Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Large Irish ISP To Enact "Three Strikes" Rule For Copyright Violation

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the very-very-naughty dept.

The Internet 288

Squeeonline writes "One of the biggest broadband providers in Ireland will make the country the first in the world (according to the broadsheet newspaper the Irish Times) to introduce the 'three strikes' rule. 'Eircom will from today begin a process that will lead to cutting off the broadband service of customers found to be repeatedly sharing music online illegally. Ireland is the first country in the world where a system of graduated response is being put in place. Under the pilot scheme, Eircom customers who illegally share copyrighted music will get three warnings before having their broadband service cut off for a year.' ... The mechanism by which it operates was challenged in the courts by the Data Protection Commissioner. Apparently, IP addresses do not constitute 'personal information.' Personally, I use filesharing all the time, but I use it to download large open source Linux ISOs. How will Eircom legally differentiate between that content, and the content that some ragamuffin may be downloading illegally, without infringing privacy laws?"

cancel ×

288 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Perhaps they will use DMCA notices... (2)

gerry_br (801484) | more than 4 years ago | (#32319076)

Rather than analyzing the content of user traffic.

Re:Perhaps they will use DMCA notices... (2, Funny)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 4 years ago | (#32319098)

Or they'll just get drunk at lunch and call it a day!

Re:Perhaps they will use DMCA notices... (0)

Bobakitoo (1814374) | more than 4 years ago | (#32319470)

DMCA notices are ineffective in Europe. Thank you.

Re:Perhaps they will use DMCA notices... (3, Funny)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 4 years ago | (#32319852)

Oh we'll see about THAT!

No one suspects the Digital Millennium Copyright Act!

I'm guessing you'll be cut off (4, Insightful)

Kitkoan (1719118) | more than 4 years ago | (#32319082)

Welcome to guilty by association.

Ass Monkies (4, Insightful)

Das Auge (597142) | more than 4 years ago | (#32319294)

What the hell is this? A country race to see who can be the biggest corporate ass monkey the fastest?

Re:Ass Monkies (3, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 4 years ago | (#32319478)

A country race to see who can be the biggest corporate ass monkey the fastest?

Well, at least they're only talking about cutting off broadband access.

One wonders if the RIAA started by asking for the death penalty and was then negotiated down to the digital banishment.

If the Irish ask real nice, maybe some of us who live in the rapidly shrinking number of countries where the entertainment industry hasn't completely seized sovereignty can send them the files they want via burned CD-ROMs.

I hope, from my heart, that the entertainment industry is forced out of business. I have no worries that there will no longer be music or movies in the world. We forget that there was music (and movies!) before there was a massive industry to get rich off them.

Re:Ass Monkies (2, Informative)

westlake (615356) | more than 4 years ago | (#32319836)

We forget that there was music (and movies!) before there was a massive industry to get rich off them.

The box office for a Chaplin short in 1915 was $100,000.

Roughly $2 million, adjusted for inflation.

During 1915, the Charlie Chaplin craze stormed the United States. Essanay vigorously promoted Chaplin's image, creating merchandise from photocards to books to toys, sheet music, fan cards,. All authorized merchandise stamped with Essanay name, and where possible the studios Indian-head logo. Star paraphernalia as an idea was not new, but the body of Chaplin merchandise was unlike anything seen in film before. Charles Chaplin [cobbles.com]

P.T. Barnum had perfected the system before 1850. Jenny Lind's net for her first concert tour in the states was $250,000. $3.6 tax-free millions, adjusted for inflation.

Easily (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32319308)

How will Eircom legally differentiate between that content, and the content that some ragamuffin may be downloading illegally, without infringing privacy laws?

They won't.

Guilt by association nails it on the head. I have friends who have been flagged by their ISPs because they downloaded large files with vaguely copyright infringing names like "warcraft collection" (a bunch of World of Warcraft add-ons) and "final doom" (a huge 3D digital scene depicting a random battle with one side on the verge of being totally wiped out)

Not quite (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32319094)

found to be repeatedly sharing music online illegally

This simply isn't true.

What they will be doing is cutting off service to people who they are told, by a third party firm, are sharing copyrighted music. There is no decision of legality here because a court is not involved. Were they cutting off people who had been found, by a court of law, to have shared their music in violation of Irish copyright law, then you could use the word 'illegally'.

Journalism is hard though. If it was easy everybody would do it.

Re:Not quite (4, Funny)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 4 years ago | (#32319178)

...will get three warnings before having their broadband service cut off...

So that's four strikes, then.

Re:Not quite (4, Insightful)

tsm_sf (545316) | more than 4 years ago | (#32319316)

It's nice to see that, instead of logic, we're basing our laws on sports metaphors. This jibes nicely with the level of intellect I assume lawmakers possess.

Re:Not quite (2, Insightful)

Cryacin (657549) | more than 4 years ago | (#32319886)

Well the law has been strongly molded for juries.

