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

Yawns

axer wrote: »

But lets work in the realms of reality. What would happen in that situation is eircom would contact McDonalds/the hotel and say this is happening. Then they would help them work towards a resolution. I would expect more leniency given to them as they would generally be bigger customers than the regular home user. Anyway places that like if they are setup properly would block uploads from torrents and other p2p so there shouldn't be an issue.

The hotel I worked in before had an IT team in to setup the broadband. They did a ****ty job and didn't restrict anything. It took nearly 2 years before the hotel got the same guys in to restrict some ports. The whole network is wide open to anyone with a little knowledge. Why should business offerign wireless be treated differently than say someone getting hacked. In both scenarios the bill payer doesn't realise what is going on on their network.

This is where it will fail. Should anyone take Eircom to court over being disconnected, Eircom will have a hell of a time trying to prove it was the bill payer who downloaded the content.

For arguements sake let's say I book a trip to England or Spain and go away for a week. I could leave my comp on all week downloading and if I go to court I can prove I was out of the country so it wasn't me. My wireless could have been compromised.

Tough **** Eircom, prove 100% it was me. 99% is not good enough. If there's even the tiniest little hint it wasn't me I'd prob win the case.

jor el

nuxxx wrote: »

Is it illegal to download a album when you already own it as a backup?

Or does that only apply if you make a copy of your own cd

Not as far as I know. The other person does not have the right to share it, and neither do you (which you are doing if using a torrent). So owning a copy of an album or song (or any copyright material) does not mean it's ok for you to download it too.

Mathiasb wrote: »

This is the problem. ISPs shouldn't be sued at all. It's not their problem what their customers do. That's the customer's problem, and a problem for the police (if it's illegal).

In some circumstances, the law makes it the ISPs responsibility for anyting cached on their servers due to a customer download, so they cannot shrug it off and claim it's all down to the customer. The law also allows any company to sue the ISPs for allowing their customers to breech that companies copyright. Until the law changes, or a court makes a decision to the contrary, it will continue.

Mathiasb wrote: »

They _are_ snooping on people. If I download a torrent called "Warcraft collection", which contains mods for WC3, that will probably be flagged by Eircom, because they probably think it's a pirated collection of Warcraft games... which it isn't.

NO NO NO NO NO. How many times does it have to be explained before it sinks in. THIS IS NOT WHAT IS HAPPENING, STOP SAYING IT IS. EIRCOM ARE NOT FLAGGING ANYTHING.

Mathiasb wrote: »

How will they know that it's illegal? They would have to look at what I transfer to and from my computer. That in itself is exactly the same thing as reading someone's snail mail, it's espionage, etc. Whatever you call it, it is/should be illegal, and infringes on privacy.

Just stop. This is not happening, it is no espionage or anything of the sort.

Mathiasb wrote: »

Some buy music online, I prefer to buy CD/DVDs from the bands I like. I mostly listen to the music via .ogg/.flac/.mp3 though. These I get from various online sources, because I don't want to waste the time of ripping my own discs when someone else has already done it.

There's not a problem with this, as I already own the disc.

IRMA and IMRO would disagree. There is a problem with you doing this, so either stop, or stop telling people about it.

Mathiasb wrote: »

The MAFIAA of Ireland will probably sue/drag the people "exposed" by Eircom to court, which they obviously won't be able to afford.

Again, more nonsense. Stop with the mindless speculation about things you obvbiously have no clue about. Your posts are nothing short of trolls at this stage. You've been proven wrong on multiple accounts, yet you persist in the false statements. Stop it now, as it doesn't help at all.

Mathiasb

Cabaal wrote: »

Hilarious excuse, teenagers know right well that the likes of iTunes exists,

Your example is laughable as its almost like saying a shop lifter doesn't know how to buy stuff the right way
:rolleyes:

The people affected by this will be the bill payer which is not the common teenager it is instead their parents and like parents should they should give out to their child for acting the maggot and breaking the law if eircom contact them (the parent)

Wrong. What I'm saying is that the "average Joe" will get caught.

Your average IT literate person will make sure doesn't get caught. So they won't be affected at all.

So in essence, this whole thing is useless. It's just beurucratic bull****.

edit: Of course, if the child is stupid enough, it's the parent's responsibility etc. As always..

Cabaal

Yawns wrote: »

What I would like to know is what happens to a new eircom customer?

Let's say by month 4 he has had 3 warnings then disconnected for the year. That would mean that Eircom have made his contract null & void. Therefore the customer doesn't have to pay them for the remainder of contract etc. If I were that customer I wouldn't even hand the modem back as they have cancelled the contract.

