Eircom to cut broadband over illegal downloads - READ POST#1 WARNING

hello932

MOD WARNING

Since people are ignoring the in thread warnings, here it is. DO NOT ask how to get around this action by eircom. DO NOT ask what you can get away with downloading now (unless it's legal to download, and legal downloads are not effected by this anyway). DO NOT boast about all the illegal stuff you have been downloading.

Finally, don't post ranty nonsense and false information that have no basis in fact or reality. This is how it works:
A 3rd party company (or companies) has been employed by the music industry to collect IP addresses of Internet users that are illegally sharing (normally download and upload) copyright music without permission. Any IP in the control of eircom will be passed on to eircom, so that eircom can contact the person assigned that IP at the time of the infraction. If you get 3 of these warnings, which will be written and posted to you, you may be cut off.

At no time are you identified to IRMA/IMRO or any third party. eircom do not monitor or in any way try to determine what you are downloading. File names are irrelevant, so it doesn't matter what it was called. This is not how illegal sharers are identified.

Fail to adhere to these rules and your post will be deleted, and you may receive an infraction or ban, as appropriate.


Original post by hello932 follows below.

---

Irish times link http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2010/0524/1224271013389.html

and here i thought eircom were on the brink of going bankrupt having read that from another thread.

What a joke-this will only make people just to upc or anyone else for that matter.

teddy_303

I think eircom can shut you off whoever you pay for your broad band. I think a campain to halt those IMRO hungry Levi featured debt collectors would be to try and encourage people who own cafes, pubs and shops etc to get rid of their stereos, radios CD players, and use MTV on a TV instead. TV licence payed, no IMRO rep turning up on your door step demanding circa €2,000 per annum to play the radio in the back ground. Crooks! How much of that money do the artists see after collection costs, admin costs, esb, petrol etc..... Screw IMRO I say, put them under the financial cosh the mess of a government has the rest of us suffering under.

They are just more money grabing cnuts....

watty

teddy_303 wrote: »

I think eircom can shut you off whoever you pay for your broad band.

No. eircom can only cut off their own direct customers, not even bitstream resellers.

Also eircom and virtually all ISPs do have a clause to cut off people abusing copyright in their T&C. The main issues are proof and privacy.

Commercial abuse of the market position of Rights Holders doesn't give people a licence to break copyright, that doesn't help Artists either.

I think the USA/UK idea that the creators rights can be bought and sold (not just Music, but ANY paid job) is wrong. A company should only be able to have exclusive licence to Intellectual Property for a defined and time and conditions. The Rights should remain with the creator, even if paid a salary at the time. (Germany and Geneva Convention of Copyright has this sort of view).

There should need to be a Court Order from Rights Holder for each breach. A proven case.

Two wrongs or three wrongs doesn't make a right.

Anyhow this has been argued to death in this forum many times. Those like Google that want to ignore copyright argue against this from a weak position. The Stronger position is that you can't have automatic punishment for a Civil offence (It's Civil not Criminal law). There has to be "innocent till proved guilty" and "a right of defence/appeal". The justice should not be biased in favour of a Large Corporation but the Individual.

It's a completely separate issue the price and distribution methods of Copyright materials. The fact that it's more logical to go after the much smaller number of people "sharing". Traditionally in the market or High Street you don't take a case against the purchaser of pirate goods. You sue the SELLER or Provider and shut down the supply. The Digital Domain is no different.

Red Alert

When/if they shut people off, can they not just open an account with a different service provider? Or will eircom sit on the line and prevent the port from taking place?

O/T IMRO demand you have a business music license even if you use MTV as the source. In fact they'll try and make you pay even if you use Sky News - because copyright music on the ads is being played in a public place. Crazy I know.

Benzino

I'm interested in seeing how this plays out. Does it only apply to downloading music illegally? If so, how can Eircom prove somebody has done this?

I'll a feeling there will be a few court cases rising up from this.

FloatingVoter

They can at best only prove that an IP address has been used for the purposes of downloading copyrighted material. Therefore if your beloved son/daughter/niece/nephew uses your computer to download the latest Beyonce album, you as the IP owner will be punished. Where this leaves victims of wi-fi theft is a grey area that will undoubtedly be tested in the months to come.
As per usual, expect lawyers to profit from this shambles.:rolleyes:

vectra

Did I hear them on the news saying Eircom and one other provider were doing this?

