Eircom gives-in to RIA in breach of peoples' constitutional rights

probe

While one can’t condone any breach of copyright or theft of intellectual property, eircom’s decision to give-in to the RIA mafia, by agreeing to cut-off broadband service to customers has serious legal and constitutional implications under article 40.6.1 of the Constitution of Ireland. (This requires the State to guarantee the right of the citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions).

While the internet did not exist when Bunreacht na hÉireann was originally drafted, today the internet is the primary platform available to the average citizen (assuming they don’t own a newspaper, radio or TV station) to express their convictions and opinions.

There has been no response from the regulator of the eircom monopoly, comreg.ie, to the out of court settlement. (Eircom still controls 95% of DSL connections in Ireland, has no chief executive and appears to be managed by a foreign virtual “hedge fund” which is currently in an alarming negative net asset position). Many people now use VoIP telephony, therefore if/when their internet connection is terminated, they will have no landline phone service either. Not to mention no home security system, no medical monitoring if they have an elderly or infirm resident in the house, and perhaps no TV too if they are relying on an IPTV service.

This is a truly appalling precedent for any country and highlights yet again the incompetence of the Irish telecommunications regulatory process.

Spear

probe wrote: »

While one can’t condone any breach of copyright or theft of intellectual property, eircom’s decision to give-in to the RIA mafia, by agreeing to cut-off broadband service to customers has serious legal and constitutional implications under article 40.6.1 of the Constitution of Ireland. (This requires the State to guarantee the right of the citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions).

While the internet did not exist when Bunreacht na hÉireann was originally drafted, today the internet is the primary platform available to the average citizen (assuming they don’t own a newspaper, radio or TV station) to express their convictions and opinions.

There has been no response from the regulator of the eircom monopoly, comreg.ie, to the out of court settlement. (Eircom still controls 95% of DSL connections in Ireland, has no chief executive and is managed by a foreign virtual “hedge fund” which is currently in an alarming negative net asset position). Many people now use VoIP telephony, therefore if/when their internet connection is terminated, they will have no landline phone service either. Not to mention perhaps no home security system, no medical monitoring if they have an elderly or infirm resident in the house, and perhaps no TV too if they are relying on an IPTV service.

This is a truly appalling precedent for any country and highlights yet again the incompetence of the Irish telecommunications regulatory process.

There's a 599 post thread here already
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055474230

probe

Spear wrote: »

There's a 599 post thread here already
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055474230

My posting covers peoples' constitutional right not to have their internet service disconnected by a state regulated telecommunications provider.

It is far broader and more fundamental than the "music file sharing" issue which dominates the thread you linked to.

Well then, don't nick music and you'll be grand.

Bohrio

probe wrote: »

My posting covers peoples' constitutional right not to have their internet service disconnected by a state regulated telecommunications provider.

It is far broader and more fundamental than the "music file sharing" issue which dominates the thread you linked to.

Ok, makes sense, so, from now on, I wont pay any more of my bb bills. And when my ISP disconnects me I will just say that is my constitutional right to have bb....

probe

Papa Smut wrote: »

Well then, don't nick music and you'll be grand.

We are in "creating a precedent" territory here. The slippery slope to port blocking, censorship, tracking the websites you visit and the links you click on to "read your mind" and profile you. Fingerprint you. Determine whether you can go to boards.ie or wherever you wish to go. Pull the plug power. Criticise our organization and we have the means to take you off the net.

I have no interest in "nicking music". Downloadable music quality is appalling and acoustically dead to my ears - almost as bad as AM radio..... I have no problem listening to voice podcasts of talk stuff - which are almost always "free to air" (ie advertising otherwise supported or from someone who has a message to deliver and is not charging a fee). The music publishing industry have lost the plot - but that is a separate thread.

Onikage

Fair enough but the broadband forum is not the place for serious discussion on constitutional rights.

pwd

Everything you do on the internet is already recorded, including emails etc. It is only supposed to be accessed to investigate serious crimes however.

