Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
12122232527

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,807 ✭✭✭✭Orion


    Apart from the fact that they're not doing any 'peeking' in this situation, considering that you agreed not to share copyrighted material when you signed up for Eircom broadband they are pretty much within their rights. Are their T&Cs appropriate for an ISP? Probably not, but that's not the issue here.

    Agreeing to not share copyrighted material does not give explicit or implicit permission for them to monitor what you use their service for. An analogy is your phone contract - you should not use it to plot/plan/commit illegal acts but nobody can listen into your phone calls without a court order. Or buying a computer from Dell - no terrorist acts allowed with it - but that doesn't give Dell the right to enter your home to see what you're using it for.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,807 ✭✭✭✭Orion


    If you get broadband from eircom you agree not to share copyrighted material...so if they cut you off for doing so they are just enforcing their terms and conditions..

    How exactly? Where's the burden of proof? Some faceless corporation is the sole judge now? If Eircom cut anyone off they will need to be able to defend themselves against a breach of contract suit. And an email from Joe Bloggs Music Studio won't cut it. This is where the whole deal falls asunder. Eircom will not cut anybody off on the say-so of any music studio. They will just tell people to stop sharing much as BT do already. There is no way that Sony etc can know who is using any IP at any particular time so they will have no choice but to accept that it was different people each time - even if it wasn't.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,774 ✭✭✭Bohrio


    Macros42 wrote: »
    Agreeing to not share copyrighted material does not give explicit or implicit permission for them to monitor what you use their service for. An analogy is your phone contract - you should not use it to plot/plan/commit illegal acts but nobody can listen into your phone calls without a court order. Or buying a computer from Dell - no terrorist acts allowed with it - but that doesn't give Dell the right to enter your home to see what you're using it for.

    49 pages and people still dont understand how all this works... Eircom dont/wont monitor nothing, is the record companies who will inform Eircom of who is downloading/misusing this material and then ask Eircom to act accordingly.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭vibe666


    exactly, and the record companies can't force eircom to give them those details now because they already have an out of court agreement with them regarding this, so if the record companies want that information they'll have to take eircom to court all over again the same as comreg have to every time THEY try and force eircom to do something they don't want to.

    it's a classic eircom move that they have practiced many times before. :)

    the data protection act protects the privacy of your name/IP address from 3rd party's so eircom has basically just made it look like they are complying with what was agreed, but in reality they just totally dodged a bullet.

    eircom really doesn't care what people are downloading and they aren't just going to willingly cut off customers on the say so of a record company and merrily send them over to the competion, esp. when the competition (for the most part) offers a much better service.

    there IS a recession on you know. ;)
    Bohrio wrote: »
    49 pages and people still dont understand how all this works... Eircom dont/wont monitor nothing, is the record companies who will inform Eircom of who is downloading/misusing this material and then ask Eircom to act accordingly.
    not entirely. the record companies have no idea 'who' is downloading their material and they never will.

    what they have is an IP address and a time which tells them nothing more than who the ISP of that person is. the only people who know, or will ever know those details are eircom and they are under no obligation to give out that information to anyone.

    all they have done is agree to something that nobody other than themselves has any way of policing.

    maybe they will use it as an excuse to kick off their most prolific (over)downloaders but that's about it. if you're that sort of person anyway, why would you be an eircom customer when there are much better options?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,807 ✭✭✭✭Orion


    Bohrio wrote: »
    49 pages and people still dont understand how all this works... Eircom dont/wont monitor nothing, is the record companies who will inform Eircom of who is downloading/misusing this material and then ask Eircom to act accordingly.

    I know that - and if you read back a lot you will see I said that already. I was replying to Paddy.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 605 ✭✭✭PaddyTheNth


    Macros42 wrote: »
    Agreeing to not share copyrighted material does not give explicit or implicit permission for them to monitor what you use their service for. An analogy is your phone contract - you should not use it to plot/plan/commit illegal acts but nobody can listen into your phone calls without a court order. Or buying a computer from Dell - no terrorist acts allowed with it - but that doesn't give Dell the right to enter your home to see what you're using it for.
    You've already quoted my answer to this - the T&Cs aren't appropriate for an ISP. And Eircom aren't doing any monitoring - they'll be acting on information provided by a third party to enforce their contracts.
    Macros42 wrote: »
    How exactly? Where's the burden of proof? Some faceless corporation is the sole judge now? If Eircom cut anyone off they will need to be able to defend themselves against a breach of contract suit. And an email from Joe Bloggs Music Studio won't cut it.
    You hardly think that they'll just cut someone off the first time they get a letter quoting an IP number? The three strikes clause has been mentioned several times already, and precisely for the reason you are stating they will have to verify that the accusation is warranted before they cut someone off.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,807 ✭✭✭✭Orion


