Advertisement
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 enacts three strikes rule

1…1011131516…19

Comments

  • #362
    Amhran Nua
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,124 ✭✭✭Amhran Nua


    tbh wrote: »
    just as I suspected.

    you're full of it. In fairness to you dude, you'd make an excellent politician. You quite obviously don't have the first clue what you're talking about, and yet you manage to be pompous about it on an unbelievable level. Made for Leinster house I'd say.
    Nothing like a spot of personal abuse to hammer home the victory, eh?
    Mark200 wrote: »
    You refusing to accept facts about the law can hardly be described as debate.
    This continued inability to appreciate that saying something is a fact doesn't make it so does the debate no favours, to be honest.


  • #363
    Mark200
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,536 ✭✭✭Mark200


    Amhran Nua wrote: »
    Yeah, these people would like to disagree with you on that one.

    Ok, I'll repeat for possibly the fiftieth and hopefully the last time:

    The EU Parliament ruled that a Government can not make a law which results in the blanket ban of people from the internet without a judicial process.

    This does not effect the a company's right to refuse service to ANYONE for ANY reason (once it does not breach discrimination laws). Eircom are not obliged to provide you with internet access if you come to them looking for it. No internet service provider is.

    You are the ONLY ONE in this topic who has failed to grasp that insanely simple concept. It's shocking.


  • #364
    tbh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15,914 ✭✭✭✭tbh


    Amhran Nua wrote: »
    Are you and the couple of others in the merry gang still pushing your nonsense? Some hard spinning going on here and no mistake. Ah to live in the happy fairyland where companies don't have to obey laws.
    Amhran Nua wrote: »
    Nothing like a spot of personal abuse to hammer home the victory, eh?
    .

    bait and switch tbh. No more pontificating out of you, please.


  • #365
    Amhran Nua
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,124 ✭✭✭Amhran Nua


    tbh wrote: »
    anyone can talk sh1te as long as nobody calls them on it. It's when people call them on it the true colours show. I think AN has shown his true colours very openly tonight.
    I know one of us has.
    tbh wrote: »
    Maybe his contacts in Brussels pointed that out to him.
    Why bother, this was plastered all over the news a while back:
    How many times does the European Parliament have to make clear that judges must be involved in ordering Internet disconnections of repeat online copyright infringers? Eighty-eight percent of MEPs today rejected an attempt to water down the provision and instead restored the original toughly worded amendment to Europe's Telecoms Package. The massive bill now appears to hinge on just this one issue.

    The Telecoms Package covers everything from national regulators to mobile phones to network management to "graduated response" schemes; it's a huge hodgepodge of a bill, but all the main issues appear to be settled. When it comes to network neutrality and graduated response laws, however, the European Council (which needs to sign off on legislation from Parliament and is made up of the various EU national governments) objected. France, in particular, vigorously opposed the provisions.

    France, of course, is attempting to implement the Création et Internet law, one of the toughest of its kind, which would create a new administrative agency called HADOPI to oversee and order 'Net disconnections. The country refused to pass the Telecoms Package unless changes were made, and just last week, the Council and the MEPs overseeing the bill announced that a compromise had been reached. Graduated response and network neutrality provisions in the bill would be weakened but not stripped away entirely, and life was beautiful.

    But when it came time for Parliament to vote on the compromise, lawmakers sent a message: 407 voted to restore the original graduated response amendment, which made it illegal to disconnect Internet users without direct judicial oversight of the process. Only 57 MEPs voted against.

    This upsets the delicate compromise agreed to by the Council, of course, so the whole package will enter a negotiation phase once more. That's fine with consumer groups, which were ecstatic about the clear message sent (again) by Parliament.

    "The massive re-adoption of amendment 138/46 [on graduated response] rather than the softer compromise negotiated by rapporteur Trautmann with the Council is an even stronger statement. These two elements alone confirm that the French 'three strikes' scheme, HADOPI, is dead already," said Jérémie Zimmermann, co-founder of La Quadrature du Net.

    Every time this issue comes up, Parliament has voted overwhelmingly in favor of judicial involvement in the graduated response process. France doesn't want to hear that, of course—judicial involvement can be slow and expensive—but it may need to compromise further unless it's willing to sink a major piece of legislation over this one issue.


  • #366
    Mark200
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,536 ✭✭✭Mark200


    Amhran Nua wrote: »
    Why bother, this was plastered all over the news a while back:

    That ruling was in relation to Government laws, not company policies. Seriously. You've been told that a lot of times already in this topic.


