UPC to enforce 3 strikes rule

Rjd2

Don't think this has been discussed in this forum, if so apologies. I can't see many of the other ISPS offering as much resistance either as I doubt they would have the financial muscle of UPC.


From torrentfreak

http://torrentfreak.com/court-orders-isp-to-disconnect-internet-pirates-150328/

The High Court in Ireland has told ISP UPC that it must introduce a "three strikes" scheme to deal with subscribers who pirate music online. The ruling is a major victory for Sony, Universal and Warner who will only be required to pay 20% of the installation and running costs, with UPC picking up 80% of the tab.

Half a decade ago the Irish Recorded Music Association (IRMA) ended legal action against local ISP Eircom when the ISP agreed to force a so-called “three strikes” regime on subscribers.

The agreement saw IRMA-affiliated labels including Sony, Universal and Warner tracking Eircom subscribers online and Eircom forwarding infringement notices to alleged pirates. It was envisioned that those caught three times would be disconnected from the Internet.

In a follow-up move IRMA tried to force another ISP, UPC, to implement the same measures. UPC fought back and over the past several years the matter has dragged on through the Irish legal system.

In January 2015 the case was again before the Commercial Court, with IRMA looking to force a so-called “graduated response” scheme onto UPC and the ISP trying to avoid one and its costs.

The High Court handed down its ruling Friday and it amounts to a massive victory for the labels, a depressing defeat for UPC, and a major concern for the rest of Ireland’s ISPs.

Brushing aside arguments by UPC that it’s not an ISP’s job to police its subscribers’ activities online, Justice Brian Cregan sided almost entirely with the labels.

“The current generation of writers, performers and interpreters of music cannot have their livelihoods destroyed by advances in technology which allow persons to breach their constitutional rights with impunity,” he said.

After ordering UPC to implement a “three strikes” system including the disconnection of repeat offenders, the Judge then informed the ISP it would be picking up most of the bill.

According to Independent.ie the system will cost between 800,000 euros and 940,000 euros to set up. UPC offered to pay 25% of these costs but the Judge disagreed and ordered the ISP to pay 80%.

But it doesn’t end there. Yearly running costs are estimated to be between 200,000 and 300,000 euros or, to put it another way, close to one euro for each of UPC’s 360,000 subscribers.

Then, in a move apparently aimed at keeping costs down, the Judge ordered that the number of warning notifications going out to subscribers should be capped at 2,500 per month instead of the 5,000 originally proposed. That means that even if the staggering setup costs are ignored, each notice could cost 10 euros to send out.

The case was adjourned until next month to allow UPC and the labels to prepare submissions on how Justice Cregan’s order will be implemented. In the meantime the rest of Ireland’s ISPs will be nervously checking their bank balances in the event that they too are required to implement a similarly costly system.

biko

Ok, so what's your opinion on this OP?

Mesrine65

VPN's, proxies, there's always a way around.

Augmerson

Ah I only download movies I'll be grand.

Bobby Baccala

When eircom started the same thing a few years ago I got a letter off them saying my broadband would be cut off if I downloaded anymore music, kept on doing it nothing happened, wouldn't worry about it too much

timetogo

I don't understand. To set up a system to forward infringement notices from IRMA will cost €800,000 and then will cost €200,000 -> €300,000 a year.

It's obviously way more complicated than I think.

Is the system not just

IRMA sends on an IP with evidence to UPC.
UPC checks their database of users and prints a template letter.
Pop a 60c stamp on this and send to the user.
Repeat 2 more times if required for the user.
Disconnect user.

Does this just cover torrenting? I'm guessing it does as it's the very low hanging fruit and easy to catch and I think the original Eircom one all those years ago was for torrents. All of the other ways probably aren't so easy to catch.

Rjd2

biko wrote: »

Ok, so what's your opinion on this OP?

I'd love to say something fascinating, but I will let you down..:o

Tbh a little shocked they weren't already enforcing this rule, the music industry have been trying to force ISPS to enforce this for so long now.

Will it make a difference? I think it will. VPNS? I have spoken to people who download and I am shocked quite a few have no clue or interest in them, one angry letter and that will be a stop to their downloading.

