Irish ISP To Block Access To Pirate Bay

If it's not internet you're delivering... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-08-20 00:46 · Score: 5, Funny

...it won't be money you're getting.

Re:If it's not internet you're delivering... by ionix5891 · 2009-08-20 01:43 · Score: 2, Informative

im a UPC customer and im happy with the service they provide and now their decision hold their ground
bravo UPC!
Re:If it's not internet you're delivering... by zoney_ie · 2009-08-20 02:54 · Score: 1

Eircom thus far haven't enforced a download cap.
Of course their main ace is that a lot of people have little option but to pay them line rental for the fixed-line connection, and Eircom offer bundle deals with their broadband that are potentially more attractive than signing up with a fixed-line competitor (you still have to pay Eircom line rental with the others and you get the bonus of trying to deal indirectly with Eircom if there's a line fault).
Nevertheless people are so broke or desperate that people are turning to 3G (cheap monthly rate, no install cost, widely available) that often offers little better than dial-up (contention and/or distance/signal) and not only has a low cap - but going over it means being billed a fortune as the excess is charged in cents per kilobyte (Cable/wireless/DSL ISPs enforcing cap simply warn/throttle/disconnect).

--
-- *~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
Re:If it's not internet you're delivering... by brokendwarf · 2009-08-20 12:27 · Score: 1

UPC does offer uncapped broadband (under FUP of course) and since it's not using eircom's lines either you don't have to pay the line rental.
Re:If it's not internet you're delivering... by blackest_k · 2009-08-21 04:32 · Score: 1

3G Hspda isn't that bad but it varies on a good day the download speeds can be up to 2 meg and typically i can download at around 150-200kb a second. On a bad day it can be lousy. 10Gb isn't a huge amount but if your not big on movies its usually enough.
The overcharges are optional if your on pay as you go. Contract modems will go over, pay as you go stop working.
There is some flexibility eg running out after 28days you can top up and have 10gb for 32 days. If you really want to go over just insert a 2nd sim card for a second pay as you go account and independent 30 days :)
What really sucks latency very variable latency makes voip calls very hit and miss.
on the plus side no 12 month contract no line rental saving at least 300 a year and split 3 ways typically the modem costs 2 a week each.

--
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants

So... by acehole · 2009-08-20 00:49 · Score: 3, Insightful

When can we cut access to EMI, Sony, Universal and Warner?

--
Be you Admins? nay, we are but lusers!

Re:So... by Xiph · 2009-08-20 00:56 · Score: 0, Troll

create work A.
get annoying little brother to send A to company X (but bully him a bit, so he'll never admit that he did it, or you forced him)
Go to court over X illegally holding A.
the work A could be a simple poem, that your brother posts on their tech support site or forums, where it's available to anyone.
At least in Denmark, where i get a note saying "STOP the police are not logging this (yeah right)" even read any of the pirate bay subdomains (*.thepiratebay.org).

--
Blah blah sig blah blah blah irony blah blah
Re:So... by goldspider · 2009-08-20 01:01 · Score: 1, Insightful

When can we cut access to EMI, Sony, Universal and Warner?
When you own an ISP?

--
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
Re:So... by impaledsunset · 2009-08-20 01:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

Your idea is interesting, mostly because a lot less people would switch their ISP because you blocked their access to EMI, Sony, Universal or Warner, than would if you blocked their access to The Pirate Bay.
Re:So... by TheVelvetFlamebait · 2009-08-20 02:41 · Score: 1

Problems:
a. Assuming the little brother keeps quiet, it was him, not the media companies, who infringed the copyright.
b. Even assuming that the record companies got blamed, they are only liable for damages, which would be... well... pretty much nothing since you weren't planning to distribute commercially, and the company didn't distribute.
It's not too difficult to cause the legal system to come up with a false negative, but manufacturing false positives takes real skill (unless you're in a position of power).

--
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
Re:So... by shnull · 2009-08-20 20:36 · Score: 1

maybe not a bad idea for all those anonymous proxies out there :p

--
beware he who denies you access to information for in his mind, he already deems himself to be your master (SMAC-ish)

But... by omgarthas · 2009-08-20 00:55 · Score: 5, Insightful

Where I'm going to get my Linux distros now?

Re:But... by noundi · 2009-08-20 01:54 · Score: 1

Troll? That's just being fucking ignorant. Someone mod the guy back up. TPB might not be the best resource for Linux distros, but it is still a popular site and the torrents holding distros are more often seeded. Take Ubuntu for example. The torrent has 103 seeders, that's not bad at all.

