IRMA fail in bid for injunction against UPC

evercloserunion

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Messages
804
IRMA have failed to obtain injunctive relief against UPC forcing the latter to adopt the 2 strikes rue to combat online piracy. Justice Peter Charleton in the High Court appeared to be very much on the side of the plaintiffs, but said that Ireland did not have the necessary legislation in place to deal with the issue and that out of respect for the separation of powers he could not grant injunctive relief.

From RTÉ:
The Irish Recording Music Association (IRMA) wanted a High Court injunction so that UPC would have to prevent the theft of their copyright by its subscribers.

But Justice Charleton ruled that there is no provision for the blocking, diverting or interrupting of internet communications intent on breaching copyright.

The injunctive relief was declined.

...

UPC has said it does not condone piracy, but today's ruling supports the principal that ISPs are not liable for the actions of their customers.
RT News: Record companies lose illegal download case

In the short term, this decision is a positive in that it will force IRMA to think about better ways to handle the problem. The worrying thing though is that this case will most likely provoke some ridiculously draconian and ill-though-out legislation to "deal" with the issue a la headshops.
 
Last edited:


TradCat

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 5, 2005
Messages
1,989
Am I right in saying that if it's not illegal now then any law can only apply to future downloads?

So we are likely to see a bonanza of downloading between now and the introduction of any new legislation. I can see the point about copyright but I don't think we should let record companies have it all their own way either. I think someone should be a fairly serious offender before they can be brought to court.
 

Sync

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
28,914
Am I right in saying that if it's not illegal now then any law can only apply to future downloads?

So we are likely to see a bonanza of downloading between now and the introduction of any new legislation.
You might see an increase in activity, but no it's certainly not legal. The judge simply ruled that the internet provider couldn't be forced to take steps to interupt an individual's service at the behest of a private 3rd party.
 

truthisfree

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2009
Messages
6,186
What sort of sniffing technology will be needed if these large companies like Sony and EMI get their way? I have noticed lately that I have been coming across music blogs that offer free direct downloads usually from rapidshare or equivalent, have tried them out and discovered fast downloads, excellent quality (320 vbr) they seem to be almost all based in Russia.

How on earth is this type of file sharing to be monitored?

Also I see that Opera now has built in file-sharing as well as a built in bit-torrent client. This means I can access movies and music as well as other files from anywhere which I do on occasion.
 

sic transit

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 30, 2008
Messages
25,397
IRMA's all or nothing approach won it no friends and it reminds me of the quite pathetic "Home taping is killing music" message from the 70s. I welcome the decision as it really is not up to ISPs to solve the music industry's problems. I don't know the answer to this but given the potential delivery platforms the music industry would be better off spending its money on mitigating the effect to an extent. IMO it will never go away as many of have come to believe that some parts of the Internet are "free".

Where does that now leave the Eircom "deal"?
 

evercloserunion

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Messages
804
You might see an increase in activity, but no it's certainly not legal. The judge simply ruled that the internet provider couldn't be forced to take steps to interupt an individual's service at the behest of a private 3rd party.
That's not really relevant to his point, which is that any sanctions imposed for piracy in the future could only apply to future downloads.

But in answer to TradCat's question I would say that would only be the case if there was certainty that any new law would actually be effective at preventing illegal downlaods, which is a big "if".
 

truthisfree

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2009
Messages
6,186
IRMA's all or nothing approach won it no friends and it reminds me of the quite pathetic "Home taping is killing music" message from the 70s. I welcome the decision as it really is not up to ISPs to solve the music industry's problems. I don't know the answer to this but given the potential delivery platforms the music industry would be better off spending its money on mitigating the effect to an extent. IMO it will never go away as many of have come to believe that some parts of the Internet are "free".

Where does that now leave the Eircom "deal"?
btw, do you know of a single case this was enforced?
 

sic transit

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 30, 2008
Messages
25,397
No. I am guessing that was an agreement in principle. I doubt if anyone outside Eircom could really prove it. For me it was just IRMA showing it was doing something. Just curious if this decision would affect it.
 

truthisfree

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2009
Messages
6,186
No. I am guessing that was an agreement in principle. I doubt if anyone outside Eircom could really prove it. For me it was just IRMA showing it was doing something. Just curious if this decision would affect it.
I think it means it is not worth the paper it is written on until there are new laws put in place here relating to file-sharing.

The thing to watch out for is if a ham-fisted approach is used with legislation here we could have draconian laws introduced that allow the powers that be to snoop on our every internet activity.
 

evercloserunion

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Messages
804
I've been thinking about the Eircom deal. They'll be quite annoyed because they've put themselves at a unique competitive disadvantage. The thing is, whereas if they had resisted IRMA's case in the first place it now appears that they would have been successful, they are now locked in a contract where they have agreed to implement the system. So refusing to implement the system would be a breach of contract and IRMA could probably get specific performance or damages.

