Slashdot Mirror
Ireland's Largest ISP Settles With Record Industry
An anonymous reader writes "In what has been billed as a world first, four music companies and Irish ISP Eircom have agreed to work together to end illegal music downloading. The Irish branches of the record companies (EMI Records Ltd, Sony BMG Music Entertainment Ltd, Universal Music Ltd and Warner Music Ltd.) brought a High Court action against Eircom last March which has resulted in this settlement after eight days of trial. Eircom will be implementing a three-step process — informing a subscriber that their IP address has been detected infringing copyright; warning the subscriber that if they do not stop they will be disconnected; and finally disconnecting the user if they fail to heed the warning. Which technology they will be using to spy on their customers is currently unknown. EMI and the other record companies have recommended US-based Audible Magic, which (among other things) claims to block copyright violating web content from sites like Youtube and MySpace. However, digital surveillance is nothing new in Ireland and Eircom may have already tested and implemented the necessary technologies."
Dear Ireland: google "Freenet"
Since they probably will go disconnecting people very soon. And that will end up getting another ISP to get connected again.
I wonder how people would react if the postal service were allowed to hold envelopes up to a light, say "theres a CD in there which could have illegally copied copyrighted data on it!" and then after doing that 3 times, stop all mail to your house without having to provide any actual evidence or give you a chance to prove your innocence.
I mean, it's understandable to block pirated songs from p2p networks, but c'mon. Youtube!?!?
Whatever happened to free culture on the internet?
informing a subscriber that their IP address has been detected infringing copyright; warning the subscriber that if they do not stop they will be disconnected; and finally disconnecting the user if they fail to heed the warning.
There seems to be a distinct lack of understanding of this simple concept:
The person paying the subscription is not always the one infringing copyright.
The disappearing pencil trick. Let me show you it.
I wonder if it will detect the songs in ads and automagically block their servers for us.
Nevermind. Ad agencies will get access around the filter after they have paid up.
After years of dicking around and holding back the broadband rollout in Ireland so they could squeeze every extra penny out of people stuck with dial up they immediately roll over for the content companies and decide to screw over their customers again.
I am very glad I switched away from eircom years ago. The main problem though is that they control all the actual physical lines and others have to lease bandwidth so I can see them quite happily using this shit as a stick to beat their competitors.
Slashdot: Proof that a million monkeys at a million typewriters can create a masterpiece
They don't censor stuff, and you have a few hundred different companies to choose from.
There's also satellite internet.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Why, that's easy! You just filter every mp... no, won't work, wait... you need to disallow bitt... no sorry, let me try again, all you have to do is, at the network level.. hm, well, they should just outlaw illegal music downloading! Or downloading in general?
But it will probably be annoying for a while, for a lot of people.
And then, every other country will have the response ready in case it happens.
€ir$cum? i told their sales people where to stick it many years ago, UPC 20mbit cable with no caps is much faster and reliable and none of this nonsense
It's a good thing that Irish computers never get infected with spyware, worms, or viruses, or such that could relay a music download. It's nice to know that everyone's wireless access points are so secure that nobody could hijack them. Wow! We could learn a thing or two about computer security from the Irish.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
They will also send out the SWAT team if you take a bar of soap from a hotel.
How about blacklisting all of Ireland such that they can't access Internet sites? Even better would be to get the IP addresses of all of the RIAA members and prevent their access as well.
Fun, fun, happy fun if a botnet decides to move a file around that triggers the filter.
How to disconnect 1/8th of a country.
Watch how fast https becomes ubiquitous. When everyone is encrypting everything, the RIAA will be utterly powerless.
As they already are when it comes to any encrypted connection to any number of swarms or usenet servers.
I hope you're right. The fact the Eircom rolled-over in just 8 days demonstrates that these companies have no interest in protecting our rights. For them it's all about the money, and they obviously took the cheapest route of not fighting.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Good thing then that their wireless passwords for the routers they give out are easy to crack
http://taint.org/2007/10/01/185837a.html
It'd put a pretty big crimp in Netflix's business model. I suppose you could say it would be an attempt to close the "snailmail" hole in the law.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
"Eircom is pleased with the settlement as it does not have to add software to its network, which could interfere with the broadband service. It also doesnâ(TM)t run the risk of running foul of privacy laws by having to provide details of its subscribers to the music industry."
"As part of the settlement, the record companies will supply Eircom with the IP addresses of all persons who they detect illegally uploading or downloading copyright works."
"Other ISPs contacted by The Irish Times last night could not confirm if they would implement the system. A spokeswoman for 3 Ireland, which has 130,000 mobile broadband customers, said it would be âoehappy to look into the matterâ."
The main problem here is that eircom has the local loop and provides the connectivity for all the land line based ISPs in Eire. How will this interfere with the other ISPs?
As for commodore64_love's advice of using dial-up, there are fewer dial-up ISPs here than broadband and once again there's the problem of going via shitty old eircom.
The thing with the RIAA, MPAA, and others, is that they are always behind the curve with technology, business models and ethics. (ha ha) I wonder what will happen to my internet connection when it's all encrypted, will they make that illegal too? Who does the Internet belong to? Us or Them.
