Filehsharers on eircom, BT or Irish Broadband - Get ready for court

damien

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054880069

THE illegal uploading of music from the internet is "simply thieving" a judge said yesterday as he ordered internet providers to provide the names and details of 49 people.

They're going after Gnutella users now.

ianmc38

Oh oh spaghettios. Actually not too bad. I don't upload a tap. pheew. thank god for my selfishness. Finally paying off.

Hecate

....
Mr Justice Kelly ordered that Eircom, BT Communications Ireland Ltd and Irish Broadband Internet Services Ltd disclose the details to four record companies.
...

Well at least the IBB users can breath a sigh of relief; they can't upload or download very much anyway

Zynks

I've been thinking about these lawsuits. From what I understand, the hardware (the CD itself) is not the object of sale. The record companies claim we are buying the right to listen to the music on the CD, you cannot copy or backup the content, and it should not be possible to play the content in more than one location at the same time.

If you are buying the right to listen from that CD only, wouldn't it be reasonable to expect the record company to replace the CD at cost (say €0.50) if it becomes scratched? After all, you have acquired the right to listen already....

Has anybody heard of a similar approach in the courts so far?

RE*AC*TOR

"uploading of music from the internet"

How can someone who obviously doesn't understand the basic concept, be so sure of his judgement.

LoGiE

"uploading of a minimum of 500 to a maximum of 5,000 songs over a period of days"

Wouldn't that be extremley difficlult with the 128kbps upload we've been used to for the last couple of years? Sounds like the music industry is just trying to scare people imo.

Neil_Sedaka

ianmc38 wrote:

Oh oh spaghettios. Actually not too bad. I don't upload a tap. pheew. thank god for my selfishness. Finally paying off.

In the words of the great and wise Homer Simpson "well Lisa, I hope you learnt your lesson, never help anyone"

Can't see them coming after me somehow, it'd take me the best part of two weeks to upload a drum loop with this cráppy dial up. Thanks Eircom

RobertFoster

Sharing muisic is so nineties

Jumpy

Why does eircom get three weeks and BT and IBB get seven days?

Sponge Bob

the IBB ones are more significant and share more files on average I heard.

TerrorFirmer

God bless my selfishness.

I don't really ever download or upload anything, simply because my connection is too poor and I amn't overly bothered in any case.

Although my sister downloads rakes of stuff, so if we as a customer were named, I can easily blame her for excessive use and hide the small amount of small stuff I download under that smoke screen

jor el

Sooo, as long as only share pr0n you'll be OK then

"simply thieving", it sure is. File sharers are also responsible for funding terrorist activities too :rolleyes: When you put record labels that are talking through their collective @rses together with a judge that hasn't a clue, I guess this is the outcome.

damien

Jumpy wrote:

Why does eircom get three weeks and BT and IBB get seven days?

Majority of those that are soon to be nicked are eircom.

the IBB ones are more significant and share more files on average I heard.

I believe there is only one IBB customer that was caught, thus the week to hand over data.

Just to note the judge suggested these people be brought up on criminal charges too.

spurious

How do they prove who in a multi-person household is doing these evil deeds?

damien

The account holder pays.

spurious

..or challenges....

Has anyone actually gone to court (outside the US) over this or does everyone just pay up when the frighteners are put on them?

HelterSkelter

Mr Justice Kelly said there was evidence that what was going on was "on a very substantial scale over a lengthy period of time".

He said it was clear that there was "serial" activity going on involving the uploading of a minimum of 500 to a maximum of 5,000 songs over a period of days. And he said that in his view this was wrongful activity that was not only wrong in the civil sense, but also wrong in the criminal sense.

Lads, correct my calculations here if I'm wrong but I work out that with a 128kbps upload speed, the max upload I ever get is 12Kbps and assuming each mp3 is 3,000Kb, it would take 250 seconds to upload each mp3.

=> 250*500 = 125,000 seconds (2,083 minutes or 34.7 hours) of constant uploading to upload 500 mp3's.
=> 250*5000 = 1,250,000 seconds (20,833 minutes or 347 hours or 14 days) of constant uploading to upload 5,000 mp3's.

