Slashdot Mirror


Music Industry Sues Irish Government For Piracy

bs0d3 writes "The music industry has initiated a lawsuit against the Irish government for not having blocking laws on the books; on the theory that if blocking laws were in place then filesharing would go away. On Tuesday the music industry issued a plenary summons against the Irish government which is the first step towards making this litigation possible. This all began in October 2010 (EMI v. UPC), when an Irish judge ruled that Irish law did not permit an order to be made against an ISP requiring blocking of websites. Recently several ISPs across the European Union have been ordered by courts to block thepiratebay.org through legal maneuvers."

97 of 341 comments (clear)

  1. The Irish, being a compliant group... by Kenja · · Score: 5, Funny

    The Irish, being a compliant group, will no doubt capitulate without a fight.

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    1. Re:The Irish, being a compliant group... by Wowsers · · Score: 4, Interesting

      They could counter-sue the music industry for running an illegal cartel.

      But more likely, based on how things in Ireland work when it comes to votes on the European Union, they could be thrown a token few million here and there, and a law will be passed. They are an easy nation to bribe.

      --
      Take Nobody's Word For It.
    2. Re:The Irish, being a compliant group... by bky1701 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Waiting for a Wolfe Tones song about the valiant IRA fight against EMI.

      It's funny because it will happen...

    3. Re:The Irish, being a compliant group... by bky1701 · · Score: 3, Funny

      For those who do not believe me...

      Rock On Rockall - this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockall
      Hands up Trousers Down
      The Helicopter Song - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Mountjoy_Prison_helicopter_escape
      Fenian Record Player

      If anything, the music industry should probably be more afraid of Irish music than of the Irish government!

    4. Re:The Irish, being a compliant group... by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Why not? The Irish capitulated to its private banks without a fight, agreeing to pay all those (largely foreign, largely British) bankers' stupid debts with their taxes for the rest of their lives, sending the Irish people back into the depths of the world's poorest.

      Why wouldn't a new rapist like the "music" business see Ireland's government waving its tattered ass and jump to take its turn? There's still something left to steal, so no time to waste.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    5. Re:The Irish, being a compliant group... by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Nice hope. But since Bono and U2 moved their music business offshore from Ireland to avoid paying taxes to the country he says produced him (and of course it did), there's no chance. Bono is the music industry, including the bloodsucking evil part.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    6. Re:The Irish, being a compliant group... by Eraesr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Wait, I find this to be a bit of a mindfuck.
      The Irish government creates laws. Judges are there to judge if things are done in compliance with the law. If there's no law against file sharing then the judge couldn't ever judge file sharing to be unlawful, could he? What do they expect from the judge other than him saying "you are right, there are indeed no laws against this. Now what?"

    7. Re:The Irish, being a compliant group... by orasio · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What baffles me the most is that "the music industry" is a supranational entity.
      It's not "the US music industry association", or "the Irish music industry cartel", or something like that.
      There is a supranational entity, named "the music industry", and it is both big and concrete enough to sue a country that doesn't play for 'its' interests.
      That is a lost battle, that there is a cartel that, in our heads, represents the whole "music industry" of the world, and speaks for all the people related to music.
      What they do with that power is also important, of course, but the fact that they detent it is an issue itself.

    8. Re:The Irish, being a compliant group... by WOOFYGOOFY · · Score: 2, Informative
      Eh tax ex pats didn't start with Bono, it goes back to The Stones and the Beatles? not sure on that one...

      Anyway, we mod Bono and U2 up because of what they then DID with that money. Instead of turning it into blow and snorting it up their noses like your average CEO, they actually used it to do GOOD in this world.

      Not in Ireland myself, but if I were I also might know about some good U2 has done for causes in that country also.

      Some people think U2 is sanctimonious, I get that, but I just have to give people credit for the good acts they actually engage in and U2 has a long list of those indeed.

      If people were as generous, as capable of thinking long term, as concerned with the general welfare of the world as U2 was, we wouldn't need taxes or very many laws for that matter.

      Men aren't angels, thus, government.

      But I never see the point of going after those men who approximate angels to the best of any of our abilities.

      My 2 cents.

    9. Re:The Irish, being a compliant group... by larry+bagina · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Once upon a time two men wanted to get married. There was no law allowing them to get married, so they sued the (state) government. The (state) supreme court eventually decided that the lack of gay marriage violated the (state) constitution's equal protection clauses and ordered the (state) government to remedy that situation.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    10. Re:The Irish, being a compliant group... by russotto · · Score: 2

      Don't forget the Irish Governement are cheating scum, stealing taxes from other countries by basically charging half taxes on licensing revenues ie income generating from selling coypright content is only taxed at at half the rate income earned from other sources is.

      This is like complaining that Exxon is "cheating scum" because it charges less for diesel than the Sunoco across the street.

    11. Re:The Irish, being a compliant group... by WOOFYGOOFY · · Score: 2

      Except that their music is arguably as good as their good.

