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

conor.hogan.2

The last four lines were more pointing on the serious flaws in the plan - enabling even non technical users ways around it.

Audacity records the line-in audio of songs - another flaw that wont see people be accused under these terms.

I know all of those are illegal if the stuff is copyrighted - more curious, how they think this will stop piracy even on the music level.

They seem to be targeting p2p only which leaves rapidshare, forums, g2p etc all open for people to use.

There are so many holes in this system.

Seriously they took Eircom to court for this?? This solves very very very very little.

axer

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

There are so many holes in this system.

They are going after the easiest targets first obviously. I doubt IRMA think this is going to solve all their piracy problems. They want people to think twice before downloading or more importantly sharing.

conor.hogan.2

Yes, but they will have to reach another agreement (maybe in court) to extend this to other areas in the future.

So half a percent of the broadband users in a year and only specified to music and mainly/only to p2p.

Money to burn.

FloatingVoter

8 or 9 out of 10 people think illicit downloading begins and ends at TPB etc. If they stop downloading, IRMA / Eircom can declare a victory. As for going after the rest, why bother wasting resources. This is a game of percentages from their point of view.

axer

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

Yes, but they will have to reach another agreement (maybe in court) to extend this to other areas in the future.

That won't happen. There is a massive difference between what they have start doing and what you are talking about detecting.

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

So half a percent of the broadband users in a year and only specified to music and mainly/only to p2p.

Money to burn.

Have you figures to back up this half a percent of Irish broadband users? or specifically eircom broadband users?

conor.hogan.2

50 times 52 = 2600 as a percentage of 500,000 = 0.52%

http://www.siliconrepublic.com/news/news.nv?storyid=single7544 - thats old and gives 436,000 broadband customers, so likely closer to 500,000 now.

Say they even have 250,000 users that is just over 1% of people called on their illegal downloads.

''That won't happen. There is a massive difference between what they have start doing and what you are talking about detecting.''

what do you mean by that? i know there is a huge difference, that is why they would need a further settlement to go further which is the only way they would actually stop a decent percentage of downloaders.

axer

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

50 times 52 = 2600 as a percentage of 500,000 = 0.52%

http://www.siliconrepublic.com/news/news.nv?storyid=single7544 - thats old and gives 436,000 broadband customers, so likely closer to 500,000 now.

They are only starting with 50 a week for the first 3 months then seeing what their capacity and then if they can they are to go all out.

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

''That won't happen. There is a massive difference between what they have start doing and what you are talking about detecting.''

what do you mean by that? i know there is a huge difference, that is why they would need a further settlement to go further which is the only way they would actually stop a decent percentage of downloaders.

I am talking about detecting downloads, cd copying etc.

This action by IRMA is not just about actually stopping current downloaders. It is about making people think twice before downloading and attempting to make parents take illegal music downloading serious because many people, I'd say a large portion of the population, do not know the difference between p2p and other forms of illegal music sharing/downloading. So all these people understand from this is that IRMA can somehow detect people downloading (even though that is not the case) and Eircom will disconnect offenders.

conor.hogan.2

Ok - we will see in 3 months. But Eircom can only process so many addresses.

People already think twice before downloading, this would make me think less.

you get warnings before consequences and will not be brought to court and have to pay thousands per song.

Cabaal

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

50 times 52 = 2600 as a percentage of 500,000 = 0.52%

http://www.siliconrepublic.com/news/news.nv?storyid=single7544 - thats old and gives 436,000 broadband customers, so likely closer to 500,000 now.

Atleast if your going to quote figures use some more up-to-date data then 2006

More up to date data is provided in the link in the first post of this thread
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2010/0524/1224271013389.html

The Irish Recorded Music Association (Irma), whose members include EMI, Sony, Universal and Warner, reached an out-of-court settlement with Eircom in February 2009 under which the telecoms company agreed to introduce such a system for its 750,000 broadband users.

Two years from now I'm guessing you won't see no more then 20k users affected by this ruling, small drop in the ocean for Eircom...clearly they are prepared to take the hit

once the word gets around numbers affected will drop

conor.hogan.2

That was just a quick check to get rough figures.

750000 makes the point even more.

While I do not have figures to back this up I bet somewhere around 300,000, or more, of those are likely illegally downloading.

Peanut

FloatingVoter wrote: »

8 or 9 out of 10 people think illicit downloading begins and ends at TPB etc. If they stop downloading, IRMA / Eircom can declare a victory.

TPB, and before that, Russian sites/emule/limewire, and before that Napster. People will just move on to the next platform, which is already happening now to an extent.

As for changing attitudes, this approach hasn't worked in the past, unlikely to work now.

What they should be pushing for is a deal to license more streaming services to operate here. Why bother downloading when you can just search and immediately listen? People will pay a fair price for that.

Increasingly online mobile devices are also being used as music players, and if more mobile Internet spectrum is available in the future (leading to cheaper over the air data), the idea of even a downloaded music collection may begin to seem quaint.

blubloblu

FloatingVoter wrote: »

8 or 9 out of 10 people think illicit downloading begins and ends at TPB etc. If they stop downloading, IRMA / Eircom can declare a victory. As for going after the rest, why bother wasting resources. This is a game of percentages from their point of view.