    You hardly think that they'll just cut someone off the first time they get a letter quoting an IP number? The three strikes clause has been mentioned several times already, and precisely for the reason you are stating they will have to verify that the accusation is warranted before they cut someone off.

    My point is how are they going to verify it even after three strikes? There is no burden of proof on either Eircom or the studios in this deal. Without dpi (which they cannot legally implement currently) they can't prove that anyone has downloaded anything copyrighted - all they will have is the word of a minimum wage grunt working in a music company that a particular IP was used to do so.


  • Registered Users Posts: 605 ✭✭✭PaddyTheNth


    Macros42 wrote: »
    My point is how are they going to verify it even after three strikes? There is no burden of proof on either Eircom or the studios in this deal. Without dpi (which they cannot legally implement currently) they can't prove that anyone has downloaded anything copyrighted - all they will have is the word of a minimum wage grunt working in a music company that a particular IP was used to do so.
    Yeah that's a fair concern alright. As was mentioned by someone else way back in this thread, some of the anti-piracy folks due what I guess would be described as due diligence...they actually download some of the file(s), take screenshots of the download in progress from the relevant IP, and actually verify that the contents of the download is what its supposed to be. Others just list every single connecting IP and don't bother providing any real evidence.

    I would say that in the case of the former, when the *AA can give the date that they were doing what they were doing and the IP they were doing it from together with the sort of evidence described, it would be easy enough for the ISP to check their logs and verify that there was torrent traffic between the relevant IPs at the time described.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,443 ✭✭✭Red Sleeping Beauty


    Google news: http://news.google.co.uk/news?sourceid=navclient&hl=en&rlz=1T4ADBF_en-GBGB256GB256&ie=UTF-8&tab=wn&ncl=1304756051
    http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/16/pirate-bay-sweden-markets-equity-0216_media_11.html
    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/18a34a28-fc91-11dd-aed8-000077b07658.html
    http://www.nme.com/news/various-artists/42817
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/feb/16/pirate-bay
    The Pirate Bay in the dock as filesharing trial beginsSwedish


    prosecutors have begun to lay out the case against filesharing site The Pirate Bay, in one of the highest-profile copyright cases in years

    Kevin Anderson www.guardian.co.uk
    Monday 16 February 2009 14.42 GMT


    One of most high-profile trials over copyright infringement in years began today in Sweden. Four men behind The Pirate Bay website – which enables people to find others willing to share audio, video, games and other files with them – appeared in court in Stockholm to answer the charge that they had assisted in copyright infringement.

    The film, music and games industries are saying that the defendants not only encouraged copyright infringement but also profited from it, while the defendants argue that they hosted no shared files and therefore are not responsible for infringement.

    The Pirate Bay is a "torrent" tracker, which uses the peer-to-peer file sharing technology called BitTorrent. Trackers don't host the music, video or software files themselves, but allow users to search for and download "torrent" files. Those in turn allow users to find other people who have the file they want, and to share the files amongst themselves. Each BitTorrent user with a copy of the file contributes a piece to others who are downloading it.

    BitTorrent filesharing has been enormously popular: some internet service providers reckon that around 80% of the data traffic passing over their networks uses the service.

    This morning, prosecutor Håkan Roswall outlined his case, accusing the four men of profiting from promoting copyright infringement via one of the largest filesharing services on the internet. An estimated 22 million people have used The Pirate Bay site.

    Roswall said in court that the defendants were aware that Swedish law was changed in 2005, incorporating an EU directive that makes it illegal to download copyright protected files from the internet.

    The defendants include three of the website's co-founders, Fredik Neij, Gottfrid Svartholm Warg and Peter Sunde Kolmisoppi. Prosecutors also charged one of the site's donors, Swedish dotcom millionaire Carl Lundström.