The other internet providers as the article alludes to, I can't see having the financial muscle to fight this and after this ruling, its very hard to see how they could win. I suppose for respective customer bases, the best they can hope for is, they hold them up for a bit.:o


Told you, it wasn't interesting.:o

Captain Chaos

Everyone just keep doing it and UPC will be forced to cut everyone off. Yeah right can't see that happening.

Luke92

timetogo wrote: »

IRMA sends on an IP with evidence to UPC.

When did I give these guys permission to spy on me? Dirty feckers

mass_debater

Luke92 wrote: »

When did I give these guys permission to spy on me? Dirty feckers

Well if you're stupid enough to use a method that leaves your public ip visible......

UCDVet

I love watching the rich people that are meant to govern our society, introducing laws that:

1.) Won't work
2.) Are years (or decades) after the damage has been done

How many euros were wasted while these rich politicians debated passing the 'cookie law' - decades after the entire world had been using cookies?

Clearly, they don't understand computers. And clearly, the public is too apathetic to do anything about it. But, at least we pay them a lot!

Luke92

mass_debater wrote: »

Well if you're stupid enough to use a method that leaves your public ip visible......

I've got a dynamically generated IP if that will help?

mass_debater

Luke92 wrote: »

I've got a dynamically generated IP if that will help?

Upc by law must keep a record of who had what ip at what time and date, this ruling makes Upc act on any info about particular ip.

salamanca22

Luke92 wrote: »

I've got a dynamically generated IP if that will help?

It doesn't. They will supply both IP information and time of access which should be able to lead to tracking to correct 'offender'.

IP addresses are public information and every time you access another computer on the internet you are supplying your IP address to that computer.

These companies will place honey pots on various files on the internet and torrents and will supply offending IP's to the ISP which are then required to send out one of these warning letters.

You can get a high speed VPN if you are afraid of these companies spying on you, or you could use methods that do not require you to broadcast your IP to unknown networks.

I am not too worried about it though.

Fudge You

biko wrote: »

Ok, so what's your opinion on this OP?

Were you even interested in this person's opinion in post #7???

Why does it bother you if there is no opinion in an opening post?
I love debating on a saturday morning

Glenbhoy

mass_debater wrote: »

Well if you're stupid enough to use a method that leaves your public ip visible......

Having had a brief look through Snowden's revelations, I think it hardly matters, we're all being spied upon (unless we're US citizens, who they only spy on via their contact with non-US citizens).

AndonHandon

It's one of those things where, although illegal, it's not worth prosecuting the consumer so the website 'drug dealer' is the focus. Streaming a movie or a match from a website is not a crime so people can relax about that. The law maintainers essentially only focus on torrents but torrents are unnecessary for movies, sport and music so if you get done for downloading them you are a mong.

Glenbhoy

salamanca22 wrote: »

It doesn't. They will supply both IP information and time of access which should be able to lead to tracking to correct 'offender'.

IP addresses are public information and every time you access another computer on the internet you are supplying your IP address to that computer.

These companies will place honey pots on various files on the internet and torrents and will supply offending IP's to the ISP which are then required to send out one of these warning letters.

You can get a high speed VPN if you are afraid of these companies spying on you, or you could use methods that do not require you to broadcast your IP to unknown networks.

I am not too worried about it though.

Interesting, is entrapment allowed in this country?

salamanca22

Glenbhoy wrote: »

Interesting, is entrapment allowed in this country?

I don't think it is entrapment as they are not coercing you into downloading the file. You do so out of your own choice without any third party forcing your hand.

I also believe entrapment can only be committed by someone in law enforcement.

Manach

The HC seems both to have disregarded both the privacy aspect of internet traffic being spied on at the beheast of a 3rd party commerical entity, which undermines the assumption that people have a modicum of privacy. As well, the HC ignored both rulings dervived in other courts elsewhere showing such is intrusive and a violation of UN principles of internet access being a human right. One arm of the state disregarding these whilst other arms are promoting such to drive many forms of social change in Ireland show a cognative doublethink that is staggering.

mass_debater

Glenbhoy wrote: »

Interesting, is entrapment allowed in this country?

