Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government News Your Rights Online

ISP Sued By Irish RIAA 191

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "An ISP in Ireland has been sued by the Big Four record labels because its subscribers have engaged in P2P sharing of the record companies' song files. The record companies claim the ISP should be buying Audible Magic's CopySense, the software being peddled by the RIAA's expert witness, which supposedly would filter out copyright infringement. Of course, not everyone agrees."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

ISP Sued By Irish RIAA

Comments Filter:
  • fight it (Score:3, Interesting)

    by DKP ( 1029142 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2008 @11:18PM (#23179142)
    fight it all the way and if the iaa wants software installed then let them pay for it not that it would work.
    • Re:fight it (Score:5, Interesting)

      by mwvdlee ( 775178 ) on Thursday April 24, 2008 @02:40AM (#23180000) Homepage
      Sueing somebody to force them to buy a product... isn't that kinda, I dunno, anti-competitive?
      • Re:fight it (Score:5, Insightful)

        by L4t3r4lu5 ( 1216702 ) on Thursday April 24, 2008 @03:40AM (#23180216)
        IANAL, but I thought threatening legal action (and engaging in it for not conforming) into parting with funds for a particular purpose was Demanding Money with Menace.

        Extorsion, maybe?
      • Re:fight it (Score:4, Informative)

        by zoney_ie ( 740061 ) on Thursday April 24, 2008 @04:05AM (#23180286)
        Also ironic in this instance. The ISP involved is the former state telco Eircom, which the govt. screwed up the privitisation of such that they have a monopoly on last-mile, exchanges, etc. and have ensured LLU and DSL reselling is not something other telcos can make money out of (the few "players" in that game are just spending millions to "buy" customer base, with a step 2: ... before step 3: profit).

        Actually, I would probably classify Eircom as vastly more evil than the Irish version of the RIAA (IRMA - Irish Recorded Music Association).
  • Paul McGuinness is behind this?
  • by TubeSteak ( 669689 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2008 @11:31PM (#23179230) Journal

    While the record companies had taken various measures to discourage record piracy, including public awareness campaigns and legal actions against individuals engaged in piracy, these had proven very costly and time consuming and were not enough to stop people using illegal services on a broad scale.
    AND

    [Eircom] ... had no legal obligation to monitor traffic on its network.
    There isn't much more to say.
    The ISP has no obligation and the *AA can't seem to "educate" themselves out of their problem.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Kjella ( 173770 )

      Pointy-Haired Boss: I don't see anything that could stand in our way.
      Dilbert: Sanity? Reality? The laws of physics?
      Never underestimate a manager that think he's missing out on the big bucks. I assume they'll go by some sort of "willful ignorance" logic, that Eircom is purposely not monitoring to learn any specifics of copyright infringement. It's a rather weak argument though...
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Skrynesaver ( 994435 )
      Actually an alternative defence for Eircom could be that their network is crap, their broadband rollout has been pathetic and if they were doing their job properly IMRO would be seeing waaay more music downloads.

      Seriously though this one just isn't a runner, the various record label umbrella groups have realised they can't go after every 12 year old with computer access (or in the US case suing indigent men for their shopping trolleys) so they will try to tackle the access, however any company that put th

    • Eircom used to be a semi-state company.

      What does that mean? Well, if a normal business needs to handle a business crisis they will create new products, modify their business model, reduce their costs etc etc.

      When Eircom was a semi-state the solution was: write a cheque for the amount you need, put in the post (also a semi-state body) to the respective minister. Minister signs cheque, problem solved.

      This mentality didn't necessarily wash when the company was privatized, but it certainly prevailed for a lon
    • The ISP has no obligation and the *AA can't seem to "educate" themselves out of their problem.

