UPC to enforce 3 strikes rule

KomradeBishop · 28-03-2015 03:17PM

The bigger picture here, is that this is just a stepping stone to more privacy-invading measures. In a few years, once this is normalized, the next demand in the unwinnable war for stopping piracy, will be Deep Packet Inspection, which - if normalized - can lead to the erosion of net neutrality, and can normalize mass invasion of privacy of all Internet users.

KomradeBishop · 28-03-2015 03:19PM

Glenbhoy wrote: »

Having had a brief look through Snowden's revelations, I think it hardly matters, we're all being spied upon (unless we're US citizens, who they only spy on via their contact with non-US citizens).

The correct response to the NSA spying, is to demand better privacy/security, not to just give it all up...

salamanca22 · 28-03-2015 03:26PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

The bigger picture here, is that this is just a stepping stone to more privacy-invading measures. In a few years, once this is normalized, the next demand in the unwinnable war for stopping piracy, will be Deep Packet Inspection, which - if normalized - can lead to the erosion of net neutrality, and can normalize mass invasion of privacy of all Internet users.

That is a huge jump from companies using information where there can be no reasonable expectation of privacy, i.e IP logging. The ISP did not want to fork out for the cost of this measure I am sure they will not want to pay multiples of that to implement DPI methods in their network.

And just to add, so there is no misunderstanding for anyone, no one will get your personal information that UPC has on you, the music companies can only ever request these letters by proxy via UPC.

KomradeBishop · 28-03-2015 03:30PM

The ISP's won't want to do it, but the next thing the music/tv/film industry is going to demand in a few years, when this measure fails to stop pirates, is Deep Packet Inspection; and we could end up seeing that enforced through the courts, much the same way we've seen this put in place now.

ThisRegard · 28-03-2015 03:34PM

It's akin to ordering the producers of foil lined bags to pay towards the costs of a stores loss due to shop lifting when the tags are nullified, or producers of snips that thief's use to snip security tags off.

I would think UPC may appeal to a higher court.

Rubber_Soul · 28-03-2015 03:36PM

MagicIRL wrote: »

I'm willing to bet people would pay for it if it was available.

I'm willing to bet there would still be a rather large percentage of people who would still pirate even if some kind of affordable, one-stop shop for all media became available. You only have to look at the piracy stats from Netflix original shows like House of Cards and Orange is the New Black to see that. Despite Netflix offering a very good service at a reasonable price, piracy is still rampant. Some people just like free ****. The industry knows it too and while tackling piracy through legislative means is still a major component of their efforts, they're actually focusing most of their efforts on pushing anti-piracy education aimed at kids.

ThisRegard · 28-03-2015 03:37PM

MagicIRL wrote: »

I'm willing to bet people would pay for it if it was available.

I want to watch Game of Thrones, for example. I don't give a **** about country borders, timezones or what-have-you. I want to watch it when it's available. If the TV company wants to show it over in America first then they're just opening up to people not waiting around and rightly so.

I don't want a full HBO online subscription just to watch my one show, either.

I never torrent a game, for example. Why? Because Steam will have it, and it'll be on some super reduced price during one their sales. It's easier for me to use Steam.

The TV companies need to rethink their approach to the modern society. We're all instantly connected now.

You feel entitled to a product that you have no right to?

the_monkey · 28-03-2015 03:38PM

Out of interest if I download files via a secure SFTP connection , the ISP can't see them correct ?

Anesthetize · 28-03-2015 03:43PM

WoollyRedHat wrote: »

There is still no adequate online music purchasing model... Itunes is ****, and the same goes for T.V/movies and the restriction of shows and movies on a geo-location basis as well as the continued archaic system of release dates. The likes of Netflix are a start but fall short...

The Bandcamp pay what you want model is the closest thing to an adequate online music purchasing model. It gives more control to independent artists and it's actually quite surprising how much people donate. I just wish more artists would use it.

Sony, Universal and Warners can go f*ck themselves. They only care about money and not music.

kowloon · 28-03-2015 03:58PM

Quiet everyone! I'm trying to record music off the radio.

salamanca22 · 28-03-2015 04:05PM

the_monkey wrote: »

Out of interest if I download files via a secure SFTP connection , the ISP can't see them correct ?

It is not the ISP that is monitoring file downloads but the media companies themselfs.