It's not entrapment, they don't upload the files, they find files that are already uploaded. As they have copyright on the files they are not doing any illegal downloading by joining the torrent and taking note of then other IPs that are connected

enfant terrible

AndonHandon wrote: »

It's one of those things where, although illegal, it's not worth prosecuting the consumer so the website 'drug dealer' is the focus. Streaming a movie or a match from a website is not a crime so people can relax about that. The law maintainers essentially only focus on torrents but torrents are unnecessary for movies, sport and music so if you get done for downloading them you are a mong.

Ya but if you want the uncompressed 35GB blu ray file streams are no good.

Pumpkinseeds

So...basically UPC are picking up 80% of the tab to alienate a huge proportion of their customers.:D

jjpep

Well, if folks actually just paid for stuff they wanted everyone's time wouldn't be wasted on creating unenforceable legal orders.

Cue the predictable it's not stealing, it's Copying, record/movie companies are evil blah blah yawn arguments.

MagicIRL

jjpep wrote: »

Well, if folks actually just paid for stuff they wanted everyone's time wouldn't be wasted on creating unenforceable legal orders.

Cue the predictable it's not stealing, it's Copying, record/movie companies are evil blah blah yawn arguments.

I'm willing to bet people would pay for it if it was available.

I want to watch Game of Thrones, for example. I don't give a **** about country borders, timezones or what-have-you. I want to watch it when it's available. If the TV company wants to show it over in America first then they're just opening up to people not waiting around and rightly so.

I don't want a full HBO online subscription just to watch my one show, either.

I never torrent a game, for example. Why? Because Steam will have it, and it'll be on some super reduced price during one their sales. It's easier for me to use Steam.

The TV companies need to rethink their approach to the modern society. We're all instantly connected now.

WoollyRedHat

Ha good luck with this, sounds like it will bankrupt them, especially considering they were only willing to shoulder 25% of the costs until the judge forced them to up that to 80%.


The labels will be somewhat happy, although they're deluded if they think the good times are back... I wonder how much money they have thrown at lawyers down the years to get these cases heard both here and abroad? I'd say it's a lot.


There is still no adequate online music purchasing model... Itunes is ****, and the same goes for T.V/movies and the restriction of shows and movies on a geo-location basis as well as the continued archaic system of release dates. The likes of Netflix are a start but fall short...

mikom

jjpep wrote: »

Well, if folks actually just paid for stuff they wanted everyone's time wouldn't be wasted on creating unenforceable legal orders.

Get on to RTE with that suggestion.
They are looking for a new ideas man.

Hans Bricks

Mr.S wrote: »

If Eircoms 3 strike rule is anything to go by, we'll be fine.

Genuine question ... why ?

I received a notification from Eircom years ago for downloading 1 song, yes you read that right, 1 song off kickass torrents. I was pondering switching to UPC that time anyway (which I did) so thought nothing of it.

Is their 3 strikes system an undermined joke now or what ?

The_Valeyard

Does anyone actually know someone who had their internets cut off?

mikom

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Does anyone actually know someone who had their internets cut off?

Probably that "foricate" yoke from FG that had to resort to robbing the taxpayer on international bootyphone calls rather than use skype.

mass_debater

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Does anyone actually know someone who had their internets cut off?

No, they've even said nobody was cut off. It was a way of avoiding further court cases and saving themselves money fighting cowboys with deep pockets

KomradeBishop

The bigger picture here, is that this is just a stepping stone to more privacy-invading measures. In a few years, once this is normalized, the next demand in the unwinnable war for stopping piracy, will be Deep Packet Inspection, which - if normalized - can lead to the erosion of net neutrality, and can normalize mass invasion of privacy of all Internet users.

KomradeBishop

Glenbhoy wrote: »

Having had a brief look through Snowden's revelations, I think it hardly matters, we're all being spied upon (unless we're US citizens, who they only spy on via their contact with non-US citizens).