  • Advertisement
  • #367
    TerrorFirmer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29,930 ✭✭✭✭TerrorFirmer


    Amhran Nua wrote: »
    About seventeen pages of discussion. Start at page one and work your way up. ;)

    Yeah, I just read through. And still am dumbfounded. In fact, I had to laugh when I came across some of the comments by obviously technologically incompetent users. Someone actually suggested it was a 'slippery slope'. To what, like? Illegal is illegal. They're taking the fight to illegal sharing. Not downloading, not browsing, not looking at porn, not doing anything whatsoever in fact - except downloading freakin illegal material. Sharing copyrighted files is illegal. If you do it, now you stand a real chance of being punished versus the precedence. Still not grasping the problem here, at all. You'd think Eircom were the Gestapo, rounding up innocents and their familes and vanishing their internet away into the night without recourse or reason.

    1) The people who get prosecuted will be either

    a) downloading illegal files, which, I stress, is illegal.
    b) using an unsecured network to which someone else has access. Now, I sympathize, but that's like living your car unlocked at night - reasonable expectations here, seriously.

    2) Eircom will not be monitoring you. Your details - your IP - will be passed on by a third party who have yours amongst a list of those tracked as sharing illegal files. Eircom them act on these reports by issuing warnings - three strikes is pretty decent right, considering you're been caught doing something illegal? I don't think the courts give you that chance?

    3) The arguments put forth here! People prosecuted will be cut off 'without the courts'. So freakin what! Trust me, if that was the worst result of being continuously found to be sharing illegally, then you're off pretty lightly. Also, one does have to revisit this statement, which can be also be taken as an apt summary of the thread thus far:

    EIRCOM SET TO PUNISH THOSE WHO BREAK THE LAW BUT NOT WITHOUT ACTUALLY GIVING THEM THREE CHANCES FIRST.

    Problem? Nah, not for me. Irritating perhaps, and annoying, but certainly not a grave injustice, or an infringement of humans rights, or any god damned thing at all.


  • #368
    Amhran Nua
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,124 ✭✭✭Amhran Nua


    Mark200 wrote: »
    The EU Parliament ruled that a Government can not make a law which results in the blanket ban of people from the internet without a judicial process.
    Thats not what Europarl ruled at all, there was no mention of blanket bans. You can find more details of their ruling above. What you are saying is that its alright for private companies to go ahead and make up their own rules in direct opposition to that decision, and if every ISP in Ireland is forced to go down this road, well thats just dandy.

    I disagree. And so does the European Parliament.
    Mark200 wrote: »
    You are the ONLY ONE in this topic who has failed to grasp that insanely simple concept. It's shocking.
    Is this another one of those facts which become factual by dint of the way you said it was?


  • #369
    Amhran Nua
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,124 ✭✭✭Amhran Nua


    TerrorFirmer wrote: »
    Yeah, I just read through. And still am dumbfounded.
    No, you didn't. If you had read through it you would have understood that private companies have no competence to decide what is illegal and what is not, thats an area for the courts. You'd also have realised that ISPs in Europe are not liable for what their users do, due to safe harbour provisions in European laws. If copyright holders have a problem with a file sharer they already have an established route to get satisfaction. You'd also have realised that this is an attempt by Irma to sidestep the established judicial process and enact their own legislation through the back door, legislation that has already been struck down by the European Parliament more than once.

    The "torrent" of abuse really helped get your point across though.

    Heh.


  • #370
    tbh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15,914 ✭✭✭✭tbh


    Amhran Nua wrote: »
    . And so does the European Parliament.

    no they don't. and if you truely believed they did, you'd have accepted my offer. The fact that you didn't shows you either accept you don't know what you're talking about, or you actually know it to be untrue.


  • #371
    TerrorFirmer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29,930 ✭✭✭✭TerrorFirmer


    You've descended now into a legal debate. Let's break down your original post.
    Just in case anyone is confused over what that means, your internet can be cut off if your internet habits are categorised as "suspicious".

    False.
    Indeed, you don't even need to be pirating anything, if you are downloading open source ISOs you can be cut just as quickly.

    False.
    There is no proxy, no encryption and no possible disguising of your internet browsing habits against this, if the company that is providing internet access thinks you are acting suspiciously, they can and will cut you off.

    False.
    I'll save money on a faster service and have been assured that BT has no intention of enacting a three strikes rule.

    BT also have been known to contact customers after being contacted themselves with lists of IPs. Whilst not official policy, BT do not take kindly to repeat offenders either.


  • Advertisement
  • #372
    Amhran Nua
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,124 ✭✭✭Amhran Nua


    tbh wrote: »
    no they don't. and if you truely believed they did, you'd have accepted my offer. The fact that you didn't shows you either accept you don't know what you're talking about, or you actually know it to be untrue.
    The fact the Europarl already has seems to have escaped you.
    TerrorFirmer wrote: »
    False.



    False.



