*** eircom and Internet Censoring ***

tanora78

This post has been deleted.

andyrew120

andyrew120 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yeah they're not the most informative, but if people are actually emailing their ISPs about this, then the people in customer service of these companies are probably (hopefully) sick to the teeth of looking at that kinda email.

Sadly, I don't think too many people seem that bothered about the whole issue (but of course, they will when it is enforced).

jor el

You should also contact IRMA, to express your disappointment at their actions. I emailed them yesterday and told them if they want to go blocking websites that eircom should be one of the first to go.

I read recently about IRMA's requests to various ISPs to block websites that actively support illegal downloads. Under this proposal, I would like to suggest that one of the first websites to be blocked, should be www.eircom.ie. The reason I suggest eircom's website is their current radio advertisement, in which they mention using their broadband service to watch episodes of Desperate Housewives. There is currently no legal method of downloading TV episodes in Ireland, so the only way to do this is by using illegal services. As an apparent proponent of illegal downloading, shouldn't eircom.ie be blocked?

I understand that TV downloading is outside of IRMA's remit, but I imagine you should be concerned that a company you have made an agreement with, in regard to illegal downloading, is itself a proponent of illegal downloads, of any kind.

No response.

silvine

Here's UPC's response

Thank you for your email, I have reviewed your email and this is an issue with eircom and we are safely monitoring this situation.

If you have any further queries, please do not hesitate to contact us on our freephone number 1908 or email us on customer.support@upc.ie

Just read the Desperate House Wives things - brilliant, well spotted!

Nick_oliveri

blubloblu wrote: »

Blackout Ireland made page three of the Irish Times today.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0304/1224242232688.html

The campaign is inspired by a similar one in New Zealand, where users protested that a proposed copyright law would see those accused of copyright infringement disconnected from their service provider. As part of the protest, some websites shut down for half a day, replacing their sites with a “blackout” screen explaining the protest.

I think it would be a good idea for Irish websites to follow suit and gain publicity, perhaps shutting down for longer (yes, i know) so more people can be made aware of the situation. Im not suggesting boards should go it alone, there would need to be cross .ie domain communication and agreement.

EvilMonkey

andyrew120 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

This is the problem everyone assumes if you are against this you are a pirate, we need to make it clear this is not about piracy but is about censorship of the Internet and disconnecting people without a court order.

bealtine

jor el wrote: »

I emailed them yesterday and told them if they want to go blocking websites that eircom should be one of the first to go.

That is inspired...if we attack prominent websites like that and get IRMA to dance around like the nutjobs they are, it will show their strategy up for being so silly and pointless.

So rte.ie, google,yahoo,youtube etc should all be on the "hit list" to be banned as probably, at some stage, have hosted copyright infringing material.

Nick_oliveri

I wonder could some pictures used in avatars and signatures be considered copyright infringement also. Obviously it depends on the creator, but we would see a lot of forums blacked out then. Hell, lets go crazy and assume guilt all over the place, only allow sanctioned websites on the list through.

bealtine

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

I wonder could some pictures used in avatars and signatures be considered copyright infringement also. Obviously it depends on the creator, but we would see a lot of forums blacked out then. Hell, lets go crazy and assume guilt all over the place, only allow sanctioned websites on the list through.

http://twentymajor.net/2009/03/04/eircom-what-a-bunch-of-****kicking-****ehawks/

Not safe for work, IRMA or eircom...

bunglemark2

Dumb question...and I haven't been on in a while...
I'm with BT - have they blocked piratebay and other torrents, or ave Eircom done it for them ?

PaddyTheNth

bunglemark2 wrote: »

Dumb question...and I haven't been on in a while...
I'm with BT - have they blocked piratebay and other torrents, or ave Eircom done it for them ?

No one has blocked anything yet.

