[Article] Eircom to cut off Music File Sharers ..

watty · 30-01-2009 1:49pm

TheInquisitor wrote: »

What i don't understand is why eircom were so stupid to accept this agreement. Europe rejected it, so did england and the US. The other ISP's will clean up now by fighting the music companies and taking a lot of eircom's younger subscribers. The Music companies don't have to even provide any proof that you downloaded anything illegally and if you are cut off by eircom you cannot fight it or defend against it. What is this the middle ages?

We don't know yet what recourse to object to accuracy there is if you have been warned.

Irish law may make it a bit easier to attack the ISPs. eircom is biggest. None of the other ISPs are willing for an expensive court battle. I'd expect all of the national ISPs to join this if it is deemed to "work".

It's making it LAW that was rejected elsewhere. Here it's simply a civil contract/agreement. Not enshrined in law.

lmimmfn · 30-01-2009 2:01pm

watty wrote: »

Irish law may make it a bit easier to attack the ISPs. eircom is biggest. None of the other ISPs are willing for an expensive court battle. I'd expect all of the national ISPs to join this if it is deemed to "work".

Theres absolutely no incentive for other ISPs to follow Eircom. The action was directed specifically against Eircom, i dont see others following unless theyre individually taken to court( entirely possible )

Its arguable that ISPs would prefer to get rid of high usage users but would probably end up spending more money investigating who downloaded what than they would handling complaints calls on the network being slow.

I hope an example is made of Eircom and that their business suffers as a result of this

watty · 30-01-2009 2:14pm

Theres absolutely no incentive for other ISPs to follow Eircom. The action was directed specifically against Eircom, i dont see others following unless theyre individually taken to court( entirely possible )

There will be a cooling off watching period and then the Rights Holders will approach the other ISPs. I don't think one will contest if it works for eircom.

Its arguable that ISPs would prefer to get rid of high usage users but would probably end up spending more money investigating who downloaded what than they would handling complaints calls on the network being slow.

All the national ISPs can nearly instantly know who are the top 100 downloaders. That's trivial. As long as they can be sure all the others are going to disconnect heavy users, then they all will. No-one wants the negative marketing on being first or the only. No-one will get disconnected without repeated warnings and time to cut back.

Havn't ISPs that didn't have Caps or wern't inforcing them started doing so?

yoshytoshy · 30-01-2009 2:31pm

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

Do yourself a favour and read them, they are still valid, the tactics and what have you have not changed, please take the time to read the link about the contracts and what is contained within them. Its nothing short of disgusting.

There shoudn't be a middleman, well such a profiteering middleman, 95% of revenue is what ive heard goes to them, although that could be wrong and im open to correction. Drive in sectors like technology? Please my friend, they have stigmatised digital downloads for ages, refusing to progress and desperatly clinging on to their some would say "outdated" means of media.

Itunes was the first sanctioned distribution for digital media.

To make 40billion a year and then give out about piracy is laughable. Ive seen pirates support independant labels and musicians and even games. Not by downloading their stuff for free mind you.

Thanks for taking the time to post back to me ,I completely agree with you about digital being the way forward. I don't think the downloading thats been done at the moment is good for anyone in the long run.
I would love to see a better balance on digital supply of music ,not everyone has broadband though and those that do ,have cd players:(
We're probably coming to a crossroads were the change has to happen ,who knows ?

lmimmfn · 30-01-2009 2:56pm

watty wrote: »

There will be a cooling off watching period and then the Rights Holders will approach the other ISPs. I don't think one will contest if it works for eircom.

dont get me wrong, i know that will happen, but i wonder will they actually take them to court, i mean there arent many ISPs in ireland for them to chase.

watty wrote: »

Havn't ISPs that didn't have Caps or wern't inforcing them started doing so?

