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

blubloblu

axer wrote: »

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.

The problem is, it's using contract law to enforce something already covered by copyright law.

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

The end result is the same.

I can stop you there at the bolded word.

Why is their interpretation invalid? We should look further afield when considering this issue. You should have read on instead of casually ignoring the main body of my post. We are member of the European Union.

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.

I understand perfectly. IRMA don't like due judicial process, so they are trying to implement what is already covered by copyright law through contract law.

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

There are penalties set for copyright infringement. They do not include disconnection. Not only are they making their own laws, they're creating an entirely parallel judicial system without such silly things as standards of evidence, right to presumption of innocence, fair trial, impartial judge, jury, etc.

and Eircom reserve the right to enforce those terms.

You missed my point.

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.

Exactly. This is a relationship between you and the seller. Third parties should not enter into it. If they have an issue with you breaking the law, they should do the proper thing and take you to court.

This is the crux of the matter. Forget about human rights etc. since this has nothing to do with them. This is contract law.

This has everything to do with human rights as I have laboriously pointed out to you, only to have it ignored. The contract between you and Eircom is being abused by a third party to infringe on your human rights.

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?

Replace killing with 50 year jail term. Same point.

RangeR

blubloblu wrote: »

The problem is, it's using contract law to enforce something already covered by copyright law.
The end result is the same.

What are you talking about?

blubloblu wrote: »

Why is their interpretation invalid? We should look further afield when considering this issue. You should have read on instead of casually ignoring the main body of my post. We are member of the European Union.

It's not about the French interpretation being invalid. It's about it being a French interpretation. It has absolutely no bearing in Irish Law. Yes we are in the EU but we have our own laws.

blubloblu wrote: »

I understand perfectly. IRMA don't like due judicial process, so they are trying to implement what is already covered by copyright law through contract law.

With respect, you obviously don't. It's eircom that didn't want to go to court, for financial reasons. IRMA would have brought eircom to court [actually, I think they did that anyway] if eircom refused to comply. So if you have a problem with this, talk to the judge who allowed it.

blubloblu wrote: »

There are penalties set for copyright infringement. They do not include disconnection. Not only are they making their own laws, they're creating an entirely parallel judicial system without such silly things as standards of evidence, right to presumption of innocence, fair trial, impartial judge, jury, etc.

We are not talking about penalties for copyright infringement. If IRMA could have been arsed, they could they could get a court order for each IP Address caught and bring each user to court. It's not worth their while. Instead, they are making their presence felt but high publicity of disconnecting a percentage of infringers. This is not copyright law, it's contract law.

blubloblu wrote: »

You missed my point.

Oh dear

blubloblu wrote: »

Exactly. This is a relationship between you and the seller. Third parties should not enter into it. If they have an issue with you breaking the law, they should do the proper thing and take you to court.

This is probably the ONLY thing I agree with. Of course everyone knows that eircom shouldn't have crumbled. They should have made IRMA get a court order for everything. However eircom knew that it would put them out of business. Do you realise how much money eircom DOESN'T have. I'd actually be surprised if they weren't around, in their current form, in 5 years. They are hopelessly broke.

blubloblu wrote: »

This has everything to do with human rights as I have laboriously pointed out to you, only to have it ignored.

The contract between you and Eircom is being abused by a third party to infringe on your human rights.

Really? Your point is not being ignored. In fact I think it has been replied to EVERY time. Show me, in IRISH LAW, there an internet connection is a basic human right? I have no interest in French law.
If you want, I'll show you where your connection can be terminated by an ISP for breach of terms....

If you want an internet connection to be a basic human right, I'd suggest that you lobby your local TD.

Don't quote your assumptions as fact.
Don't quote the laws of foreign lands as Irish laws.

axer

blubloblu wrote: »

The problem is, it's using contract law to enforce something already covered by copyright law.
The end result is the same.

Do you understand that Eircom have the right to do this no matter what their reasons are for doing it?

blubloblu wrote: »

Why is their interpretation invalid? We should look further afield when considering this issue. You should have read on instead of casually ignoring the main body of my post. We are member of the European Union.