--
I am the lawn!
Re:But... by Desler · 2009-08-20 02:23 · Score: 1

WHOOOOOSH. The GP was making fun of the people who claim that they only use bittorrent for sharing Linux distros and public domain movies and music.
Re:But... by Runaway1956 · 2009-08-20 03:31 · Score: 1

"claim that they only use bittorrent for sharing Linux distros"
Delete the word "only" and I fit that description. I grab a song now and then, I pirate a Windows-centric software now and then, I'll pull down something that just looks interesting now and then. But, at least 80% of my (limited) bandwidth is used for Linux distros and other legal downloads via torrents. My usage may not be "normal", but I'm sure that it isn't "unusual" either. P2P is an important distribution mechanism, and not just for illegal content.

--
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Re:But... by CastrTroy · 2009-08-20 04:12 · Score: 2, Insightful

I would say that it would be quite unusual. If you took all the torrents on the internet, and rated them by size * number of downloaders, I would have to guess that all the Linux distros in the world would probably account for less than 1% of traffic. Think about it. There may be 10 good linux distros. and they are all release at most twice a year. So you end up with 20 disto downloads a year. Now there are also at least 20 blockbuster movies per year. Are you trying to tell me that those 20 linux distro releases are going to get anywhere close to those 20 blockbuster movie releases?

--

Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Re:But... by Desler · 2009-08-20 04:29 · Score: 1

My usage may not be "normal", but I'm sure that it isn't "unusual" either.
Bullshit. Your usage is highly unusual in the grand scheme of things. The amount of seeders/leechers on any given Linux distro ISO torrent is a pittance compared to what you will see with the latest cam of a new blockbuster movie.
Re:But... by Emetophobe · 2009-08-20 06:31 · Score: 2, Informative

What's wrong with getting the torrent from the distro website?
http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/downloadmirrors#bt
http://www.debian.org/CD/torrent-cd/
http://torrent.fedoraproject.org/
etc..
I'd be wary of downloading any software (especially something like an operating system) from a site like the Pirate Bay.
Off topic: For me downloading a torrent is actually slower than a direct download most of the time, thanks to my ISP throttling bittorrent. For example, I can download Ubuntu at 1.5MB/sec via http or ftp, but only 300KB/sec with bittorrent...
Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-08-20 08:11 · Score: 1, Insightful

You are aware that you are not downloading anything (except for the .torrent-file) from The Pirate Bay, even when you're using it to find/get whatever it is you're trying to get? You are aware that you *might* be using a tracker hosted by The Pirate Bay, and also that you might *not* be using it? You are aware that you *might* be using a tracker hosted by The Pirate Bay if/when you find, and activate, a .torrent-file on a completely different site? You are aware that at no time, whatsoever, is any (I repeat *any*) data of the actual file you're downloading anywhere *near* The Pirate Bay? Ever?
Maybe you're *not* aware.
The first Swedish court quite obviously was *not* aware.
(Yes, I've read relevant parts of the proceedings and the initial judgment.)
The appeals process will be quite interesting.
(Sorry for all the '*' above.)

How do they determine "illegal"? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-08-20 00:55 · Score: 5, Insightful

"repeatedly downloading music illegally"

I've downloaded music via TPB's index. Repeatedly. ALL of it was music put on bittorrent by the artist/copyright holder themselves for free download -- i.e. not "illegal" at all. How do they determine whether or not bittorrent downloads are "illegal"? Or do they just blindly assume "protocol == illegal"?

I guess Ireland's oldest and largest ISP won't be a full-service ISP anymore.

Re:How do they determine "illegal"? by pjt33 · 2009-08-20 00:57 · Score: 4, Informative

How do they determine whether or not bittorrent downloads are "illegal"?
Simple: if EMI, Sony, Universal or Warner claim you're downloading illegally, Eircom believes them.
Re:How do they determine "illegal"? by mcgrew · 2009-08-20 01:26 · Score: 1

That's the problem; the major labels' employees are seemingly are the ONLY people in the music industry against file sharing. It's my opinion that they're aginst file sharing because that's how their competetion advertises; they have radio, indies don't.

--
Free Martian Whores!
Re:How do they determine "illegal"? by IBBoard · 2009-08-20 01:31 · Score: 1

I think it's simpler than that. I think they just assume "Pirate bay == piracy == must be illegal downloads", or as the GP said "BitTorrent == illegal". Why bother trying to work out what people are actually downloading when you can just convince people that the whole site or even the entire protocol are illegal? Hell, it's what they're doing to convince most politicians that downloads/bittorrent are illegal.
Re:How do they determine "illegal"? by Desler · 2009-08-20 01:42 · Score: 2, Interesting