    12. Re:The Irish, being a compliant group... by mcgrew · · Score: 2

      What about by Flogging Molly? "We'll drink, and drink, and drink, and drink, and drink, and drink and fight!"

    13. Re:The Irish, being a compliant group... by Muros · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You speak of people demanding laws to reflect reality. The MAFIAA is demanding laws that deny reality.

  2. LOL by stanlyb · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I wonder what is next? Maybe they will put the government in jail? Or as they represent the irish people, the whole nation should go to jail? ARE THESE GUYS CRAZY?

    1. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ARE THESE GUYS CRAZY?

      They're filthy rich and entitled and want to be more of both.

    2. Re:LOL by flaming+error · · Score: 5, Funny

      > I wonder what is next?
      After suing their customers, suing a sovereign country was the next logical business move. After Ireland, they will sue the United Nations, only to learn they have less money than Ireland. So then they'll sue Portugal and Greece. Then God.

      Then they'll come back to Earth and sue their distribution chain, then their singers and songwriters, and finally, in a final act of desperate cannibalism, they'll finally sue the Master of all Piracy - Weird Al.

    3. Re:LOL by wisty · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'd like to know what else you can sue the government for. If they had the death penalty for petty theft, I bet you'd see a lot less theft. Can drug addicts sue the government for not imprisoning their dealers? Can convicted dealers sue because the government didn't imprison their clients? There's endless fun to be had!

    4. Re:LOL by mjwx · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ARE THESE GUYS CRAZY?

      If there was any doubt before now, it has been removed.

      If they weren't completely batshit insane they would have sued a government with some money.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    5. Re:LOL by EdZ · · Score: 2

      Eventually, they'll have to start suing each other for having the temerity to even consider operating in the same market.

    6. Re:LOL by niftydude · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well I know cigarette companies have been threatening to sue the Australian government because the government wants to force cigarettes to be sold in plain paper packaged boxes. It's actually been pretty interesting to follow.

      I could probably make a witty comment about the similarities between music labels and cigarette corporations, but everyone knows that they are both scum, so I won't bother.

      --
      You can never know everything, and part of what you do know will always be wrong. Perhaps even the most important part.
    7. Re:LOL by Rennt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm no friend of the tobacco lobby, but the two things are like chalk and cheese. The tobacco companies are suing because of legislation that limits freedoms. They feel they are being harmed unfairly. The music industry is suing because legislation that limits freedoms does not exist. They feel that everybody else are not being harmed unfairly enough!

    8. Re:LOL by niftydude · · Score: 2

      Well if the tobacco lobby hadn't treated their product with ammonia specifically for the purpose of making their products more addictive, then I'd feel they had a leg to stand on.

      Secretly attempting to addict people to your product is one of the most insidious attacks on freedom that there is.

      --
      You can never know everything, and part of what you do know will always be wrong. Perhaps even the most important part.
    9. Re:LOL by JosKarith · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's fair to say that the tobacco companies probably feel under continuous assault nowadays so are going to fight any legislation aimed their way. Even seemingly harmless things turn out to be the thin end of a painful wedge.
      I'm not saying that tobacco companies are innocent but it's interesting how _everybody_ feels qualified to take a swipe at them and regularly does. In the UK we often have headlines about how smokers cost the NHS huge sums - some guesstimates range as high as £5 billion. That's a huge amount of money and a serious drain on central coffers.
      Except for the fact that smokers paid (roughly) £10.5 billion in tax in the UK last year. That means for every pound they used up, they put in 2. If the government decides to not put that money into the NHS (and paying for that bill is one of the reasons they use to explain their putting up tobacco taxes every year) then it's not the smokers' fault.
      And no, I'm not a smoker, I'm an ex-smoker. I just hate lies and lazy statistics.

      --
      'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
    10. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      So you would support a ban on alcohol?
      It's a poison sold for ingestion of the general public.

      I actually would.. however, biggest difference is maybe that alcohol users don't generally force others to suffer from the poison as well. Compare to smokers who are poisoning non-smokers all the time. I can't walk thru any street in the downtown without someone poisoning themselves and me at the same time.. I, however, can walk generally without anyone trying to push alcohol down my throat. Your mileage may be different but I would expect it to be pretty close to my experience.

      p.s. if it's about becoming nanny-state that such poisons are being put out of sight.. what about the general law against killing? I mean why aren't you free to do so too ? (yes: poisoning others is killing them btw, even if death may take many tens of years to manifest)

    11. Re:LOL by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 4, Informative

      The thing about that number is that someone did an analysis of it and called it bogus because smokers on average die at a younger age and, even when you take into account the things they die from (that are often caused by smoking). this results in them costing the government less than those who live healthy lifestyles.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    12. Re:LOL by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Of course, you can sue a ham sandwich for being a ham sandwich. Dunno if you'll win - but that never stopped the "music" biz.