At some point, if we let them, the Internet will be price tiered, monitored, and filtered to the point of uselessness.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
I'm gonna laugh when they go out of business from disconnecting a large share of their customers. I suppose they deserve it though.
IMAGE VERIFICATION IS EVIL!
Maybe initiatives such as these increase the audience's awareness of anonymous P2P.
That would be not completely unfunny.
It doesn't take that long to download Enya's entire catalogue!!!
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing. Emo Philips
... and I will continue to claim that until someone can point me to a court decision to the contrary.
Unlike most media nowadays, even TFA doesn't say anything about illegal downloads, but uses the terms "file swapping" and "file sharing", which although imprecise at least correctly describe what the people are actually being sued for. Kudos to arstechnica for getting it right. Slashdot editors, I'm disappointed.
The fact the Eircom rolled-over in just 8 days demonstrates that these companies have no interest in protecting our rights. For them it's all about the money
Of course it is. It is not a company's job to protect your rights. A company's main purpose is to make money for its shareholders.
Laws are what are supposed to protect your rights, because that company has to operate within the law. If the company's actions are an abuse, then the law should be changed (or enforced) so that this does not happen.
Of course, I'm assuming you were referring to legitimate privacy rights here, not to a non-existent right to download material in breach of copyright.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
And in another first, customers dump these ISPs(ATT et al) for those that don't tattle on customers. Oh wait, In the US, this is the wrong generation. The don't help rabble-rousers. They take video of security tackling the offender and post it on You Tube.
yeah, I was just thinking about that. I can get onto two out of three eircom networks I pick up at home. Now I just have to figure out which one is the noisy asshole next door.
if it's not "sue your custumers" it's "kick your custumers away"?
nice business plan!
In a recent statement from the RIAA public relations VP, ....On behalf of our member companies, and associated groups across the globe, we would like to say to the people of the world:
We're sorry, we accidentally the whole Internet.
We would particularly like to apologize to people who live in those parts of the world where it is likely easy to shoot at our executives and not be caught. Sweden, we're still not happy with you.
Moving forward, we promise to only prosecute those individuals who admit to downloading content they don't plan to pay for at some future date. Beginning Monday, we're going to turn the Internet back on. Please tell your friends and family as we know some of them will not have gotten the news without an Internet connection.
Peace
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
1. Setup some fake files with dummy recording of noise using filenames that would trigger their stupid bots.
2. Wait until your disconnected from your ISP.
3. Take them to court.
4. Profit.
-Unresolved symbol? Byte me!
Think about it. The ISP is saying they are responsible for the content on their network. Now you can sue your ISP for wasting your resources on SPAM (especially all the illegal stuff).
Or anything else like if your underage kid views porn. Oops, ISP you should have blocked that!
Or somebody posts untrue comments about you in a forum from one of these ISP's. Forget about trying to find the person doing it, that's expensive and hard. Just sue the ISP into the ground!
(same goes for Comcast and all those other companies that signed up to monitor their network; they can kiss their neutrality goodbye because now they are liable!)
...go buy the CD.
Sorry, people, but the facts are these:
1. If you're downloading music for free because it's not worth the money being asked for it, then you're either listening to the crappy music and/or not hunting down the best prices for your CDs.
2. Paying £10 for a classic album that might well stay with you for 50+ years of your life seems pretty good value for me. (Hell, I bought Led Zeppelin 4 on vinyl, tape & CD over the past 30-odd years & it's still worth every penny for the amount of times I get enjoyment from it).
3. Don't equate hoarding music to loving music - there's a big difference & the former is usually done by young males with small penises out to impress girls with 20,000 tracks on their iWanks^H^H^H^H^HPods.
4. So a particular CD only has 2 good tracks on it? Soution: buy it second hand or wait till it's in a bargain bin. If a good CD is worth £10 then a half-good CD is worth £5 - do the maths.
5. Read reviews, listen to samples & spend time researching your music - take-away food is quick, cheap & not very good for you, neither is take-away music.
6. No I don't work for the music industry & never have done - neither to I play an instrument, sing or have ever been part of a band. But I don't mind paying money for something that's good value.
7. As a regular CD buyer, how the *HELL* do you think I feel subsidising you people with your *FREE* music collections?
Rant over.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
I moved to Ireland last week and placed an order with Eircom for broadband. After reading this story earlier today I decided to have another look around for an ISP in my area. I found one, placed an order with them and cancelled my Eircom order. It's not that I want to download copyrighted material, it's just that having a home broadband connection is just far too important to trust the "evidence" of these record companies.
Eircom probably will not disconnect most people that they are given an IP for by the record companies. They probably won't even send out letters. All they have to do, is do that where the user in question is a heavy user, and they will simulataneously keep the record companies happy, and get rid of a subscriber who is actually a burden on their network.
A small percentage, in Ireland at least, of any ISPs subscribers are heavy users. None of them need to cater for such users, and none of them want to. The only reason they've not done much up till now is lack of a mechanism for getting rid of them.
