Eircom to cut broadband over illegal downloads - READ POST#1 WARNING

Cami

I thought ip addresses were assigned randomly whenever you connect to the internet and it was very hard to track...so you had a new ip each time you connected..

Peanut

The address assignments can be logged by your ISP and cross-referenced to the time that an alleged infringement occured.

Le King

Cabaal wrote: »

I'm a mod in this forum and the forum has rules, this includes now starting arguments. your free to PM me if you have comments regarding this, I;'d request that you refrain from discussing mod actions in thread as its against boards rules

No thanks lad, I'm not going to question any mod advice any more, I'm not here to cause any trouble. Just thought my posts were of debatable value, but obviously not so in your mind.

But I will say IMO, it's a massive black hole in the system.

I just don't see why to start with the people who don't make a profit. Surely they should go down to the market and stop them selling DVD's, CD's and even Blu Ray's recently, instead of attacking the people who are just downloading/uploading.

I know there is a huge mix for and against the whole file sharing argument. Obviously something needs to be done. But the people who are creating the file-sharing environment will just create some other way to download music on the internet.

There is too many grey areas and, IMO, what Eircom are doing is wrong.

What if I decide to put all my family photo's into a torrent that is over a GB (pretty stupid example but it's more for a point to be made), to share with my family from all over the world. As I understand it, they would also have access to this torrent, so do they have a right to look at my photo's of my family? No way. Is that privacy invasion? Yes.

I think the format of they way they are doing is wrong.

Just my 2c.

axer

Osu wrote: »

What if I decide to put all my family photo's into a torrent that is over a GB (pretty stupid example but it's more for a point to be made), to share with my family from all over the world. As I understand it, they would also have access to this torrent, so do they have a right to look at my photo's of my family? No way. Is that privacy invasion? Yes.

ah ffs. Do you know how torrents work? Maybe we need to get the tin foil hats out because they can hear you downloading your thoughts.

jor el

Osu wrote: »

What if I decide to put all my family photo's into a torrent that is over a GB (pretty stupid example but it's more for a point to be made), to share with my family from all over the world. As I understand it, they would also have access to this torrent, so do they have a right to look at my photo's of my family? No way. Is that privacy invasion? Yes.

If the point you're trying to make is that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, then the point is well and truly made.

Le King

axer wrote: »

ah ffs. Do you know how torrents work? Maybe we need to get the tin foil hats out because they can hear you downloading your thoughts.

jor el wrote: »

If the point you're trying to make is that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, then the point is well and truly made.

Jesus christ lads, as I said the example was stupid, it's the infringing of privacy rather than the example was the point.

And of course I know how torrents work, I just can't think of a better example.

Either way you add nothing to the debate besides petty jibes on the internet, how sad. :rolleyes:

Seriously, it's pathetic.

jor el

Osu wrote: »

Jesus christ lads, as I said the example was stupid, it's the infringing of privacy rather than the example was the point.

And of course I know how torrents work, I just can't think of a better example.

Either way you add nothing to the debate besides petty jibes on the internet, how sad. :rolleyes:

Seriously, it's pathetic.

No, you don't know how torrents work, obviously, and your example wasn't just stupid, it's completely flawed. There is no invasion of privacy in any of this action. No one is snooping on anyone, because if you knew how torrents worked you'd know that your IP is made public to anyone who cares to look. That is the only thing being monitored, and an IP address is not private information.

So before you continue with your pointless and flawed argument and rolleyes, learn a little before calling others pathetic.

SergeyS

BTW. Slightly off-topic, but it's a good opportunity.
Do you know that Pirate Party does exists in Ireland?

Le King

jor el wrote: »

No, you don't know how torrents work, obviously, and your example wasn't just stupid, it's completely flawed. There is no invasion of privacy in any of this action. No one is snooping on anyone, because if you knew how torrents worked you'd know that your IP is made public to anyone who cares to look. That is the only thing being monitored, and an IP address is not private information.

So before you continue with your pointless and flawed argument and rolleyes, learn a little before calling others pathetic.

I thought that they are also downloading the torrent itself, no?

Scram

Osu wrote: »

Jesus christ lads, as I said the example was stupid, it's the infringing of privacy rather than the example was the point.

And of course I know how torrents work, I just can't think of a better example.