I think they just assume "Pirate bay == piracy == must be illegal downloads",
That would be a pretty safe assumption considering that 99+% of the content shared between users of the site is done so without the consent of the copyright holders. I'm just as much against the RIAA/MPAA but don't act as if what the vast, vast majority of it's users are doing is somehow legal. This is why you will see pretty much all of them flee when it becomes a pay site because it was never about any of the supposed ideals they are proclaimed, it was about getting the latest movie, cd or piece of software without paying for it.
Re:How do they determine "illegal"? by mdwh2 · 2009-08-20 01:51 · Score: 1

Nice straw man.
If doesn't matter how many other people are pirating, the point is his legitimate use is blocked by the company he's paying money to allegedly deliver him Internet access.
Re:How do they determine "illegal"? by xouumalperxe · 2009-08-20 01:56 · Score: 3, Insightful

If doesn't matter how many other people are pirating, the point is his legitimate use is blocked by the company he's paying money to allegedly deliver him Internet access.
And I guess the guy who goes to an illegal strip club because the barman mixes a mean Martini is also having his legitimate use blocked when the club is closed down because its main activity is illegal.
Re:How do they determine "illegal"? by SimonGhent · 2009-08-20 02:23 · Score: 1

the major labels' employees are seemingly are the ONLY people in the music industry against file sharing
Honest question: who are the people in the music industry for file sharing then? Surely there aren't that many who aren't in the employ of the major labels?

--
simon
Re:How do they determine "illegal"? by homes32 · 2009-08-20 02:46 · Score: 1

I guess Ireland's oldest and largest ISP won't be a full-service ISP anymore.
well they certainly won't be the largest ISP anymore...

on another note. with upcoming TPB sale and the new business model it is going to have the RIIA is just kicking themselves in the shorts again.
Re:How do they determine "illegal"? by dougisfunny · 2009-08-20 02:48 · Score: 1

Unless they don't have a liquor license. Perhaps that is why its being shut down in the first place.

--
This is not the funny you're looking for.
Re:How do they determine "illegal"? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-08-20 02:51 · Score: 0

And I guess, analogies just don't plain work. The club would busted, not the access blocked. The guy would be completely justified, if he complained about the random guy in front of the club, who didn't let him in.
Re:How do they determine "illegal"? by murphyd311 · 2009-08-20 03:32 · Score: 4, Interesting

It's more like putting up road barriers to a couple of city blocks because the street is known for prostitution and drug dealing. Even if it has legitimate businesses.
Re:How do they determine "illegal"? by guruevi · 2009-08-20 03:41 · Score: 1

Just because you didn't obtain consent doesn't mean it was illegal. If I use that piece as a fair use (eg. scientific research or artistry) then in the US it would be legal according to copyright law. Most civilized countries do not have copyright violations in their penal code and have fair use clauses so it would not be illegal for them to download anything in the first place and it might actually help them complete a task or do their job.
It may be immoral (as cheating on your spouse is) and it might accrue some unquantifiable damages (as while a transport company moves furniture and scratches it) if you do it for entertainment purposes but you don't go to jail for it just like you don't got to jail for cheating on your spouse or scratching someone's furniture - you just pay for the damages one can prove or repair it and that's it.
AGAIN: IT IS LEGAL - THE RIAA SAYS IT'S ILLEGAL, DOESN'T MEAN IT IS AND CERTAINLY DOESN'T MEAN IT IS SO EVERYWHERE AND ON EVERY OCCASION.

--
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Re:How do they determine "illegal"? by mcgrew · 2009-08-20 04:14 · Score: 1

Most musicians aren't signed. They self-produce and record, and like the signed artists, make most of their money from live performances and merchandice. Only a small percentage of musicians are with the major labels.
If you walk up and ask any musician playing in a small venue in your home town, chances are he or she will say they wouldn't touch a major label contract with a ten foot pole. Look here for a whole list of unsigned bands where I live, most as talented (or moreso) than anybody signed with a major label (ignore the kareoke; those are bars with cheapassed owners).

--
Free Martian Whores!
Re:How do they determine "illegal"? by Desler · 2009-08-20 04:37 · Score: 2, Informative

Just because you didn't obtain consent doesn't mean it was illegal.
Sure, there are exceptions to copyright for use without a license to the content. None of which cover what was going on at The Pirate Bay.

If I use that piece as a fair use (eg. scientific research or artistry) then in the US it would be legal according to copyright law.
Yeah, because that was what was clearly being done on The Pirate Bay. *rolls eyes* I'm sorry, but sharing cam recordings of movies, DVD rips, ripped full CDs and ISOs of software isn't fair use by any stretch of the imagination and that was what made up the vast, vast, vast, vast majority of the content being shared by its users.

Most civilized countries do not have copyright violations in their penal code and have fair use clauses so it would not be illegal for them to download anything in the first place and it might actually help them complete a task or do their job.
The people being sued were those sharing the content and willfully facilitating copyright infringement. This isn't a fair use right in any country.

