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

axer

20goto10 wrote: »

As I've already said, the only way to prove it is to seize the offenders PC. I'm not taking anyone to court as I'm not downloading illegal material, but if I was I would have absolutely no issues in doing so. Luck would not be a factor, just the law.

You still don't get it. Nobody is being disconnected for illegally downloading anything. People will be disconnected for ILLEGALLY SHARING content!!!!! I cannot shout it any louder so I hope you hear. Please read what is going on before posting.

Thor

axer wrote: »

Nobody is blocking you from using the internet. They are terminating your contract with them for breach of contract. They are fully within their rights to do this. Read up on contract law.
Nope its not.
You have no right to ban me from "reading newspapers, books or magazines, making phone calls". You have the right to choose to not sell me any of those items but you don't have the right to ban me from using them. This is a contractual issue - not a human rights issue.

I agree, Eircom will disconnect you for not paying your bill just as they will if you download music!! they can disconnect you for any reason!! you can argue but in the end its there decision whether to allow you internet access with them!!

Noting is stopping you from going to upc or any other isp for that matter.

20goto10

axer wrote: »

You still don't get it. Nobody is being disconnected for illegally downloading anything. People will be disconnected for ILLEGALLY SHARING content!!!!! I cannot shout it any louder so I hope you hear. Please read what is going on before posting.

You're playing with words. My point still stands.

Thor

axer wrote: »

You still don't get it. Nobody is being disconnected for illegally downloading anything. People will be disconnected for ILLEGALLY SHARING content!!!!! I cannot shout it any louder so I hope you hear. Please read what is going on before posting.

I get you,

Downloading a song you already own is perfectly ok, The thing is they can't tell if you do or not.

Allowing people to download a song you own without knowning if they have the right too is illegal(arguement that if a person says only download if you have the right too) doesnt matter with eircom at this point.

axer

20goto10 wrote: »

You're playing with words. My point still stands.

You mean I am speaking English?

Do you know the difference between illegally sharing i.e. uploading, and illegally downloading? If you do not then I cannot discuss this with you since you need to do some reading first.

20goto10

Thor wrote: »

I agree, Eircom will disconnect you for not paying your bill just as they will if you download music!! they can disconnect you for any reason!! you can argue but in the end its there decision whether to allow you internet access with them!!

Noting is stopping you from going to upc or any other isp for that matter.

It's not their decision. A contract is a two way thing. You've signed up and paid for a service. They can prove you haven't paid your bill. They can't prove you've been "illegally sharing copyright material". They can prove your PC was used, but I am not my PC.

20goto10

axer wrote: »

You mean I am speaking English?

Do you know the difference between illegally sharing i.e. uploading, and illegally downloading? If you do not then I cannot discuss this with you since you need to do some reading first.

don't get smart with me boyo.

20goto10

20goto10 wrote: »

No you need to be connected to the swarm and actually downloading the copyrighted material. A torrent file has no copyright and is not illegal to download.

Yes, I know that. I was just trying to simplify the issue for anybody reading this thread who doesn't have a great understanding of bittorrent. Besides, what use is a .torrent file to you if you don't intend to download the content it basically links to.

20goto10

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Yes, I know that. I was just trying to simplify the issue for anybody reading this thread who doesn't have a great understanding of bittorrent. Besides, what use is a .torrent file to you if you don't intend to download the content it basically links to.

you could download it and then decide against using it.

axer

Thor wrote: »

Downloading a song you already own is perfectly ok, The thing is they can't tell if you do or not.

Probably not since the person that is offering the file for download is probably not licensed to share the file but really nobody is going to go after you for that - especially if you have already purchased the track. The bigger point is that it is extremely difficult to catch downloaders but it is not the same for uploaders as they are not restricting who is connecting to them to get a file.

axer

20goto10 wrote: »

It's not their decision. A contract is a two way thing. You've signed up and paid for a service. They can prove you haven't paid your bill. They can't prove you've been "illegally sharing copyright material". They can prove your PC was used, but I am not my PC.

They can prove that your connection was used and since the contract is in relation to the connection then they have a right to terminate the contract thus the connection.

Thor

20goto10 wrote: »

It's not their decision. A contract is a two way thing. You've signed up and paid for a service. They can prove you haven't paid your bill. They can't prove you've been "illegally sharing copyright material". They can prove your PC was used, but I am not my PC.

The person paying the bill is responsible for the internet connection!! simple as.

If someone is downloading a song illegally then eircom can disconnect you as its being done so from your connection!!

The fact remains, downloading a song wont make a difference at this point with eircom as they wont disconnect you for that. Just sharing a song(as in allowing someone else to download copyrighted material from you.

axer

20goto10 wrote: »

don't get smart with me boyo.

I just didn't get your playing with words remark. There is a massive difference between illegally sharing and illegally downloading. It is not just playing with words.