It is creating a precedent, but it is not creating a legal precedent. If other isps follow suit (or avoid a suit) it won't be just because eircom agreed.

probe

Bohrio wrote: »

Ok, makes sense, so, from now on, I wont pay any more of my bb bills. And when my ISP disconnects me I will just say that is my constitutional right to have bb....

If you don't pay your bills, you can't expect service. If you are not prepared to pay for the Irish Times or whatever newspaper you read, you can't expect to get a copy every day.

But if you are prepared to pay for the newspaper, and a government regulated entity says you can't have it, that is a different story.

And while I haven't researched your constitutional rights to receive the news, you certainly have a constitutional right to speak your mind.

probe

Onikage wrote: »

Fair enough but the broadband forum is not the place for serious discussion on constitutional rights.

Why not? This is about broadband.

Jev/N

probe wrote: »

I have no interest in "nicking music". Downloadable music quality is appalling and acoustically dead to my ears - almost as bad as AM radio.....

Without even attempting to refute your claims of "constitutional rights" etc., the above comment is probably one of the stupidest I have ever seen on any internet forum :rolleyes:

RobertFoster

Jev/N wrote: »

Without even attempting to refute your claims of "constitutional rights" etc., the above comment is probably one of the stupidest I have ever seen on any internet forum :rolleyes:

Dude be eloquent. He write so good, he be acoustically alive to my eyes.

probe

pwd wrote: »

Everything you do on the internet is already recorded, including emails etc. It is only supposed to be accessed to investigate serious crimes however.

There are issues regarding data retention which I don't propose outline here. Suffice to say that in democratic, federal, countries such as Germany and Switzerland, data can only be retained for a period of 6 months and must be destroyed after that. ie enough time for someone to report a crime and for it to be investigated - which I have no problem with.

It is creating a precedent, but it is not creating a legal precedent. If other isps follow suit (or avoid a suit) it won't be just because eircom agreed.

It is a legal precedent in terms of the victim's constitutional rights. If all the ISPs in your service area follow suit, and your IP details are flagged as "guilty" your "air supply" (ie constitutional right to freedom of expression) is cut off!

java

probe wrote: »

While one can’t condone any breach of copyright or theft of intellectual property, eircom’s decision to give-in to the RIA mafia, by agreeing to cut-off broadband service to customers has serious legal and constitutional implications under article 40.6.1 of the Constitution of Ireland. (This requires the State to guarantee the right of the citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions).

Please explain whats unconstitutional about punishing those accused of theft?

Bohrio

probe wrote: »

If you don't pay your bills, you can't expect service. If you are not prepared to pay for the Irish Times or whatever newspaper you read, you can't expect to get a copy every day.

But if you are prepared to pay for the newspaper, and a government regulated entity says you can't have it, that is a different story.

And while I haven't researched your constitutional rights to receive the news, you certainly have a constitutional right to speak your mind.

But if it is my constitutional right. Why not paying the bills means not getting the service?

Cool Mo D

Can you set out the legal reasoning behind why a connection to Eircom broadband is necessary for your right to free speech?

Oh, and there was no legal decision reached here, so no precedent - it was settled out of court.

BendiBus

probe wrote: »

article 40.6.1 of the Constitution of Ireland. (This requires the State to guarantee the right of the citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions).

Firstly, Article 40.6.1 is subject to public order and morality. It is immoral to steal music.

Secondly, the article gives a right to free expression but does not guarantee access to all media by right.

I believe you are incorrect in your assertion that Eircom has breached the constitution.

watty

There is a thread on this already.

The settlement does not affect anything you read or write on the internet.

Eircom ALREADY have a clause in T&C that they can disconnect you if they think you are contravening copyright. Or for other reasons

If you abuse your phone you can get it cut off.

Eircom give no details to the Copyright owners.