AGAIN: IT IS LEGAL - THE RIAA SAYS IT'S ILLEGAL, DOESN'T MEAN IT IS
No, it's not legal. And yes it is not illegal because the RIAA said so but because of the statutory laws of the country and due to the WIPO treaties they have signed.

AND CERTAINLY DOESN'T MEAN IT IS SO EVERYWHERE
Sure, there are some countries that have ignored the WIPO treaties and such, but they are a small minority.
Re:How do they determine "illegal"? by hesaigo999ca · 2009-08-20 05:00 · Score: 0, Redundant

ummmm. seems like you are anti TPB there....all the guy was saying is that everyon is jumping on the bandwagon that if it is torrent then it must be illegal, and that just because EMI or RIAA says that what you downloaded was illegal, then they better have proof, and most of the times they don't...they don't even bother to download the torrent themselves to see if the contents are truly what it is supposed to be. ...they use the names of the torrents or scan for a digital signature whithin the torrent (watermark) which resembles their own.
However, I can easily reproduce the watermarks they use and plant them within all files being downloaded at TPB. This would force them to then change their way of discovering if there is really illegal downloading going on. If I have also a family of say 30 and plant a nice big family album dvd of pics and videos on the torrents so that my family can get to them, and I name it Terminator2....would you like to bet on how quickly I would be flagged for having illegal downloads happening because my torrent has the same name as a movie.
As for all TPB downloads being illegal, it shows you do not use it yourself, 90% is a bit high to say that all that is there is illegal, where did you come up with this number...might I ask? Pull it out of your thinking cap?
Re:How do they determine "illegal"? by Desler · 2009-08-20 05:05 · Score: 2, Informative

Nope, not anti-Pirate Bay at all as I've used it numerous times. I just don't pretend like what was going on between it's users was legal.

As for all TPB downloads being illegal, it shows you do not use it yourself
That's funny cause I downloaded at least 30 things from it just last week.

90% is a bit high to say that all that is there is illegal, where did you come up with this number...might I ask? Pull it out of your thinking cap?
Rough estimate from looking at about 10 pages of torrents for each category. You must be incredibly naive if you actually think more than 10% of the content on The Pirate Bay is actually there with the consent of the copyright holder.
Re:How do they determine "illegal"? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-08-20 05:37 · Score: 0

Hardly a fair comparison - the act of entering the illegal establishment is an illegitimate action in the case of the Martini drinker, so his legitimate use is blocked by his illegitimate action being prevented.
A user of the pirate bay that does not download/upload unauthorised copyrighted material is having a completely legitimate action blocked because of a heavy-handed approach to others illegitimate actions*.
*Because of course we know that actually browsing the pirate bay site is not illegal in the majority of nations and its legal status in its own country is currently undecided.
Re:How do they determine "illegal"? by Wildclaw · 2009-08-20 05:48 · Score: 1

You will always here about/from the major labels. They are by definition those who are the best at marketing, as it is one of the main ways to leverage the high margin profits from copyright and other intellectual property.
Small players simply don't benefit much from copyright and probably lose even more, because they aren't capable to leverage the same economy of scale as the big players. And if you can't leverage economy of scale, then you aren't in the copyright/patent business, because the whole point of being in that business is to scale with monopoly protected margin profits.
At the smaller level you compete by actually producing real value from your services, to get people to pay more. But because of copyright, most of the money has flowed upwards, and there is less left to share amonger the small companies/participants. This is the real reason why the big companies are frightened about piracy. It isn't that piracy reduces consumer spending. It is that the money flows elsewhere, namely to services that produce more of an extra value add.
Re:How do they determine "illegal"? by IRWolfie- · 2009-08-20 06:24 · Score: 1

Do you have sources to back your 99+% claim? or is this a case of making statistics up on the spot because you think they are true.ow
Re:How do they determine "illegal"? by guruevi · 2009-08-20 08:09 · Score: 1

None of which cover what was going on at The Pirate Bay
The fair use clause of the copyright laws are there to enforce the end user, not the distributor. So if have content that I own and I am authorized to make a copy or distribute it (either by law or by license) then announce it on the Pirate Bay (that is what is technically happening - TPB doesn't host any files themselves), that would be completely legal given that I am authorized.
When you download it you have to adhere to your copyright law, neither I nor TPB should enforce that. There are plenty of countries where sharing/downloading is legal, there is nothing you can do against it. In most countries offering/selling content is still legal. If your country puts restrictions on what you can buy then you have to adhere to the laws of your country. To give you an example: Alcoholic beverages are restricted in many middle-eastern countries. If I have a website somewhere in Asia that sells alcohol and you buy from me, I can't do anything about it, you pay for the product and I'll send it to you. If you get busted, you will go to jail, I won't. That the RIAA is trying to change that doesn't mean it is so.
The people being sued were those sharing the content and willfully facilitating copyright infringement. This isn't a fair use right in any country.
The world is bigger than the USA. I doubt anyone in North Korea would object to you ripping off the American media. All the people being sued in the US so far have not (always) willfully facilitated copyright infringement. The dead grandmother probably didn't know anything about it. Then there are those programs like Kazaa and Limewire that share everything on your drive without you knowindg. There are also virusses and scripts that will take over a bad configured host and start hosting content without the administrator knowing.
WIPO treaties
Ah, the UN's RIAA. 1st of all: it's a treaty. Doesn't mean all countries that signed it have put it into law (the US and EU did). Doesn't mean all countries are in the agreement either (Pakistan, Taiwan among others are not in it). It still doesn't remove the rights of fair use and it still puts the responsibility at the end user, not a search engine or a distributor.