There has been no judgement in Ireland with regards to this. Until their is it doesn't matter what anyone else says.

blubloblu wrote: »

I understand perfectly. IRMA don't like due judicial process, so they are trying to implement what is already covered by copyright law through contract law.

Id say it is more that IRMA would find it though to go after illegal sharers as it would cost a fortune but then you would end up like in the states where mothers are being fined thousands for what their kids did. Ignorance of the law is not a defence. I think the approach IRMA are taking is a lot fairer that people getting hit with lawsuits that could result in heavy fines. Do you disagree?

blubloblu wrote: »

There are penalties set for copyright infringement. They do not include disconnection. Not only are they making their own laws, they're creating an entirely parallel judicial system without such silly things as standards of evidence, right to presumption of innocence, fair trial, impartial judge, jury, etc.

Ok, let me try once more. Over here you have contract law and over there you have statutory law. They are both separate thus this has nothing nothing nothing to do with statutory law.

blubloblu wrote: »

Exactly. This is a relationship between you and the seller. Third parties should not enter into it. If they have an issue with you breaking the law, they should do the proper thing and take you to court.

Third parties have nothing to do with you in this case. You only are dealing with eircom. Eircom have a right to hire a third party to do their investigations if they so desire. My point is the third party no matter how they are involved are irrelevant if the information they are supplying is acceptable to Eircom.

blubloblu wrote: »

This has everything to do with human rights as I have laboriously pointed out to you, only to have it ignored. The contract between you and Eircom is being abused by a third party to infringe on your human rights.

I ignored it because you have no legal reason to believe this has anything to do with human rights. You have some foreign judgements and opinions. That is not enough so until you have something legally binding, drop it.

blubloblu wrote: »

Replace killing with 50 year jail term. Same point.

Wow, it gets worse and worse. Neither Eircom nor IRMA nor DtecNet are jailing, killing, beating, molesting, abusing ..... ANYONE! Please make a distinction. These are not comparable in any way.

blubloblu

RangeR wrote: »

It's not about the French interpretation being invalid. It's about it being a French interpretation. It has absolutely no bearing in Irish Law. Yes we are in the EU but we have our own laws.

With the Lisbon Treaty, the European Convention on Human Rights became legally binding on EU members

With respect, you obviously don't. It's eircom that didn't want to go to court, for financial reasons. IRMA would have brought eircom to court [actually, I think they did that anyway] if eircom refused to comply. So if you have a problem with this, talk to the judge who allowed it.

I know this, I don't see how that invalidates my point.

We are not talking about penalties for copyright infringement. If IRMA could have been arsed, they could they could get a court order for each IP Address caught and bring each user to court. It's not worth their while.

They might not be arsed following due legal process, but they should.

Instead, they are making their presence felt but high publicity of disconnecting a percentage of infringers. This is not copyright law, it's contract law.

It's using contract law to enforce copyright law. If there wasn't any copyright infringement going on, this wouldn't be happening.

Oh dear

?

This is probably the ONLY thing I agree with. Of course everyone knows that eircom shouldn't have crumbled. They should have made IRMA get a court order for everything. However eircom knew that it would put them out of business. Do you realise how much money eircom DOESN'T have. I'd actually be surprised if they weren't around, in their current form, in 5 years. They are hopelessly broke.

IRMA went after the weak target. In other countries they tried getting this passed through legislation, failing. It's a shame that money gives you the right to force anything you want through.

Really? Your point is not being ignored. In fact I think it has been replied to EVERY time. Show me, in IRISH LAW, there an internet connection is a basic human right? I have no interest in French law.
If you want, I'll show you where your connection can be terminated by an ISP for breach of terms....

If you want an internet connection to be a basic human right, I'd suggest that you lobby your local TD.

Don't quote your assumptions as fact.
Don't quote the laws of foreign lands as Irish laws.

Article 40.6 of Bunreacht na hEireann. The European Union isn't a foreign land, we're part of it. We are represented democratically there and their decisions apply here.

blubloblu

I think the reason why this conversation is going around in circles is that I'm arguing that IRMA's actions are wrong, while you're arguing they're legal.
The two aren't necessarily contradictory.

RangeR

blubloblu wrote: »

I think the reason why this conversation is going around in circles is that I'm arguing that IRMA's actions are wrong, while you're arguing they're legal.
The two aren't necessarily contradictory.