Exactly, i mean if the advantage to ISPs was getting rid of top downloaders then surely they would first enforce caps before they'd want the bad publicity of disconnecting their customers, in that respect i se absolutely no advantage currently for ISPs to implement this and it will probablty cost them a lot to implement it

jor el · 30-01-2009 3:00pm

This thread is not for discussing Paul Brewer, the musician, or Paul Brewer, the Boards user. That stops now. Respond to his comments if you wish.

watty · 30-01-2009 3:05pm

lmimmfn wrote: »

dont get me wrong, i know that will happen, but i wonder will they actually take them to court, i mean there arent many ISPs in ireland for them to chase.

We have LOADS of ISPs!
Given the population or Geographic area there are 5x to 10x more ISPs than we need. Without even counting all the tiny one off community worthy efforts!

If they are prepared to take eircom on, they will take on the rest. Attacking the largest one sent a message. The out of court settlement sent a different message.

lmimmfn wrote: »

Exactly, i mean if the advantage to ISPs was getting rid of top downloaders then surely they would first enforce caps before they'd want the bad publicity of disconnecting their customers, in that respect i se absolutely no advantage currently for ISPs to implement this and it will probablty cost them a lot to implement it

Some have always enforced caps, many are starting to. This costs almost nothing to implement. The alternatives cost millions.

The heavy downloaders if unthrottled can traffic 160Gbyte to 200Gbyte a week. A Terrabyte a month!

Legal P2P may be be attractive to BBC, Sky, ITV, C4 for distribution as it saves them paying for bandwidth. The sucker users pay for it eventually. It triples the internet traffic compared to straight download and is 10,000 to 100,000 the internet traffic compared to a Broadcast DVB based smart PVR fro people to watch missed shows or VOD content. However that's nothing to do with the Copyright Infringement Reporting agreement

zenno · 30-01-2009 3:35pm

alot of people are going on about illegal torrent downloading for music. sure these days you don't even have to use a torrent tracker you just use google. ie. parent directory xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and any album you want is there it's a joke. people are leaving all their uploaded music and movie and important documents there so anyone can access them. no one i know uses torrents for music anymore cause they say it's just easier to download straight from google. security has alot to do with this like i said before. it's a losing battle when you can get all this stuff on google without any program been used.

Nick_oliveri · 30-01-2009 3:58pm

dub45 wrote: »

''You get a lousy deal from your management and I will enjoy your music for nothing while giving out about your lousy management ripping you off!!!'

I cant see anything wrong with what i said, just want people to know where the cash is going. 40 billion a year, if that second link (or Courtney Love :pac:) is to be believed, whats the problem?

jor el · 30-01-2009 4:18pm

One more time. This thread is about eircom's decision to cooperate with music companies in curtailing copyright infringers use of Internet services. It is not for discussion about people who work in the music industry, the price of CDs, how much the music production companies make, or whether or not it's OK to download music from millionaires without paying them for it.

No more discussion of other users, posts will be removed and further action may result, and no baiting of other users to provoke a response either. Warning goes to everyone.

dub45 · 30-01-2009 4:18pm

jor el wrote: »

Interesting article, but I see see at least one thing wrong with it. It says "The ISP's subscribers won't have any right to contest the media firms' accusations either with Eircom or in a court of law.". eircom cannot deny your right to take a court case, or legal action, against them, should you see fit. They simply cannot deny your right to appeal in a court of law.
...............................................

It is something that's wide open to abuse by eircom, but so far, we have no evidence that this has/will happen, and no evidence that this is how it will be used.

This was a broad settlement on principles. It would be most unusual for the consequential procedures to have been worked out in advance. Eircom will most likely take this back to their managers and work out proposals on how it will be implemented both from an operational and other implications (privacy, legal etc etc) point of view.

dub45 · 30-01-2009 4:32pm

Upward Spiral wrote: »

...........................

This issue is not totally about ripping music, it's about peoples freedom to choose what they do online without having to worry about a faceless organization watching their net usage, and reporting them based on hunches.

Don't be so obnoxiously patronising!

So people should have the freedom to choose what to do on line? Total freedom? Unlimited spam, unlimited child porn upload and download? bullying emails, trojans viruses etc?

Or should faceless organisations be allowed in the cases that may suit us personally? Keep the spam away, keep the child porn away but dont interfere with copyright material?