In any case, there are still alternative options for heavy users in many urban areas. At the very least, they can pay for multiple subscriptions, or extra data past cap limits for the ISPs who do now have a data cap.
-- *~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
Nah, people in Ireland are too willing to put up with crap like this. We like to complain, just to neighbours, not people that will actually do something about it.
Allied to the fact that Eircom controls all the phone lines in the country (charging over â23/$30 a month for rental), and the fact that the state of cable and wireless broadband in Ireland is a shambles; I'm not sure Eircom will have much to worry about in terms of prospective customers.
They won't be giving the record companies any private information, or indeed anything at all except presumably some bulk figures on warnings/disconnections.
-- *~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
Q: What's the difference between the RIAA and the IRA?
A: One of them used to be a bunch of terrorists.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Also the summary is incorrect. Eircom will not be doing any monitoring of users traffic. Record companies will just various means open to them to track illegal downloads over the Internet (the usual shenanigans). They then provide Eircom with IPs that they allege are infringing (I don't think Eircom has to take their word for it - they'll probably just issue warnings/disconnects on the basis of how much downloading is occurring for that IP).
-- *~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
OP here. I did some more digging around after posting this. It seems that Eircom will not be providing any additional information to the record companies as a result of this settlement. They will simply be acting as an intermediary between the companies and their own customers - issuing warnings after being provided with offending IP addresses and timestamps.
Where the record companies get these IP addresses is up to them (apparently they will be using Danish company DetecNet - the new MediaSentry). Of course the potential problem here is: what is the accused and disconnected customer's recourse if the timestamps are incorrect, or they happen to share their Internet connection with others?
This settlement seems to give the record companies a new vehicle to punish P2P users whom they catch, without having to pay lawyers. Eircom also gain because the have an excuse to disconnect heavy P2P users.
Reading Material
"Effectively, a third party will be hired by the labels to find out who are the largest illegal P2P downloaders. They will then come to us with the IP addresses of the suspected parties.
"We wonâ(TM)t reveal the identities of the users, but we will contact them and if they fail to comply we will follow the process agreed with the music industry. Currently the industry pursues these individuals in the court. We will now begin a three-step process that will begin with the issuing of a warning.
"The labels have agreed to pursue similar deals with other ISPs in the marketplace," the Eircom spokesman said.
Currently living in Ireland (but I'm not Irish). When I first heard about Eircom's router's key being based on the SSID I almost died of laughing. Good thing for me though, means free wireless almost anywhere I go. I use NTL (UPC Chello) myself, and the guy who set it up for us even activated WPA on the router, I was surprised. They don't throttle the traffic either. I hope NTL doesn't agree to this... but, AFAIK they might rent the tubes from Eircom which means NTL traffic is monitored aswell.
1. Best price = free
2. What about if I download Led Zeppelin albums? That I own in other formats already? Is that OK with you?
3. *rolleyes*
4. Isn't that what iTunes is for?
5. True... what's your point?
6. I play guitar and love learning songs based on tabs & youtube vids. Does that make me a bad person? The RIAA thinks so.
7. People still buy CDs?
Forget Freenet. Most Bittorrent clients have a checkbox in the options somewhere that routes traffic through the Tor Network. This measure is going nowhere.
May the Maths Be with you!
and I'll say it now. To stop this madness all we need to do is STOP BUYING RIAA MUSIC, force the artist to go direct.
Si vis pacem, para bellum! For evil to succeed good men need only do nothing!
If this mode of operation were to come to the U.S.A. we should hope the ACLU and EFF challenge it. Here is why:
More and more, the internet is being used as an access gateway to the government in order to participate as citizens. Removing this access without due process would certainly be actionable.
Corporations MUST NOT be allowed to be judge/jury/executioner for citizens. There must be due process and a jury of peers for any such action.
"The criminals, who you really want to capture, are the very people who will take the trouble to know how to get around this, so although they will possibly leave digital footprints, it could be extremely difficult to find them"
..
Why do the government need to spy on us to protect us from the terr'ists? Clicking here may adversly affect your employment prospects, as well making any kind of public protest
--
"Without privacy, there cannot be freedom, and without freedom, there cannot be personal or social growth, freedom of speech without freedom of response is meaningless"
davecb5620@gmail.com
Because its not as if there is any chance of some one using your average joe's default wireless router supplied by eircom other than the owner is it?? http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/02/eircom_wireless_security_flaw/
It looks like Eircom are not actually providing the record companies with any more information than they already have. They are simply providing a service to the record companies to punish copyright violators without having to use the courts.
The record companies will be continue to gather IP addresses and timestamps of copyright violators (using danish company DetecNet - the new MediaSentry), and will simply pass them on to Eircom in the hope that Eircom will act on it.
The potential problem here is what recourse do Eircom customers have if they are falsely accused due to incorrect timestamps or the fact that their Eircom wireless router is still so easy to hack? At the moment, the transparency of the whole process is minimal.
Reading material...
A spokesman for Eircom explained to siliconrepublic.com that the collaboration with the labels will not involve any network intervention. âoeEffectively, a third party will be hired by the labels to find out who are the largest illegal P2P downloaders. They will then come to us with the IP addresses of the suspected parties.