      This is Ireland. We don't so much have laws here as we have sort of "tribal customs". Over here, even if a law is struck down as unconstitutional, the supreme court has ruled that you can still be imprisoned under it [village.ie]. It used to be illegal for Irish ISPs to hold certain types of data for more than about six months, I believe. It was at one time discovered that Eircom, the ISP mentioned in this article (effectively the Irish AT&T), was retaining this information for three years, the government passed a bill making it mandatory to store it for at least three years.

      That's how things work in this country. We're kind of a one party state meets banana republic meets laissez faire capitalism. Basically, laws here are universally subject to interpretation and arbitrary revision. That's when they're not being ignored outright. If Eircom agrees to the censoring and monitoring, then it will become legal. If it doesn't, it won't. I doubt the IRMA is anywhere near as well connected or influential as Eircom representatives, so unless they're willing to pay up, in either bribes or in financing the system, this surveillance simply isn't happening. Anyway, we're all under surveillance anyway [siliconrepublic.com], so this entire issue is rather moot.
  • by Kenja ( 541830 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2008 @11:35PM (#23179248)
    All Honda cars should be forced to use my special "No park in my spot" tires to prevent this in the future. Only $999 per set of four!
    • by Solandri ( 704621 ) on Thursday April 24, 2008 @01:51AM (#23179838)
      Police sue automakers for allowing drivers to exceed the speed limit.

      Parents of child porn victims sue camera manufacturers for allowing pedophiles to make child porn.

      Corporate hacking victims sue computer manufacturers for providing hackers tools to break into their systems.

      Violent crime victims sue weapons manufacturers for enabling criminals to harm them.

      China sues Western democracies for giving its citizens subversive ideas of freedom and civil liberties.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward


        Corporate hacking victims sue computer manufacturers for providing hackers tools to break into their systems.

        If my memory serves me correctly Germany already made "hacking tools" like nmap illegal.

        It's much like banning hammers because someone decides to beat a person to death with it.
        How about we eliminate hard objects altogether, then nobody can steal cars!
  • by CrazyJim1 ( 809850 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2008 @11:45PM (#23179296) Journal
    People are using books that they didn't even pay for there. I think this is causing a big impact on book sales. More authors would make books if it wasn't for the Library. It is in the public's best interest to burn their libraries.
    • by wvmarle ( 1070040 ) on Thursday April 24, 2008 @12:49AM (#23179608)

      Not a very apt comparison.

      Books from the library are read there, or borrowed to be returned later. The number of copies in existence remains the same (unless people go to a copy machine to copy the book - a non-trivial and fairly costly operation, probably more costly than going to the book shop and buy yourself a copy).

      Libraries can be compared to music/video rental shops (many book libraries also do this). Those disks are rent or lent, and are returned a week or so later.

      Music and video downloads (and e-books) however DO increase the number of copies. And copying is as good as free in effort and cost.

      Of course the publishers also complain about libraries (not so much, they are considered a given due to their long historical existence), and video rentals. They claim it also lowers sales. Just like reselling used copies of books/CDs/DVDs. But no matter what, on-line file sharing is in a league on its own.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        if i consider the films i've downloaded, i can't say i've watched many of them more than once. and with most of them, i'd have been pretty annoyed had i spend money on them.
      • One book or DVD in a public library can be read by hundreds of people.

        Most people who watch a movie after downloading it will delete the movie or delete the ebook after reading it.

        File sharing is very similar to a public library. For popular items, the file maybe in simultaneous use. When the item is not very popular but under non-zero use, it is very likely that the probability of simultaneous use is close to zero. At this point, the public library and file sharing have almost the same characteristics

      • These are also the same people ferociously fighting against consumers copying/renting/lending digital media.

        I'd be fairly happy even if they allowed some sort of digital public library to be set up...
      • Music and video downloads (and e-books) however DO increase the number of copies. And copying is as good as free in effort and cost.

        And a certain western superpower wants to base its economy on "intellectual property" that can be copied and transmitted free. The same western superpower that has convinced its population that "free" equals "worthless".

