*** eircom and Internet Censoring ***

bealtine

Kershaw.D wrote: »

I think that In someways eircom is right ,
I think that they should block sites like limewire & piratebay but I don't think that they should block sites like downloads.nl , or block users that receive a song in an email and download it

That's not the job of an isp. Do you want them snooping on your emails? Do you want them logging your internet visits?
The job of an ISP is to move your traffic to it's destination and not read your emails just in case you might do something that a large company doesn't like you doing.

Anyway more importantly the main target of all this 3 strikes nonsense isn't really the PirateBay at all. The real target is Youtube.

Why Youtube in particular?

Because of the review of the E-commerce directive,there will be a consultation announced this month on the implementation of it in the Member States throughout the EU.

One fundamental issue under review, is the status of webhosting companies. In a notes from the lobbyists, it is clear how certain media companies perceive YouTube as a double threat to their business. Double, because it (Youtube) is getting the advertising revenue that they are losing; and they are not getting the syndication payments either. This essentially is the real issue at stake here.
Who owns the web, the music industry companies or the users?

Kershaw.D

bealtine wrote: »

That's not the job of an isp. Do you want them snooping on your emails? Do you want them logging your internet visits?
The job of an ISP is to move your traffic to it's destination and not read your emails just in case you might do something that a large company doesn't like you doing.

Anyway more importantly the main target of all this 3 strikes nonsense isn't really the PirateBay at all. The real target is Youtube.

Why Youtube in particular?

Because of the review of the E-commerce directive,there will be a consultation announced this month on the implementation of it in the Member States throughout the EU.

One fundamental issue under review, is the status of webhosting companies. In a notes from the lobbyists, it is clear how certain media companies perceive YouTube as a double threat to their business. Double, because it (Youtube) is getting the advertising revenue that they are losing; and they are not getting the syndication payments either. This essentially is the real issue at stake here.
Who owns the web, the music industry companies or the users?

So is youtube one of these sites that will be blocked , if so im moving to meteor or upc

EvilMonkey

Deleted User wrote: »

Sorry if im being naive, but that's it dead and buried, essentially, isn't it?

I dont think so,
Eircom/Meteor still have an agreement with IRMA.
IRMA could still take the other isp's to court, how far would they fight or will they settle like Eircom?
Which isp's are against this?
We need legislation from the government/EU guaranteeing users rights to free uncensored Internet (making eircom's deal illegal) and protecting the isp's from legal action from IRMA or anyone else that decides to take a court case against isp's.

bealtine

Kershaw.D wrote: »

So is youtube one of these sites that will be blocked , if so im moving to meteor or upc

That will make no difference if this is all bought in from europe...

Kershaw.D

bealtine wrote: »

That will make no difference if this is all bought in from europe...

Are you saying that moving provider wont make a diff or that youtube wont be blocked??

bealtine

Kershaw.D wrote: »

Are you saying that moving provider wont make a diff or that youtube wont be blocked??

I'm saying this "3 strikes" nonsense is coming from Europe and yes Youtube may well be blocked for all ISPs in Europe (that includes Ireland)

European ISPs arent going to cave to this rubbish, its our own jokers who may be the only ones in europe to implement it.

bealtine

cisk wrote: »

European ISPs arent going to cave to this rubbish, its our own jokers who may be the only ones in europe to implement it.

You think not?
Even if has the status of an EU directive?

No way it will, even from a human rights point of view.

Freedom of information, freedom of speech, would all be undermined if it did.

Andyaz

Yesterday's response from ISPAI was heartening, particularly where they stress the need to follow the current legal process. That flies in the face of what IRMA are asking of them.

The statement doesn't, however, confirm that the ISPs will fight this. Stressing the importance of protecting user privacy is not enough. The ISPs could theoretically maintain user privacy and still agree to similar IRMA terms.

The outcome of the EU e-commerce directive is important. We've a long way to go to strengthen legislation in this country and we'll need EU backing.