âoeWe wonâ(TM)t reveal the identities of the users, but we will contact them and if they fail to comply we will follow the process agreed with the music industry. Currently the industry pursues these individuals in the court. We will now begin a three-step process that will begin with the issuing of a warning.
âoeThe labels have agreed to pursue similar deals with other ISPs in the marketplace,â the Eircom spokesman said.
So find out who is a user, hook up to their AP, download some songs and watch the ISPs drown in support calls because they disconnect innocent people.
It could serve multiple purposes. First, it teaches ISPs that collaboration with the MAFIAA (or its respective European counterparts) costs money, and while they may not care about customers, they care about money. Second, it costs the ISPs that bend over and ask for one more whack customers. "Good" customers, i.e. customers that don't use a lot of bandwidth. And finally, when appearantly "everyone" breaks copyright laws, lawmakers might reconsider their position towards them. You don't want to have the whole population against you, not even in a mock democracy.
I'm usually actually for copyright laws. But I'm even more for a balance of the rights between buyer and seller.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Actually, it's not the cheapest route, as long as there's competition, or the prospect of competition.
If you completely upset your client, and they have somewhere to go, then they'll go.
If you upset enough people, then even more will go, as they'll anticipate that you'll do bad things and few will take their place (as you're known to be 'bad') from the available market of people looking for your product.
Oh, and you'll also have to pay for the policing action that upsets your clients too.
Net effect, you have to pay for something that could feasibly vastly reduce your client base (net effect expensive and detrimental to your core business), rather than have another company go through the standard legal progression that applies to the rest of the world (net result, cheap to you, and a way to keep your client base feeling happier).
I see where you're coming from, but I don't see where 'cheap' comes from.
recently a similar rule is being discussed in Turkey. However instead of "just" disconnecting the users, this law allow the goverment to charge the downloader, even imprison him if the download is too high...
Of course, I'm assuming you were referring to legitimate privacy rights here, not to a non-existent right to download material in breach of copyright.
The right to act in any way which does not cause harm to others is far more substantial than any so-called "privacy right", recent attempts to undermine real rights in favor of exclusive copyright privileges notwithstanding.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
Anonymous Brave Guy wrote: ....
Laws are what are supposed to protect your rights
----
True! You could also mention that compared to the nature of U.S. government, Ireland's form of government is relatively democratic. For one thing, they don't equate money with freedom of speech.
In my experience there is a small, but significant, number of people in the U.S.that are naive enough to look to the U.S. Supreme court to defend the peoples "rights." That is not all that different from believing that the Communist party in the USSR would create a workers paradise.
I_Voter
When U.S. "republicans" claim that the U.S. is not a democracy they make a good point, but they always fail to mention that our people's "republic" apparently died about a 100 years ago!
The Constitutional Relationship Between the People and the Law
"If this mode of operation were to come to the U.S.A. we should hope the ACLU and EFF challenge it"
I suspect you are correct as I suspect the real push for this all engulfing state surveillance apparatus is coming also from the US. You see in the interests of protecting the Core, our little democracy will have to be sacrificed.
davecb5620@gmail.com
It'll be a clusterfuck, just be happy that most other countries will be able to point to "what happened in Ireland" as a precedent.
ie. An ISP which caved in to the RIAAs demands will lose a bunch of paying customers but P2P will continue unabated.
Bottom line: P2P is a Hydra.
No sig today...
Ah I see. so if you pirate all your digital entertainment from now until the end of time, and everyone acts like you, there will be fuck-all impact on the jobs of people working that industry and thus it doesn't affect anyone?
Or do you only care if your actions affect people you know personally?
Nice attitude.
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
Maybe in most countries, but this is Ireland where choice is a foreign concept. Most of the country has no access to any other ISP than Eircom. Eircom owns the entire phone network in the country and all other DSL providers (Except BT in some areas) resell Eircom's package. Cable Internet is only available in a few areas. There really is no alternatives to Eircom for almost everyone.
In 1909? That's an odd year to pick. Care to expand?
maybe they are just ok with limiting their market demographic to those people who dont pirate.
its not really a bad bet - since they can save themselves on all the lawsuits and what not. if i were them, i would just have a lot of 'problems' with the sniffer - that way they can just pretend their customers arent doing anything wrong
The right to act in any way which does not cause harm to others
No harm to others? You are taking advantage of the fact that some people do pay in order to get something for free for yourself. You have failed the back-of-an-envelope ethics test: if everyone acted according to the principles you choose, would the world be a better place?
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Despite being privatised for nearly 10 years, Eircom still has an ethos that is basically semi-state.
They haven't the entrepreneurial balls to stand up for themselves which is why they have been a follower rather than a leader for their entire existence, even though the deck was always stacked in their favour (i.e. owning the infrastructure).
This is just another example of them rolling over for fear of making a stand. This will get interesting when the other ISPs get involved.
Genesis 1:32 And God typed
Since even both WPA and WEP passwords can be derrived from the network name with a default eircom reuter setup. They never even contacted all those people with such devices to tell them to change their passwords. Paradise for anyone who wants free wireless.