The only way out that Eircom might have is trying to get out of the contract by pleading mistake/misrepresentation, but I doubt they would be very successful. Things are also complicated by the fact that IRMA had agreed, as part of the deal, that it would pursue other ISPs and force them to implement the same system, and now it seems that it is impossible to honour that clause.
 
Last edited:

stoichkov

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 10, 2010
Messages
2,500
there was a time when you routinely had to pay twenty quid (pounds, not euro) for a CD in this country.

it was the late 90s and early 00s. if you walked into hmv or virgin or tower looking for a copy of the new oasis, prodigy or daft punk album you would be left with either zero or near-zero change from a £20 note.

paying as much as £25 for a new album was not unknown. i distinctly remember shelling out that much for xtrmntr by primal scream ten years ago in tower on wicklow street the week it was released. good record but hardly worth that much.

and this was in 2000ish when, outside of record shops, twenty pounds went a hell of a lot further than twenty euro does now.

the record companies were very happy with this state of affairs at the time so it's difficult to feel any pity for them now.
 

TommyO'Brien

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
12,132
the record companies were very happy with this state of affairs at the time so it's difficult to feel any pity for them now.
The issue isn't the record companies but the artists. Artists are reliant on that income. In the arts income is haphazard, with large gaps between cheques. In free-downing loading music someone is stealing the income of that artist. That has led to some people to leave the industry because the level of income they receive was impossible to live on. Some artists find that 90% of their income is stolen by downloading. It is pure theft.

I used to be a journalist. I once wrote a series of articles of an Irish newspaper on a controversial issue. The newspaper had a considerable reaction and suggested the article could be sold to an American newspaper syndicate for use in newspapers along the east coast if the US. However when a contact in the paper who had dealings with the syndicate made contract with them he found that the article already had been 'sold' to the syndicate by a con man in the US who had cut and pasted my article (it was on the issue of how Europe was changing its law on recognising gay relationships, and so of interest to a number of high brow US publications given the growth in the movement to recognise civil unions in US states), claimed he owned copyright, and sold it to newspapers in a number of states.

While I wouldn't have had the means to enforce US copyright in court (which I and the Irish newspaper jointly owned), the Irish paper did, and sued the pants off the b*stard. He had made over $5K by breaching copyright and trying illegally to claim copyright and sales rights for himself. So he was effectively stealing $5K off me and trying to prevent me from earning a living selling what was my property, the property that I had put weeks into researching and which was my source of income. He was a thief, and had got a massive fine for damages imposed in a US court.

Some years later I allowed a gay rights website to publish the article, for free, subject only to an acknowledgement, on their website. The son of a b*tch wrote to the website, which was run by a charity, and demanded that they pay him for the article which he claimed was his. He became highly abusive to them. Luckily they rang me in Ireland and I was able to confirm that the guy was a thief already convicted of stealing my copyright. He had made their lives a misery demanding money off them, with all sorts of threats. He obviously thought that because the website was in Alaska I'd never know if he tried the same scam of stealing my property.

So I have no sympathy whatsoever for those who do illegal downloads. They are stealing someone else's work, and denying to the creator of the work the income they are entitled to for their work. Stealing their income is no different to someone going into your job and stealing your wage packet. For that is what the money for that music is, someone's income. They do the work. Then some thief steals their income.

More than that, it has also led some people to have to leave the music industry, simply because so much of their income was stolen that they could not live on the income they did get, once the bills associated with production and marketing was taken out, so they end up having to leave the industry because they simply cannot afford to live on the income that they pick up after the majority of the income has been stolen through illegal downloads.

So the sooner a law is introduced into Ireland to stop that theft the better.
 

TradCat

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 5, 2005
Messages
1,989
Tommy

But if he had just phot-copied the article from his friend's newspaper it wouldn't have been that big a deal would it?

Stoichkov is dead right about the price gouging of the record companies. They put regular music purchase out of reach for many people. Even today in the shops they are asking €15 for albums you can buy online for a tenner.
 

il toro

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 18, 2008
Messages
329
More than that, it has also led some people to have to leave the music industry, simply because so much of their income was stolen that they could not live on the income they did get, once the bills associated with production and marketing was taken out, so they end up having to leave the industry because they simply cannot afford to live on the income that they pick up after the majority of the income has been stolen through illegal downloads.

So the sooner a law is introduced into Ireland to stop that theft the better.
Whatever about the artist work been stolen ,
what about the artist throwing out any auld rubbish on a CD to dupe fans into buying another album,
what about the poor artist , like Bono , complaining about theft from the comfort of the South of France,
or the record companies who screw the artists out of their rightfull royalties,
or IMRO/IMRA claiming the right to irish celile music, something that been around for centuries,
or the record companies who overprice albums to sell to the public
why is it that all albums sell in the same price bracket, is that not a form of cartel pricing,

The internet is giving the music industry a well deserved kick in the a** * , maybe it will learn to respect its customers rather than screw them.
 

DeputyEdo

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 9, 2010
Messages
3,449
Downloading music is not stealing it...it's copying it.