    Lundström has donated money to the organisation, and the prosecution says that in 2004 he helped the other defendents configure larger numbers of computers to host the site.

    If convicted, the men face two years in prison and a fine of 1.2m kronor (£98,000).

    Lundström's lawyer said: "To supply a service that can be used illegally or legally is not illegal."

    The first day of the trial was such an event that Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter's media blog reported that tickets to get into the courtroom were selling on the black market for 500 Swedish kronor (£41).

    However, the intense interest and festival atmosphere outside of the court was not matched by high courtroom drama. Most of the day was taken up by the prosecutor showing various screenshots of The Pirate Bay site demonstrating how to download from the site. As Snild Dolkow who is translating Swedish coverage of the trial into English put it:

    On the first day of trial, the prosecutor gave to me..

    one screenshot of a torrent download,

    another screenshot of a torrent download,

    another screenshot of a torrent download,

    another screenshot of a torrent download,

    another screenshot of a torrent download,

    another screenshot of a torrent download,

    another screenshot of a torrent download,


    .... and so on.

    While BitTorrent is used to share copyrighted files, the technology is also commonly used to distribute software such as the open-source operating system Linux because it lessens the bandwidth costs for distributors of the software: everyone with a copy of the file contributes a piece to the overall download.

    Plaintiffs in the case include Warner Bros, MGM, Colombia Pictures Industries, 20th Century Fox, Sony BMG, Universal and EMI.

    Led by the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, the plaintiffs are calling for damages of 120 million kronor (£9.8m). The chairman of the IFPI, John Kennedy, said: "The evidence in this case will show that The Pirate Bay is a commercial business which made substantial amounts of money for its operators, despite their claim to be only interested in spreading culture for free."

    The prosecution will rely on expert witnesses, emails between the defendents and invoices sent to advertisers.

    Pirate Bay held a press conference on Sunday, bringing in supporters on buses painted with pirate ship. The supporters carried banners with "ctrl+c,ctrl+v", the keyboard shortcuts for copying and pasting text, images or files.

    At the press conference, defendant Gottfrid Svartholm Warg said the music and movie industry "are welcome to send me a bill". If he does get one, he said he will frame it and hang it on his wall.


  • Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,470 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    Taken from ENN - http://enn.ie/story/show/10125031
    The paper also says that internet service providers (ISPs) have been put on notice of legal action if they do not implement a system which would cut off the broadband connections of people found repeatedly downloading music illegally. Letters from Sheehy Donnelly Solicitors acting on behalf of the Irish arms of EMI Records, Sony Music, Universal Music and Warner Music were received by a number of telecoms and internet service providers on Monday. The letters seek the implementation of a "graduated response" to copyright infringement by the ISPs' customers.

    Last month, Eircom settled a High Court action taken by the four major music labels forcing it to take measures to prevent the use of its networks for the illegal free downloading of music.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 62 ✭✭CaptSolo


    Reported by Irish Times: "Threat of Legal Action on Music Copyright"

    Digg these news at: http://tr.im/govx

    Not surprising that they are going for all other ISPs. It would not make sense for them to limit action only to Eircom and let people migrate to other providers. Eircom just set a precedent that ISPs might give into music industry's demands (w/o a need for them to lobby the government for legislation in this area).
    Cabaal wrote: »
    The paper also says that internet service providers (ISPs) have been put on notice of legal action if they do not implement a system which would cut off the broadband connections of people found repeatedly downloading music illegally. Letters from Sheehy Donnelly Solicitors acting on behalf of the Irish arms of EMI Records, Sony Music, Universal Music and Warner Music were received by a number of telecoms and internet service providers on Monday. The letters seek the implementation of a "graduated response" to copyright infringement by the ISPs' customers.

    Last month, Eircom settled a High Court action taken by the four major music labels forcing it to take measures to prevent the use of its networks for the illegal free downloading of music.


  • Registered Users Posts: 62 ✭✭CaptSolo


    Bohrio wrote: »
    49 pages and people still dont understand how all this works... Eircom dont/wont monitor nothing, is the record companies who will inform Eircom of who is downloading/misusing this material and then ask Eircom to act accordingly.

    Will internet users under this agreement have any process for defending themselves against erroneous allegations (apart from suing their ISP)?