Wrong,

If a customer did something that caused the contract to be ended early (in this case downloading copyright material) then they will be charged a early termination fee on their contract.

All pretty standard,

I would send the modem to Mr. Doyle along with a letter saying I have moved to another ISP to continue my activities and he can take a long walk off a short pier.

They'll enjoy passing your contract termination fee to debt collectors and the debt collectors will enjoy chasing you

jor el

Yawns wrote: »

Tough **** Eircom, prove 100% it was me. 99% is not good enough. If there's even the tiniest little hint it wasn't me I'd prob win the case.

There will be no case, and eircom don't have to prove anything. They can disconnect any customer at any time for any reason they like, they could already do that long before this happened. Any ISP can do this. There will be no case, no appeal, no nothing.

Mathiasb

jor el wrote: »

IRMA and IMRO would disagree. There is a problem with you doing this, so either stop, or stop telling people about it.

They are wrong. The law needs to be changed in order to comply with people, not corporations.

Corporations require you to buy a CD, then an MP3 on itunes if you want it on your computer and/or ipod. How is that not wrong? Admittedly, it's not a topic of this discussion.

Yawns

They can enjoy. A debt collector won't take such a small collection amount fact. They have to be paid. All of the above was just a hypo. situation of course.

Cabaal

Mathiasb wrote: »

Wrong. What I'm saying is that the "average Joe" will get caught.

...tell me whats wrong with this, if the average person knowingly breaks the law do they not deserve action when they are caught?

Its not like eircom/the media haven't made a big deal of eircom doing this, the excuse of "I didn't know" won't really stand up as a defense

Your average IT literate person will make sure doesn't get caught. So they won't be affected at all.

You might think that, alot of people that think they are "IT literate" still continue to ask very pointless questions regarding how eircom plan to implement this

Jumpy

Mathiasb wrote: »

People seem to be having a problem with other people using what they are paying for.

All ISP users should be able to max their upload and download 24/7 and get consistent speeds, without any limits.

Too bad that Irish ISPs can get away with quotas...

You CAN do that. You just need to get a dedicated connection. You might not like the price though. Neither do ISPs, hence the contention.

jor el

Mathiasb wrote: »

They are wrong. The law needs to be changed in order to comply with people, not corporations.

Corporations require you to buy a CD, then an MP3 on itunes if you want it on your computer and/or ipod. How is that not wrong? Admittedly, it's not a topic of this discussion.

Wrong again, on both counts. Laws exist to protect everyone, both individuals and companies. Laws protect people from companies (consumer laws, for example) and to protect companies from people (civil and criminal laws that prevent theft, for example).

When you buy music you buy the right to listen to it, not the physical CD or MP3. If you buy a CD, you can convert it yourself to MP3 and put it on an iPod or other media player. You can't sell the CD and keep the MP3 though, as that would mean selling your licence to listen to the music.

I'm only going to say this oen final time. STOP WITH THE LIES.

Mathiasb

Cabaal wrote: »

...tell me whats wrong with this, if the average person knowingly breaks the law do they not deserve action when they are caught?

Its not like eircom/the media haven't made a big deal of eircom doing this, the excuse of "I didn't know" won't really stand up as a defense

What's "wrong" with it is that it won't have any effect on anything except the user. And yes, if he's doing something illegal, there should be consequences.

Cabaal wrote: »

You might think that, alot of people that think they are "IT literate" still continue to ask very pointless questions regarding how eircom plan to implement this

What I mean is that the power users who download/upload a lot of "illegal" material will not get caught. It's these users who the Irish MAFIAA want. They'll just get average Joes instead.
But I suppose it's good for some statistics somewhere.

Yawns

axer wrote: »

Except if you read the contract it says:
Quote:
5.5 Customers may not use the Facility to create, host or transmit material,which infringes the intellectual property rights including, but not limited to, the copyright of another person or organisation.

My point about that post would be if I was away for 1 - 2 weeks in another country and I had been disconnected, I could claim it wasn't me the customer who downloaded said files.

In the end it's not really going to work. Eircom blocked the pirate bay but what happened? People went elsewhere. It will just send people to new routes of file sharing or old routes for that matter

Mathiasb

jor el wrote: »

Wrong again, on both counts. Laws exist to protect everyone, both individuals and companies. Laws protect people from companies (consumer laws, for example) and to protect companies from people (civil and criminal laws that prevent theft, for example).

When you buy music you buy the right to listen to it, not the physical CD or MP3. If you buy a CD, you can convert it yourself to MP3 and put it on an iPod or other media player. You can't sell the CD and keep the MP3 though, as that would mean selling your licence to listen to the music.

I'm only going to say this oen final time. STOP WITH THE LIES.