They join an in progress torrent and will log every IP it connects to and then send those IP's to the ISP who will then send out warning letters. They can only monitor methods that actually provide them methods of monitoring. Downloading via say newsgroups would leave them with no means of monitoring the downloads as they files come direct from servers, no middle men. SFTP is another method as you are again, downloading from point A to point B which ideally would be known networks and secure. SFTP is secured by AES encryption usually too though so even if the ISP were watching (They aren't) they would not know easily what the file was.

mass_debater · 28-03-2015 04:22PM

StarshipPooper wrote: »

I'm willing to bet there would still be a rather large percentage of people who would still pirate even if some kind of affordable, one-stop shop for all media became available. You only have to look at the piracy stats from Netflix original shows like House of Cards and Orange is the New Black to see that. Despite Netflix offering a very good service at a reasonable price piracy is still rampant, some people just like free ****. The industry knows it too and while tackling piracy through legislative means is still a major component of their efforts, they're actually focusing most of their efforts on pushing anti-piracy education aimed at kids.

But piracy isn't something new, it's been around for the last 50 years and will be around forever, it's not going away. Netflix and Spotify have proven that if you offer an affordable solution most will opt for it. Some won't, but many of these are people who wouldn't buy an album anyway so it's not a lost sale. Research has shown that those who pirate actually purchase more music than those who don't.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/22/music-pirates-study_n_2526417.html

UCDVet · 28-03-2015 04:27PM

the_monkey wrote: »

Out of interest if I download files via a secure SFTP connection , the ISP can't see them correct ?

As far as I know - the ISP can see that you've connected to that site; but cannot read the contents of data exchanged between you and the site. They can see how much traffic is sent.

shruikan2553 · 28-03-2015 04:28PM

Hans Bricks wrote: »

Genuine question ... why ?

I received a notification from Eircom years ago for downloading 1 song, yes you read that right, 1 song off kickass torrents. I was pondering switching to UPC that time anyway (which I did) so thought nothing of it.

Is their 3 strikes system an undermined joke now or what ?

You were unlucky. The companies monitor some torrents to gather IP addresses and then they are passed on to ISPs to send a letter to some of them. It is meant to be a 3 strike thing so wouldn't have to worry at all until the second letter in theory.

mass_debater · 28-03-2015 04:33PM

The S in SFTP is secure, which means it's encrypted during packet transfer

mfceiling · 28-03-2015 04:41PM

Well UPC 2 can play at that game.

I'm giving your piece of junk Horizon box a " 3 strikes and you're out" rule. The next time it fcuks up I will have it's card marked. Probably within a week it will have fcuked up 3 times and then I will have no choice but to put a hammer through it.

Rubber_Soul · 28-03-2015 05:04PM

mass_debater wrote: »

But piracy isn't something new, it's been around for the last 50 years and will be around forever, it's not going away.

I know, that was the argument I was making.

mass_debater wrote: »

many of these are people who wouldn't buy an album anyway so it's not a lost sale.

How many? How do you verify who wouldn't have bought the product? It's impossible to verify this claim. Ultimately it doesn't change the fact that it's theft.

mass_debater wrote: »

Research has shown that those who pirate actually purchase more music than those who don't.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/22/music-pirates-study_n_2526417.html

I'm aware of the research, however research has also shown that it's only a certain demographic of downloaders that practice try before you buy, the majority don't.

UCDVet · 28-03-2015 05:16PM

StarshipPooper wrote: »

I know, that was the argument I was making.

How many? How do you verify who wouldn't have bought the product? It's impossible to verify this claim. Ultimately it doesn't change the fact that it's theft.

I'm aware of the research, however the research has also shown that it's only a certain demographic of downloaders that practice try before you buy, the majority don't.

Where I come from, it's not theft. You aren't *taking* something from someone. You are creating an unauthorized duplicate. If you go to a library, take the book home, scan every page, AND RETURN the book - you aren't a thief. You didn't steal the book, the book was returned.

What you did was create an unauthorized copy.

The laws around deciding what is and isn't an authorized copy are absolutely maddening too, although not being from Ireland originally, I can't really speak to things here.

Rubber_Soul · 28-03-2015 05:25PM

UCDVet wrote: »

Where I come from, it's not theft. You aren't *taking* something from someone. You are creating an unauthorized duplicate. If you go to a library, take the book home, scan every page, AND RETURN the book - you aren't a thief. You didn't steal the book, the book was returned.

What you did was create an unauthorized copy.

The laws around deciding what is and isn't an authorized copy are absolutely maddening too, although not being from Ireland originally, I can't really speak to things here.

That's little more than a semantic argument. It's denying the creator of the media their owed compensation for your use of the product.

UCDVet · 28-03-2015 06:09PM

StarshipPooper wrote: »

That's little more than a semantic argument. It's denying the creator of the media their owed compensation for your use of the product.

I find that virtually all arguments are semantic arguments.

Still, it is it what it is. And it's illegal. I'd even agree if you want to say it's morally wrong. But it's not the same as theft.

If I'd spent months creating a painting, I'd much rather someone create an unauthorized copy with their cell phone; than someone steal the original. Both are crimes, but we tend to assign severity to crimes. Punching someone is wrong, but not as wrong as killing them.