      If you can sue the government for not having a law, you can sue for anything. That's pure absurdity. If you can win, precisely because there is no law making something illegal, you can win anything.

      You could probably even win a suit against the government for not ruling you win.

      Obviously any legal system must have either immediate decisions preventing the state from spending more than a second dismissing truly absurd attempts like this one. Better yet, it should allow the time waste, and simply decide in court to not just dismiss the suit, but also permanently ban any lawyer who brought the stupendously frivolous case, and charge damages in the amount of the cost to the government, plus punitive damages to inhibit truly rich fools from just buying up the government's time.

      Then we could destroy the "music" biz, and hordes of frivolous lawyers, at once. Finally some good from the modern "music" industry.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    13. Re:LOL by number6x · · Score: 4, Funny

      Each songwriter who signed copyright over to the music company has a copy of the original song in their memory! How can these illegal copies be allowed without proper licensing and fees?

      Those songwriters better pay up, or get in line for a lobotomy.

    14. Re:LOL by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 3, Informative

      Except there was a Dutch study done a few years back that showed smokers cost the health care system less money over their lifetime than non-smokers. There were several other studies that also back this up. As far as I know, there has been nothing to show otherwise since. Basically smokers get cancer and die earlier than non-smokers. Non-smoking "healthy" people tend to live much longer and get more exotic diseases which cost more to treat.

    15. Re:LOL by Garybaldy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You should do some research. I'll break it down for you.

      Being in an enclosed space with a smoker = bad. Being within four feet continually of a smoker outside = bad. Walking down the street and passing a smoker = not bad. As much as the haters would like to get x banned. For any reason they can come up with. Even one that make no sense scientifically. They keep using it anyway. All the other things are bad. No one will notice if i include something that is not bad.

    16. Re:LOL by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2

      Except that politicians (and others) have been justifying tobacco taxes on the basis of additional costs for medical care for tobacco users, when in fact it seems that tobacco users cost the taxpayer less (this may not be true, but the only studies that actually compare the total lifetime medical costs of tobacco users to non-tobacco users suggest this).
      Additionally, I do not believe it is the government's function to mandate people's behavior for the purpose of maximizing those intangibles. Once the government starts regulating peoples lives in order to maximize intangibles, where do you draw the line?

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    17. Re:LOL by misexistentialist · · Score: 2

      Have those "intangibles" really improved in the last 50 years as the rate of smoking has plummeted? Personally I'd rather get to know girls during smoke breaks and die at 50 than be surrounded by fat non-smoking chicks for 60 years and then spending 40 years in a nursing home.

    18. Re:LOL by Nadaka · · Score: 2

      Are you suggesting that the survival of a human being is a convenience of less importance than poisoning oneself and others?

      Are you suggesting that removing the right to live for a small number of people is acceptable but removing the entitlement to poison others and kill them is an abomination?

    19. Re:LOL by Garybaldy · · Score: 2

      Human rights is a very interesting term. So your sister should NEVER have to do anything with in reason. But everyone else should. So no smoking, fireplaces, barbecues, fireworks all because your sister can't be bothered to use something like a respirator with her disability. So everyone else gets inconvenienced so she is never inconvenienced.

      That is real civilized.

    20. Re:LOL by Belial6 · · Score: 2

      The same can be said for the exhaust of burning pretty much anything. Are you suggesting that we end the use of fire? Or are you suggesting that your shade of gray is the right shade of gray, and everyone else's is murder?

  3. Get in line... by hawks5999 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The Irish government is so broke, what is the MAFIAA going get? Ireland is judgement proof.

    1. Re:Get in line... by flaming+error · · Score: 2, Funny

      >> what is the MAFIAA going get?
      Why, the Irish people, of course.

      Suing customers costs money. The Irish cost nothing.

    2. Re:Get in line... by interkin3tic · · Score: 3, Funny

      Judge: To the plaintiff, the RIAA, I award 10 billion dollars.
      Ireland: Now see here laddie, we ain't got that type of money now.
      Judge: Hmm... What DO you have?
      Ireland: Well, we have good old Irish luck! And we have this four-leaf clover that's always brought us... well financial ruin when you get down to it.
      Judge: I hear you have good whiskey...
      Ireland: WE'LL KILL YE WHERE YE STAND BY GOD!!!
      Judge: OKAY, calm down. What else?
      Ireland: We have a few bands I suppose we could part with. The Cranberries! They're Irish! They can have the Cranberries. Remember "Zombie?"
      Judge: I'm trying not to... zo-hom-bie,zo-hom-bie,... damnit! Well, not good enough. Who else?
      Ireland: ...Sinéad O'Connor?
      Judge: Oh come on!
      Ireland: Who do ye suggest?
      Judge: I think you know.
      Ireland: Oh... God no... you couldn't be talking about
      Judge: Yes. U2.
      Ireland: (starts crying) No! Not Bono! You can take the Edge and... that other guy, but leave Bono!

    3. Re:Get in line... by Mysteray · · Score: 2

      >> what is the MAFIAA going get?
      Why, the Irish people, of course.