Re:Not quite (3, Interesting)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#32319434)

No, it's three strikes and then you can go to court and try to prove you're not guilty.

Re:Not quite (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32319714)

No, third warning is that you are cut off...

Re:Not quite (1)

asifyoucare (302582) | more than 4 years ago | (#32320176)

...will get three warnings before having their broadband service cut off...

So that's four strikes, then.

To be sure, to be sure, to be sure, to be sure.

Re:Not quite (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32319256)

My pee pee smells like poo poo.

Please copy and paste, this is released under the GPL and creative commons.

Re:Not quite (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32319628)

Please copy and paste, this is released under the GPL and creative commons.

Re:Not quite (1)

future assassin (639396) | more than 4 years ago | (#32319318)

>What they will be doing is cutting off service to people who they are told, by a third party firm, are sharing copyrighted music.

Well all music is copyrighted including CC licensed music. I have 10 GIGS of CC only music on my computer, are they gonna go after someone who is sharing CC copyrighted music?

Re:Not quite (5, Informative)

Grumbleduke (789126) | more than 4 years ago | (#32319690)

Well all music is copyrighted...

No, it isn't.
We don't (yet) have indefinite copyright anywhere. In Ireland (as in the UK), the copyright on sound recordings (so MP3s and whatnot) expires 50 years after the recording was made [irishstatutebook.ie] . Obviously, this means works recorded in the 60s will be dropping out of copyright soon. That will include the early works of some rather big names including the Beatles. It is no wonder that the lobbyists are hard at work extending it - screw investing in new bands, mustn't let the stuff they've already bought (and don't have to pay the artists for) become available for free.

Personally, I have quite a bit of music I have downloaded that is not copyrighted.

Re:Not quite (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32319738)

@future assassin,

I look forward to hearing about your case against them, keep good documentation and get the eff or whoever is doing that in your country on your side. Post it up here once your site is up & I'll be happy to DL some CC music as well as upload whatever I have that you don't.
Thanks.

(sorry about the AC but I'm at work)

Re:Not quite (1, Troll)

thegrassyknowl (762218) | more than 4 years ago | (#32319398)

What they will be doing is cutting off service to people who they are told, by a third party firm, are sharing copyrighted music

Which is their right - the ISP has the right as a company to decide who they do and don't provide service to, so long as that is on a non-discriminatory (race, religion, age, gender, etc) basis.

Where they'll fall down is if they cut off contracted customers then insist that said customer continues to pay the contracted rate. They will fall down because the recording industry has been repeatedly shown to use unreliable evidence, and even to fabricate evidence when they are losing. It has also been shown that these "infringement notices" do not constitute actual proof that the user did anything wrong, since they're often generated by a machine which scans for filenames and signatures on data that is shared publicly (FTP, HTTP, torrents, etc). Just because I call a file "2012.avi" and the first kilobyte has the same signature as a copy they know is on a torrent server doesn't mean that the whole file is that trite movie. It may just be conveniently the next number in some sequence.

If the user then litigates against the ISP for down time/costs they will (probably) win, since the ISP will have no actual evidence that the user violated any copyrights and hence ISP policy. The only way the ISP could come out of this winning is to insist that the "copyright holder" bring the user to court three times and prove to a court's satisfaction that the user was, in fact, infringing their rights.

Further to this, I could simply generate a script the repeatedly sends infringement notices to the ISP for every IP address in their allocated netblocks. No evidence necessary. Let's see how long it takes them to realise that their three strikes policy is useless.

Re:Not quite (4, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#32319458)

What's the laws for contracts in Ireland? In my country this would constitute a "considerable change of contract" and allow me to cancel immediately, no matter how much longer I am tied to that ISP.

If Ireland has similar laws, I could forsee that EIRCOM will soon be known as "formerly one of the biggest ISP".

Re:Not quite (1, Redundant)

valros (1741778) | more than 4 years ago | (#32319816)

Yeah I almost feel safe making a bet that "formerly one of the biggest ISP's" will become a reality.

Re:Not quite (1)

UnderCoverPenguin (1001627) | more than 4 years ago | (#32320250)

That is a critical point.

I'm not sure how it would be handled in the US. The contracts (for residential service) I signed for each of the 3 high speed ISPs I have used over the past several years were for monthly service. If my current ISP were to decide I violated a term of the contract, the most I would be out is 1 month's service fee. Not worth my time to pursue in court - even if I was guaranteed to win.

As for long term contracts - in other contexts - it is typical to include a clause that the customer is still liable for the full price of the contract in the even the supplier terminates the contract for cause. I have no idea if any of the ISPs in my area offer long term contracts, nor if their customers (if any) under such contracts have tried to challenge the price liability clause.

Re:Not quite (5, Insightful)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 4 years ago | (#32319880)

Which is their right - the ISP has the right as a company to decide who they do and don't provide service to, so long as that is on a non-discriminatory (race, religion, age, gender, etc) basis.

