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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

eircom issues statement on illegal file sharing

2

Comments

  • #52
    yoyo
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 11,017 Mod ✭✭✭✭yoyo


    flyingsnail wrote: »
    What does this evidence consist of and is it included in the letters sent to the customer?

    Is there an appeals process or is it just we say you are guilty and that's that?

    I have a relative who got a letter and the evidence was the song name/artist name, date, time and IP address, it also stated limewire was used iirc (Probably anything on the Gnutella network is "limewire" to them, not sure a single program like that can be ided)

    Nick

    My Beer Glass collection site 🍺

    My Irish Callcards site



  • #53
    dudara
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,518 ✭✭✭✭dudara


    To all posters - eircom are engaging here openly on Boards - please pay them due accord and respect. Healthy debate is good and welcomed. Abuse and smart alec comments are not so welcome.

    dudara


  • #54
    madmanwithabox
    Registered Users Posts: 4 ✭madmanwithabox


    What's Eircoms position on this?
    You mentioned illegal downloads in an earlier post, which of the following 2 scenarios are defined as illegal under Eircoms policy/legal requirements (the notice issued only mentions filesharing, which is not the same as downloading)?

    1) downloading a music track (via torrenting etc), but disabling the ability for that track to be uploaded to anyone else (downloading)

    2) downloading a track and leaving uploading enabled (filesharing)

    It's important to note that "downloading" covers a multitude of activities:
    Opening a video in youtube that contains music from an artist (streaming is still downloading, that information exists on your computer once the streaming has finished, and can be retrieved and the audio track ripped).
    Opening a website that has a music sample playing on launch - again, it's downloaded to your computer.

    Another question, you have several wholesale companies that use your services, will you be providing IP addresses from those companies to any 3rd party in relation to this - is UPC the only way forward?


  • #55
    Nerin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,523 ✭✭✭✭Nerin


    Was asked by some web PR person to check out your "Musichub" for my site.
    Immediate reaction? What a load of toss.

    "It's free to stream"? Nope, you have to be an eircom customer for free streaming, something that has been conveniently left out of posts from eircom. Yes, you see the message that it's 6.99 a month to stream if you aren't in the eircom family, but only after you visit the site.


  • #56
    Jagle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 870 ✭✭✭Jagle


    im honestly very surprised that they came up with this idea, didnt anyone in eircom or IMRA know that they will not be beaten by itune, and any other big time media streaming site, already in opperation.
    if eircom customers dont use these already why would they bother going to the musichub now, just start using itunes


  • #57
    Nerin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,523 ✭✭✭✭Nerin


    Jagle wrote: »
    im honestly very surprised that they came up with this idea, didnt anyone in eircom or IMRA know that they will not be beaten by itune, and any other big time media streaming site, already in opperation.
    if eircom customers dont use these already why would they bother going to the musichub now, just start using itunes

    Pretty much, no fan of Apple or the Itunes service myself.
    this signing up per month thing is bull imo.
    Just go listen to free streaming radio like shoutcast, or you can stream artists music on youtube using their official accounts.

    edit- actually, was the deal with IRMA anything to do with Musichub? When the deal was struck, did the big music companies (Universal Music, Sony, EMI, Warner Music) offer you their tracks for your new shop?

    edit 2- any comment regarding this?
    To this end, Eircom is guaranteeing that it will never hand subscribers’ personal details to the music industry and will never monitor their online activities. They will, however, take the word of the music industry and their monitors on face value and presume it is accurate as a matter of course.


  • #58
    Jagle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 870 ✭✭✭Jagle


    Nerin wrote: »
    Pretty much, no fan of Apple or the Itunes service myself.
    this signing up per month thing is bull imo.
    Just go listen to free streaming radio like shoutcast, or you can stream artists music on youtube using their official accounts.

    same im not a big time itunes user, but if my isptold me i had to stop downloading illegally and that i could use their service id say thanks but no thanks, unfortunetly most of our brothers and sisters arnt tech savvy and wil probably think this is the bees knees


  • #59
    blubloblu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,226 ✭✭✭blubloblu


    eircom: Tony wrote: »
    Hi folks

    I've been asked to share this press release, issued today, with you:



    Any questions, please let any of us know and we'll try to help.