--
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Re:How do they determine "illegal"? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-08-20 08:35 · Score: 0

Now that you put it that way, it actually sounds reasonable. As for legitimate businesses - no-one forced them to operate in slums and ghettos in the first place.
Re:How do they determine "illegal"? by hesaigo999ca · 2009-08-21 00:20 · Score: 1

>Rough estimate from looking at about 10 pages of torrents for each category. You must be >incredibly naive if you actually think more than 10% of the content on The Pirate Bay is actually >there with the consent of the copyright holder.
So again, you do agree then that your facts are based on your estimates, and not an expert who might have more input then just YOUR downloads, or what you might have access to.
I may be naive, but only in thinking that the content that is there is not just illegal content, alot of linux distros use the torrents for downloading, and as of today Ubuntu has 8 million users, so when they roll out patches or updates and what not, that is 8 million downloads (if everyone keeps up with their updates and most linux users do...) that would make alot of traffic for just one distro, and just one TYPE of download, I could go on to include people's personal files that is not illegal mp3s, but let's say some code for applications spread across a sourceforge.net platform using torrents...or maybe some family with their photos being downloaded by all friends of the family.
I guess what I am saying is YOU might be naive in thinking the ONLY thing on torrents is illegal stuff.

Oh no! by L4t3r4lu5 · 2009-08-20 00:59 · Score: 2, Insightful

We're fucked now!

--
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/

Re:Oh no! by L4t3r4lu5 · 2009-08-20 01:01 · Score: 2, Informative

Further, http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=**filehere**+filetype:torrent

Guess Irelands' oldest ISP wants to go out of business.

--
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
Re:Oh no! by L4t3r4lu5 · 2009-08-20 01:16 · Score: 4, Insightful

I guess if I'd written "The net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it" I'd be modded +5 Insightful.

Yeah, same thing.

--
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
Re:Oh no! by ChienAndalu · 2009-08-20 02:17 · Score: 1

More like
http://www.google.ie/search?q=**filehere**+filetype:torrent
Re:Oh no! by ObsessiveMathsFreak · 2009-08-20 02:54 · Score: 1

Well, the net might interpret it as such, but Eircom is the only broadband internet provider where I live, so things are slightly more complicated on my end.

--
May the Maths Be with you!
Re:Oh no! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-08-20 04:10 · Score: 0

How is that? There are plenty of resellers using Eircom lines, if you can get Eircom then you can get it from a reseller (Eircom still pockets some cash but you have full access, and your dignity ;)
Re:Oh no! by CastrTroy · 2009-08-20 04:17 · Score: 1

You could always use TOR or some other proxy to route around your internet provider so that they weren't aware you were downloading from the Pirate Bay. If I'm not mistaken, you only need to download the torrent from them. No need to worry about speed. Once you have the torrent file, all other communications are P2P, so you don't have to worry about the actual download going slow.

--

Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Re:Oh no! by dkleinsc · 2009-08-20 05:19 · Score: 1

Well, you were right!

--
I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
Re:Oh no! by 2obvious4u · 2009-08-20 06:07 · Score: 2

I just clicked this link and got:

In response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 1 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint that caused the removal(s) at ChillingEffects.org.

So apparently they'll just do that google search and then issue take down notices. I liked the old lawless internet. Who let the feds in anyway? Why do we need internet laws? Someone enlighten me.
Re:Oh no! by cheftw · 2009-08-20 12:58 · Score: 1

Don't worry. I, for one accept that most foreign people I meet will not know that Ireland has a nationhood, language, history and culture separate from the UK. It's fine, really.

--
Always back up, never back down. ---- Think you're cool 'cos your uid is prime? Take mine, modulo the one digit integers

Great propraganda against RIAA members by rolfwind · 2009-08-20 00:59 · Score: 1

Just tell people "These guys want to restrict your internet to their approved list."