If this goes ahead, each ISP will have to come to their own agreement with IRMA.

bunglemark2

Funny....I tried to have a look earlier on, just for academic research of course (!) and got a HTTP 500 response....that could be a legit error but I don't know - any takers ? Same for Mininova

PaddyTheNth

http://downforeveryoneorjustme.com/

Its just you. Useful in this situation.

blubloblu

The blackout movement is gaining momentum. Aubrey Robinson has now been interviewed on cork Red Fm, 2fm, Phantom and Today FM

blubloblu

blubloblu wrote: »

The blackout movement is gaining momentum. Aubrey Robinson has now been interviewed on cork Red Fm, 2fm, Phantom and Today FM

Who's Aubrey, and what was said? Was it good or bad (for us)?

bealtine

http://www.samknows.com/broadband/news/three-strikes-and-out-is-silently-dropped-but-what-next-for-piracy-523.html

‘Three strikes and out’ is silently dropped. But what next for piracy?
8:24 pm - March 3rd, 2009
Category: Broadband Issues, Broadband Regulation

The BPI has confirmed to SamKnows that although there has been no official statement, it has ditched its call on ISPs to warn, warn again and then disconnect illegal file shares – the so called ‘three strikes and out’ approach.

Whilst it claims to have never used the phrase associated with the practice, a spokesperson for the record industry’s right holders group revealed it now sees the way forward as working with the record industry to instigate a ‘graduated warning’ system. In this throttling a connection should be a consideration and, despite the past policy of trying to enforce ‘three strikes and out’ on ISPs being dropped, disconnection should still be considered in discussions as “a final sanction”, the BPI insists.

The partially placatory move towards agreeing a common solution comes after the Digital Britain interim report by Stephen Carter made no reference to ‘three strikes and out’ as a workable means of dealing with piracy and instead suggested a Rights Agency is set up so rights holders, distributors and ISPs can thrash out a solution that is amenable to all.

Hence the BPI spokesperson revealed its focus is now on forming this body and suggesting how piracy can be dealt with against the startling backdrop of illegal downloads outnumbering legal purchases by twenty to one.

“Skin in the game”

For intellectual property lawyer, Alexander Brown, who represents both rights holders and several ISPs as a partner at law firm Simmons and Simmons, the ditching of ‘three strikes and out’ is a welcome move but, he concedes, the record industry still has to realise it is asking ISPs to risk a lot for no reward.

“I think Carter’s suggestion of the Rights Agency is basically him suggesting to the right holders that they’ve got to give the ISPs some skin in the game,” he says.

“You can’t expect to release unprotected material and then have the ISPs who don’t profit from its sale round up suspects for you. They’ve quite rightly been thinking what’s in it for them? All they’re being asked to do is increase the risk of churn and alienate their users and they get nothing in return at a time when they’re desperate to hold on to their customers.”

For the time being the BPI is content with nearly all the major ISPs issuing educational letters to subscribers whose accounts have been linked to illegal file sharing. However, the body is adamant that this is just an initial testing of waters to see if it does hold back sharing; ultimately, a ‘graduated warning’ is needed.

It believes the process of rights holders going to the courts to enforce ISPs to reveal contact details for people suspected of file sharing is fine in principle but it becomes difficult when the numbers are so high. Hence, the need for a joint new initiative.

ISPs happy with court orders

However, the feedback from the ISP community is that they prefer the court order approach. Certainly Felix Geyr, Managing Director of Be Broadband recently summed up the situation to SamKnows as ISPs not wanting to accuse their users of illegal activity, preferring right holders to take the legal route which gives an ISP no alternative other than to provider a user’s details. It mitigates any concern over data protection and demonstrates that the information was not volunteered but was supplied in accordance with a court order.

According to Alexander Brown this attitude will prevail until the rights holders find some way of cutting the ISPs in on the proceeds of online distribution. Although the BPI is adamant that the Digital Britain report was right in suggesting all parties should contribute financially to the setting up of a Rights Agency, Brown believes this will be unworkable unless the ISPs are incentivised by either rights holders funding the protection of their material or setting up music shops in which ISPs are stakeholders.

“It’s one thing to sue Pirate Bay or, back in the day, Napster because there is clearly a case to answer, the sites are there to allow illegal downloads,” he says.