It's Ireland, so I don't know how much competition there is in that country, their feelings on monopolies, and whether or not the Internet constitutes a service that a citizen could live without.

Speaking as an American, I can say I strongly disagree with you in strongest possible terms.

The telecom companies in the US have enjoyed enormous advantages and generous allowances by the government to use public land ostensibly because at some point the citizenry was going to reap the benefits.

This has not happened.

What we have is a wholly corrupt system with the barest possible level of competition, and in some cases, no competition at all. Which is why Net Neutrality so god damned important to keep them from destroying the Internet as it exists now.

Additionally, for many people the Internet has become as indispensable as water, gas, and electricity. I'm not talking about the need to post some banality on Facebook here, but important day to day errands that are increasingly becoming conducted on the Internet. Telecommuting, accessing public information, banking, voip, etc. So many of the services I receive on a day to day basis are entirely Internet based. Jeez, in some cases I even order Pizza on the Internet. In fact, last couple of times I needed something fixed on my house I issued a trouble ticket through a website for my home insurance.

If I am going to be denied access to the Internet, which could effectively cut me off entirely, I damn well fucking deserve my rights to due process. If your a utility company, which most ISPs essentially are at this point, then you get less rights than a normal corporation and that only makes sense.

 

Re:Not quite (1)

carlzum (832868) | more than 4 years ago | (#32319582)

Good point. I wonder how well they'll review the credibility of each "strike"? Expect a flood of copyright notices if they're taken at face value.

Re:Not quite (1)

FSWKU (551325) | more than 4 years ago | (#32319958)

Journalism is hard though. If it was easy everybody would do it.

Judging by the number of self-important blogs out there, everyone TRIES to do it anyway. Proof that both the best and worst aspects of the Internet are that everyone has access.

Re:Not quite (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32320264)

Knock knock.
Who's there?
Irish.
Irish who?
Irish I wasn't the disconnection leprechaun... *poof* -UNABLE TO CONNECT-

DMCA Challenge: (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32319102)

See how many /. users post in favor of violating copyright laws yet in any other topic on Government control they insist on more and more.

Re:DMCA Challenge: (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32319516)

No, both those positions are consistently anti-corporate.

Re:DMCA Challenge: (1)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | more than 4 years ago | (#32319882)

Anti any corporation? How about Geeknet Incorporated that owns slashdot? By the way, it is naive to see the world as government v. corporations. Corporations wouldn't have the power they have if it wasn't for the government. It is the government that gives them their (IMHO) excessive legal protection and it is the government that allows itself to be manipulated by the corporate money which has enormous impact on most legislation. I don't have a problem with a corporation that obtains its profits honestly by providing good products or whatever it is that it does. I do have a problem with corporations that profit from government favors. I think the semi-legitimate anger as exists among many /. posters is quite naively directed solely towards the corporations and what they mistakenly see as a failure of the fee market (which we don't have) rather than the way I see it which is government corruption.

Differentiation (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | more than 4 years ago | (#32319110)

Personally, I use filesharing all the time, but I use it to download large open source Linux ISOs. How will Eircom legally differentiate between that content, and the content that some ragamuffin may be downloading illegally, without infringing privacy laws?

Well, since the article talks about searching for people who are sharing (not just downloading) specific works over P2P networks where the copyright is known to be held by the record companies, presumably they are only planning to go after those they've caught in the act.

I'm not a fan of either "three strikes" laws that impose penalties without a proper court hearing or going after people based on an IP address alone, but as the recent round of proposals have gone, this one seems to be about as reasonable as you're going to get in who it claims to be targetting.

Re:Differentiation (2, Interesting)

Arker (91948) | more than 4 years ago | (#32319170)

Based on what we've seen so far from the Muzak Maffia, they'll most likely just scan for filenames.

I foresee hundreds of well-seeded linux ISOs with filenames remarkably similar to whatever is top of the charts on the week of release...

Re:Differentiation (3, Insightful)

powerspike (729889) | more than 4 years ago | (#32319500)

Or... you could just send fake infringement notices on every ip address at the isp, they'll either stop doing it, or go out of business...

3 strikes isn't so bad (1)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | more than 4 years ago | (#32319134)

They could always kneecap you with a Black and Decker.

Re:3 strikes isn't so bad (1, Offtopic)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#32319486)

If they don't mind that I reply with a Heckler and Koch...

exetel in australia (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32319136)

exetel in australia had 3 strikes rule at least 2 years ago. I got blocked twice each time you have to make up an excuse for it. i.e. wireless is not secure.

however after iinet's court case they have removed their 3 strike system

Abortion is still illegal (4, Interesting)

KahabutDieDrake (1515139) | more than 4 years ago | (#32319140)

In Ireland. So a bit of censorship and or corporate protectionism (depending on how far you lean) isn't a big surprise. I am a bit shocked that anyone is upset by this. I'm as big a sharer as the next guy (god damn it people SEED!!!) but if that 'sharing' is in violation of local law, the idea isn't to do it surreptitious, it's to change the local laws. As long as our activity is technically illegal, it's going to be policed. The more money involved the better the policing is going to be. There is a LOT of money in music.