    False.
    Thats just great, but sadly every word was true. If you had actually read the thread you'd have realised that even the ISO thing was true, I provided a link to back that up. So since you haven't bothered to respect the efforts of other users in creating this multi page thread by reading it, I don't see much point in carrying on discussion with you.
    TerrorFirmer wrote: »
    BT also have been known to contact customers after being contacted themselves with lists of IPs. Whilst not official policy, BT do not take kindly to repeat offenders either.
    And if they enact a three strikes rule, I'll be leaving them as well. ;)


  • #373
    Super_Sarko
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2 ✭Super_Sarko


    I think its an absolute joke that Eircom are being let do this. Information and file sharing spread through the internet like wildfire. If people here your music online, they will go out and buy your cd. You can't force people not to download music 'illegally'. I honestly don't even see it as acting illegally, its simple file sharing, its done online all the time.

    Just another reason from a long list of reasons to move from Eir who? and go to Perlico and other cheaper and better internet companies.


  • #374
    tbh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15,914 ✭✭✭✭tbh


    Amhran Nua wrote: »
    T. So since you haven't bothered to respect the efforts of other users in creating this multi page thread by reading it, I don't see much point in carrying on discussion with you.

    I think that's a bit rich coming from the person who said:
    Amhran Nua wrote: »
    Are you and the couple of others in the merry gang still pushing your nonsense? Some hard spinning going on here and no mistake. Ah to live in the happy fairyland where companies don't have to obey laws.

    Actually I'm really glad I don't live there.


  • #375
    TerrorFirmer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29,930 ✭✭✭✭TerrorFirmer


    Super_Sarko wrote: »
    I honestly don't even see it as acting illegally, its simple file sharing, its done online all the time.

    People smoke weed all the time, it's caused exactly 0 direct deaths in recorded history, yet it's still illegal. Would you stand in front of a judge and say 'Ah but it's not illegal in my eyes, everyone does it' as a form of defense? It doesn't matter a toss whether you personally believe it to be illegal or not. It is illegal, and downloading and sharing such files is illegal, end of.


  • #376
    Amhran Nua
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,124 ✭✭✭Amhran Nua


    tbh wrote: »
    I think that's a bit rich coming from the person who said:
    There's not much being said by the usual suspects, yourself included, that hasn't already been dealt with comprehensively in the first seventeen pages or so of the thread, when I was called away to that real life thing. The fact that you are still here working away says a lot tbh.


  • #377
    Amhran Nua
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,124 ✭✭✭Amhran Nua


    TerrorFirmer wrote: »
    People smoke weed all the time, it's caused exactly 0 direct deaths in recorded history, yet it's still illegal. Would you stand in front of a judge and say 'Ah but it's not illegal in my eyes, everyone does it' as a form of defense? It doesn't matter a toss whether you personally believe it to be illegal or not. It is illegal, and downloading and sharing such files is illegal, end of.
    Thats not the point. Its up to that judge to decide who is guilty and who is not. Its not up to randomcorp with their "infallible" detection method. This is why the European Parliament made its decision, to uphold the rule of law.


  • #378
    tbh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15,914 ✭✭✭✭tbh


    Amhran Nua wrote: »
    There's not much being said by the usual suspects, yourself included, that hasn't already been dealt with comprehensively in the first seventeen pages or so of the thread, when I was called away to that real life thing. The fact that you are still here working away says a lot tbh.

    as are you. And you have 47 posts in this thread, I've only 31. 32 now.


  • #379
    Amhran Nua
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,124 ✭✭✭Amhran Nua


    tbh wrote: »
    as are you. And you have 47 posts in this thread, I've only 31. 32 now.
    Thats just great.


  • #380
    tbh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15,914 ✭✭✭✭tbh


    Amhran Nua wrote: »
    Thats just great.

    it is. it's another example of how, when someone is wrong, pomposity only seeks to make them....hilarious.


  • #381
    Amhran Nua
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,124 ✭✭✭Amhran Nua


    tbh wrote: »
    it is. it's another example of how, when someone is wrong, pomposity only seeks to make them....hilarious.
    I agree completely.


  • Advertisement
  • #382
    Peanut
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,462 ✭✭✭Peanut


    Mark200 wrote: »
    The EU Parliament ruled that a Government can not make a law which results in the blanket ban of people from the internet without a judicial process.

    This does not effect the a company's right to refuse service to ANYONE for ANY reason (once it does not breach discrimination laws). Eircom are not obliged to provide you with internet access if you come to them looking for it.

    The problem is that IRMA are pushing for a de facto blanket ban, otherwise why just target Eircom when they know people will jump ship?

    Targetting one ISP is of no use to IRMA, except as a first step towards a blanket enforcement.


  • #383
    johanz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 217 ✭✭johanz


    Sucks if more than one person is using your internet.
    Someone pirates, you all get busted


  • #384
    Peanut
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,462 ✭✭✭Peanut


    johanz wrote: »
    Sucks if more than one person is using your internet.
    Someone pirates, you all get busted

    Indeed. Community wireless scheme with Eircom uplink? No chance.