    Thanks

    Tony
    Can I ask you to kick someone I don't like off the Internet on the basis of an accusation? If it's good enough for IRMA, why isn't it good enough for me? Do I just need to have enough money to sue eircom?

    Will you be policing the Internet on the behalf of book publishers, the Pentagon (re:wikileaks) and god knows how many other begrudged organisations?

    Why didn't you stand up for your customers as UPC did, who were then proven right, unlike eircom's cowardly out-of-court settlement?


  • #60
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,847 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Can we change the thread title to illegal music file sharing?

    Eircom have no such policy regarding movies, computer software, books or even child porn.

    The cynic in me thinks that the 3 strikes policy was agreed upon because musichub wouldn't get clearance from IRMA without it.

    Eircom have really missed a real opportunity to be a leader in digital music distribution in Ireland (let's overlook the 3 strikes just for a minute). They could have been the first port of call for people to buy music from up and coming Irish artists.

    However, if you don't hand over some cash, you can't even listen to 10 seconds of a song. You have youtube/myspace/last.fm/grooveshark all offering free streaming. Why would anyone pay eircom for their service.

    They also don't have the catalogue of other sites, but I'll put that down to the service just starting up.

    If the streaming was free to all (customers and non-customers) and you still could undercut itunes for the price of a song, you might be in with a chance.

    Anyways to sum up, eircom won't be getting any business from me due to the 3 strike policy (even though I always pay for music) and because of the locked box nature of musichub.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Advertisement
  • #61
    bastados
    Registered Users Posts: 606 ✭✭✭bastados


    I've noticed site blocking instances by Google due to virus/trogan alerts..and that really got up my nose..imagine a service where your channeled to the sites they deem fit?...crazy.I got badly stung by Eircom's tactics recently and now will never use them.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056013740&page=5


  • #62
    bastados
    Registered Users Posts: 606 ✭✭✭bastados


    Pyongyang wrote: »
    No offence lads but the more you read the small print, the less value the service becomes.


    If Musichub succeeds and becomes profitable and sustainable I'll eat my own head.
    :D I come to this thread for the snits and giggles too.Love it here.Eircom reserve the right to eat your young.


  • #63
    Gurgle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,064 ✭✭✭Gurgle


    koth wrote: »
    The cynic in me thinks that the 3 strikes policy was agreed upon because musichub wouldn't get clearance from IRMA without it.
    The engineer in me wonders what Eircom's IT department think is the difference between streaming and downloading.

    http://eircommusichub.ie/ << Welcome to the new pirate bay people :)


  • #64
    Darragh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,241 ✭✭✭Darragh


    Hey folks, just merged the other thread on this matter into this one.

    Thanks

    Darragh


  • #65
    java
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 319 ✭✭java


    novarock wrote: »
    Hi Ant,

    The question I asked was if you are using dynamic addressing, how are you using this to pin point users that are downloading music?

    You say that users can configure IP's themselves, what is stopping a user from manually assigning themselves another IP in their subnet, downloading 50 gigs of data, and then requesting a different IP via DHCP? Surely this negates how you are able to 'pin point' users. Spoofing an IP is incredibly simple, so unless you are using a different technique to pin point users, I dont believe you can do it accurately.

    All ISP's will have logs as to who is connected to a particular ip at a particular time. An end user cannot spoof an ip address from their ISP.


  • #66
    Jagle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 870 ✭✭✭Jagle


    java look it up, very easy to fake an ip address or claim its not you thats on that ip, its not a very secure way of proving you are that ip or that person is that ip


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    dave1982
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,604 ✭✭✭dave1982


    If you buy something.It's your's and should be able to do as you please with it


  • #68
    thefinalstage
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,503 ✭✭✭thefinalstage


    Gurgle wrote: »
    The engineer in me wonders what Eircom's IT department think is the difference between streaming and downloading.

    http://eircommusichub.ie/ << Welcome to the new pirate bay people :)

    Streaming has not been ruled on in the courts ;).


