Eircom enacts three strikes rule

Mark200

Amhran Nua wrote: »

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

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?

You provided a link to an article that has pretty much nothing to do with the Eircom situation. Nice.

The article describes 3 complaints being made within 5 seconds of each other. Considering Eircom said they'll handle a maximum of 50 complaints a week, I really can't understand why you think that that's a likely scenario to occur.

Also, as said numerous times already... with P2P file sharing you can easily see what IP addresses are sharing the file. There's very little possibly of error.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

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?

Seriously, please try to get it into your head that companies can refuse service to anyone. It will save us going around in circles. Thanks.

Amhran Nua

tbh wrote: »

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

Very true!

Mark200 wrote: »

You provided a link to an article that has pretty much nothing to do with the Eircom situation. Nice.

Of course Eircom is well known as a bastion of efficiency...

Mark200 wrote: »

The article describes 3 complaints being made within 5 seconds of each other. Considering Eircom said they'll handle a maximum of 50 complaints a week, I really can't understand why you think that that's a likely scenario to occur.

Ah now you're not reading the article. It said 50 a week during the pilot phase.

Mark200 wrote: »

Also, as said numerous times already... with P2P file sharing you can easily see what IP addresses are sharing the file. There's very little possibly of error.

Of course, so when the US equivalent of IRMA sued a dead woman for infringement, that was perfectly justified?

Mark200 wrote: »

Seriously, please try to get it into your head that companies can refuse service to anyone. It will save us going around in circles. Thanks.

And when every company is acting flagrantly in defiance of European Parliament decisions, which you seem to be in favour of, don't worry your head about it.

Mark200

Amhran Nua wrote: »

And when every company is acting flagrantly in defiance of European Parliament decisions, which you seem to be in favour of, don't worry your head about it.

Wow....

Seriously, it's shocking how you're still failing to comprehend what the decision actually was.

BoredNaMoaner

How much resources are Eircom going to waste on this little enterprise? They don't have time to give proper customer service yet now they are engaging in a crusade to cut off their own customers or the dubious say-so of a third-party. Where you have a choice, dump Eircom or you are a fool.

Biggins

...If I may intercede.

The outcome will be that, those who are downloading thru' Eircom whats deemed to be illegal content, will by receiving their first letter, be switching providers.

Long story short, this move by Eircom (justified or not) will not do themselves more good than harm in the long run I suspect.

chopperbyrne

Biggins wrote: »

...If I may intercede.

The outcome will be that, those who are downloading thru' Eircom whats deemed to be illegal content, will by receiving their first letter, be switching providers.

Long story short, this move by Eircom (justified or not) will not do themselves more good than harm in the long run I suspect.

It's about uploading, not downloading.

Biggins

chopperbyrne wrote: »

It's about uploading, not downloading.

Aren't the music people then going after the downloaders too eventually?
They did this eventually in the states. Just a matter of time before they push for that too I guess.
They will be onto Eircom again about that, give them time.

As I said somewhere back when I was waffling on, I suspect they are testing the water.

Amhran Nua

Mark200 wrote: »

Wow....

Seriously, it's shocking how you're still failing to comprehend what the decision actually was.

The message I'm getting here is that you're perfectly happy to let private industry invent its own legislation and sneak it in the back door, avoiding judicial oversight. As has been pointed out over and over, when every ISP in the country is doing it, it is a de facto law, and if you think the EU will sit back and let that happen, you're in for another shock I'm afraid.

bonzodog2

sink wrote: »

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.

I haven't read pages 6-9 yet, but every request for information from 1 PC to another, or a Rapidshare and Megaupload server, goes through several machines along the way. Any of these can monitor the requests if they choose to.

But, its true that "the rights holders have no means of tracking who is downloading illegally" , but they might be able to get some kind of court order in some circumstances to get information.

tiocimarla

Firstly anybody who think that moving to bt from eircom is a good idea.. let me just tell you now its not! Bt RENT their lines from eircom so if eircom move this motion into common place, then surely it will have a knock on effect to bt in the future. Secondly BT have the worst customer service out of eight service providers iv been with. I spent a total of eighteen hours waiting in que over the space of 3 weeks and about 6 phone calls to fix my internet connection which they couldnt fix. Then they had the nerve to try and charge me 100 euro for a tec man to come fix their broken hardware. I changed company and they tried to sue me for not completing my 12 month contract. I told then conract was void as they had not lived up to their obbligations as a isp and if they called me again id sue for harassment. They didnt call back.