If someone broke into your house to get all your cd's, would you prefer if they stole them, or copied them?
 
B

Boggle

The issue isn't the record companies but the artists. Artists are reliant on that income. In the arts income is haphazard, with large gaps between cheques. In free-downing loading music someone is stealing the income of that artist. That has led to some people to leave the industry because the level of income they receive was impossible to live on. Some artists find that 90% of their income is stolen by downloading. It is pure theft.
It is not theft. Not even close.

And whats this 90% of their income is stolen rubbish?
Provide sources please because I think your being taken for a bit of a ride on that one.

In fact, there is evidence that, if anything, illegal downloading BOOSTS sales.
http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBQQFjAA&url=http://www.unc.edu/~cigar/papers/FileSharing_March2004.pdf&rct=j&q=the effect of file sharing on record sales an empirical analysis&ei=JCS0TKOJKsaAOof9iLAK&usg=AFQjCNGO_OfqAF6ipVwLTpnuG5S3vjI9eg&cad=rja


Of course IRMA will stand up in court and make a fool of a judge as the judge wouldn't realy have a clue about any of this. And UPC were hardly going to argue with it as it was irrelevant to their case.


By the way, your own case study (while a shame) is completely different to downloading. It's more akin to Gilmore reciting the words of p.ie posters without giving them credit.
 
B

Boggle

The internet is giving the music industry a well deserved kick in the a** * , maybe it will learn to respect its customers rather than screw them.
The internet is taking the power away from music execs at an increasing pace. These days, you can become well known by publishing your own video for free on youtube or by sharing your music via uTorrent.
Music companies are now in a perilous situation as what good are music companies to anyone outside of distribution?

Music companies want control back and that is what this is about, not declining sales.
 
Last edited:

DeputyEdo

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 9, 2010
Messages
3,449
The issue isn't the record companies but the artists. Artists are reliant on that income. In the arts income is haphazard, with large gaps between cheques. In free-downing loading music someone is stealing the income of that artist. That has led to some people to leave the industry because the level of income they receive was impossible to live on. Some artists find that 90% of their income is stolen by downloading. It is pure theft.

I used to be a journalist. I once wrote a series of articles of an Irish newspaper on a controversial issue. The newspaper had a considerable reaction and suggested the article could be sold to an American newspaper syndicate for use in newspapers along the east coast if the US. However when a contact in the paper who had dealings with the syndicate made contract with them he found that the article already had been 'sold' to the syndicate by a con man in the US who had cut and pasted my article (it was on the issue of how Europe was changing its law on recognising gay relationships, and so of interest to a number of high brow US publications given the growth in the movement to recognise civil unions in US states), claimed he owned copyright, and sold it to newspapers in a number of states.

While I wouldn't have had the means to enforce US copyright in court (which I and the Irish newspaper jointly owned), the Irish paper did, and sued the pants off the b*stard. He had made over $5K by breaching copyright and trying illegally to claim copyright and sales rights for himself. So he was effectively stealing $5K off me and trying to prevent me from earning a living selling what was my property, the property that I had put weeks into researching and which was my source of income. He was a thief, and had got a massive fine for damages imposed in a US court.

Some years later I allowed a gay rights website to publish the article, for free, subject only to an acknowledgement, on their website. The son of a b*tch wrote to the website, which was run by a charity, and demanded that they pay him for the article which he claimed was his. He became highly abusive to them. Luckily they rang me in Ireland and I was able to confirm that the guy was a thief already convicted of stealing my copyright. He had made their lives a misery demanding money off them, with all sorts of threats. He obviously thought that because the website was in Alaska I'd never know if he tried the same scam of stealing my property.

So I have no sympathy whatsoever for those who do illegal downloads. They are stealing someone else's work, and denying to the creator of the work the income they are entitled to for their work. Stealing their income is no different to someone going into your job and stealing your wage packet. For that is what the money for that music is, someone's income. They do the work. Then some thief steals their income.

More than that, it has also led some people to have to leave the music industry, simply because so much of their income was stolen that they could not live on the income they did get, once the bills associated with production and marketing was taken out, so they end up having to leave the industry because they simply cannot afford to live on the income that they pick up after the majority of the income has been stolen through illegal downloads.

So the sooner a law is introduced into Ireland to stop that theft the better.
Can I ask you Tommy.....have you ever lent a book, magazine, music cd or DVD you own to a friend/family member etc? If so, did you write to the copyright owner before hand to ask them could you lend it?
If not, you're in breach of copyright law.
 

fonzie

Active member
Joined
Aug 14, 2008
Messages
180
Can I ask you Tommy.....have you ever lent a book, magazine, music cd or DVD you own to a friend/family member etc? If so, did you write to the copyright owner before hand to ask them could you lend it?
If not, you're in breach of copyright law.
That is a bit of a false argument though. By placing a file online for sharing you open it to the possibility of near-infinite replication - which is very different to lending one physical book or CD to someone, or even making physical copies of media.
 


New Threads

Top