Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

*** eircom and Internet Censoring ***

1234568

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,148 ✭✭✭Passenger


    If this "Three Strike" rule is currently in effect with Eircom and possible other ISP's in the future couldn't IRMA and others still be monitoring the activity of Downloaders and potentially prosecute any downloaders without any need to consult Eircom??

    Or if a particular party such as IRMA, etc. is monitoring the Downloading of torrents and want to prosecute, do they have to consult said downloader's ISP and ask the ISP to begin the "Three Strike" protocol??


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 24 PplAreStrange


    Here's the thing, eircom (and all other ISP's) couldnt care less what you do online! However the companies theatened them with legal action for condoning or basically not stopping users from downloading torrents or what ever else is deemed 'illegal'. So yes, they wouldnt tell the ISP...they would however need to prove that you were downlloading at a certain HH:MM:SS and therefore would need to consult whichever ISP was supplying internet to the 'Download Pirate' ...its all such nonsense...especially when you consider that on a torrent with 50 other seeders they have to pick one person out that was using a certain isp's ip address to download 'illegal material'. check this out it a vid made by friends of pirate bay.

    PplAreStrange
    Passenger wrote: »
    If this "Three Strike" rule is currently in effect with Eircom and possible other ISP's in the future couldn't IRMA and others still be monitoring the activity of Downloaders and potentially prosecute any downloaders without any need to consult Eircom??

    Or if a particular party such as IRMA, etc. is monitoring the Downloading of torrents and want to prosecute, do they have to consult said downloader's ISP and ask the ISP to begin the "Three Strike" protocol??


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,226 ✭✭✭blubloblu


    Passenger wrote: »
    If this "Three Strike" rule is currently in effect with Eircom and possible other ISP's in the future couldn't IRMA and others still be monitoring the activity of Downloaders and potentially prosecute any downloaders without any need to consult Eircom??

    Or if a particular party such as IRMA, etc. is monitoring the Downloading of torrents and want to prosecute, do they have to consult said downloader's ISP and ask the ISP to begin the "Three Strike" protocol??
    When they monitor P2P swarms, they get a list of IP addresses. They have no idea who are behind the addresses. At the moment, they need to sue eircom to have them release the names of the users and then go to court and have a trial before a judge etc...

    The difference with the three strikes is that IRMA's evidence is taken for granted, you're considered guilty automatically and there is no due legal process.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,417 ✭✭✭✭watty


    These are the kind of people IRMA and RIAA need to go after.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/8172694.stm

    The burden of proof must be on Rights Holders and they must have to use judical Process. The Internet connection needs to be treaded like your phone, post, gas, electric, sewage or water.

    No monitoring or disconnection without a Court Order.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,565 ✭✭✭Pangea


    So has anyone got a warning from eircom yet for downloading music yet?
    Or got 3 strikes?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,069 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    galwayfeen wrote: »

    Me thinks Eircom 'leaked' that document

    cheaper than replying to individual questions from customers :pac:


  • Registered Users Posts: 495 ✭✭Rockin


    Source :

    http://torrentfreak.com/leaked-document-reveals-eircom-deal-with-irish-riaa-090808/
    This month Ireland’s largest ISP will assist with an anti-piracy campaign against its own customers. After making a deal with IRMA, Ireland’s answer to the RIAA, Eircom will first warn alleged copyright infringers before ultimately disconnecting them. Now, in what appears to be a leaked document, the entire groundbreaking deal is outlined.