Possibly. But you are quoting emotion and what you think is "right and proper" as fact and law. It's not. It's just how you want things to be.

If you think the law is wrong, and obviously it is in may areas, then do something about it. Lobby your local TD's and see what they say?

jay93

MOD EDIT: Typing ALL CAPS doesn't make you big and clever, since I can't be arsed changing it all to lower case its been removed

axer

blubloblu wrote: »

I think the reason why this conversation is going around in circles is that I'm arguing that IRMA's actions are wrong, while you're arguing they're legal.
The two aren't necessarily contradictory.

Well then stop talking about human rights. If you want to say you think it is morally or ethically wrong well thats one thing but no human right for access to the Internet has been established in Ireland.

blubloblu

axer wrote: »

Well then stop talking about human rights. If you want to say you think it is morally or ethically wrong well thats one thing but no human right for access to the Internet has been established in Ireland.

Freedom of expression is already established in Ireland. Do we need extra laws or a court case for it to apply to the Internet?

RangeR

blubloblu wrote: »

Freedom of expression is already established in Ireland.

Freedom of expression / speech is not total. There are many, many exceptions to "Freedom of Speech".

blubloblu wrote: »

Do we need extra laws or a court case for it to apply to the Internet?

Yes, obviously.

Cantona's Collars

In a recent ruling Spanish judges say P2P is the same as loaning a book only doing it digitally.No such forward thinking here,just a "how much money will we make from this" attitude.

blubloblu

RangeR wrote: »

Freedom of expression / speech is not total.
There are many, many exceptions to "Freedom of Speech".

Exclusions for defamation, blasphemy, etc., yes.

Yes, obviously.

Where does the constitution or any legislation exclude the Internet?

dub45

:rolleyes:

zerks wrote: »

In a recent ruling Spanish judges say P2P is the same as loaning a book only doing it digitally.No such forward thinking here,.

It is "forward thinking' if it happens to suit your viewpoint no?

And it most certainly isn't the same as loaning someone a book. If you loan someone a book then you do not have the use of it while they have it.

just a "how much money will we make from this" attitude

And what about the "how much money do I save" attitude from those who appear to regard free access to unlimited copyright material as a "human right"?:rolleyes:

blubloblu

dub45 wrote: »

It is "forward thinking' if it happens to suit your viewpoint no?

And it most certainly isn't the same as loaning someone a book. If you loan someone a book then you do not have the use of it while they have it.

I definitely don't agree with that Spanish judge. You can't apply property concepts like stealing or lending to digital copies.

And what about the "how much money do I save" attitude from those who appear to regard free access to unlimited copyright material as a "human right"?

Has anyone said that?

dub45

blubloblu wrote: »

Freedom of expression is already established in Ireland. Do we need extra laws or a court case for it to apply to the Internet?

What exactly has freedom of expression got to do with downloading copyrighted material?

Will shops who attempt to prevent shoplifting be accused of denying people freedom of expression next?

dub45

jay93 wrote: »

I THINK THE WHOLE IRMA ESTABLISHMENT SHOULD JUST GO LICK THEIR BOSSES ARSE BUNCH OF TOSSERS WHATS NEXT ??SEARCH MONTIORS ON THE NET STALKING EVERYONE ITS LIKE ME GOING TO LOOK THROUGH SOMEONES WINDOW OR SOMETING STALKERS ARE ALL THE IRMA ARE COMPLETE T1T HEADS

What's next? Perhaps a coherent argument? Or even people not downloading copyright material - something which they agree not to do when they take out a contract with an isp!

dub45

blubloblu wrote: »

I definitely don't agree with that Spanish judge. You can't apply property concepts like stealing or lending to digital copies.

Has anyone said that?

Do they need to?:rolleyes:

blubloblu

dub45 wrote: »

What exactly has freedom of expression got to do with downloading copyrighted material?

Will shops who attempt to prevent shoplifting be accused of denying people freedom of expression next?

