Eircom enacts three strikes rule

ntlbell

Biggins wrote: »

Eircom have the legal right to ask a court to order access to the service that is providing you with the proxy service.
From those subsequent files, they can trace you by the way.

How can an Irish court grant access to a proxy in the middle of the Bahamas or for any proxy outside of Ireland for that matter?

BKtje

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!!

What used to be BT (i left ireland last year so not sure what they are now, vodafone?) gave me rock solid speeds of over 13mbit so that Eircom is the only procider who gives decent speeds is a crock..

Biggins

ntlbell wrote: »

How can an Irish court grant access to a proxy in the middle of the Bahamas or for any proxy outside of Ireland for that matter?

True. Keep that in mind in future when Eircom or someone else starts blocking more sites.

Mark200

Amhran Nua wrote: »

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.


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

You keep comparing the punishment to "normal criminal sanctions", but the point is that Eircom policy is NOT law. It's policy. Eircom is a company, not a Government. The problem with France was that they attempted to bring in a law relating to the three-strikes rule, which is different.

Biggins

BKtje wrote: »

What used to be BT (i left ireland last year so not sure what they are now, vodafone?) gave me rock solid speeds of over 13mbit so that Eircom is the only procider who gives decent speeds is a crock..

Yep. With BT/Vodafone and have MUCH faster speeds than Eircom ever had - and at a constant max rate.

Ideo

BKtje wrote: »

What used to be BT (i left ireland last year so not sure what they are now, vodafone?) gave me rock solid speeds of over 13mbit so that Eircom is the only procider who gives decent speeds is a crock..

I suggest you take a look over the vodafone forum, including the near 2000 post stellar thread about vodafone's shocking download speeds!!

sink

The OP is full of shit tbh. The hysteria displayed by the OP and others is quiet hilarious.

Due to the nature of P2P networks anyone who connects to a swarm (i.e. downloads a file), shares their I.P. with everyone else in that swarm. All anyone has to do to gather a list of I.P.'s sharing the latest Britney Spears album is to join the swarm and copy the list of connected peers. You can do this yourself in most clients including uTorrent and Azureus by going into the details tab and looking at peers. This makes it easy for rights holders to gather a list of I.P. downloading their property illegally. They then identify all the eircom I.P.'s pass on all the details and eircom will then decide whether or not to take action. There is little or no chance of anyone downloading a legal distribution being mistaken for a pirate.

Direct download services like Rapidshare and Megaupload don't suffer from the same drawbacks. When you download from them, you are downloading directly from their servers and are not connected to anyone else. No one but Rapidshare and Megaupload can see who is downloading what and so the rights holders have no means of tracking who is downloading illegally.

Biggins

Mark200 wrote: »

You keep comparing the punishment to "normal criminal sanctions", but the point is that Eircom policy is NOT law. It's policy. Eircom is a company, not a Government. The problem with France was that they attempted to bring in a law relating to the three-strikes rule, which is different.

You missed the point that if Eircom can now just "suspect" - they can by a legal ruling given, now demand information and/or cut you off without further going back to a court with actual factual evidence.
...and thats the law as it stands now.

ejmaztec

Biggins wrote: »

Yep. With BT/Vodafone and have MUCH faster speeds than Eircom ever had - and at a constant max rate.

You must be the Vodafone Broadband lucky customer.

Mark200

Biggins wrote: »

You missed the point that if Eircom can now just "suspect" - they can by a legal ruling given, now demand information and/or cut you off without further going back to a court with actual factual evidence.
...and thats the law as it stands now.

But the punishment is still company policy and not a criminal sanction! The "law as it stands now" just means that Eircom policy can allow for such things.... as I said.

Also, in relation to UPC... I just saw this:

Cable operator UPC has resisted requests from IRMA to implement a "three strikes" system and that case will be in the courts next month.

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1650011/irish-isp-bows-big-content

sink

Biggins wrote: »

You missed the point that if Eircom can now just "suspect" - they can by a legal ruling given, now demand information and/or cut you off without further going back to a court with actual factual evidence.
...and thats the law as it stands now.

It's fair enough tbh most business have similar terms.
"The proprietor retains the right to refuse entry"

If you feel you were discriminated against unfairly you have recourse to challenge it in the courts and seek damages.

Business owners shouldn't have to prove the wrongdoing of a client before they refuse to give service, in that case you'd have pikeys infesting decent pubs up and down the country.

token56

I completely agree this is a terrible move on eircoms part but its completely overhyped really. Its for music over P2P traffic and really no one should have any need to download music over P2P traffic when there is so much easier ways to do so with little of no risk of getting caught.

I really think this is just eircom trying keep in the good books with the big music corps and in reality the actual number of people who will eventually get cut off will be pretty small. And if you do get cut off, so what, it will actually force you to get your internet off a half decent ISP.

tbh

Biggins and AN have completely misunderstood the premise and theory behind this decision, and to be honest lads, your hysterical reactions are laughable.

Amhran Nua

Mark200 wrote: »

but the point is that Eircom policy is NOT law. It's policy. Eircom is a company, not a Government.

Thats exactly the entire point. Its not a government so its shouldn't be given powers that rightfully belong to a government.

sink wrote: »

The OP is full of shit tbh. The hysteria displayed by the OP and others is quiet hilarious.

Yes, the hysteria displayed by the European Parliament is always good for a laugh. Did you even bother to read the thread?

tbh wrote:

Biggins and AN have completely misunderstood the premise and theory behind this decision, and to be honest lads, your hysterical reactions are laughable.

Do enlighten us so...

Biggins

tbh wrote: »

Biggins and AN have completely misunderstood the premise and theory behind this decision, and to be honest lads, your hysterical reactions are laughable.

My objection is to the blocking of sites. Thin end of the wedge.

Mark200

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Thats exactly the entire point. Its not a government so its shouldn't be given powers that rightfully belong to a government.

How is cutting off service a power that should belong to a Government?

It's a company. As said a few posts above, companies have the right to refuse service to anyone. Since when are companies ever told that they HAVE to serve everyone who wants to be served by them?

Mark200

Biggins wrote: »

My objection is to the blocking of sites. Thin end of the wedge.

I believe child porn sites are blocked too.

tbh

Biggins wrote: »

My objection is to the blocking of sites. Thin end of the wedge.

no sites being blocked.

your internet can be cut off if your internet habits are categorised as "suspicious".

no proof is required

Indeed, you don't even need to be pirating anything, if you are downloading open source ISOs you can be cut just as quickly.

wrong.

wrong.

wrong.

if the company that is providing internet access thinks you are acting suspiciously, they can and will cut you off.

they already can.

tbh

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Do enlighten us so...

you must be joking!

Amhran Nua

Mark200 wrote: »

How is cutting off service a power that should belong to a Government?

It's a company. As said a few posts above, companies have the right to refuse service to anyone. Since when are companies ever told that they HAVE to serve everyone who wants to be served by them?

Its a few posts back. There is an allegation of illegal activity, which your private company is acting on without any evidence from the duly authorised authority of sanction, the courts.

skelliser

tbh wrote: »

no sites being blocked.

wrong.

the pirate bay site is blocked if you are with eircom.

Amhran Nua

tbh wrote: »

you must be joking!

Thats a really good contribution to the discussion. Well done.

sink

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Yes, the hysteria displayed by the European Parliament is always good for a laugh. Did you even bother to read the thread?

Yes MEP's have been know to get their knickers in a twist on occasion. I have read the thread and from what I can tell I have a better understanding of the situation than you.

Mark200

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Its a few posts back. There is an allegation of illegal activity, which your private company is acting on without any evidence from the duly authorised authority of sanction, the courts.

They can refuse service for ANY reason (as long as it doesn't breach discrimination rules).

I replied to that post already (so I find it ironic that you asked someone a few posts back if they even read the thread). I said that the problem with France is that they tried to make it LAW, instead of leaving it at company policy. Which are very different things.

There's a difference between a blanket ban on internet connectivity, and one internet company refusing to provide you with its service.

Lux23

Every provider will be doing this soon enough, I would imagine the serious offenders will work out some way of getting around it so it will probably be a complete waste of money.

tbh

skelliser wrote: »

wrong.

the pirate bay site is blocked if you are with eircom.

because of a court order, not because of an eircom policy.
I think that's what A-N is saying should be the case, isn't it?

Thats a really good contribution to the discussion. Well done.

sark it up all you like, but if you're the type to pontificate on the internet about subjects you clearly don't understand, I'm not going to waste my time pointing out the actual facts.

Biggins

Mark200 wrote: »

I believe child porn sites are blocked too.

...and thats fair enough considering that child porn/abuse in all its forms is legislated for and deemed illegal under Irish law.

Sites that provide other data - are they too by Irish legal laws made illegal yet?
...Or can a company just decide on a day "right, we are blocking that site" because another business company has asked us to?

token56

Lux23 wrote: »

Every provider will be doing this soon enough, I would imagine the serious offenders will work out some way of getting around it so it will probably be a complete waste of money.

I really dont think every provider will be doing it, UPC are ready to battle away. The only reason Eircom gave in so easy is that they just wanted to avoid any conflict and saw it as the easiest, not necessarily the best, solution. If anything Eircom may well have to change their position on this in the future.

Amhran Nua

sink wrote: »

Yes MEP's have been know to get their knickers in a twist on occasion. I have read the thread and from what I can tell I have a better understanding of the situation than you.

I've yet to hear any substantial reasons why that might be the case.

Mark200 wrote: »

They can refuse service for ANY reason (as long as it doesn't breach discrimination rules).

And hey, guess what, I just took my business elsewhere this morning. The IRMA is trying to do an end run around the judicial system (UPC are next up in court) and install legislation by proxy. What makes you think they are going to stop with Eircom? Perhaps you don't think thats worth bringing to people's attention, but most would disagree.

Mark200

Biggins wrote: »

...and thats fair enough considering that child porn/abuse in all its forms is legislated for and deemed illegal under Irish law.

Sites that provide other data - are they too by Irish legal laws made illegal yet?
...Or can a company just decide on a day "right, we are blocking that site" because another business company has asked us to?

As said a post above yours, it was blocked by court order. thepiratebay.org provided illegal content, it doesn't matter if it provided legal data too. That's like saying a site that provides child porn is ok, as long as it sells TVs too.