Thor

axer wrote: »

Probably not since the person that is offering the file for download is probably not licensed to share the file but really nobody is going to go after you for that - especially if you have already purchased the track. The bigger point is that it is extremely difficult to catch downloaders but it is not the same for uploaders as they are not restricting who is connecting to them to get a file.

Thats what i meant!! in the end there is nothing they can do if you own the song(i.e paid for it) In which they will never know if you do or not.

blubloblu

axer wrote: »

Nobody is blocking you from using the internet. They are terminating your contract with them for breach of contract. They are fully within their rights to do this. Read up on contract law.

They are blocking you from the internet.

You have no right to ban me from "reading newspapers, books or magazines, making phone calls". You have the right to choose to not sell me any of those items but you don't have the right to ban me from using them.

Eircom are banning you from using anything that comes through the Internet. Anyone online who might want to sell or provide you with content will be barred from doing so.

This is a contractual issue - not a human rights issue.

The problem is that this contract isn't regulating your relationship between you and Eircom. It's being abused by a third party to become a method of creating their own laws, bypassing the legal system.
Owing to the importance of the Internet as a tool for freedom of expression and access to information, this has indeed become a human rights issue. Human rights are to be respected by everyone, governments and private companies alike, they cannot be violated by a clause in a contract.

axer

blubloblu wrote: »

They are blocking you from the internet.

No they are not. If they were blocking you from the internet then you would not be allowed to sign up to any other provider nor would you be able to use an internet cafe etc. They are only terminating a contract due to a breach of the terms. It is perfectly legal to do. If you want to challenge that you did not breach the contract you would have to bring them to court.

blubloblu wrote: »

Eircom are banning you from using anything that comes through the Internet. Anyone online who might want to sell or provide you with content will be barred from doing so.

Eircom are not the only provider so this argument is rubbish.

blubloblu wrote: »

The problem is that this contract isn't regulating your relationship between you and Eircom. It's being abused by a third party to become a method of creating their own laws, bypassing the legal system.

Nope, the fact is if you do not illegally share files then you have absolutely nothing to worry about. The contract is clear on illegally sharing files. Would you rather Eircom started monitoring everything you do on the internet?

blubloblu wrote: »

Owing to the importance of the Internet as a tool for freedom of expression and access to information, this has indeed become a human rights issue. Human rights are to be respected by everyone, governments and private companies alike.

Nope it is not a human rights issue. Don't illegally share files and you won't have any issue at all.

20goto10

axer wrote: »

No they are not. If they were blocking you from the internet then you would not be allowed to sign up to any other provider nor would you be able to use an internet cafe etc. They are only terminating a contract due to a breach of the terms. It is perfectly legal to do. If you want to challenge that you did not breach the contract you would have to bring them to court.

Nope, the fact is if you do not illegally share files then you have absolutely nothing to worry about.

Nonsense. People are falsely accused all the time. Up until now they were allowed to defend themselves and were deemed innocent until proven guilty. Now its a simple case of you're guilty because we say so and there's nothing you can do about it. I strongly disagree. There's plenty that can be done about it and were it to happen to enough people Eircom will be facing a mass law suit.

I am confident they will not go through with this and its no more than bully boy scare tactics from IRMA. Why would Eircom enforce something based on 3rd party evidence? It doesn't make any sense at all that a company would willingly throw away customers based on a 3rd party bullying them into doing so.

20goto10

axer wrote: »

No they are not. If they were blocking you from the internet then you would not be allowed to sign up to any other provider nor would you be able to use an internet cafe etc. They are only terminating a contract due to a breach of the terms. It is perfectly legal to do.

I have no contract with IRMA or DtecNet. So how is it they can force Eircom to disconnect me? I'm not actually with Eircom so let me rephrase that. An Eircom customer has no contract with IRMA or DtecNet...

RangeR

blubloblu wrote: »

Freedom of speech is a basic human right. Just because the Internet isn't mentioned specifically on documents pre-dating it, doesn't mean your rights don't apply online.
Disconnecting someone's broadband line is a serious infringement on that person's rights and should not be done so lightly.
If I were to ban you reading newspapers, books or magazines, making phone calls, etc. in your house, you could still go do that somewhere else. That doesn't make it acceptable.

Again, you are assuming an awful lot. I understand what you are saying but you cannot assume the law. That's for a judge in an IRISH court of law.

However, you will not be stopped from using the internet. eircom will just not let you use their network, for a year, in order to use the network. You just need another provider.

axer

20goto10 wrote: »

Nonsense. People are falsely accused all the time. Up until now they were allowed to defend themselves and were deemed innocent until proven guilty. Now its a simple case of you're guilty because we say so and there's nothing you can do about it. I strongly disagree. There's plenty that can be done about it and were it to happen to enough people Eircom will be facing a mass law suit.

