Irma has identified Pirate Bay, the world’s biggest file swapping website, as the first site that it will seek to have blocked. It will then move on to ‘‘similar websites’’.
skelliser wrote: » maybe a online petition?
alan dunne 27 wrote: » It'll be very interesting if rapidshare does get blocked. They ? Who is they ? I know that Rapidshare have lots of money to contest cases.
jos22 wrote: » irma would request it to be blocked. if irma can get sites blocked there no reason why others can't. if this gets through others will aim to block porn or any website which could offend or not be rated PG. this is pure rape of our freedoms. no website should be blocked in order to protect a multi billion dollar empire which has never proven it so called loss
skelliser wrote: » So we need to organise. moaning, arguing and non senical analagies arent gonna stop this or get us anywhere.
CaptSolo wrote: » In order to stop this, we need real activities both online and offline. New Zealand is in a similar situation with the government proposal to cut internet access. They started the petition and #blackout internet rally where people would turn their avatars (hey, even Stephen Fry's twitter avatar was blacked out) and websites black in protest of the new legislation:http://creativefreedom.org.nz/blackout.html They did succeed in getting the legislation delayed for the moment. Perhaps we need #blackout-ie ?
Cabaal wrote: » Ok lets not take this out of context, nobody is going to block any kind of on-line petition and no ISP would allow this.
WIKILEAKS PRESS RELEASE Tue Dec 23 01:15:59 GMT 2008 For immediate release. "Denmark: 3863 sites on secret censorship list" Wikileaks has released the secret Internet censorship list for Denmark. The list contains 3863 sites blocked by Danish ISPs participating in Denmark's censorship scheme as of February 2008. Danish ISPs "volunteer" to censor their users rather than face legislation and the top three ISPs are particpants. The system can be used to censor anything, but is meant to be for child pornography sites found by the Danish police and the Danish "Save the Children" group. The list is generated without judicial or public oversight and is kept secret by the ISPs using it. Unaccountability is intrinsic to such a secret censorship system. Most sites on the list are still censored (i.e must be on the current list), even though many have clearly changed owners or were possibly even wrongly placed on the list, for example the Dutch transport company Vanbokhorst. The list has been leaked because cases such as Thailand and Finland demonstrate that once a secret censorship system is established for pornographic content the same system can rapidly expand to cover other material, including political material, at the worst possible moment -- when government needs reform. Two days ago Wikileaks released the secret Internet censorship list for Thailand. Of the 1,203 sites censored this year, all have the internally noted reason of "lese majeste" -- criticizing the Royal family. Like Denmark, the Thai censorship system was originally promoted as a mechanism to prevent the flow of child pornography. The Danish filter is maintained by the National High Tech Crime Center of the Danish National Police and Save the Children Denmark. The police department is led by Peter Carpentier, and can be reached by phone: +45 33 14 88 88. The Save the Children-project is led by Kuno Soerensen, +45 25 14 00 69. The list can be independently tested by any customer of a participating Danish ISP by visiting the URLs of the sites listed. If the customer is presented with a "STOP!" page, the site is still listed in the filter.
Nody wrote: » You'd be surprised. In Sweden a anti pedophile organisation run a list of sites which they recommend ISPs to block which ISP usually use <SNIP>
Cabaal wrote: » http://creativefreedom.org.nz/blackout.html They did succeed in getting the legislation delayed for the moment. Perhaps we need #blackout-ie ? Agreed, however it is extremely important in such a campaign that certain individuals need to forget that its ok to download copyright material (it is not in anyway!).
http://creativefreedom.org.nz/blackout.html They did succeed in getting the legislation delayed for the moment. Perhaps we need #blackout-ie ?
Macros42 wrote: » I'd guess that that site is second on the list. IRMA are a shower of sound-bite twats. tPB is the buzzword at the moment because it's in the news hence it's the primary target. They haven't mentioned any other sites like Rapidshare in case people haven't heard of them yet and they don't want to alert them to it (or other sites). .
Donald-Duck wrote: » The German RIAA, rapidshare were up **** creek this time last year and I'm not actually sure how they got out of it, but they lost court cases on it.
In my layman's understand Rapidshare is more illegal than torrents .