Hank Scorpio

I wonder if this affects rapidshare downloads or just torrents

BlueNemo

It doesn't exactly make it clear anywhere I've looked so I'll ask here.. Is this literally for just music downloads? Or does it span to films/software/games?:rolleyes:

jor el

Benzino wrote: »

so, how can Eircom prove somebody has done this?

eircom can't, and won't, prove anything. The music industry will employ other comanies to effectively spy on people, and log the IPs of anyone sharing music (or any type of file they wish), which will then be sent back to the originating ISP (eircom) so that the end user can be contacted/warned/disconnected.

Benzino wrote: »

I'll a feeling there will be a few court cases rising up from this.

I'd doubt that very much.

The question that eircom still haven't answered is what will happen with the thousands of unsecured Wifi routers they sent to customers, many of which will currently be used by other people to get free Internet access, unknown to the actual customer.

jor el

Warning:
This thread is NOT to become a "what can I get away with downloading" thread, so don't ask.

watty

nuxxx wrote: »

I wonder if this affects rapidshare downloads or just torrents

Any source other than you creating your own private tunnel without aid of tracker.

watty

BlueNemo wrote: »

It doesn't exactly make it clear anywhere I've looked so I'll ask here.. Is this literally for just music downloads? Or does it span to films/software/games?:rolleyes:

Anything that is copyright. In theory. Read your ISPs Terms & Conditions. None allow use to violate copyright.

BlueNemo

Surely Eircom should have drafted up some kind of charter and sent it out to all their customers outlining exactly what they're going to be cut off for, before announcing this was all taking place today?

Unless of course they've already done this and I simply didnt get one:rolleyes:

Benzino

jor el wrote:

log the IPs of anyone sharing music (or any type of file they wish), which will then be sent back to the originating ISP (eircom) so that the end user can be contacted/warned/disconnected.

This is kinda flawed though is it not? I mean a poxy could get around this?

jor el wrote: »

The question that eircom still haven't answered is what will happen with the thousands of unsecured Wifi routers they sent to customers, many of which will currently be used by other people to get free Internet access, unknown to the actual customer.

Yeah this was the area I felt would rise the most issues, and result in some legal actions from users. Eircom routers are so insecure by default, the dessid app just proves this.

Interesting times though, I wonder will other broadband providers (not just in Ireland) follow suit.

BlueNemo wrote: »

Surely Eircom should have drafted up some kind of charter and sent it out to all their customers outlining exactly what they're going to be cut off for, before announcing this was all taking place today?

Unless of course they've already done this and I simply didnt get one:rolleyes:

I believe this was announced about 6 months ago. Don't quote me on that though.

jor el

BlueNemo wrote: »

Surely Eircom should have drafted up some kind of charter and sent it out to all their customers outlining exactly what they're going to be cut off for, before announcing this was all taking place today?

They announced this a year ago, it simply comes into effect today.


Common sense will answer most of your questions on this topic anyway. Everyone knows what they shouldn't be downloading, so if you do and get cut off, it's tough luck. Saying you didn't think it applied to Rapidshare, or only applied to music, is not going to cut it.

Kess73

Am curious if they can tell the difference between illegal downloading and legal downloading.


Say if a person is downloading from iTunes. Will they just show up as downloading X amount and as such be at risk of being cut off, despite having paid for whatever song/film/audiobook they downloaded?

jor el

Legal downloads are not a problem.

Mantel

vectra wrote: »

Did I hear them on the news saying Eircom and one other provider were doing this?

I've heard this around the office, anyone know if it's true?

vectra

jor el wrote: »

They announced this a year ago, it simply comes into effect today.


Common sense will answer most of your questions on this topic anyway. Everyone knows what they shouldn't be downloading, so if you do and get cut off, it's tough luck. Saying you didn't think it applied to Rapidshare, or only applied to music, is not going to cut it.

How can anyone say exactly what you are downloading from Rapidshare?
Most of those files are named differently to what the actual contents are

VampiricPadraig

It is weird that eircom has done this. What is left for us to do. They blocked tpb and I thought that was it, now they come on and tell us that we are not allowed to download anything at all.

I could (if I wanted to) buy music and download it on iTunes or any other store. Wouldn't eircom not find this as ILLEGAL since you are downloading music.