“To involve ISPs whose pipes are used for these downloads is just crazy and they’re not going to do what the record industry wants unless they’re incentivised by rights holders funding the potential Rights Agency or the record labels cutting them in on distribution. They basically need to do broadband equivalents of the Nokia Comes With Music phone. It’s the only way it’s going to work. Otherwise the ISPs will just say they’re happy to receive court orders and let the rights holders continue to pick up the expense of the legal action.”

In the meantime, as discussions over the make-up of a potential Rights Agency are discussed, attention will turn to the record labels suing the founders of Pirate Bay in Sweden. The founders face large fines if the notorious file sharing site is found guilty of helping web users share, what the defence claims as, millions of pounds worth of copyrighted material.

Although a guilty verdict would shut the site down the fear is that many sites would simply spring up in its place, as was the case when the illegal version of Napster was shut down nine years ago.

Duiske

IRMA's legal threats 'spurious' - Irish Isp's

The recent threat of legal action from Irish music industry body IRMA to Irish ISP’s that do not comply to the same ‘three strikes’ terms as Eircom, has been labelled as “spurious” by the Internet Service Providers Association of Ireland (ISPAI).

Paul Durrant, general manager of the ISPAI, said there is “no evidence of wrong doing” on the part of Irish internet service providers (ISPs).

IRMA’s letter, received last month by ISPs across Ireland, asked these companies to follow Eircom in removing customers found to be illegally accessing copyright material. The letter stated that this request is in accordance with Irish and European law.

“These actions could impact on user privacy, damage the development of new internet services and hurt Ireland's standing as an e-commerce hub,” Durrant explained.

He went on to say that the ISPAI and its members have never condoned the use of its members’ services for theft of copyrighted works of any kind, and continue to operate within the existing legal framework, which has provisions for taking action where appropriate.

“Over two years ago, ISPAI initiated meetings with the relevant music industry representative body to explore the issues, but this was not followed up by the music industry,” he said.

Durrant stated that existing Irish copyright law already gives IRMA a route to legally pursuing through the courts people found to be in breach of copyright.

“Privacy of user communications is protected in European and Irish legislation. ISPs cannot be expected to ignore these, merely because it does not suit another private party,” he added.

Durrant also said that IRMA’s request would breach the privacy of customers, and would have serious implications for the continued location of international e-business in this country and the jobs this generates.

“The ISPAI is disappointed that the great potential of the internet, to provide opportunities to connect with users in new ways and develop new business models, is being missed by the music recording industry.”

http://www.siliconrepublic.com/news/article/12506/comms/internet-body-labels-irma-legal-threat-spurious

bealtine

http://www.lgi.com/pdf/080904Booz_english.pdf

Here is a report from management consultancy firm Booz and Company. They have analysed the situation and have come to the economic conclusion that the losses to the telecomunications industry from a 3 strikes or any form of graduated response, would be much higher than any potential gains to the music industry.

The report called Digital Confidence, securing the next wave of digital growth, does up a calculation for a hypothetical scenario of terminating internet access to persistent filesharers in the UK.
In essence the report says :

"One aspect often overlooked in public discussions on the merits of “three strikes” is the damage to the overall digital economy as the result of disconnecting significant numbers of users from the Internet. Implications of “three strikes” would need to be understood more holistically. A high-level sensitivity calculation, for the UK as an example, estimates “three strikes” to result in the disconnection of 500,000 users and a revenue loss of €180 million for the network operators . In comparison, the music industry assesses an upside of only €33 million in revenue—this total revenue loss of about €150 million is likely to be only a minor share of the downside for other stakeholders, for example, through the reduction of e-Commerce volume. In addition to the fact that users would be disconnected from digital life, the potential economic damage caused across the digital economy value chain makes “three strikes” a challenging concept in terms of finding a proportional remedy to combat piracy."


Also that cutting people off will create knockon effects in the digital economy. losses to ISPs, ecommerce and so on on down the line.

The report is not only about only about the hypothetical three strikes policy, it is also an analysis of issues that are likely to effect the digital economy.

Sorry if im being naive, but that's it dead and buried, essentially, isn't it?

Kershaw.D

I think that In someways eircom is right ,
I think that they should block sites like limewire & piratebay but I don't think that they should block sites like downloads.nl , or block users that receive a song in an email and download it

I also don't agree with them banning users from accessing the web , they could even get them to agree to let eircom monitor all downloaded files.