      Of course, this solution has been proposed before:

      I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed, is, at a year old, a most delicious nourishing and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricasie, or a ragoust.

    4. Re:Get in line... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Sorry, U2 isn't an option - they've already moved their publishing business to the Netherlands, after the Irish government capped the tax exemption on artists at a mere €250,000.

    5. Re:Get in line... by airfoobar · · Score: 4, Funny

      MAFIAA: They should pay damages for our fictional 70 trillion lost sales from piracy!
      Judge: Ok, you can have the fictional pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

    6. Re:Get in line... by blind+biker · · Score: 2, Informative

      Fuck Bono, he's probably behind this shit. He was whining about pirates taking "his" money since several years now.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    7. Re:Get in line... by dargaud · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sorry, U2 isn't an option - they've already moved their publishing business to the Netherlands, after the Irish government capped the tax exemption on artists at a mere €250,000.

      Err, I don't know the full story, but is there a tax exemption on programmers ? Potato growers ? Brewers ? Slutty fat chicks ? WTF, does being an 'artist' make you above the tax code now ?!? That's a hell of a superpower.
      That cap seems absolutely fine to me. Even at 25000 it would be fine. Actually I think 0 is the better number.

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    8. Re:Get in line... by Alsee · · Score: 2

      Maybe he should stop leaving his wallet unattended on his yacht.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    9. Re:Get in line... by Muros · · Score: 2

      The exemption is to attempt to help foster and encourage the arts, which in all fairness are mostly produced by people who only ever get rich after they die. The massive bands we all love/hate, blockbuster movies, etc.... they don't need any financial help. The 4 piece student band in a pub on a saturday night who lug all their gear down to the pub, set it up, play for a few hours, pack up and drive home maybe the price of a keg of beer richer, are a massive asset to society. They help people have a good time, and usually at well below minimum wage if you factored all the support work in. I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with such a person getting a tax break. 250k a year (on direct artistic income only) tax free is a bit high I agree, it could be lowered to 40k and still cover all the people it was intended for. If you're making more, you have no right to complain. I'm guessing the reason it IS higher, is that a lot of artists may earn 5k 1 year, have an auction the next year and make 200k, then sit down and work without selling anything for 3 years. 9 to 5, 5 days a week, 48 weeks a year doesnt really apply.

    10. Re:Get in line... by dargaud · · Score: 2

      The make it 40k a year, with the possibility to spread it over 5 years if you hit the bingo. And that's how it works here in France for 'normal' workers (I have no idea for artists).

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
  4. immunity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I support sovereign immunity is going to an issue pretty quickly.

    1. Re:immunity? by Axalon · · Score: 4, Informative

      I was actually going to post something about that, but I looked it up and apparently Ireland doesn't have sovereign immunity.

    2. Re:immunity? by flaming+error · · Score: 2

      It's not just about "sovereign immunity", to me it raises questions of .jurisdiction. From your wikipedia link:

      Not to be confused with the principle of public international law that the government of a state is normally not amenable before the courts of another state

    3. Re:immunity? by khallow · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well, Ireland is part of the EU and voluntarily subordinated its laws to those of the EU. So this sounds like a proper jurisdiction to me. If this court doesn't agree, then the suers have pretext to take up the case at the EU court level.

  5. Hey, IRA: by j35ter · · Score: 5, Funny

    Do good for your people; time to blow up a few lawyers...

    --
    Delta-Mike November Bravo Tango
    1. Re:Hey, IRA: by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 5, Funny

      time for the irish chapter, Anon O'Mous to step up.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    2. Re:Hey, IRA: by lightknight · · Score: 2

      I don't think the music industry wants to go there (set foot in Ireland, that is). The British, who had their own empire ("the sun never sets on the British Empire"), who are well-known for their ability to 'deal' with indigenous populations of almost any nationality, have been trying, for centuries now, to effectively deal with the Irish.

      That's the British, of all people. The previous empire that the US uses as a yardstick to gauge its current success. I'd love to know what the music industry is drinking that has them thinking that this will end well.

      I mean, come on, it's not like the Irish know how to fight guerrilla wars in ways that make various infamous groups in the Middle East look like pacifists in comparison. ;-)

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    3. Re:Hey, IRA: by unity100 · · Score: 2

      Turn of the century was over 100 years ago. Everyone who might remember remember is dead. Otherwise, we don't have a "Civil wars of tiny countries" educational requirement.

      someone who would want to speak actively in a discussion involving political histories of other nations, is required to know about it. or shut up.

      ireland is by no means tiny, and ira by no means a joke, even today.

  6. Separation of Powers? by SYSS+Mouse · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is the case of using judicial mean to "force" changes to the law itself, which is in the legislative area.