Ireland will be a test bed, and if it goes even remotely well, this program will expand to most of the EU and north america. I'm not sure how enthusiastic the ISPs will be about cutting off customers, however, I am sure that they will ham it up to get the highest possible "operational costs" from the RIAA and their ilk, to cover expenses, of course.

I am also not sure why anyone would think their unencrypted data isn't already being inspected. That's just naive. There doesn't need to be a good reason, there just needs to be a WAY, and we all know there is. So it's just a little bit foolish to think that your OPEN traffic isn't already being scanned at the very least by a machine, and probably occasionally by a human if the machine flags enough activity as "bad". Is it against the law for the ISP to scan the traffic? Depends where you live, and how you define scan. In the US, the ISP can pretty much snoop as they please under the guise of Network Operations monitoring. They would be sued if they released private info, or if they used it in public against the customer, but turning it over to law enforcement (or a corporation pretending to be a law enforcement agency), isn't likely to get them in all that much hot water, legally speaking. They have already been doing it for years, and I can't imagine why they would stop. It's not like there is an ISP you can use that doesn't traverse ATT/Comcast, and or would vow to protect your plain text communications in the first place.

Re:Abortion is still illegal (4, Interesting)

Grumbleduke (789126) | more than 4 years ago | (#32319604)

Also, Ireland even has a shiny, new blasphemy law [wikipedia.org] . But anyway;

There isn't actually a lot of money in music. People think there is, (and the large record labels would like to believe it) but there isn't. In 2009, according to the BPI's figures [bpi.co.uk] , the entire UK recorded music industry revenue was less than GBP1bn. That's for all their recorded music (CD sales, music videos, legal downloads, ad- and subscription-based services, the whole lot) for an entire year. A top film will make nearly that much [wikipedia.org] . EMI (the UK's one, failing contribution to the "big four" - and the smallest one) made more than that in 2009 (actually, it even announced pre-tax losses of more than that; but that is more due to its screwed up investments and legal battles with its own musicians, or former musicians).

While $1bn may sound like a lot to you or me, on a corporate level, it is hardly anything - there really isn't that much money in actually selling recorded music to normal people. Normal people don't have that much money.

Moving on; yes, this will be an interesting case and will likely be hailed as a success and great progress tomorrow by the IFPI and all their little friends; in fact, it will probably be used to support their efforts in forcing through something similar under the UK's Digital Economy Act [wikipedia.org] . These measures will not work for two reasons. Firstly, they won't stop file-sharing without causing a huge fuss (and likely leading to an even greater backlash against the lobbyists). There will always be loop-holes, there will always be unlicensed file-sharing while it still more convenient. Secondly, even if people stop sharing, they won't naturally move to paying for stuff (and they certainly won't be downloading from iTunes or using Spotify if their Internet has been cut off for a year).

The only people who will win here are the lobbyists (who can get nice big bonuses for getting their laws passed) and the lawyers who will be spending the next 10-15 years trying to untangle the mess it creates in the local, national and European courts. Stopping piracy through legislation and litigation isn't going to work, nor has it ever worked.

Incidentally, I am doing something to stop things like this; I am a member of my local Pirate Party [pirateparty.org.uk] and will be meeting with Ofcom [ofcom.org.uk] (the UK's communication regulator who has been tasked with drafting - or just using the BPI's draft of - our n-strikes law) to explain to them why they will be unable to carry out the requirements made of them.

What are you doing to stop this sort of thing?

Re:Abortion is still illegal (-1, Offtopic)

glitch23 (557124) | more than 4 years ago | (#32319660)

Abortion = murder, murder = crime, hence abortion = crime. Seems to make sense to me. If we, as a species, protect those outside of the womb we should be giving equal protection to those still inside.

Re:Abortion is still illegal (0, Offtopic)

Grumbleduke (789126) | more than 4 years ago | (#32319808)

I don't really want to get involved with this debate, but that is the same logic that brought us: copyright infringement = stealing, stealing = crime hence copyright infringement = crime.

You're confusing the lay-person and lawyer definition of "murder". I assume you justify abortion = murder by working with "life begins at conception". I'm not sure about the legal jurisdiction you are in, but here in England it is my understanding that, legally (for the purposes of liability etc.) life actually begins at birth. Whether or not you agree with it, that is the law. Incidentally, this means (iirc) that if someone was to stab a pregnant woman and kill the foetus (but not the woman), they couldn't be charged with murder or manslaughter, or any charge involving harm to the foetus. But IAmalsNAL: I am merely a law student, not a lawyer so I could be wrong.

But yes, probably best modded offtopic and left alone.