Another thing that I think that they could do would be if they let the Music Companies bring us to court to get us banned , like instead of eircom banning us then they bring us all to court separate to get them banned.

It wont actually effect me all that much as I usually get my music from iTunes , I have only downloaded 1 song in the last 2 years , and that was because my iTunes account wasn't working.

The main problem is privacy rights.

One thing that I would like to know is what will happen to places like offices, hotels , McDonalds and Internet cafes that offer Internet access , if people download music using there web , will they be disconnected ??
And also will the music campanies try to fine us after they find people downloading they music?? =]

bealtine

Kershaw.D wrote: »

I think that In someways eircom is right ,
I think that they should block sites like limewire & piratebay but I don't think that they should block sites like downloads.nl , or block users that receive a song in an email and download it

That's not the job of an isp. Do you want them snooping on your emails? Do you want them logging your internet visits?
The job of an ISP is to move your traffic to it's destination and not read your emails just in case you might do something that a large company doesn't like you doing.

Anyway more importantly the main target of all this 3 strikes nonsense isn't really the PirateBay at all. The real target is Youtube.

Why Youtube in particular?

Because of the review of the E-commerce directive,there will be a consultation announced this month on the implementation of it in the Member States throughout the EU.

One fundamental issue under review, is the status of webhosting companies. In a notes from the lobbyists, it is clear how certain media companies perceive YouTube as a double threat to their business. Double, because it (Youtube) is getting the advertising revenue that they are losing; and they are not getting the syndication payments either. This essentially is the real issue at stake here.
Who owns the web, the music industry companies or the users?

Kershaw.D

bealtine wrote: »

That's not the job of an isp. Do you want them snooping on your emails? Do you want them logging your internet visits?
The job of an ISP is to move your traffic to it's destination and not read your emails just in case you might do something that a large company doesn't like you doing.

Anyway more importantly the main target of all this 3 strikes nonsense isn't really the PirateBay at all. The real target is Youtube.

Why Youtube in particular?

Because of the review of the E-commerce directive,there will be a consultation announced this month on the implementation of it in the Member States throughout the EU.

One fundamental issue under review, is the status of webhosting companies. In a notes from the lobbyists, it is clear how certain media companies perceive YouTube as a double threat to their business. Double, because it (Youtube) is getting the advertising revenue that they are losing; and they are not getting the syndication payments either. This essentially is the real issue at stake here.
Who owns the web, the music industry companies or the users?

So is youtube one of these sites that will be blocked , if so im moving to meteor or upc

EvilMonkey

Deleted User wrote: »

Sorry if im being naive, but that's it dead and buried, essentially, isn't it?

I dont think so,
Eircom/Meteor still have an agreement with IRMA.
IRMA could still take the other isp's to court, how far would they fight or will they settle like Eircom?
Which isp's are against this?
We need legislation from the government/EU guaranteeing users rights to free uncensored Internet (making eircom's deal illegal) and protecting the isp's from legal action from IRMA or anyone else that decides to take a court case against isp's.

bealtine

Kershaw.D wrote: »

So is youtube one of these sites that will be blocked , if so im moving to meteor or upc

That will make no difference if this is all bought in from europe...

Kershaw.D

bealtine wrote: »

That will make no difference if this is all bought in from europe...

Are you saying that moving provider wont make a diff or that youtube wont be blocked??

bealtine

Kershaw.D wrote: »

Are you saying that moving provider wont make a diff or that youtube wont be blocked??

I'm saying this "3 strikes" nonsense is coming from Europe and yes Youtube may well be blocked for all ISPs in Europe (that includes Ireland)

European ISPs arent going to cave to this rubbish, its our own jokers who may be the only ones in europe to implement it.

bealtine

cisk wrote: »

European ISPs arent going to cave to this rubbish, its our own jokers who may be the only ones in europe to implement it.

You think not?
Even if has the status of an EU directive?

No way it will, even from a human rights point of view.

Freedom of information, freedom of speech, would all be undermined if it did.

