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

Peanut

watty wrote: »

Downloading copyright material for free (in a manner that infringes the owner's rights) is not a Basic Human right.

It seems many of the pro-IRMA posters here are also pro-Collective punishment.
A backward step, IMHO.

conor.hogan.2

Make the music they own online and cheaper (be realistic) and people will buy it.

Simple.

watty

Peanut wrote: »

It seems many of the pro-IRMA posters here are also pro-Collective punishment.
A backward step, IMHO.

If you think I'm pro -IRMA you didn't read my posts. I think RIAA, IRMA etc run a protection racket. That and perceived high prices or any lack of legal distribution is no excuse for copyright infringement.

There is no collective punishment proposed by anyone either.

1. It seems there are those that just want free.
2. There are those that would like cheaper.
3. Then there are the naive that think there is a price point that would stop the larger infringers, the 10% or so that will, unmanaged eat 90% of traffic.

This scheme :

• Little effect on Copyright Infringement.
• Cut a very few major infringers off temporarily.
• Extremely unlikely to cut off a single ordinary user (getting hit by lightning and winning lotto same day more likely
• Has no effect on privacy.
• Only implements what has always been in the T&C.

People need to stop over-reacting or else the conclusion is that they are genuine "Freetards".

watty

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

Make the music they own online and cheaper (be realistic) and people will buy it.

Simple.

It is online and cheaper. The "Freetards" won't buy it no matter how cheap.

Nerin

watty wrote: »

It is online and cheaper. The "Freetards" won't buy it no matter how cheap.

where's your proof?

conor.hogan.2

Making ALL of their music online and as cheap or cheaper than it is now will stop a lot of Piracy.

Anyone who then still Pirates should be prosecuted.

Proof seems to be few and far between on this thread, so good luck in getting proof for wattys comment.

blubloblu

I disagree with people arguing over prices. 99c for a track and 9.99 for an album is a good price.
The problem is that the range of legal services isn't that great. They're all just trying to emulate selling albums online too literally, when there is potential for much more.
Region-locking needs to be done away with, it's incredibly frustrating to be locked out of content.
DRM was an awful idea and its eradication should be complete by now.
We need to have open platforms for online music selling so that many more operators can set up their own stores, rather than the dozen or so that have the market right now. If we could re-create the eco-system of independent, small, friendly, knowledgeable, community-feel record shops, that would be a good step forward. Many illegal music sites, especially those with forums, have successfully recreated this feel.
Eircom should have negotiated a license for its illegally downloading customers. A voluntary, fairly priced, transparent licensing scheme would be fantastic. We just need to poke the record labels into action.

Peanut

watty wrote: »

If you think I'm pro -IRMA you didn't read my posts.

Apologies, However there is a theme with some posters here that if you're you're anti-IRMA/RIAA, you must be pro-infringement.

There are basic rights to seek and carry on employment that are enshrined by law in this country.

Many people now earn a living on the Net.

My concern is that by proposing disconnection, instead of throttling speeds for example, AND making this enforceable across all ISPs, essentially a private company can revoke access to your means of making a living, based on a non-legally determined judgement AND you may not even be the guilty party.

I don't believe this is a desirable outcome for any civilised country, and I think IRMA etc. have shot themselves in the foot by going this direction instead of speed reductions etc. (not that it would have made one iota of difference to the amount of infringement either way.)

conor.hogan.2

All that is available and ready to be done - but the records own the music.

Only then can say who sells it and where - and they want to keep it to a few companies like they do now.


Not all music is worth 99c - much like not all albums are worth 20 euro in the shops......

They should go more pro legal online and then they should be able to pick off the few people who still insist on illegal downloading, if they offer it all online easily and cheaper the number who still ''pirate'' will be so few that they can be dealt with easily.

Peanut

watty wrote: »

It is online and cheaper. The "Freetards" won't buy it no matter how cheap.

Nerin wrote: »

where's your proof?