        Maybe I shouldn't try to talk my kids into giving me grandkids. They'll grow up in a third world country if the US continues to let the plutocrats run America.
    • by mr_matticus ( 928346 ) on Thursday April 24, 2008 @01:36AM (#23179776)
      Of course they paid for them. It's a public library, paid for through municipal taxes and whatever endowment scheme your local library uses to supplement that tax income.

      The materials in the libraries are all duly licensed for lending, through a combination of statutory exceptions in the US Code, and, where applicable or gapped, through licensing with the copyright holders permitting such use.

      The copyright holders have indeed been compensated, both through license payments from libraries (often on DVDs and CDs and similar materials by acquiring the more-expensive rental copies [which often include media replacement]) and through the inherent copyright law bargain.

      Incidentally, many library collections include video and audio content licensed for commercial use, which is a great way for a community organization (say, a church or club) to put on such a performance without having to buy a license or negotiate one with the rightsholders. You just check out the video with the commercial license and you're good to go. Your tax dollars at work, literally.
      • The mind, it wanders.

        Libraries often have content licensed for public performance, for churches, school teachers, and clubs to use.
      • by sm62704 ( 957197 )
        The materials in the libraries are all duly licensed for lending

        There is no such thing as "licensed for lending" and you don't have to be a public library to lend a book. I can loan any of my books to anybody I want. I can loan my CDs to anybody I want. They are mine - I own them.

        The entire concept of copyright has been turned upside down since the advent of computers. A license is a license to copy and distribute - the author licenses the work to the publisher, who pays the author for each copy made and so
  • "Obvious ways"? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Damon Tog ( 245418 ) * on Wednesday April 23, 2008 @11:46PM (#23179300)
    The two "obvious ways" to defeat Audible Magic (as listed in the article) do not seem very promising to me. If large numbers of filesharers begin to send huge transfers amounts of data over SSL, it's going to be pretty noticeable. In this day of ISP "traffic shaping," I wouldn't be surprised to see SSL throttled down to the point where transferring large files becomes painfully slow. The second strategy is not currently possible (as the article itself states). It goes on to admit that future OS upgrades would be required. I'm sure Microsoft will be more than happy to modify their TCP/IP stack to help make filesharing as easy as possible.

    This technology is not foolproof, but it does require filesharers to jump through additional hoops to distribute files. Hardcore filesharers will no doubt toil obsessively to workaround the issue, but some casual downloaders may conclude that the hassle and risks associated with filesharing is becoming greater than the costs of paying $0.89 to get the song from Amazon, etc.

    Eliminating %100 of copyright infringement is not a requirement for the RIAA to regard its strategy as successful. Simply making the process risky and aggravating enough that most people will switch to paying for music is enough. Each generation of this cat and mouse game between the "pirates" and the RIAA has resulted in an increased compartmentalization of p2p networks. Sure the "hydra" will grow more heads and live on, but it's hard to ignore that something that could immediately be located and downloaded on Napster in the Year 2000 now frequently takes time to hunt down and leech via bittorent.
    • Re: (Score:2, Redundant)

      by timmarhy ( 659436 )
      it's easy to make a p2p app too much of a moving target for any monitoring software to prevent.

      first step is to encrypt, when you encrypt something it's not possible to tell it's encrypted, you just can't read whats there. the only way to tell it's encrypted is to monitor a port. this is where you could introduce port hoping, where you use a standard https port to do a handshake where you and the tracker make a randomised set of port changes every 1 hour.

      now i know what your going to say - the isp's softw

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Damon Tog ( 245418 ) *
        "lastly, why should it be up to the isp's to monitor this? how the hell is it their problem?"