That might be true at this moment in time, but if you chase illegal downloaders off one network, they'll just go to the next one. This solves nothing.

conor.hogan.2

Exactly they will move on.
Typical bull**** - they could solve it.

Make a deal with Apple to release ****ing everything on their labels to every country that has itunes at the same time for the same price.

Same with shows and movies.

99c or 9.99 album or less in some cases and fast downloads with album art and if you lose you get to redownload would essentially kill piracy.

The few who would still pirate coudl be easily picked off and dealt with.

tinner777

any reports of phone calls or letters yet?

conor.hogan.2

Does the IRMA expect to get any proof from Eircom either direct or via DtecNet?

Or just take their word that the letters are sent out?

axer

Why are everyone getting so worked up about it if it won't make much difference to anyone?

axer

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

Does the IRMA expect to get any proof from Eircom either direct or via DtecNet?

Or just take their word that the letters are sent out?

DtecNet will pass the list of ips to eircom directly who will just issue the letters without asking for further proof. You can challenge the findings via a hotline if you think they are not true. Eircom are not investigating anything. It might be a good idea to read the thread before posting more.

Cabaal

Peanut wrote: »

As for changing attitudes, this approach hasn't worked in the past, unlikely to work now.

Lets see IRMA's plan is this,

- Little Jimmy downloads copyright material
- IRMA find an eircom IP downloading copyright material and report it to eircom
- Eircom send a letter, phone or terminate the service
- Little Jimmy's parents get the phone call, letter and termination in relation to the eircom service and the usage on it
- Little Jimmy's parents give Jimmy a right bollocking for doing stuff illegally and getting caught, if the service was terminated they'll be even more ****ed off and rightly so.
- As little Jimmy's parents are the bill payers Jimmy's actions create a liability for them!

Can you see little Jimmy continuing to do what he did?
Can you see his parents being happy with him if he continues doing what he did?

His parents wouldn't be good parents if they didn't ensure he was acting within the law, they also wouldn't be good parents if they allowed such a liability to happen again

Its all very simple really,

FloatingVoter

I hope little Jimmy's dad has a receipt for that remastered copy of "Exile on Main Street" and his mum realises that little Jimmy also shouldn't be downloading the latest episodes of "Desperate Housewives" for her....:rolleyes:

Peanut

Alternatively little Jimmy's dad doesn't like the idea of someone spying on their connection and thinks Eircom can f*** right off and will change provider if it comes to the point where the connection is terminated.

If by this time somehow all the other providers have been coerced into this, and the amount of warnings being issued has increased, little Jimmy's dad will hear about his mates getting these letters but nothing happening, and other people who haven't downloaded anything, and will promptly ignore them or, if it comes to it, call them up to say, "It wasn't me".

---
IRMA etc. know this whole charade is based on very shaky ground, so they have been very careful to put ample opportunity in the process for a customer to challenge the warnings. This will work for a while but eventually people will realise that if they were to mass-disconnect customers based on their IP, they would face a significant backlash. Either the low disconnection rate or the receptiveness of ISPs to accept challenges to warnings will become clear. *

So they can't ramp it up to the point where it might be an effective deterrent, the only course they can take is hype up the sanctions in the hope of creating the impression that it's a tough line. This may work temporarily but it's not an effective long term solution.

* I imagine there's nothing to stop UPC etc. taking a line that, if a customer receives a warning, that UPC will be let's say, more accomodating than their rivals in rescinding it. This force of competitive advantage would also push towards the whole thing collapsing.

conor.hogan.2

axer wrote: »

DtecNet will pass the list of ips to eircom directly who will just issue the letters without asking for further proof. You can challenge the findings via a hotline if you think they are not true. Eircom are not investigating anything. It might be a good idea to read the thread before posting more.

Might be a good idea to read my comment first....


''Does the IRMA expect to get any proof from Eircom either direct or via DtecNet?

Or just take their word that the letters are sent out?''

Do the IRMA expect any proof..... or do they just take Eircoms word that they send out warnings to the addresses matched to the ips.

Le King

Cabaal wrote: »

Lets see IRMA's plan is this,

- Little Jimmy downloads copyright material
- IRMA find an eircom IP downloading copyright material and report it to eircom
- Eircom send a letter, phone or terminate the service
- Little Jimmy's parents get the phone call, letter and termination in relation to the eircom service and the usage on it
- Little Jimmy's parents give Jimmy a right bollocking for doing stuff illegally and getting caught, if the service was terminated they'll be even more ****ed off and rightly so.
- As little Jimmy's parents are the bill payers Jimmy's actions create a liability for them!

Can you see little Jimmy continuing to do what he did?
Can you see his parents being happy with him if he continues doing what he did?

