[Article] Eircom to cut off Music File Sharers ..

dub45

John Sheehy wrote: »

I am interested to hear an answer to this.

Is it that Eircom are now legally obliged to investigate the activities of the ip addresses given to them by the recording companies? Do Eircom get paid to do this? Presumably they would need to if they are already protected by a law that says they are non-accountable for what it's customers utilizes its services for?.

There are umpteen posts here pointing out that this is not a legal agreement.

And even if Eircom are legally protected ( I have no knowledge of whether they are or not) surely they have a moral responsibility to act if someone is using their services to break the law and in any event as again as has been pointed out the customer has accepted their terms and conditons when they sign up for the provision of broadband. Suppose you were getting obscene/nuisance phone calls from an eircom customer whose number you knew, would you really be fine with Eircom taking no action at all to stop this if you gave them the number and would you accept their defense that they are legally immune from the actions of anyone using their equipment?

John Sheehy wrote: »

Beans are valued by the cost of their production; labour, materials etc.

What you're describing is valuing something on something that physically doesn't exist or cost anything at all - an opinion.

e: Although people apply opinion's to beans as well and pay bigger buxx for brand names...

And how do you put a value on knowledge, experience expertise etc? Are you suggesting that people with knowledge artistic gifts and so on can be ripped off simply because it doesn't exist physically and cannot be 'valued'
in the same way as beans?

lmimmfn

this is draconian, im abroad and download top gear/jonathan ross and whatever other tv shows i normally watch at home. I pay my sky subscription( their crappy sky player doesnt work outside of the uk and ireland ) and would watch the shows if i was at home. Im not saying what i do is correct......however if they got their act together, had avertisements embedded( or a protocol to download and insert regional ads ) in downloadable tv shows then there'd be no problem.
Last year( or the year before ) the writers of Lost were happy with all the downloads the show had as it brought people to watch it on tv increasing their audience and potential DVD sales.

The whole problem is unwillingness to change by the record/movie.tv companies and provide a service that everyone is crying out for. They can do whatever they want, but it will never get rid of their problem until they change.

I hope theyre not going to charge those customers the broadband cancelation fee? Most people are just going to cycle accounts around whoevers living in the house and also switch ISP's. Worst case scenario is a large proportation of the population are banned from broadband access( whether warrented or not ) which is just crazy.

barnicles

http://torrentfreak.com/why-the-ifpieircom-anti-piracy-deal-sucks-090131/

dub45

barnicles wrote: »

http://torrentfreak.com/why-the-ifpieircom-anti-piracy-deal-sucks-090131/

Is this not the equivalent of the Vatican giving out about attacks on Catholicism?:rolleyes:

jimmycrackcorm

I heard a rumour from a source in eircom that when they do issue a warning to someone, they will then reallocate their ip address.

watty

That makes sense to anonymize the IP.

Then the RIASS, IRMA, or whoever can make no assumptions about the same IP coming up multiple times and it's totally at eircom's discretion who they disconnect (as it is now).

PaulBrewer

There's an interesting article in today's Sunday Times by Liam Fay regarding the Eircom deal

watty

Link
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article5627039.ece

John Sheehy

dub45 wrote: »

There are umpteen posts here pointing out that this is not a legal agreement.

And even if Eircom are legally protected ( I have no knowledge of whether they are or not) surely they have a moral responsibility to act if someone is using their services to break the law and in any event as again as has been pointed out the customer has accepted their terms and conditons when they sign up for the provision of broadband. Suppose you were getting obscene/nuisance phone calls from an eircom customer whose number you knew, would you really be fine with Eircom taking no action at all to stop this if you gave them the number and would you accept their defense that they are legally immune from the actions of anyone using their equipment?



And how do you put a value on knowledge, experience expertise etc? Are you suggesting that people with knowledge artistic gifts and so on can be ripped off simply because it doesn't exist physically and cannot be 'valued'
in the same way as beans?

I'm not talking about morals, I'm talking about whether or not Eircom themselves can be held accountable for what people do using their broadband. Also, I was replying in reference to the post I quoted going on the basis that what he said was true. So chill out.

Comparing downloading duplicated electronic files to harassment and intimidation is also pretty retarded. Eircom themselves would not take action either. The Gardai would request the address in relation to the number and deal with it themselves; thus answering the question why the Gards show up on people's doorsteps to stop obscene callers and not a board member from Eircom.

I don't really have an opinion on what other people do with their internet connections but a lot of people obviously have strong feelings on this which is why when someone asks a legitimate question about the workings of this agreement other people start ranting about stealing and morals.