Oh, and don't buy from them:
http://www.riaaradar.com/

Re:Great propraganda against RIAA members by L4t3r4lu5 · 2009-08-20 01:08 · Score: 2, Insightful

When 90% of the world only access the approved list (BBC, Google, iTunes etc), what the hell do they care? If it's only Linux distros you want, you're not the target market. Nobody cares what you, I, or Slashdot think.

Not flamebait, just a realist.

--
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
Re:Great propraganda against RIAA members by Blackhalo · 2009-08-20 01:20 · Score: 1

They care because the **AAs do not really produce anything. They just have(had) a rent seeking monopoly on distribution. If a viable alternative were to be established, creators might route around them.

--
"There is nothing to do it. But to do it." -Floyd Pepper
Re:Great propraganda against RIAA members by mdwh2 · 2009-08-20 01:53 · Score: 1

10% sounds great: 6 million people in the UK, 30 million in the US, etc.
I suspect the number who download is actually far greater - whilst sadly the numbers who will actively protest in any way that matters about copyright law will be far lower.
Re:Great propraganda against RIAA members by Sheen · 2009-08-20 01:56 · Score: 1

80% of norwegians under 30 download illegaly.
Re:Great propraganda against RIAA members by TheRaven64 · 2009-08-20 01:58 · Score: 3, Insightful

When 90% of the world only access the approved list (BBC, Google, iTunes etc), what the hell do they care?

Given that every poll I've seen has stated that over 50% have illegally downloaded music or video from the Internet (some putting the figure closer to 80%), I think you might be wrong there. If anything, Slashdot users, on average, are probably less likely to commit copyright infringement because a large percentage of us make a living from copyright-related activities.

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Re:Great propraganda against RIAA members by painehope · 2009-08-20 02:20 · Score: 1

The problem with that is that everyone has a reason. For me, it's because while I recognize the system sucks and it's corrupt, I go around it. And I'd love to see the RIAA drag me into court. I do actually own most of the music that I download (or I did before one enterprising tow truck driver or another helped their self to my CD wallet - this has happened to me at least 6-7 times in my life, so I've lost upwards of 500+ CDs just to tow truck drivers). As for protesting this, I don't have the time or energy. If it mattered more to me, I'd do it. I've never been scared to take a stand.
As it stands, I have real-world, meat-space issues that matter a whole hell of a lot more to me. And, speaking as someone who has had a SWAT team and the FBI batter down my door twice in one day (the first time they came in with an arrest warrant for me, but I wasn't there...but of course the case was ridiculous, it was a pretense to get inside my house so they could then turn around and tell a judge "yes, your honor, he had guns and all kinds of illegal stuff laying around, please give us a search warrant!"). The second time when they came back, my ex-wife had already left (with the one item they had a legitimate reason to be looking for, a pistol that I'd used on someone in their bullshit case that ended up getting tossed like a frisbee by the grand jury), so they took every single gun and computer in my house (which amounted to about 200K worth of stuff at the value of the time...and this time they took down the back door, just to add insult to injury). The only humorous part about it is that you can tell which stuff was packed up by the local police and which by the Feebs - the local cops took my monitors and thought that was the computer, the FBI took the cases and disk arrays. So I ended up with at least a few complete computers left.
Never saw that stuff again. And I'm now considered a confirmed STG (Security Threat Group - also known to the layman as "organized crime") member (despite having no felony convictions - I won't argue that I know and associate with a lot of people that are confirmed for a reason, but like I always say "what exactly have you found me guilty of?"). So I have scarily legitimate reasons why I'm not about to take a stand over P2P issues when I can just route around the idiots (hell, my ISP doesn't just throttle my bandwidth, they occasionally shut me down for downloading too many torrents or MP3s/OGGs at once, and I just dig in the closet, find an old NIC, spoof the MAC address, and get an IP again immediately, ad nauseum).

--
PC moderators can suck my White pierced, tattooed dick. If you think pride == hate, s/dick/Aryan meat mallet/g.
Re:Great propraganda against RIAA members by Desler · 2009-08-20 02:26 · Score: 1, Informative

I do actually own most of the music that I download
And? That doesn't bestow upon you any legal right to also download it from anywhere you want. This was like all those people who used to laughably claim that you could download console game ROMs if you owned the game. The claim was wrong then and it's still wrong today.
Re:Great propraganda against RIAA members by SimonGhent · 2009-08-20 02:28 · Score: 1

(or I did before one enterprising tow truck driver or another helped their self to my CD wallet - this has happened to me at least 6-7 times in my life, so I've lost upwards of 500+ CDs just to tow truck drivers).
Really?
You must have owned lots of really crappy cars and been really unlucky with the tow truck drivers that attended!

