If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
EIRCOM WILL block its internet customers accessing the Pirate Bay website from September 1st, but other internet service providers (ISPs) have refused a similar request from Irish record labels.
Pirate Bay (piratebay.org) is a notorious Swedish website which provides links to places where copyrighted material such as movies and music can be downloaded for free.
Under an out-of-court agreement with EMI Records, Sony Music, Universal Music and Warners in January, Eircom agreed to cut off customers found to be repeatedly downloading music illegally. The deal also required Eircom to cut off access to Pirate Bay if requested.
Yesterday, cable TV operator UPC, which has more than 120,000 broadband subscribers, announced it would not comply with a request to block access to Pirate Bay.
Biggest load of bollocks ever. These feckers think they own the internet. Not that it really matters that much, as the pirate bay will soon become a paysite.
Biggest load of bollocks ever. These feckers think they own the internet. Not that it really matters that much, as the pirate bay will soon become a paysite.
Or maybe it's an intentional token gesture that won't really impact on users...
Their hands were legally tied, what were they meant to do? It's very unfair for Eircom, they must block access while other ISPs which aren't being hunted don't. It's almost anti-competition.
The astoundingly terrible connection speeds and awful customer service should be something that is higher on their list of priorities than this to be honest.
Forgive me if I'm wrong but don't a large number of company's just resell Eircom lines. Would this not also effect them?
I can see why other company's told them no. Its the opening of a major floodgate which in time can create huge headaches for both the company and sales teams.
Their hands were legally tied, what were they meant to do? It's very unfair for Eircom, they must block access while other ISPs which aren't being hunted don't. It's almost anti-competition.
They were under no obligation to comply with the music industry. They should've fought back like UPC, but they obviously have no qualms about censoring their customer's Internet access.
havent TPB been sold anyway with the owners turning off tpb's tracker and becomeing a site onlyhosting legal torrents,now at the same time , if tpb gets blocked there tracker will too which accounts for about 90% of all torrents, I know where ill be going with my money if eircom blocks anything
Forgive me if I'm wrong but don't a large number of company's just resell Eircom lines. Would this not also effect them?
I can see why other company's told them no. Its the opening of a major floodgate which in time can create huge headaches for both the company and sales teams.
Already covered in the thread in broadband, no, it won't affect those who resell Eircom bitstream.
I heard someone mention at the time that the reason Eircom didn't fight this case is that because their financial situation is so precarious they can't afford to. UPC and BT would be a in a much healthier state to fight it.
I think torrents are crap anyway, never get anywhere near my connection's full speed on them, and yes my ports are forwarded correctly.
other fundamental rights. Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Eircom to block the Pirate Bay from September; UPC not so keen
In the latest twist in the Irish filesharing wars, it's emerged today that Eircom will start blocking access to The Pirate Bay from the first of September, while UPC has rejected music industry demands that it do so also. (The Irish Times | RTE). So what's going on?
First - the Eircom situation. When Eircom settled the case brought against it by the music industry it agreed - in addition to implementing a three strikes system against its users - not to oppose any application to the court to block access to The Pirate Bay. The predictable result was that an unopposed application would be granted without any real judicial scrutiny - and this has now happened. On the 24th of July, on the consent of Eircom, Mr. Justice Charleton in the High Court granted an order requiring it to:
block or otherwise disable access by its subscribers to the website thePirateBay.org and related domain names, IP addresses and URLs ... together with such other domain names, IP addresses and URLs as may reasonably be notified as related domain names by [the music company plaintiffs] to [eircom] from time to time.
That order requires Eircom to put such a block in place from the start of September (and, remarkably, to block additional sites designated by the plaintiffs as "related" - something presumably designed to avoid evasion but which may be prone to abuse). Crucially, however, Mr. Justice Charleton stressed that he had only heard one side, and that consequently any decision he made was on the basis of one side putting forward an unopposed application - expressly noting that had the matter being argued, a different conclusion might have been reached by a different court. In short, the order has no precedential value.
Despite this, however, the music industry appears to have been emboldened by the order, which takes us on to the UPC situation. It seems that the plaintiffs then wrote to UPC demanding that it also block The Pirate Bay, lest customers "migrate" from Eircom, and threatening immediate proceedings unless it blocked access also. UPC - which is already being sued by the music industry in separate proceedings essentially demanding it implement "three strikes" - has rejected this demand, and indicated that it will vigorously defend any additional action also.
The current state of play raises some interesting questions. For example: Will users begin to migrate from Eircom? Is it appropriate for a court - even on consent - to make an order which will have the effect of blocking user access to a great deal of legitimate content? (While the percentage of legal torrents on The Pirate Bay might be contested, there's no doubt but that it indexes a great deal of legitimate content.) Should such an order allow plaintiffs to (apparently unilaterally) determine which sites are "related" and require those to be blocked also? Why have Eircom been so shy about revealing the existence of the blocking? Expect these, and other issues to come to the fore over the next few days.
Meh - its Eircom. Wouldn't expect anything less from this dire company.
Some where capable, will switch provider if really bothered.
Either that or use other means!
Besides that Pirate Bay will be legal soon anyway if the sale goes through.
So Eircom are wasting their own time and customers money. Just normal Eircom idiocy for a normal day.
The addon with key VanillaStats could not be found and will not be started.
#0 [internal function]: Vanilla\Logging\ErrorLogger::handleError(1024, 'The addon with ...', '/var/www/fronte...', 1123)
#1 /var/www/frontend-742df116009db3/library/Vanilla/AddonManager.php(1123): trigger_error('The addon with ...', 1024)
#2 /var/www/frontend-742df116009db3/bootstrap.php(546): Vanilla\AddonManager->startAddonsByKey(Array, 'addon')
#3 [internal function]: {closure}(Object(Vanilla\Utility\TracedContainer), Object(Vanilla\AddonManager), Object(Gdn_Request))
#4 /var/www/frontend-742df116009db3/vendor/vanilla/garden-container/src/Container.php(353): call_user_func_array(Object(Closure), Array)
#5 /var/www/frontend-742df116009db3/bootstrap.php(602): Garden\Container\Container->call(Object(Closure))
#6 /var/www/frontend-742df116009db3/index.php(28): require_once('/var/www/fronte...')
#7 {main}
notice
The addon with key translationsapi could not be found and will not be started.
#0 [internal function]: Vanilla\Logging\ErrorLogger::handleError(1024, 'The addon with ...', '/var/www/fronte...', 1123)
#1 /var/www/frontend-742df116009db3/library/Vanilla/AddonManager.php(1123): trigger_error('The addon with ...', 1024)
#2 /var/www/frontend-742df116009db3/bootstrap.php(546): Vanilla\AddonManager->startAddonsByKey(Array, 'addon')
#3 [internal function]: {closure}(Object(Vanilla\Utility\TracedContainer), Object(Vanilla\AddonManager), Object(Gdn_Request))
#4 /var/www/frontend-742df116009db3/vendor/vanilla/garden-container/src/Container.php(353): call_user_func_array(Object(Closure), Array)
#5 /var/www/frontend-742df116009db3/bootstrap.php(602): Garden\Container\Container->call(Object(Closure))
#6 /var/www/frontend-742df116009db3/index.php(28): require_once('/var/www/fronte...')
#7 {main}
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