  • #69
    novarock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,132 ✭✭✭novarock


    java wrote: »
    All ISP's will have logs as to who is connected to a particular ip at a particular time. An end user cannot spoof an ip address from their ISP.

    You absolutely can spoof an IP, a lot of routers on the eircom network use the eircom@eircom.ie username to connect, so they wont even have radius authentication logs, believe me, anyone can spoof an IP.


  • #70
    java
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 319 ✭✭java


    novarock wrote: »
    You absolutely can spoof an IP, a lot of routers on the eircom network use the eircom@eircom.ie username to connect, so they wont even have radius authentication logs, believe me, anyone can spoof an IP.


    You CANNOT spoof an ip address from your ISP. Your ISP will have logs EVERY TIME your phone line (for dsl bb) or router (for cable bb) make an authentication connection to their service. They keep those logs for a period of time. So, believe me, no matter what ip you think you are connecting with, your ISP will have a log of the one you are really connecting with, and the timestamp.


  • #71
    eircom: Tony
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,226 ✭✭✭eircom: Tony


    Hi the west wing

    tried to give you a call Friday eve, however no reply. My colleague Eleanor has asked me to investigate this issue for you and I will be in contact on Monday. Have a good weekend

    Tony


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    tricky D
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,700 ✭✭✭tricky D


    Doesn't matter what IP your ISP has you connecting. It's the IP that appears at the entrapment end that matters and which is easily spoofed.


  • #73
    novarock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,132 ✭✭✭novarock


    java wrote: »
    You CANNOT spoof an ip address from your ISP. Your ISP will have logs EVERY TIME your phone line (for dsl bb) or router (for cable bb) make an authentication connection to their service. They keep those logs for a period of time. So, believe me, no matter what ip you think you are connecting with, your ISP will have a log of the one you are really connecting with, and the timestamp.

    Im afraid thats not how DSL/cable works java, you could change anything on this a to make it not identify itself down to its MAC address. You can also use any DSL or cable router that you want to connect. DHCP authentication comes from a username rather than a phoneline/number.


  • #74
    java
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 319 ✭✭java


    novarock wrote: »
    Im afraid thats not how DSL/cable works java, you could change anything on this a to make it not identify itself down to its MAC address. You can also use any DSL or cable router that you want to connect. DHCP authentication comes from a username rather than a phoneline/number.

    You are incorrect. Even if you have a username/password configured on any router, the port that your phoneline is connected to on the exchange is what ultimately identifies you with your ISP. This cannot be spoofed. After this point you are presented with an ip from your ISP, either static or dhcp.

    I'm sure the eircom people would be happy to clarify that for you.


  • #75
    madmanwithabox
    Registered Users Posts: 4 ✭madmanwithabox


    madmanwithabox wrote: »
    What's Eircoms position on this?
    You mentioned illegal downloads in an earlier post, which of the following 2 scenarios are defined as illegal under Eircoms policy/legal requirements (the notice issued only mentions filesharing, which is not the same as downloading)?

    1) downloading a music track (via torrenting etc), but disabling the ability for that track to be uploaded to anyone else (downloading)

    2) downloading a track and leaving uploading enabled (filesharing)

    It's important to note that "downloading" covers a multitude of activities:
    Opening a video in youtube that contains music from an artist (streaming is still downloading, that information exists on your computer once the streaming has finished, and can be retrieved and the audio track ripped).
    Opening a website that has a music sample playing on launch - again, it's downloaded to your computer.

    Another question, you have several wholesale companies that use your services, will you be providing IP addresses from those companies to any 3rd party in relation to this - is UPC the only way forward?

    Any answer to the above please, Eircom reps?


  • #76
    stimpson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,821 ✭✭✭stimpson


    In what file format and quality level are the music downloads?
    All files are in MP3 format, encoded using the LAME encoding preset at a high variable bitrate (vbr).

    Do Eircom have a licence for the patented tech that LAME uses for encoding to MP3 format? They don't seem to appear on the list of licencees at http://www.mp3licensing.com/licensees/index.asp

    It would be ironic if a company that purports to care so much for the intellectual property of the music industry would be violating patent law for their own music service. Software engineers need to feed their families too!