Is it legal in Ireland to rip your own CDs and put on your MP3 players? In many contries, it is not.

You say that I buy the license to listen to it, sure. Logically that means that I can listen to it in any way I want on any medium as long as I've bought a CD or MP3. The car, the MP3 player, streaming via my server, on my phone etc.

Is that legal?

Yawns

No and the next step would be your not allowed to have a friend or family member in the same room while you listen to it unless they bought the cd too. Well why not head down that route people? May as well to be honest.

Anyone here ever borrow or give a friend a cd you thought was great and they should listen to? That's against the law too you know. Unautorhised lending...

jor el

Mathiasb wrote: »

Is it legal in Ireland to rip your own CDs and put on your MP3 players? In many contries, it is not.

You say that I buy the license to listen to it, sure. Logically that means that I can listen to it in any way I want on any medium as long as I've bought a CD or MP3. The car, the MP3 player, streaming via my server, on my phone etc.

Is that legal?

Yes, as long as only 1 copy is being used at any time. You can't have someone else listening to the CD while you use it on your iPod at the same time.

Yawns wrote: »

No and the next step would be your not allowed to have a friend or family member in the same room while you listen to it unless they bought the cd too. Well why not head down that route people? May as well to be honest.

Nonsense.

Yawns wrote: »

Anyone here ever borrow or give a friend a cd you thought was great and they should listen to? That's against the law too you know. Unautorhised lending...

Licences are transferrable, so as long as you haven't kept a copy, it is allowed.

Mathiasb

jor el wrote: »

Yes, as long as only 1 copy is being used at any time. You can't have someone else listening to the CD while you use it on your iPod at the same time.

Well, there we go. Another flaw in the legal system. But, it's not really enforced, it's not really practical.

Zascar

Mathiasb wrote: »

Well, there we go. Another flaw in the legal system. But, it's not really enforced, it's not really practical.

There are loads of examples like this. Almost every DJ around the world will play normal records or CD's or whatever purchased normally, but realistically those records and cd's are only for private use and do not give permission for public broadcast etc - but realistically no one cares.

Yawns

jor el wrote: »

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yawns
No and the next step would be your not allowed to have a friend or family member in the same room while you listen to it unless they bought the cd too. Well why not head down that route people? May as well to be honest.

Nonsense.

We all said that 2 years ago about ISP disconnecting users for sharing files at the request of any record company or associate but we are we now?

jor el

Mathiasb wrote: »

Well, there we go. Another flaw in the legal system. But, it's not really enforced, it's not really practical.

It's not a flaw, the system allows for reasonable backup, and reasonable use. Sharing your music with others in a way that circumvents the licence is not reasonable. Putting your music collection onto a media player is reasonable. You just need to maintain the licence, by keeping the original CD (if that's the way you bought it) and you can't use that CD simultaneous to the media player.

Anyone who does use both simultaneously, or sells the original without deleting the copies, is in breech of the law, but that is not really enforcable. Stopping the illegal online sharing of your music is something that is enforcable, so they're doing that.

Mathiasb

jor el wrote: »

IAnyone who does use both simultaneously, [...] is in breech of the law, [...]

I'm just saying that this is a flaw. But yeah.

briany

Has all this been discussed on Liveline yet and if not what are the chances of it? Seems like the perfect platform for a good old menopausal angry middle aged woman rant followed by some feeble defense.

Anyway I don't know what to make of all this. If they're only sending out fifty letters for the moment then surely it'll be the top fifty worst offenders Dtec could find or a random deal to put the fear of god into us?

It seems to me that right or wrong, the internet (or a sizable proportion) has spoken and said we like to download media, we like to do it for free without restrictions and without apologies and if you try to stop us then we will just get cleverer and more covert.

ZeRoY

As far as I can see with the present European Rules (EU Telecoms Rules) , the disconnection by Eircom or any ISP of a user on the third "strike" would be illegal unless requested by a Court Order - I therefore do not believe we will see many disconnections.

For reference, here is the Amendment 46 (previously 138):

(fb) in paragraph 4, point (fb) shall be added:

“(fb) applying the principle that no restriction may be imposed on the fundamental rights and freedoms of end-users, without a prior ruling by the judicial authorities, notably in accordance with Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union on freedom of expression and information, save when public security is threatened in which case the ruling may be subsequent.”

I think at best, the only this will achieve is another shift of users from P2P to other means of downloading, as it happened so many times before. I'll add to this that Torrents and File-Sharing are already on decline in favor of one way transfers systems such as Megaupload, Rapidshare, etc...