His parents wouldn't be good parents if they didn't ensure he was acting within the law, they also wouldn't be good parents if they allowed such a liability to happen again

Its all very simple really,

Not simple at all actually. Now you are moving towards an ethical argument. Which by it's own nature is not an appropriate discussion for this topic.

The "good parent" is an argument for another day.

Also, as Jimmy is under-age, therefore depending on the mental age of Jimmy, Jimmy himself would be solely liable if the parents could prove he acted upon his own accord.

Under-age downloading will be another grey area to deal with.

yoyo

Osu wrote: »

Under-age downloading will be another grey area to deal with.

Not really, even if your neighbours abuse your own internet connection you the bill payer are responsible, its up to you to "secure" your internet and monitor its activity

Nick

Peanut

yoyo wrote: »

Not really, even if your neighbours abuse your own internet connection you the bill payer are responsible, its up to you to "secure" your internet and monitor its activity

In so far as your contract is with your ISP, they can disconnect you at a whim, however what IRMA are pushing for is a nationwide sanction, which is a bit different than an individual ISP contract.

It's a sneaky way to introduce something with a legal-like basis which almost certainly wouldn't stand up legally if the EU pushed ahead with recognising net access as a fundamental right.

Sandvich

Cabaal wrote: »

His parents wouldn't be good parents if they didn't ensure he was acting within the law, they also wouldn't be good parents if they allowed such a liability to happen again

I don't think this is true at all. What if we turn back the clocks to when Sodomy was still illegal(not that long ago) and little Jimmy turned out to be gay?

Legal might and moral right aren't the same thing, which is the whole reason we have these discussions. We've never really reached a conclusion as a global society on it - but by default the law has been defined by lobby groups and large corporate interest, which is nothing new.

Most people, like it or not, do not consider file sharing a serious moral offense but if you had reactionary or aggressive parents that panic easily such a situation could turn into a nightmare. It's not surprising that kids will not find issue in engaging what is very close to a victimless crime(if they weren't going to buy the music anyway, and chances are they weren't), and it's unfair to come down like a ton of bricks on them for doing so.

I do think musicians should be paid in some shape or form but places like Creative Commons are the way forward. I dislike when people bring morals into things like this when a lot of the people running the music industry are immensely immoral themselves.

dub45

Sandvich wrote: »

I do think musicians should be paid in some shape or form but places like Creative Commons are the way forward.

I am sure musicians reading this (not to mention composers, studio technnicians producers and all involved in making recordings) will be immenesely grateful to you for this concession - how generous of you!:rolleyes:

Sandvich wrote: »

I dislike when people bring morals into things like this when a lot of the people running the music industry are immensely immoral themselves.

And why should morals not be brought up as an issue when copyright material is being distributed by people who do not have the right to distribute the material thereby affecting the income of musicians who you generously conceded should be paid in some shape or form above?

I presume you can supply chapter and verse for your claim that a lot of the people running the music industry are immensely immoral themselves? And even if it proved to be the case it is not an argument for distributing material that you do not have the right to distribute.

Cabaal

Osu wrote: »

Also, as Jimmy is under-age, therefore depending on the mental age of Jimmy, Jimmy himself would be solely liable if the parents could prove he acted upon his own accord.
.

Doesn't matter, parents are paying for the service and they agreed to Eircom's T&C's, its their job to ensure it was not used in illegal ways.

Your suggested argument has no affect

Cabaal

Sandvich wrote: »

Most people, like it or not, do not consider file sharing a serious moral offense but if you had reactionary or aggressive parents that panic easily such a situation could turn into a nightmare. It's not surprising that kids will not find issue in engaging what is very close to a victimless crime(if they weren't going to buy the music anyway, and chances are they weren't), and it's unfair to come down like a ton of bricks on them for doing so

Ok lets have an example.
- Say your a photograpgher and your making a living from it
- Now you take a photo which somebody then copys and places on the net
- You make your living from the photos and your photos are obviously copyright and they are your work so your not happy.

Now do you think its ok for somebody to share your hard work for free, now they can run off prints and frame them in their home or even run off prints and sell them to third party's.. all without your permission.

You'd be lieing to say you'd be ok with this

I do think musicians should be paid in some shape or form but places like Creative Commons are the way forward.

Creative Commons is the way forward?, exactly how is the person getting paid under Creative Commons? Please do tell

Given people somehow think its ok to effectively "steal" under current laws how do you suppose any other license will change this and make these people pay?

I dislike when people bring morals into things like this when a lot of the people running the music industry are immensely immoral themselves.

God forbid the difference between right and wrong might actually screw your twisted argument.

Taking/using something with permission = ok
Taking/using something without permission = not ok

Ok look its simple

Over the last few hours I've been reading through this (.pdf) paper on the correlation between file sharing and its impact on music sales. The paper finds that, statistically, file sharing has zero affect on music sales, which is an interesting result.

Fighting Irish

axer wrote: »

Why are everyone getting so worked up about it if it won't make much difference to anyone?

Stuff always starts out small, and gets bigger and bigger, in ten years you won't be allowed watch porn online (over exaggeration)
Never the ball start rolling