Eircom enacts three strikes rule

Wossack

is eircon allowed give some random private company access to peruse your browsing habits/sniff your traffic?

gotta be infringing some civil rights there...

pwd

Nobody seems to have actually read the article.

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.

What they are saying is they are going to cut off IP addresses which are sharing specific copyrighted works. They're not just identifying "suspicious" habits. They're also only cutting off people who are uploading, and not just downloading. After warning them twice.

No trial or proof beyond that is being suggested: Indeed, the security flaw in eircom lines means that there is a reasonable chance of some people getting a first strike, without having pirated anything. However it's unlikely they would get a second and third strike before they found out what was happening. So that's going to be bad PR for eircom rather than anything much else.

They won't be able to prove that a specific individual is pirating. They will be able to identify IP addresses that are pirating. That's all they reasonably need to cut people off tbh. They're not trying to convict people of crimes. They're not even trying to take civil action. They're just cutting off a service for a logical reason.

The mentality of "How dare they try to stop me pirating things!" is funny.

bonerm

mikom wrote: »

Supposedly Andy Reid downloaded three Dubliners albums illegally......that's why he no longer plays for us.

Makes sense. Tho I mistakenly thought it was because he was a fat, fancy-Dan player who couldn't cover the ground and made little or no impact whilst playing for Ireland apart from maybe the odd goal or long pass against weak opposition or in a meaningless friendly.

Mister men

With Eircom the last 8 months after being with digiweb for 3 years.
Will be switching over to NTL in 4 months i'm afraid. Very bad move from Eircom imo.

star.chaser

that's ridiculous. they'll have no customers soon

Duggy747

I'm with UPC, I don't use p2p and I don't share (upload) any stuff so I got ziltch to be affected about by this news.

Unlike UPC, Eircom didn't bother to stand it's ground with more of a fight........didn't want to lose all that juicy money from cases being put against them from the media companies.

Anywho, in theory this is the big-wigs they're after, the types who uploads a serious amount of stuff online and seeds them out to a large number of people.

Eircom's bundle prices were rough, I'm with UPC on a 15mb for €40 a month.....their customer support is still fùckin' cack, though and the Cisco routers are the most dreadful pieces of hardware I've ever had to deal with.

Amhran Nua

pwd wrote: »

What they are saying is they are going to cut off IP addresses which are sharing specific copyrighted works. They're not just identifying "suspicious" habits. They're also only cutting off people who are uploading, and not just downloading. After warning them twice.

Yeah, this is the same music industry which has sued young children and in one memorable case a dead person for copyright infringement in the US.

pwd wrote: »

The mentality of "How dare they try to stop me pirating things!" is funny.

The mentality is more one of "how about due process and not making private companies into a police force at the beck and call of music industry associations".

Biggins

I suspect that the music rights bodies are using Ireland as an example to test this method on.
They tried to do it in other European countries and were quickly told where to get off.

PCros

zootroid wrote: »

Well hopefully people will see what is going on and switch to an alternative provider. Hope Eircom loses a fortune over this

Apparently another provider will be doing the same this week so wont be just Eircom.

UPC maybe??

skelliser

I switched to UPC last month because of this.

I suggest everyone moves. If you go to pirate bay site you get a message from eircom blocking the site. I will not have my internet censored. This is not communist china.

They are bringing UPC to court next month but they have already said they will fight this, UPC are a massive company and have the financial muscle to fight this.

Apologists here saying that normal users have nothing to worry about are deluded. This is a slippery road to travel down, where will it stop?

The music industry should embrace this technology, they are only interested in keeping there profit margins not entertaining the idea of having a sustainable business model.

neilthefunkeone

Play the innocent card.. "Oh i dont have my wireless router locked, must be the neighbors.."

Mr Freeze

Amhran Nua wrote: »

On general principles I just got off the phone with a very nice man in BT about transferring over our internet connection, I'll save money on a faster service and have been assured that BT has no intention of enacting a three strikes rule. Took about ten minutes.

Changed over to Vodafone when Eircom first announced this last year.

Cheaper and faster it is too.

Hard to know if they will ever enact such a rule though, time will tell.

ToniTuddle

Only just got broadband into the area I live so signed up with Eircom >.<
First bill was oddly high, of course they talked their way around it. Shall just have to wait and see what the next few are like. Stuck with them for another 10 months contract thingy.

I should be alright though....only ever be on Boards or YouTube! :pac:

Biggins

With Vodafone (was BT but they moved their broadband services in Ireland to them) so I'm ok for the moment.
On principle of sites being blocked, I think thats a disgusting infringement and as soon as that happens to me with a service I'd be signed up with, I will be dumping it as quick as a flash just out of said principle of freedom of ability to access all information, speech, etc.

Sykk

I hope they go bankrupt. Cúnts

Pascal the Rascal

I also am a hop, skip and a jumping out of Eircom asap but the judgment still throws up a few questions:
(1) Is this ruling specific to only downloading music using software from the P2P sites such as Bearshare, Limewire, etc?
(2) Even though the plaintiffs in the case were EMI, SONY B.G., UNIVERSAL and WARNER, does the ruling only apply to the music under those companies control?
(3) What about downloading the odd tune or two for example, from the many music blogs out there, or even if one wanted to download a tune from some obscure Bolivian dub-step combo or a Tuvan throat singer doing a version of Madonna's 'Borderline'?

yoyo

Pascal the Rascal wrote: »

I also am a hop, skip and a jumping out of Eircom asap but the judgment still throws up a few questions:
(1) Is this ruling specific to only downloading music using software from the P2P sites such as Bearshare, Limewire, etc?
(2) Even though the plaintiffs in the case were EMI, SONY B.G., UNIVERSAL and WARNER, does the ruling only apply to the music under those companies control?
(3) What about downloading the odd tune or two for example, from the many music blogs out there, or even if one wanted to download a tune from some obscure Bolivian dub-step combo or a Tuvan throat singer doing a version of Madonna's 'Borderline'?

From what I gather is its only if you share ie upload a file on a p2p network, however if you use torrents as they upload at the same time as downloading they will probably be the main target

Nick

Mark200

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Well, it seems they went ahead and enacted a three strikes rule in Eircom.
Just in case anyone is confused over what that means, your internet can be cut off if your internet habits are categorised as "suspicious".

No court of law is involved, no proof is required, no intervention from the justice system. Indeed, you don't even need to be pirating anything, if you are downloading open source ISOs you can be cut just as quickly.

Ireland is the first country on earth to have this enacted. This also goes against EU rulings on the matter.

There is no proxy, no encryption and no possible disguising of your internet browsing habits against this, if the company that is providing internet access thinks you are acting suspiciously, they can and will cut you off.

On general principles I just got off the phone with a very nice man in BT about transferring over our internet connection, I'll save money on a faster service and have been assured that BT has no intention of enacting a three strikes rule. Took about ten minutes.

This is the best way to deal with the issue - tell everyone you know, your friends and family, to move away from Eircom and go to another provider. Its time to push back against this overweening corporate presence in our homes and on our communications network. If its not internet they are delivering, its not money they'll be getting.

I really don't know how you came to such mad conclusions based on the article you quoted.

Why did you quote the word "suspicious" when that word is not used anywhere in the article?

Why did you say that people downloading open source ISOs could be caught up in this when it clearly says "music" and "customers who are sharing, not simply downloading".

You also said that there's no possible disguising of your internet browsing habits... but all the companies are going to be able to see is your IP address. I don't really understand how they could possibly find out the identification of a person based on their IP address. They can't. On a side note, for anyone who ever downloads using P2P (which is what this new rule is about), your IP address is already viewable by everyone who you are downloading the file from or uploading the file to.


It's just a load of scaremongering,

Greyfox

This is disgusting, I hope they lose loads of customers over this. I actually can't understand why anybody is still with Eircom when ALL the other Telecom companies are much cheaper.

Mark200

Greyfox wrote: »

This is disgusting, I hope they lose loads of customers over this. I actually can't understand why anybody is still with Eircom when ALL the other Telecom companies are much cheaper.

You know, the only outcome from this if someone does get their three strikes is that they can no longer get internet from Eircom... which just means they've to switch to another ISP.

Hardly a big deal since people are switching based on this article alone without getting a single strike.

Biggins

Offer this just as background info:

From Saturday April 17 2010:

MUSIC lovers who illegally download their favourite song may soon find their internet service cut off following a landmark High Court ruling yesterday.

Legal sources last night predicted the judgment by Mr Justice Peter Charleton may compel providers to cut off services to those who fail to heed warnings to desist from what the judge described as "theft".
The judge ruled allowing record companies to pass the IP addresses -- unique web identification -- of suspected illegal downloaders to internet services providers was not a breach of the data protection law.
The companies had no interest in personally identifying the people infringing copyright law but trying to uphold the law, the judge said.

Yesterday's judgement arose from a settlement last year of proceedings by four major record companies -- EMI, Sony, Universal and Warner -- against Eircom over the use by others of its services for illegal downloading.
Eircom had agreed to help stop illegal downloading, by disclosing the uploaders and downloaders' identities through their IP addresses, and by ultimately cutting them off if illegal downloading persisted.

Article continues: http://www.independent.ie/national-news/internet-thieves-face-having-service-cut-off-after-key-ruling-2141974.html

Previous one:

FOUR record companies have taken legal action against Eircom to try to force the company to stop internet users illegally downloading music.

The case is the first in this country aimed at internet service providers, rather than individual illegal downloaders
The latest figures available indicate that 20 billion music files were illegally downloaded worldwide in 2006.
The music industry estimates that for every single legal download, there are 20 illegal ones.
As a result of this and other factors, the Irish music industry is experiencing "a dramatic and accelerating decline'' in income, said Willie Kavanagh, managing director of EMI records (Ireland) and chairman of the Irish Recorded Music Association (IRMA), in a sworn statement (affidavit) to the High Court yesterday.

The Irish market for sound recordings suffered a decline in total sales, from €146m in 2001 to €102m, last year -- a fall of 30pc, he said.
He attributes a substantial portion of that decline to illegal peer-to-peer downloading services and the increasing availability of broadband internet access here.
The proceedings, in the commercial division of the High Court, are being brought by EMI Records (Ireland) Ltd, Sony BMG Music Entertainment (Ireland) Ltd, Universal Music (Ireland) Ltd and Warner Music (Ireland) Ltd against Eircom Ltd.

They are challenging Eircom's refusal to use filtering technology or other appropriate measures to voluntary block, or filter, material from its network which is being used to download music in violation of the companies' copyright and/or licensing rights.
The companies say certain specialised software, such as that provided by the US-based Audible Magic Corporation, can filter peer-to-peer traffic and block specified recordings from being shared.

Eircom told the companies last October that it was not in a position to run the Audible Magic software on its servers.
Eircom's solicitors also stated that Eircom was not on notice of specific illegal activity which infringed the rights of the companies and had no legal obligation to monitor network traffic.
Mr Kavanagh said that, "with the greatest of respect" to Eircom, it was "well aware" its facilities were being used to violate the property rights of record companies "on a grand scale".
Mr Justice Peter Kelly yesterday admitted the proceedings into the list of the Commercial Court.
In the action, the companies want orders restraining Eircom from infringing copyright in the sound recordings owned by, or exclusively licensed to them, by making available (through Eircom's internet service facilities) copies of those recordings to the public without the companies' consent.
In his affidavit, Mr Kavanagh said legal actions brought against persons with the highest numbers of illegal files on their computers had proven very costly and time consuming.
The record companies believed selective legal action was not sufficient to safeguard their property rights.

Source: http://www.independent.ie/national-news/eircom-may-face-music-in-illegal-files-row-1313154.html

celticbest

I left eircom the second the market opened up and haven't looked back since, I went to BT first and I'm now with UPC, I have 15mb broadband with unlimited upload and download, free calls national & international at anytime, HD TV, SKY sports and Movies all for €105 a month, you can't go wrong.......

If I was with eircom it would cost me €61.73 for 7mb with free off-peak local and national calls you are also set a limited with a download allowance, with eircom you would have to pay and extra €9.96 for the same call allowance as UPC. This would give eircom a grand total of €71.69 for your phone and broadband per month, do they think we stupid ????

Now they are telling you were you can and can't surf, it's up to the individual person to choose this, this is like something you would hear coming out of China or Pakistan.

Gerry Asstrix

As a former employee of Eircom I can honestly say I wish them nothing but bad luck and harm.

DrumSteve

so what will happen if all isp's adopt this?

Ideo

Greyfox wrote: »

This is disgusting, I hope they lose loads of customers over this. I actually can't understand why anybody is still with Eircom when ALL the other Telecom companies are much cheaper.

Unfortunately, Eircom is probably the most reliable out of all the providers of internet.

Its kind of ironic that the internet users who use the internet heavily to download stuff are the ones being targetted with this law, and Eircom are probably the only reliable internet provider with which they can use to get the speeds the require!!

Will I Amnt

good news for anyone looking to get out of a 12 month contract,just keep downloading:)

Mark200

Biggins wrote: »

Offer this just as background info:

From Saturday April 17 2010:


Article continues: http://www.independent.ie/national-news/internet-thieves-face-having-service-cut-off-after-key-ruling-2141974.html

The article says that the companies can pass on IP addresses of people they suspect of illegal music downloading, but at the end of your quotation it implies that Eircom will only cut people off if they are in fact downloading illegally:

"Eircom had agreed to help stop illegal downloading, by disclosing the uploaders and downloaders' identities through their IP addresses, and by ultimately cutting them off if illegal downloading persisted."

Biggins

Long previous article but here is a bit:

Ronan Lupton, chairman of Alto (the group representing all networks aside from eircom), said that the settlement "is not one enforceable on the rest of the industry given the direct nature of the action against eircom".

And until it is, the prospect of being booted off eircom (only to move to another network which doesn't even operate such a policy) will not be enough to deter the wily craftsmen in the ever- developing art of illegal downloading.

Source: http://www.independent.ie/entertainment/music/can-internet-music-pirates-be-made-to-walk-the-plank-1668368.html

Amhran Nua

Pascal the Rascal wrote: »

I also am a hop, skip and a jumping out of Eircom asap but the judgment still throws up a few questions:
(1) Is this ruling specific to only downloading music using software from the P2P sites such as Bearshare, Limewire, etc?
(2) Even though the plaintiffs in the case were EMI, SONY B.G., UNIVERSAL and WARNER, does the ruling only apply to the music under those companies control?
(3) What about downloading the odd tune or two for example, from the many music blogs out there, or even if one wanted to download a tune from some obscure Bolivian dub-step combo or a Tuvan throat singer doing a version of Madonna's 'Borderline'?

Given the take-no-prisoners approach their equivalents use in the US, I wouldn't try pushing it. Here's a case where they sued a man for putting the music from his bought and paid for CD collection onto his own computer.

Mark200 wrote: »

They can't. On a side note, for anyone who ever downloads using P2P (which is what this new rule is about), your IP address is already viewable by everyone who you are downloading the file from or uploading the file to.

Great, so let them take it through the courts, which is the proper method to deal with copyright infringement. The subject is accused three times of having broken a law. The fourth time he is found to have done this (not by a court, but by a supplier of goods and services) his Internet connection is cut off for a week. Another time, and he is disconnected for a year.

At no point in this process do the courts intervene, and you will notice that the penalty is different from normal criminal sanctions, in that it is not either fine, community service, or imprisonment. There are some exceptions, some kinds of driving offences are punishable by withdrawal of permission to drive. But its rather rare, and the characteristic appears to be where there is a danger to the public, and where the sanction is directly related to the offense.

We do not, for instance, ban someone from driving because he engaged in false accounting, or because he breached copyright. He drove while intoxicated, and we banned him from driving.

The problem with the disconnection penalty, apart from the fact that it is punishment on accusation, is that it is not an appropriate punishment for the crime. It makes no more sense to disconnect someone's house from the Internet than it does to ban him from driving in a case of false accounting.

We need two things to deal with this matter in a way that has regard to civil liberties. One is that all punishment shall occur only when an offense is proven in court, and shall only be imposed by a court, not by a service provider. The second is that the punishment shall make sense in the scale of other offenses. Neither is true of the 'three strikes' rule. The fact is, this breach of the law is no different from any other breach, and needs to be handled in exactly the same way as all others.

Mark200 wrote: »

It's just a load of scaremongering,

Sure, thats why the European Parliament struck down a similar law in France.

How many times does the European Parliament have to make clear that judges must be involved in ordering Internet disconnections of repeat online copyright infringers? Eighty-eight percent of MEPs today rejected an attempt to water down the provision and instead restored the original toughly worded amendment to Europe's Telecoms Package. The massive bill now appears to hinge on just this one issue.

The Telecoms Package covers everything from national regulators to mobile phones to network management to "graduated response" schemes; it's a huge hodgepodge of a bill, but all the main issues appear to be settled. When it comes to network neutrality and graduated response laws, however, the European Council (which needs to sign off on legislation from Parliament and is made up of the various EU national governments) objected. France, in particular, vigorously opposed the provisions.

France, of course, is attempting to implement the Création et Internet law, one of the toughest of its kind, which would create a new administrative agency called HADOPI to oversee and order 'Net disconnections. The country refused to pass the Telecoms Package unless changes were made, and just last week, the Council and the MEPs overseeing the bill announced that a compromise had been reached. Graduated response and network neutrality provisions in the bill would be weakened but not stripped away entirely, and life was beautiful.

But when it came time for Parliament to vote on the compromise, lawmakers sent a message: 407 voted to restore the original graduated response amendment, which made it illegal to disconnect Internet users without direct judicial oversight of the process. Only 57 MEPs voted against.

I say its time we sent our own message, and let companies like Eircom know who really pays the bills. I'm thinking about running a pool to see how many of Eircom's 750,000 customers are still with them by this time next year.

Biggins

Mark200 wrote: »

The article says that the companies can pass on IP addresses of people they suspect of illegal music downloading, but at the end of your quotation it implies that Eircom will only cut people off if they are in fact downloading illegally:

"Eircom had agreed to help stop illegal downloading, by disclosing the uploaders and downloaders' identities through their IP addresses, and by ultimately cutting them off if illegal downloading persisted."

Yes - All they have to do is go to an ISP and say they "suspect..." and then they get right to your ID, etc?

Whatever happened to being innocent before been proven guilty (in the eyes of a judge) - THEN ask of a the court for further data viewing orders!!!