Re:Abortion is still illegal (0, Offtopic)

shentino (1139071) | more than 4 years ago | (#32320260)

They could still be charged with aggravated assault at least.

If the foetus isn't alive, then it's part of the mother's body.

BRILLIANT! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32319144)

..er... not....

The guys who brought us Guinness give us this?

Re:BRILLIANT! (4, Funny)

Concerned Onlooker (473481) | more than 4 years ago | (#32319394)

I know. This really gets my ire up.

Re:BRILLIANT! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32319646)

*Very deliberately doesn't take the cue, but know that it was a good one.*

Re:BRILLIANT! (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32319436)

No really, the majority of Eircom is owned by Babcock & Brown, which is an Aussie company

Re:BRILLIANT! (2, Interesting)

bfree (113420) | more than 4 years ago | (#32319834)

Not any more, it is currently owned by Singapore Telecom. It's true though that they were still owned by B&B when this started.

Re:BRILLIANT! (1)

Kitkoan (1719118) | more than 4 years ago | (#32320030)

The guys who brought us Guinness give us this?

Not the first drunken mistake made...

be irie (2, Insightful)

JackSpratts (660957) | more than 4 years ago | (#32319154)

and while they're at it they should ban people from sidewalks when they make their own copies of florsheims.

Simple Solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32319172)

Personally, I use filesharing all the time, but I use it to download large open source Linux ISOs. How will Eircom legally differentiate between that content, and the content that some ragamuffin may be downloading illegally, without infringing privacy laws?
>/quote>

We just need to add an illegal-to-download MP3 to every Linux ISO. Then Eircom won't have this problem.

Re:Simple Solution (2, Insightful)

hoggoth (414195) | more than 4 years ago | (#32319234)

Don't worry, they will get to Linux soon. Any distro that can play DVDs or decode MP3s or rip a CD or a DVD will be flagged as a problem and get added to the list of things you are not allowed to download.
And I'm sure now that the MPIAA and friends have gotten their way there will be many other organizations lining up with their lobbying contributions to get their favorite vice added to the list as well.

Did I read that Australia is banning pictures of adult women with A-cup sized breasts?
If this ever gets passed here in the U.S.A. I'm sure it will be illegal to download evolution texts soon.

Re:Simple Solution (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#32319572)

Banning A-cup pics?

Sounds like some politicians sure have a thing for big girls and feel bothered when they have to sort through a lot of small chested girls to get their fix.

Re:Simple Solution (2, Insightful)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 4 years ago | (#32319744)

Sounds like some politicians sure have a thing for big girls and feel bothered when they have to sort through a lot of small chested girls to get their fix.

More likely that they break a sweat and feel their heart racing and their trousers tightening as they stumble upon pics of 18 year old Japanese chicks or high school volleyball games.

Then they punish everybody else for their own guilt.

Re:Simple Solution (1)

Shikaku (1129753) | more than 4 years ago | (#32319856)

Any distro that can play DVDs or decode MP3s or rip a CD or a DVD will be flagged as a problem and get added to the list of things you are not allowed to download.

Those are not installed by default on Ubuntu. You can download then after agreeing that it's either legal in your country or you alone are willing to take the risk installing them on your machine.

bad, but better then being sued (2, Informative)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 4 years ago | (#32319192)

I'd take this over a demand for money any day. as long as i can just change ISP's when i'm banned i'd be ok with this if i was actually sharing copyrighted material. if i was falsly accused i'd be fuming, and there in lies the problem with this approach. they need to be 100% sure a violation is occuring with each warning, and i'm betting they'll fuck it up.

Re:bad, but better then being sued (1)

blackraven14250 (902843) | more than 4 years ago | (#32319452)

It's only 1 ISP, so you could just switch now and avoid the hassle, if Ireland has multiple options in those areas.

Re:bad, but better then being sued (4, Informative)

bfree (113420) | more than 4 years ago | (#32319736)

The important thing to note is that this 1 ISP is the former government monopoly who still runs the last mile of copper upon which nearly all DSL in the country depends. I wonder if they will include the customers of their wholesale DSL customers who to many provide the only opportunity to escape from the clutches of Eircom? The only meaningful competition to them is UPC, mentioned in the article, who run the largest cable tv network in the country.

Re:bad, but better then being sued (3, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#32319512)

There's no snowball-in-hell chance that they will NOT fuck it up. To be 100% certain that copyrighted material is being shared, they would have to actually download something from a certain IP and tell the ISP that this IP was infringing. If they have that, why not sue? So what will they do? Either compare hashes or even just go for filenames. Now, could anyone see a reason why a file other than a certain movie could be called "300.avi"?

It's pretty much certain that they will blunder somewhere. The only question now is whether they get away with it.

How about this question ... (5, Interesting)

giorgist (1208992) | more than 4 years ago | (#32319214)

if every song comes out on youtube
and I can download it as an MP3
Am I pirating music if I can simply get it that way ?

