[Article] Music-swapping sites to be blocked by internet providers

Cabaal

BastardPrince wrote: »

but they are disconnecting people without a court order, yes?

After two warnings if you are reported as downloading copyright material then yes they are terminating you on the third warning...this is in-line with their Terms & Conditions which (if your an eircom customer) you have previously understood and agreed to.

Stating that they are handing over details without a court order is very much a different kettle of fish.

Its clear if anybody is stating this they obviously do not understand eircom's recent announcement and have not bother to read up on it in anyway as this would be one of the first things they'd understand. (or if they did read up on it they clearly did not understand it).

Unless its a criminal matter and/or the details have been requested by the gardai or courts through the correct channels Eircom or for that matter any ISP can not just freely hand over details and they are not doing this.

Chardee MacDennis

Sparks wrote: »

Of course they do - you don't think they need a court order to disconnect someone who doesn't pay their bill, do you?
But handing over names without a court order, that's a breach of the Data Protection Act and they could be charged over that (IIRC it's actually a criminal offence, not a civil one?)

I am fully aware of the ins and outs of the DPA! my point being what happened to innocent until proven guilty. and the accuracy of these claims have never been brilliant - the RIAA were suing dead people and at one stage they sued a laser printer in some college apparently, so why do we think IRMA/Eircom/Any ISP will be any more accurate or any less frivilous?

ionix5891

Cabaal wrote: »

After two warnings if you are reported as downloading copyright material then yes they are terminating you on the third warning...this is in-line with their Terms & Conditions which (if your an eircom customer) you have previously understood and agreed to.

Stating that they are handing over details without a court order is very much a different kettle of fish.

Its clear if anybody is stating this they obviously do not understand eircom's recent announcement and have not bother to read up on it in anyway as this would be one of the first things they'd understand. (or if they did read up on it they clearly did not understand it).

Unless its a criminal matter and/or the details have been requested by the gardai or courts through the correct channels Eircom or for that matter any ISP can not just freely hand over details and they are not doing this.

two warnings based on data supplied by media companies who could have obtained the ip addresses by legally questionable means, or just fired of mails at random

what we have here is assumption of guilt based on evidence from a biased source

you have to repeat the above to believe how crazy its gone

they can hide behind their TOS all they want but what they are doing is wrong and abusive towards their customers (who could be a victim of their eircom router being hacked, this easy to do still to this day) and possibly even illegal (under EU limiting freedom of speech directives)

as i pointed out earlier is there some sort of an agreement reached by the moderators, as so far they are the only ones supporting Eircom while every single other member in this thread has expressed outrage

i am sorry but i feel the moderators here dont like this Eircom matter being discussed (fear of a lawsuit or fear of loosing a lucrative advertiser?), and some know deep down that what's happening that is wrong on so many levels but cant admit to it

Sparks

Thing about being conversant with the DPA is that if you are, and you were to, for example, say that Party A was breaking the DPA with regard to Party B's personal information, then you'd be accusing Party A of illegal activity, and couldn't they then sue you for libel? Or more to the point for in here, the people who published your statement?

cregser

ionix5891 wrote: »

if there is a court ruling blocking sites (which is unlikely as it would breach EU directives and there was precedent in other countries where it was overturned) then they should block them, which would be very worrying but law is law

Could you please name these other countries and EU directives you're talking about? My brief research this morning tells me that the Infosoc Directive prevents European ISPs from being convicted of crimes based on what traffic passes through their routers, but local laws of member states can govern the level of cooperation ISPs must give to copyright holders. This opens the door to what the OP's linked article is talking about (more commentary relating to censorship in Denmark here).

The EU was lobbied to introduce a policy whereby the copyright holders could enforce cencorship. However, this EU-wide policy was rejected. This does not prevent member states from adopting this stance. This is the route the record companies et. all are taking.

I think the record companies have been advised that this will not prevent all users from accessing censored sites. What it will do though, is filter out the casual downloaders (who I'm assuming to be the majority), leaving only the people willing to invest time and effort to circumvent the system. This will significantly cut down the workload for the record companies affiliates who create the "3 strikes and your out" lists of IP addresses for Eircom & Co. It's a temporary measure at best so you have to question the motivation behind it (however misguided it is).

I disagree with the recording industry's methods and am disappointed with the continued self-censorship of 21st century media companies to comply with free speech oppressors (e.g. Eircom against IRMA, Boards.ie against MCD, etc.). We need a strong Irish version of the EFF to fight IRMA in court every step of the way, creating public awareness and political sympathy. I don't see it happening soon...

tinner777

has anyone had a warning yet?