    1. Re:Separation of Powers? by lordholm · · Score: 5, Informative

      I thought so to, but it turns out (if you read the article) that the suit is about that Ireland has not implemented certain items in Union legislation. Thus, a court proceeding for Ireland is entirely appropriate, especially since Union law have precedence. The court is then asked to look at whether Irish law is compliant with Union law, so the court cannot force the state to make new laws, they can however force the state to follow Union law.

      For the non-european who have no idea about how it works (this is a simplified version): EU legislation can be seen as federal law, but most of the legislation (known as directives), are actually laws about that the states should make laws fulfilling a certain set of requirements. If a state does not implement "federal" directives in local legislation within the directive's implementation period, those individuals and companies that suffer some kind of damage that they would not have suffered if the law was implemented, have the right to sue the state for non compliance. This is a normal procedure; try to solve it locally at first, the next step is to take it up with the Union so they can start infringement procedures against the state. Normally, the courts would in this case ask for union level courts for an opinion of the compatibility between state and union law.

      --
      "Civis Europaeus sum!"
    2. Re:Separation of Powers? by lordholm · · Score: 2

      Hopefully, but it depends as all things about law. It is however up to the Irish high court and (ultimatelly) the ECJ to decide on whether or not the Irish laws fulfill the requirements in the relevant directives.

      --
      "Civis Europaeus sum!"
  7. Wow... by jesseck · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So, what happened? I imagine this is a precursor to some sort of "treaty" or "trade agreement" with the US (since corporations run the country) and Ireland that will establish these "missing" laws.

  8. What Are They Expecting? by Bob9113 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Gee, government, not fondling the MAFIAA's nuts enough, so they hit you. Now, are you going to say "I walked into a door" and let them do it again, or are you going to man up?

    You know what happens when you give a bully your lunch money? He threatens you for it the next day.

    Know what happens when you give the MAFIAA a yard? They take a mile.

    There is only one way to stop a bully. Stand up to him.

    There is only one way to stop the MAFIAA. Cut copyright to 50 years, and tell them if they don't back the fuck off, you're going to cut it to 20 years.

    1. Re:What Are They Expecting? by mjwx · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is only one way to stop the MAFIAA. Cut copyright to 50 years, and tell them if they don't back the fuck off, you're going to cut it to 20 years.

      That wont stop them, at best that will only slow them down. They'll happily keep suing even if copyright is cut to 3 months. Long copyrights aren't to protect older works, they are designed to protect newer works from having to compete with older works.

      The best solution is to change copyright so that the cartels cant own copyrights rather they can be contracted for distribution by the actual content creators, ergo, cant sue over something they cant own. Then jailing any media exec who even thinks of getting out of line for life + 70 years.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    2. Re:What Are They Expecting? by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 4, Interesting

      How about just going back to the original length? 7 years.

      Hell, we can even toss in the additional 7 year extension that you got if you applied, when that extension was added on at a later date.

      If it was enough time for books being carted on horsedrawn wagons to a largely illiterate population to make money, it's enough time for your shit song and dumb assed movie to make money.

      --
      This space available.
    3. Re:What Are They Expecting? by king+neckbeard · · Score: 2

      50 years. PSSHAW! Here's what you tell them about their copyrights: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5QGkOGZubQ

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    4. Re:What Are They Expecting? by tirefire · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If it was enough time for books being carted on horsedrawn wagons to a largely illiterate population to make money, it's enough time for your shit song and dumb assed movie to make money.

      I don't think that 18th century Americans were largely illiterate. Thomas Paine's Common Sense pamphlet (published in 1776) sold 600,000 copies to a population of 3,000,000 people - that's 1 copy for every 5 people. Of those 3,000,000 people, 1 in 5 were slaves and 1 in 2 were indentured servants. Oh sure, a lot of people probably bought several copies of it and performed the colonial equivalent of sticking it under strangers' windshield wipers. But still, I think that a national ratio of 1:5 for a non-religious printed publication is impressive, especially if hardly anybody could have even read it at the time.

      What would be the equivalent of Common Sense today? 61.6 million copies of something for 308 million Americans? Is there a single book, newspaper article, political manifesto, or any other publication that comes close to that today? Sure, there's probably a TV show or movie or something that almost everybody today has seen, but I'm more interested in comparing the overall interest in reading between 1776 and 2012 (especially when the reading requires the commitment of paying to read a print publication rather than checking Google News three times a day for the cost of electricity). The most widely-read publication of today, as far as I can tell, is AARP Magazine, with a circulation of 22.4 million in 2011, roughly 1/3 what Common Sense achieved over 200 years ago. Except I don't think that really counts. AARP is a periodical and it has had 50+ years to get to where it is now.

  9. Irish Gov should sue the music industry by Dan667 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    music industry is using a failing business model and costing the Irish Government lots of money in lost taxes from the music industry not adapting to the current business environment.

  10. SImple solution by nedlohs · · Score: 5, Funny

    Change the laws: copyright on music expires after 20 days. ISP have to block websites hosting infringing copies of music 3 weeks after being given written notice of the specific file/url/whatever to block. Of course once the copyright expires the block is no longer required (since it isn't infringing anymore).