Very few actions actually pass that test.
Laws are what are supposed to protect your rights, because that company has to operate within the law.
Oh really? Tell that to Enron.
Really? Keep your word. Swap a fair day's work for a fair day's pay. Look after those you love. Never stop learning. Do unto others as you would have done unto you. Be polite. Is it so hard to think of honest, decent behaviour these days? That's very sad.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Ah I see. so if you pirate all your digital entertainment from now until the end of time, and everyone acts like you, there will be fuck-all impact on the jobs of people working that industry and thus it doesn't affect anyone?
Ah johnny-one-note is back.
If that were truly going to happen, then the industry would adapt one way or another. By your own words, any change in markets that results in destruction of some players and the creation of others is to be avoided because of the "fuck-all impact on the jobs of people working that industry." Look how well that worked out for american auto manufacturers, tobacco farmers and dialup modem manufacturers, just to name a handful out of thousands.
Please don't even bother to claim ignorance of alternative business models, deliberate ignorance is no argument at all.
Which is why the "people" should hit them where it hurts...stop buying music...Stop it...completely...no music purchase means no budget for combatting piracy...no music companies...no problem. I say that we need to organise, online, a mass protest...For 2 months (or more), agree to not purchase music...make it a cult...hit it where it hurts...their bottom line...Start buying music from the artist rather than the industry...
When all is said and done, nothing changes...
Wow, cliffski, I think piracy is actually starting to have an affect on your brain. That's not what the parent said at all. If copyright were removed it doesn't mean that we all just run around taking everything for free. IP is NOT a basic human right. I'm sure if people like your games then they are going to support you. There doesn't need to be threats of being disconnected from the rest of the world for them to do that. Well, unless your games are terrible and you mainly earn money by marketing them really well. I'm not saying you do that. I'm under the impression that you think your games are good, or at least better than mainstream crap. Well, people will pay you to keep making them whether they are forced to do so or not.
I can only imagine that piracy will continue to get much, much easier. You need to stop worrying about pirates or think of them as "underserved customers" or whatever. Otherwise you might spend the rest of your life very unhappy for no reason. You gained a lot of credit for asking pirates why they do it. You've pretty much thrown that away. Every time I see a post like this I literally say "cliffski again!" out loud. I'm guessing many people pirate your stuff just to annoy you now.
Clovis
^ Clovis, look! It's that guy you are!
So if I setup my music as an archive with a funny name how the hello can their software detect that I am sharing their crappy music?
Or are they just assuming if I share files on any protocol I should be fined or arrested?
Pretty stupid, but it at least makes it harder for the computer dunces to do what any semi-literate computer user could figure out. File aliases and cryptic file names correlated to a series of indexing servers should fix the problem. Better yet, why not have just the search engine shared via bit-torrent or kaz that correlated to cryptic files that are downloaded via multiple ports and file sharing platforms. Hell even over port 80 or 443?
Just a thought.
It is an ongoing process and some issues like jury nullification had original constitutional protection, and others are simply state laws. Some like the Senate filibuster are purely administrative. Almost all were started after 1880.
I would only include issues that I believe weaken the traditional political power of the average U.S. citizen. It is not something that everyone would agree on. One exception that should be memtioned is that the history of popular sovereignty in the U.S. does show an ever increasing franchise, although with a continued erosion of the power of that franchise To put it another way, the franchised citizenry as a group has far less political power relative to the government today than they would have had prior to in say 1880 or earlier.
If it had been dramatic change it would be better known. It's not something that has a specific date.
The following web site contains some additional information. Other issues like effective "corporate personhood," or judicial interpretations of "money as freedom of speech" I am less familiar with.
Political Power in the U.S.
Is it so hard to think of honest, decent behaviour these days?
You don't leave the basement much, do you?
We were discussing rights, not ethics or morals. If you want to discuss ethics, however, then I would pose a similar same question: how does legitimizing a coercive response (loss of life, liberty, or use of property) to a non-coercive action (copyright infringement) make the world a better place? From my point of view, it doesn't appear that the resulting widespread escalation of violence could possibly be in anyone's best interest.
You can choose to approve or disapprove of freeloading according to your own subjective tastes. It is an objective fact, however, that freeloading--in the form of copyright infringement--causes no harm to others: it does not violate anyone's right to life or liberty, or does it deprive anyone of the use of their property. The same cannot be said of copyright enforcement.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
Problem solved.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
You are close, its more like the Post Office reading your postcards, which are 'wide open'.
if we encrypt, then your analogy is more accurate.
Btw, If you send CD's overseas they can do just that. Except they come to arrest you instead of cutting off your mail
---- Booth was a patriot ----
We were discussing rights, not ethics or morals.
There are really only two kinds of rights: moral/ethical ones that we believe people should have, and legal ones that we use to codify those decisions. Since you are objectively wrong on the legal rights issue, I assumed we were talking about the others. (The only other useful definition I know is the classic one: the only rights you truly have are those you are prepared to die defending, since ultimately anything else can be taken from you.)