If you were accused of photocopying a book in a library, you wouldn't be denied access to the post office, cinema, supermarket, your friends' houses, your relatives, your workplace, or basically anything.
If this measure stopped people from illegally downloading, and only that, it would be fine. However, it oversteps boundaries into completely unrelated aspects of your online communications.

dub45

blubloblu wrote: »

If you were accused of photocopying a book in a library, you wouldn't be denied access to the post office, cinema, supermarket, your friends' houses, your relatives, your workplace, or basically anything.
If this measure stopped people from illegally downloading, and only that, it would be fine. However, it oversteps boundaries into completely unrelated aspects of your online communications.

And even if you copy 8 million songs, files or whatever you can still stroll into your local internet cafe and have a nice cup of coffee and access the internet.

Look there are thousands of people all over the world denied freedom of expression on a daily basis - there are people in prison for fighting for real freedom of expression - I have to say I find it nauseating to have people on here making stupid arguments and associating freedom of expression and free speech with the right to download copyright material.

We even had some idiot posting earlier in the thread quoting China as an example of a state who had adopted the enlightened French legal system - for God's sake when will people get a perspective on this?

Cantona's Collars

Just wondering-if Sony (just an example) are worried about copyright,why do they produce equipment that facilitates copying of cd's dvd's etc.What would happen if I decided to make back-ups of my movie and music collection or if I lost or damaged a disc and downloaded a replacement?

conor.hogan.2

1 - Piracy is illegal.

2 - Eircom had to do this.

3 - Eircom are not monitoring what you are surfing.

4 - Labels should invest in putting up decent alternatives instead of this crap.

5 - If they do not cop on soon they will collapse and few will shed tears.

No need for a 50 page thread - I am unsubscribing from this thread, sick of silly ''updates''.

Cantona's Collars

Was doing a bit of looking online into freedom of the internet and found this site.raises some interesting issues.http://www.eff.org/

blubloblu

dub45 wrote: »

And even if you copy 8 million songs, files or whatever you can still stroll into your local internet cafe and have a nice cup of coffee and access the internet.

Look there are thousands of people all over the world denied freedom of expression on a daily basis - there are people in prison for fighting for real freedom of expression - I have to say I find it nauseating to have people on here making stupid arguments and associating freedom of expression and free speech with the right to download copyright material.

We even had some idiot posting earlier in the thread quoting China as an example of a state who had adopted the enlightened French legal system - for God's sake when will people get a perspective on this?

If you were told you can't read anything at all within your home and you had to read stuff where you had no privacy, would you say your freedom of expression/access to information hasn't been impacted at all? Of course it has.

I know there are many people who have it much worse than us. That doesn't, in any way, justify IRMA's actions. One of the world's leading press freedom organisations, Reporters Without Borders, has criticised IRMA's policy.

I'll repeat this one more time: nobody is arguing for a right to illegally download. Stop putting words in people's mouths. I'm arguing for a right to a full and free (as in freedom) access to the Internet, as the European Parliament has previously stated.

Cabaal

blubloblu wrote: »

I think the reason why this conversation is going around in circles is that I'm arguing that IRMA's actions are wrong, while you're arguing they're legal.
The two aren't necessarily contradictory.

You view there actions as wrong, they are legal...until they are deamed illegal then they are doing nothing wrong.

You continue to argue human rights etc, but yet you have no legal right to break the law so this defense doesn't work

blubloblu

Cabaal wrote: »

You view there actions as wrong, they are legal...until they are deamed illegal then they are doing nothing wrong.

Until their actions are deemed illegal, they are doing nothing illegal. Legal ≠ right.

You continue to argue human rights etc, but yet you have no legal right to break the law so this defense doesn't work

I am not arguing for a right to break the law. People who break the law should face justice. Interruption of Internet service as a punishment should be reserved as a power for a judge. That way, due legal process and the integrity of the courts can be maintained.

RangeR

blubloblu wrote: »

Interruption of Internet service as a punishment should be reserved as a power for a judge. That way, due legal process and the integrity of the courts can be maintained.

Why, then, do we sign a contract from an ISP?
If you break a term of the contract, do you expect the ISP to bring you to court in order to terminate that contract?

The simple fact of the matter is that eircom [or ISP of choice] can terminate your contract at any time, usually by giving 30 gays notice. It's actually a term in most contracts, ISP's or no.

