News Irish Filesharer Crackdown

[rynnor]

I assumed that an Irish Net crackdown would consist of arresting fishermen but apparently they are serious

BBC News - Big Irish crackdown on net piracy

I think this is going too far tbh - they are even looking at Permanent bans - cant see how that would work tho.

 

[DaGaffer]

Unfortunately I'm intimately involved with all this. And right now that's all I can say.

NB. They're not looking at permanent bans, but it could be a year in the worst case.

 

[rynnor]

From that article:

'After three months the effect of the campaign will be assessed and, if necessary, tougher measures including permanent disconnection could be introduced.'

 

[Shagrat]

It does also say you initially get a letter and either a follow up phonecall or some sort of onscreen popup warning. Only on the 3rd strike do they then move to bans.

while I personally think any kind of ban for this is wrong, where its been proven time and again that IP is no definitive way of proving guilt you've gotta be some sort of serious moron to get two warnings and carry on downloading van morrison and clannad etc

 

[Chilly]

fuck you, working for the man (@ gaffer)

 

[DaGaffer]

From that article:

'After three months the effect of the campaign will be assessed and, if necessary, tougher measures including permanent disconnection could be introduced.'

"could be" doesn't necessarily mean "will be"

 

[rynnor]

"could be" doesn't necessarily mean "will be"

Sure - but the fact they are even considering it is disturbing - whats behind this hardline approach - big bribes?

 

[Moriath]

They will admit defeat in the long run .. the semi tech literate will get caught out from non ssl conenctions and public torrents

But their money wont go up and all they will see is more savvy ppl using different methods cause they dont have the resources or the bottle to go against the usenet

until they do then they have no chance .. even then someone will prob sort out something alternative to it

 

[DaGaffer]

Sure - but the fact they are even considering it is disturbing - whats behind this hardline approach - big bribes?

Its no secret, the company was taken to court by the music industry, were pretty much told they'd lose by the judge, and couldn't afford to fight it (4bn Euro debt). Q.E.D. The theory was the music industry would then take all the other ISPs to the same court so one company wasn't disadvantaged. Hasn't happened yet although I think its due to start next month. Its been back to court to see if it breaches Data Protection laws (it doesn't).

TBH its more disturbing that the Irish government hasn't stepped in on one side or the other; for all its faults, at least the Digital Economy Bill and similar stuff in France was actually discussed; here its seems one judge can decide the future of online copy protection in this country, and the politicians have completely abdicated responsibility.

 

[Scouse]

The debate nobody is having is whether IP laws are fair.

They're not. It's your moral duty to pirate to fuckery IMHO.

 

[Zenith.UK]

I'm looking forward to the day that the collective music industry gets a big "Fuck You" from the public. An industry cannot hope to continue if it treats it's customer base as a bunch of thieves.

Permanent disconnection is no problem to work around in the UK because there are a number of providers, but I know Eircom is as good as a monopoly in Ireland.

Of course, you could always use an SSH tunnel or PPTP link to a proxy outside your ISP's control. I hear Relakks run a cheap VPN service out of Sweden.

 

[DaGaffer]

I'm looking forward to the day that the collective music industry gets a big "Fuck You" from the public. An industry cannot hope to continue if it treats it's customer base as a bunch of thieves.

Permanent disconnection is no problem to work around in the UK because there are a number of providers, but I know Eircom is as good as a monopoly in Ireland.

Of course, you could always use an SSH tunnel or PPTP link to a proxy outside your ISP's control. I hear Relakks run a cheap VPN service out of Sweden.

Once again, not true. Market share is high if you count wholesale (which isn't part of the judgement), but if you look at the real broadband picture in Ireland (including cable and MBB), share is well below 40%. There are plenty of alternate providers, which is why doing this unilaterally is far from ideal.

 

[Furr]

Quick! start investing in selling VPNs in Ireland, we might actually be spared this fate with the coalition, the lib dems wouldn't let something like it through.

 

[DaGaffer]

The debate nobody is having is whether IP laws are fair.

They're not. It's your moral duty to pirate to fuckery IMHO.