Re:How about this question ... (1)

newcastlejon (1483695) | more than 4 years ago | (#32319314)

No. You aren't distributing the work to anyone else, are you?

Re:How about this question ... (1)

mariushm (1022195) | more than 4 years ago | (#32319340)

You're over complicating things.

If I hear a song on the radio and i record it am i pirating it ?
If i watch vh1 or mtv and i'm recording the show am i pirating it ?

(we don't even have to get into drm - get a digital camera and record the screen of your tv - you're recording the unique rendition of a television channel performed by your tv )

Re:How about this question ... (2, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#32319528)

Huh? You can still record from TV? :)

Seriously. No, you're not pirating. The station paid for the right to broadcast that song, and part of the fair use deal is (ok, was) that it's accepted that people will possibly record this broadcast for their personal use. In some countries, they used this to push a "tape fee" (or in the meantime, CDR/DVD-R fee) where you pay a certain amount per blank DVD to the music industry so this "kinda-sorta-infringment" is covered.

Which has become a very weak joke now that you can't really record anything anymore.

Re:How about this question ... (1)

srodden (949473) | more than 4 years ago | (#32319776)

Under Australian law I believe the answer is still "yes". As our law sees (or at least saw, I doubt it's been updated), hearing and enjoying a broadcast are one thing. Recording something so you can play it back is another. If you want that privilege, you can pay for a copy of the media.

Re:How about this question ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32320014)

if every song comes out on youtube
and I can download it as an MP3
Am I pirating music if I can simply get it that way ?

Youtube is switching the copyrighted works to the VEVO thing. With VEVO, you can't download shit.

Good luck with that (3, Interesting)

rubies (962985) | more than 4 years ago | (#32319296)

Who is paying the bills at the ISP? The copyright holders or the guys using the bandwidth? And will the copyright holders offer to make up the shortfall after the ISP ditches all it's best customers?

Re:Good luck with that (3, Insightful)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 4 years ago | (#32319386)

And will the copyright holders offer to make up the shortfall after the ISP ditches all it's best customers?

"Best Customers" being Grandmas who pay fifty American dollars a month just to check e-mail.

Re:Good luck with that (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 4 years ago | (#32319438)

And will the copyright holders offer to make up the shortfall after the ISP ditches all it's best customers?

The ISP's best customers are those who make the least demands on the service. The customers who are paying for media content provided by the ISP or its owners and partners.

Not those whose P2P traffic maxes out the bandwidth available over their shared Internet connection - for which they are paying the mass market price.

Re:Good luck with that (3, Insightful)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 4 years ago | (#32319546)

demand for P2P is a huge driver for bringing customers onboard though. since you've been able to pirate music and movies demand for internet services has soared. i'd argue that downloading content is an ISP's best friend.

people that just do a bit of web surfing and email checking are always the ones on the scabby $24.95/mo plans that hardly make the ISP anything, it's the medium downloaders who get a few gigs off limewire and are on the $79 plan that makes isp's cash - typically the have more quota then they need just incase. these are the demographic that make up most of their customers. sure there's always a small subset that will download 100 gigs a month, but they are in the minority.

Re:Good luck with that (2, Insightful)

rubies (962985) | more than 4 years ago | (#32319578)

Exactly. Plus the tech user / big downloader never rings the help line, while gramma is on there every second day. For an ISP, the best customers are the ones you never have to help.

Re:Good luck with that (3, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#32319540)

The best customer is my dad. He uses about 10MB a month to check his email and maybe, once in a blue moon, open a webpage. And if for some reason the 'net breaks down, he shrugs and tries again tomorrow. That's the best customer an ISP could wish for.

The high bandwidth using filesharer that goes ballistic on their support line agents when the net breaks for 5 minutes is about the worst customer they could imagine.

lol (5, Interesting)

Charliemopps (1157495) | more than 4 years ago | (#32319310)

I actually work copyright complaints for an ISP and have an intimate understanding of how this all works. If someone REALLY wanted to highlight the flaws in this process the simple solution would be to get IP addresses of influential members of the government and/or the ISPs and start sending bogus emails to the copyright/abuse/legal mailboxes of the ISP. They'd start cutting off service automatically to all the right people. The uproar would be both hilarious and effective. Trust me, it would work very quickly as the ISP has absolutely no way of verifying the emails. Get the internet cut off to most government buildings and they might start to rethink this policy.

Re:lol (1)

KahabutDieDrake (1515139) | more than 4 years ago | (#32319348)

So... What is the dead drop you are sending the IP to address DB table to?

Re:lol (2, Informative)

Charliemopps (1157495) | more than 4 years ago | (#32319400)

ha! You obviously don't get how broadband works. If only there were such a thing. What I'd recommend is not going after their residential accounts, it would be to go after their work accounts. They are probably public ranges. Ping them, see if you get a response, if you do, send a letter. It's not fool proof, they might not be returning ping requests for example, but if you start thinking along those lines you could probably come up with something. At the very least you could bury their employees in emails. If they start getting several thousand emails a day, I doubt they could keep up.