@andyaz

bealtine

cisk wrote: »

No way it will, even from a human rights point of view.

Freedom of information, freedom of speech, would all be undermined if it did.

Like to lay a bet? <grin>


See this post on the DRI forum:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=59410035&postcount=1

Red Alert

I still maintain that IRMA/PPI/IMRO/insert-org-here are not police and shouldn't be allowed to dictate who can have an internet connection.

What happens then if the user gets barred by Eircom - can they then go to another provider?

Andy Az

Red Alert wrote: »

What happens then if the user gets barred by Eircom - can they then go to another provider?

Exactly, we haven't been told.

My guess is that Eircom (cash-stripped and looking for a buyer) agreed to the settlement to duck any further litigation that would affect the potential sale of the company, and that they never actually believed that the agreement could be implemented. That or they took their customers for fools.

The settlement terms won't be revealed but I reckon they depend somewhat on an agreement from other ISPs. The commercial risk to Eircom is too great otherwise. Hence the bullying 7-days-to-respond letters from IRMA. So far, the ISPs have called IRMA's bluff.

Spear

Here's the disaster the Australian attempt at censorship turned into

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/19/2321259&art_pos=2

They've blocked legal sites like Betfair, sites with lolcats etc etc. Even publishing the PR response they send if you question a link's status warrants a AU$11,000 fine if you mention the link.

My name is URL

Spear wrote: »

Here's the disaster the Australian attempt at censorship turned into

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/19/2321259&art_pos=2

They've blocked legal sites like Betfair, sites with lolcats etc etc. Even publishing the PR response they send if you question a link's status warrants a AU$11,000 fine if you mention the link.

About half of the sites on the list are not related to child porn and include a slew of online poker sites, YouTube links, regular gay and straight porn sites, Wikipedia entries, euthanasia sites, websites of fringe religions such as satanic sites, fetish sites, Christian sites, the website of a tour operator and even a Queensland dentist*

*http://dentaldistinction.com.au/home.htm

I tried a handful of the sites listed and most of them don't even load, and the YouTube accounts that are listed have been suspended.

F*cking ridiculous!

PaddyTheNth

The proposed 3-strikes bill in NZ is being scrapped:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0903/S00330.htm

They didn't know how to actually enforce it so they're having to start again. And this is why the rights-holders went directly to the ISPs here. Ars have a nice quote from the executive director of the company running the .nz tld

Terminating an Internet account was always a disproportionate response to copyright infringement....and to force ISPs and other organisations to be copyright judges and policemen was never an acceptable situation.

blubloblu

Got a reply one month later. Nothing we didn't know at the very start...

eircom has not agreed to block any Internet sites from being accessed by
end-users. As part of the settlement of the above proceedings, it was
agreed that eircom would not oppose an application by the Plaintiffs to
seek to have eircom block access to the Pirate Bay website. The Music
Industry will still have to establish, in the normal way that there is
an appropriate basis for the relief which they seek from the Court.
eircom is not supporting or consenting to the application. The
settlement makes no provision for any site other than the Pirate Bay
website.

It is important to note that:

* eircom will not monitor its customer's activities at any stage.
* eircom will not implement any form of monitoring equipment or
software on its network.
* eircom will not provide personal details or any information
relating to its customers to any third party, including the record
companies. No personal data will be transferred from eircom to the
record companies which would enable any customer of eircom to be
identified. eircom has agreed to keep confidential and will not
disclose any information concerning its customers to the record
companies and it will in particular observe in all respects the laws on
data protection.

IrelandOffline_

blubloblu wrote: »

Got a reply one month later. Nothing we didn't know at the very start...

Actually this isn't quite true...

Under new proposals before the EU Parliament they would have to do everything they say they won't be doing.The French have tried to sneak it into a totally unrelated matter the "Telecomms Package".

At the moment there is an effort underway to bring this to public attention, it's only on facebook at the moment.