Either way you add nothing to the debate besides petty jibes on the internet, how sad. :rolleyes:

Seriously, it's pathetic.

Well as far as ive read Eircom have giving DtecNet permission to report Ip addresses that they have detected as being "guilty" of sharing music via a P2P network. Eircom then find out who that person was and play headmaster 3 times? am i right??

jor el

Osu wrote: »

I thought that they are also downloading the torrent itself, no?

Which "they", eircom or Detecnet? eircom aren't doing anything. Detecnet (or other parties) use various methods to find out who are sharing music, one of which may be to host the trackers themselves, or to become part of the torrent swarm. Neither of which is an invasion of privacy.

axer

Osu wrote: »

I thought that they are also downloading the torrent itself, no?

So tell me, what are you putting private data in a torrent and sharing it? Again, I would urge you to read up on torrents.

JimsAlterEgo

wonder will they go after AllofMp3 users and similar sites?

FloatingVoter

Now IRMA is going after the mobile operators...

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0528/1224271297811.html

What/who ever next ?

Cabaal

FloatingVoter wrote: »

Now IRMA is going after the mobile operators...

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0528/1224271297811.html

What/who ever next ?

Every ISP in Ireland is next,

Amakadamus

BrianD wrote: »

As for lossless downloads, I see no reason other than efficiency that these could not be made available in the future. The mass market uses pretty low quality audio equipment so the kind of quality that is around doesn't bother them.

It's funny because if you knew the difference beween a FLAC (Fully Lossless Audio Compression) file and a MP3 file you would think twice about this statement. A FLAC file is around 1 or 2 thirds larger than a MP3 file and the difference is that hisses and tings actually can sound like they are in the room with you much like a vinyl record and beyond the capability of a MP3 (yes MP3 are bits chopped off). You don't need to fork out 1000s for a sound system that will produce this sound. Any half decent home cinema sound sytem will produce excellent clear sounds so long as the media is adequate and that doesn't count for MP3 so although technology has advanced - those producing the media have retarded it by keeping us on MP3 long after download rates have skyrocketed and top quality technology has become standard from some of the cheapest producers. Video compression techniques are updated every few months. MP3 has been a pain in the bum for ten years now. The difference in production costs would only be a cent or two so it is either charge MP3 for E1.00 and FLAC for E1.02 or keep quiet and milk it. Have you seen any FLAC for sale lately?

Anyway one sad thing about preventing file sharing is that public domain items which have no copyright are available in abundance from file sharing directories only. Things like the original Dick Tracy and Flash Gordon or the roots of jazz and blues no longer have copyrights and as there is no money to be made providing them (they are not sought after too much) the only place to find them in their entirety is on file sharing sites. I have downloaded god knows how many gigabytes of these old works of art and from now on I will be feeling like a criminal and in fear of my broadband, which I pay the full amount from Eircom so that I can download, will be cut off. If you are interested in making movies or music you will love to have these old non-copyright materials available. That also goes for public domain software. What is the point in making public domain software that hundreds of people download if you have to pay the rates of an internet business just to make it available?

If they want to stop copyright material being sent out they should do that. They should try not to do much else. They don't EVER acknowledge these side effects. In effect they don't know or care about it. Why should I care about them? It would cost me too much to take myself to court on the bus never mind forking out hundreds of thousands to take Eircom with me. If I get warnings I can jump between providers for a while but at the end of the day if the courts are suggesting companies should do this it will become law and my days of forking out for maximum download capability will be over. What is dial up 26 or 52k/s? I am pretty sure YouTube and online radio can work at that speed. I can't think of anything else that uses bandwidth and dial up was free last time I looked.

IRCA

Cabaal wrote: »

Every ISP in Ireland is next,

Full info here http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/28/ofcom_code/

"The details of internet users who are accused of unlawful filesharing three times will be recorded on a blacklist so record and film companies can target legal action, rules published today reveal.

Under the proposals, the three accusations of unlawful filesharing will not have to come from the same source, but once three are made, any of the organisations that made accusations can apply for a court order to reveal their identity.

ISPs will be required to keep a record of accusations for a year from when they are made. Meanwhile rights holders must pass their evidence - likely to comprise an IP address, time stamp and filename - to ISPs within 10 days of being collected.