In any case, you seem to have already made up your own mind about copyright and rationalised your choice to ignore it, so I don't think it's worth trying to convince you of anything different. Maybe I'll just move into your living room until you get the point, since that is also a non-coercive action.
It is an objective fact, however, that freeloading--in the form of copyright infringement--causes no harm to others: it does not violate anyone's right to life or liberty, or does it deprive anyone of the use of their property.
But that's just the thing: it's not objective at all, because if everyone did as you describe, it would deprive society of a great deal of value, because the dominant incentive for artists to create and share new works would be removed. Freeloading in such a situation pretty much implies that the freeloader is either ignorant or sociopathic, and neither is a positive trait.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
OP you're a muppet. There is no spying by the ISP. They simply deal with the owners of the IPs provided to them by the music labels or their contractors.
Please don't even bother to claim ignorance of alternative business models, deliberate ignorance is no argument at all.
This is how I see the argument:
As far as I can see, unless you dispute any of those propositions, Cliff's argument is pretty much right on the money. So which of those four simple statements do you think is not true?
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
IP is NOT a basic human right.
Neither is having access to professional quality games that someone worked hard to produce.
Well, people will pay you to keep making them whether they are forced to do so or not.
Some people will. Most people won't. Unfortunately, there is ample evidence that most people simply aren't that generous. Perhaps if we had a dramatic culture shift, so that in our society everything from copyright to taxation went away and people had to learn that it is important to support things you value... Perhaps then your idea would work, and it might even be a nicer world than we live in today.
But we don't live in that world, and I defy you to produce any meaningful evidence that suggests making those games would still be financially viable under your system. Even the high profile experiments by a few musicicians recently — all of whom have had a huge profile already, paid for by the system we're talking about — haven't exactly shown humanity collectively to be a kind and generous race.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
from being downloaded - period? Then they do not have to play sheriff for the recording industry. Screw the RIAA and MPAA into forcing other industries to be their lapdog for their minuscule industry. There is nothing that says the RIAA and MPAA have the right to deliver their content on the internet. The scope of their "power" is unprecedented for how small they are. What is the source of this "power"?
What kind of candy coated world do you live in? Can I be in your gang?
it is better to disconnect than have them prosecuted don't you think?
If we follow your schoolyard logic, All the people downloading Windows and Office and Visual Studio illegally would switch to linux and openoffice if they couldn't get it for free anymore?
Obviously not, Because the reality is people pirate because they can, because its easy, and because they can get away with it.*
And all the fools trying to justify piracy with "try before I buy" are wrong too. They all fall in the same category as someone robbing a grocery store. They are all thieves. Incidentally they wont have the balls to rob a store selling audio CD's but find it easy to justify downloading it for free online.
Finally the law is being enforced. Even though the RIAA seems (to the uninformed) to be using the justice system as their own collection agency, it will hopefully result in putting the dopes who pirate in order%.
I sincerely hope Comcast and AT&T support RIAA. It looks like they will. I'm going to call them and show my support that I do care about IP and I do care when honest musicians get their creative material stolen. Although seeing how much the recording industry actually pays the artists, one could argue that they don't benefit much, but its greater than zero. And that's no justification for piracy either. Just because something is unfair, stealing it doesn't make it right.
--
* This doesnt cover every person and scenario.
% Obviously they have fucked up along the way - suing dead people, disabled people, kids, etc. That in NO WAY justifies the act of stealing for the rest of the pirates.
And what will happen to record sales?
Whom will the RIAA (i.e., its equivalent) point the finger at when record sales plummet? Certainly not themselves for not embracing try-before-you-buy methods of sales. Why are they (the big labels) continually fighting P2P sharing when it has been shown in study after study (including their own studies) that P2P users purchase more "legal" CDs than average consumers? WHY are they still fighting P2P usage, other than to try to maintain control over whom listens to what through payola, so they can get away with manufacturing 6 to 10 mega-pop stars a year by buying airtime and buying their way onto sales charts, rather than doing what anyone else in any other industry does and take risks on quality and talent?
I for one am anxiously awaiting the implosion of the big labels. Once that happens (and that day is coming) I'll start listening to pop radio again, and start buying CDs by new acts. Until then, I'll just avoid temptation by sticking to talk radio, classical, and classic rock.
Where I am concerned they have largely lost me as a customer. During the height of napster I purchased more CDs than I did in the entire 13 previous years I owned CD players. When the RIAA started suing their customer base (people like me) who spend a lot of money on music, I quit listening to new music cold turkey. If they want to sue people who actually are VERY interested in exploring and buying their product (back catalog and current material) then fuck them - if they don't need me, I don't need them. I can be happy with the hundreds of CDs and scores of LPs that I already have. What little I do buy is new releases by my favorite acts, indie bands, or based on recommendations of my favorite acts. If the RIAA is not interested in retaining me as their customer, then I am not interested in listening to any new material from them. Period.
If it weren't for napster, I'd never have discovered Herb Alpert. I'd never have given Garth Brooks a moment to listen to. Etc. I discovered a lot of music in a lot of genres I really enjoy and had to go out in purchase (occasionally going into work late to do so, on the way to work) but ever since the suits started, I have spent my entertainment budget on DVDs. The RIAA does not get my money, aside from their tiny slice of the budget of movies I purchase.