  • #77
    madmanwithabox
    Registered Users Posts: 4 ✭madmanwithabox


    madmanwithabox wrote: »
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by madmanwithabox viewpost.gif
    What's Eircoms position on this?
    You mentioned illegal downloads in an earlier post, which of the following 2 scenarios are defined as illegal under Eircoms policy/legal requirements (the notice issued only mentions filesharing, which is not the same as downloading)?

    1) downloading a music track (via torrenting etc), but disabling the ability for that track to be uploaded to anyone else (downloading)

    2) downloading a track and leaving uploading enabled (filesharing)

    It's important to note that "downloading" covers a multitude of activities:
    Opening a video in youtube that contains music from an artist (streaming is still downloading, that information exists on your computer once the streaming has finished, and can be retrieved and the audio track ripped).
    Opening a website that has a music sample playing on launch - again, it's downloaded to your computer.

    Another question, you have several wholesale companies that use your services, will you be providing IP addresses from those companies to any 3rd party in relation to this - is UPC the only way forward?

    Any answer to the above please, Eircom reps?

    I don't like bumping posts, but it appears this question hasn't yet been answered, while other, later posts have been.

    The question above is an important one, as it's the difference between one of your customers being cut off or not, how are customers to adhere to this policy if it is not clearly defined, and reps are using confusing language in responses?

    As it stands, from the statement, customers will only be issued a warning or be cut off if they upload, not download files, as the statement uses the term filesharing. Downloading files does not come under the definition of filesharing, so as long as customers switch off the upload facility of any torrent clients etc, they will never be bothered by warnings.

    Could you clarify if the above is Eircoms standpoint, and also amend the statement if it is not, as there is good grounds for disputing any warnings given.


  • #78
    eircom: Tony
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,226 ✭✭✭eircom: Tony


    madmanwithabox wrote: »
    I don't like bumping posts, but it appears this question hasn't yet been answered, while other, later posts have been.

    The question above is an important one, as it's the difference between one of your customers being cut off or not, how are customers to adhere to this policy if it is not clearly defined, and reps are using confusing language in responses?

    As it stands, from the statement, customers will only be issued a warning or be cut off if they upload, not download files, as the statement uses the term filesharing. Downloading files does not come under the definition of filesharing, so as long as customers switch off the upload facility of any torrent clients etc, they will never be bothered by warnings.

    Could you clarify if the above is Eircoms standpoint, and also amend the statement if it is not, as there is good grounds for disputing any warnings given.

    Hi madmanwithabox

    Thanks you for posting. I agree that the points you have raised are important and the more clarity available on this subject the better. To provide you with the fullest answer I have sent your post to the appropriate sections. I will update you as soon as I have a response.
    I hope you will bear with us while I get the answer for you and thank you for your patience.
    Thanks
    Tony


  • #79
    Baneblade
    Registered Users Posts: 426 ✭✭Baneblade


    I have not seen any site where you purchase music and download it via a torrent most are direct downloads.

    The way the system works someone working on behalf of the copyright holder sits in a torrent swarm and collects the ip address off all people connecting to it. Then in the case of eircom they forward all the ip address along with the time they were connected to the torrent to eircom. Eircom then look up who had the ip address at that time and issue a letter to them.
    The only information the copyright holder or the person working on their behalf have is the ip address, only eircom are aware of who the ip address was assigned to at that time and they dont release that information.


    In both examples 1 and 2 its considered filesharing if you have not purchased the content you are downloading you dont need to be uploading.
    defination of sharing:
    share - partake: have, give, or receive a share of; "We shared the cake"


    In the case of a website or youtube the person putting the content on the site has to have the rights to do that, if not they are issued a takedown notice and the content is removed. In the case of youtube this is sometimes done automaticly.

    In general if you download/copy something you have not paid for you run the risk of getting a warning.


  • #80
    KylieWyley
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 547 ✭✭✭KylieWyley


    java wrote: »
    All ISP's will have logs as to who is connected to a particular ip at a particular time. An end user cannot spoof an ip address from their ISP.

    this argument is moot.

    even if it has come from your home network, who's to say that a neighbour isn't hijacking it? or a parent is unaware what their teenager is doing in their room? I challenge you to find me a student renting in a residential area that is actually paying for their wireless internet.

    an IP log hardly seems like conclusive proof and a disconnection seems like a disproportionate punishment.