The correct response to the NSA spying, is to demand better privacy/security, not to just give it all up...

salamanca22

KomradeBishop wrote: »

The bigger picture here, is that this is just a stepping stone to more privacy-invading measures. In a few years, once this is normalized, the next demand in the unwinnable war for stopping piracy, will be Deep Packet Inspection, which - if normalized - can lead to the erosion of net neutrality, and can normalize mass invasion of privacy of all Internet users.

That is a huge jump from companies using information where there can be no reasonable expectation of privacy, i.e IP logging. The ISP did not want to fork out for the cost of this measure I am sure they will not want to pay multiples of that to implement DPI methods in their network.

And just to add, so there is no misunderstanding for anyone, no one will get your personal information that UPC has on you, the music companies can only ever request these letters by proxy via UPC.

KomradeBishop

The ISP's won't want to do it, but the next thing the music/tv/film industry is going to demand in a few years, when this measure fails to stop pirates, is Deep Packet Inspection; and we could end up seeing that enforced through the courts, much the same way we've seen this put in place now.

ThisRegard

It's akin to ordering the producers of foil lined bags to pay towards the costs of a stores loss due to shop lifting when the tags are nullified, or producers of snips that thief's use to snip security tags off.

I would think UPC may appeal to a higher court.

Rubber_Soul

MagicIRL wrote: »

I'm willing to bet people would pay for it if it was available.

I'm willing to bet there would still be a rather large percentage of people who would still pirate even if some kind of affordable, one-stop shop for all media became available. You only have to look at the piracy stats from Netflix original shows like House of Cards and Orange is the New Black to see that. Despite Netflix offering a very good service at a reasonable price, piracy is still rampant. Some people just like free ****. The industry knows it too and while tackling piracy through legislative means is still a major component of their efforts, they're actually focusing most of their efforts on pushing anti-piracy education aimed at kids.

ThisRegard

MagicIRL wrote: »

I'm willing to bet people would pay for it if it was available.

I want to watch Game of Thrones, for example. I don't give a **** about country borders, timezones or what-have-you. I want to watch it when it's available. If the TV company wants to show it over in America first then they're just opening up to people not waiting around and rightly so.

I don't want a full HBO online subscription just to watch my one show, either.

I never torrent a game, for example. Why? Because Steam will have it, and it'll be on some super reduced price during one their sales. It's easier for me to use Steam.

The TV companies need to rethink their approach to the modern society. We're all instantly connected now.

You feel entitled to a product that you have no right to?

the_monkey

Out of interest if I download files via a secure SFTP connection , the ISP can't see them correct ?

Anesthetize

WoollyRedHat wrote: »

There is still no adequate online music purchasing model... Itunes is ****, and the same goes for T.V/movies and the restriction of shows and movies on a geo-location basis as well as the continued archaic system of release dates. The likes of Netflix are a start but fall short...

The Bandcamp pay what you want model is the closest thing to an adequate online music purchasing model. It gives more control to independent artists and it's actually quite surprising how much people donate. I just wish more artists would use it.

Sony, Universal and Warners can go f*ck themselves. They only care about money and not music.

kowloon

Quiet everyone! I'm trying to record music off the radio.

salamanca22

the_monkey wrote: »

Out of interest if I download files via a secure SFTP connection , the ISP can't see them correct ?

It is not the ISP that is monitoring file downloads but the media companies themselfs.

They join an in progress torrent and will log every IP it connects to and then send those IP's to the ISP who will then send out warning letters. They can only monitor methods that actually provide them methods of monitoring. Downloading via say newsgroups would leave them with no means of monitoring the downloads as they files come direct from servers, no middle men. SFTP is another method as you are again, downloading from point A to point B which ideally would be known networks and secure. SFTP is secured by AES encryption usually too though so even if the ISP were watching (They aren't) they would not know easily what the file was.

mass_debater

StarshipPooper wrote: »

I'm willing to bet there would still be a rather large percentage of people who would still pirate even if some kind of affordable, one-stop shop for all media became available. You only have to look at the piracy stats from Netflix original shows like House of Cards and Orange is the New Black to see that. Despite Netflix offering a very good service at a reasonable price piracy is still rampant, some people just like free ****. The industry knows it too and while tackling piracy through legislative means is still a major component of their efforts, they're actually focusing most of their efforts on pushing anti-piracy education aimed at kids.