Cabaal · 30-01-2009 4:46pm

dub45, I know we've had our differences in the past but your making sense in this thread

jor el · 30-01-2009 4:49pm

dub45 wrote: »

This was a broad settlement on principles. It would be most unusual for the consequential procedures to have been worked out in advance. Eircom will most likely take this back to their managers and work out proposals on how it will be implemented both from an operational and other implications (privacy, legal etc etc) point of view.

I would hope so anyway. The article claims that users will be kicked off without any investigation or appeals process. This seems very extreme, and as of yet, I have seen no statement from eircom to confirm that this is exactly what they intend to do.

At this point, most of that article is speculation, as are a lot of posts on this thread.

dub45 · 30-01-2009 5:01pm

jor el wrote: »

I would hope so anyway. The article claims that users will be kicked off without any investigation or appeals process. This seems very extreme, and as of yet, I have seen no statement from eircom to confirm that this is exactly what they intend to do.

At this point, most of that article is speculation, as are a lot of posts on this thread.

Indeed I expect the sports clinics to be overwhelmed with groin strain and achilles tendon injuries and so on due to the extreme jumping to conclusions going on here.

dub45 · 30-01-2009 5:03pm

Cabaal wrote: »

dub45, I know we've had our differences in the past but your making sense in this thread

The trouble is I was also making sense in the other threads where we disagreed:)

And the music companies have promised to let me have the cheque as soon as possible and I will 'share' it with you and the other mods asap!

yoshytoshy · 30-01-2009 5:09pm

Blind speculation
11_52_16---Glasses-Spectacles_web.jpg?&k=Glasses+%2F+Spectacles

My name is URL · 30-01-2009 5:13pm

dub45 wrote: »

So people should have the freedom to choose what to do on line? Total freedom? Unlimited spam, unlimited child porn upload and download? bullying emails, trojans viruses etc?

Or should faceless organisations be allowed in the cases that may suit us personally? Keep the spam away, keep the child porn away but dont interfere with copyright material?

lol, classy move... comparing this to Child Pornography.

Everything you mentioned above are considered to be criminal acts, copyright infringement is a civil matter, so my point still stands.

If people were profiteering from filesharing, then it would be a criminal matter.

PaddyTheNth · 30-01-2009 5:13pm

dub45 wrote: »

So people should have the freedom to choose what to do on line? Total freedom? Unlimited spam, unlimited child porn upload and download? bullying emails, trojans viruses etc?

Or should faceless organisations be allowed in the cases that may suit us personally? Keep the spam away, keep the child porn away but dont interfere with copyright material?

It's a classic dilemma. If you don't choose an absolute - complete anarchy or complete control and supervision - where do you draw the line?

I favour the innocent until guilty approach myself. The problem is that it's much easier for law enforcement agencies - doing good things like stopping child porn, sex trade, drug dealing etc - to take the opposite approach.

I like the incitement law they have in the UK, and possibly here too for all I know. It would be nice to have a similar situation here for internet usage...eg do what you want as long as it doesn't directly result in someone getting hurt. The problem with that is when you stretch the argument and say that downloads = (a much smaller proportion of) lost sales = loss of revenue = financial hardships for artists/job losses in supporting services etc = possibly someone losing their home.

I do feel let down by Eircom on principle - they're a service provider, it shouldn't be their remit to regulate what people do with their service. They are not part of the constitutionally appointed police force.

Then again, what they are doing here is disincetivising people from commiting illegal activity.

But it shouldn't be because of the legal aspect - if they want to do it because their infrastructure can't handle excessive bandwidth usage, fine.

DeVore · 30-01-2009 5:16pm

dub45 wrote: »

So people should have the freedom to choose what to do on line? Total freedom? Unlimited spam, unlimited child porn upload and download? bullying emails, trojans viruses etc?

Or should faceless organisations be allowed in the cases that may suit us personally? Keep the spam away, keep the child porn away but dont interfere with copyright material?