Sparks

ionix5891 wrote: »

two warnings based on data supplied by media companies who could have obtained the ip addresses by legally questionable means, or just fired of mails at random
what we have here is assumption of guilt based on evidence from a biased source

Possibly, but the assumption is being made by the courts, not eircom; if eircom told the courts to go get bent, things would be far worse.

they can hide behind their TOS all they want but what they are doing is wrong and abusive towards their customers (who could be a victim of their eircom router being hacked, this easy to do still) and possibly even illegal (under EU limiting freedom of speech directives)

So change from Eircom to another ISP, one who won't honour court orders :rolleyes:

ionix5891

@cregser

some reading here


http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/11/23/1952248&from=rss

ionix5891

Sparks wrote: »

Possibly, but the assumption is being made by the courts, not eircom; if eircom told the courts to go get bent, things would be far worse.So change from Eircom to another ISP, one who won't honour court orders :rolleyes:

the courts made no assumptions or send any court orders

media companies provide ips to eircom and eircom disconnect people, no courts being involved

if the courts did provide an order for each and every ip/infraction then that would be a different story

stop trying to change the topic (blocking sites) and trying to distort whats happening and what eircom agreed to do (block users without a court order) in private deal with media companies

it is not right to take away peoples communication method (sometime eircom are only choice) in the 21st century just so some media companies can continue on their futile quest of taking away all our rights and making us all drones for them

Cabaal

ionix5891 wrote: »

two warnings based on data supplied by media companies who could have obtained the ip addresses by legally questionable means, or just fired of mails at random

ionix5891, legally questionable means?, exactly how is it legally questionable...please explain how you've come to this conclusion. If your going to make claims please back them up with proof....we've already seen you don't always know what your talking about.

they can hide behind their TOS all they want but what they are doing is wrong and abusive towards their customers (who could be a victim of their eircom router being hacked, this easy to do still to this day) and possibly even illegal (under EU limiting freedom of speech directives)

People living in the EU have no rights to internet access other then a PSTN provider has to give a line that can support 28K

If you breach eircom T&C's its your own fault and ignorance is not an excuse especially as you'll receive two warnings advising you to secure wireless router etc.

as i pointed out earlier is there some sort of an agreement reached by the moderators, as so far they are the only ones supporting Eircom while every single other member in this thread has expressed outrage

sigh,
Listen I'm not going to listen to any further tinfoil hat crap from you on this subject, If your paranoid about boards.ie and mods and eircom take it to help desk otherwise further discussions on this and your banned as its complete crap and its only taking this thread off-topic which is against the charter.

Cabaal

tinner777 wrote: »

has anyone had a warning yet?

Nope eircom have not warned anyone yet in anyway that has been reported, if you want to discuss eircom's warning setup then please post in the other thread - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055474230

Chardee MacDennis

Sparks wrote: »

Possibly, but the assumption is being made by the courts, not eircom; if eircom told the courts to go get bent, things would be far worse.So change from Eircom to another ISP, one who won't honour court orders :rolleyes:

the courts are making no assumptions in the case of disconnects - company contacts eircom and says this ip is sharing copyrighted material, eircom issue a warning, on 3rd time disconnect. why are you talking about the courts? IRMA doesnt want details of people who are file sharing, the recording industry as a whole has shyed away from suing users so why would they want their details. all irma wants is to disconnect people without having to go through the courts...

the same with the filtering, IRMA will contact them and ask them to remove a site, eircom will say yes - i dont see court orders being involved if IRMA can avoid it - which eircom are saying they can...

Donald-Duck

The thing I love about these threads, is the idiots coming out en masse trying to say they're not breaking the law by pirating material. I've pirated stuff, but I'm not under any stupid illusion that its legal

ionix5891

Cabaal wrote: »

ionix5891, legally questionable means?, exactly how is it legally questionable...please explain how you've come to this conclusion. If your going to make claims please back them up with proof....we've already seen you don't always know what your talking about.




People living in the EU have no rights to internet access other then a PSTN provider has to give a line that can support 28K

If you breach eircom T&C's its your own fault and ignorance is not an excuse especially as you'll receive two warnings advising you to secure wireless router etc.



sigh,
Listen I'm not going to listen to any further tinfoil hat crap from you on this subject, If your paranoid about boards.ie and mods and eircom take it to help desk otherwise further discussions on this and your banned as its complete crap and its only taking this thread off-topic which is against the charter.