This is not a court case thus all the rubbish of "innocent until proven guilty" do not apply. This is contract law.

20goto10 wrote: »

I am confident they will not go through with this and its no more than bully boy scare tactics from IRMA. Why would Eircom enforce something based on 3rd party evidence? It doesn't make any sense at all that a company would willingly throw away customers based on a 3rd party bullying them into doing so.

So you honestly think someone will be disconnected when they are in fact completely innocent? Note if file sharing is happening on a connection then the person responsible for the connection is not innocent - just in case you take that approach.

Ample opportunity is being given to customers to resolve the issue. There is no excuse for a customer getting caught three times.

axer

20goto10 wrote: »

I have no contract with IRMA or DtecNet. So how is it they can force Eircom to disconnect me?

Because if you breach the terms of your contract then Eircom will disconnect you - not IRMA or DtecNet. Eircom have agreed to trust the evidence that DtecNet are supplying. I assume that they have verified their procedures as bring sound. DtecNet will not know anything about the customers that are disconnected - only their ip address which is public information.

20goto10

axer wrote: »

Ample opportunity is being given to customers to resolve the issue. There is no excuse for a customer getting caught three times.

What? If it happens once it will happen again. Do you think DtecNet are going to trace through their code and try to figure out how and why you have been wrongly accused and fix it?

20goto10

axer wrote: »

I assume that they have verified their procedures as bring sound.

LMAO

axer

RangeR wrote: »

However, you will not be stopped from using the internet. eircom will just not let you use their network, for a year, in order to use the network. You just need another provider.

Exactly and if someone is using your network to illegal share music you should stop them using your network too or you will be liable.

axer

20goto10 wrote: »

What? If it happens once it will happen again. Do you think DtecNet are going to trace through their code and try to figure out how and why you have been wrongly accused and fix it?

I would think they would. I'd say it would be more likely to be human error that would falsely accuse someone.

Thor

A restaurant can refuse to serve you if they want!!!

Does that mean you will die of hunger!!! NO

eircom can disconnect you for any number of reasons!! If you do not like this you do not have to use there service!!

But by using there service you are agreeing to there terms and conditions!!

There terms and conditions being that you are not allowed to SHARE music to anyone else!! if you are caught(Three times i might add) They will disconnect you!!

Its the same as not paying the bill!! if you dont pay it they will disconnect you! If you share music, they will disconnect you!!

Its pretty simple to understand.

I'am not saying its right and i do believe its absolute rubbish that they are allowed to do it but the fact remains they ARE allowed to do it!! Irma should not be allowed to determine a persons contract with anyone!! Eircom could have said no like upc but didnt so IRMA are allowed at this point.

In the end it doesnt matter what happens!! Sharing music is illegal one way or another!! The only complaint here is that they have a way of catching you if you do!!

There are many ways to get songs without DtecNet being able to get your ip.

Eircom at this point care more about piracy then privacy!!

20goto10

axer wrote: »

I would think they would. I'd say it would be more likely to be human error that would falsely accuse someone.

That's 2 assumptions you've made in the space of a few posts. Would you not agree that we should only be dealing with fact for such a serious punishment? Would you not agree that even Eircom, dodgy as they may be, would not be willing to do such a thing on a mass scale unless they are dealing with fact?

Like I say, its nothing more than bully boy scare tactics.

blubloblu

axer wrote: »

No they are not. If they were blocking you from the internet then you would not be allowed to sign up to any other provider nor would you be able to use an internet cafe etc. They are only terminating a contract due to a breach of the terms. It is perfectly legal to do. If you want to challenge that you did not breach the contract you would have to bring them to court.

Eircom are not the only provider so this argument is rubbish.

IRMA plan on forcing every ISP in the country to do this, so this point doesn't hold.

Nope, the fact is if you do not illegally share files then you have absolutely nothing to worry about. The contract is clear on illegally sharing files. Would you rather Eircom started monitoring everything you do on the internet?

Nope it is not a human rights issue.

The French constitutional council, who I would imagine have a fair bit more legal knowledge than you or I, would disagree with you. http://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/decision//2009/decisions-par-date/2009/2009-580-dc/decision-n-2009-580-dc-du-10-juin-2009.42666.html

As would the European Parliament, the voice of 375 million people.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to recognise that the Internet is a vast platform for cultural expression, access to knowledge, and democratic participation in European creativity, bringing generations together through the information society; calls on the Commission and the Member States, to avoid adopting measures conflicting with civil liberties and human rights and with the principles of proportionality, effectiveness and dissuasiveness, such as the interruption of Internet access;