We already have a group dedicated to ensuring the populace plays by its own rules and enforces those rules. We have another group for determining guilt (the judiciary) which are distinct and separate for good reason.

Let them do the job rather then this kind of corporate-vigilanteism. If the **AA's have proof, let them provide it to the police and take a court action. Thats the proper way of doing things. Its slow, yes, but its slow for all of us.

DeV.

watty · 30-01-2009 5:18pm

Cable TV pirating
Civil case for Copyright Infringement in Ireland = €180,000 + costs just last year.

Criminal penalty for Theft of Cable service About €7500 fine or 6 months jail.

Just because it's civil and not criminal justace doesn't reduce the seriousness.

The problem is that in Ireland you can under civil penalties be just as liable for aiding copyright infringement. My guess that eircom (and other ISPs) feared legal enforcement as a result of losing a court case. They had weakened their "common carrier" argument by already having in T&C a clause to disconnect for copyright infringement. If eircom had lost, all ISPs would have to install expensive and largely ineffectual monitoring equipment.

I'm not saying what eircom has done is right, but I think your argument DeVore is a bit simplistic. I do think the Rights Holders would do better to lower retail costs and make Digital sales easier than expend so much effort on this "Copyright War" that no-one can win and everyone can lose.

Unless NEW artists get money somehow from particular sales rather than blanket taxes or subscriptions there will not be any new music. Not that it's been any good lately.

dub45 · 30-01-2009 5:24pm

Upward Spiral wrote: »

lol, classy move... comparing this to Child Pornography.

Everything you mentioned above are considered to be criminal acts, copyright infringement is a civil matter, so my point still stands.

If people were profiteering from filesharing, then it would be a criminal matter.

I didnt compare it to child pornography. I cited it as I did others (which you conveniently ignore) as examples of people doing what they liked online as the poster claimed was everyone's right.

Originally Posted by Upward Spiral
...........................

This issue is not totally about ripping music, it's about peoples freedom to choose what they do online without having to worry about a faceless organization watching their net usage,

My name is URL · 30-01-2009 5:27pm

watty wrote: »

Cable TV pirating
Civil case for Copyright Infringement in Ireland = €180,000 + costs just last year.

Criminal penalty for Theft of Cable service About €7500 fine or 6 months jail.

Just because it's civil and not criminal justace doesn't reduce the seriousness.

It's still not OK to police people for civil obedience though, the policing should only be done by independent enforcement agencies, not by a paid group of unknowns. That's called racketeering in any other aspect of law.

dub45 · 30-01-2009 5:29pm

DeVore wrote: »

We already have a group dedicated to ensuring the populace plays by its own rules and enforces those rules. We have another group for determining guilt (the judiciary) which are distinct and separate for good reason.

Let them do the job rather then this kind of corporate-vigilanteism. If the **AA's have proof, let them provide it to the police and take a court action. Thats the proper way of doing things. Its slow, yes, but its slow for all of us.

DeV.

Given that we haven't got the faintest notion yet of how Eircom propose to tackle this situation in practise it is absurd to call it corporate vigilanteism.

And again to use an extreme example if this 'arrangement' pertained say to child pornography would you be calling it corporate vigilanteism?

Unfortunately my cynical side tells me that it is the 'threat' to downloading
copyrighted material which is agitating people here rather than idealism about privacy issues or freedom of speech!

Hank Scorpio · 30-01-2009 5:30pm

Whats with all the paranoia ?

Lads as already stated this was settled outside of court, meaning theres no legal agreement!

Last night i downloaded 4 Discographys and didnt think once about it and i still wont. When i SEE people getting warned i MIGHT start to use alternative ways to download stuff!

If eircom were to hack off people who download music then surely they`ll loose 50% + of there client base in Ireland. We all no how eircom operate, im 100% sure they`ll do there best not to enforce this and find some legal loophole when they signed the settle agreement papers

I dont believe its "wrong" or "right" though. Piracy has crippled the games/movies/music industry.