As for 3 stike rule Nobody has the right to monitor your internet usage. Not even a third party company. People forget very fast that before the internet we had cassette and Vhs. If you wanted to copy something it was very easy. The big wigs from the music industry Use the pirate bay and its counterparts as examples as to why their industry has halved. For a start i dont think these people or their clientel are at the bottom of the breadline by any means. These people are gready and their products should be boycotted.


The internet is somewhere people have an uncensored voice to do as they wish and share pirated and legal UNPIRATED material. If anyone has been following the telecoms package that was put before the EU a few months back then they will no that because of copyright infringment the large corps of the movie and music industry are trying the limit all types of internet usage. Thus we loose our freedom and the whole point of the internet. The music industry is afraid of one thing and that is to become obsolete. They sign new people to their label and make a percentage out of their record sales, rights etc. The sharing that goes on on the internet promotes good bands, artists etc. These people through self promotion can cut out the music industry labels and make it on their own. The artist gets paid but the label isnt needed. Ask yourself why is all the music corporate crap these days. Its simple, These labels take decent potential from the up and coming musicians and tell them how to dress, who they are, what songs to sing, what the target age group, genre to aim for. Thats not music thats constucted crap. They say they dont have sufficient money to invest in new artists which is a lie. They destroy potential rather than embrace it. If someone has somthing special then it will eventually come to light. Music is being destroyed by these people for sheer greed.

Id advise anyone who is interested in this topic to view the telecoms package that will be put to the EU again in the coming months and see for yourself how much legislation they want to change and how drastic and limited everyones internet expierience will change for the worse. Its a shambolic display of greed at the expense of the guy who downloads for free. :mad::mad::mad::mad:

tbh

Amhran Nua wrote: »

The message I'm getting here is that you're perfectly happy to let private industry invent its own legislation and sneak it in the back door, avoiding judicial oversight. As has been pointed out over and over, when every ISP in the country is doing it, it is a de facto law, and if you think the EU will sit back and let that happen, you're in for another shock I'm afraid.

the EU are not going to force ISPs to allow people to download pirated movies or music.
It's not going to happen.

All they will do is suggest a basic level of "proof" before steps are taken - which, I would imagine - would actually be very similar to the proof eircom will need to take the steps they are being forced to take now.

Also, eircom wouldn't have agreed to this if they thought that other ISPs won't be doing something similar soon.

sink

bonzodog2 wrote: »

I haven't read pages 6-9 yet, but every request for information from 1 PC to another, or a Rapidshare and Megaupload server, goes through several machines along the way. Any of these can monitor the requests if they choose to.

But, its true that "the rights holders have no means of tracking who is downloading illegally" , but they might be able to get some kind of court order in some circumstances to get information.

Technically you're right. But that's not going to happen for several very good reasons which I don't have time to elaborate on now.

Mark200

Amhran Nua wrote: »

The message I'm getting here is that you're perfectly happy to let private industry invent its own legislation and sneak it in the back door, avoiding judicial oversight. As has been pointed out over and over, when every ISP in the country is doing it, it is a de facto law, and if you think the EU will sit back and let that happen, you're in for another shock I'm afraid.

De facto law is different from law. Very different. The outcome might be the same, but the legal implication is very different.

The EU would have to make NEW laws if they were to do something about your hypothetical situation. You've implied over and over that such a "de facto law" would be in breach of EU directives and decisions. The fact is that it would not. And to think that it would be is just a complete misunderstanding of what law actually is.

robbie_998

I've being with eircom for a good while now and the service itself is good.. always have a connection and the package is a 3MB service and of that i'm always getting around 2.7 at peak times.

I still would want to move though but i'm hearing people on UPC are getting crap services .. guy up the road from me is paying something for a 20MB broadband and out of that he's actually only getting 3.5MB

other people i know on it are constantly getting cut off and dropping connections and stuff.