Difference is, it's restricted to people who pay a membership fee * and of course Pirate Bay is wide open and free.
alan dunne 27 wrote: » I am desperately trying to understand every term and legal description of well just about everything going on here. In my layman's understand Rapidshare is more illegal than torrents . Difference is, it's restricted to people who pay a membership fee * and of course Pirate Bay is wide open and free.*you can download a certain amount, a small amount, without a membership Have you got any more info on this ? links to a news report of anything ?
ionix5891 wrote: » as i pointed out earlier is there some sort of an agreement reached by the moderators, as so far they are the only ones supporting Eircom while every single other member in this thread has expressed outrage i am sorry but i feel the moderators here dont like this Eircom matter being discussed (fear of a lawsuit or fear of loosing a lucrative advertiser?), and some know deep down that what's happening that is wrong on so many levels but cant admit to it
Macros42 wrote: » I'm actually not sure it is technically illegal. You are not making a copy of it - you are receiving someone else's copy.
Sparks wrote: » I think everyone probably agrees that this deal isn't great news; but: 1) They are going through the courts, even if the deal will in effect short-circuit the process somewhat; 2) It's not eircom's job to stand up in court for the rights of its customers. The board of Eircom is bound by the companies acts to act in the best interest of the eircom shareholders not the customers; and standing up for the customers rights to download copyrighted material would be expensive and thus not in the shareholders best interests. 3) It's groups like Digital Rights Ireland who are meant to take cases like this to court; have you donated to their funds or volunteered to help them today?
Cabaal wrote: » Also don't try to compare child porn to you downloading a copyright album/episode/movie/software...its not the same thing and its not what the industry is after or reporting on
Mathiasb wrote: » I'm just trying to protect my privacy here, and the democracy. The Internet is free and should always be. Once you start filtering the contents - you're actively destroying it and the purpose of it. If you read into this "the purpose of the internet is to fileshare copyrighted material" then oh my god... *sigh*
Isaac702 wrote: » So you are saying they are acting as the infrastructure for distributing the file. Ok then here is a question. If I burn a DVD with copyrighted content on it and send it to a friend through An Post. Should An Post be shut down just because they act as the distribution method for the trans fare? .
MOH wrote: » Maybe I've missed something, but how is Eircom agreeing not to contest any IRMA court case in their best interest? What do they gain from that, apart from a lot of extra work?
Donald-Duck wrote: » I can image it would not very nice on their finances to have multiple court cases.
Richard Dower wrote: » http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=218904
Donald-Duck wrote: » A forum where they put their folding at home stats in their signitures, cool place.
Pub07 wrote: » LOL come off it the lot of yez. Acting all concerned that Eircom are violating peoples human rights as they start 'censoring the internet'. The only thing that has you guys so worked up is that you will no longer be able to download thousands of Euros worth copyrighted material. You are trying to divert this issue into some freedom of speech argument, which some here have suggested this is the approach you should be taking, as you know you haven't a leg to stand on when it comes to your main issue which is defending your right to rip off copyrighted material.
Cabaal wrote: » Ok lets not take this out of context, nobody is going to block any kind of on-line petition and no ISP would allow this. Stick to actual facts and proper issues here instead of spiraling off and suggesting utter nonsense about eircom/irma blocking non-music download sites.
jos22 wrote: » I was being sarcastic but latest on this is Ireland's largest ISP won't block The Pirate Bay -- the embattled BitTorrent search engine and tracker -- absent a court order, a spokesman said Tuesday. Eircom is aware of copyright infringement issues but will not block The Pirate Bay unless major record labels can obtain a court order requiring it and other ISPs (Internet service providers) to do so, the spokesman said. Content monitoring is "not our business," the spokesman said. "We have no interest in it." sourcehttp://www.pcworld.com/article/160114/irish_isp_we_wont_block_the_pirate_bay.html
Mathiasb wrote: » That's the smartest thing I've read in a while. It's good to know that eircom aren't completely ball-less. However, a courtorder might be easy to get... well well.
According to a report in the Sunday Business Post this weekend, "Under the terms of an agreement between Eircom and Irma [the Irish major label association], Eircom will not oppose any court application [regarding sites to block], meaning that the orders will be automatically granted."
Pub07 wrote: LOL come off it the lot of yez. Acting all concerned that Eircom are violating peoples human rights as they start 'censoring the internet'. The only thing that has you guys so worked up is that you will no longer be able to download thousands of Euros worth copyrighted material. You are trying to divert this issue into some freedom of speech argument, which some here have suggested this is the approach you should be taking, as you know you haven't a leg to stand on when it comes to your main issue which is defending your right to rip off copyrighted material.