Kid, you are so full of shit. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32319694)

Have you even graduated junior high yet?

One day, when you have finsihed school and really do have a job, and if you ever make it past the foreword of '1337 h4x0ring 4 dummi3z', you'll realise why we're all laughing at you.

Re:lol (1)

Ash-Fox (726320) | more than 4 years ago | (#32319894)

ha! You obviously don't get how broadband works.

They are probably public ranges. Ping them, see if you get a response, if you do, send a letter.

*face palm [photobucket.com] *

Re:lol (1)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | more than 4 years ago | (#32319636)

As far as I know to send a copyright abuse notice you need to provide your full name, address etc and the details of the copyrighted work and some evidence. You can't just anonymously send an email and that's it. I guess you could fake all that but it would be a bit more elaborate than you make it sound

You can take away my internet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32319350)

But you'll never get me lucky charms.

Actually many other countries have three-strikes (5, Informative)

qirtaiba (582509) | more than 4 years ago | (#32319492)

If only it were true that this makes Ireland "the first in the world". In fact there are already three-strikes laws in France, South Korea, New Zealand, Taiwan, and (though not yet fully implemented) the United Kingdom. In a sense Ireland doesn't even rate a mention against these countries, because its "three strikes" system is not law, but just the policy of a single (admittedly large) ISP.

France's law is the first and most draconian. In its original form, which did not require a court judgment before the user was disconnected it failed a constitutional challenge, but it has since been re-introduced and remains on the books.

A favourite quote of mine comes from the judgment of an Australian Federal Court judge in a case decided earlier this year, in which he said:

One need only consider the lengthy, complex and necessary deliberations of the Court upon the question of primary infringement to appreciate that the nature of copyright infringements within the BitTorrent system, and the concept of “repeat infringer”, are not self-evident. It is highly problematic to conclude that such issues ought to be decided by a party, such as the [ISP], rather than a court. Copyright infringement is not a simple issue.

Re:Actually many other countries have three-strike (1)

mikaere (748605) | more than 4 years ago | (#32319626)

There is no three-strikes law in effect Aotearoa New Zealand. We had one, but a public campaign against it caused the government to suspend its implementation in 2009. It was very similar to the one in Ireland i.e. guilt by accusation. At present it looks like we will get one where some kind of onus of proof will be required, and an independent body will oversee the accusations. So,yeah, it will be a 3 strikes, but a more workable version without the guilt by accusation.

Re:Actually many other countries have three-strike (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32319796)

What does "Aotearoa" mean?

Re:Actually many other countries have three-strike (1)

shermo (1284310) | more than 4 years ago | (#32319900)

bit3H (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32319530)

can no longer be Ink splashes across that they can hold dying. See? It's documents like a if you move a table that they sideline America. You,

Trolling Potential (3, Insightful)

consumer_whore (652448) | more than 4 years ago | (#32319558)

DMCA takedown notices are constantly abused through youtube. Anyone think trolls will be in full effect with this?

Chance for abuse? (1)

damnfuct (861910) | more than 4 years ago | (#32319598)

So someone else can give you enough strikes so you lose your service for a year? Depending on how they implement tracking of who downloads what, there is some huge opportunity for abuse in a targeted user attack; like a DoS on steroids.

All content is copyrighted (1)

amiga3D (567632) | more than 4 years ago | (#32319652)

Even free stuff is usually under some sort of copyright. Of course to people like the RIAA and MPAA there is no such thing as free content. I expect if you are using bit torrent then you are automatically considered guilty.

Not to troll... (1)

Anachragnome (1008495) | more than 4 years ago | (#32319654)

"How will Eircom legally differentiate between that content, and the content that some ragamuffin may be downloading illegally, without infringing privacy laws?"

In all sincerity, did you ask them?

I'd start here.

http://eircomconnect.eircom.net/Forum/default.aspx [eircom.net]

Re:Not to troll... (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#32319870)

* Boards: 8 * Threads: 161 * Posts: 2542

Doesn't seem like an active forum at all.

Not to mention most corporate forums enjoy closing down and pretending anything negative they do doesn't exist or you get the helpful employee who is powerless to do anything due to the internal bureaucracy.

Plus, "large ISP" usually means they have some sort of monopoly and screw customers at will (like Comcast in the US)

Other ISPs would protest... (1)

Sepiraph (1162995) | more than 4 years ago | (#32319672)

I think other ISPs who doesn't support the action of this ISP should stop peering with this ISP to show that this type of behavior is not acceptable.

"Three strikes" rules -- unusual? (4, Informative)

Kargan (250092) | more than 4 years ago | (#32319688)

I work for a tech support firm in the US, supporting a number of different ISPs, and at least a handful of them actively enforce a "three strikes" rule, once they are notified by media watchdog companies that a certain IP address that's assigned to them is guilty of copyright infringement. It goes first strike - cut off service till you contact the main office and sign a document to indicate that you've removed the copyrighted material from your pc. Second strike - same deal, except you lose your service for 3-7 days. Third strike, they cancel your service permanently. I'm kinda surprised this story is making /.