On the specific issue of "huge loss" referred to by the IRMA - It must be seen with a lot less effects that those reported. It is not because say 1000 tracks from Artist X have been downloaded illegally over a month that this same Artist X would have sold 1000 tracks should the Internet download be impossible. The "real" loss is difficult to calculate with this in mind but I personally do not believe it is anything bigger than when Audio tapes/Mini disc/CDs were being copied over the last 40 odd years. Actually, looking closely at the music and P2P you end up finding that a lot of small/independant Artists actually supports free distribution of their music/creation on the Internet - making their money on gigs instead - and the big Artists/Studios being the greedy ones :cool:

Finally i'd like to say that I do not condone P2P for illegal content but find the all thing useless and laughable.

KetchupKid

jor el wrote: »

Yes, as long as only 1 copy is being used at any time. You can't have someone else listening to the CD while you use it on your iPod at the same time.



Nonsense.



Licences are transferrable, so as long as you haven't kept a copy, it is allowed.

So does that mean I can legally download music to replace the songs fom some of my scratched CD's, as long as I still have the CD's - even though they may be scratched and unplayable, but they are still a license? That being said if I have a CD I bought and rip the music for my ipod and then I loose the original CD, I no longer have the license so technically I should delete the corresponding files from my ipod.

ZeRoY

KetchupKid wrote: »

So does that mean I can legally download music to replace the songs fom some of my scratched CD's, as long as I still have the CD's - even though they may be scratched and unplayable, but they are still a license? That being said if I have a CD I bought and rip the music for my ipod and then I loose the original CD, I no longer have the license so technically I should delete the corresponding files from my ipod.

No - this way this is valid is if you had done a "backup copy" of the CD after you bought it. I.E: A copy from the disc you own, not from an album obtain via the Internet.

Mathiasb

I suppose what I react to, is that a private organization with private interests can have your Internet connection disconnected.

I wonder how they identify the illegal sharers. It's impossible without having access to the storage medium anyway.

ZeRoY

Mathiasb wrote: »

I wonder how they identify the illegal sharers.

Read the first post! 3rd party pick up IPs from Public Known Trackers and query RIPE to get the ISP.

Mathiasb

ZeRoY wrote: »

Read the first post! 3rd party pick up IPs from Public Known Trackers and query RIPE to get the ISP.

Ah. Well then no one has anything to worry about!

jor el

KetchupKid wrote: »

So does that mean I can legally download music to replace the songs fom some of my scratched CD's, as long as I still have the CD's - even though they may be scratched and unplayable, but they are still a license? That being said if I have a CD I bought and rip the music for my ipod and then I loose the original CD, I no longer have the license so technically I should delete the corresponding files from my ipod.

If you could reacquire the music from a source that has the right to share it with you, then that should be legal. Using torrents or similar to download your missing music would not be legal. Firstly because the people sharing it to you do not have permission to share it, and secondly because you will also become a sharer, which you don't have permission to do. Even using a download only service, like Usenet or file sharing hosts, would also be illegal as the person who uploaded it in the first place did not have permission to do that, and it's being made available to many people who don't already posess the licence to listen.

I also received a valid question about my earlier statement that the filenames are irrelevent and would like to clarify it. Many have suggested that hashing the filenames would render this current action useless, because they base their assessment on the filename. This is not solely the case, even though the vast majority of files and torrents do have accurate descriptive names, so it may appear as such.

If someone creates a torrent called my_torrent_1.torrent and puts a bunch of rar files in it called rar1.rar, rar2,rar, etc that contain a music album, then this will not protect you at all. If the content of the files are published anywhere, which they would have to be or no one would download, then that torrent can be tracked to you. So the file names and the torrent names are largely irrelevant.

witnessmenow

Am I missing something re rapidshare?

I take a file Movie01.avi and upload it to rapidshare, then go to a forum site and post the link to the movie. At what point in this process is a third party (i.e. not the forum site or rapidshare) going to have access to my IP address?

yoyo

witnessmenow wrote: »

Am I missing something re rapidshare?

I take a file Movie01.avi and upload it to rapidshare, then go to a forum site and post the link to the movie. At what point in this process is a third party (i.e. not the forum site or rapidshare) going to have access to my IP address?

They can't, this is going after P2P users only, these spying companies have hacked torrent, Gnutella, E donkey clients (think they used a hacked version of Shareaza a while back) which connects to torrents, songs etc that they are protecting, anyone that shares pieces to the hacked client is put into a database, which in turn logs the ip, time of upload and ip address, ip is passed on to eircom, along with this info, they investigate, Rapidshare doesnt use P2P, so unless the spying companies bring a warez site to court (very very doubtful) they will have no access to your ip.
Also on the topic of private torrent sites, while they may protect you more than public ones, theres nothing stopping these companies getting accounts on them aswell!

Hope this clears it up a bit

Nick