  • #385
    Mark200
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,536 ✭✭✭Mark200


    Amhran Nua wrote: »
    Thats not the point. Its up to that judge to decide who is guilty and who is not. Its not up to randomcorp with their "infallible" detection method. This is why the European Parliament made its decision, to uphold the rule of law.

    Policy and law are not the same thing. Still. Eircom are not finding people guilty or not guilty of anything. They're simply choosing a subsection of people who they are deciding they will not provide their service to.


  • #386
    generalmiaow
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 865 ✭✭✭generalmiaow


    TerrorFirmer wrote: »
    1) The people who get prosecuted will be either

    a) downloading illegal files, which, I stress, is illegal.
    b) using an unsecured network to which someone else has access. Now, I sympathize, but that's like living your car unlocked at night - reasonable expectations here, seriously.

    Actually in a lot of cases it's like eircom left your car unlocked at night.


  • #387
    johanz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 217 ✭✭johanz


    generalmiaow wrote: »
    Actually in a lot of cases it's like eircom left your car unlocked at night.
    Anyone with half a brain would protect their router/modem.
    Sadly people around me didn't, so now they enjoy a nasty image instead of their usual websites.


  • #388
    Sheeps
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,763 ✭✭✭Sheeps


    I'm not reading this entire thread, but has anyone corrected the OP in saying that Ireland is the first country to implement this? Considering that this is not a law, Ireland has not implemented this system. Eircom has and there's also the fact that quite a large number of countries have the three strikes rule as an actual state law for ISPs to do this for example France.


    The rule is stupid, and I like the comment on slash dot from the guy who works at an ISP processing take down orders who said that the easiest way to have a law passed to stop ISPs doing this shit is to create a couple of bogus take down notices claiming copyright infringement sourced from a couple of different government ministers or TD's ip addresses.


  • #389
    jimi_t2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,002 ✭✭✭jimi_t2


    Amhran Nua wrote: »
    Thats not the point. Its up to that judge to decide who is guilty and who is not. Its not up to randomcorp with their "infallible" detection method. This is why the European Parliament made its decision, to uphold the rule of law.

    Its not a matter of guilt whatsoever, nor is it a matter of law. Its a matter of company policy. Its like a nightclub. They have no reason to let you in bar their own discretion.

    Similarly with Eircom, in their contract you agree that if you're infringing copyright in any means (this includes youtube AFAIK) then they're able to disconnect you without being sued for denial of service.

    If it was LAW then all the ISPs would have to do it.


    However it is simply a company policy (i.e. they couldn't be arsed hanging around the courts for ten years watching as their shares plummet). Granted, its a ''voluntary'' policy after the threat of being sued, but its their own private extrajudicial arrangement; otherwise they wouldn't be lining up UPC for the chopping block.

    Therefore the EU couldn't give less of a ****.

    However, I feel you're missing the actual legal precedent established which is far more dangerous - the ruling that IP addresses do not constitute privileged information.

    The rule is stupid, and I like the comment on slash dot from the guy who works at an ISP processing take down orders who said that the easiest way to have a law passed to stop ISPs doing this **** is to create a couple of bogus take down notices claiming copyright infringement sourced from a couple of different government ministers or TD's ip addresses.

    Only group they are willing to accept claims from is IRMA.

    You can be damn sure they won't be implicating any government ministers or TDs for this reason. No internet ninja on slahdot or elsewhere is going to come up with a work around for this in the first week.


  • #390
    Sheeps
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,763 ✭✭✭Sheeps


    jimi_t2 wrote: »
    You can be damn sure they won't be implicating any government ministers or TDs for this reason. No internet ninja on slahdot or elsewhere is going to come up with a work around for this in the first week.

    Eh, the whole reason this three strikes rule is retarded is because of the sheer volume of autonomous take down notices that are served to ISP's on a daily basis. They don't have the resources to investigate each claim so they just comply with the complaint regardless.

    Also, the Irish and/or European courts will intervene with ISP's assuming this policy as soon as they recognise the right to internet access as a basic human right just like they do in a number of different European countries.


  • Advertisement
  • #391
    Mark200
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,536 ✭✭✭Mark200


    Sheeps wrote: »
    Eh, the whole reason this three strikes rule is retarded is because of the sheer volume of autonomous take down notices that are served to ISP's on a daily basis. They don't have the resources to investigate each claim so they just comply with the complaint regardless.

    Eh, as explained in the article in the first post of this topic.. Eircom will tell the Music industry how many IP addresses it will process a week. During the trial period, they will process 50. So therefore there is going to be a cap on the amount they will process, so the Music industry can't just supply an endless list of IP addresses which Eircom must process.


Advertisement