    Everyone wins!

  11. Accelerando by mr_snarf · · Score: 4, Informative

    The more I read about all this stuff going on, the more and more I think of Accelerando by Charles Stross. The description in the news of these companies makes them sound like organisms trying to compete in an artificial world, with less and less connection to reality. Soon their actions will be run by programs, and will eventually become sentient :P (Book is available free online if interested, see http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/accelerando.charles_stross/)

    --
    printf("Goodbye cruel world!\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b");
  12. Re:There are a few responses... by FairAndHateful · · Score: 2

    Or, what I actually MEANT to post... THIS! (damn, I need to preview better)

  13. Causal Link by mandelbr0t · · Score: 5, Informative

    The crux of the case will lie in proving that there is a causal link between the lack of laws requiring ISPs to block websites, and the damages claimed. The precedent is Francovich v. Italy. However, given that the judge in a ruling against British Telecom forcing them to use Cleanfeed to block access to websites like Newzbin and TPB acknowledge that tools to circumvent the system were available. And, in fact, Newzbin has released a client allowing access to their website despite the Cleanfeed block. The same software allows access to TPB. It relies on both encryption and the TOR network. Newzbin told BBC news that 93.5% of UK users have downloaded their Cleanfeed circumvention software. This flies in the face of the judge's comment that "Even assuming that they all have the ability to acquire [the means to circumvent Cleanfeed], it does not follow that they will all wish to expend the time and effort required."

    93.5% of UK Newzbin users may not be "all" people in the UK who want to use file sharing networks, but it certainly means that establishing the causal link between lack of ISP blocking remedies and damages from file sharing will be difficult. People want access to those files, and Cleanfeed has proven largely ineffective at stopping two of the main sites involved in sharing. It should also be noted that these sites are not the actual hosters of the allegedly damaging files; they are merely portals to peer-to-peer networks that have other access methods available (e.g. DHT on BitTorrent). Again, the claim that blocking these websites would prevent financial damage is rather dubious.

    --
    "Please describe the scientific nature of the 'whammy'" - Agent Scully
  14. Can somebody correct this for me ? by giorgist · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The music industry is suing a sovereign government in a court of law because of a law that does not exist ?
    What next, sue voters for not ensuring their revenue stream ... hang on ... that is what they ARE doing ?!!?

    So in their eyes I can be guilty for not successfully electing a government that ensures their income !!!

    I am painting it every which way to try and make sense of this ...

    I wish we could outlaw lawyers but considering that they would be enforcing that law, it may end the universe H2G2 style and replace it with something more bizarre.

  15. More potential revenue. by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So not only do they blame the pirates themselves (because their actions may or may not result in a loss of potential profit), but they blame people (in this case, the government) who don't try to stop them (because, if they did stop them, they couldn't do something that may or may not result in a loss of potential profit)? I guess everyone's to blame, then. Clearly the people didn't try hard enough to force the government to pass such laws. Sue everyone!

    --
    Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
  16. Give us back our public domain! by mykos · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Copyright is an artificial right that has been granted by the public to encourage the creation of works, with the understanding that those works will be contributed to the public domain in a reasonable amount of time. It is a bargain between creators and the general public.

    We've lost the plot somewhere. 5-year copyright swelled to 7, 14, 28, 50, 75, 90, 120 years...

    With each increase of copyright duration, the copyright lobbies have robbed the public of that much more creative works. We, the public, have fulfilled our end of the bargain, and we have granted a monopoly to the rights holders. They taken a tool we bought them, purchased with our tax dollars and our court system, and they have turned it into a weapon of control against us.

    We have the power to take this weapon away from them any time we want--lobbyists and politicians be damned. Do not give these companies one cent. They are using what we gave them to exert ultimate control over us. Until they start giving back to the public domain, feel free to add "torrent" to any search for their creative works.

    1. Re:Give us back our public domain! by Pecisk · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I just don't understand why there is no world wide movement for requesting setting back copyright terms to 20 years? Even in UK 100 year law extention just passed. BBC article on it was wrote like PR bullshit from recording companies. That's what's happening - journalism ignores this issue (some of them willingly, some of them are not allowed to even think about it, but lots of them simply don't care, because it's "difficult" subject for beer/pizza/tv junkies to understand).

      I say - we need 20 year limit back on track. With current media consumption it is more than enough for company to regain costs, and see if it's even are ready to regain costs. Argue that everyone can squeeze enough profit from 20 year term. Copyright cartel will hard time to explain why they need 100 years.

      --
      user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
    2. Re:Give us back our public domain! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      There is such a movement! It's called the Pirate Party. Currently smallish, but global and growing rapidly. Why not join?

  17. Who are the pirates? by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 2

    Come to think of it, who are behaving like pirates in this case?

    The Irish Government or the MAFIAA & Co. ?