I remember a certain Russian website being very popular a few years ago, it wasn't free but it might have been a bit too cheap (and none of the profits going to artists, but that's another discussion).

watty

But it didn't affect p2p traffic.

BrianD

Sorry Peanut. Not only are you not making sense but you are also contradicting yourself.

Peanut wrote: »

Apologies, However there is a theme with some posters here that if you're you're anti-IRMA/RIAA, you must be pro-infringement.

I'm not pro-IRMA, they represent a small group of labels, but i do believe they are on the right in what they are doing. They have to protect the interests of their members and stop their work of their artists being stolen. Remember if you steal something in a shop or a home you are likely to lose your liberty. Not sure if they allow broadband access in Irish prison.

There are basic rights to seek and carry on employment that are enshrined by law in this country.

Many people now earn a living on the Net.

My concern is that by proposing disconnection, instead of throttling speeds for example, AND making this enforceable across all ISPs, essentially a private company can revoke access to your means of making a living, based on a non-legally determined judgement AND you may not even be the guilty party.

If a salesrep drives his company car while drunk and loses his licence then his ability to earn a living is severely curtailed. No different to having your broadband discontinued for breaking the terms of conditions.

Musicians are now making their living on the net. They are selling music online, promoting themselves and so on. So the right to earn a living on the net seems to be limited in your view. Lets be honest, theres very few people "telecommuting" as we would like to be believed. For those who do require broadband to make a living surely they would be smart enough to take steps to make sure they are not cut off???

Not legally determined?? Well the court cases so far have gone in IRMAs favour. In fact, I don't think IRMA could have believed the judgment they got in the last case. The fact of the matter there is no legal determination required as you have already agreed to their terms and conditions.

I don't believe this is a desirable outcome for any civilised country, and I think IRMA etc. have shot themselves in the foot by going this direction instead of speed reductions etc. (not that it would have made one iota of difference to the amount of infringement either way.)

It makes no difference to most people. Everybody know its wrong now there is a deterrent inplace to stop it. And its a fair and measured deterrent. It's much better than a legal route that would see people ending up before the courts. Ultimately, the law is on the side of the copyright holders and the legal penalties are stiff.

Oh Sheesh Yall Twas A Dream

I think a subscription based service would be the best, unlimited downloads for €10 a month. I'm Definitely not paying €1 for a song that I'm only going to listen to once.Half the problem is the music industry itself, companies like spotify can't sell their service until they get the permission off the music companies. I don't see why we can't get that service yet England can, were basically the same market. The same thing with Ebooks, these companies charge the same price for the file as an actual book. You can see why books cost money because there is actually something physically there, But I could make unlimited Ebooks from my computer and it wouldn't cost me anything to produce. I think people would be willing to pay for these products if they were reasonably priced. The same with Netflix, people would definitely buy this product if it came to Ireland, Its only the industry itself that is halting its own expansion. They make these absurd claims on the money they have potentially lost, the sooner the industry realises that people aren't going to pay crazy money for the products their selling and adjust their selling strategy the better.

watty

It's called Radio.

You can listen to it on t'Internet too.

CD at €20 to €30 was crazy, esp, when DVDs dropped to €10 to €20.
But guess what, Plenty CDs are now €6 approx. Even €20 DVDs are under €10 or even €6 after a while.

There is Spotify, Amazon and Nokia and Apple doing online media. (Streaming and sales).

There are a hard core that won't pay anything.

conor.hogan.2

IRMA - right train, wrong track.

of course when you own it all you could decide to have an orgy on the track so its up to them in the end.


Those hard core can and should be picked off by being brought to court later - when the music industry gets its act together.

Peanut

BrianD wrote: »

If a salesrep drives his company car while drunk and loses his licence then his ability to earn a living is severely curtailed. No different to having your broadband discontinued for breaking the terms of conditions.

Actually it is. It's a sanction set down by the legal system - not a private 3rd party. That's a big difference in my book. Why are you happy to let unaccountable corporations act as judge and jury?