    eircom.gifEarlier this year IRMA – which controls 90% of Ireland’s recorded music and represents the likes of EMI, Sony, Universal and Warner – reached a private agreement Ireland’s largest ISP, Eircom, to implement a 3 strikes deal for alleged pirates.
    Details of the arrangement have been fairly limited but now an apparently leaked document gives a unique insight into the private deal put into place to allow Eircom to avoid further expensive legal action at the hands of the music industry.
    The document passed to TorrentFreak, titled ‘Briefing Note on Arrangement Between Eircom and Irish Recorded Music Association (IRMA) with regard to Copyright Infringement March 2009′ begins by giving some background to the deal and why it was implemented.
    Listing ‘Key Points of the Draft Protocol’ the document promises that Eircom will not monitor its customer activities or install equipment to achieve the same, and will not provide any customer details to any 3rd party “including the record companies” while adhering closely to laws concerning data protection.
    The Evidence
    The document explains that IRMA will supply Eircom with IP addresses and evidence to prove infringements. The document specifically lists not just uploading infringements on peer to peer networks but strangely, downloading too. Quite how downloading will be proven will remain to be seen.
    Under the agreement, IRMA will supply the following information in their infringement notifications:
    1. Details of copyright holder (name and address)
    2. Why the notification is being sent (i.e. setting out the breach of copyright)
    3. Details of the actual copyright work infringed (artist, song, title and album title)
    4. The IP address along with a time stamp to show when the investigation was initiated
    5. A time stamp to indicate when the investigation was completed
    6. Details of the P2P application used by the alleged infringer
    7. The hash value of the infringed copyright work
    The document says that the information provided by the record companies “will be of the same type as that used in the three previous disclosure actions in the Irish High Court involving the parties,” noting that Eircom will not act on a notification which does not carry the information listed above.
    Additionally, Eircom has requested that IRMA provides independent certification to show that notifications have been lawfully obtained, including “reputable annual independent certification that the necessary legal, I.T., entity level and regulatory controls relating to the obtaining, generating and processing of data by Dtecnet [the anti-piracy tracking company tasked with monitoring infringers] (or any other supplier engaged by the record companies) have been complied with.”
    Handling the ‘Graduated Response’
    On the first strike, Eircom will inform its customer there has been an accusation of copyright infringement. On the second accusation the customer is warned that he risks being disconnected if there are further allegations. The final step is detailed in the document as follows;
    On a third occasion of being detected as infringing copyright, and having reviewed the position, the subscriber will be served by Eircom with a termination notice and, subject to extenuating circumstances arising, will be disconnected thereafter.
    So what measures are there to safeguard Eircom’s customers from errors, unfounded disconnections or other mitigating circumstances?
    According to the document, at all stages in the process Eircom’s customers will have the right to complain if they feel they have been “inappropriately or incorrectly identified as infringing copyright,” and will be dealt with using the ISP’s existing broadband support systems. Additionally, this section seem to provide a little room for maneuver in certain circumstances;
    Eircom has also reserved the right to remove a customer from a particular level or not to effect a disconnection where Eircom has received representations or complaints and believes that the infringement as alleged has not taken place or where there are particular extenuating circumstances which would make the disconnection of the customer unjustified.
    Eircom will engage with that person at all times to ensure that there is a full understanding of the issues and that any accidental or unintentional infringement can be identified and remedied.

    Dealing with the ultimate sanction – disconnection.
    Disconnections will only be carried out when Eircom is “totally satisfied that there is clear evidence of sustained copyright infringement, that the alleged infringing person has had sufficient opportunity to explain its circumstances and that all possibilities that the person was a victim of accidental infringement have been eliminated.”
    If the main conditions are met, Eircom will then disconnect its customer based on two elements – a TOS violation (copyright infringement is not allowed on Eircom accounts) and the ISPs legal obligation to disable access to infringing content on ts network, once it has been made aware of it.
    Blocking Websites
    There had been rumors that Eircom had agreed to block some websites i.e The Pirate Bay, but according to the document, Eircom has not agreed to implement a website filter – on copyright grounds at least. However, as part of the settlement it was agreed that Eircom would not oppose a court application by IRMA to force it to block The Pirate Bay specifically but no other sites are mentioned.
    Time will tell if the details above constitute the final agreement, but the framework seems entirely consistent with the way the music industry wants ISPs to handle infringement. This deal with Eircom will be one to watch closely.

    Any views ?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,451 ✭✭✭Onikage


    It seems pretty reasonable.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,234 ✭✭✭Fresh Pots


    It says IRMA will be supplying eircom with the ip addresses etc. but how will they be able to get this info, surely it would be the other way around?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,713 ✭✭✭✭jor el


    squared wrote: »
    It says IRMA will be supplying eircom with the ip addresses etc. but how will they be able to get this info, surely it would be the other way around?