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:Who are the pirates? by tqk · · Score: 2

      Come to think of it, who are behaving like pirates in this case? The Irish Government or the MAFIAA & Co.?

      Pirates, no. Gangsters, yes. Pirates don't just threaten to take your stuff if you fail to comply. This's classic protection racket stuff.

      Why is it that, over the years, Ireland (and a few notable others) tend so often to pop up in the sights of these bums? Why Ireland? Why Spain? Wouldn't it be cheaper and more productive to buy (ie.) Southeast Asian or African pols than European pols?

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
  18. I didn't think there were any Irish lawyers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Strange, I didn't think there were any Irish lawyers.

    None of them can pass a bar.

    1. Re:I didn't think there were any Irish lawyers... by joshamania · · Score: 2

      Is it mildly entertaining that the world can get away with racist colloquialisms (i just wanted to say that word) against the Irish? I'm, what...half-Irish-ish...totally not offended by that comment...I even chuckled. Just think it's weird that one could say this without catching hell about the Irish but not, say, about Mexicans.

  19. Battle of the Book by o'reor · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I don't think the music industry realizes that they're facing a war. And not a simple legal war, a real war with real weapons and casualties too. For, indeed:

    Many hundreds of years before the GPL was even a twinkle in Richard Stallman's eye, an Irish monk proved to be an unlikely champion of the geeky A2K notion of access to knowledge. [...] and they settled things the way they did in those days, with 3000 people getting killed in the resulting battle.

    The full article about Saint ColmCille and his fight for free access to knowledge and Copyleft is available here (PDF).

    (and after all, if those lawyers working for the music industry are serious about that copyright shit, why don't they join the army and fight that battle on the front line, huh ? Hand me a banana bomb, there's a cluster of them coming our way...)

    --
    In Soviet Russia, our new overlords are belong to all your base.
  20. Suing the Irish government by Chrisq · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That's a bit like suing someone on skid row nowadays.

  21. Imagine the Precedence This Could Set by guitardood · · Score: 2

    Imagine the entire populous of the US suing the government for not resolving the job situation? Or how about the copyright laws themselves? Maybe even suing for giving such a huge bailout to Wall Street and their ilk? It'll be pretty interesting to see what comes of this.

    --
    -- L8R, guitardood
    1. Re:Imagine the Precedence This Could Set by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 2

      Oh, that would just be awesome.

      I'd pay good money for video footage of a judge explaining in single-syllable words to a lawyer the concept of Trias Politica and kindly referring his clients to the legislative branch.

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
  22. File sharing? So what? by Lost+Race · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So they say file sharing is killing the music industry. Even if they're right (and that's by no means a given) ... so what? People can still record and distribute music without any music industry. With computers and the Internet it's easy and pretty cheap. But even if somehow all musicians decided to stop recording and distributing ... again, so what? We can live without recorded music. All the money people currently spend on CDs would be spent on other entertainment instead, such as live performances.

    Copyright is a tool for the benefit of society, not a natural right of artists (or the parasites who trick them into lopsided contracts) to make money. As far as music goes, there's just no measurable benefit to society to justify any significant effort or expense on copyright enforcement.

    I say the proper response to this demand is to declare music to be outside the scope of copyright. Entertainers, learn your place and watch your step.

  23. Re:There are a few responses... by lordholm · · Score: 2

    No they can't, the EU regulates a minimum term copyright (which for physical persons is life plus 50 or 70 IIRC). Ireland is not sued without basis, they are sued about not implementing EU law. IP legislation is primarily made by the Union; most people who are trying to do something about this understands this, especially thanks to the EUCD directive which was a fundamental wakeup call for individuals who did not previously pay attention to EU-debate.

    The big mass is unfortunately still unaware and whining when their state implement directives. To branch of a bit of topic, this is partially main stream media's fault. Media has an obligation to monitor the lawmakers, but apparently they ignore their duties when it comes to the EU. You need to start reading more specialized news like EU-observer, European Voice and the like to keep up with what is actually going on. Another issue (the BBC does this right however), is that many news papers and news outlets have two sections of news; domestic and foreign. EU issues are somehow clumped into the foreign news section so people don't understand that it is actually affecting them.

    --
    "Civis Europaeus sum!"
  24. Music is no longer a "product". by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Music is no longer a "product"; it is becoming a "service". (Streaming, downloading, etc). Music has actually been a service throughout most of human history, i.e., before recorded music you had to go where the musicians were to hear them. The "record business", starting around 1905, turned music into a product -- records, then cassette tapes, then CDs. The product is essentially "containers" for music that require a distribution infrastructure. But today we no longer need those containers and distribution costs nothing. How the "record companies" initially got so much power over the musicians is a sad story. Imagine if the people making wine bottles had control over what wines got made!

  25. Re:The Irish, being a compliant group of niggers.. by reboot246 · · Score: 4, Funny

    The mature (fun) ones do. You need to stay away from little girls; it's illegal.

  26. Re:what is the MAFIAA going get? by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Am I the only one thinking that they don't want money, they want precedent?