Copying a 1 euro song is wrong, but not as wrong as stealing a 1 euro candy bar. Both are crimes.

Adamantium · 28-03-2015 06:12PM

Tommy Tiernan: "You can't be downloading music for free, we've got BILLIONAIRES to protect!!"

Son Of A Vidic · 28-03-2015 07:22PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

The correct response to the NSA spying, is to demand better privacy/security, not to just give it all up...

While people are demanding better privacy, they should probably prepare themselves for the inevitable exercise in tokenism. Meanwhile they should educate themselves on the very effective security measures, that the individual can use to protect their data & privacy. But it boils down to the individual though, if they feel compelled to share every ounce of their privacy and their daily lives on data collection sites like Facebook. Then there's probably no hope for them.

darkpagandeath · 28-03-2015 07:44PM

Yup I'm sure a company that's business runs of having users, Will go out of it's way to cut people off on something that's not enforceable. I'm sure this mouthing they are doing something is for the “Raped by Facebook” types to feel like they are doing something. People would Not torrent or pirate if the digital product they were using was a decent price. It's a case of big business trying to get governments enforce a price structure that no one is willing to pay.

Capt'n Midnight · 28-03-2015 08:11PM

StarshipPooper wrote: »

That's little more than a semantic argument. It's denying the creator of the media their owed compensation for your use of the product.

Yeah, right,

as if the creator of the media is getting a fair slice

The shenanigans of the music industry make Hollywood accounting look like a bastion of honesty. There's a lot of artists out there that make more on T-shirt sales than music.

We need a system where it's impossible for an Artist to relinquish all rights in their music. Any artist should be able to sell or give their music to anyone. If someone steals a CD then see ya in court. If someone downloads something illegally then see ya in court, but be prepared to shell out big-time if there's any defamation. But if someone copies an artist's music with their permission then the music industry can go swing.

kjl · 29-03-2015 01:20AM

kowloon wrote: »

Quiet everyone! I'm trying to record music off the radio.

Yeah, but the DJ won't stop talking.

kjl · 29-03-2015 01:24AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Af0wXeN6_FY

kjl · 29-03-2015 02:09AM

Here's my take on the situation.

This is a pointless and really unfair ruling on UPC, they are not responsible for the what their users download but are now footing the bill. All it's going to do is send more and more people to use torrent clients like Anomos to hide their IP through the onion routing network.

What happens to users who get three strikes? Do they lose their subscription to UPC? and if so isn't that just going to cost them more money in lost revenue?

The IRMA are just bullies with big pockets. These are the same labels who treat their artist like crap while taking 95% of their profits.

As for the whole moral issue of downloading music, it's not like I can't listen to music on youtube, what difference does it make if I have a copy of it for a time I am not connected to the internet. I can assure you I am not rushing out to buy an artists album for one song, but if I hear their music I might consider going to their concert and even buying a T-shirt. I do like the donation model and really I think this is the future of online music.

In this day and age we need a service that we pay a monthly fee towards which gives us access to all music, movie and TV shows ad free, technically this service exists, it's called the internet, and until those industries can get their **** together to make something better, it will not stop me from watching or listening to whatever I want.

Another user mentioned watching Game of Thrones illegally but IMO he has every right to watch the show, I can almost 100% guarantee that the same user probably pays for a subscription to Sky or UPC and would only have to wait 1 day to watch it on that service anyway, plus Sky and UPC pay for the show so why should he watch it a day early. What I do think it theft is that despite paying for this a service it's chockablocked full of ads. Sorry if I don't want to have to record something so that I can fast forward through them, so instead I let someone else do that for me so I can have an uninterrupted viewing of my show.

Shep_Dog · 29-03-2015 07:30AM

mass_debater wrote: »

Upc by law must keep a record of who had what ip at what time and date, this ruling makes Upc act on any info about particular ip.

Wasn't there an ECJ ruling, late last year, that the current Data Retention laws contravene privacy rights?

More to the point, UPC is selling access to movies, so they've got an interest in ensuring that rather than downloading them for free, people buy from them.

Elessar · 29-03-2015 09:35AM

Usenet is where it's at. No one can possibly know what you download, by its nature (+SSL). And I don't know anyone who downloads music now anyway, it's all streaming services.

timetogo · 29-03-2015 09:39AM

Here's what I think will happen.

Most people who torrent music will continue to do so. If they get a first strike they'll stop and use one of the many other ways to pirate music. A few might move to services like Spotify. Nobody will be stupid enough to go to 3 strikes so nobody will be disconnected.
This ruling is for IRMA so I'll make no difference to movie torrenters.
If the cost is really 800k to set up this monitoring and 200k yearly then this will be reflected in our bills next year. UPC isnt a charity so the costs will be passed on. Thanks IRMA.

UPC to enforce 3 strikes rule

Comments