Irish music-swappers admit liability

the corpo

prices are a huge factor
my bands album came out in the US for $12 or thereabouts, never more than a dollar or two more on any of the US cd sites. over here the likes of hmv and tower have it for around €20, the wholesale price is similar in both countries.

how come its 99cent in both the US and Ireland to download a song on itunes? does it cost more to manafacture an mp3 in Ireland? why aren't the mp3s 79 cent, or whatever the euro equivalent it. its pissy.....

smeggle

I use an encrypted virtual private network software by Grouper. Totally legal, My ISP is in Germany so hmm yeah IRMA can go jump

As for logs? Want one? I can show anyone as a file sharer inside an hr.. simple enough to make up. What they need is amount of traffic against what they define as a 'Normal User'. Just what defines that is one of the ways they can identify a file sharer. However though, what if you don't have a fully secure system? I.E. your using xp in admin account with Norton 2005 AV? I can route traffic through your system and it's you doing the file sharing (Norton 2005 home edition is flawed in NT systems running in Admin account - I can run vbs scripts all over it if I want Source) - I simply run a script, take control of your comp without you even being aware of the fact, proxy of you and your the file sharer - according to the logs you will be anyway.
So there use of logs is a scare tactic IMHO as if you do fight it with known facts like that and support your argument then you would win. All you need do is show reasonable doupt. I think you can easily do that against there use of logs as there basis for evidence.

I don't worry about it anyway, as I know what I am doing is totally legal, the software I am using (Grouper) Is totally legal - end game


btw mp3's are 'Streamed' not downloaded - software has some really nice xtras including an 'Instant Messenger - you can download any file format except though mp3/wav/ogg vorbis etc, .zip, .exe, .doc etc are allowed - (did I mention it has an instant messenger? and you can download .zip Over a privately encrypted network......

PiE

grumpytrousers wrote:

We've all done the book/album/DVD borrowing but the difference is that engaging in that behaviour historically hasn't caused a noticable fall in sales of the original products.

The contention (and I aint' saying it's true or not) is that wholesale file transferring means that overall MORE people will spend LESS on SOMETHING....

Oh? This would imply differently. It certainly applies to my musical spending habits.

Reku

Goldstein wrote:

Might I add:
photocopied a page from a book? (or been given one - school/college/work) lent a CD? lent a DVD? recorded something off the radio? used an iPod/iRiver/Zen/any other MP3 player? burned a CD to your computer?...

Dam thieves eh? They're a scurge on this Earth alright.


(Of course they're not quite as bad as the hypocrites)

Schools & colleges have a special licence such that they're allow photocopy a certain amount of a book (think it's 25%) for educational purposes without violating any copyright or licencing laws, after that they would be subject to royalties, etc...

And I have a Zen MP3 player but the only song out of 850+ on it that could be considered illegal is one which the only way to get it here (in Europe) was to download it from the artist's website (he had his songs available for download), as such I have no problem listening to it since I couldn't get it any other way (short of getting a plane to the US, just to buy one damn CD!). All the others are copied from my own CD collection and as such I'm legally allowed to make one copy of the songs for personal use, the mp3 files are my one copy.
It's when you make/obtain an MP3/copy of a song you don't have the CD for that it's illegal.

As to the arguement that if the CDs were cheaper, you've far too much faith in mankind, people will always try to save money where they can, as long as the CDs aren't free you'll still have numerous people illegally copying/downloading the songs rather than fork out for them. I worked in a supermarket and at the end of every day we'd have to get rid of numerous plug ins because people had torn open the packet just to steal the refill cartridge rather than pay out the pitence it costs to buy a refill pack.

Gegerty

penexpers wrote:

Would you risk it though? Solicitors are pretty expensive things.

It's definitely worth the risk. Somebody has to put up a fight, if I get nabbed I'll let you all know how my defence is going

Seriously though its just scare tactics they don't really have much of a case as we will find out soon enough. If you're an average Joe So, which just about covers everyone in Ireland thanks to our appalling bandwidth, then you are fine. This is nothing new, talk to people from other countries most of them wipe their ass with the letters.

grumpytrousers

PiE wrote:

Oh? This would imply differently. It certainly applies to my musical spending habits.

And mine...:D But we're missing the point. From a microeconomic view, illegal downloading doesn't have an effect on your expenditure on music. Brilliant. Snap. Same here. However, according to somebody who put together a report the macroeconomic view is somewhat different; cumulative illegal downloading *does* have an effect on the cumulative expenditure on music.