Fighting Irish · 30-01-2009 5:34pm

Just stay away from uploading

Fairly simple really

thebman · 30-01-2009 5:35pm

I'm sure they'll pay as much respect to the Music industries complaint emails as they do to their own customers complaint emails.

Cabaal · 30-01-2009 5:35pm

Upward Spiral wrote: »

It's still not OK to police people for civil obedience though, the policing should only be done by independent enforcement agencies, not by a paid group of unknowns. That's called racketeering in any other aspect of law.

It is perfectly ok for an ISP to enforce its T&C's if it is notified of breaches of them, thats all the music industry will be doing is notifying Eircom of breaches by its users of its T&C's.

Do you not think Eircoms Terms & Conditions are fair?

dub45 · 30-01-2009 5:36pm

Upward Spiral wrote: »

It's still not OK to police people for civil obedience though, the policing should only be done by independent enforcement agencies, not by a paid group of unknowns. That's called racketeering in any other aspect of law.

But Eircom will not be policing people. As has been pointed out here already it is already in the terms and conditions of isps that downloading of copyrighted material is prohibited. And IRMA are not faceless unknowns they are a representative body acting on behalf of their members. I don't know how you can define that as racketeering? If a trade union points out that the rights of one of its members are being infringed is that action by a paid group of unknowns?

DeVore · 30-01-2009 5:39pm

pwd wrote: »

the thing they are missing with this is the big hole in the security of eircom's wireless modems. There will be a lot of people getting warnings who don't even know what p2p is.

This point is key. imho Eircom were neglient when they chose to publish part of the key as the SSID.... after that they havent fixed the problem retroactively (though I noticed that my router arrived with WPA set up).
That said it will take a court challenge for breach of contract because they will withdraw their service rather then take you to court; in that case it will boil down to the Ts&Cs which I'm sure are in Eircom's favour.

Ultimately this is just another reason to leave Eircom's warm embrace...

DeV.

dub45 · 30-01-2009 5:40pm

nuxxx wrote: »

Whats with all the paranoia ?

Lads as already stated this was settled outside of court, meaning theres no legal agreement!

Last night i downloaded 4 Discographys and didnt think once about it and i still wont. When i SEE people getting warned i MIGHT start to use alternative ways to download stuff!

If eircom were to hack off people who download music then surely they`ll loose 50% + of there client base in Ireland. We all no how eircom operate, im 100% sure they`ll do there best not to enforce this and find some legal loophole when they signed the settle agreement papers

I dont believe its "wrong" or "right" though. Piracy has crippled the games/movies/music industry.

Surely a demonstrable inability to face up to reality (its not right or wrong but it has crippled three industries! oh and by the way I downloaded 4 discographies last night!) should be explored in the Personal Issues forum?

DeVore · 30-01-2009 5:43pm

If it pertained to Child Porn, I would want the police to handle it.

Just as I want the police/courts to handle this.

DeV.

dub45 · 30-01-2009 5:43pm

DeVore wrote: »

This point is key. imho Eircom were neglient when they chose to publish part of the key as the SSID.... after that they havent fixed the problem retroactively (though I noticed that my router arrived with WPA set up).
That said it will take a court challenge for breach of contract because they will withdraw their service rather then take you to court; in that case it will boil down to the Ts&Cs which I'm sure are in Eircom's favour.

Ultimately this is just another reason to leave Eircom's warm embrace...

DeV.

Well then some good will come out of it. People will get such a shock when they get the first warning that they will immediately turn on wpa and their file sharing neighbours will have to find another source.

So between them IRMA and Eircom will improve loads of people's knowledge about router security and at least some people who wont even pay for an internet connection never mind a cd will be frustrated at least for a little while!

DeVore · 30-01-2009 5:47pm

My favourite game (LotRO) uses torrenting to distribute very very large updates. As does Wow. As does most Blizzard games.

Are they going to discriminate or is all P2P and torrent traffic fair game?

DeV.

techdiver · 30-01-2009 5:48pm

nuxxx wrote: »

Piracy has crippled the games/movies/music industry.

Yes the likes of Sony, EMI and Microsoft are really crippled.