Considers that in order to respect fundamental rights, such as the right to freedom of expression and the right to privacy, while fully observing the principle of subsidiarity, the proposed agreement should not make it possible for any so-called "three-strikes" procedures to be imposed, in full accordance with Parliament's decision on Article 1.1b in the (amending) Directive 2009/140/EC calling for the insertion of a new paragraph 3(a) in Article 1 of Directive 2002/21/EC on the matter of the "three strikes" policy; considers that any agreement must include the stipulation that the closing-off of an individual's Internet access shall be subject to prior examination by a court;

Measures taken by Member States regarding end-
users access’ to, or use of, services and applications
through electronic communications networks shall
respect the fundamental rights and freedoms of natural
persons, as guaranteed by the European Convention for
the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Free*
doms and general principles of Community law.
Any of these measures regarding end-users’ access to, or
use of, services and applications through electronic com*
munications networks liable to restrict those fundamen*
tal rights or freedoms may only be imposed if they are
appropriate, proportionate and necessary within a
democratic society, and their implementation shall be
subject to adequate procedural safeguards in conformity
with the European Convention for the Protection of
Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and with
general principles of Community law, including effective
judicial protection and due process. Accordingly, these
measures may only be taken with due respect for the
principle of the presumption of innocence and the right
to privacy. A prior, fair and impartial procedure shall be
guaranteed, including the right to be heard of the per*
son or persons concerned, subject to the need for appro*
priate conditions and procedural arrangements in duly
substantiated cases of urgency in conformity with the
European Convention for the Protection of Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The right to effective
and timely judicial review shall be guaranteed.’;

I don't have an issue with people breaking the law being dealt with through the correct legal channels.
The authority of the courts should be respected, IRMA can't just make their own laws just because they don't like due legal process.
The contract is also very clear on other kinds of behaviour

eircom contract wrote:

5.3Customers may not use the Facility to create, host or transmit offensive or
obscene material, or engage in activities, which are likely to cause offence to
others on any grounds including, but not limited to race, creed or sex.

According to your logic, it is perfectly acceptable for me to disconnect you from the Internet if you offend me, without any kind of concrete proof or legal process.

Don't illegally share files and you won't have any issue at all.

So if IRMA proposes that every illegal downloaded be shot dead on sight, that would be fine, since only law-breakers would be affected? That's an irrational argument.

axer

20goto10 wrote: »

That's 2 assumptions you've made in the space of a few posts. Would you not agree that we should only be dealing with fact for such a serious punishment?

This not crimminal law we are dealing with - it is contract law. This is no punishment this is contract law. Punitive damages would be you paying eircom for breach of contract. My understanding is eircom will not charge you for the rest of the contract should they terminate thus you are not being punished.

20goto10 wrote: »

Would you not agree that even Eircom, dodgy as they may be, would not be willing to do such a thing on a mass scale unless they are dealing with fact?

Are you talking about the Federation Against Copyright Theft?

blubloblu wrote: »

IRMA plan on forcing every ISP in the country to do this, so this point doesn't hold.

I'm afraid it does. They are not blanket doing this. This is between each ISP and IRMA.

blubloblu wrote: »

The French constitutional council, who I would imagine have a fair bit more legal knowledge than you or I, would disagree with you. http://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/decision//2009/decisions-par-date/2009/2009-580-dc/decision-n-2009-580-dc-du-10-juin-2009.42666.html

As would the European Parliament, the voice of 375 million people.

I can stop you there at the bolded word.

blubloblu wrote: »

I don't have an issue with people breaking the law being dealt with through the correct legal channels.

You see this actually has nothing to do with breaking the law. It is about breaking terms of a contract. The sooner you understand that the sooner you understand what is going on.

blubloblu wrote: »

The authority of the courts should be respected, IRMA can't just make their own laws just because they don't like due legal process.

Indeed it should be respected. I dont believe IRMA is making their own laws.

blubloblu wrote: »

The contract is also very clear on other kinds of behaviour

and Eircom reserve the right to enforce those terms.

blubloblu wrote: »

According to your logic, it is perfectly acceptable for me to disconnect you from the Internet if you offend me, without any kind of concrete proof or legal process.

Nope. It is perfectly acceptable for you to not sell me a product or server just because you don't like me or I offend you. This is the crux of the matter. Forget about human rights etc. since this has nothing to do with them. This is contract law.

blubloblu wrote: »

So if IRMA proposes that every illegal downloaded be shot dead on sight, that would be fine, since only law-breakers would be affected? That's an irrational argument.

Nope. It would be illegal if they did the killing. Heck it could be even illegal for them calling for that to happen. Don't be building strawmen. The fact is if you do not share music illegal via Eircom then you won't be breaking the terms of use thus you won't be disconnected. Not hard to grasp is it?

Btw just to re-iterate - NOBODY IS BEING BANNED FROM THE INTERNET.

RangeR

20goto10 wrote: »

Like I say, its nothing more than bully boy scare tactics.

First bit of truth I've heard you say in this whole thread.