Way to over-simplify mate. I'd say a shitload of people are having the debate about whether IP laws are fair, in every arena from copyright to software patents. In relation to all this stuff, I'd say the principle of copyright is perfectly reasonable; an individual or company should have the right to exploit their work and receive fair recompense. Which isn't to say I think the detail of how those rights are exploited is "fair", but then "fairness" is entirely subjective anyway, what's fair for an artist (or a movie studio or games developer) may not be regarded as "fair" by a customer. One thing I would definitely say, is that no-one has a moral right to get free shit on their own terms, and I've never seen a single freetard argument that doesn't boil down to "I don't want to pay for this and I'll justify it anyway I can".

As I've said on these forums before, in some areas, "free" is a perfectly reasonable price point (TV for example, because the ad model works, -ish, and the rights situation is entirely for the convienience of the TV companies' marketing schedules), "free", may be a reasonable price point for music, but from the grumblings of artists about their cut from the likes of Spotify, maybe not (and the argument about touring and merchandise instead doesn't stack up - trust me, it just doesn't, and actually is completely irrelevant to whole genres of musicians who don't have a live "sound"). "Free" will almost certainly never be appropriate for first-run movies, because the break-even point is so high. So simply saying "IP is unfair and I'm not going to play" isn't a strategy if you actually want media and entertainment to exist in the long-run, because somehow people have to get paid. Now, does that mean the current situation in Ireland is the right way to go? Well at the moment its all stick and no carrot. But seeds have been planted...

 

[Scouse]

Disagree Gaff old bean.

Over the years I have, like any other, spent thousands (possibly tens of) buying works, going to the cinema, music, videos, DVD's etc. (I still do, just less so).

However, I've come to my opinion over many years. I'd love to pay for stuff in a way that benefits artists rather than just fat corporations but the whole model is financially unfair, stifles innovation and pumps out mindless wank whilst stealing opportunity from others IMHO.

For a start, if a reasonable percentage of the total income (say 80%) went to the artist of any given work and that income continued to do so over the selling life of that work (rather than the limited time period) then I'd have fewer problems. But it doesn't.

I'd still have myriad other problems with the whole system but just to pick one....

Similar to Manc scum fans who need to stop going to matches to see the glazers out, I think the only way to destroy this corrupt industry is to hit it in the pocket.


This post could turn epic, but instead I'll wang in a few quotes by a guy who must obviously be a "freetard"

They always talk handsomely about the literature of the land....And in the midst of their enthusiasm they turn around and do what they can to discourage it.
- Speech in Congress, 1906

Whenever a copyright law is to be made or altered, then the idiots assemble.
- Mark Twain's Notebook, 1902-1903

Only one thing is impossible for God: to find any sense in any copyright law on the planet.
- Mark Twain's Notebook, 1902-1903

He was a bit pissed, y'see, that money was effectively being stolen off him through copyright law

 

[Calaen]

I agree with Scouse, the entertainment industry has taken far to long to change how it works. They should have invested right from the off to discover a way of using the internet to it's full benefit and changed it's own model.

Aslong as the top dogs continue to plough money in worthless artists that spunk out absolute garbage, Then nothing will change. I don't want to buy an album for my favorite artist knowing that most of the cash be invested into some shit artist with no ability at all to please soem morinc fan base who wouldn't know good music if it curled one out on their face.

If the internet and reality tv shows around the world have showed us anything, it's that there really is alot of talent out there just waiting for an opportunity, they don't need to spend money on gimmiks and wannabes. The real thing is simply waiting to be given the chance.

 

[ECA]

The record industry especially is stuck in it's way and doesn't want to bother having to adapt it's business model.

They tried to ban the Grammerphone, they tried to ban VCR, they tried to ban the cassette tape, they tried to ban CDs - all of which helped them rather than hurt them - but they didn't want to have to change their business models.

The time for record companies has passed and they know it. Digital distribution is the future and they know it basically cuts the need for the record industry out of the equation so they're clinging on tooth and nail.

 

[DaGaffer]

However, I've come to my opinion over many years. I'd love to pay for stuff in a way that benefits artists rather than just fat corporations but the whole model is financially unfair, stifles innovation and pumps out mindless wank whilst stealing opportunity from others IMHO.

For a start, if a reasonable percentage of the total income (say 80%) went to the artist of any given work and that income continued to do so over the selling life of that work (rather than the limited time period) then I'd have fewer problems. But it doesn't.