It's simple contract law. You are making a lot out of nothing.

However, the fact that a 3rd party is providing "evidence" has nothing to do with it. If you know anything about P2P swarms, then NOTHING you do is private.

I could be monitoring a swarm and if I saw an eircom IP address sharing stuff then I could inform eircom. eircom could then choose to act on it or not.

I don't like with IRMA are doing. I don't agree with it one bit. However, pretty much all of your arguments are invalid. I feel you rally have no grasp of the issue at hand and grasping onto the fact that disconnecting your internet connection is against your basic human rights. You are soooooo wrong.

I'm getting very tired of this discussion.

blubloblu

RangeR wrote: »

Why, then, do we sign a contract from an ISP?
If you break a term of the contract, do you expect the ISP to bring you to court in order to terminate that contract?

The simple fact of the matter is that eircom [or ISP of choice] can terminate your contract at any time, usually by giving 30 gays notice. It's actually a term in most contracts, ISP's or no.

It's simple contract law.

I agree that Eircom can do this.

You are making a lot out of nothing.

There's been outcry on a large scale internationally over this issue, it's important.

However, the fact that a 3rd party is providing "evidence" has nothing to do with it. If you know anything about P2P swarms, then NOTHING you do is private.

Non sequitur?

I could be monitoring a swarm and if I saw an eircom IP address sharing stuff then I could inform eircom. eircom could then choose to act on it or not.

Just depends on how much money and scary lawyers you have.

I don't like with IRMA are doing. I don't agree with it one bit. However, pretty much all of your arguments are invalid. I feel you rally have no grasp of the issue at hand and grasping onto the fact that disconnecting your internet connection is against your basic human rights. You are soooooo wrong.

I'm repeating what numerous respected international organisations are saying.

I'm getting very tired of this discussion.

You're free to leave.

All I'm saying is that due legal process should be respected. Is that too much to ask?

hightower1

I have to say reading Dub45 post he is dead right, this utter c**p of crying human rights is a sickening joke. There are people who are denied their basic human rights on a daily basis, they are hungry, dying and have a miserable existence.....
THIS is a bunch of D4 middle aged complain artists trying to use the same "shield" of human rights violations because they are being told they cant access the bloody internet if they continue to download copyrighted material. Its disgusting that you would compare your removal of net access to the hardships of anyone who using common sense is ACTUALLY denied their human rights. Your sick.

dub45

blubloblu wrote: »

If you were told you can't read anything at all within your home and you had to read stuff where you had no privacy, would you say your freedom of expression/access to information hasn't been impacted at all? Of course it has.

I know there are many people who have it much worse than us. That doesn't, in any way, justify IRMA's actions. One of the world's leading press freedom organisations, Reporters Without Borders, has criticised IRMA's policy.

I'll repeat this one more time: nobody is arguing for a right to illegally download. Stop putting words in people's mouths. I'm arguing for a right to a full and free (as in freedom) access to the Internet, as the European Parliament has previously stated.

You appear to conveniently forget that if people complied with the terms and conditions which they sign up for that it would not be necessary for IRMA to take action.

Having "full and free access to the internet" does not remove the obligation from people to comply with the the obligations of a contract which they freely enter into.

dub45

RangeR wrote: »

Why, then, do we sign a contract from an ISP?
If you break a term of the contract, do you expect the ISP to bring you to court in order to terminate that contract?

The simple fact of the matter is that eircom [or ISP of choice] can terminate your contract at any time, usually by giving 30 gays notice. It's actually a term in most contracts, ISP's or no.

It's simple contract law. You are making a lot out of nothing.

However, the fact that a 3rd party is providing "evidence" has nothing to do with it. If you know anything about P2P swarms, then NOTHING you do is private.

I could be monitoring a swarm and if I saw an eircom IP address sharing stuff then I could inform eircom. eircom could then choose to act on it or not.

I don't like with IRMA are doing. I don't agree with it one bit. However, pretty much all of your arguments are invalid. I feel you rally have no grasp of the issue at hand and grasping onto the fact that disconnecting your internet connection is against your basic human rights. You are soooooo wrong.

I'm getting very tired of this discussion.

Surely there has to be an easier way than that!:D