Andyaz

Yesterday's response from ISPAI was heartening, particularly where they stress the need to follow the current legal process. That flies in the face of what IRMA are asking of them.

The statement doesn't, however, confirm that the ISPs will fight this. Stressing the importance of protecting user privacy is not enough. The ISPs could theoretically maintain user privacy and still agree to similar IRMA terms.

The outcome of the EU e-commerce directive is important. We've a long way to go to strengthen legislation in this country and we'll need EU backing.

@andyaz

bealtine

cisk wrote: »

No way it will, even from a human rights point of view.

Freedom of information, freedom of speech, would all be undermined if it did.

Like to lay a bet? <grin>


See this post on the DRI forum:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=59410035&postcount=1

Red Alert

I still maintain that IRMA/PPI/IMRO/insert-org-here are not police and shouldn't be allowed to dictate who can have an internet connection.

What happens then if the user gets barred by Eircom - can they then go to another provider?

Andy Az

Red Alert wrote: »

What happens then if the user gets barred by Eircom - can they then go to another provider?

Exactly, we haven't been told.

My guess is that Eircom (cash-stripped and looking for a buyer) agreed to the settlement to duck any further litigation that would affect the potential sale of the company, and that they never actually believed that the agreement could be implemented. That or they took their customers for fools.

The settlement terms won't be revealed but I reckon they depend somewhat on an agreement from other ISPs. The commercial risk to Eircom is too great otherwise. Hence the bullying 7-days-to-respond letters from IRMA. So far, the ISPs have called IRMA's bluff.

Spear

Here's the disaster the Australian attempt at censorship turned into

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/19/2321259&art_pos=2

They've blocked legal sites like Betfair, sites with lolcats etc etc. Even publishing the PR response they send if you question a link's status warrants a AU$11,000 fine if you mention the link.

My name is URL

Spear wrote: »

Here's the disaster the Australian attempt at censorship turned into

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/19/2321259&art_pos=2

They've blocked legal sites like Betfair, sites with lolcats etc etc. Even publishing the PR response they send if you question a link's status warrants a AU$11,000 fine if you mention the link.

About half of the sites on the list are not related to child porn and include a slew of online poker sites, YouTube links, regular gay and straight porn sites, Wikipedia entries, euthanasia sites, websites of fringe religions such as satanic sites, fetish sites, Christian sites, the website of a tour operator and even a Queensland dentist*

*http://dentaldistinction.com.au/home.htm

I tried a handful of the sites listed and most of them don't even load, and the YouTube accounts that are listed have been suspended.

F*cking ridiculous!

PaddyTheNth

The proposed 3-strikes bill in NZ is being scrapped:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0903/S00330.htm

They didn't know how to actually enforce it so they're having to start again. And this is why the rights-holders went directly to the ISPs here. Ars have a nice quote from the executive director of the company running the .nz tld

Terminating an Internet account was always a disproportionate response to copyright infringement....and to force ISPs and other organisations to be copyright judges and policemen was never an acceptable situation.

blubloblu

Got a reply one month later. Nothing we didn't know at the very start...

eircom has not agreed to block any Internet sites from being accessed by
end-users. As part of the settlement of the above proceedings, it was
agreed that eircom would not oppose an application by the Plaintiffs to
seek to have eircom block access to the Pirate Bay website. The Music
Industry will still have to establish, in the normal way that there is
an appropriate basis for the relief which they seek from the Court.
eircom is not supporting or consenting to the application. The
settlement makes no provision for any site other than the Pirate Bay
website.

It is important to note that:

* eircom will not monitor its customer's activities at any stage.
* eircom will not implement any form of monitoring equipment or
software on its network.
* eircom will not provide personal details or any information
relating to its customers to any third party, including the record
companies. No personal data will be transferred from eircom to the
record companies which would enable any customer of eircom to be
identified. eircom has agreed to keep confidential and will not
disclose any information concerning its customers to the record
companies and it will in particular observe in all respects the laws on
data protection.

IrelandOffline_

blubloblu wrote: »

Got a reply one month later. Nothing we didn't know at the very start...

Actually this isn't quite true...