Go here for more info:

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=73537262931

IrelandOffline_

IrelandOffline_ wrote: »

Actually this isn't quite true...

Under new proposals before the EU Parliament they would have to do everything they say they won't be doing.The French have tried to sneak it into a totally unrelated matter the "Telecomms Package".

At the moment there is an effort underway to bring this to public attention, it's only on facebook at the moment.

Go here for more info:

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=73537262931

http://www.laquadrature.net/en/eu-citizens-save-internet-from-being-turned-into-a-tv

AntiRip

I wonder will this have any affect on eircom's decision?

EU Rejects ‘3 Strikes’ for File-Sharers


also Controversial copyright violator provision has also been struck down in New Zealand

bealtine

AntiRip wrote: »

I wonder will this have any affect on eircom's decision?

EU Rejects ‘3 Strikes’ for File-Sharers

That's not really the "end" of it, the vote on the subject is yet to come.
The French are pushing really hard to get this passed...

Some information will be available here soon : http://www.blackouteurope.eu/

rogue-entity

bealtine wrote: »

I'm saying this "3 strikes" nonsense is coming from Europe and yes Youtube may well be blocked for all ISPs in Europe (that includes Ireland)

And I'll be one of the first to get a dedicated server overseas to get around it. Im not having my internet access dicated to me because the record companies cant get with the times.

Upward Spiral wrote: »

F*cking ridiculous!

*takes Australia off his list of places to live*

bealtine wrote: »

That's not really the "end" of it, the vote on the subject is yet to come.
The French are pushing really hard to get this passed...

Some information will be available here soon : http://www.blackouteurope.eu/

The French should learn to stay the **** out of what doesnt concern them. They opposed the war in Iraq.. so why cant they stay the **** away from our Internet.

RangeR

bealtine wrote: »

That's not really the "end" of it, the vote on the subject is yet to come.
The French are pushing really hard to get this passed...

Some information will be available here soon : http://www.blackouteurope.eu/

Beltline has been banned, I assume for the above posting. Hmmm. No listing of who or why.

While I respect the rules of boards, I see this as slightly unfair and maybe an over zealous act.

Spear

RangeR wrote: »

Beltline has been banned, I assume for the above posting. Hmmm. No listing of who or why.

While I respect the rules of boards, I see this as slightly unfair and maybe an over zealous act.

Multiple postings of the blackouteurope.eu address was perceived as spamming it seems.

RangeR

Spear wrote: »

Multiple postings of the blackouteurope.eu address was perceived as spamming it seems.

OK. Who banned him and for how long? In all my years on boards, I've never seen a banned user NOT show up on the banlist

Spear

RangeR wrote: »

OK. Who banned him and for how long? In all my years on boards, I've never seen a banned user NOT show up on the banlist

He did show, it's been a few days and has been pushed off the list.

Nody

And in a suprise move the French senate(?) voted down the three strike rule that Sarkosky negotiated for France; expect to see him run over the decision anyway through decree or similar.

bealtine

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Classified_US%2C_Japan_and_EU_ACTA_trade_agreement_drafts%2C_2009

Leaked drafts of the ACTA anti-piracy agreement confirm that the EU is negotiating on it - in spite of denials by EU officials - and that the talks concern civil enforcement against Internet copyright infringement. Ability to implement them could be dependent on the Telecoms Package limitations amendments being carried in the European Parliament on 5 May.

Spear

BT and several other mobile providers in the UK have now blocked TPB

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/251609/bt-blocks-off-pirate-bay.html

Seems to have more of a hint of "think of the children" alarmism rather than record company pushing.

pilotsnipes

Hi

Just wanting to add to Spears post (cos it's easy to overlook it):

The "blockage" is currently for mobile broadband companies, in the uk (BT etc) and is on a voluntary basis i.e. you could ring up and ask for the filtering to be switched off.

Still, not something I'm excited to hear about.