I don't disagree with anything you've said; I agree entirely that the process of copyright is broken, but I still think the principle of copyright is sound. My issue with simply stealing stuff is that it actually makes the moral argument for a crackdown much easier for the establishment to justify, and that's what's happening.

I agree with Scouse, the entertainment industry has taken far to long to change how it works. They should have invested right from the off to discover a way of using the internet to it's full benefit and changed it's own model.

Aslong as the top dogs continue to plough money in worthless artists that spunk out absolute garbage, Then nothing will change. I don't want to buy an album for my favorite artist knowing that most of the cash be invested into some shit artist with no ability at all to please soem morinc fan base who wouldn't know good music if it curled one out on their face.

First of all, since judgement about the quality of one artist over an other is entirely subjective, this kind of argument is entirely pointless. its like saying you wouldn't buy a Ferrari because the profit goes to making Fiats (or the other way around depending on your social standpoint). This is just another freetard argument and a pretty specious one at that. Yes, there is a separate argument about the quality of the music industry, but you don't have a right to judge by not paying for stuff. And there is actually a pretty good argument to say that the rise of X-Factor/PopIdol/America's got a bunch of no talent wankers is a music industry response to piracy.

If the internet and reality tv shows around the world have showed us anything, it's that there really is alot of talent out there just waiting for an opportunity, they don't need to spend money on gimmiks and wannabes. The real thing is simply waiting to be given the chance.

Its shown us nothing of the sort.

 

[DaGaffer]

The record industry especially is stuck in it's way and doesn't want to bother having to adapt it's business model.

They tried to ban the Grammerphone, they tried to ban VCR, they tried to ban the cassette tape, they tried to ban CDs - all of which helped them rather than hurt them - but they didn't want to have to change their business models.

The time for record companies has passed and they know it. Digital distribution is the future and they know it basically cuts the need for the record industry out of the equation so they're clinging on tooth and nail.

Another fallacy. Yes, the names might change, but the middleman will remain, for every Sony BMG or EMI that falls by the wayside, there's an Apple or Google to take their place, and given those organisations' track record (see what I did there?), not necessarily a better middleman.

 

[ECA]

It sounds like you're agreeing with me that the traditional record company is a dead concept and they're being replaced by other organisations rather than disagreeing with me?

 

[Scouse]

My issue with simply stealing stuff is that it actually makes the moral argument for a crackdown much easier for the establishment to justify, and that's what's happening.

My issue with simply buying stuff is that it makes "them" money.

Crackdown or no, if you pay them, they will continue to exist.

 

[DaGaffer]

My issue with simply buying stuff is that it makes "them" money.

Crackdown or no, if you pay them, they will continue to exist.

Fine. But to make the moral case you have to stop consuming music as well. You can't stand up and be counted if you continue to use the product.

 

[Raven]

There are plenty of bands out there who produce their own stuff and have it available online, or by mail order. They are just not marketed or advertised. What we really need is more free internet radio stations that broadcast their music and tell you where you can get it from, or even with their own online market place.

As for piracy, it is at the end of the day another form of stealing for the most part. While there are plenty of arguments for and against it and regardless of the ethics, you are still getting something for free that should cost you money and the relevant industries will try to recoup that lost revenue.

I only pirate TV shows these days as I think they are being really lazy with their broadcasting and distribution methods. Though I do pay for a sky HD subscription so I have no guilt whatsoever, very little of what I download is not broadcast on sky at some point so nobody is losing any money. The adverts would still be churned out whether I watched a downloaded copy or the copy I recorded on sky, I fast forward through the breaks anyway.

 

[DaGaffer]

It sounds like you're agreeing with me that the traditional record company is a dead concept and they're being replaced by other organisations rather than disagreeing with me?

Yes and no. It all depends how you define "record company". EMI are really the only one of the big four who you could still call a "record company". The others are all part of multi-media behemoths with extended stakes up and down (and across) the value chain, so no, I don't really see them disappearing. But my point was really that digital distribution doesn't change anything in of itself; record companies can continue to exist, like any middleman does, if they add value, and who gets what in the value chain is and will continue to change; but I think its desperately naive to think that somehow online means artists will magically get the lion's share of the pie. Some will, if they're savvy and/or already famous, but most artists will be no better off in the digital utopia of the future than they are now, no matter who's slicing up the cake, and most will probably be worse off. You can see it in other media; writers used to love Amazon, they're not so keen these days as they've seen Amazon take increasing control of the value chain.