My name is URL · 30-01-2009 5:49pm

dub45 wrote: »

But Eircom will not be policing people. As has been pointed out here already it is already in the terms and conditions of isps that downloading of copyrighted material is prohibited. And IRMA are not faceless unknowns they are a representative body acting on behalf of their members. I don't know how you can define that as racketeering? If a trade union points out that the rights of one of its members are being infringed is that action by a paid group of unknowns?

If a Trade Union reported it it would be investigated by whoever is in charge of implementing the outcome.

In this case, Eircom are the ones supposedly implementing any limits put on people, but they will not even investigate any reports made by that "Trade Union"...

Cabaal · 30-01-2009 5:50pm

DeVore wrote: »

My favourite game (LotRO) uses torrenting to distribute very very large updates. As does Wow. As does most Blizzard games.

Are they going to discriminate or is all P2P and torrent traffic fair game?

DeV.

They are simply going to connect to a tracker running a copyright file for download and log all the IP's connected, they are not saying they will throttle or block P2P. As such any other uses of P2P are perfectly ok

Cabaal · 30-01-2009 5:51pm

Upward Spiral wrote: »

If a Trade Union reported it it would be investigated by whoever is in charge of implementing the outcome.

In this case, Eircom are the ones supposedly implementing any limits put on people, but they will not even investigate any reports made by that "Trade Union"...

I'm still curious Spiral, do you agree with Eircom's Terms & Conditions?

zenno · 30-01-2009 5:54pm

i can see this blog is going nowere with people complaining about how illegal it is to d/l music/movies big deal at the end of the day if this deal reaches to all isp's then they will all lose a hell of alot of customers but there again i will always bet on the hacker as they will always find a way to crack their earwigging software on customers. plus this is really about p2p downloading as you have to upload as you d/l but there are tons of other ways to do it invisable which i can't say here as i'd be banned so i don't really see a big problem out of all this whinging.

My name is URL · 30-01-2009 5:56pm

Cabaal wrote: »

I'm still curious Spiral, do you agree with Eircom's Terms & Conditions?

I neither agree nor disagree with them. :pac:

What do you want me to say?

My point in all of this is that I don't agree with the way Eircom plan on implementing these proposals, it goes against things that I believe in, such as a fair trial if I were to be punished for an alleged crime.

My views on the T&C's are moot when it comes to this issue.

dub45 · 30-01-2009 5:56pm

Upward Spiral wrote: »

If a Trade Union reported it it would be investigated by whoever is in charge of implementing the outcome.

"...

Not necessarily - there are various bodies that a Trade Union may make representations to - the employer, a rights officer and even in extreme cases the Gardai. The latter two would not be in charge of implementing the outcome of any investigation.

tororosso · 30-01-2009 5:58pm

dub45 wrote: »

Surely a demonstrable inability to face up to reality (its not right or wrong but it has crippled three industries! oh and by the way I downloaded 4 discographies last night!) should be explored in the Personal Issues forum?

In fairness, downloading stuff off the internet has not "crippled" any industry. Thats a bit of an extreme description of what downloading has done to the music industry. The poster who downloaded 4 discographies did so with a clean conscience because even though it is written in law that it is illegal the 'majority' of people do NOT view it as a morally bad act :cool:(a poll in todays Herald Am is just one example of this).

My name is URL · 30-01-2009 5:59pm

dub45 wrote: »

Not necessarily - there are various bodies that a Trade Union may make representations to - the employer, a rights officer and even in extreme cases the Gardai. The latter two would not be in charge of implementing the outcome of any investigation.

But it would still be investigated by an independent body before any action is taken against the accused party...

PaddyTheNth · 30-01-2009 6:00pm

DeVore wrote: »

My favourite game (LotRO) uses torrenting to distribute very very large updates. As does Wow. As does most Blizzard games.

Are they going to discriminate or is all P2P and torrent traffic fair game?