        I half agree with you, but something like %30-50 of traffic on the internet is bittorrent, and a big chunk of bittorrent traffic is regarded as illegal activity (in most jurisdictions) by a good many folks. If there was a highway where %30-50 of the vehicles were widely known to be transporting something illegal, would you be surprised if the local authorities took an increased interest in that particular road and b
        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          ... but something like %30-50 of traffic on the internet is bittorrent, and a big chunk of bittorrent traffic is regarded as illegal activity (in most jurisdictions) by a good many folks. If there was a highway where %30-50 of the vehicles were widely known to be transporting something illegal, would you be surprised if the local authorities took an increased interest in that particular road and began to watch things a bit more closely?

          Using the logic at hand if the road was a toll road the government would be filing charges against the operator of the toll road for not making sure that all of the traffic on the road was in fact not transporting anything illegal.

          Clearly in that particular case the onus would be on some level of government to ensure that the illegal transportation of goods was stopped not the operator of the toll road.

          Since copyright is something granted to the copyright owner it should be up to the owner to enforce t

        • Hmm, let's take that road analogy a little further

          Roads: Internet
          Road owners (local government): ISPs
          Illegal goods: dodgy song downloads

          So, the equivelant of Audible Magic's CopySense to detect infringers is, I guess roadblocks and vehicle checks set up, manned and paid for by the road owners. That does not seem right to me, especially the part about who has to pay.

          We don't prosecute the postal service for aiding and abbetting those who send letter bombs. We don't prosecute road owners or car companies for
        • by sm62704 ( 957197 )
          If there was a highway where %30-50 of the vehicles were widely known to be transporting something illegal, would you be surprised if the local authorities took an increased interest in that particular road and began to watch things a bit more closely?

          If that many people were breaking transportation law, I'd question the rationality of the existance of those laws.
      • by Divebus ( 860563 )

        lastly, why should it be up to the isp's to monitor this? how the hell is it their problem?

        My take... because some recent litigation has mopped the courtroom floor with the RIAA over their John Doe "discovery" tactics. This is just a different vector for the same kind of attack and Ireland is small enough for a test case... or so they thought. It's time for ISPs, the EFF, Music stores of all kinds, Universities, The EU and State Attorney Generals in the U.S. to bring suit to disband the RIAA. This is extortion, plain and simple.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        lastly, why should it be up to the isp's to monitor this? how the hell is it their problem? only luddites suggest isp's are responsible to people browsing kiddie porn or other sick shit, yet somehow it's different when it's the RIAA.

        ISP's want to oppose this to their dieing breath, for exactly the reason you just listed.

        As long as they do their 'common carrier' thing where they are simply providing a service and not trying to moderate that service they can't be held liable.

        As soon as they start trying they open them selves up to potential liability, if they do this for the RIAA, soccer moms will go 'so why is there still kiddy porn on the net?' and then somebody will jump in and sue the ISP for not filtering the kiddy porn out, after

        • Mod parent up. Seriously, this cannot be said enough times. Things like this, seemingly reasonable things are the thin end of a very painful wedge. Perfect example for this - Ex-PM Tony Blair gave himself an effective "veto" to force through his promised ban on fox hunting against the objections of the House of Lords. Most people didn't object - Fox hunting is a horrible thing and needed to go. Later on he used the same mandate of power to take the country into an illegal war that we're still caught up in
    • by msimm ( 580077 )

      I'm sure Microsoft will be more than happy to modify their TCP/IP stack to help make filesharing as easy as possible.

      Ya, good thing that's my only choice...

      But seriously, how many additional hoops do you think ticking the SSL button is? And hey, it's conceivable that most popular torrent clients in the near future come defaulting to SSL. What do you think the result would be? Do you think the software developers would have to explain when SSL traffic begins to be shaped en mass or would people be more in

    • I wouldn't be surprised to see SSL throttled down to the point where transferring large files becomes painfully slow

      Why would the ISPs want to do that? They can plausibly claim that they have no idea what exactly is contained in those encrypted packets and thus no legal obligation to do anything. I am not sure about the precedents (IANAL) but I seem to recall that the courts have already ruled substantially in favor of the ISPs as NOT being responsible for the activities of their individual users provided that they can meet the low bar of reasonable steps such as complying with subpoenas, responding to takedown letters,