On my side too I have a PS3 which Eircom are great for but i dont know about other ISP's

xw2lj9uspm1eyh

Is it just uploaders that this three strike rule applies to or did I read that wrong.Interestingly UPC are in court soon over the same issue.I was thinking of switching to them anyway 10 euro more and you get 15mb broadband instead of 3mb with Eircom.I wouldn't think there would be many uploaders in Ireland.Funnily enough the piratebay has an ad on its main page about a service that hides your IP address and its going with the heading Ipredator Ireland:D.

Amhran Nua

tbh wrote: »

the EU are not going to force ISPs to allow people to download pirated movies or music.
It's not going to happen.

Thats quite the strawman you've built there. Lets try this again - its not a problem with illegal downloading (and it can't be illegal until declared so by a court in any case, back we go to square one), its not a problem with people being cut off from the internet for dowloading pirated files, its a problem with a lack of judicial oversight of the process, which the European Parliament has made very clear statements about. Let them cut off internet access for people who break the laws of the land, but let them go through a court to do that.

tbh wrote: »

Also, eircom wouldn't have agreed to this if they thought that other ISPs won't be doing something similar soon.

Which is exactly the problem.

Mark200 wrote: »

De facto law is different from law. Very different. The outcome might be the same, but the legal implication is very different.

Not really, unsavoury and unsafe practices get banned all the time.

Mark200 wrote: »

The fact is that it would not.

Saying it is a fact doesn't make it so, I'm afraid.

tiocimarla

robbie_998 wrote: »

I still would want to move though but i'm hearing people on UPC are getting crap services .. guy up the road from me is paying something for a 20MB broadband and out of that he's actually only getting 3.5MB

other people i know on it are constantly getting cut off and dropping connections and stuff.

On my side too I have a PS3 which Eircom are great for but i dont know about other ISP's

Ive been with upc ntl for two years now and only had to ring customer services once, which is good by any isp's means. I was talking to a real person, thats right a real living breathing one within minutes. The customer service is excellent and cant fault them in any way. They must actually train their staff which is a first. My problem was resolved in 5 mins flat. In fact the sevice is so good that when i moved house last year i turned down three premises that didnt have upc in them. Eircom is a very bad substatute. I have 20 meg and have never had less than 19.5 on speedtest.net and always a respectible ping. There is no compition as Upc beats every other irish Isp hands down. This is of course my expierience:D

sink

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Let them cut off internet access for people who break the laws of the land, but let them go through a court to do that.

That's not the way it works for any other industry. It's up to the person who is cut off to prove that they've been unfairly discriminated against.

It would be like boards.ie having to go to court in order to ban someone from this site for breaking the charter.

Zapho

I'm very annoyed to see Eircom bend over like this. It seems as though the music industry picked on the weakest link in an attempt to use them as an example for further threats to ISPs. No doubt after the "pilot scheme" we'll see nice figures being published showing a "substantial decrease" in piracy as a result.

I actually hope this loses Eircom loads of customers. I also hope people deliberately pirate so that eircom does cut them off and they no longer have to worry about their contract. I'm also delighted that ISPs like UPC and BT have promised that the same won't happen to them and finally, I hope these companies actually start an advertising campaign saying "We won't cut you off like eircom will."

tiocimarla

sink wrote: »

That's not the way it works for any other industry. It's up to the person who is cut off to prove that they've been unfairly discriminated against.

It would be like boards.ie having to go to court in order to ban someone from this site for breaking the charter.

This point has been made already so now let me give an example. Quinn direct stopped insuring people in Tallaght and Clondalkin A few months back and there was uproar. The thing is any business can stop providing a service to anybody as there is no obligation on them. Quinn stopped insuring these areas as they were losing money.... No business is obliged to lose money. If it were government legislation then it would be a different story.

If eircom cut you off because ur suspicious internet activity its up to them. Its up to you to find an internet provider that wants your custom.

It would be a different story if eircom said im cutting you off because your black or yellow or i dont like you etc. Its not discrimination, its company policy.

Amhran Nua

sink wrote: »

That's not the way it works for any other industry.

Its the first time in history an industry has been capable of providing the widespread dissemination of interactive information, so its hardly a surprise that there is no comparable industry.

sink wrote: »

It's up to the person who is cut off to prove that they've been unfairly discriminated against.

Sorry, the European Parliament disagrees, we have this innocent until proven guilty thing going on as the basis for the legal system.

Amhran Nua

tiocimarla wrote: »

Quinn stopped insuring these areas as they were losing money.... No business is obliged to lose money. If it were government legislation then it would be a different story.