In other words, while you (and indeed plenty others of this parish) are happily illegally downloading but redressing the balance by forking out plenty of moolah either in shops or over t'interweb; the honest folks are seemingly being outnumbered by the dishonest folks...

KM

I can get over 400 greatest hits albums on MP3 (on 9 dvd discs) for about 40 euro, why would I pay a fortune for the same thing on store bought CDs??

I know it is probably a little bit wrong but it is too hard to resist!!!

Gegerty

smeggle wrote:

I use an encrypted virtual private network software by Grouper. Totally legal, My ISP is in Germany so hmm yeah IRMA can go jump

As for logs? Want one? I can show anyone as a file sharer inside an hr.. simple enough to make up. What they need is amount of traffic against what they define as a 'Normal User'. Just what defines that is one of the ways they can identify a file sharer. However though, what if you don't have a fully secure system? I.E. your using xp in admin account with Norton 2005 AV? I can route traffic through your system and it's you doing the file sharing (Norton 2005 home edition is flawed in NT systems running in Admin account - I can run vbs scripts all over it if I want Source) - I simply run a script, take control of your comp without you even being aware of the fact, proxy of you and your the file sharer - according to the logs you will be anyway.
So there use of logs is a scare tactic IMHO as if you do fight it with known facts like that and support your argument then you would win. All you need do is show reasonable doupt. I think you can easily do that against there use of logs as there basis for evidence.

I don't worry about it anyway, as I know what I am doing is totally legal, the software I am using (Grouper) Is totally legal - end game


btw mp3's are 'Streamed' not downloaded - software has some really nice xtras including an 'Instant Messenger - you can download any file format except though mp3/wav/ogg vorbis etc, .zip, .exe, .doc etc are allowed - (did I mention it has an instant messenger? and you can download .zip Over a privately encrypted network......

How is your ISP in Germany? Do you mean a proxy server? That can still be traced back to you. Does that grouper thing have open groups or do you just share with your friends and family?

robinph

farohar wrote:

All the others are copied from my own CD collection and as such I'm legally allowed to make one copy of the songs for personal use, the mp3 files are my one copy.
It's when you make/obtain an MP3/copy of a song you don't have the CD for that it's illegal.

I thought that the being able to make a copy rule was just in the US, I didn't think there was an equivalent loophole in the law overhere so it is 'illegal' to make a copy of any cd that you own as well. The only legal tracks that you could have on your mp3 player would be one that you had bought from iTunes or equivalent.

chorus techy

robinph wrote:

I thought that the being able to make a copy rule was just in the US, I didn't think there was an equivalent loophole in the law overhere so it is 'illegal' to make a copy of any cd that you own as well. The only legal tracks that you could have on your mp3 player would be one that you had bought from iTunes or equivalent.

Well you're not breaking copyright as such. Technically its just making a backup copy of a track. Also, my understanding is that when you buy a CD, you are purchasing the copyright to use the CD for your own personal use, and also copy the CD inso far as enabling it to be played on any device you wish (ie. CD to tape, or CD to Mp3 player etc.). Once you pass the CD or Mp3 onto someone else, it is then that you are breaking copyright law. Now I could be totally wrong about that, but thats my understanding of what is and isn't legal. Besides, I used to buy a good few CDs but I bought a Creative Zen a while back and since then have spent over €300 extra on CDs because there is a temptation to fill up all the HD space. I'm sure record companies like the ideas of portable music players very very much, and if copying to mp3 is illegal then surely they would have banned them?

bk

robinph wrote:

I thought that the being able to make a copy rule was just in the US, I didn't think there was an equivalent loophole in the law overhere so it is 'illegal' to make a copy of any cd that you own as well. The only legal tracks that you could have on your mp3 player would be one that you had bought from iTunes or equivalent.

I believe this is currently being tested in court. IRMA are suing a company who transfers peoples CD's to MP3 format and loads them onto the persons MP3 palyer.

IRMA says that they don't have the rights to do that from the copyright owners. THe company says that it falls under fair use. The result of the court case should answer a lot of questions.

BTW most people share their music the old fashioned way nowadays, by physically swapping HDs or DVDs full of music with family and friends in the school yard, college or work place. P2P is only the tip of the iceberg. In an excellent paper written by MS on Darknets, this was called the sneakernet and there is little or nothing any company can do about it.

grumpytrousers

chorus techy wrote:

Well you're not breaking copyright as such. Technically its just making a backup copy of a track. Also, my understanding is that when you buy a CD, you are purchasing the copyright to use the CD for your own personal use, and also copy the CD inso far as enabling it to be played on any device you wish (ie. CD to tape, or CD to Mp3 player etc.). Once you pass the CD or Mp3 onto someone else, it is then that you are breaking copyright law. Now I could be totally wrong about that, but thats my understanding of what is and isn't legal. Besides, I used to buy a good few CDs but I bought a Creative Zen a while back and since then have spent over €300 extra on CDs because there is a temptation to fill up all the HD space. I'm sure record companies like the ideas of portable music players very very much, and if copying to mp3 is illegal then surely they would have banned them?

