Eircom enacts three strikes rule

Gunsfortoys wrote: »

Already millions of euro in debt, eircom seek new customers by..........threatening them. Although choice of BB providers is pretty bad in ireland, you got to choose between UPC(ntl) or eircom for decent BB service. I suppose UPC would be the lesser of two evils. Seriously I hope the guys at the top of eircom get sacked for this they are ****ed enough as it is.

Pin_Cushion wrote: »

Does this give me grounds to get out of my contract with Eircom?

I'm only four months in but find their service crappy and overpriced and I don't like how they have blocked pirate bay. Now this. Any ideas?

13. On the first infringement, the bill payer at the IP address will be told with their bill that an infringement was detected at such and such a time in respect of a particular song, or whatever, that is subject to copyright. This enables them to reflect on their conduct or to communicate with the rest of their household. On a second infringement, a formal letter is received by the customer from Eircom. This is to the same effect, but it will presumably be couched in stronger terms than the warning with the bill. The customer can only go to level 2 after fourteen days have passed since the first infringement. As I understand it, these communications may also contain information concerning how to keep one’s computer secure from, for instance, the person next door and other continuing education tips. When a third infringement notification is received by Eircom from one of the plaintiffs, after a further fourteen days, Eircom must then review all the evidence. This is done on a human basis; the first two levels operating automatically. A termination notice is then issued to the customer giving fourteen days before cut-off. The customer is then entitled to make representations to Eircom, as the internet service provider, over the telephone or through the internet. The user’s representation is considered by Eircom, not in consultation with the plaintiffs, under para. 2.8 of the protocol. Private matters involving extenuating circumstances, so as to call into play one of the exceptions, or material whereby it is claimed as a matter of fact that the infringement has not taken place at all, must be considered by Eircom. Then, if that does not cause the consequences of the protocol to be diverted or postponed, the customer is cut-off from internet service.

Jev/N wrote: »

I don't know if this has been quoted here yet but here's the plan (taken from EMI Records & Ors -v- Eircom Ltd [2010] IEHC 108 (16 April 2010))

If anyone is going to bother arguing about this, I believe they should read the case report first, rather than the snippets in the paper

"13. On the first infringement, the bill payer at the IP address will be told with their bill that an infringement was detected at such and such a time in respect of a particular song, or whatever, that is subject to copyright. This enables them to reflect on their conduct or to communicate with the rest of their household. On a second infringement, a formal letter is received by the customer from Eircom. This is to the same effect, but it will presumably be couched in stronger terms than the warning with the bill. The customer can only go to level 2 after fourteen days have passed since the first infringement. As I understand it, these communications may also contain information concerning how to keep one’s computer secure from, for instance, the person next door and other continuing education tips. When a third infringement notification is received by Eircom from one of the plaintiffs, after a further fourteen days, Eircom must then review all the evidence. This is done on a human basis; the first two levels operating automatically. A termination notice is then issued to the customer giving fourteen days before cut-off. The customer is then entitled to make representations to Eircom, as the internet service provider, over the telephone or through the internet. The user’s representation is considered by Eircom, not in consultation with the plaintiffs, under para. 2.8 of the protocol. Private matters involving extenuating circumstances, so as to call into play one of the exceptions, or material whereby it is claimed as a matter of fact that the infringement has not taken place at all, must be considered by Eircom. Then, if that does not cause the consequences of the protocol to be diverted or postponed, the customer is cut-off from internet service. "

Full report here: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2010/H108.html