If the MPAA gets as bad as the RIAA I don't know what I'll do - maybe I'll get back into PC gaming or buy a console.
Lesson yet to be learned by the RIAA: don't bite the hand that feeds you.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Ahh, you must have missed the discussion on your logic yesterday.
Here... 45% of Dutch Media-Buying Population Are "Pirates"
Additionally, any "crime" which doesn't violate the non-aggression axiom, is not a real crime. You can argue it in terms of this, but you can not say it on it's own.
This is my footer. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Or do you only care if your actions affect people you know personally?
I don't have the resources to worry about everyone else all the time. Charity begins at home
The Tao that can be named is not the Tao
Your bullet points don't really make any argument.
Also, see World Of Goo.
Don't point that gun at him, he's an unpaid intern!
i mean that do they have any clue how much money they will lose. first as just shown on hear they will lose people just out of spite and anger. 2end the mass amount of people they will have to disconnect will move to other isps. when will isps relies rolling over to the riaa and there dead business only lets them take you down with them. when people fought them just normal people and started to force there campaign public they ran off imagine the damage a business with a army of sharks can do.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
what?
you are saying any crime that doesn't involve aggression is not a real crime?
excuse me while I empty your bank balance then...
Oh your sig... Government in the UK stopped builders putting asebstos in schools. Surely that was a good thing? (also lead in paint).
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
http://www.google.com/search?q=acns+xml&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
For independent developers, Paypal donations are quite a viable model. Also ads revenues (onslaught comes into mind).
So your proposed alternatives are a donation model that rarely works using a business that acts like a bank but isn't subject to the usual regulations, or the increasingly ineffective model of web sites everywhere? I'm afraid those aren't terribly convincing, unless you have information I've never seen or heard of that suggests it is even plausible that these alternative models would bring in a useful income.
They feel cheated because gamers don't like the new 69.99$ price tag on games, and are migrating on the used market or waiting for end of stock discount, so companies are trying to make their business model survive using draconian drm, comprising activations and licensing reselling limits.
You're changing the subject. We're talking about a small, independent developer, whose games are much cheaper than that, and who makes a point of not using DRM and similar nonsense.
IME, copyright discussions on Slashdot usually crash around the time someone starts equating the situation of a small number of megacorps with the situation of the numerous small players in the same industry.
also, the 4 point is becoming lesser true every day: look at Crayon physics, World of Goo, and the indie section of Steam.
This is why I said "almost zero". But the fact remains that the low-end professional world produces many more games of that standard than the hobbyist community, and the high-end professional world is in a different class. A lot of people enjoy playing the games produced by those professional groups, and I don't believe that all of those people would prefer to switch to the handful of alternatives you mentioned.
for the third point, it's an universal statement, but the point is that lot of people enjoy also medium quality games, Castle Crasher is still in the top ten of the Xbox 360 Arcade games selled.
I don't dispute that, but the fact that people also enjoy other things does not negate the fact that people enjoy the kind of games currently produced under professional/copyright conditions. The latter is the relevant thing here: if people enjoy those kinds of games, then there is an argument that society benefits from having them, and therefore an argument in favour of making it commercially viable to produce them.
steam and xbox arcade may make the second point moot, as more and more game are selled for a fraction of the cost, with special week discount and so on; far from a "donation only business model" but it's still cheaper than the standard delivery chain based of 60+ price tag for games.
Once again, you're drifting off the topic. Last time I looked, I don't think any of Cliff's games were anything close to that price anyway.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Immorality and disrespect is the cause of all this and extends the impetus for corpse to infringe on freedom though not the right. The problem here is that the technology and precedents will over time extend, be misused and abused and carried over into full censorship. Many times the super rich controllers of these companies use those companies with others to further and manipulate political and social ideals usually around controlling the grotesque masses who are hideous and a nuisanceas much as a reluctant necessity to their ivory tower minds (though not so many are needed hence we have starvation and war to reduce our numers).
Legally LAWS protect no one as by law and under it you are technically just a number and have no rights whatsoever. Only legal fictions or "strawmen" can exist under law not flesh and blood beings. A flesh and blood being can however willingly or by deceit (through complicit ignorance) use their free will to choose to adjoin themselves with their legal fiction and therefore suffer it's corporate fate. The makers of law of old had far more respect for nature than we ignorant modern idiots with our gizmos all powered by electrcity which we cannot source independently. They knew there was a legal heirarchy spiritually applied and so sought to apply that.. The law makers of old originally stemmed from royal occultists and pagans. God/nature > man > law. Man cannot be held under law unless he chooses it just as god cannot be held under mans jurisdiction. Your rights are inalienable and assumed as a creation of god that no law can be applied to save by free will and the law of god: that is to be free save to infringe on anothers freedom wellbeing or property. That is why they say there is no justice in the courts only LAW because it is a babies game we need not play if we are ready to grow up as a species.
mainstream music is rubbish anyway and of the old
Music that is good the owners are mostly long gone removed by much the same minded type of people who now choose to make money off their work. The main stream music system is now Soley there to filter propagandize and control keepig out real new music and promoting the false concept
Widely that we have "arrived" and are complete as a culture while massive military and socio political changes are washing away our forefathers blood and efforts like so much nuisance stain from the laundry as the corporate world instinctively and philsophically moves us herd towards what henry Kissinger calls a new international order, that is global communism. Research it it's not a theory. Just read mainstream quotes and sources is enough to verify the fact. The media has us in a dream world we need to pay attention to the real world and what is actually happening or we are in huge trouble right now.