I'd say it's kinda analagous to software...you get yourself a legitimate copy of Achtung Baby, copy it to CD for use in the Car, rip to MP3 for the player and have another copy in the house...

So long as you're using only one 'copy' (or the original) at a time you're not breaking the law. Of course, we all know that this isn't enforceable; the fact that you have a 'copy' solely for YOUR use in the car and (effectively) a 'copy' solely for YOUR use on the mp3 player doesn't make the content providor lose out; well - it does, in that you don't have extra copies for each, but I don't think that's expected.

However, when you rip the album to mp3 and make it available for the use of OTHERS, then you've perhaps stepped over the fine line...

CuLT

Actually, I understand a certain Minister claimed that it was illegal to transfer music to your iPod/Zen/Player.

There was a lot of laughing going on in the Computers (iirc) forum when that little gem was printed.

I agree that we're being royally screwed over in what we pay for music, but the fact of the matter is that if you are infringing on copyright, you should be prepared to pay the piper.

I'd also support the notion that the luddite music associations are likely not adjusting for online sales in their ridiculous figures of declining sales.
That's even leaving aside all the arguments that the manufactured pop being rammed down people's throats is partly to blame.

grumpytrousers

CuLT wrote:

Actually, I understand a certain Minister claimed that it was illegal to transfer music to your iPod/Zen/Player.

There was a lot of laughing going on in the Computers (iirc) forum when that little gem was printed.

I agree that we're being royally screwed over in what we pay for music, but the fact of the matter is that if you are infringing on copyright, you should be prepared to pay the piper.

I'd also support the notion that the luddite music associations are likely not adjusting for online sales in their ridiculous figures of declining sales.
That's even leaving aside all the arguments that the manufactured pop being rammed down people's throats is partly to blame.

See that's a very good point as well; a lot of music industry moolah gets spent on promotion - the huge cutouts that appear in HMV; the giving away tshirts to the first x people to buy the album etc etc.
As this money gets spent in shops and not the online outlets the industry would rather that punters buy in shops. Of course it's not a million years since Virgin Megastores were loosely related to Virgin Records and HMV was a record label as well as chain of stores...

pugleon

What on Earth was that? Want beans with those waffles?

For starters the article you reckon would allow you run some VB scripts and gain backdoor is from 2004. Do you ya not think that was addressed the next day after that article came out?

Do you not think that most people with broadband have a firewall, pretty sure they do...

The program you are using now sounds more like Yahoo Messenger beta. That's not what we're on about here. We're taking P2P not streaming audio. And I was talking about secure P2P. Proxy over secure server proxy with encrypted tunnelling. All you are seeing then is encrypted traffic.

Of course someone can make up a log, or use IP spoofing to make it look like you are using P2P. But its just as easily disproved by showing the MAC address on the header of the packets. Or just plain having witnesses lets face it.

Don't talk black hat or even white hat. You wouldn't know it if hats were in fashion. And stay on topic, we’re talking about actual file sharing and downloading.

Reku

Well let me put it this way, I'll pay them the money for having the MP3s of my own CD collection on my MP3 player when they reimburse me the cost of all those CDs (which no longer are of any use to me since I only listen to the songs on my MP3 player), as I understand it the cost of an MP3 is lower than that of a CD (most of my collection are singles) so lets see what bright spark will try push that issue.

CuLT

pugleon wrote:

Do you not think that most people with broadband have a firewall, pretty sure they do...

Err, pretty sure most people don't actually.

I have several hardware and software firewalls running concurrently, but I, as most of the people who post on this forum, am not in a majority when it comes to understanding and making informed decisions on Internet security.

And shut it about the beans and waffles, you're making me hungry

dahamsta

What's a smeegle?

pugleon

Everyone who gets broadband gets recommended some form of software firewall, if not hardware. Not to mention the billions of dodgy copies of zonealarm flying around. I'd be very surprised if the percentage of people with no protection at all isnt in the lower end.

Breakfast today consisted of hash browns, scrambled eggs and sausage. Someone missed out. Tisk tisk, for shame!

blorg

CuLT wrote:

Actually, I understand a certain Minister claimed that it was illegal to transfer music to your iPod/Zen/Player.