    Really, can a corporation really sue a government for not passing a law and win??!

    That's not even wink&nod bribery, that's outright treason!

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  27. In related news... by Sqr(twg) · · Score: 2

    EMI is also suing God, for not affixing "copying is stealing" to His commandment "thou shalt not steal". In addition to monetary compensation, they are asking that the court order God to smite thepiratebay.org.

  28. Why cant.... by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    A government declare war against a corporation?

    "The Irish government recognizes any employee or person affiliated with the RIAA or MPAA as an enemy of the Country and will be killed on sight. We ask the United states government to allow us to run a military operation and bomb the corporate locations of all RIAA and MPAA operations, their lawyers offices, and anyone that claims affiliation with them."

    They are terrorists just like Al-Quieda, why cant a freedom loving country declare war against them?

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  29. Re:There are a few responses... by Muros · · Score: 2

    That would have little effect. The government is being sued by distribution companies, not artists.

  30. Re:The Irish, being a compliant group of niggers.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Why are you sawing up women, are you a fucking magician?

  31. you dont 'understand' ? by unity100 · · Score: 2

    I just don't understand why there is no world wide movement for requesting setting back copyright terms to 20 years?

    so you dont understand why there is no worldwide movement for correcting 'copyright issue' ?

    maybe because people dont give a shit because they are not only poor, and struggling to survive, but also undereducated and culturally deficient ? (85% of america only does with 15% of national wealth/income - 7% gulps 72% of it).

    people are fighting for survival. some are working on two jobs. some start working in high school to support their family. and no - you cannot expect everyone to overcome 'great odds' and dedicate their entire lives to not only pulling their family and themselves out of the 15% wealth/income share hell to a measly middle class existence AND educate themselves and become enlightened members of the society in the meantime. 0.1 - 0.3% of society who have been able to do that does not make a usable rule for the rest.

    so therefore, people have more pressing matters than copyright. you can bet that none of them know what copyright exactly is, even if they know the word 'copyright'.

    solution ? you need to save people from depths of poverty induced by a dog eat dog system. only then they will become aware of, and care for things like 'copyright'.

    but instead, a third of you are ridiculing movements/reactions like ows, a third of you opposing it, a third of you are lukewarm about it.

    noone is going to descend from the skies and fix your problems. you need to start somewhere. and you need to support those who started somewhere, even if the start is makeshift.

  32. Soon... by Jason+Levine · · Score: 2

    ... The MPAA and RIAA have sued world governments for not requiring anti-piracy shock collars on all citizens. They claim that, were anti-piracy shock collars in place, piracy would disappear and people would go back to their rightful activities - buying music and movies. Critics charge that the shock collars inhibit freedom of speech... or at least they used to until they had shock collars put on them. Now they're all for the idea. Personally, I think that anti-piracy shock collars are horrib... *BBZZZZZTTT* WONDERFUL idea!

    --
    My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  33. What's next? by joshamania · · Score: 2

    AFP - Flash: MCP Records sues all citizens everywhere for not buying Justin Bieber albums.

  34. Its the MBAs & lawyers not the artists by bussdriver · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We had music be for we had the wheel; culture existed before copyright. Besides, we have more than enough PAST music that little new is being created. This protectionist system is not adding much benefit to society.

    Nobody has a right to a job doing whatever they want to do. Industries must be allowed to die when their time has come! This isn't about car company bail outs, we still need cars. This is more like banning teleporters because it'll put the airlines out of business.

    The greed mentality is what it is always about; take everything away from you as possible and make you pay somebody who controls it. We've gone so far as to privatize ownership of WATER, including the rain and make people pay for the water collecting naturally in their own backyard- literally. It has been done and that evil thinking continues to spread; as CRAZY as that sounds the issue will come to your area someday in the future unless trends change. Privatization has always been about handing power to the politically connected so they can leverage that power into profit and it never has anything to do about helping anybody. Copyright has NOTHING (today) to do with helping the "starving" artists and everything about control.

  35. Re:Right to Sue? by Epimer · · Score: 3, Informative

    They're not being sued because a law doesn't exist. They're being sued because they allegedly haven't implemented an EU-wide law which they are (allegedly) obliged to; such implementations are a condition of membership of the EU. If you, as a citizen of an EU member state, have suffered harm from your nation's government not implementing an EU law which it has been obliged to, then yes, you can sue your own government. It's called a Francovich claim and is the basis of individual citizens ensuring that their own government can't shirk on their responsibilities to implement EU laws.

  36. Case updated. Sony, Universal, Warner, WEA? added. by j0ey2069 · · Score: 2

    It seems that more music companies have been listed on the case on the Irish High Courts website. Take a look here: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/8230342/ScreenClip.png

  37. Supranational organized crime by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 2

    Nothing new here, isn't it? In the past few months entire countries (Italy and Greece) were overthrown by the "international market". And off course nobody even wonders who the "international market" is.

    --
    Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!