 

[Scouse]

Fine. But to make the moral case you have to stop consuming music as well. You can't stand up and be counted if you continue to use the product.

I disagree here too. Life isn't worth living without access to stuff like music. I think it's enough to make an economic statement - people shouldn't have to self-mutilate to get their point across.

Although it's tempting to agree with you, I think your view may be discounting very large parts of human nature.

I hate Tescos. But I still shop there occasionally. If it makes me a hypocrite then fine - all humans are.

Saying people have to be on some biblical-style "moral high ground" before their reasonable objections are taken seriously is setting the bar far too high IMHO.

 

[DaGaffer]

I disagree here too. Life isn't worth living without access to stuff like music. I think it's enough to make an economic statement - people shouldn't have to self-mutilate to get their point across.

Although it's tempting to agree with you, I think your view may be discounting very large parts of human nature.

I hate Tescos. But I still shop there occasionally. If it makes me a hypocrite then fine - all humans are.

Saying people have to be on some biblical-style "moral high ground" before their reasonable objections are taken seriously is setting the bar far too high IMHO.

Its self-evident that it isn't enough to make an "economic statement" (maybe shoplifters can use that defence, "I wasn't stealing Your Honour, I was making an economic statement" ) because it makes the argument that current copyright is "wrong" ambiguous at best.

So long as people continue to consume music, its extremely difficult to argue that a. its crap, and b. it has no value. If you're consuming it, music has some intrinsic worth, and everything else is just bargaining.

Its only if everyone who genuinely believed there is some kind of intrinsic wrongness about the way the music industry is set up, refused to participate, at all, that you could make an unambiguous, no arguments statement that things have to change. Even if everyone stopped buying, stop pirating, stopped listening, for a day; it would change everything. But the truth is, hardly anyone gives a fuck about the artists, or the validity of copyright, and they just want free shit and the latest gossip on how high Simon Cowell is wearing his trousers.

Life isn't worth living without access to stuff like music.

If you want a revolution, you have to make sacrifices. If you don't want to make sacrifices, shut up and pay up.

PS. I do boycott Tescos.

 

[Wazzerphuk]

But the truth is, hardly anyone gives a fuck about the artists, or the validity of copyright, and they just want free shit and the latest gossip on how high Simon Cowell is wearing his trousers.



If you want a revolution, you have to make sacrifices. If you don't want to make sacrifices, shut up and pay up.

PS. I do boycott Tescos.

Your argument is invalid and out of date. Simon Cowell hasn't worn high trousers in years.



Love the self-satisfied smugness of that last comment though.

 

[DaGaffer]

Your argument is invalid and out of date. Simon Cowell hasn't worn high trousers in years.

The fact that you know that proves my point...

Love the self-satisfied smugness of that last comment though.

Do I feel self-satisfied about boycotting Tescos? Guilty. Am I smug about it? Well I wasn't, but I am now that I know Scouse can't manage it

 

[Scouse]

DaGaffer, yes - if everyone was well-educated and principled then we'd live in utopia.

They aren't and we don't.


How about this?: So long as there are some people who burn fossil fuels, it's not worth doing anything to save the environment.


/nail /head /ON!

 

[ECA]

Another thing that irks me is the argument that pirated stuff = money lost on a 1:1 ratio or when file sharing like a 20:1 ratio using the argument they shared it with others.


If people can't afford music then that conversion rate is completely false.
Same w/ films.

I'm not going to spend £200/mo on films/music - the best films/music will get my money - the rest I wouldn't pay for anyway, if file sharing is shut down I won't spend any more money on music. What file sharing does is direct my money to the better quality content and helps me support the better film makers and music makers.

It's like radio - how the fuck did the parasites convince anyone that radio stations should pay royalties? Without them the music industry would sell far far less - it's a symbiotic relationship - harming them ( by making them play more adverts etc ) hurts them by reducing listener numbers ( local radio is ad infested shit as a result of it ).