DeV.

dude...

zenno · 30-01-2009 6:01pm

tororosso wrote: »

In fairness, downloading stuff off the internet has not "crippled" any industry. Thats a bit of an extreme description of what downloading has done to the music industry. The poster who downloaded 4 discographies did so with a clean conscience because even though it is written in law that it is illegal the 'majority' of people do NOT view it as a morally bad act :cool:(a poll in todays Herald Am is just one example of this).

correct

dub45 · 30-01-2009 6:01pm

Upward Spiral wrote: »

I neither agree nor disagree with them. :pac:

What do you want me to say?

My point in all of this is that I don't agree with the way Eircom plan on implementing these proposals, it goes against things that I believe in, such as a fair trial if I were to be punished for an alleged crime.

My views on the T&C's are moot when it comes to this issue.

But nobody knows yet how Eircom will go about implementing the proposals.

However in broad terms a service provider (and not just an isp) cannot stand over providing 'unlimited services' and by unlmited I mean a service without any limitations at all.

For example if a rental car company suddenly discovered that a customer was hiring its fastest car every week for a bank robbery (very hypothetical I know but there has been arguments on here that no service provider should have any restrictions of the service it provides) should it just continue hiring out the cars?

watty · 30-01-2009 6:03pm

DeVore wrote: »

My favourite game (LotRO) uses torrenting to distribute very very large updates. As does Wow. As does most Blizzard games.

Are they going to discriminate or is all P2P and torrent traffic fair game?

DeV.

If eircom fought in court and lost and had to install monitoring gear, yes that would be a concern.

But in terms of how the 3rd party Agencies gather IPs with date/Time you would have to be P2P copyright material when another client was really an Agency Bot or downloading (possibly fake or watermarked) copyright material from a "honeypot" server. Or they may hack servers etc.

It's very unlikely to affect legal P2P such as Sky's Kontitki, BBC, C4, Linux ISOs via BT, Blizzard, Steam etc etc as for P2P they will use tracker info offering their Copyright materials, the bot client connects P2P and as P2P traffic proceeds content, source IP and date/time are logged.

There ARE issues I outlined earlier of transparency and appeal. Not just for subscribers, but ironically for the Rights Holder. There is no mechanism I can see for them to know what eircom does with reported IPs.

dub45 · 30-01-2009 6:08pm

tororosso wrote: »

In fairness, downloading stuff off the internet has not "crippled" any industry. Thats a bit of an extreme description of what downloading has done to the music industry. The poster who downloaded 4 discographies did so with a clean conscience because even though it is written in law that it is illegal the 'majority' of people do NOT view it as a morally bad act :cool:(a poll in todays Herald Am is just one example of this).

Downloading music and other copyrighthed material has demonstrably damaged many people in the entertainment industry from helping in the closure of small shops to depriving musicians of royalties. Three distributors of cds and dvds closed in England in the last year. And there are many many more music companies than the Sonys and Emis of this world who are finding it a struggle.

So morality is now to be decided on what is convenient for the majority of people? Not so long ago 'the majority of people' were not too worried about the rights of minorities for example. And the day we base our morality on polls in Herald AM is a sad day indeed!:(

Cabaal · 30-01-2009 6:11pm

Upward Spiral wrote: »

I neither agree nor disagree with them. :pac:

What do you want me to say?

My point in all of this is that I don't agree with the way Eircom plan on implementing these proposals, it goes against things that I believe in, such as a fair trial if I were to be punished for an alleged crime.

My views on the T&C's are moot when it comes to this issue.

Just curious really, if your an eircom subscriber or for that matter any ISP's subscriber then you'll have already agreed you won't use the connection to download copyright material

So clearly you do agree if you use the service :pac:

dub45 · 30-01-2009 6:15pm

Upward Spiral wrote: »

But it would still be investigated by an independent body before any action is taken against the accused party...

Yes and there is no guarantee that any action will be taken against the third party either. And as I and others have pointed out here there are no details yet of how Eircom will actually implement this agreement.

So how the rights of any person 'complained against' will be handled are simply unknown at this stage.

[Article] Eircom to cut off Music File Sharers ..

Comments