle of a chage in the same way the hollywood studios had did when the old contract basis for actors.
Prince tried it too early and lost his fan base yet bands like Marrilion have managed to do it succesfully.
The recod companies have brought this on themseleves and will ultimately loose. THey limited consumer choice and screwed it's customers.

Well said!! true to the last word.The movie industry did the same years ago when they tried to ban VCRs, they faild then they have failed in everything since & they will fail again. They have to stop stitching people & start to compete on price.

aidan_walsh

MrPinK wrote:

I would say you are being ripped off using iTunes. At least with a CD you can be fairly sure you'll still be able to listen to your music in 10 years time. With the DRM'd files that are being sold you have no such guarantees.

You can say the same for pretty much any digital file, DRM'd or not. There is no assurance that music players in the future will play mp3s, is there?

MrPinK wrote:

Then there's a chance you'll have to pay for it all again in a years to come, I'd say their prices are pretty high.

This has been happening for years, with people buying CDs of what they used to own on tape or vinyl. Personally, I've never met anyone who hasn't done it willingly, or even been unhappy to have been reaquainted with their purchase.

dahamsta

aidan_walsh wrote:

This has been happening for years, with people buying CDs of what they used to own on tape or vinyl. Personally, I've never met anyone who hasn't done it willingly, or even been unhappy to have been reaquainted with their purchase.

I did it willingly because I didn't realise that I was effectively paying for a licence twice. When I did figure it out, I stopped buying CDs and replaced all of my tapes with downloads from allofmp3.com. I'd imagine very few people have thought about the implications of what they're doing. Maybe you should explain the situation to a few of the people you meet, see how they feel about it then.

adam

MrPinK

aidan_walsh wrote:

You can say the same for pretty much any digital file, DRM'd or not. There is no assurance that music players in the future will play mp3s, is there?

I can say with complete certainty that my music collection will still be playable in years to come. No matter what format is used in the future, I was have the ability to convert to that format. If my music was DRM'd, I would be prevented from doing so.

This has been happening for years, with people buying CDs of what they used to own on tape or vinyl. Personally, I've never met anyone who hasn't done it willingly, or even been unhappy to have been reaquainted with their purchase.

Those changes brought better quality and other improvements, which is why people didn't mind repurchasing. That's not the same thing at all. Do you really believe that people wouldn't be unhappy if they had to repurchase CD's, just because their old CD's are tied to their previous CD player?

aidan_walsh

MrPink wrote:

If my music was DRM'd

Using modern DRM, yes. I do firmly believe that this will be over come with a better system though, that will give both sides what they want. All we need now is some way to make that happen.

MrPink wrote:

Those changes brought better quality and other improvements, which is why people didn't mind repurchasing. That's not the same thing at all. Do you really believe that people wouldn't be unhappy if they had to repurchase CD's, just because their old CD's are tied to their previous CD player?

Fair point.

Capt'n Midnight

A major point is that the artist only gets a fraction of the price.

Surely if you already have a cassette of you should be entitled to get a part exchange on a the CD version ? Or should you just be able to use paypal to pay the artist the amount they would have made if you had bought new media ?

Wrong :
Copyright laws can mean you have Sir Paul McCarthy paying Michael Jackson's estate if he sings a song he wrote himself. The Canadian rulling on Harry Potter could in theory mean that he can't even re-read his songs it the holder so decides. ( Why do you think Linda co-wrote the Wings songs ? ) It's not about the artists. It's the copyright holder you pay. And since they hold the copyright they can decide the rules.

Enforcing them is a different matter. In this country the vast majority of drivers break the 40Kmph limit regularly, have driven unaccompanied on a provisional. There is a 24 Hr bus lane near Neilstown garda station. I can count the cars that DON'T use it's entire length when turning left in heavy traffic on my thumbs each week. Then there is the whole software piracy thing.

Point is why should we enforce copyright laws in preference to road safety laws ?

If the music industry expects people to pay a high premium for their product, when why do they keep discounting it all the time ? If a newspaper can give a CD away free, then it shows that the price of them is totally artificial. Unlike software there is no after sales support, there is no R&D on CD's since it's a fixed format data file. (the other type of R&D where they find new talent - I'm so sick of cover versions, and me-too's and stuff sold on the amount of skin in the video ..) The same is true of the electronic formats. Except you don't have to put CD's in every shop in the country, which means it' gotta be a lot cheaper than a fraction of the price of the newspaper.


It's very hard to think of a copyright system that can't be abused. If you could restrict the transfer of copyright for a year so it returned back to the artist after a year then they couldn't sell it for as much, then again most money is made in the first year. The artist could then resell the copyright to the same organisation or not. I can't see any way of legally enforcing the return of the copyright to the artist after a set period of time that there wouldn't be a loophole round

MorningStar

aidan_walsh wrote:

This has been happening for years, with people buying CDs of what they used to own on tape or vinyl. Personally, I've never met anyone who hasn't done it willingly, or even been unhappy to have been reaquainted with their purchase.

Hello.
Now you have met somebody who didn't do it willingly. I even posted it up before you posted this. MP3 is out there now so it can't disappear people have accepted it's sound quality they may never be bothered again. The new players are about size not quality of playback in the way of my early music days. People are only bothered about sound quality on their TVs
Re-issues of a complete artists catalogue with bonus tracks on each cd is a complete insult. Instead of one rare collection the whole catalogue has to be bought so they make huge profits. Truely screwing over a customer who replaced all the records in the first place, then cd and then again for the extra tracks. So for some artists I download the bonus tracks on their own yet I am the criminal. :eek: