Eircom enacts three strikes rule

tbh

Biggins wrote: »

.
...Or can a company just decide on a day "right, we are blocking that site" because another business company has asked us to?

that's a total misrepresentation of what eircom are doing. total and utter tripe, with respect.

Amhran Nua

tbh wrote: »

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.

I'll take that to mean you have nothing to substantiate your point. Fair enough.

tbh

Amhran Nua wrote: »

I'll take that to mean you have nothing to substantiate your point. Fair enough.

you take it anyway you want to

Amhran Nua

tbh wrote: »

you take it anyway you want to

Indeed I will, and so will everyone else.

Mark200

Amhran Nua wrote: »

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.

Yes, I already in this topic quoted an article that said UPC are next up in court with this.

Of course they're not going to stop with Eircom. But that still doesn't change the FACT that it's still company policy, and therefore no judges are required.

Amhran Nua

Mark200 wrote: »

Yes, I already in this topic quoted an article that said UPC are next up in court with this.

Of course they're not going to stop with Eircom. But that still doesn't change the FACT that it's still company policy, and therefore no judges are required.

So given that you accept that they are trying to subvert the judicial system and set up their own legislation by proxy, it there a problem with a thread making people aware of that? What happens when every ISP in the country is bound by their rules, and there are no alternatives, which is without a doubt their ultimate goal?

Biggins

tbh wrote: »

that's a total misrepresentation of what eircom are doing. total and utter tripe, with respect.

...And if I am wrong, I stand corrected.
(won't be the first time I'm wrong)

Eircom went to a judge and stated their case that the contents of the site were illegal?
If that be the case, where in Irish law does it say that ALL the contents are illegal?
I'm not arguing against the blocking of SOME of the contents. However I object to the blocking of the whole site - including possibly parts that were/are not still illegal under Irish law.

Parts of Pirate Bay might also be sharing free items, I'm sure they were.
Its the wide scale 100% block that is extreme in nature.
Sure, penalise Pirate Bay for the illegal contents and every time they share them - no argument there - but to block the whole site?
Questionable at the very least, thats all, equally with respect and without insult or posting just to annoy you.

(I hope you understand where I'm coming from)

Mark200

Amhran Nua wrote: »

So given that you accept that they are trying to subvert the judicial system and set up their own legislation by proxy, it there a problem with a thread making people aware of that? What happens when every ISP in the country is bound by their rules, and there are no alternatives, which is without a doubt their ultimate goal?

There's a problem with setting up a thread filled with lies (or most likely 'mistakes') about the facts. I've already pointed out the many mistakes you made in your first post in this topic.

What happens when every ISP has similar policies is that people will stop downloading illegally.

20goto10

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.

There already is a way around it and its very simple. It's only the muppets who get caught. So I take this as good news, cause the less muppets out there in interspace the better.

digme

Mark200 wrote: »

There's a problem with setting up a thread filled with lies (or most likely 'mistakes') about the facts. I've already pointed out the many mistakes you made in your first post in this topic.

What happens when every ISP has similar policies is that people will stop downloading illegally.

We make our own internet then,wireless can travel 300 miles

Mark200

Biggins wrote: »

...And if I am wrong, I stand corrected.
(won't be the first time I'm wrong)

Eircom went to a judge and stated their case that the contents of the site were illegal?
If that be the case, where in Irish law does it say that ALL the contents are illegal?
I'm not arguing against the blocking of SOME of the contents. However I object to the blocking of the whole site - including possibly parts that were/are not still illegal under Irish law.

Parts of Pirate Bay might also be sharing free items, I'm sure they were.
Its the wide scale 100% block that is extreme in nature.
Sure, penalise Pirate Bay for the illegal contents and every time they share them - no argument there - but to block the whole site?
Questionable at the very least, thats all, equally with respect and without insult or posting just to annoy you.

(I hope you understand where I'm coming from)

As I said, it's irrelevant if SOME of their content was legal:

"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."

Also, I think the main problem was that piratebay was promoting their illegal content. Not that it just so happened that there was illegal content there. Which is one of the differences between piratebay and Google.

jimmycrackcorm

It should be said that the reason Eircom are doing this is because they got caught out by an email one of their executives sent internally. Basically it said that P2P was good for business because it encouraged broadband take-up even if that P2P was used for music piracy.

IRMA got hold of the email and held it up as evidence that Eircom were effectively condoning and supporting music piracy. Eircom had no choice but to cave in. IRMA then tried to use the Eircom settlement as a justification to force the other ISPs to follow suit. However, as they had not sent any equivalent emails, they told IRMA to politely PFO.

storm2811

Say if I get cut off,would I still be able to sign up to someone else?

Eircom is crap enough anyways,we're paying for 7mb and we get about 3..:rolleyes:

Mark200

storm2811 wrote: »

Say if I get cut off,would I still be able to sign up to someone else?

Yes

tbh

Biggins wrote: »

...And if I am wrong, I stand corrected.
(won't be the first time I'm wrong)

Eircom went to a judge and stated their case that the contents of the site were illegal?
If that be the case, where in Irish law does it say that ALL the contents are illegal?
I'm not arguing against the blocking of SOME of the contents. However I object to the blocking of the whole site - including possibly parts that were/are not still illegal under Irish law.

Parts of Pirate Bay might also be sharing free items, I'm sure they were.
Its the wide scale 100% block that is extreme in nature.
Sure, penalise Pirate Bay for the illegal contents and every time they share them - no argument there - but to block the whole site?
Questionable at the very least, thats all, equally with respect and without insult or posting just to annoy you.

(I hope you understand where I'm coming from)

i do - sorry for snapping.

Eircom didn't go to the judge asking for the piratebay to be blocked - the judge told eircom that they had to block it - eircom actually fought it intially. Similarly, eircom are not monitoring anyone going forward. There will be a third party company who will be looking for people who are uploading - not downloading - uploading - specific albums by artists. When they see people uploading these albums, they will go to eircom and say "look - this guy (they won't know who it is) was uploading the latest brittany spears album on the first of june 2010". Eircom then find out who that was and verify that they were doing what the monitoring company said they were doing, and then send them a letter and say "look dude, this isn't cool. don't do it again". If they do do it again, they get a second letter saying "we warned you already - do it again and we'll cut you off". If they still persist in doing it, then eircom cut them off.

Biggins

Mark200 wrote: »

As I said, it's irrelevant if SOME of their content was legal:

"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."

Also, I think the main problem was that piratebay was promoting their illegal content. Not that it just so happened that there was illegal content there. Which is one of the differences between piratebay and Google.

You make good sense and I can see where your coming from.
I hope you can see why though I worry about blocking of sites though.

Before a whole site is blocked, be it information, links or actual files, the actual content that is illegal, should be dealt with first individually on a case by case basis and not just go to a court and get a blanket block.
I fear we might be rushing too quick to future provide these blanket bans - before we deal with the actual singular contents.
Thats all.

Amhran Nua

Mark200 wrote: »

There's a problem with setting up a thread filled with lies (or most likely 'mistakes') about the facts. I've already pointed out the many mistakes you made in your first post in this topic.

You've pointed out nothing of the sort. In the OP I even made it clear what my personal solution was - to leave Eircom entirely. It doesn't really bother me that Eircom wants to commit corporate suicide in this manner. It does bother me that an open attempt to sidestep the judicial process is being made, and no amount of FUD can disguise that.

Mark200 wrote: »

What happens when every ISP has similar policies is that people will stop downloading illegally.

No, what happens is the European court of Justice gets involved and supports previous European Parliament decisions in this matter, which is to say that three strikes without judicial oversight is not acceptable.

stovelid

This is a coincidence because after three strikes of their shit service, I switched provider.

sink

Amhran Nua wrote: »

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

"The proprietor retains the right to refuse entry, this does not effect your statutory rights"

You're looking at this entirely backwards. Eircom are a private business providing a private service and as you have pointed out so many times they're not the government nor or they provide a public service. As a private business offering a private service they can choose with whom they want to do business and can refuse to to business with anyone for whatever reason, that is their right as a private organisation, so long as it is not in contravention of anti-discrimination laws.

If one feels that a private business is unfairly discriminating against them, they can take them to court. If a private business suspects someone of using their product/service or property to conduct illegal activities and has evidence of such they're in the right. Note.. they don't need to prove guilt necessarily, just enough evidence to justify their suspicion.

tbh

Amhran Nua wrote: »

No, what happens is the European court of Justice gets involved and supports previous European Parliament decisions in this matter, which is to say that three strikes without judicial oversight is not acceptable.

that'll never happen. You still don't seem to understand that this is a company, not a government. There is no obligation on Eircom to provide service to anybody.

Amhran Nua

sink wrote: »

You're looking at this entirely backwards. Eircom are a private business providing a private service and as you have pointed out so many times they're not the government nor or they provide a public service.

This is where there seems to be some confusion. The prevailing attitude in Europe is that internet connectivity is closer to a utlility than a luxury at this stage, and I'd tend to agree with them.

tbh wrote: »

that'll never happen. You still don't seem to understand that this is a company, not a government. There is no obligation on Eircom to provide service to anybody.

Really, so what you're saying is that if every company supplying a service in a country adopts rules specifically struck down by the European Parliament, that will be grand with the lads in Brussels?

Mark200

Amhran Nua wrote: »

You've pointed out nothing of the sort. In the OP I even made it clear what my personal solution was - to leave Eircom entirely. It doesn't really bother me that Eircom wants to commit corporate suicide in this manner. It does bother me that an open attempt to sidestep the judicial process is being made, and no amount of FUD can disguise that.


No, what happens is the European court of Justice gets involved and supports previous European Parliament decisions in this matter, which is to say that three strikes without judicial oversight is not acceptable.

I did point out your mistakes, actually. I pointed out that open-source ISOs are clearly not going to be effected. I pointed out your error in suggesting that there's no way to disguise personal information - when in fact the only info a third party will see is your IP address - which is already available to all of those with which you are sharing a file with over P2P. So in fact the third party is actually getting no additional information.

I don't know why you're finding it so hard to understand that company policy is separate from a judicial process. It has been pointed out to you over and over already.

Biggins wrote: »

You make good sense and I can see where your coming from.
I hope you can see why though I worry about blocking of sites though.

Before a whole site is blocked, be it information, links or actual files, the actual content that is illegal, should be dealt with first individually on a case by case basis and not just go to a court and get a blanket block.
I fear we might be rushing too quick to future provide these blanket bans - before we deal with the actual singular contents.

Well thepiratebay is a dynamic site in that it is always changing. New torrents are always being added. I can't imagine any feasible way to continuously block the illegal content.

But I do of course see your point.

Mark200

Amhran Nua wrote: »

This is where there seems to be some confusion. The prevailing attitude in Europe is that internet connectivity is closer to a utlility than a luxury at this stage, and I'd tend to agree with them.


Really, so what you're saying is that if every company supplying a service in a country adopts rules specifically struck down by the European Parliament, that will be grand with the lads in Brussels?

The only thing struck down in the European Parliament was a LAW. They're very different things. The LAW allowed for blanket bans on accessing the internet. Company policy is simply one company refusing to provide a service to a certain person.

geeky

Biggins wrote: »

Expect their ass to be hauled up in the European court at some stage for going against any possible rulings.

And expect them to pass on the court costs for this to anyone bovine enough to still subscribe to this overpriced, bloated company that that still acts like it's got a monopoly on telecoms in this country.

tbh

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Really, so what you're saying is that if every company supplying a service in a country adopts rules specifically struck down by the European Parliament, that will be grand with the lads in Brussels?

the lads in Brussels didn't strike down the law in france because it denied the people of france the right to use the internet, they struck it down because it was a LAW - a LAW - the circumvented due process.

I'll put it to you this way.

Imagine you're a hotelier. You refuse to rent a room to a traveller - lads in Brussels will hammer you.

Imagine you're a hotelier. You refuse to rent a room to a traveller, because you know she's a prostitute, because she's been caught renting rooms in that hotel to use with her clients - will the lads in Brussels hammer you now?

of course not.

ScumLord

This has no effect on me, Eircom lost me as a possible customer a long time ago. When I recently moved house and had to choose an internet provider the possibility of using Eircom didn't even enter my mind.

If your with them you should switch and tell your friends the same. If they lose customers over this, it'll be the end of it.

Amhran Nua

Mark200 wrote: »

I did point out your mistakes, actually. I pointed out that open-source ISOs are clearly not going to be effected.

Ah but that would be one of your mistakes, not mine...

I had Verizon turn my service off once. I called complaining that it wasn't working and they sent me to a website describing complaints of illegally sharing movies. (yea, no internet access and they send me to a web site). I checked it on my laptop at another location then I pointed out that all three complaints were within 5 seconds of each other, the IP address listed was not the IP they assigned to me, and after about 20 minutes on hold, they turned the service back on. I didn't even get a "my bad, our mistake" or anything from them.

About two days later, I started receiving phone calls saying that my service was scheduled to be shut off because of copyright infringement. This time I checked the website and another 3 complaints were logged within 10 seconds of each other. They got the IP right this time though. The copyright violation was Mandriva spring ed. Supposedly there is some movie or something out there that looks similar enough to a linux distribution that they thought it was it. I have yet to find it though.

This does underline that mistakes can and will be made, and without judicial oversight and the burden of proof, what are you going to do about it?

Mark200 wrote: »

I don't know why you're finding it so hard to understand that company policy is separate from a judicial process. It has been pointed out to you over and over already.

Whats puzzling to me is how you've missed that I didn't recommend moving to another country in the OP, just moving to another ISP. Are we to take it them that you're happy enough with the judicial process being subverted by private industry?

Amhran Nua

tbh wrote: »

the lads in Brussels didn't strike down the law in france because it denied the people of france the right to use the internet, they struck it down because it was a LAW - a LAW - the circumvented due process.

There is no difference between a de facto law and a law. If every ISP in the country is doing it, it is a law and will be removed as a practise as such.

chopperbyrne

I don't see what the problem is here. If you are uploading copyrighted material to share online, then you are breaking the law.

They are not targeting downloaders, just uploaders and even then, instead of getting in proper legal trouble, you'll have your internet connection switched off.

Unless you're illegally uploading copyrighted material then you've nothing to be concerned about.

tbh

chopperbyrne wrote: »

I don't see what the problem is here. If you are uploading copyrighted material to share online, then you are breaking the law.

They are not targeting downloaders, just uploaders and even then, instead of betting in proper legal trouble, you'll have your internet connection switched off.

Unless you're illegally uploading copyrighted material then you've nothing to be concerned about.

it's AH chopper - why let the facts get in the way of a hysterical rant?