But piracy isn't something new, it's been around for the last 50 years and will be around forever, it's not going away. Netflix and Spotify have proven that if you offer an affordable solution most will opt for it. Some won't, but many of these are people who wouldn't buy an album anyway so it's not a lost sale. Research has shown that those who pirate actually purchase more music than those who don't.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/22/music-pirates-study_n_2526417.html

UCDVet

the_monkey wrote: »

Out of interest if I download files via a secure SFTP connection , the ISP can't see them correct ?

As far as I know - the ISP can see that you've connected to that site; but cannot read the contents of data exchanged between you and the site. They can see how much traffic is sent.

shruikan2553

Hans Bricks wrote: »

Genuine question ... why ?

I received a notification from Eircom years ago for downloading 1 song, yes you read that right, 1 song off kickass torrents. I was pondering switching to UPC that time anyway (which I did) so thought nothing of it.

Is their 3 strikes system an undermined joke now or what ?

You were unlucky. The companies monitor some torrents to gather IP addresses and then they are passed on to ISPs to send a letter to some of them. It is meant to be a 3 strike thing so wouldn't have to worry at all until the second letter in theory.

mass_debater

The S in SFTP is secure, which means it's encrypted during packet transfer

mfceiling

Well UPC 2 can play at that game.

I'm giving your piece of junk Horizon box a " 3 strikes and you're out" rule. The next time it fcuks up I will have it's card marked. Probably within a week it will have fcuked up 3 times and then I will have no choice but to put a hammer through it.

Rubber_Soul

mass_debater wrote: »

But piracy isn't something new, it's been around for the last 50 years and will be around forever, it's not going away.

I know, that was the argument I was making.

mass_debater wrote: »

many of these are people who wouldn't buy an album anyway so it's not a lost sale.

How many? How do you verify who wouldn't have bought the product? It's impossible to verify this claim. Ultimately it doesn't change the fact that it's theft.

mass_debater wrote: »

Research has shown that those who pirate actually purchase more music than those who don't.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/22/music-pirates-study_n_2526417.html

I'm aware of the research, however research has also shown that it's only a certain demographic of downloaders that practice try before you buy, the majority don't.

UCDVet

StarshipPooper wrote: »

I know, that was the argument I was making.

How many? How do you verify who wouldn't have bought the product? It's impossible to verify this claim. Ultimately it doesn't change the fact that it's theft.

I'm aware of the research, however the research has also shown that it's only a certain demographic of downloaders that practice try before you buy, the majority don't.

Where I come from, it's not theft. You aren't *taking* something from someone. You are creating an unauthorized duplicate. If you go to a library, take the book home, scan every page, AND RETURN the book - you aren't a thief. You didn't steal the book, the book was returned.

What you did was create an unauthorized copy.

The laws around deciding what is and isn't an authorized copy are absolutely maddening too, although not being from Ireland originally, I can't really speak to things here.

Rubber_Soul

UCDVet wrote: »

Where I come from, it's not theft. You aren't *taking* something from someone. You are creating an unauthorized duplicate. If you go to a library, take the book home, scan every page, AND RETURN the book - you aren't a thief. You didn't steal the book, the book was returned.

What you did was create an unauthorized copy.

The laws around deciding what is and isn't an authorized copy are absolutely maddening too, although not being from Ireland originally, I can't really speak to things here.

That's little more than a semantic argument. It's denying the creator of the media their owed compensation for your use of the product.

UCDVet

StarshipPooper wrote: »

That's little more than a semantic argument. It's denying the creator of the media their owed compensation for your use of the product.

I find that virtually all arguments are semantic arguments.

Still, it is it what it is. And it's illegal. I'd even agree if you want to say it's morally wrong. But it's not the same as theft.

If I'd spent months creating a painting, I'd much rather someone create an unauthorized copy with their cell phone; than someone steal the original. Both are crimes, but we tend to assign severity to crimes. Punching someone is wrong, but not as wrong as killing them.

Copying a 1 euro song is wrong, but not as wrong as stealing a 1 euro candy bar. Both are crimes.