    • by Kwirl ( 877607 )
      The author did not imply those were the ONLY two methods to render the software worthless, merely the first two options at hand I'd imagine.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      Throttling SSL traffic is not going to make businesses happy. "I'm sorry sir, you'll have to sync your extranet databases insecurely, or it'll take about 3 weeks."
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by syousef ( 465911 )
      This technology is not foolproof, but it does require filesharers to jump through additional hoops to distribute files. Hardcore filesharers will no doubt toil obsessively to workaround the issue, but some casual downloaders may conclude that the hassle and risks associated with filesharing is becoming greater than the costs of paying $0.89 to get the song from Amazon, etc.

      Garbage. Historically what happens is that a tool is created to automate getting past the file sharing restrictions which requires no mo
    • If large numbers of filesharers begin to send huge transfers amounts of data over SSL, it's going to be pretty noticeable.

      All web pages must send data to be viewed. All content whatsoever must send data to be viewed. File sizes are going to increases *exponentially*! There will be absolutely no way for the isp to distinguish between phone traffic, "illegal" p2p traffic, and even the isp's own "movie" file offerings.

      It will become nearly impossible for anyone to know the contents of any file by merely looking at size, distribution, origination, etc. ISPs will lose a helluva lot more money with their free speech violations that

  • by zmjjmz ( 1264856 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2008 @11:47PM (#23179304)
    That's messed up.
  • extortion. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Bishop Ebonhand ( 1067570 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2008 @11:50PM (#23179318)
    Doesn't this sound suspiciously like extortion? "buy our 'partner's' software/protection or we'll sue you for infringement" I wonder what kind of kickback they're getting on it?
    • Re:extortion. (Score:5, Informative)

      by NewYorkCountryLawyer ( 912032 ) * <ray@NOsPAm.beckermanlegal.com> on Thursday April 24, 2008 @12:15AM (#23179432) Homepage Journal

      Doesn't this sound suspiciously like extortion? "buy our 'partner's' software/protection or we'll sue you for infringement" I wonder what kind of kickback they're getting on it?
      Yeah, to me it sounds exactly like extortion. See what happened when Ohio University in Athens, Ohio, paid $76,000 in "protection" money [blogspot.com] to Dr. Jacobson's business partners.
      • by Svartalf ( 2997 )
        If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

        I'm seeing enough to wish there were more RICO suits filed against the whole lot of them.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Doesn't this sound suspiciously like extortion?

      The slashdot summary does. TFA says that they are being sued for allowing file sharing on their infrastructure. The fact that they don't use filtering products such as (but not limited to) CopySense is evidence that they are complicit with file sharers.

      I'm not saying they're not a pack of F**king idiots who are sure to lose in any justice system where the 'just' part of justice is meaningful, just pointing out that this is not exactly extortion.

  • Right (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dissy ( 172727 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2008 @11:52PM (#23179330)
    If they wanted them to use the software so bad, they would give them a copy for free.
    Greedy bastards
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Tsu-na-mi ( 88576 )
      I wouldn't call this funny. I thought the same thing -- that if giving away hundreds of thousands, even millions of dollars worth of their blocking technology would prevent the "billions of dollars" per year of losses in music sharing, it would be a no-brainer for the RIAA to offer their product for free. The only logical conclusions you can draw from their stance are that their losses are not so large as they claim, or their tech will not be effective in stopping it.
    • by Skapare ( 16644 )

      Just because they can get it for free does not mean this will work. Imagine the level of traffic that has to run through it. Who is going to pay for that hardware? They should give them a turnkey box that does all the monitoring, one for each DSLAM.