I think there should be more transparency on how IPs are gathered and a system of appeal, I'm not convinced even that this is a good idea or even legal, but it's really extreme viewpoint to claim

has serious legal and constitutional implications under article 40.6.1 of the Constitution of Ireland. (This requires the State to guarantee the right of the citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions).

as no-one is being disconnected for expressing convictions and opinions.

Irish law on copyright infringement is quite clear and the Rights Holders could get court orders and persue people via sueing

Cable TV piracy last year: copyright civil law applied and €180,000 + costs. If criminal law had been applied (Theft of service) the fine a max of about €8,000 and no costs.

The existing thread covers all this. no need for a new one.

There are issues about all this. But not the ones you claim.

Read eircom's T&C, and maybe some others.

probe

java wrote: »

Please explain whats unconstitutional about punishing those accused of theft?

Nothing. If someone steals something, fine them, put them in prison, whatever - subject to due process. It is a matter of proportionality and constitutional rights.

If someone downloads a pirated copy of song x, chances are they wouldn't buy it anyway. If they were seriously committed to the artist they would
have no problem paying for the CD or other form of delivery.

These RIAA download statistics converted into "billions of dollars" of lost sales are just headline rubbish.

The key issue is that you can't have a system where the RIAA lot report an IP number as being an offender and their internet connection is cut off. Period.

probe

BendiBus wrote: »

Firstly, Article 40.6.1 is subject to public order and morality. It is immoral to steal music.

Secondly, the article gives a right to free expression but does not guarantee access to all media by right.

I believe you are incorrect in your assertion that Eircom has breached the constitution.

If someone "steals" three songs, is it proportional to have their internet service cut off?

I didn't suggest that the constitution gave people rights of access to media by right. However if you pull the plug from someone's internet connection, you disconnect them from their "air supply" to freedom of expression. Which is guaranteed by the constitution.

Comreg (ie the state) as regulator is in breach of the constitution if it allows ISPs to disconnect customers from their "air supply" as a result of some IP number being black listed by an industry cartel, for whatever reason.

Jev/N

OK so let me address some of the claims that you are (feebly) attempting to make....

First, the constitution does make provisions for rights, such as the one you so nicely pointed out, but it does so qualified by responsibilities on the part of individual.

Secondly and in this situation, when you sign up to an ISP, such as Eircom, you agree to an "acceptable usage policy" which inter alia states that you will not contravene copyright in use of the connection.

Third, you pointed out that cutting off someones connection would prevent them from using VoIP and in the same paragraph you mentioned that Eircom control 95% of DSL connections in Ireland....eh, you do know that DSL runs on a phone line, which surprise surprise can actually be used to make phone calls :eek:

dub45

probe wrote: »

Nothing. If someone steals something, fine them, put them in prison, whatever - subject to due process. It is a matter of proportionality and constitutional rights.

...........
The key issue is that you can't have a system where the RIAA lot report an IP number as being an offender and their internet connection is cut off. Period.

And that isn't the system.

And by the way is someone who cannot get the internet for whatever reason or even some child whose parent's wont pay for the internet for them having their constitutional rights denied?

And at least for the moment anyway there is nothing to stop this constitutionally rights denied person moving to another isp and even when or if that is denied they can visit an internet cafe or a friend with a computer and rant to their heart's content!

watty

probe wrote: »

These RIAA download statistics converted into "billions of dollars" of lost sales are just headline rubbish.

The key issue is that you can't have a system where the RIAA lot report an IP number as being an offender and their internet connection is cut off. Period.

Yes the lost revenue figures are rubbish. That doesn't excuse copyright infringement.


I don't see any connection to constitution of 2nd statement.

Such an arrangement may or may not be legal and fair depending on how it is done.

If you watch news via "theft of Service" of fake satellite Pay TV card or illegally setup cable receiver without the proper subscription you may legally be disconnected.

Eircom's T&C say that you may be disconnected for copyright infringement. It's not a service with a Universal Service Obligation. Even if it was (such as phone service ) you can be disconnected from a USO provided service for misuse.

probe

watty wrote: »

The settlement does not affect anything you read or write on the internet.