BrianD wrote: »

Musicians are now making their living on the net. They are selling music online, promoting themselves and so on. So the right to earn a living on the net seems to be limited in your view. Lets be honest, theres very few people "telecommuting" as we would like to be believed. For those who do require broadband to make a living surely they would be smart enough to take steps to make sure they are not cut off???

Agreed, ISP customers can upgrade to a Business account to avoid disconnections (at least in the current agreement with Eircom). But why should they have to do this to ensure protection from a policy that should never have seen the light of day in the first place.

BrianD wrote: »

Not legally determined?? Well the court cases so far have gone in IRMAs favour. In fact, I don't think IRMA could have believed the judgment they got in the last case. The fact of the matter there is no legal determination required as you have already agreed to their terms and conditions.

I'm sure they can't believe it either, because it goes against all notions of the presumption of innocence and personal rights such as free expression. These are the very reasons the original Hadopi bill was struck down in France:

On 10 June 2009, the Constitutional Council of France struck down the central, controversial, portion of HADOPI, that would have allowed sanctions against internet users accused of copyright violations (as opposed to being convicted for same), ruling that because "the Internet is a component of the freedom of expression" and "in French law the presumption of innocence prevails", only a judge can impose sanctions under the law.

Now people will continue to argue that a customer is bound under the terms & conditions of their ISP.

However, contracts do not nullify your statutory rights. You have constitutional rights to earning a living and free expression, and there is a good argument to be made that unrestricted access to the Internet is a component of this, as determined in French law. (This is clearly not the same as suggesting that a lack of availability in your area is somehow infringing your rights.)

Even though the current ISP agreement(s) are not items of law, a forced adoption by all ISPs will bring about a de facto arrangement where you may be deprived of this freedom, without guilt being established.

In fact, there is rarely a direct one to one mapping between IP address and specific user, so in a majority of cases there will be innocent parties penalised, without even considering the numerous cases of false positives seen in other jurisdictions.

If this does go ahead with all ISPs then it seems doubtful whether it can survive without a legal challenge, and yet if it doesn't apply to all ISPs then it will be even more pointless.

edit: Modified arguments from point of restraint of trade as current Eircom agreement does not apply to Business accounts, however it may still be considered an unreasonable restraint of trade if your net access is cut while you happen to be using a consumer package.

BrianD

Peanut, your use of the constitution is a bit selective. Your constitutional rights are governed by law. File sharing of copyrighted material is against the law. You would be a brave an to claim constitutional protection with this in mind.

The Eircom system is fair. They already have their right to be judge and jury under their terms and condiions. The escalating system allows ample opportunity for the account holder to remedy their online behaviour. The civil and criminal remedies for copyright theft are quite severe. Its very advantageous to society that we do not clog up the courts with these cases - for everyone involved. Ultimately, if the law and the ISP's T&Cs are in synch let the ISPs police it. I fail to see where the presumption of innocence is negated.


As for the French, I'm not familiar with their rullings. However, it is not unusual for these rulings to be followed by the draftin of more specific and draconian laws. The copyright lobby is a powerful one.

IP addresses - again not an expert. You are right that they dont identify a specific user but they can identify the account holder. The Eircom approach allows adequate provision for the account holder to get their house in order. The onus is for the account holder to operate within the T&C's.

jor el

Peanut wrote: »

However, contracts do not nullify your statutory rights. You have constitutional rights to earning a living and free expression, and there is a good argument to be made that unrestricted access to the Internet is a component of this, as determined in French law.

No one, and I mean absolutely no one, has a constitutional or statutory right to break the law. The downloading or sharing of copyright material, without the express consent on the copyright holder, is illegal. Statutory rights and the constitution have nothing to do with this.

blubloblu

jor el wrote: »

No one, and I mean absolutely no one, has a constitutional or statutory right to break the law. The downloading or sharing of copyright material, without the express consent on the copyright holder, is illegal. Statutory rights and the constitution have nothing to do with this.

You're using a strawman argument. No-one is saying breaking the law is a right. We are saying that only a judge, in the context of a fair trial, should be allowed to remove your rights. Third parties should not become the judge, jury, and executioner. The authority of the courts and due legal process shall be respected.

This is not an extraordinary thing to ask.

RangeR

blubloblu wrote: »

You're using a strawman argument. No-one is saying breaking the law is a right. We are saying that only a judge, in the context of a fair trial, should be allowed to remove your rights. Third parties should not become the judge, jury, and executioner. The authority of the courts and due legal process shall be respected.

This is not an extraordinary thing to ask.

While I tend to agree, where in law does it say an internet connection is a right?

blubloblu

RangeR wrote: »

While I tend to agree, where in law does it say an internet connection is a right?

The right to express ideas opinions and receive information through any media is guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Article 6.1.i of Bunreacht na hÉireann guarantees freedom of speech.
The European Covention on Human Rights also guarantees the right to access information. The Lisbon treaty made this convention legally binding.

The European Parliament have voted to secure fudamental freedoms for the Internet. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P6-TA-2009-0194+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN
they've explicitly rejected three strikes http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/03/european-parliament-unites-against-3-strikes-acta-secrecy.ars

Taking away a person's right to read printed texts would fall foul of these rights. The Internet is the same. We cannot hold double standards.

RangeR

blubloblu wrote: »

The right to express ideas opinions and receive information through any media is guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Article 6.1.i of Bunreacht na hÉireann guarantees freedom of speech.
The European Covention on Human Rights also guarantees the right to access information. The Lisbon treaty made this convention legally binding.

The European Parliament have voted to secure fudamental freedoms for the Internet. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P6-TA-2009-0194+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN
they've explicitly rejected three strikes http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/03/european-parliament-unites-against-3-strikes-acta-secrecy.ars

Taking away a person's right to read printed texts would fall foul of these rights. The Internet is the same. We cannot hold double standards.

Hmmm. NOBODY has total right to free speech. Let's start with that.

Secondly, disconnecting someone's broadband IS NOT limiting their free speech. IF you MUST speak via the interweb, then there are many other ways of doing it.

You'rs ars technica link is broken but never mind, I rad it before and have the jist.

You mention the Irish right to freedom of speech.
You mention the Euro convention on Human rights to access information.

While I haven't read the full legals of each of these, I'm sure it doesn't stop ISP's from disconnecting customer connections for violating the terms of the broadband contract. You are given limited use of the ISP network which just so happens to have backhaul to the internet. If you don't want to be restricted by the ISP terms of contract then purchase your own backhaul connection and maintain your own network.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not agreeing that a 3rd party has NO right to tel an ISP to void a user contract. This is purely wrong and wide open to abuse. However eircom have not challenged it. The reason : They have NO MONEY. I'm sure eircom are just waiting for someone else [with deeper pockets] to challenge it but until that time, it's going to happen.

Here's a thought, if YOU get disconnected, you can challenge it in court. Hell, you can even bring it to Europe.

blubloblu

RangeR wrote: »

Hmmm. NOBODY has total right to free speech. Let's start with that.

Secondly, disconnecting someone's broadband IS NOT limiting their free speech. IF you MUST speak via the interweb, then there are many other ways of doing it.

You'rs ars technica link is broken but never mind, I rad it before and have the jist.

You mention the Irish right to freedom of speech.
You mention the Euro convention on Human rights to access information.

While I haven't read the full legals of each of these, I'm sure it doesn't stop ISP's from disconnecting customer connections for violating the terms of the broadband contract. You are given limited use of the ISP network which just so happens to have backhaul to the internet. If you don't want to be restricted by the ISP terms of contract then purchase your own backhaul connection and maintain your own network.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not agreeing that a 3rd party has NO right to tel an ISP to void a user contract. This is purely wrong and wide open to abuse. However eircom have not challenged it. The reason : They have NO MONEY. I'm sure eircom are just waiting for someone else [with deeper pockets] to challenge it but until that time, it's going to happen.

Here's a thought, if YOU get disconnected, you can challenge it in court. Hell, you can even bring it to Europe.

I would argue that disconnection from the Internet is a very serious infringement on free speech. It may not be total, but it's extremely serious and should not be done light-heartedly.

Basically, I agree with you. The whole situation is in a legal grey area and open to appeal. They might get away with it legally, but it most certainly isn't right.

BrianD

blubloblu wrote: »

The right to express ideas opinions and receive information through any media is guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Article 6.1.i of Bunreacht na hÉireann guarantees freedom of speech.
The European Covention on Human Rights also guarantees the right to access information. The Lisbon treaty made this convention legally binding.

The European Parliament have voted to secure fudamental freedoms for the Internet. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P6-TA-2009-0194+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN
they've explicitly rejected three strikes http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/03/european-parliament-unites-against-3-strikes-acta-secrecy.ars

Taking away a person's right to read printed texts would fall foul of these rights. The Internet is the same. We cannot hold double standards.

Double standards?!?

What happens if I don't pay my bill and my ISP cuts me off? Should I be reinstated for free as a constitutional right? The fact of the matter is that you don't have a right to Internet access, you don't have the right to break the law using your internet access and there is nothing in the IRMA/Eircom deal that could even has the vaguest whiff of being unconstitional.

I am a supporter of the work of Amnesty International and have learned of many people of have been executed, imprisoned and tortured in the pursuit of their rights of freedom of expression and association. Are you honestly trying to suggest that your right to knowingly break the law and insist that your ISP coludes with you can be equated??

Being disconnected from the Internet is not "a very serious infringement on free speech". It's a nonsenYou can still access the Internet in numerous other ways.

axer

Peanut wrote: »

Apologies, However there is a theme with some posters here that if you're you're anti-IRMA/RIAA, you must be pro-infringement.

There are basic rights to seek and carry on employment that are enshrined by law in this country.

Many people now earn a living on the Net.

Would they not be business customers then? Business customers will not be affected by this.

Peanut wrote: »

My concern is that by proposing disconnection, instead of throttling speeds for example, AND making this enforceable across all ISPs, essentially a private company can revoke access to your means of making a living, based on a non-legally determined judgement AND you may not even be the guilty party.

I don't believe this is a desirable outcome for any civilised country, and I think IRMA etc. have shot themselves in the foot by going this direction instead of speed reductions etc. (not that it would have made one iota of difference to the amount of infringement either way.)

Eircom's Terms and conditions do not allow for throttling of bandwidth - they explicitly say that a contract will be terminated if breaches are found. Thus users will be warned twice and upon the third infringement their contract with Eircom will be terminated.

conor.hogan.2

Again.

Do dtecnet or the IRMA require proof of warning letters or disconnections?

ie, are Eircom even going to bother.

axer

The amount of rubbish people are spewing out.

Having an Internet connection in your home is NOT a human right. Nowhere does it say this.

This will ONLY affect customers who allow illegal sharing of music tracks from their home network. They will not be cut off over night - they will have ample warning and chances to fix any security problems etc.

I don't see this affects anyone other than those how download music tracks from torrents. I asked this already but nobody has been able to give an answer that is not full of ignorance so I ask again, whats your problem?

axer

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

Again.

Do dtecnet or the IRMA require proof of warning letters or disconnections?

ie, are Eircom even going to bother.

My understanding is they won't. They will probably ask statistics from Eircom but Eircom will not be able to pass any identifiable information to dtecnetor or IRMA.

conor.hogan.2

So Eircom could just nod and agree and ignore and just warn and not actually cut people off.

As for your other point - dtecnet is a private company who goes on ip addresses they get via p2p, hardly the best detective work and not very trustworthy.

axer

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

So Eircom could just nod and agree and ignore and just warn and not actually cut people off.

I suppose they could but surely it will show up certain places that people are getting disconnected e.g. here so I'd say they would have an idea if Eircom are doing what they agreed to do.

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

As for your other point - dtecnet is a private company who goes on ip addresses they get via p2p, hardly the best detective work and not very trustworthy.

So you think there will be some people wrongly caught as a result?