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

Karmafaerie

axer wrote: »

Surely Eircom are getting financially rewarded for this move too. I would think that is Eircoms only motivation here.

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.



In other words.

Cha-ching!!!

EasyBoy1974

I think anyone still with Eircom should jump ship and go with another provider - at least in order to send a message to other ISPs.

Before anyone says "you've nothing to fear unless you're illegally downloading", i don't buy that for a second. I don't trust Eircom or Irma or anyone else with the power to cut off Internet access - it's should be a fundamental human right in my opinion.

VampiricPadraig

to identify Eircom customers who are sharing, and not simply downloading

I'll take that statement with a pinch of salt

EDIT:

EasyBoy1974 wrote:

Before anyone says "you've nothing to fear unless you're illegally downloading", i don't buy that for a second. I don't trust Eircom or Irma or anyone else with the power to cut off Internet access - it's should be a fundamental human right in my opinion.

I agree. I am paying €50 every month for a service that I am being limited to. This has gone too far Eircom

Yawns

Roll on the death of Eircom tbh. Any ISP that does this deserves to be closed down due to customers moving away. I for one am going to go with another company. I had to get Eircom last year as no other provider had me in coverage but this is no longer the case.

bye bye eircom. Hope you go bust

axer

VampiricPadraig wrote: »

I'll take that statement with a pinch of salt

It would be next to impossible for them to go after downloaders since it would be so difficult to prove anything.

It is very easy for me to use peer-to-peer software to download a file from a user, see their ip address and confirm that what I have downloaded i.e. what this user has shared, is music from artist that I represent. Granted I would still fight against a situation like that if I was the one being fined since it is not that clear cut in many situations.

Moriarty

axer wrote: »

Bolded in a number of places for you.

Fair'nuff.

axer wrote: »

Considering UPC are resisting attempts by IRMA et al would show that there is not a clear cut case that IRMA can bring against ISPs. Eircom must have been financially motivated to do this by funds being given by IRMA to Eircom.

As far as I know, the only reason Eircom caved so quickly is because they simply can't afford a drawn-out case before the High Court for a year or two. They are in too serious a financial position to be funding some new yachts and bentleys for the legal profession.

I can't imagine IRMA would be in any way inclined to pay eircom to do this, when they can just wave an expensive court case in front of their nose and have the same desired effect.

axer

I think blocking The Pirate Bay website was much much worse than this.

_Whimsical_

Are there likely to be consequences of being cut off from Eircom?

Will you need to disclose it if you move to another ISP and if you do will they be able to refuse you?

thomashood10

This seems like a massive scare tactic to me.

They must be doing more then just supplying eircom with an IP or the whole exercise is pointless.

How can they tell if it's legal or not? If I download a Metallica CD from a torrent site, surely it's completely legal if I own the CD. How can they tell what I'm actually downloading anyway as opposed to guessing, based on the name.

Anyway yeh, will be interesting to see how this pans out. I'm sure some of us will get a phonecall

DON'T COPY THAT FLOPPY!

http://thefreevpn.com/

skelliser

UPC are going to fight this and they have the financial muscle to do it when it was clear eircom didnt.
Cant see UPC caving in as they provide broadband across europe.

Anyways i moved to upc last month. I will not have my internet censored because some company paid for it.

axer

thomashood10 wrote: »

How can they tell if it's legal or not? If I download a Metallica CD from a torrent site, surely it's completely legal if I own the CD. How can they tell what I'm actually downloading anyway as opposed to guessing, based on the name.

It is illegal to redistribute the copyrighted material to others. This is not about whether you legally have the copyrighted material - it is about sharing it with others.[/QUOTE]

the_syco

thomashood10 wrote: »

How can they tell if it's legal or not? If I download a Metallica CD from a torrent site, surely it's completely legal if I own the CD. How can they tell what I'm actually downloading anyway as opposed to guessing, based on the name.

The article says they're going after the sharers. Thus, if they join a torrent (legally, as they're probably have consent to do so by the record company), they can see your IP. Tracert the IP, and they'll probably see it's with an Eircom client, and they'll ask Eircom to give a warning about it.