ok i will open a thread in the helpdesk, i just wanted to highlight a worrying trend i noticed in these threads, since im at risk of being censored altogether (the irony!) ill stop bringing that up

as for taking it offtopic please notice the members steering the conversation towards the parallel 3 strikes thread


as for legaly questionable please go read up on MediaSentry http://www.google.ie/search?q=mediasentry+illegal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaSentry

who were seeding files on the p2p networks to see who uses them, and operating in various states without an investigators license



and heres more reading for ya of media companies accusing innocent people

http://www.betanews.com/article/RIAA_Sues_Deceased_Grandmother/1107532260
http://www.audioholics.com/news/industry-news/mpaa-burden-proof-constitution
http://torrentfreak.com/travis-defends-fan-from-ifpi-threats-080731/
http://torrentfreak.com/comcast-labels-innocent-customer-a-movie-pirate-090130/
http://torrentfreak.com/study-reveals-reckless-anti-piracy-antics-080605/


as for eircom routers i can confirm alot of them havent been patched, once again eircom will **** on their users, if they were serious about security they would send engineers to replace these

Iago

BastardPrince wrote: »

the courts are making no assumptions in the case of disconnects - company contacts eircom and says this ip is sharing copyrighted material, eircom issue a warning, on 3rd time disconnect...

Let's just say you're running your own ISP right now. For whatever reason you've agreed to implement this policy on behalf of the music industry.

What do you think are the minimum details of information you would accept before issuing the first warning?

Would you allow your company to be, in any at all, liable for issuing warnings to customers who aren't guilty of providing copyrighted material to others?

Why do you think eircom would be any different? If you don't think they will target the wrong people then why do you think illegal copyright infringments shouldn't be punished?

bastardprince wrote:

the same with the filtering, IRMA will contact them and ask them to remove a site, eircom will say yes - i dont see court orders being involved if IRMA can avoid it - which eircom are saying they can...

the article states that eircom will not object to the seeking of court order to block sites and will comply with any court orders given. I don't see why you think it would be any different.

Donald-Duck

ionix5891 wrote: »

ok i will open a thread in the helpdesk, i just wanted to highlight a worrying trend i noticed in these threads, since im at risk of being censored altogether (the irony!) ill stop bringing that up

as for legaly questionable please go read up on MediaSentry http://www.google.ie/search?q=mediasentry+illegal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaSentry

who were seeding files on the p2p networks to see who uses them, and operating in various states without an investigators license



and heres more reading for ya of media companies accusing innocent people

http://www.betanews.com/article/RIAA_Sues_Deceased_Grandmother/1107532260
http://www.audioholics.com/news/industry-news/mpaa-burden-proof-constitution
http://torrentfreak.com/travis-defends-fan-from-ifpi-threats-080731/
http://torrentfreak.com/comcast-labels-innocent-customer-a-movie-pirate-090130/
http://torrentfreak.com/study-reveals-reckless-anti-piracy-antics-080605/


as for eircom routers i can confirm alot of them havent been patched, once again eircom will **** on their users, if they were serious about security they would send engineers to replace these

I actually think that hosting their own files is a very smart method.

Also, I'm pretty sure MediaSentry are gone by the way.

Cabaal

ionix5891 wrote: »

ok i will open a thread in the helpdesk, i just wanted to highlight a worrying trend i noticed in these threads, since im at risk of being censored altogether (the irony!) ill stop bringing that up

Nobody is censoring you, the fact is your off-topic ramblings about boards/mods and making an agreement with eircom is utter crap and is something that only comes from tinfoil hat wearing people.

Your more then free to discuss it in Help Desk if you want to ask about it.

Nate--IRL--

Donald-Duck wrote: »

The thing I love about these threads, is the idiots coming out en masse trying to say they're not breaking the law by pirating material. I've pirated stuff, but I'm not under any stupid illusion that its legal

It isn't illegal technically, it IS morally wrong, the law has yet to catch up with technology.

But, and this a BIG BUT, this is effectively unregulated censorship by a corporate entity. Where does it stop?

Nate

Donald-Duck

Cabaal wrote: »

Nobody is censoring you, the fact is your off-topic ramblings about boards/mods and making an agreement with eircom is utter crap and is something that only comes from tinfoil hat wearing people.

Your more then free to discuss it in Help Desk if you want to ask about it.

Hes the broadband Run To Da Hills:P

Donald-Duck

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

It isn't illegal technically, it IS morally wrong, the law has yet to catch up with technology.

But, and this a BIG BUT, this is effectively unregulated censorship by a corporate entity. Where does it stop?

Nate

Ownership of copyrighted material is illegal, just the method of getting it is a grey area. On top of that, this method by which they're block has uploading as a compulsory componant which means you are sharing it too as you download it, which is illegal.

Nate--IRL--

Donald-Duck wrote: »

Ownership of copyrighted material is illegal, just the method of getting it is a grey area. On top of that, this method by which they're block has uploading as a compulsory componant which means you are sharing it too as you download it, which is illegal.