    The other way around would be illegal without a court warrant, as discussed to death in the other thread.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,093 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    I think if this process gets challenged in court, it will loose. Eircom + IRMA are attempting to usurp the normal legal process and a dim view will be taken of that.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,713 ✭✭✭✭jor el


    Who will challenge it in court, and what exactly will they challenge? The deal between eircom and IRMA isn't something for the courts to decide on, nothing illegal is happening, no personal or confidential information passes between them.

    The only thing an end user could challenge would be the validity of IRMA's information, and whether eircom have the right to terminate services based on this. As their terms and conditions state, eircom has the right to terminate service at any time, for any number of reasons. I don't think an appeal would go very far in court, unless you could prove that IRMA's information is in no way correct, or that it had actually been falsified.

    How likely is it that someone who does not use P2P applications will get one of these warnings? Unsecured routers can be a problem, but it is your responsibility to make sure your wifi network is secured. One warning would be sufficient to let anyone know that there is a problem.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,370 ✭✭✭Knasher


    Seeing as none of the other ISP's have agreed to this. Won't this just mean that anyone who is kicked off Eircom can just pick up the phone and sign straight up with another ISP.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,960 ✭✭✭Ranicand


    Knasher wrote: »
    Seeing as none of the other ISP's have agreed to this. Won't this just mean that anyone who is kicked off Eircom can just pick up the phone and sign straight up with another ISP.

    I don't think so as most other ISPs are Eircom resellers.

    The only other options would be UPC if they are in your area or wireless.

    If UPC join this too file sharers will be bunched.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,713 ✭✭✭✭jor el


    Ranicand wrote: »
    I don't think so as most other ISPs are Eircom resellers.

    Doesn't matter, eircom have no control over what customers the other ISPs serve.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,451 ✭✭✭Onikage


    Before the misinformed kick off...

    This won't affect most people AT ALL.
    This MAY affect P2P users IF they are directly caught downloading copyrighted material by IRMA.
    Eircom WON'T give out IP addresses, nor confirm or deny that that user was downloading copyrighted material.
    The WORST thing eircom can do is disconnect the user, however at that point IRMA will probably have enough material to prosecute anyway.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 63 ✭✭TheDeficit


    Illegal music downloads still popular

    Updated on 10 August 2009

    By Channel 4 News

    Threatening letters and free, legal music services are having no success in discouraging young people from sharing music online.

    A large academic survey found that the proportion of young people downloading illegally remained the same, at 61 per cent.

    And nearly four out of five said they had no interest in using legal streaming services, preferring to own music rather than play it temporarily over the internet.

    the record companies and some on this thread would have you believe that those who download are no different than thieves in a store, well look at that stat, 61 per cent! Downloaders are not a fringe group, a few bad eggs. They are the majority, get used to it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,713 ✭✭✭✭jor el


    TheDeficit wrote: »
    Downloaders are not a fringe group, a few bad eggs. They are the majority, get used to it.

    The fact that practically everyone does it, doesn't make it right, nor does it mean they're likely to stop. I, and many others, believe they are going about it all the wrong ways, but they do have the right to protect their business, even if they are becoming redundant in the modern world.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,199 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    jor el wrote: »
    The fact that practically everyone does it, doesn't make it right, nor does it mean they're likely to stop. I, and many others, believe they are going about it all the wrong ways, but they do have the right to protect their business, even if they are becoming redundant in the modern world.

    Exactly the fact that everyone does it should show the record companies that their current system of distribution is bogus for this generation especially with the technology available.
    It was back with Nappster that people first showed the need for some kind of decent digital distribution service and the record companies ignored it and since then they have paid for it. You think they would take the hint instead of ****ing up the internet for everyone. The way they are describing it makes it sound like all the pirate bay does is distribute illegal material, when in fact alot of what is on there isnt illegal and technically they dont even distribute it they just provide the adrresses to the torrents.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,265 ✭✭✭RangeR


    VinLieger wrote: »
    Exactly the fact that everyone does it should show the record companies that their current system of distribution is bogus for this generation especially with the technology available.
    It was back with Nappster that people first showed the need for some kind of decent digital distribution service and the record companies ignored it and since then they have paid for it. You think they would take the hint instead of ****ing up the internet for everyone. The way they are describing it makes it sound like all the pirate bay does is distribute illegal material, when in fact alot of what is on there isnt illegal and technically they dont even distribute it they just provide the adrresses to the torrents.