Now I don't think anybody could upload anything near 5,000 mp3's in "a period of days" as the judge says. I'd definitely get a good lawyer and fight this if the got me.

And don't forget that with the majority of P2P programs you are uploading to one person only, i.e. you are not uploading (sharing) the song to thousands of people at the same time as the record companies try to make out. It would take 14 days with your PC constantly sharing 24 hours a day to sent 5,000 mp3's to ONE person.

Jumpy

Oooh, silly judge. If he tries to get criminal charges in then he will be opening some huge can of worms.

paulm17781

I would imagine he meant downloading but is probably clueless to the difference. I would imagine that they are after the people who are uploading and mean that people download 500 - 5000 in a period of days.

HelterSkelter

paulm17781 wrote:

I would imagine he meant downloading but is probably clueless to the difference. I would imagine that they are after the people who are uploading and mean that people download 500 - 5000 in a period of days.

But I heard IRMA themselves being interviewed on radio and saying they are not concerned with downloaders, they are only going after the big uploaders.

RE*AC*TOR

Newsgroups all the way...

nl

With all these programmes using the Gnutella network, if you "x out" (close) the programme it is only minimised to the system tray. The programme is still actually connected and other users can still be potentially downloading off you. With any inexperienced users this programme could easily and inadvertintly be left open all the time their computer is on. I think that the majority of the file-sharers will be probably be very inocient early teens who really did'nt know what they were at and the potential financial harm they could of gotten themselves into.

Guy:Incognito

nl wrote:

With all these programmes using the Gnutella network, if you "x out" (close) the programme it is only minimised to the system tray. The programme is still actually connected and other users can still be potentially downloading off you. With any inexperienced users this programme could easily and inadvertintly be left open all the time their computer is on. I think that the majority of the file-sharers will be probably be very inocient early teens who really did'nt know what they were at and the potential financial harm they could of gotten themselves into.

Thats why the law doesnt accept ignorance as an excuse (for everything not just this)

nl

Stekelly wrote:

Thats why the law doesnt accept ignorance as an excuse (for everything not just this)

Yea but it should have a bearing on any potential penalties which may be delt out. At the end of the day there cant be that many people out there who are stupid enought to share massive ammounts (500-5000 songs in a few days) of copyright material.

wheresmybeaver

I wonder if bit torrent filesharing will be targeted next? bearing in mind that with new upload speeds, most users will upload almost as much as they download...

Looks like people will have to go back to borrowing CDs off friends and copying them that way instead ;-) Ah, the good old days..

Dave

lynchie

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

Newsgroups all the way...

Im with ya on that one..

digiman

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

Newsgroups all the way...

They are very good, is there anyway that you could be caught by downloading from them?

peckerhead

damien.m wrote:

Majority of those that are soon to be nicked are eircom.

Howdya know that, damien.m?

CorporalCarrot

I never did like the gnutella concept where you had to share folders on your computer. I always felt you were leaving yourself open to something....hackers or otherwise, but didn't consider this. Now I'm glad of my natural reticence.

C

dermot_sheehan

I wonder if they'll next apply for Anton Piller orders (civil search warrants)? They could then show up at people's front doors unannounced, search their place for infringing material, and seize it.

Duiske

This has been brewing for a few months. One thing that may be an issue in these cases is Privacy. Apparently, investigators download an mp3 from you, check the ip address, then search for other files you have available (ie, in your "shared" folder). You can then be brought to court for making the files available. Is there any privacy law that would cover folders on a personnel computor ?. I mean, if you went to the shop and left your front door open, does that legally entitle people to enter your house and snoop around ?? Even if it was a passing Garda, and he went in to check everything was ok, anything incriminating he found would be inadmissible in a court, would it not ?
I know this analogy is a bit simplistic, but .......

On the other hand, IF you were using a program such as Bearshare on the Gnutella network, you could always just turn file sharing off.......