RangeR

axer wrote: »

Surely Eircom are getting financially rewarded for this move too. I would think that is Eircoms only motivation here.

Eircom don't have ANY money to fight the rights owners. Pretty much the only reason it's happening.

A list of IP Address will be given to Eircom. Eircom will be told that it's a list of infringer's. Eircom won't question it and simply send out letters to users. There is no debate. There is a mickey mouse appeal process. The burden of proof is squarely put on our [the customers] shoulders.

vectra

the_syco wrote: »

The article says they're going after the sharers. Thus, if they join a torrent (legally, as they're probably have consent to do so by the record company), they can see your IP. Tracert the IP, and they'll probably see it's with an Eircom client, and they'll ask Eircom to give a warning about it.

And what can they do with the likes of RS downloaders?
Those files are rarely named as they should be so how could they possibly know what you downloaded?

VampiricPadraig

axer wrote: »

It would be next to impossible for them to go after downloaders since it would be so difficult to prove anything.

It is very easy for me to use peer-to-peer software to download a file from a user, see their ip address and confirm that what I have downloaded i.e. what this user has shared, is music from artist that I represent. Granted I would still fight against a situation like that if I was the one being fined since it is not that clear cut in many situations.

If they tried to ban everyone who downloads. There wouldn't be many eircom users at all

Karmafaerie

vectra wrote: »

And what can they do with the likes of RS downloaders?
Those files are rarely named as they should be so how could they possibly know what you downloaded?

And where did you find out about the file?
Through a forum or cummunity.

Dtecnet will be monitoring these communities, and it doesn't matter if the file is named "I'm a legal download" if there's a forum or group sharing it, all they have to do is download it themselves and they'll know what it is.

They are going to have group of people who's job it is it monitor rapidshare groups.

watty

If they tried to ban everyone who downloads. There wouldn't be many eircom users at all

Untrue. In reality less than 20% of people do illegal downloads.

Knasher

If I remember correctly, this was part of a settlement that Eircom reached with some anti-piracy group after they got sued for advertising their services on the pirate bay as been good for downloading music and videos. Obviously the music industry hopes to use this to put presure on the rest of the isps to enact the same rules. So far none of them have buckled but I would be surprised.

As far as I know its only the music industry at the moment that is interested in this approach. If it works out for them I'd imagine that the movie industry would be next, although I doubt it will be all that effective, I think it will be far more lightly to drive people to use p2p in more underground ways which are harder to police. It would be very interesting however, if the games industry went in the same direction. Most PC games at the moment require some sort of internet connection in order to play, and banning people from the internet is effectively banning them from ever buying a game.

NOGMaxpower

watty wrote: »

Untrue. In reality less than 20% of people do illegal downloads.

what do you base that number on? thats like saying only 20% of people on the net look at porn.

Simply not true or accurate.

NOGMaxpower

EasyBoy1974 wrote: »

I think anyone still with Eircom should jump ship and go with another provider - at least in order to send a message to other ISPs.

Before anyone says "you've nothing to fear unless you're illegally downloading", i don't buy that for a second. I don't trust Eircom or Irma or anyone else with the power to cut off Internet access - it's should be a fundamental human right in my opinion.

HERE HERE EasyBoy,

I am not with Eircom myself, but if I was I'd be outa there... the issue here is that Eircom are sharing your personal info with a private company. What other information will they be able to gather about you and use for their own means.

If you're with Eircom jump ship NOW.

axer

vectra wrote: »

And what can they do with the likes of RS downloaders?
Those files are rarely named as they should be so how could they possibly know what you downloaded?

They wont get them unless they somehow get rapid share which is unlikely. They will just go after the obvious sharers now - those via torrents other p2p. Newsgroups and RS won't be affected especially when you use newsgroups with encryption.

axer

NOGMaxpower wrote: »

I am not with Eircom myself, but if I was I'd be outa there... the issue here is that Eircom are sharing your personal info with a private company. What other information will they be able to gather about you and use for their own means.