How is eircom suppose to know what is legal and what isn't??

axer

I think a clarification needs to be made here. This is not about downloading this is only about sharing i.e. uploading.

Kess73

jor el wrote: »

Legal downloads are not a problem.

I know that legal downloads should be no problem, but I am wondering will the Eircom folk be able to tell the difference between downloads, or will they just base their investigations on how much people are downloading in terms of megs/gigs.

axer

Also to further clarify, a company called Dtecnet will give the list of IP addresses that they deem offenders to Eircom to process.

VampiricPadraig

axer wrote: »

I think a clarification needs to be made here. This is not about downloading this is only about sharing i.e. uploading.

Fair enough

jor el

Kess73 wrote: »

I know that legal downloads should be no problem, but I am wondering will the Eircom folk be able to tell the difference between downloads, or will they just base their investigations on how much people are downloading in terms of megs/gigs.

eircom are not monitoring anything. File sharing networks (and possibly other networks) are being monitored by outside companies, who will inform eircom of your activities. How accurate this investigation is, and any appeals process that there may be, are unknown.

requiem1

i wonder how much of this they can do, around three years ago they sent my father a letter, saying that they were investigating his use of their services under the suspicion of filesharing. When we queried them about this they had said a third party had notified them of this.

My dad has never done anything of the such in his life however he runs a stock market application that constantly pings info forwards and back and looks as though he is constantly downloading something. This is what i think they were referring to with regards to the use of their services

Karmafaerie

Basically Dtecnet will monitor the internet illegal sharing.
As in rapidshare forums, torrent sites etc.

Eircom will have given them a list of their IP ranges, and they will cross referece the sharers with the IP's.

Anyone who has an Eircom account and is sharing files, will be passed to Eircom.
Eircom will then warn them, and their name goes on a list.
The monitor every week/month and if it happens again they get warned again.
Three warning is your lot, and then they drop the axe.

The "my wifi isn't secure" argument isn't going to cut it, as Eircom will say that you were warned three times.

For the first three months Eircom and IRMA have agreed to a maximum of 50 IP addresses a week.

axer

Surely Eircom are getting financially rewarded for this move too. I would think that is Eircoms only motivation here.

Moriarty

axer wrote: »

I think a clarification needs to be made here. This is not about downloading this is only about sharing i.e. uploading.

Where does it say this?

axer wrote: »

Surely Eircom are getting financially rewarded for this move too. I would think that is Eircoms only motivation here.

They're financially motivated, in that if they didn't do something along these lines and were ignoring notifications of copyright infringement, they could be held equally liable for the copyright infringement and brought to court over each case. I imagine it's very much costing them money to implement, not the other way around - it's just a lot less than the alternative of ignoring these notifications.

axer

Moriarty wrote: »

Where does it say this?

Bolded in a number of places for you.

Considering UPC are resisting attempts by IRMA et al would show that there is not a clear cut case that IRMA can bring against ISPs. Eircom must have been financially motivated to do this by funds being given by IRMA to Eircom.

EIRCOM WILL from today begin a process that will lead to cutting off the broadband service of customers found to be repeatedly sharing music online illegally.
Ireland is the first country in the world where a system of “graduated response” is being put in place. Under the pilot scheme, Eircom customers who illegally share copyrighted music will get three warnings before having their broadband service cut off for a year.
The Irish Recorded Music Association (Irma), whose members include EMI, Sony, Universal and Warner, reached an out-of-court settlement with Eircom in February 2009 under which the telecoms company agreed to introduce such a system for its 750,000 broadband users.
The mechanism by which it operates was challenged in the courts by the Data Protection Commissioner.
Mr Justice Peter Charleton ruled in the High Court that a broadband subscribers internet protocol (IP) address, which Eircom will use to identify infringing customers, did not constitute personal information.
It is understood that, during the pilot phase, Eircom has agreed to process about 50 IP addresses a week. Irma is using a third-party firm, Dtecnet, to identify Eircom customers who are sharing, and not simply downloading, a specific list of its members’ copyrighted works on peer-to-peer networks. The operation of the scheme will be reviewed after three months.
Dick Doyle, director general of Irma, said his organisation could potentially supply Eircom with thousands of IP addresses a week but it was a matter of seeing what the internet service provider (ISP) was able to process.
Infringing customers will be initially telephoned by Eircom to see if they are aware of the activity on their broadband network. If the customer is identified a third time, they will have their service withdrawn for seven days. If they are caught a fourth time their broadband connection will be cut off for a year.
Mr Doyle said international research suggested 80 per cent of people will stop illegal file-sharing if they get a letter from their ISP warning them of the consequences. “We are trying to encourage people to go back to legitimate networks to get their music,” he said.
Record companies are lobbying to have a graduated-response mechanism enshrined in law in other jurisdictions.
Cable operator UPC has resisted requests from Irma to implement a “three strikes” system and the case is in the courts next month. Last night, a spokeswoman for UPC said it does not see any legal basis for monitoring or blocking its subscribers’ activities.

.

Karmafaerie

axer wrote: »

Surely Eircom are getting financially rewarded for this move too. I would think that is Eircoms only motivation here.

The Irish Recorded Music Association (Irma), whose members include EMI, Sony, Universal and Warner, reached an out-of-court settlement with Eircom in February 2009 under which the telecoms company agreed to introduce such a system for its 750,000 broadband users.



In other words.

Cha-ching!!!

EasyBoy1974

I think anyone still with Eircom should jump ship and go with another provider - at least in order to send a message to other ISPs.

Before anyone says "you've nothing to fear unless you're illegally downloading", i don't buy that for a second. I don't trust Eircom or Irma or anyone else with the power to cut off Internet access - it's should be a fundamental human right in my opinion.

VampiricPadraig

to identify Eircom customers who are sharing, and not simply downloading

I'll take that statement with a pinch of salt

EDIT:

EasyBoy1974 wrote:

Before anyone says "you've nothing to fear unless you're illegally downloading", i don't buy that for a second. I don't trust Eircom or Irma or anyone else with the power to cut off Internet access - it's should be a fundamental human right in my opinion.

I agree. I am paying €50 every month for a service that I am being limited to. This has gone too far Eircom

Yawns

Roll on the death of Eircom tbh. Any ISP that does this deserves to be closed down due to customers moving away. I for one am going to go with another company. I had to get Eircom last year as no other provider had me in coverage but this is no longer the case.

bye bye eircom. Hope you go bust

axer

VampiricPadraig wrote: »

I'll take that statement with a pinch of salt

It would be next to impossible for them to go after downloaders since it would be so difficult to prove anything.

It is very easy for me to use peer-to-peer software to download a file from a user, see their ip address and confirm that what I have downloaded i.e. what this user has shared, is music from artist that I represent. Granted I would still fight against a situation like that if I was the one being fined since it is not that clear cut in many situations.

Moriarty

axer wrote: »

Bolded in a number of places for you.

Fair'nuff.

axer wrote: »

Considering UPC are resisting attempts by IRMA et al would show that there is not a clear cut case that IRMA can bring against ISPs. Eircom must have been financially motivated to do this by funds being given by IRMA to Eircom.

As far as I know, the only reason Eircom caved so quickly is because they simply can't afford a drawn-out case before the High Court for a year or two. They are in too serious a financial position to be funding some new yachts and bentleys for the legal profession.

I can't imagine IRMA would be in any way inclined to pay eircom to do this, when they can just wave an expensive court case in front of their nose and have the same desired effect.

axer

I think blocking The Pirate Bay website was much much worse than this.

_Whimsical_

Are there likely to be consequences of being cut off from Eircom?

Will you need to disclose it if you move to another ISP and if you do will they be able to refuse you?

thomashood10

This seems like a massive scare tactic to me.

They must be doing more then just supplying eircom with an IP or the whole exercise is pointless.

How can they tell if it's legal or not? If I download a Metallica CD from a torrent site, surely it's completely legal if I own the CD. How can they tell what I'm actually downloading anyway as opposed to guessing, based on the name.

Anyway yeh, will be interesting to see how this pans out. I'm sure some of us will get a phonecall

DON'T COPY THAT FLOPPY!

http://thefreevpn.com/

skelliser

UPC are going to fight this and they have the financial muscle to do it when it was clear eircom didnt.
Cant see UPC caving in as they provide broadband across europe.

Anyways i moved to upc last month. I will not have my internet censored because some company paid for it.

axer

thomashood10 wrote: »

How can they tell if it's legal or not? If I download a Metallica CD from a torrent site, surely it's completely legal if I own the CD. How can they tell what I'm actually downloading anyway as opposed to guessing, based on the name.

It is illegal to redistribute the copyrighted material to others. This is not about whether you legally have the copyrighted material - it is about sharing it with others.[/QUOTE]

the_syco

thomashood10 wrote: »

How can they tell if it's legal or not? If I download a Metallica CD from a torrent site, surely it's completely legal if I own the CD. How can they tell what I'm actually downloading anyway as opposed to guessing, based on the name.

The article says they're going after the sharers. Thus, if they join a torrent (legally, as they're probably have consent to do so by the record company), they can see your IP. Tracert the IP, and they'll probably see it's with an Eircom client, and they'll ask Eircom to give a warning about it.

RangeR

axer wrote: »

Surely Eircom are getting financially rewarded for this move too. I would think that is Eircoms only motivation here.

Eircom don't have ANY money to fight the rights owners. Pretty much the only reason it's happening.

A list of IP Address will be given to Eircom. Eircom will be told that it's a list of infringer's. Eircom won't question it and simply send out letters to users. There is no debate. There is a mickey mouse appeal process. The burden of proof is squarely put on our [the customers] shoulders.

vectra

the_syco wrote: »

The article says they're going after the sharers. Thus, if they join a torrent (legally, as they're probably have consent to do so by the record company), they can see your IP. Tracert the IP, and they'll probably see it's with an Eircom client, and they'll ask Eircom to give a warning about it.

And what can they do with the likes of RS downloaders?
Those files are rarely named as they should be so how could they possibly know what you downloaded?

VampiricPadraig

axer wrote: »

It would be next to impossible for them to go after downloaders since it would be so difficult to prove anything.

It is very easy for me to use peer-to-peer software to download a file from a user, see their ip address and confirm that what I have downloaded i.e. what this user has shared, is music from artist that I represent. Granted I would still fight against a situation like that if I was the one being fined since it is not that clear cut in many situations.

If they tried to ban everyone who downloads. There wouldn't be many eircom users at all

Karmafaerie

vectra wrote: »

And what can they do with the likes of RS downloaders?
Those files are rarely named as they should be so how could they possibly know what you downloaded?

And where did you find out about the file?
Through a forum or cummunity.

Dtecnet will be monitoring these communities, and it doesn't matter if the file is named "I'm a legal download" if there's a forum or group sharing it, all they have to do is download it themselves and they'll know what it is.

They are going to have group of people who's job it is it monitor rapidshare groups.

watty

If they tried to ban everyone who downloads. There wouldn't be many eircom users at all

Untrue. In reality less than 20% of people do illegal downloads.

Knasher

If I remember correctly, this was part of a settlement that Eircom reached with some anti-piracy group after they got sued for advertising their services on the pirate bay as been good for downloading music and videos. Obviously the music industry hopes to use this to put presure on the rest of the isps to enact the same rules. So far none of them have buckled but I would be surprised.

As far as I know its only the music industry at the moment that is interested in this approach. If it works out for them I'd imagine that the movie industry would be next, although I doubt it will be all that effective, I think it will be far more lightly to drive people to use p2p in more underground ways which are harder to police. It would be very interesting however, if the games industry went in the same direction. Most PC games at the moment require some sort of internet connection in order to play, and banning people from the internet is effectively banning them from ever buying a game.

NOGMaxpower

watty wrote: »

Untrue. In reality less than 20% of people do illegal downloads.

what do you base that number on? thats like saying only 20% of people on the net look at porn.

Simply not true or accurate.

NOGMaxpower

EasyBoy1974 wrote: »

I think anyone still with Eircom should jump ship and go with another provider - at least in order to send a message to other ISPs.

Before anyone says "you've nothing to fear unless you're illegally downloading", i don't buy that for a second. I don't trust Eircom or Irma or anyone else with the power to cut off Internet access - it's should be a fundamental human right in my opinion.

HERE HERE EasyBoy,

I am not with Eircom myself, but if I was I'd be outa there... the issue here is that Eircom are sharing your personal info with a private company. What other information will they be able to gather about you and use for their own means.

If you're with Eircom jump ship NOW.