The poster I was replying to about the beans posted that Art was worth more than beans because good art is harder to produce. Does this mean that bad art is worth less than beans? How do you gauge how good something is? And if good and bad are the measures to determine value by, how do you do that? Beans have a fixed(ish) value though.

That doesn't mean I think we should RIP OFF or STEAL or ROB anybody. If I want a reproduction of someones work then I should pay what I and the artist think is a good price. Downloading an album illegally when an artist (and recording studio) want 20 eurons for it is, I think, stealing. (If I thought it was too expensive there is no one forcing me to purchase it.)

John Sheehy

PaulBrewer wrote: »

There's an interesting article in today's Sunday Times by Liam Fay regarding the Eircom deal

That sure was some nice opinion.

boardseller

PeerGuardian 2 - Freeware:eek::)


PeerGuardian 2 is Phoenix Labs’ premier IP blocker for Windows. PeerGuardian 2 integrates support for multiple lists, list editing, automatic updates, and blocking all of IPv4 (TCP, UDP, ICMP, etc), making it the safest and easiest way to protect your privacy on P2P.

http://phrosty.phoenixlabs.org/pg2-070309.exe for XP/2003


http://phrosty.phoenixlabs.org/pg2-rc1 For Vista

Won't this help protect People?

yoyo

boardseller wrote: »

PeerGuardian 2 - Freeware:eek::)


PeerGuardian 2 is Phoenix Labs’ premier IP blocker for Windows. PeerGuardian 2 integrates support for multiple lists, list editing, automatic updates, and blocking all of IPv4 (TCP, UDP, ICMP, etc), making it the safest and easiest way to protect your privacy on P2P.

http://phrosty.phoenixlabs.org/pg2-070309.exe for XP/2003


http://phrosty.phoenixlabs.org/pg2-rc1 For Vista

Won't this help protect People?

Its fine once they have the snoopers IPs in the blacklist, but like everything, the chance of the snoopers being blocked could be slim, esp if they change network address

Nick

Maximus_Laggus

Does anyone know what information the music industry will collect and what info will they be passing onto Eircom or other ISP's (other than the IP address). Are Eircom going to investigate the actual "alledged" files downloaded as reported to them before they deny their service? Eircom need to explain exactly what the process will be.

Interesting that Comreg are completely silent on this whole decision

If complete checks are not carried out, the music industry here can just send Eircom a list of Irish originating IP addressess that even just visited a P2P site and have Eircom ban the lot piecemeal.

Something to think about in't it!! Theres just not enough info available at the mo methinks.

amen

how will the music companies get around the data protection act ?
Are they registered collectors of data and does their submission to the data protection commisioner explain how are they going to get the ips of users(seems the only way they can get them is by snooping which I would have thought is illegal?)

lmimmfn

whats going to happen large companies where an employee downloads an mp3, does that mean they get their business connection turned off? or is the responsibility to find a culprit going to cascade from RIAA/IRMA to the ISP to the business, if so seems to be a lot of wasted resources in the current climate

This could get very messy

Maximus_Laggus

One way people or organisations can get the IP addressess is to host the downloading of a file (mp3) or whatever. You can then see what addresses are connecting to you (them). This could lead to a whole other thread of entrapment etc.. Are Eircom going to just trust the Music industry snoopers word or provide evidence with their warnings to the ISP subscriber?

watty

If they connect as a P2P client and download THEIR copyright content they are legally downloading but the sharer is illegal. They automatically have the date/time and source IP.

There are possibly illegal methods. But if they use those out side of EU and server attacked/hacked is outside of EU?

watty

lmimmfn wrote: »

whats going to happen large companies where an employee downloads an mp3, does that mean they get their business connection turned off? or is the responsibility to find a culprit going to cascade from RIAA/IRMA to the ISP to the business, if so seems to be a lot of wasted resources in the current climate

This could get very messy

The employee is very likely to be logged on the company firewall and be discovered on 1st warning. It could be a sackable offence in many companies.

watty

boardseller wrote: »

PeerGuardian 2 - Freeware:eek::)


PeerGuardian 2 is Phoenix Labs’ premier IP blocker for Windows. PeerGuardian 2 integrates support for multiple lists, list editing, automatic updates, and blocking all of IPv4 (TCP, UDP, ICMP, etc), making it the safest and easiest way to protect your privacy on P2P.


Won't this help protect People?