They are not sharing information with anyone - that is why they are the ones sending out the letters.

Benzino

Karmafaerie wrote: »

Dtecnet will be monitoring these communities, and it doesn't matter if the file is named "I'm a legal download" if there's a forum or group sharing it, all they have to do is download it themselves and they'll know what it is.

This can't be true can it? They would need quite allot of people monitoring these sites 24/7 to do that.

skelliser

I wouldnt put it past these private tracking companies to create there own fake torrents in a bid to entrap people.

Karmafaerie

Benzino wrote: »

This can't be true can it? They would need quite allot of people monitoring these sites 24/7 to do that.

The are limited to 50 warning letters per month for now, so they don't intend on catching everyone.
Just enough to send a message I suppose.

jor el

skelliser wrote: »

I wouldnt put it past these private tracking companies to create there own fake torrents in a bid to entrap people.

They already do, and have been for some time. Another common approach is to use fake or corrupt data, to corrupt the download.

As for the likes of Rapidshare, it would be very easy for them to request the IP data of the person that uploaded a copyright file, as well as those for all downloaders. Whether RS will supply this info or not, I couldn't say, but you are as tracable using RS as you are when using torrents.

skelliser

jor el wrote: »

As for the likes of Rapidshare, it would be very easy for them to request the IP data of the person that uploaded a copyright file, as well as those for all downloaders. Whether RS will supply this info or not, I couldn't say, but you are as tracable using RS as you are when using torrents.

But rapidshare already delete rars that are deemed illegal so i would say they are way down the list.

Whats the story with usenet and newsgroups

the_syco

vectra wrote: »

And what can they do with the likes of RS downloaders?
Those files are rarely named as they should be so how could they possibly know what you downloaded?

Under the pilot scheme, Eircom customers who illegally share copyrighted music will get three warnings before having their broadband service cut off for a year.

You stop one person downloading, you stop one person downloading. You stop one pserson sharing, you may stop a few hundred downloading.

NOGMaxpower wrote: »

the issue here is that Eircom are sharing your personal info with a private company. What other information will they be able to gather about you and use for their own means.

Christ all f**king mighty. How many times must you people be told? Eircom doesn't give out the info. Company gives list of Eircom IP's to Eircom. Eircom then sends letter to the owner of that IP during the time that it was used for illegal means.

Benzino wrote: »

This can't be true can it? They would need quite allot of people monitoring these sites 24/7 to do that.

They do things differently. Instead of getting of all the files, they'll get rid of a file near the end. Example: big file is split into 40 parts. They get part 27 removed. Person uses their bandwidth to get the other 39 parts. User then has to download another 40 parts. Other 40 parts has file 8 removed. Person eventually gets pissed off, and doesn't download it. This has been reported to have happened on quite a few releases. After a few hours, all the parts get removed from the internet.

The reason they go after the P2P is P2P is easy for the non-skilled computer user. For the skilled computer user there are many ways. Napster is an example: when it went down, lots of people were affected, as a very easy way to download was taken away. Same with torrents. You click on a link, and you download it. Not so with RS, MU, HF, DF, etc, as you must join a forum, find links that are not dead, download links, etc. Thus many non-skilled computer users will go for the "easy" route. Get rid of that "easy" route, and those looking for an "easy" route may find it easier to just buy the stuff.

choronzonix

So what seems to begoing to happen is that this company will bemonitoring a variety of p2p/torrent site traffic and nabbing the ip addresses of Eircom users right? So presumably they'll never be able to monitor every p2p site out there - but what I'm most wondering about are the private bittorrent sites, are these immune from this kind of monitoring? I'm slightly confused as to what exactly they'll be monitoring.

EasyBoy1974

Something else strikes me - in the original article, Dick Doyle of Irma says “We are trying to encourage people to go back to legitimate networks to get their music,” but really, if you think about it, without illegal music downloads there would be no legitimate networks - it was only under extreme pressure that the music labels capitulated and allowed downloads - they wanted to cling on to their old business model!