    • For free? (Score:5, Funny)

      by mr_lizard13 ( 882373 ) on Thursday April 24, 2008 @02:04AM (#23179868)
      Or they could just get it off bit-torrent.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by wvmarle ( 1070040 )
      Copyright holders should at least provide:
      • The hardware to run it on,
      • The software itself, including O/S and other required software,
      • Money to pay for the energy bill caused by this hardware,
      • Pay for the modifications to the network required by their system,
      • Pay for any and all maintenance on their servers,
      • Pay rent for the space used by their hardware.

      I think that about sums it up. It is after all not in the network operator's interest to do this, nor is it a legal obligation for them to monitor th

      • by Detritus ( 11846 )

        By the way, does anyone know what happened to "common carrier" status for ISPs? I do recall they were fighting for that. Installing this kind of sniffer systems completely goes against such a possible status.
        Most ISPs wouldn't want it. Common carriers have to offer service to anyone who can pay for it. They can't pick and choose customers, or offer special rates to favored customers. Their rates are often regulated by the state or the federal government.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 24, 2008 @12:19AM (#23179466)
    So I'm suing my town and state because their roads were used to transport the stolen items away. That could have been easily avoided had they employed a security guard from my company at each of the intersections...
  • by Fluffeh ( 1273756 ) on Thursday April 24, 2008 @12:21AM (#23179484)
    A funny story that sort of shines out as an example here of how this all fits together:

    In Australia in recent years there has been a push to stop selling cigarettes to under 18's. There are harsh fines and so forth to both the business and to the individuals who would do the selling.

    One smart (or lazy/tricky depending on what way you look at it) cookie decided that as a shop owner who sold tabacco products, he was being asked to do regulatory work on behalf of the state government here who said that he shouldn't sell to minors. He took the government to court - and amazingly won the case. (I couldn't find anything on google though).

    THe basic premise is the same here though, the RIAA and governments are imposing rules about what can and can't be done by users of something else, but they want someone else to do all the dirty work imposing the law. It's a bloody great way not to do any work if you ask me - by getting someone else to do it, and pay for it.

    While I support copyright, I think that they should stop trying to get ISP's to do all the dirty work.
    • by cliffski ( 65094 )
      I don't see why this is so wrong. Unless you want 10% of the population to be government employees watching everything that goes on, corporations HAVE to work with government to avoid breaking the law.
      It's illegal in the UK for kids to walk into a store and buy alcohol. And amazingly, the checkout workers are trained to not sell it to them. I'm sure they would find their job easier if they could operate like total drones and not bother looking at the customer, or asking for ID, but they have to do so.
      Pretty
  • Fighting Back (Score:3, Insightful)

    by hyades1 ( 1149581 ) <hyades1@hotmail.com> on Thursday April 24, 2008 @12:35AM (#23179544)

    It seems to me that a good way to fight the RIAA is to turn their whole numbers game on its head. Hit them with so many lawsuits that their legal strategy collapses.

    Would it be possible for law schools in various countries to assemble "how to" kits that would allow average people to harass the big labels, individually or collectively, in this way? I'm not sure what grounds would be best to surpass the "nuisance" threshold and protect the litigants from charges of malicious prosecution (or whatever it might be called), but something must surely exist.

    Can you imagine the drain on their financial and manpower resources if the RIAA suddenly found itself on the receiving end of 15,000 suits in 20 countries?

    • Can you imagine the drain on their financial and manpower resources if the RIAA suddenly found itself on the receiving end of 15,000 suits in 20 countries?

      Another way to financially harm the RIAA is to stop purchasing music from the labels that comprise them. Sadly, for all the 'outrage' over the actions of groups like this, who actually gets off their butt and boycotts the parent labels?

      Don't just stop there - do everything you can to reduce exposure for their artists. Shut off television sets playing music videos. Unplug radios playing their music. Flip over their CDs in music stores, or hide them behind other discs. Get your friends hooked on independent

  • I can sue ISPs, if they won't install software I wrote to protect copyrights that I owe? Wow, if there was every an answer to..