Re:"Three strikes" rules -- unusual? (2, Interesting)

techno-vampire (666512) | more than 4 years ago | (#32319906)

One question: how many times has each of them been sued by somebody who was falsely accused by a self-proclaimed "media watchdog" company?

Re:"Three strikes" rules -- unusual? (1)

Kargan (250092) | more than 4 years ago | (#32319950)

As far as I'm aware, zero.

I've even talked to end-users myself who had no knowledge of file-sharing (i.e., they were elderly), and the telco treated them no differently.

The user did, however, have an unsecured wireless router in place. I helped them secure it.

Re:"Three strikes" rules -- unusual? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32320000)

I work for a tech support firm in the US, supporting a number of different ISPs, and at least a handful of them actively enforce a "three strikes" rule, once they are notified by media watchdog companies that a certain IP address that's assigned to them is guilty of copyright infringement.

It goes first strike - cut off service till you contact the main office and sign a document to indicate that you've removed the copyrighted material from your pc. Second strike - same deal, except you lose your service for 3-7 days. Third strike, they cancel your service permanently.

I'm kinda surprised this story is making /.

I'm going to have to call bullshit.

I work for a tech support firm in the US also, and outside of University's have no clue what your talking about.
I manage or have subscribed to connections for Quest, Verizon, AT&T, Cogent, Level-3, Comcast, Grande, TW-telecom, Time Warner Cable and honestly have never seen anyone but Grande ever do anything but forward a MPAA letter on.

Please tell what ISP is doing this?

fuck eircom, use mobile pay as you go broadband (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32319726)

I use meteor pay as you go usb mobile broadband here in ireland. I just walked into a shop handed over cash , got my usb stick and started downloading pirated movies. Meteor don't know and didn't want to know my home address or who i am, so i'll never end up in court. if Meteor ever cut me off, i'll just walk into another shop the next day and start the process over. Every month i go into a Meteor shop, give them 20 euros cash, they give me a code which i enter into the dialup software and i'm good to go for another month.

Prosecution (1)

pcfixup4ua (1263816) | more than 4 years ago | (#32319732)

Why hasn't some state\country decided to just go ahead and prosecute all down-loaders. It would be a great gesture to the IP Industries, and you might get Movie\Recording Studios, and Software companies to re-locate to your state\country.

Really easy solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32319878)

As many customers as possible, should turn on file sharing, let the ISP loose thousands of the PAYING customers.
This will set straight priorities very fast, it will demonstrates who are the real masters of the ISP business.
Unless the industry requesting the policing is willing to compensate the ISP for the lost business. Which would not happen.

What about corporations? (2, Interesting)

karl.auerbach (157250) | more than 4 years ago | (#32319912)

Suppose a corporation - let's call it "Google" - makes more than 3 improper copies. Would it lose its access to the internet in Ireland?

Fuck 'em. (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32319938)

You know what? Fuck it. Just turn the fucking internet off already. What the fuck does anyone think broadband customers are doing with broadband access?
Checking their email? Instant message? Go to stupid static websites? You ca use 56K dial-up for that shit. Fuck no. Its to download media. Period.

Once the old guys that run old media finaly die-off, en masse, this will get better. Old people just don't get it. So they sue everybody. Fuck them with beans

This will get borked in implementation (2, Interesting)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 4 years ago | (#32320184)

This will probably get broken in implementation so bad that public outcry will cause the legislature to regulate the practice.

I had Verizon turn my service off once. I called complaining that it wasn't working and they sent me to a website describing complaints of illegally sharing movies. (yea, no internet access and they send me to a web site). I checked it on my laptop at another location then I pointed out that all three complaints were within 5 seconds of each other, the IP address listed was not the IP they assigned to me, and after about 20 minutes on hold, they turned the service back on. I didn't even get a "my bad, our mistake" or anything from them.

About two days later, I started receiving phone calls saying that my service was scheduled to be shut off because of copyright infringement. This time I checked the website and another 3 complaints were logged within 10 seconds of each other. They got the IP right this time though. The copyright violation was Mandriva spring ed. Supposedly there is some movie or something out there that looks similar enough to a linux distribution that they thought it was it. I have yet to find it though.

After another 20 minutes of arguing with them, they told me to ignore it. I mentioned something about suing them for harassment. 6 months later my service stopped working again, I stopped paying them.

I don't think it will be much different in Ireland. Especially if third parties are involved and they do the same shit, file 3 complaints within seconds of each other in order to get to the max and shut the service off.

solution... (1)

sxpert (139117) | more than 4 years ago | (#32320256)

Start your own ISP and tell those morons to go to hell !

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>