  • #81
    dixiefly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,950 ✭✭✭dixiefly


    I only rarely download the odd movie. however I was trying to download a torrent and there is just no upload or download happening.

    Is this happening because of this restriction?


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    old_aussie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,410 ✭✭✭old_aussie


    ISP's are there to provide a service to customers, NOT make decisions about laws.

    That's up to the courts.

    If the case has not been proved or a precedent set by the courts, eircom might find they will be before the courts for stopping the service they are contracted to supply.

    Other people who had other ISP's cut off their service, are now suing the arse out of the ISP's that cut them off!........read why below

    http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/iinet-slays-hollywood-in-landmark-piracy-case-20100204-ndwr.html

    The giants of the film industry have lost their case against Australian ISP iiNet in a landmark judgment handed down in the Federal Court today.
    The decision had the potential to impact internet users and the internet industry profoundly as it sets a legal precedent surrounding how much ISPs are required to do to prevent customers from downloading movies and other content illegally.
    But after an on-and-off eight-week trial that examined whether iiNet authorised customers to download pirated movies, Justice Dennis Cowdroy found that the ISP was not liable for the downloading habits of its customers.
    In a summary of his 200-page judgment read out in court this morning, Justice Cowdroy said the evidence established that iiNet had done no more than to provide an internet service to its users.

    He found that, while iiNet had knowledge of infringements occurring and did not act to stop them, such findings did not necessitate a finding of authorisation.
    He said an ISP such as iiNet provided a legitimate communication facility, which was neither intended nor designed to infringe copyright.

    He said it was only by means of the application of the BitTorrent system that copyright infringements were enabled, but iiNet had no control over this system.

    "iiNet is not responsible if an iiNet user uses that system to bring about copyright infringement ... the law recognises no positive obligation on any person to protect the copyright of another," Justice Cowdroy said.


  • #83
    Ray Burkes Pension
    Registered Users Posts: 171 ✭✭Ray Burkes Pension


    How can Eircom have any faith in the third parties doing this snooping?
    Time and time again it has been shown that the software these companies use generates erroneous results.

    In the UK the Internet Service Providers' Association have admitted
    "We're not convinced of the efficacy of the software and not confident in its ability to identify users,"
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8129261.stm

    Edit. Having looked into it, DtecNet are the company IRMA are using.
    Why should Eircom have faith in them. Well ...

    P2P expert Dr. Pouwelse of the Tribler team at Delft University of Technology on DtecNet
    "They are completely technically incompetent, they are just trying to get sensational press coverage, or both.”

    “Mixing up terms like trackers versus website and failure to do basic homework like DNS lookups means they would fail our master course in P2P. Their work suffers from a fundamental methodological error: what our company can’t see does not exist, thus we can make wild absolute claims on a complex global phenomena,”
    http://torrentfreak.com/riaa-anti-piracy-partner-clueless-about-bittorrent-091028/


  • #84
    Liamario
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,094 ✭✭✭Liamario


    It all comes down to money in the end really. The reason I say that, is because I would be very skeptical If I was told it had nothing to do with the protection of Eircom's own music service.
    Also, if UPC managed to get a ruling in their favour, why don't Eircom rely on that precednt and tell IRMA where to go? Surely this is an obvious solution, one that would keep file sharers happy and still allow Eircom to exploit the ignorance of their less technology savvy customers.
    Finally, this question was also asked already, but never answered- Do Eircom send out warning letters to their larger business clients?


  • #85
    NullZer0
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,629 ✭✭✭NullZer0


    stimpson wrote: »
    Do Eircom have a licence for the patented tech that LAME uses for encoding to MP3 format? They don't seem to appear on the list of licencees at http://www.mp3licensing.com/licensees/index.asp

    It would be ironic if a company that purports to care so much for the intellectual property of the music industry would be violating patent law for their own music service. Software engineers need to feed their families too!

    Hi Stimpson,

    Did you get a response on this?