Eircom ALREADY have a clause in T&C that they can disconnect you if they think you are contravening copyright. Or for other reasons

The issue here is not breach of copyright by an internet user. It is that an organisation has got eircom to agree to pull the plug on anyone who they blacklist by IP number - with the implication that because eircom agrees, every other ISP will be forced to comply. ie if you are blacklisted, your air supply will be cut off.

No court case. No judge. No rights. You are offline. Period.

Bohrio

probe wrote: »

If someone "steals" three songs, is it proportional to have their internet service cut off?

I didn't suggest that the constitution gave people rights of access to media by right. However if you pull the plug from someone's internet connection, you disconnect them from their "air supply" to freedom of expression. Which is guaranteed by the constitution.

Comreg (ie the state) as regulator is in breach of the constitution if it allows ISPs to disconnect customers from their "air supply" as a result of some IP number being black listed by an industry cartel, for whatever reason.

So, if I am hosting a website with illegal material, for example, pornographic pictures, and if my ISP decides to disconnect me (apart of the legal issues) you are saying that they shouldn't be doing that? What if it is a child pornography site?

Even if it is in breach of the T&C?

probe

dub45 wrote: »

And at least for the moment anyway there is nothing to stop this constitutionally rights denied person moving to another isp and even when or if that is denied they can visit an internet cafe or a friend with a computer and rant to their heart's content!

Eircom controls 95% of the DSL market. This leaves one with cable (if it is available) and wireless (which provides crap broadband in most cases, especially in urban or hilly areas). And there is no doubt that the UPC cable monopoly will join the fold if comreg doesn't rapidly take a position in the matter.

dub45

probe wrote: »

The issue here is not breach of copyright by an internet user. It is that an organisation has got eircom to agree to pull the plug on anyone who they blacklist by IP number - with the implication that because eircom agrees, every other ISP will be forced to comply. ie if you are blacklisted, your air supply will be cut off.

No court case. No judge. No rights. You are offline. Period.

You obviously are jumping to conclusions. There is no move yet on the part of other isps to adopt this system. Eircom have not published any proposals as to how the system will work. And as far as I can see there is no agreement to choke anyone:rolleyes:

watty

But eircom, sky, NTL etc can ALREADY disconnect you anytime they want if THEY think you have contravened the T&C. No court or judge. It's a service and you agree to the T&C.

The agreement eircom have made may be unreasonable. But as long as they give no information to the Rights Holders they may be intitled to make it.

Are you concerned about free speech or getting copyright content for free?

dub45

probe wrote: »

Eircom controls 95% of the DSL market. This leaves one with cable (if it is available) and wireless (which provides crap broadband in most cases, especially in urban or hilly areas). And there is no doubt that the UPC cable monopoly will join the fold if comreg doesn't rapidly take a position in the matter.

Please stop being hysterical. There is no mention anywhere of Eircom's resellers being part of this agreement. Your hysteria and over the top arguments are devaluing any credibility you may have in your concerns about this agreement

probe

Bohrio wrote: »

So, if I am hosting a website with illegal material, for example, pornographic pictures, and if my ISP decides to disconnect me (apart of the legal issues) you are saying that they shouldn't be doing that? What if it is a child pornography site?

Even if it is in breach of the T&C?

Porno is surely covered by the morality word in the constitution? There is no issue of proportionality if you host child pornography on your internet connection. You should be in prison (if found guilty after receiving due legal process - something denied to you by this eircom agreement!)

dub45

probe wrote: »

Eircom controls 95% of the DSL market. This leaves one with cable (if it is available) and wireless (which provides crap broadband in most cases, especially in urban or hilly areas). And there is no doubt that the UPC cable monopoly will join the fold if comreg doesn't rapidly take a position in the matter.

And why were you not on here ranting in similar vein when NTL abruptly terminated the contracts of people who they claimed were massively downloading a while ago?