Slashdot Mirror
Ireland's Largest ISP Settles With Record Industry
An anonymous reader writes "In what has been billed as a world first, four music companies and Irish ISP Eircom have agreed to work together to end illegal music downloading. The Irish branches of the record companies (EMI Records Ltd, Sony BMG Music Entertainment Ltd, Universal Music Ltd and Warner Music Ltd.) brought a High Court action against Eircom last March which has resulted in this settlement after eight days of trial. Eircom will be implementing a three-step process — informing a subscriber that their IP address has been detected infringing copyright; warning the subscriber that if they do not stop they will be disconnected; and finally disconnecting the user if they fail to heed the warning. Which technology they will be using to spy on their customers is currently unknown. EMI and the other record companies have recommended US-based Audible Magic, which (among other things) claims to block copyright violating web content from sites like Youtube and MySpace. However, digital surveillance is nothing new in Ireland and Eircom may have already tested and implemented the necessary technologies."
Since they probably will go disconnecting people very soon. And that will end up getting another ISP to get connected again.
I wonder how people would react if the postal service were allowed to hold envelopes up to a light, say "theres a CD in there which could have illegally copied copyrighted data on it!" and then after doing that 3 times, stop all mail to your house without having to provide any actual evidence or give you a chance to prove your innocence.
Darn those thieving IP addresses *shakes fist*
The disappearing pencil trick. Let me show you it.
Watch how fast https becomes ubiquitous. When everyone is encrypting everything, the RIAA will be utterly powerless.
As they already are when it comes to any encrypted connection to any number of swarms or usenet servers.
I hope you're right. The fact the Eircom rolled-over in just 8 days demonstrates that these companies have no interest in protecting our rights. For them it's all about the money, and they obviously took the cheapest route of not fighting.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Good thing then that their wireless passwords for the routers they give out are easy to crack
http://taint.org/2007/10/01/185837a.html
It wasn't profitable.
Those who believe the Internet is private,
find their privates are on the Internet.
The fact the Eircom rolled-over in just 8 days demonstrates that these companies have no interest in protecting our rights. For them it's all about the money
Of course it is. It is not a company's job to protect your rights. A company's main purpose is to make money for its shareholders.
Laws are what are supposed to protect your rights, because that company has to operate within the law. If the company's actions are an abuse, then the law should be changed (or enforced) so that this does not happen.
Of course, I'm assuming you were referring to legitimate privacy rights here, not to a non-existent right to download material in breach of copyright.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Think about it. The ISP is saying they are responsible for the content on their network. Now you can sue your ISP for wasting your resources on SPAM (especially all the illegal stuff).
Or anything else like if your underage kid views porn. Oops, ISP you should have blocked that!
Or somebody posts untrue comments about you in a forum from one of these ISP's. Forget about trying to find the person doing it, that's expensive and hard. Just sue the ISP into the ground!
(same goes for Comcast and all those other companies that signed up to monitor their network; they can kiss their neutrality goodbye because now they are liable!)
I moved to Ireland last week and placed an order with Eircom for broadband. After reading this story earlier today I decided to have another look around for an ISP in my area. I found one, placed an order with them and cancelled my Eircom order. It's not that I want to download copyrighted material, it's just that having a home broadband connection is just far too important to trust the "evidence" of these record companies.
Q: What's the difference between the RIAA and the IRA?
A: One of them used to be a bunch of terrorists.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Forget Freenet. Most Bittorrent clients have a checkbox in the options somewhere that routes traffic through the Tor Network. This measure is going nowhere.
May the Maths Be with you!
If this mode of operation were to come to the U.S.A. we should hope the ACLU and EFF challenge it. Here is why:
More and more, the internet is being used as an access gateway to the government in order to participate as citizens. Removing this access without due process would certainly be actionable.
Corporations MUST NOT be allowed to be judge/jury/executioner for citizens. There must be due process and a jury of peers for any such action.
Because its not as if there is any chance of some one using your average joe's default wireless router supplied by eircom other than the owner is it?? http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/02/eircom_wireless_security_flaw/
Of course, I'm assuming you were referring to legitimate privacy rights here, not to a non-existent right to download material in breach of copyright.
The right to act in any way which does not cause harm to others is far more substantial than any so-called "privacy right", recent attempts to undermine real rights in favor of exclusive copyright privileges notwithstanding.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
Ireland: we put the "no" in "technology".
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Ah I see. so if you pirate all your digital entertainment from now until the end of time, and everyone acts like you, there will be fuck-all impact on the jobs of people working that industry and thus it doesn't affect anyone?
Or do you only care if your actions affect people you know personally?
Nice attitude.
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
which is even more funny if you consider the etymology of technology. (basically comes across as 'no logic')
Wait... Here's an idea: we hijack the botnets and Make them download pirated songs, thus, the RIAA becomes overloaded with work, the ISPs decide it's not worth it, but not until after large chunks of the botnets get kicked off by their ISPs for infringement. It's like killing 3 birds with one stone!
"To invent, you need a good imagination and a pile of junk." - Thomas A. Edison
Really? Keep your word. Swap a fair day's work for a fair day's pay. Look after those you love. Never stop learning. Do unto others as you would have done unto you. Be polite. Is it so hard to think of honest, decent behaviour these days? That's very sad.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Which is why the "people" should hit them where it hurts...stop buying music...Stop it...completely...no music purchase means no budget for combatting piracy...no music companies...no problem. I say that we need to organise, online, a mass protest...For 2 months (or more), agree to not purchase music...make it a cult...hit it where it hurts...their bottom line...Start buying music from the artist rather than the industry...
When all is said and done, nothing changes...
Is it so hard to think of honest, decent behaviour these days?
You don't leave the basement much, do you?