There was a lot of laughing going on in the Computers (iirc) forum when that little gem was printed.

I am pretty sure that that is technically the legal situation in the UK at least, it is just not enforced. See this article in PCW for example:

Under the same UK copyright laws, it's equally illegal to make a copy of an audio CD without permission as it is a DVD. Whether you have to circumvent a copy protection system or not, you're still making an unauthorised copy, which in the UK is a civil offence. ... [bit about fair dealing and time-shifting exceptions] ... But neither exemption applies to copying audio CDs or DVD movies for what's considered private enjoyment. Contrary to popular belief, you're also not allowed to make backup copies of audio CDs or DVD movies in the UK either, only of an operating system or software application disc.

http://www.computeractive.co.uk/personal-computer-world/comment/2043877/obey-law-portable-flaw

The Lib Dems have an explict policy that they would "extend the definition of fair dealing to include private time-shifting, space-shifting and format-shifting of legitimately obtained works", which backs up this point - http://www.makeitpolicy.org.uk/PP-ISociety-Copyright.html

Not sure on the law in Ireland, but it has it's historical basis in UK law, so unless there is some specific exemption or court ruling...

grumpytrousers

farohar wrote:

Well let me put it this way, I'll pay them the money for having the MP3s of my own CD collection on my MP3 player when they reimburse me the cost of all those CDs (which no longer are of any use to me since I only listen to the songs on my MP3 player), as I understand it the cost of an MP3 is lower than that of a CD (most of my collection are singles) so lets see what bright spark will try push that issue.

hah - you'll be waiting. Don't think anybodys gonna even TRY and charge you for having an mp3 on your player of a track that you own on shiny disc...

from here on in, your choice is to just purchase the mp3 instead of the physical single, although I supose there is the risk that you can't restore it if your machine goes tits up right?

as a matter of interest...and shut me up if i'm veering off topic...

What bit-rate do (legally) downloaded singles tend to be - I mean, we're surely talking 192 anyway, but if you were to convert one of your OWN CD tracks to mp3, you'd have the choice of how good the conversion rate was, wouldn't go...esp if you go to WAV first, right?

chorus techy

grumpytrousers wrote:

hah - you'll be waiting. Don't think anybodys gonna even TRY and charge you for having an mp3 on your player of a track that you own on shiny disc...

from here on in, your choice is to just purchase the mp3 instead of the physical single, although I supose there is the risk that you can't restore it if your machine goes tits up right?

as a matter of interest...and shut me up if i'm veering off topic...

What bit-rate do (legally) downloaded singles tend to be - I mean, we're surely talking 192 anyway, but if you were to convert one of your OWN CD tracks to mp3, you'd have the choice of how good the conversion rate was, wouldn't go...esp if you go to WAV first, right?

I think they are WMA, as opposed to MP3, as WMA has DRM on it. Any legal sites I've used have had 128kbps or 96kbps WMA, but even though they are pretty good bitrates, they often don't sound as good as they should, as they were probably run through a very bad encoder. The quality (for me anyway) seems to differ an awful lot from different sites - just a matter of trial and error really.

Gegerty

Legal downloads are not the solution, they're still far too expensive and they *really* have no excuse ie no packaging, cd pressing etc.

If you download an mp3 from a legit site do you have any form of proof that it is from a legit site?

There's a simple solution to everyones problem, if you don't mind being ripped off then buy the CD or download off a legit site, for illegal downloaders it's time to move on. They've copped on to p2p and BT on the World Wide Web so everyone should be using newsgroups.

Let them cop onto that in another 5-10 years and by then we'll be using some crazy ass app on our mobile phones, or maybe we'll all be buying CD's for €5!

ntlbell

pugleon wrote:

Everyone who gets broadband gets recommended some form of software firewall, if not hardware. Not to mention the billions of dodgy copies of zonealarm flying around. I'd be very surprised if the percentage of people with no protection at all isnt in the lower end.

For starters the article you reckon would allow you run some VB scripts and gain backdoor is from 2004. Do you ya not think that was addressed the next day after that article came out?

What a load of poo.

exploits that are around well over 3-4+ years are still being used everyday against machines, making the assumption people patch machines regualry is very very silly.

Look at slammer a patch was released 11 months and MICROSOFT hadn't even patched their own boxes never mind joe soap.

No ISP in the last 11 years has once suggested to me to use a firewall or made any recomendation to me of any sort.

The amount of rooted windows machines online right now would be in the millions and you can thank alot of these people for the amount of spam you get/block on a daily basis. average joe won't as much as run a windows update and you think they take the time to educate themselves on internet security?