    It actually started before Napster. Napster was just more widely known.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,051 ✭✭✭bealtine




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭wolfric


    Anyone know when eircom will actually start monitoring/banning etc.


  • Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,500 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    VinLieger wrote: »
    Exactly the fact that everyone does it should show the record companies that their current system of distribution is bogus for this generation especially with the technology available.

    Your analogy that because everyone does it its ok and the system is broken is heavily flawed:

    - Take for example some scumbag areas of the country or for that matter the world, people shoplift and steal likes there's no tomorrow but sure because the majority do it its ok...right?

    - Another example, loads of people litter and don't give a **** about the environment, I guess because the majority do it it some areas/country's its ok right?

    - People speed in one way or another, I guess because the majority does it its ok right?

    - When drink driving laws came in more heavily sure most people drank and drive, but I guess because the majority did it it was ok right?

    I guess all the above systems are flawed and should change...right??

    :rolleyes:

    If somebody creates content they are entitled to have it protected if they wish and if they don't wish for people to share it without paying they are also entitled to stop such people.

    Simple question: Do you not think its fair that the creator of content should have control over it?


  • Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,500 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    cnocbui wrote: »
    I think if this process gets challenged in court, it will loose. Eircom + IRMA are attempting to usurp the normal legal process and a dim view will be taken of that.

    Your basing this on what twisted reality now?
    Whats the defense going to be against it?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,459 ✭✭✭JohnC.


    Cabaal wrote: »
    Simple question: Do you not think its fair that the creator of content should have control over it?

    Without wanting to sound like I'm defending piracy with the following, just how much control does the actual creator have over it? Just a couple of weeks ago Calvin Harris was having a fit over his own videos being removed from his own Youtube account for copyright infringement. This kind of thing has bugger all to do with creators having control. It's all about the middlemen having control.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,019 ✭✭✭✭Johnboy1951


    Kahless wrote: »
    Without wanting to sound like I'm defending piracy with the following, just how much control does the actual creator have over it? Just a couple of weeks ago Calvin Harris was having a fit over his own videos being removed from his own Youtube account for copyright infringement. This kind of thing has bugger all to do with creators having control. It's all about the middlemen having control.

    Under the present scheme the creator can 'sell' his interest to another. If he does so then of course he is infringing if he subsequently uses what is now theirs, without permission.

    As you say it has nothing at all to do with creative control, only money .... in the first place the creators accepting money for their creation and all its rights. From then on it is the new owners rights that get infringed if the material is used/copied etc without permission.


  • Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,500 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    Kahless wrote: »
    Without wanting to sound like I'm defending piracy with the following, just how much control does the actual creator have over it? Just a couple of weeks ago Calvin Harris was having a fit over his own videos being removed from his own Youtube account for copyright infringement. This kind of thing has bugger all to do with creators having control. It's all about the middlemen having control.

    Take my photoblog, if somebody uses a photo of it I am entitled to stop them under the full extent of the law.

    Like the vast majority of my photographers my photos are copyright and I'm protective of them, if I wanted to share them I would have licneced them under a creative commons license.

    If you want other photographers views on this feel free to start a thread in the photographers forum, the vast majority of replys will be in relation to protecting work...that I can guarantee.

    As I created the work I get full say over what its used for, if somebody uses it in a magazine or newspaper without permission then I can seek payment for this, its all down to me how much that payment is though.

    If the creators have a problem with the middlemen then they can do something about it, but if the creators are happy with how the middle man are managing things then what argument does the person stealing the content have?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 426 ✭✭dazdrog


    blocking one site aint gonna stop anything.

    google and a rapidshare account is all you need and youll find just about anything that you want at all


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,129 ✭✭✭therokerroar


    Onikage wrote: »
    Before the misinformed kick off...

    This won't affect most people AT ALL.
    This MAY affect P2P users IF they are directly caught downloading copyrighted material by IRMA.
    Eircom WON'T give out IP addresses, nor confirm or deny that that user was downloading copyrighted material.
    The WORST thing eircom can do is disconnect the user, however at that point IRMA will probably have enough material to prosecute anyway.

    So does this, in theory, mean that one can download whatever one likes, illegally, from sites such as Frostwire without fear of being prosecuted?


Advertisement