  • #86
    stimpson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,821 ✭✭✭stimpson


    iRock wrote: »
    Hi Stimpson,

    Did you get a response on this?

    Of course not... :rolleyes:


  • #87
    eircom: Tony
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,226 ✭✭✭eircom: Tony


    Hi stimpson
    I apologise for the delay and will chase this issue for you again. I hope to have an answer soon.
    Tony


  • #88
    Jagle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 870 ✭✭✭Jagle


    eircom: Tony wrote: »
    Hi stimpson
    I apologise for the delay and will chase this issue for you again. I hope to have an answer soon.
    Tony

    id like to believe that, maybe an email to LAME might help?


  • #89
    eircom: Tony
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,226 ✭✭✭eircom: Tony


    Thanks Jagle,
    Not a bad idea but also not sure they would tell me, so pursuing through eircom channels first.
    Tony


  • #90
    Wats_in_a_name
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 838 ✭✭✭Wats_in_a_name


    After 3 strikes your cut off right and don't have to pay any more fees etc? Just wondering if it would be a good way to get out of contract easily..


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    Jagle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 870 ✭✭✭Jagle


    eircom: Tony wrote: »
    Thanks Jagle,
    Not a bad idea but also not sure they would tell me, so pursuing through eircom channels first.
    Tony

    sorry tony irealised afterwards my comment made no sense,
    what i should of said was, maybe we should email LAME informing them that we believe eircom are not paying them for use of there service.

    and boom get eircom in trouble, no offence to you or your job, just spent too long being bent over by eircom, and this whole 3 strikes and your out thing is not only illegal but a horrible infringement of rights


  • #92
    eircom: Tony
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,226 ✭✭✭eircom: Tony


    Jagle wrote: »
    sorry tony irealised afterwards my comment made no sense,
    what i should of said was, maybe we should email LAME informing them that we believe eircom are not paying them for use of there service.

    and boom get eircom in trouble, no offence to you or your job, just spent too long being bent over by eircom, and this whole 3 strikes and your out thing is not only illegal but a horrible infringement of rights

    Ha :D no problem Jagle, I sort of knew that...;) but hoping to get a correct answer on this issue .... can't have double standards..
    If you do have any queries or problems just ley me know though, will do my best to resolve.
    Tony


  • #93
    the_syco
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,304 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    KylieWyley wrote: »
    even if it has come from your home network, who's to say that a neighbour isn't hijacking it? or a parent is unaware what their teenager is doing in their room?
    Depends if they go after the person who is downloading, or if they go after the person who owns the router. The latter would make more sense, as the former could be "my aunties boyfriends dogs sisters owner who just left the country". Also, if it's the former, and you're a first generation user, you'd be at risk due to Eircom putting a weak default username/password on the wireless "out of the box".
    Liamario wrote: »
    Also, if UPC managed to get a ruling in their favour, why don't Eircom rely on that precednt and tell IRMA where to go?
    Probably because Eircom knows that IRMA knows that Eircom doesn't have the money to fight the battle. From what I've seen, the old Aussie owners took most of the money and ran, as opposed to making the network better.


  • #94
    stimpson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,821 ✭✭✭stimpson


    Wow. A week on and still no answer on the LAME question...


  • #95
    eircom: Tony
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,226 ✭✭✭eircom: Tony


    stimpson wrote: »
    Wow. A week on and still no answer on the LAME question...


    Hi stimpson
    I absolutely apologies for the delay but I will have an answer to this tomorrow. Absolutely.:)
    Tony


  • #96
    eircom: Tony
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,226 ✭✭✭eircom: Tony


    madmanwithabox wrote: »
    What's Eircoms position on this?
    You mentioned illegal downloads in an earlier post, which of the following 2 scenarios are defined as illegal under Eircoms policy/legal requirements (the notice issued only mentions filesharing, which is not the same as downloading)?

    1) downloading a music track (via torrenting etc), but disabling the ability for that track to be uploaded to anyone else (downloading)

    2) downloading a track and leaving uploading enabled (filesharing)

    It's important to note that "downloading" covers a multitude of activities:
    Opening a video in youtube that contains music from an artist (streaming is still downloading, that information exists on your computer once the streaming has finished, and can be retrieved and the audio track ripped).
    Opening a website that has a music sample playing on launch - again, it's downloaded to your computer.