--
simon
Re:Great propraganda against RIAA members by Anonymous Coward · 2009-08-20 02:43 · Score: 1, Interesting

This was like all those people who used to laughably claim that you could download console game ROMs if you owned the game. The claim was wrong then and it's still wrong today.
I feel I have the right to format shift media that I own. The copyright holder and the law might not currently agree but I dont care.
Eventually the media companies will push people too far and some politicians will set about rebalancing our rights. Until then
I refuse to be restricted by some greedy companies trying to get blood out of a stone.
Re:Great propraganda against RIAA members by Desler · 2009-08-20 03:04 · Score: 1

I feel I have the right to format shift media that I own.
Fair Use is only exists because a legislative body created exceptions to copyright. These are not inalienable "rights" and fair use can be revoked whenever the legislative body feels like it.

The copyright holder and the law might not currently agree but I dont care.
That's fine. Just don't act as if what you are doing has any legal basis. The point is that people spread false nonsense about how they can download this or download that because of some random thing they made up that has no legal basis.
Re:Great propraganda against RIAA members by BakaHoushi · 2009-08-20 03:18 · Score: 1

Legal? No.
Morally wrong? Very debatable.
I'd, personally, say "I already gave you money for what you did, so if I want to medium shift, fuck off."
Re:Great propraganda against RIAA members by Desler · 2009-08-20 04:08 · Score: 1

That's fine, but the thing is that many people act and have posted nonsense that attempts to claim that such a thing is legal. It's about as hilarious as those disclaimers you used to see on warez FTPs and IRC servers that said that if you were a police officer you couldn't look at the contents of their server. People tend to invent such legalities that don't exist.
Re:Great propraganda against RIAA members by russotto · 2009-08-20 04:17 · Score: 1

Fair Use is only exists because a legislative body created exceptions to copyright. These are not inalienable "rights" and fair use can be revoked whenever the legislative body feels like it.
No. The US concept of Fair Use (I don't know if Ireland even has an equivalent) was created by the US Supreme Court in response to First Amendment concerns. The legislature later enshrined the court ruling into law, basically intact and without additional clarification.
Copyright itself, on the other hand, exists only because it was created by a legislative body, and can be revoked whenever the legislative body feels like it.
Re:Great propraganda against RIAA members by Desler · 2009-08-20 05:00 · Score: 1

No. The US concept of Fair Use (I don't know if Ireland even has an equivalent) was created by the US Supreme Court in response to First Amendment concerns.

No, before being legally codified, fair use in the US was based on the English common law of "fair abridgment". The Supreme Court didn't create anything. The Folsom v. Marsh ruling just further clarified the guidelines of what was fair use.

The legislature later enshrined the court ruling into law, basically intact and without additional clarification.
And can revoke them whenever it so pleases as I said because it has exclusive domain over copyrights and patents.
Re:Great propraganda against RIAA members by 2obvious4u · 2009-08-20 06:22 · Score: 1

Read the history of copyright law. Copyright law didn't even exist before the printing press. It is something created by a king to ensure a monopoly on information. Which is a bad concept. The world would be a better place if all copyright law was abolished. It had its purpose in a time when there was a limited supply to copy. Today in the information age when digital copies can be made instantaneously for almost zero cost there is no longer a need for copyright. The people who create works worthy of a copyright also have the skills to make money on whatever they created without the need to copyright it. They may not make millions, but they should be able to make a living wage. This would also free up labor and resources that are currently being waisted to preserve a dying system. Those resources could be better used to promote science and improve the well being of all. Instead greedy politicians and industry tycoons force a dumb law on the masses to maintain their monopoly. If all the information was free and anyone could produce replicas then quality and service would be what defines the business, not the novel idea. If you came up with the idea and also have the best quality, best support, best service, or cheapest price you could still maintain your business and be successful.

There are bad laws that shouldn't be on the books. Copyright is one of them, at least in its current form. Giving people a few years of non-compete for there idea is one thing, giving them 120 years to squander away their idea is an entirely different beast. Other bad laws include interstate speed limits and drug prohibition and any law designed to protect an individual from themselves.
Re:Great propraganda against RIAA members by rolfwind · 2009-08-20 06:44 · Score: 1

I want to just correct myself. That line just isn't dramatic enough and good propaganda need to be set off alarm bells in people's minds. This is better:
"They're coming for your internet!"
That is all.
Re:Great propraganda against RIAA members by Sir_Lewk · 2009-08-20 08:42 · Score: 1

I thought that downloading was legal for norwegians but uploading wasn't.