    1) Write software to protect your copyrights

    2) sue ISPs when they call shenanigans

    3) PROFIT!! ..this is it!
  • this is strange. in tfa it says:

    The Irish market for sound recordings suffered a decline in total sales form 146m in 2001 to 102m last year, a fall of 30%, and a substantial portion of that decline was due to illegal peer-to-peer downloading services and the increasing availability of broadband internet access here, he said.

    i wonder what dvd recordings did at the same time? is it possible that the average person has a certain budget for entertainment and just spends the money buying what they want? maybe the record companies should instead consider suing the film companies.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by sm62704 ( 957197 )
      is it possible that the average person has a certain budget for entertainment and just spends the money buying what they want?

      Most people don't work on a commission or have an unlimited amount of funds. Normal people have a certain FIXED INCOME* (salary, wages, retirement, etc). I don't know about Ireland but we're paying a hell of a lot more for gasoline here in the US. Every dollar I spend at the gas station is a dollar I can't spend on a CD.

      -mcgrew

      *If it's a fixed income how come I'm always broke?
      • an excellent point.

        where i live, the price of a packet of pasta has gone up from 29c to 55c in one year. maybe the riaa should sue my supermarket for depriving them of revenue.
  • The real deal (Score:2, Insightful)

    by sysconp1 ( 699556 )
    The real deal on this story is that Eircom (Irelands national carrier) said they wouldn't install the software suggested by RIAA on its systems. RIAA have tried a number of bullying tactics against Eircom and taking Eircom to court is just the latest of these. If RIAA have its way they will have the software installed and then this is meant to only filter copyright material from Eircom's subscribers. However this could also prevent legitimate P2P use by limiting the bandwidth avaiable, as well as blocking
  • Shouldn't that be the IRAA?
  • How exactly does CopySense work ? I just read a PDF [audiblemagic.com] of their propaganda. Apparently an artist wishing to "protect his copyrighted works" registers in their database. Then CopySense makes a "media fingerprint" of the files - what do they mean by that ?

    If they mean an actual audio fingerprint like MusicBrainz does, wouldn't the entire file need to be downloaded first ? So they're scanning the entire P2P traffic for relevant packets and recomposing the file on their own systems (including compressed files, s

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by azrider ( 918631 )

      Then they also say they can filter out porn/kiddie porn P2P traffic. Have they got fingerprints of THAT ? All existing porn movies ? Sounds like the largest porn collection on Earth.
      Not only that, they have now confessed to possessing child pornography!!

      Take that, Audible Magic!

  • Packet Shaping (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Bonzodog01 ( 995533 ) on Thursday April 24, 2008 @07:05AM (#23180912)
    "The record companies believed greater availability of broadband will lead to a further escalation in the volume of unlawful distribution of recordings, he added." It looks like they don't like the idea of Broadband getting to Ireland. I live in Galway and use ntl/chorus cable for my Broadband. I have discovered that they are packet shaping my connection, as I cannot get a Bittorrent connection to sail above 5k/s for more than a few minutes at a time, it's hopeless, even downloading legal torrents for ISO's for Linux Distro's. Yeah, I'm Galways Linux User.
  • by Gordonjcp ( 186804 ) on Thursday April 24, 2008 @07:36AM (#23181088) Homepage
    I *want* people to redistribute my copyrighted material over P2P networks. Preventing this from happening causes me a problem. If my material is wrongly detected as something the RIAA don't want shared, it harms *my* profits.

    I suppose the question is, how do you detect false positives, and when they happen who do I sue?
    • by sm62704 ( 957197 )
      If you have a song named "unforgiven" and I hear of it but can't remember the name of your band, the RIAA has just fucked you - because if I search for "unforgiven" I'm most likely to find a Metallica song or a Clint Eastwood movie.

      And this is exactly how the MAFIAA wants it. You are their competetion. The RIAA wants to keep your music out of my ears, not keep Metallica's music out of my ears (or they wouldn't play it on the radio).

Don't tell me how hard you work. Tell me how much you get done. -- James J. Ling

Working...