Hi Pugleon, this is earth. welcome back.

pugleon

Course they recommend you use a firewall. NTL have Zonealarm pics plastered all over their site. IBB talk about firewalls all the time. And I'm sure Eircom and BT the same for liability sakes!!!!

The poo, is on you sir!

Sure people don't patch, humans are really just hairless apes anyways. Though I couldn't somehow picture Hilary Duff as an Ape, that's where we come from. And no sympathy for em either, damn dirty apes...

Fact is most people don't bother, we all know this. But talking about an exploit from last year when Symantec's stuff by default installs with autoupdate on means the monkeys and apes should get the update. It's just not likely. I'm sure there are plenty of exceptions to the rule, which we could argue about all night.

What I WAS trying to put across was some lamers attempt at sounding cool/ knowledgeable /both. The "I visited a website and found an exploit for Yahoo messenger" type. Things are gradually shaping up in the patch management world. And what he was talking about was rubbish. At least come out with something plausible. If you're going to talk about exploits and vulnerabilities don't come out with kack like that.

Hello poo, meet NTLbell. Welcome back to Earth? The world is my oyster :cool:

ntlbell

pugleon wrote:

Course they recommend you use a firewall. NTL have Zonealarm pics plastered all over their site. IBB talk about firewalls all the time. And I'm sure Eircom and BT the same for liability sakes!!!!

The poo, is on you sir!

Sure people don't patch, humans are really just hairless apes anyways. Though I couldn't somehow picture Hilary Duff as an Ape, that's where we come from. And no sympathy for em either, damn dirty apes...

Fact is most people don't bother, we all know this. But talking about an exploit from last year when Symantec's stuff by default installs with autoupdate on means the monkeys and apes should get the update. It's just not likely. I'm sure there are plenty of exceptions to the rule, which we could argue about all night.

What I WAS trying to put across was some lamers attempt at sounding cool/ knowledgeable /both. The "I visited a website and found an exploit for Yahoo messenger" type. Things are gradually shaping up in the patch management world. And what he was talking about was rubbish. At least come out with something plausible. If you're going to talk about exploits and vulnerabilities don't come out with kack like that.

Hello poo, meet NTLbell. Welcome back to Earth? The world is my oyster :cool:

I have both NTL and IBB, not once has someone mentioned a firewall of any sort. IBB "talk" about them? where? there's plenty of people here with eircom and BT I very much doubt many of them were spoke to about network security if so by who? the sales rep? the engineer? pfft they have it plastered on their website? so? would it be to much to ask to send a welcome pack with your connection? One could argue it's not their responibility.

The problem is it's not the exception to the rule it's the majority not the minority.

What you were trying to put across is "your lame i'm cool" and you didn't do a very good job of it.

Next boards armchair security guru take a seat please.

zuma

Children...Children...Children!!!

Most people dont have a firewall self installed, though its possible their computer was purchased with one pre-configured!

For the vast majority of people the best they might have is some AV program with 3 year old definitions running in the background.

Members of the technical forums of boards.ie are not the average Irish computer user!!!

I know for a fact that BT were giving out NIS2004 with their routers until Feb2005 at least...but even that had virus definitions from Autumn2003 in it!!!!

Can we get back to talking about the copyright infringers being sued by IRMA in the civil courts please???

chorus techy

There was a big article in yesterdays (Friday) Irish Independent. Seemed quite damning of illegal downloaders, but was very badly written and a lot of typos. One part of the article quoted someone from IRMA saying that we can download any track from the internet legally for 9c!

robinph

chorus techy wrote:

There was a big article in yesterdays (Friday) Irish Independent. Seemed quite damning of illegal downloaders, but was very badly written and a lot of typos. One part of the article quoted someone from IRMA saying that we can download any track from the internet legally for 9c!

Now for that price they would have no trouble selling the tracks.

But the prices do need to come down a lot for them to convince me to buy tracks online rather than aquire my tracks by other means, which at the moment is actually via cdwow or play.com.

zuma

chorus techy wrote:

There was a big article in yesterdays (Friday) Irish Independent. Seemed quite damning of illegal downloaders, but was very badly written and a lot of typos. One part of the article quoted someone from IRMA saying that we can download any track from the internet legally for 9c!

Yeah IRMA's head was on Morning Ireland at about 08:30 on Thursday and on Friday most major papers had a report on it.

The RTE interviewer actually quoted boards.ie as being full of freeloaders who only wanted free songs!!!

Honestly though MediaSentry can kiss my ass!!!