No. Easily circumvented. Absolutely useless.

dub45

lmimmfn wrote: »

whats going to happen large companies where an employee downloads an mp3, does that mean they get their business connection turned off? or is the responsibility to find a culprit going to cascade from RIAA/IRMA to the ISP to the business, if so seems to be a lot of wasted resources in the current climate

This could get very messy

An employee downloading an mp3 at work if it is not for business purposes say a business related podcast or something, would be in breach of his or her terms and conditions of employment.

Freddie59

watty wrote: »

It could be a sackable offence in many companies.

It certainly is Watty. I can't see the big deal any more. In the early days almost everyone (mostly on dial-up then) were downloading. It was great at the start to get obscure tracks which couldn't be bought (I often bought a CD for just a couple of tracks).

But nowadays, with the iTunes service available, it isn't worth the effort to download illegally. 99c for a track. A tenner for an album.

I went into a house once where a guy was downloading Gregorian chant music, because he had run out of stuff to download. It's OCD at that stage.

Yes the illegal downloading has driven the price of CDs down to an affordable level. Just buy the bloody music. I don't know why everyone gets so upset over it.

Then you get the whole 'I feel invaded and violated' bit. FFS it's theft. Electronic theft, but theft nonetheless. Get a grip folks.

lmimmfn

watty wrote: »

The employee is very likely to be logged on the company firewall and be discovered on 1st warning. It could be a sackable offence in many companies.

no i understand all that, my point is where this is going, businesses have to police their networks as it stands but now they'll have the ISPs on their backs also, its wasted resources for businesses especially large ones

dub45

lmimmfn wrote: »

no i understand all that, my point is where this is going, businesses have to police their networks as it stands but now they'll have the ISPs on their backs also, its wasted resources for businesses especially large ones

And you see no irony at all in worrying about the wasted resources of companies whose employees may be downloading files illegally as opposed to the wasted resources of companies and artists whose copyrighted material is being routinely stolen?

dub45

Freddie59 wrote: »

It certainly is Watty. I can't see the big deal any more. In the early days almost everyone (mostly on dial-up then) were downloading. It was great at the start to get obscure tracks which couldn't be bought (I often bought a CD for just a couple of tracks).

The big deal is simply that people do not want to pay for music, films and so on.

Freddie59 wrote: »

I went into a house once where a guy was downloading Gregorian chant music, because he had run out of stuff to download. It's OCD at that stage.

Ah the irony stealing religious music!

watty

lmimmfn wrote: »

no i understand all that, my point is where this is going, businesses have to police their networks as it stands but now they'll have the ISPs on their backs also, its wasted resources for businesses especially large ones

It's a huge potential disaster if companies DON'T police their networks or hire expertise to set it up. This will result in better company procedures, monitoring and security which is good.

Any office network I set up, everything was logged and P2P would not have been possible. All the popular web mail blocked and only mail via the filtered and archived company POP3/SMTP which emulated a mail client to use the actual company POP3 mail boxes on the ISP. Usually NAT was disabled and only more secure Proxies setup with logging.

rojerdandry

A question:

If this is successful and the illegal downloading of music is ended in Ireland, and possibly in other countries too, what will the future be like with regards to other copyrighted items? In a few years time will there be letters from Eircom along the lines of:

A complaint has been received from Gary Larson stating that you have been distributing images from 'The Far Side' comic strip. Please discontinue this activity, if you wish to view this artist's work you may buy his books in a bookshop or pay the small sum of 50c per image on his website.

or

A complaint has been received from Larry Flynt stating that you have been downloading a copy of 'Naked Nurses 43 - The Movie'. Please discontinue this activity, if you wish to view this work you may buy said item at your local porn shop or transfer the small sum of $40 to Larry Flynt's account. Alternatively you could look through the windows of some flats near the Mater (although this could also have legal implications).

The internet is a wild west of information, not all of it desirable. Anyone who says that it should be completely unfettered is clearly not thinking straight, all you have to say to that is 'Abuse' and 'Terrorism'. However, the logical conclusion to serious enforcement of copyright is a dystopian future for everyone.
I'm not saying I have a better solution, but if you see something that clearly has the potential to become abominable, you don't have to offer an alternative before you describe it so.

Do you side with Finnian or Columcille in their argument over a copy of a book in the sixth century? King Diarmait said: "As the calf goes with the cow, so a copy goes with the book it is copied from".

A lot of things have changed since then, but I still think that the record-companies are being just as short-sighted as Diarmait.

dub45

rojerdandry wrote: »

A question:

If this is successful and the illegal downloading of music is ended in Ireland, and possibly in other countries too, what will the future be like with regards to other copyrighted items? In a few years time will there be letters from Eircom along the lines of:

A complaint has been received from Gary Larson stating that you have been distributing images from 'The Far Side' comic strip. Please discontinue this activity, if you wish to view this artist's work you may buy his books in a bookshop or pay the small sum of 50c per image on his website..