Agreed, however I see no mention of anybody blocking uploads. As I understand the situation the ISP is intended to censor access to websites as decided by IRMA.

Nate

Cabaal

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

It isn't illegal technically, it IS morally wrong, the law has yet to catch up with technology.

If you are downloading copyright material there's no technically about it, its illegal end of......you can try legitimize it anyway you want but its still illegal to for example.

- Download a copyright movie
- Downloading the latest episode of heroes
- Downloading MS office

Its also against the T&C's of your ISP.

jor el

ionix5891 wrote: »

media companies provide ips to eircom and eircom disconnect people, no courts being involved

Exactly, no courts involved. All this talk of innocence until proven guilty, and that eircom are curtailing your rights, is irrelevant, as there is no court involvement.

If you are an eircom customer, you take the service that they provide, or leave. If they choose to curtail your usage by any means, be that a cap, or restricted speeds, or blocking some websites, you don't really get a choice in the matter, other than choose a different ISP.

What I find worrying, is that the courts may make a decision that forces ISPs to block websites, that the current Irish and EU laws have no problem with. This would be a legal precedent, and could lead to further censorship. That has not happened yet, and we await to see whether IRMA will go to court with a case, and what the outcome of that case might be.

Sparks

ionix5891 wrote: »

the courts made no assumptions or send any court orders
media companies provide ips to eircom and eircom disconnect people, no courts being involved
if the courts did provide an order for each and every ip/infraction then that would be a different story
stop trying to change the topic (blocking sites) and trying to distort whats happening and what eircom agreed to do (block users without a court order) in private deal with media companies

BastardPrince wrote: »

the courts are making no assumptions in the case of disconnects - company contacts eircom and says this ip is sharing copyrighted material, eircom issue a warning, on 3rd time disconnect. why are you talking about the courts?

From the Sunday Business Post yesterday:

Irma, which represents major music groups EMI, Sony-BMG, Warner and Universal, is to begin compiling lists of websites that it claims are damaging its business. It will then apply for a court order, requiring Eircom and other internet providers to block access to these sites.

In other words, they are going through the courts. It's just that Eircom have agreed not to oppose them in court when they do so. But they're still going to get court orders.

Mathiasb

Cabaal wrote: »

If you are downloading copyright material there's no technically about it, its illegal end of......you can try legitimize it anyway you want but its still illegal to for example.

- Download a copyright movie
- Downloading the latest episode of heroes
- Downloading MS office

Its also against the T&C's of your ISP.

The problem is that the media considers this stealing - that is, they think that because you downloaded for example a copy of MS Office, they lose one MS Office sale. This is false. This is where all the ridicilous sums come from in RIAA lawsuits (10000 á 20 USD per song, shared 1000 times.. lawsuit of 2342341234132 USD because that's what we lost in POTENTIAL sales omg!!!)

Nate--IRL--

Cabaal wrote: »

If you are downloading copyright material there's no technically about it, its illegal end of......you can try legitimize it anyway you want but its still illegal to for example.

- Download a copyright movie
- Downloading the latest episode of heroes
- Downloading MS office

Its also against the T&C's of your ISP.

Agreed, I misunderstood the topic of discussion, Donald-Duck clarified it for me.

The point I was hoping to put forward was the unregulated nature of the censorship, corporate entities should have not have this power, as it will inevitably be abused, if it in not governed by regulations in law.

Censorship should remain in the hands of the state, where it is accountable.

Nate

Cabaal

Mathiasb wrote: »

The problem is that the media considers this stealing - that is, they think that because you downloaded for example a copy of MS Office, they lose one MS Office sale. This is false. This is where all the ridicilous sums come from in RIAA lawsuits (10000 á 20 USD per song, shared 1000 times.. lawsuit of 2342341234132 USD because that's what we lost in POTENTIAL sales omg!!!)

They see it as a lost sale and if I say produced software that I sold for 50e and you downloaded it for free I'd see you as stealing it too.

Regardless of how the media or companys see's it, if you download copyright material without permission it is against the law, end of

paddyb125

There's always going to be ways around this...

Donald-Duck

paddyb125 wrote: »

There's always going to be ways around this...

I believe the purpose is to make it hard for casual computer users, I'm pretty sure they don't expect to ever stop the more knowledgable users

Cabaal

Donald-Duck wrote: »

I believe the purpose is to make it hard for casual computer users, I'm pretty sure they don't expect to ever stop the more knowledgable users

Basically yeah, the average user will stop downloading if they hear their ISP will warn and terminate them....we've seen reports of people stopping already and it'll make it harder for the average user to start downloading if they can't access popular sites.

Thats the idea behind this, though I don't personally agree with censoring sites in this manner