Look at all the little piggies
living piggie lives
You can see them out to dinner
clutching forks and knives
to
eat
their
bacon...
What kind of candy coated world do you live in?
I live in the same world as everyone else, but I think perhaps some of us see it through more forgiving eyes than others. I tend to believe that most people are basically honest and decent, though not necessarily fully aware of or considerate about the full implications of their actions. Unfortunately, I also tend to believe that the minority of less pleasant people have a disproportionate impact on others, that those who spend their lives dealing with such people tend to have an abnormally dark view of the world, and that the rules and regulations the authorities in that position may seek to create therefore tend to be unfair or unreasonably prejudiced against the honest majority.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
>>>We were discussing rights, not ethics or morals.
Okay.
Forcing artists/actors/writers to LABOR to create songs, tv shows, novels without receiving payment..... is just as wrong as forcing 1700s-era africans to LABOR to pick cotton, tobacco, corn without receiving payment. The two situations are not perfectly identical, but close enough for analogy. They are both human rights violations - Labor without pay.
Artists pay is tied to sales, and if people download rather than buy, the artists' pay dips towards zero. It's no different than if you worked 60, but only got paid 40.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
>>>"corporate personhood,"
Amendment 29 (or whatever)
Only actual human beings shall be considered "persons". No other entity except the People and the States shall have rights as defined by this Constitution.
Done.
It's ridiculous that an entity like Microsoft or GM or Peanut Corporation of America has a right to free speech, to donate to politicians, et cetera, while the workers underneath have to keep silent and watch their wages get cut to support the donation. It's a bit like saying the Lord of the Manor can donate to the U.S. Congress, while he treats the people underneath him like serfs. Such non-democratic, non-republican entities should not have any say in the government.
Corporations should be kept silent. Let the workers be the lobbyists & donaters.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
thanks for this voice of reason if people bothered reading the articles they would realise that the ISP in question will only release the details of a customer when the company requesting the information has legitimate evidence that the customer has been illeagly downloading - in Europe the dutch courts have set a precedent that uploading is illeagle not downloading for a music company to legitimatly say you have uploaded there trackers would need to receive 100% of the file - now look up the way torrents work and I think you'll see why this ISP isn't selling out it's customers - but most of you whingers are too lazy too read something this far so there's no hope of you knowing why this court case is practically meaningless ! second of all the ISP has stated that they will give customers 3 warnings and on the 3rd warning disconnect and give the details to the music company - but again the whingers are probably too lazy to finish an article Brave guy thanks alot for your rational thinking :)
The right to act in any way which does not cause harm to others
No harm to others? You are taking advantage of the fact that some people do pay in order to get something for free for yourself. You have failed the back-of-an-envelope ethics test: if everyone acted according to the principles you choose, would the world be a better place?
Let's try it for my principles: "Everybody both buy some media when that's convenient and download some media without giving compensation when that's convenient" vs "Everybody only buy media". Yeah, I think that would work fine - it means that people have more media available, at no extra cost, while there still is some money funneled to media production.
Yeah, that works fine.
OK, let's try it for some more radical principles: "Everybody download entertainment whenever they have the chance, and only pay for entertainment if that gives an extra level to the experience that is worth the cost."
This means that income from movies and music needs to come from the box office, advertisements, and live shows. It means that in addition to YouTube and advertisement funded non-movie programming on television, movies in the cinemas need to compete with downloaded movies.
It would probably decrease the amount of effort society push into creating this form of entertainment - in other words, the budget for producing movies would go down - but is really Spider Man III ($258M budget) that much more rewarding to society than e.g. Sin City ($4M budget) or E.T. ($10.5M budget)? Or, if we're going to go for the really low budget - couldn't we really live well with Clerks ($27,000) and El Mariachi ($7,000)? Isn't it possible that we actually would have a *better* society if the extra $258 million had gone into making other things than "better" entertainment?
For the case where movies made less money - as demonstrated above, we could actually get fairly decent movies (Clerks) for 1/10000 as much as we pay today - there's one cheap way of producing movies that would increase: Recording theater productions, where people would pay to see the live performance and then the recordings would be distributed for free to attract viewers. Going to the theater is a quite different experience than watching a movie, after all.
And - if the net result was that society spent less time watching movies and listening to recorded music and spent more time doing other things - I'm not sure that wouldn't be an improvement. The functioning of the market assumes perfect information and perfectly rational actors; we don't have either. We have people running a bunch of heuristics - and if the research is right, the people that watch the most movies aren't the happiest.