Are you in some way suggesting that Gary Larson is not entitled to copyright his comic strip?

rojerdandry wrote: »

A complaint has been received from Larry Flynt stating that you have been downloading a copy of 'Naked Nurses 43 - The Movie'. Please discontinue this activity, if you wish to view this work you may buy said item at your local porn shop or transfer the small sum of $40 to Larry Flynt's account. Alternatively you could look through the windows of some flats near the Mater (although this could also have legal implications).

Presumably if Larry Flynt has copyrighted his material then you are not entitled to download it for nothing. Why should copyrighted porn be different from any other copyrighted material?

If the material itself is in some illegal then presumably he would not be able to copyright it.

rojerdandry wrote: »

The internet is a wild west of information, not all of it desirable. Anyone who says that it should be completely unfettered is clearly not thinking straight, all you have to say to that is 'Abuse' and 'Terrorism'. However, the logical conclusion to serious enforcement of copyright is a dystopian future for everyone.
I'm not saying I have a better solution, but if you see something that clearly has the potential to become abominable, you don't have to offer an alternative before you describe it so.

So are you saying then that copyright should not be enforced or just half heartedly enforced?

rojerdandry wrote: »

Do you side with Finnian or Columcille in their argument over a copy of a book in the sixth century? King Diarmait said: "As the calf goes with the cow, so a copy goes with the book it is copied from".

A lot of things have changed since then, but I still think that the record-companies are being just as short-sighted as Diarmait.

If Finian owned the book then surely it was within his rights (even allowing for the absence of copyright law back then) not to want to share it? And Colmcille did copy the book without permission. You conveniently left out the last bit I notice!

lmimmfn

dub45 wrote: »

And you see no irony at all in worrying about the wasted resources of companies whose employees may be downloading files illegally as opposed to the wasted resources of companies and artists whose copyrighted material is being routinely stolen?

of course resources would be wasted on such activity, its really a whole other debate however im just pointing out overheads in processing eircoms/RIAA/IRMAs requests and identifying users. Its not going to cost all that much but adding up the man hours across the nation would amount to quite a lot

watty wrote: »

It's a huge potential disaster if companies DON'T police their networks or hire expertise to set it up. This will result in better company procedures, monitoring and security which is good.

Any office network I set up, everything was logged and P2P would not have been possible. All the popular web mail blocked and only mail via the filtered and archived company POP3/SMTP which emulated a mail client to use the actual company POP3 mail boxes on the ISP. Usually NAT was disabled and only more secure Proxies setup with logging.

Yes of course companies should always monitor net activity and have secure networks, most probably do except maybe small business. Any company ive worked for has all socket traffic firewalled and wont allow incoming connections on the usual web proxy ports 80 or 3128. However this could just be the start of it as they could easily place mp3's on web servers and entrap people, meaning that would be accessible from corporate lans and the likes

Personally i couldnt give a toss about them stopping music as i rarely downloaded tracks and 90% of stuff i did download i bought the albums or already had them and couldnt be bothered converting them to mp3's. The other 10% would be crap and get nuked.
I mainly just listen to the radio. I have about 200 albums cluttering up the place and would be rarely buying anymore anyway. Although i do buy lots of albums as gifts for others etc.

However i do download tv shows when im abroad, getting done for that would annoy me. Ive also downloaded movies that i already have on DVD, thats a grey area but theres nothing worse than converting a DVD for an hour and finding out the audios all messed up.
Im not saying any of that is right, but i do see the whole thing as pointless when its the music and movie industry that should be setting up business models to cater for the obvious interest in downloading media digitally( non DRM'd media that is unless its a movie rental or whatever ).

Itunes still doesnt have everything and not only that its pretty much a monopoly. If the RIAA/IRMA ensured worldwide that music can be distributed digitally( as what happened 7 or 8 years ago with mp3's being removed from all websites ) except for itunes and the likes, whats to stop them closing all deals with Apple and going back to their old rip off schemes of retail distribution and having to buy albums for 1 tune.

watty

Personally I don't mind the latency of connecting to Tesco, HMV, Amazon, Play, FBO etc and getting 650MByte to 1Terabyte per packet with no effect on my Cap. No need to make a seperate physical backup.

dub45

AntiRip wrote: »

Never broke the speed limit then dub45?

Actually no as I cant drive!