    If it is record companies who do the informing and Eircom just counts the number of notices from record companies, how can you ensure against record companies abusing this "ability"? Or that they don't make errors in their data collection?


  • Registered Users Posts: 754 ✭✭✭themacdaddy


    Anyone know when this agreement kicks in or has it already?


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭vibe666


    CaptSolo wrote: »
    Will internet users under this agreement have any process for defending themselves against erroneous allegations (apart from suing their ISP)?
    there's the rub. with eircom appointing themselves the firesharing equiv. of judge dredd, who polices the download police? :confused:
    CaptSolo wrote: »
    If it is record companies who do the informing and Eircom just counts the number of notices from record companies, how can you ensure against record companies abusing this "ability"? Or that they don't make errors in their data collection?
    sacly.

    i still think it's just another eircom circlejerk to buy time before they actually have to do anything about it.

    what's to stop eircom from telling the record companies that it was such an effective strategy that not a single customer has gotten more than two strikes?

    it ought to buy them plenty of time to twiddle their thumbs if they have to (officially) double strike every customer. :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 557 ✭✭✭Tester46


    vibe666 wrote: »
    the data protection act protects the privacy of your name/IP address from 3rd party's so eircom has basically just made it look like they are complying with what was agreed, but in reality they just totally dodged a bullet.

    The reality is that by the time the ISPs actually do anything about this, the technology will have moved on. Plus, file sharing can also be legal (like cassetes and blank CDRs). Plus lots of people hear music via file sharing and then go out and buy CDs and go to concerts where they would not otherwise have done so. For these and lots of other reasons it's hard to see the ISPs/record companies/international military-industrial complex/"them"/whoever actually stamping out sharing. They simply need to come up with a good business model. I still pay for music I like online even though I could probably download it for nothing - but it is usually from independent artists selling directly. I pay because (a) I want to support them (cuz I like them) and (b) cuz they are good value e.g €5 or something.

    Out of curiosity, does anyone know of anyone who has actually been cut of (or even warned) by eircom?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,443 ✭✭✭Red Sleeping Beauty


    Tester46 wrote: »
    Plus lots of people hear music via file sharing and then go out and buy CDs

    Oddly enough this is correct


  • Registered Users Posts: 32,417 ✭✭✭✭watty


    Actually it's an urban myth. A minority of the population does file sharing.


  • Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,470 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    Tester46 wrote: »
    The reality is that by the time the ISPs actually do anything about this, the technology will have moved on. Plus, file sharing can also be legal (like cassetes and blank CDRs).

    Actually in Ireland its technically illegal to record off the radio and it is illegal to copy a tape or CD...in the US you can under fair use but Ireland does not have this in its copyright laws.

    Yes file sharing can be legal if the owner consents to allow the file to be copied and shared out (same goes for CD's) and if you using it for such legal uses then any recent changes by the recording industry and ISP's won't affect you.

    Of course if you worrying and complaining about these changes then its very clear you've likely your downloading copyright material.

    I laugh at people who complain about the business model, so say you create works of art and they sell for 100e a pop....you make your living from them and people really like them...but somebody starts doing perfect copys of them and gives them away for free.....how do you feel now? Do you think its ok, do you think its great that for people its all about the art now? No of course you bloody don't!

    Just because something is popular and you like it and you'd like it extremely cheap or free doesn't mean its ok to "steal it".


  • Registered Users Posts: 32,417 ✭✭✭✭watty


    However nowhere is it legal to give others copies of the CDs and tapes you made of commercial content


  • Registered Users Posts: 882 ✭✭✭acalmenvoy


    I would pay 2euro for a complete album download at 320kbps or a good quality movie download with no DRM, and I havent paid for music or movies in years, at those prices I think I would replace all my existing music with the good quality legal stuff.

    I think a lot us would and the music industry would make a lot of money, but will they bite the bullet, who knows, but if they did, I feel attitudes could change over a generation, and while piracy will always there, maybe it wont be as popular as it is now.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,470 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    acalmenvoy wrote: »
    I would pay 2euro for a complete album download at 320kbps or a good quality movie download with no DRM, and I havent paid for music or movies in years, at those prices I think I would replace all my existing music with the good quality legal stuff.