    Another question, you have several wholesale companies that use your services, will you be providing IP addresses from those companies to any 3rd party in relation to this - is UPC the only way forward?

    Hi madmanwithabox
    apologies for delay in responding
    The key point here is that we are taking action against illegal file sharing of copyrighted material.

    Filesharing is wider than just downloading, it is also making copyrighted material available to other people without consent of the copyright holder.

    In other words, of course there is material that can be shared freely as long as it is not copyrighted or if the person sharing holds the copyright and has willingly agreed to share that material. However, if you are the person sharing and you do not hold the copyright, then you can't share the material without the holder's consent. That is copyright infringement.

    I awaiting an answer to the wholesale question you posed and hope to have an answer next week.
    Tony


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    stimpson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,821 ✭✭✭stimpson


    Still no word on the LAME question?


  • #98
    eircom: Tony
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,226 ✭✭✭eircom: Tony


    stimpson wrote: »
    Still no word on the LAME question?
    Hi Stimpson / Jagle

    Again apologies for delay however have found out the following. In this case eircom has licensed its content from third party providers and don’t actually handle the content encoding at our end so do not ( in this case) have a need for a LAME encoding license. I have investigated this and we are satisfied that all relevant licenses and permissions have been duly obtained. I hope this answers the question if you have any further query please let me know.
    Tony:)


  • #99
    Nerin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,523 ✭✭✭✭Nerin


    eircom: Tony wrote: »
    Hi Stimpson / Jagle

    Again apologies for delay however have found out the following. In this case eircom has licensed its content from third party providers and don’t actually handle the content encoding at our end so do not ( in this case) have a need for a LAME encoding license. I have investigated this and we are satisfied that all relevant licenses and permissions have been duly obtained. I hope this answers the question if you have any further query please let me know.
    Tony:)

    that's kinda funny, eircom didn't encode it and a third party is supposed to do all the legal work, but when it comes to other sites it doesn't roll that way. nice :D


  • #100
    stimpson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,821 ✭✭✭stimpson


    eircom: Tony wrote: »
    Hi Stimpson / Jagle

    Again apologies for delay however have found out the following. In this case eircom has licensed its content from third party providers and don’t actually handle the content encoding at our end so do not ( in this case) have a need for a LAME encoding license.

    Actually, as the distributor of the content you do need a licence:

    http://mp3licensing.com/help/#5
    5) Do I need a license to distribute mp3, mp3PRO or mp3surround encoded content?

    Yes. A license is needed for commercial (i.e., revenue-generating) use of mp3/mp3PRO in broadcast systems (terrestrial, satellite, cable and/or other distribution channels), streaming applications (via Internet, intranets and/or other networks), other content distribution systems (pay-audio or audio-on-demand applications and the like) or for use of mp3/mp3PRO on physical media (compact discs, digital versatile discs, semiconductor chips, hard drives, memory cards and the like).


  • #101
    Peanut2011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,001 ✭✭✭Peanut2011


    Unfortunately where I live I do not have a choice so it's Eircom or nothing.. For one I can tell you if UPC came around I would switch like a light!

    Anyhow, what I really want to know is, WHY is Eircom so focused on protecting other IRMA and so little in protecting their CUSTOMERS???:confused::confused:

    After all, aren't we the ones that bring money to your business??

    Do you think that car manufacturers should re-posses cars after the owner has broken rules of the road 3 times?? NO! They instead focus on making the cars safe for their customers.

    What they do with it afterwards it's their own issue. Everyone over 18th can make their choice legally and face penalty under the law if broken.

    To say that IRMA has had a good legal case to make sure Eircom does that would be silly as other providers have not done this.

    I am very disappointed Eircom chose to respond this way but as they have monopoly I am not surprised. I also personally think if IRMA focused more on lowering cost and overheads instead of paying mountain to their lawyers, they would be able to combat this better.

    :mad::mad:


  • Advertisement
Advertisement