Under new proposals before the EU Parliament they would have to do everything they say they won't be doing.The French have tried to sneak it into a totally unrelated matter the "Telecomms Package".

At the moment there is an effort underway to bring this to public attention, it's only on facebook at the moment.

Go here for more info:

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=73537262931

IrelandOffline_

IrelandOffline_ wrote: »

Actually this isn't quite true...

Under new proposals before the EU Parliament they would have to do everything they say they won't be doing.The French have tried to sneak it into a totally unrelated matter the "Telecomms Package".

At the moment there is an effort underway to bring this to public attention, it's only on facebook at the moment.

Go here for more info:

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=73537262931

http://www.laquadrature.net/en/eu-citizens-save-internet-from-being-turned-into-a-tv

AntiRip

I wonder will this have any affect on eircom's decision?

EU Rejects ‘3 Strikes’ for File-Sharers


also Controversial copyright violator provision has also been struck down in New Zealand

bealtine

AntiRip wrote: »

I wonder will this have any affect on eircom's decision?

EU Rejects ‘3 Strikes’ for File-Sharers

That's not really the "end" of it, the vote on the subject is yet to come.
The French are pushing really hard to get this passed...

Some information will be available here soon : http://www.blackouteurope.eu/

rogue-entity

bealtine wrote: »

I'm saying this "3 strikes" nonsense is coming from Europe and yes Youtube may well be blocked for all ISPs in Europe (that includes Ireland)

And I'll be one of the first to get a dedicated server overseas to get around it. Im not having my internet access dicated to me because the record companies cant get with the times.

Upward Spiral wrote: »

F*cking ridiculous!

*takes Australia off his list of places to live*

bealtine wrote: »

That's not really the "end" of it, the vote on the subject is yet to come.
The French are pushing really hard to get this passed...

Some information will be available here soon : http://www.blackouteurope.eu/

The French should learn to stay the **** out of what doesnt concern them. They opposed the war in Iraq.. so why cant they stay the **** away from our Internet.

RangeR

bealtine wrote: »

That's not really the "end" of it, the vote on the subject is yet to come.
The French are pushing really hard to get this passed...

Some information will be available here soon : http://www.blackouteurope.eu/

Beltline has been banned, I assume for the above posting. Hmmm. No listing of who or why.

While I respect the rules of boards, I see this as slightly unfair and maybe an over zealous act.

Spear

RangeR wrote: »

Beltline has been banned, I assume for the above posting. Hmmm. No listing of who or why.

While I respect the rules of boards, I see this as slightly unfair and maybe an over zealous act.

Multiple postings of the blackouteurope.eu address was perceived as spamming it seems.

RangeR

Spear wrote: »

Multiple postings of the blackouteurope.eu address was perceived as spamming it seems.

OK. Who banned him and for how long? In all my years on boards, I've never seen a banned user NOT show up on the banlist

Spear

RangeR wrote: »

OK. Who banned him and for how long? In all my years on boards, I've never seen a banned user NOT show up on the banlist

He did show, it's been a few days and has been pushed off the list.

Nody

And in a suprise move the French senate(?) voted down the three strike rule that Sarkosky negotiated for France; expect to see him run over the decision anyway through decree or similar.

bealtine

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Classified_US%2C_Japan_and_EU_ACTA_trade_agreement_drafts%2C_2009

Leaked drafts of the ACTA anti-piracy agreement confirm that the EU is negotiating on it - in spite of denials by EU officials - and that the talks concern civil enforcement against Internet copyright infringement. Ability to implement them could be dependent on the Telecoms Package limitations amendments being carried in the European Parliament on 5 May.

Spear

BT and several other mobile providers in the UK have now blocked TPB

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/251609/bt-blocks-off-pirate-bay.html

Seems to have more of a hint of "think of the children" alarmism rather than record company pushing.

pilotsnipes

Hi

Just wanting to add to Spears post (cos it's easy to overlook it):

The "blockage" is currently for mobile broadband companies, in the uk (BT etc) and is on a voluntary basis i.e. you could ring up and ask for the filtering to be switched off.

Still, not something I'm excited to hear about.