    I think a lot us would and the music industry would make a lot of money, but will they bite the bullet, who knows, but if they did, I feel attitudes could change over a generation, and while piracy will always there, maybe it wont be as popular as it is now.

    I'd like to buy a brand new Hyandai i30 for 5000e, I feel they are expensive and that the car industry would sort its lack of sales by dropping prices

    We'd all like stuff cheaper :)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,443 ✭✭✭Red Sleeping Beauty


    watty wrote: »
    Actually it's an urban myth. A minority of the population does file sharing.

    So it's a small minority that are bringing down the film and music industry ?:confused: There's people that download (via torrents) albums that they wouldn't have bought anyway. Using torrents isn't idiot proof, you have to have some kind of familiarisation with the software and using broadband, especially if you've to forward ports.
    Look at the amount of money that Dark Knight raked in at the pictures! Same with Mamma Mia on DVD.

    I used to work in a cinema and I'd hear kids say how they'd already seen such and such a film on pirate while they were buying tickets for said film.


  • Registered Users Posts: 882 ✭✭✭acalmenvoy


    Cabaal wrote: »
    I'd like to buy a brand new Hyandai i30 for 5000e, I feel they are expensive and that the car industry would sort its lack of sales by dropping prices

    We'd all like stuff cheaper :)

    I'm supprised at that comment by a moderator and a veteren of over 10000 posts, when was the last time you downloaded a Ford Focus from P****e B*y...

    >Gives up<....:(


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,629 ✭✭✭NullZer0


    Cabaal wrote: »
    I'd like to buy a brand new Hyandai i30 for 5000e

    Your probably the only one :D


  • Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,470 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    acalmenvoy wrote: »
    I'm supprised at that comment by a moderator and a veteren of over 10000 posts, when was the last time you downloaded a Ford Focus from P****e B*y...

    >Gives up<....:(

    Sorry I offended you ;),
    How about this,
    I'd like to buy Adobe Creative Suite 4 Master Sollection for 50e (normal retail about $2,500), I feel it is expensive and that the software industry would sort its lack of sales by dropping prices

    We'd all like stuff cheaper

    :rolleyes:


    iRock wrote: »
    Your probably the only one :D

    I've never cared about looks of cars or 0-60 in x seconds, just road tax costs, running costs and fuel economy :)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,707 ✭✭✭✭Tigger


    quayjen??


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,330 ✭✭✭✭jimmycrackcorm


    acalmenvoy wrote: »
    I'm supprised at that comment by a moderator and a veteren of over 10000 posts, when was the last time you downloaded a Ford Focus from P****e B*y...

    >Gives up<....:(

    I understand. The only thing that I'm able to download from TPB is torrent files. My mp3 player won't play those.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,660 ✭✭✭crawler


    From El Reg ( http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/19/pirate_bay_trial_ifpi_website_hacked/ ) Sunde makes a good point

    Pirate Bay co-founder Peter Sunde has pleaded with fans to stop attacking official entertainment industry websites after the Swedish wing of the The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry’s (IFPI) site was hacked yesterday.

    Sunde, who is among four men facing prosecutors representing the likes of Sony, MGM and Universal in the already infamous Pirate Bay trial, uncharacteristically put the boot in yesterday against the hackers.


  • Registered Users Posts: 500 ✭✭✭slickmcvic


    was on the phone to eircom today...they were tryin to get us to switch back to eircom from another provider.....i was very positive towards the idea until i heard about the downloading agreement.
    i spoke to the sales rep and her supervisor and both of assured me that eircom had no intention of monitoring , reporting or disconnecting downloaders....now they did say it was the user that was liable for whatever material that'd be viewed or downloaded but they couldnt have denied the reports any stronger and gaurenteed that they currently do not monitor or report downloads and had no plans to do so in the future.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 32,417 ✭✭✭✭watty


    In the agreement that they made indeed it is true that they are NOT going to monitor or Report downloaders

    What they agreed was that the Rights Holders would report an IP and date/time copyright violation to eircom.

    eircom agreed they would warn twice and the third time a report matched the same person after two warnings disconnect the person.

    But the Rights Holders won't know who it is or even if it happens or what reports are 1st, 2nd or disconnect or anything... The rights holders report an IP of persons unknown and just have to trust eircom to implement eircoms EXISTING T&C about users not infringing copyright ...


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement