High court Judge paves the way for internet nannyism in Ireland and U2 praises it.

Run_to_da_hills

It looks like Ireland is following in the same footsteps as France with the three strikes rule and it looks like it could spread to other ISP.

A ruling by the High Court in Ireland has paved way for subscribers of Eircom's Internet services to have their service suspended for repeatedly sharing music illegally despite warnings. Eircom is the country's largest ISP, but the ruling is expected to have an effect on other ISPs in Ireland.

In a settlement deal last year, Eircom agreed to implement measures aimed at stopping illegal downloading, including handing over subscribers' identities when they are caught sharing files illegally. The Data Protection Commissioner had concerns about the settlement, questioning whether the measures violated rights of access to the Internet.

Mr Justice Peter Charleton rejected the concerns, ruling that the anti-piracy measures were lawful and compatible with the data protection legislation. He said that young people are now in the habit of file sharing that they appear to believe they have an entitlement to take what is not theirs.

"The right to be identified with and to reasonably exploit one's own original creative endeavour I regard as a human right," he commented, referring to what he said was a fundamental right to copyright in Irish law.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/17/technology/17eircom.html?src=busln

U2 manager praises 'significant' ruling

mikom

Good luck with that.
Pirates never die, they just adapt.

Tor+Megaupload if it ever comes to it.

CptMackey

If U2 paid tax here instead of moving their company to Holland then maybe people would care but it will always be pirated, a usb key is all it takes

bonerm

If it makes U2 feel any better they don't need to worry about me downloading any of their music.

Run_to_da_hills

A lot of these torrent sites also distribute legit shareware, the filter will notify the ISP's irrespective of what material is downloaded. It will be up to us to prove our innocence if we get cut off.

recylingbin

*off to download a U2 album for free*

then delete because they are ****e.

Run_to_da_hills

recylingbin wrote: »

*off to download a U2 album for free*

then delete because they are ****e.

I cannot download anything from U2 with my spam filter switched on.

minidazzler

Just for the sake of it, I would love to burn 1000 CD's of U2's downloaded albums. (Which I don't actually have because U2 sucks and I no longer download.) Then give the CD's away.

It would be like a retro version of music piracy!

tigerblob

How exactly can eircom tell if you're downloading music illegally? Will they notice straight away, or will they only search for keywords of the music belonging to the labels they have the agreement with?
This'll just cause loads of people to switch from eircom anyway, i'm not condoning piracy or anything. But i use torrents for a lot of Linux distributions and TV shows, but blocking pirate bay was a big thing for me. Couldn't believe they could do that, tis the first step to losing net neutrality

Net neutrality Worst Case

recylingbin

I remember when U2 sent someone around to my house to make sure I wasn't taping their songs off the radio.

minidazzler

minidazzler wrote: »

Just for the sake of it, I would love to burn 1000 CD's of U2's downloaded albums. (Which I don't actually have because U2 sucks and I no longer download.) Then give the CD's away.

It would be like a retro version of music piracy!

Piracy seems to have come full circle. Back in the 80's tapes were (painfully) copied, then it was CD's, then it went online and now its back to sharing between friends. Only now its hard drives and ipods with thousands of songs. Dont need the internet to get music anymore

OutlawPete

Lemons.

Kasabian

I still like to buy my CD's , just like to have them stacked there in the corner.

Wagon

Bono can suck on my fat hairy balls. There's no way id EVER consider downloading his music but the smug little bastard just assumes we all love him.

orourkeda

Whatever way bono goes then I will go the other just out of spite. The cantankerous midget can suck my pipe.

wes

A ridiculous system, where you are guilty upon accusation. There will be a lot of false postives with this crap, and a whole bunch of innocent people being cut off for no good reason.

Carl Sagan

That's that, I'm dropping Eircom.

ch750536

Was amazed at a friends house the other night, eircom customer, can't get piratebay.

How stupid are eircom?

Like when you see some paedo's house being raided and the guards walk out with the monitor in their hands.

ffs.

Fear Uladh

NTL refused to incorporate this rule, glad im not with eircom.

Seloth

Didnt a survey find that piraters buy more music and dvd then the average person.

Yakult

I will download an album if Im interested in it and If its actually worth the rediculous price tag in the shops I might buy it.

Degsy

U2 are a bunch of tax-dodging bastards i hope everybody downloads thier crappy music and they never make another penny.

entropi

As far as I'm concerned, U2 (especially that fu**ing a$$hat bono) can go suck a long fat shaft, tax evading morons.

All this indirect control over people's lives...hate every second of it!! I really envy the free spirited hippies now who don't give a flying f**k about things like this

Mark200

Question: Since it's the music industry that made this agreement with Eircom, will you only fall under the three strikes thing if you're caught downloading music? Eg. what if you download movies or games...

Anyone have any idea?


Also, I don't see how this is "nannyism". You're downloading something that you didn't pay for. I'm not saying I've never downloaded any copyrighted material through torrents or whatever, but I don't see how someone can object to it being enforced.

Prof.Badass

Mark200 wrote: »

Question: Since it's the music industry that made this agreement with Eircom, will you only fall under the three strikes thing if you're caught downloading music? Eg. what if you download movies or games...

Anyone have any idea?


Also, I don't see how this is "nannyism". You're downloading something that you didn't pay for. I'm not saying I've never downloaded any copyrighted material through torrents or whatever, but I don't see how someone can object to it being enforced.

Well as a person who is completely against illegal filesharing i see this as a breech of privacy. If you try and visit thepiratebay.org with eircom you get a message saying the page is blocked, along with the assurance:

eircom would like to reassure customers that:

• eircom will not monitor customer’s activities at any stage, nor will it place any monitoring equipment or software on its network in order to facilitate this block.
• eircom will not provide personal details or any information relating to customers to any third party, including the record companies.

Correct me if i'm wrong but they seem to be going back on the promise i have underlined. This monitoring by ISPs is the first step towards ending internet freedom. There are people out there who (for whatever reason) want to get rid of internet freedom and sadly our government seems to be made up of people who are too self-interested and short-sighted to realise how immensly important internet freedom really is.

Nevermind_

Are Eircom the ones actively trying to identify filesharers and disconnect them?
Or are the record industry using torrent trackers and fake files to identify filesharers and pass the ip addresses to eircom for identification/disconnection?

Overheal

Nevermind_ wrote: »

Or are the record industry using torrent trackers and fake files to identify filesharers and pass the ip addresses to eircom for identification/disconnection?

Isnt that entrapment?

the_syco

In a settlement deal last year, Eircom agreed to implement measures aimed at stopping illegal downloading, including handing over subscribers' identities when they are caught sharing files illegally. The Data Protection Commissioner had concerns about the settlement, questioning whether the measures violated rights of access to the Internet.

I wonder how long before someone sues Eircom for giving their details falsely to a 3rd party. You see, someone going up against the RIAA is not the easiest thing to do, as the RIAA has lots of lawyers, but I wonder how many lawyers Eircom has?

=-=

Oh, and how will this effect the resellers? Will Eircom just say "oh, it's going to a resellers customer", or will it say "piracy, yeeeeeeer OUT!"?

Rothmans

To be fair though, people go to the effort of making that music and its only fair that its not stolen from them.

ressem

But almost everything on the internet is copyrighted including AH posts, not just instantly forgettable muzak. Boards has in it's terms of use

You own all of the Material you post on Boards.ie and we do not claim ownership of that Material. However, we need your permission to be able to display that Material and in some cases to modify it for best display – for different browsers, for our mobile site, and so on.

Consequently, by posting any Material on or through Boards.ie, you grant us a limited licence to use, modify, publicly perform, publicly display, reproduce, and distribute such Material.

Ireland's 'fair dealing' clause is pretty vague and all sorts of content posted on boards, google etc might require a court case if challenged.
Should it be possible to cut off someone's internet connection and consequently access to bank accounts and government services just on the sayso of Rupert Murdochs lawyers who thinks the quote you posted is too long and not in the correct context?

squod

ressem wrote: »

But almost everything on the internet is copyrighted including AH posts,

Stop looking at my posts!

Magenta

minidazzler wrote: »

Just for the sake of it, I would love to burn 1000 CD's of U2's downloaded albums. (Which I don't actually have because U2 sucks and I no longer download.) Then give the CD's away.

The dog shelters are always looking for frisbees!

Abelloid

Magenta wrote: »

The dog shelters are always looking for frisbees!

Really?

Sparky2

Should be interesting if they make internet access here a human right like in other European countries. French courts have already dismissed the idea of cutting peoples internet access for piracy, only a matter of time before the EU makes it a law for everyone else.

Carawaystick

Rothmans wrote: »

To be fair though, people go to the effort of making that music and its only fair that its not stolen from them.

It's not stolen from anyone. The music makers still have their original copy and we have our copy.

Stealing is when you take something from me and I don't have it anymore.

tipperaryboy

If ISP's want to target someone they should go after the people who put the material online for free,why target the downloader.

Caliden

I would seriously like to see them try disconnect me.
The only reason I'm with Eircom is because they don't moan about me going over the 'monthly cap' on a regular basis.

Chardee MacDennis

Caliden wrote: »

I would seriously like to see them try disconnect me.
The only reason I'm with Eircom is because they don't moan about me going over the 'monthly cap' on a regular basis.

pretty sure upc/ntl doesnt have a monthly cap...

also paul mcguinness doesnt necessarily reflect the opinion of u2 as whole tbh...

Chardee MacDennis

Carawaystick wrote: »

It's not stolen from anyone. The music makers still have their original copy and we have our copy.

Stealing is when you take something from me and I don't have it anymore.

can i steal your personal info then? i pirate music amongst a lot other things but that is just stupid imo...

zenno

yeah right eircom are doing it and the rest will follow ?. well i don't think so. eircom are a broken down sold phone company how many times did eircom get sold to out of country businesses four or five times. who in their right mind would use a terrible ripoff company like this in the first place ? maybe people that don't understand that there are other isp's out there. but this junk the IRMA are forcing on eircom is nothing new they have tried this crap last year but one thing is certain, eircom will suffer dramatic losses if they do cut off people as there are so many other isp's out there at the moment. eircom just cut it's own two legs off. according to chorus/ntl they will not be entertaining the IRMA but time will tell. eircom can fizzle into the depth's of crap for all i care anyone using eircom now should just get off it and pay less with a better provider well unless you like getting ripped of then thats your choice. always bet on the hacker.

marco_polo

Mark200 wrote: »

Question: Since it's the music industry that made this agreement with Eircom, will you only fall under the three strikes thing if you're caught downloading music? Eg. what if you download movies or games...

Anyone have any idea?


Also, I don't see how this is "nannyism". You're downloading something that you didn't pay for. I'm not saying I've never downloaded any copyrighted material through torrents or whatever, but I don't see how someone can object to it being enforced.

The massive problem, is that your guilt is determined purely by Eircom and IRMAs say so. And say for example the only available ISP is eircom in your area, it is back to the 20th century for you.

Due process anyone?

EDIT: Also would you support a law that banned someone accused of shoplifting (note: not convicted) from all shops for life? Because that is the 'logic' at work here.

Resi12

Oh just another reason to dislike this goverment, they make it too easy.

curlyseamus

Rothmans wrote: »

To be fair though, people go to the effort of making that music and its only fair that its not stolen from them.

This confusion of terms really needs to stop. Even the High Court judge who made the ruling here got this wrong (and you'd think he of all people would know better).

ONLINE FILESHARING IS NOT STEALING

I'm not saying it's not wrong - I'm talking about the legal definition of theft according to the Irish statute book. The Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act, 2001 defines theft as being strictly limited to rivalrous goods (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivalrous ) - it's physically impossible to transmit rivalrous goods over the internet (rivalrous==physical), so you can't steal anything online.

And to reply directly to your comment Rothmans, to be fair, the distribution of music online (whether legal or illicit) has been demonstrated time and time again to correlate with (though admittedly not necessarily cause) an increase, not a decrease in music sales. Are you aware for example that the music industry is currently experiencing the highest music sales of ALL TIME? During a recession....

BastardPrince wrote: »

can i steal your personal info then? i pirate music amongst a lot other things but that is just stupid imo...

If we're talking about legal definitions (which we obviously are as this thread is about a High Court decision), then no you can't steal his personal info. Carawaystick is correct there, I would've though you'd would be aware of that...

bently

mikom wrote: »

Good luck with that.
Pirates never die, they just adapt.

Surely you mean "Arrrghhdapt"

Azhrei

I like how it's the richest bands in the world who are the ones really pissed off about the downloading, while the unknowns embrace it as a way of getting their music out there, getting noticed.

Doesn't U2 have enough money as it is? What reason do they have to bitch?

gurramok

Azhrei wrote: »

I like how it's the richest bands in the world who are the ones really pissed off about the downloading, while the unknowns embrace it as a way of getting their music out there, getting noticed.

Doesn't U2 have enough money as it is? What reason do they have to bitch?

Greed.

Because the Artists Exemption has a cap on earnings so they moved their earnings to Holland to avoid tax.

Duggy747

Ah, don't bother me. The simple rule is don't share through the common methods..............or don't share at all!

I wouldn't even insult my hard drive with a U2 album.

When will they ever learn? (Never, hopefully)

Spiritoftheseventies

A good ruling IMO. But music industry not making enough strides with online music. It was mentioned last week that it was ten years since Metallica took action against napster.
Yet how many official streaming sites are available for customers.

Sykk

Next thing you know they'll block for streaming.. And start filtering for lyrics of songs so you can't sing them yourself.

Stercus Accidit

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

A good ruling IMO. But music industry not making enough strides with online music. It was mentioned last week that it was ten years since Metallica took action against napster.
Yet how many official streaming sites are available for customers.

It is group punishment without the opportunity to defend yourself against a third party allegation.

This is illegal on so many levels.