If warning letters do not "significantly reduce" unlawful filesharing in a year, technical measures such as protocol blocking or temporary suspension of access will be introduced.

Each warning letter will offer information about the appeals tribunal, an independent body that will hear claims from those who believe they are falsely accused. Individuals will remain anonymous at the tribunal and only written submissions will be accepted, Ofcom said.
If the tribunal finds in the ISP customer's favour, rights holders and ISPs can be ordered to pay compensation and reasonable costs.

RangeR

IRCA wrote: »

Full info here http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/28/ofcom_code/

We live in the island of Ireland

Yep a big thanks to Eircom for openeing the gates for every ISP in Ireland to be hurrased by the IRMA.

Mobile broadband has become so prevelent in Ireland due to Eircoms non effort to put inplace infrastructure to allow BB throughout most of rural Ireland. And wireless web is the only choice in many places.

Thank god UPC is sticking to there guns and not co-operating with big pockets.

jor el

cisk wrote: »

Yep a big thanks to Eircom for openeing the gates for every ISP in Ireland to be hurrased by the IRMA.

eircom's action or inaction will have no baring on IRMA going after other ISPs, or on what those ISPs might do. IRMA have been actively pursuing all ISPs since early last year, eircom were simply the first to capitulate.

IRCA

RangeR wrote: »

We live in the island of Ireland

I know, but as anyone with even a passing knowledge of Irish legislation knows that our body of Common & Criminal law is largely derived from the British System following Independance. Similarly there is a strong tendancy to influence Irish legislation with an eye to the UK, especially since we have a common land border.

I merely indicate the trend that is developing in our close trading neigbour, but thank you for your comments, I shall leave it to others to judge their usefulness.

RangeR

And El Reg's take on Ireland's position

jor el

As Monty Burns said, Let them have their tar-tar sauce.

Amakadamus

Monthly download allowance is 75GB

This is the maximum amount of data you can download from the Internet each month. If you go over 75GB, each extra 1GB will cost €2. Think of it this way: there are 1,024MB in 1GB. Your 75GB are over 75,000MB. A song is about 5MB of data. So you could download over 9,000 songs every month with your 75GB.

eircom Store & Share (FREE storage)

FREE 5Gb online storage to store & back-up your precious photos & music, so that your data is always safe.

:pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::eek:

Taken from http://www.eircom.net/broadband/products/bbpackages/5/?view=Standard&BV_SessionID=&BV_EngineID=

Read carefully

blubloblu

Irish Times Letters - Eircom and illegal downloads

Madam, – It would seem Ireland is leading the way worldwide in handing control of our internet services over to the four major record labels (Front Page, May 24th). They have proposed draconian measures which have been voted against, judged unconstitutional, and met with ferocious opposition in other countries. They want Eircom to cut off your internet if they think you are illegally downloading music.
Allow me to propose my own three strikes against this policy:
1. The major record companies are taking this course of action to stop the unauthorised sharing of their music. They are entitled to protect their rights, and they should be able to take whatever legitimate action they wish. However...

jay93

blubloblu wrote: »

Irish Times Letters - Eircom and illegal downloads

couldnt agree more with what that person said..and aswell as that at the end of the letter it says UPC have stood up and said no to these record comapnys who to be honest have no right to monitor what anyone is looking up on the internet no much for human rights huh?? this world has been handed over to big corporations and basic human speech has been taken away its sick to see to be honest..ill be cancelling eircom BB now they are nothing but tossers good look to them and there crappy internet service the sooner UPC install lines in my area the better

johanz

This is really interesting.
I am wondering how record companies can even legally do this?
So can I call my isp and report some random IP and accuse them of piracy?


And god forbid if you get a virus and someone uses your pc as proxy to pirate, hehe.

RangeR

Dunder Mifflin wrote: »

Article here from the Register about this:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/28/fone_a_freetard_flaw/

(I did a quick search and didn't find any results for that, sorry if it's a re-post)

If only you looked 5 posts above or even read this thread:)

oulira

It will be very interesting to hear of anyone getting any letters/calls this week. It's pretty much week one over - and they said 50 IPs per week! Anybody hear anything?

Dunder Mifflin

RangeR wrote: »

If only you looked 5 posts above or even read this thread:)

Fake quote!