Presumably there were still alternate providers willing to service Tallaght and Clondalkin though? Because if there wasn't the legislature would be stepping in. Further than that the analogy isn't applicable since insurance and ISPs are very different businesses.

sink

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Its the first time in history an industry has been capable of providing the widespread dissemination of interactive information, so its hardly a surprise that there is no comparable industry.


Sorry, the European Parliament disagrees, we have this innocent until proven guilty thing going on as the basis for the legal system.

For the legal system, this is clearly not the legal system, this is too private entities deciding whether or not to do business. There are no legal judgements being handed down.

Le King

Going to switch to UPC when I get home. Seriously Eircom, this is Ireland, not North Korea or China. Stop trying to censor websites, p2p etc.

I'm not for or against illegal file-sharing, I think the iTunes quality of the song is much better. However, if people wish to get their music online by whatever way they want that's their business and the business of the people who they are infringing against, not Eircom's business.

I know of about 20-30 people who switched since last year and I know one who has already switched today.

However I feel we are the test zone for this project and I'd say this could potentially be the start of more to come.


Let's hope the other ISP's have bigger balls than Eircom.

sink

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Presumably there were still alternate providers willing to service Tallaght and Clondalkin though? Because if there wasn't the legislature would be stepping in. Further than that the analogy isn't applicable since insurance and ISPs are very different businesses.

The legal system would not step in. It's the same for people being denied home insurance in flood zones. The legislature can't legislate forcing private companies to loose money.

Amhran Nua

sink wrote: »

For the legal system, this is clearly not the legal system, this is too private entities deciding whether or not to do business. There are no legal judgements being handed down.

So you're happy enough with private companies accusing citizens of illegal activity and punishing them on that basis, without going near a courtroom? Actually it doesn't matter how happy you are with it, the European Parliament is still going to remove it via the many tools available to do so.

sink wrote: »

The legal system would not step in. It's the same for people being denied home insurance in flood zones. The legislature can't legislate forcing private companies to loose money.

Eh the legal system can step in to do whatever it likes. Lots of industries are heavily regulated. Telecommunications are regulated by ComReg. I'm not sure how forcing media groups to use the established court system is making Eircom lose money to be honest, maybe you could clarify that for us?

tiocimarla

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Presumably there were still alternate providers willing to service Tallaght and Clondalkin though? Because if there wasn't the legislature would be stepping in. Further than that the analogy isn't applicable since insurance and ISPs are very different businesses.

Actually they are not so different. U missed the whole point my friend, they are both private business's so they can choose who to provide a service to.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

sink

Amhran Nua wrote: »

So you're happy enough with private companies accusing citizens of illegal activity and punishing them on that basis, without going near a courtroom? Actually it doesn't matter how happy you are with it, the European Parliament is still going to remove it via the many tools available to do so.

They can only punish them insofar as declining to serve them. Same thing goes for a shop owner kicking out a bunch of dodgy looking teenagers. The shop owner is not required to prove their guilt in a court of law, nor should they. Such a system would be untenable.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Eh the legal system can step in to do whatever it likes. Lots of industries are heavily regulated. Telecommunications are regulated by ComReg. I'm not sure how forcing media groups to use the established court system is making Eircom lose money to be honest, maybe you could clarify that for us?

I was specifically referring to the insurance analogy brought up. There are certain legal principles that have to be upheld, they are laid out in documents such as 'Bunreacht Na hEireann' that even the legislature cannot break. Countries that do force businesses to operate at a loss will soon find no business left to regulate, Zimbabwe tried that and it didn't work out too well.

Amhran Nua

tiocimarla wrote: »

Actually they are not so different. U missed the whole point my friend, they are both private business's so they can choose who to provide a service to.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

A better analogy would be if insurance companies started claiming people were insurance frauds and refused to sell them insurance on that basis, which would require a day in court to uphold.

sink

Amhran Nua wrote: »

A better analogy would be if insurance companies started claiming people were insurance frauds and refused to sell them insurance on that basis, which would require a day in court to uphold.

No you're just not getting it.

The insurance company could refuse to insure whoever it likes without ever needing to enter a court room. The the person purchasing insurance in that case would have to take the insurance company to court and would have to show grounds of unfair discrimination.