--
"linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
Re:Great propraganda against RIAA members by Sheen · 2009-08-20 08:51 · Score: 1

not anymore. But, its close to impossible to get caught, you could probably wave a banner saying " I DOWNLOAD ILLEGALY" outside a police station and absolutely nothing would happen ( you need to police to take action to get owner of IP)
Re:Great propraganda against RIAA members by painehope · 2009-08-21 02:32 · Score: 1

I beg to differ. I lease the bandwidth, I own the original recording (in the form of the CD case, if nothing else), and I could give a fuck what you or a RIAA lawyer thinks.
Plain and simple. If I own something, I can do what the fuck I want with it. I can copy it, I can jack off to if, I can stick it up your ass sideways if I feel like it (though that would most likely net me an aggravated assault charge). Since I am not altering the original recording (which I do not own any rights to distribute or do anything else with) nor passing it on to others, I am in the legal right.
You are not a lawyer, nor do you seem to be cognizant of the legal issues involved.

--
PC moderators can suck my White pierced, tattooed dick. If you think pride == hate, s/dick/Aryan meat mallet/g.
Re:Great propraganda against RIAA members by painehope · 2009-08-21 02:40 · Score: 1

I live in Houston, home of a few tens of thousands of cops who will haul you in for Public Intoxication if they don't like the way you look and you've had one beer. Or any other excuse that they can dredge up. Hell, I've had my car towed and myself charged w/ Drug Paraphernalia for rolling papers in my wallet (which matched up with the tobacco pouch in my pocket), just because I refused to let the police search my vehicle (on general principle). So they hauled me in at 10PM, got a judge out of bed (since they were a small city w/in the greater Houston city limits, without an actual jail), charged me, and released me.
Meanwhile, my truck was towed, torn apart (to the point where I had to reassemble some of the seats with duct tape), and I had to pay 200 USD to get it out the next day. Of course, after I was released, I grabbed a few six-packs of Mickey's Big Mouth malt liquor bottles (aka grenades) and went right back to the punk rock show they'd arrested me at - which happened to be next to the local civic center and fire department - and smashed out every single window in said buildings after I finished each beer.
Not crappy trucks. Just a short temper and bad luck.

--
PC moderators can suck my White pierced, tattooed dick. If you think pride == hate, s/dick/Aryan meat mallet/g.

Pity the ISP by mcgrew · 2009-08-20 01:01 · Score: 1, Interesting

If anyone has a link to news about WHY the label sued the ISP, I'd like to read it; TFA was written as if it was common knowledge. The only snippet about the trial:

In the original High Court hearing in January, evidence was heard that an Eircom official told colleagues they should think of music piracy as "sharing" and "helping the health and good living of rich cocaine-sniffing rock stars by leaving them with less free money to spend on sex and drugs".

Doesn't Ireland have a "common carrier" status like the US? Here I thought the Europeans were more civilized than us, with their elected officials less beholden to monied interests. Does the oil company get blamed when the IRA throws molotav cocktails?

The poor ISP will start shedding customers right and left.

--
Free Martian Whores!

Re:Pity the ISP by AndrewNeo · 2009-08-20 01:11 · Score: 1

Psst, common carrier only applies to the telephone part of the telecoms, not the internet.
Re:Pity the ISP by Desler · 2009-08-20 01:26 · Score: 1

ISPs don't have a common carrier status in the US.
Re:Pity the ISP by dissy · 2009-08-20 01:29 · Score: 1

Doesn't Ireland have a "common carrier" status like the US?
Actually yes, they have "common carrier" status JUST like the US.
That is to say, exactly nothing what so ever.
Re:Pity the ISP by JasterBobaMereel · 2009-08-20 02:07 · Score: 1

This is southern Ireland (Eire) the IRA became the Irish National Army in 1922, and don't have anything to do with the IRA in Northern Ireland ....
And yes ISP's have the same common carrier protection they have in the USA .... i.e. none whatsoever ....

--
Puteulanus fenestra mortis
Re:Pity the ISP by SimonGhent · 2009-08-20 02:40 · Score: 1

This is southern Ireland (Eire) the IRA became the Irish National Army in 1922, and don't have anything to do with the IRA in Northern Ireland
While that is true, the implication I take from your words is that the current (real/provo) IRA is not linked to Eire.
It most certainly is, for example Liam and Michael Campbell. The first successfully sued by the relatives of the Omagh victims for the 1998 bomb attack and the latter accused in court this week of having paid 10,000 (£8,600) to arm the Real IRA with guns and explosives from Lithuania http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/aug/18/arms-real-ira-lithuania-sting

--
simon
Re:Pity the ISP by mcgrew · 2009-08-20 03:12 · Score: 1

In the US it applies to the ISPs as well. And that seems logical to me.

--
Free Martian Whores!
Re:Pity the ISP by Desler · 2009-08-20 04:05 · Score: 1

In the US it applies to the ISPs as well.
No it doesn't. That's Slashdot invention. See NATIONAL CABLE & TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION et al. v. BRAND X INTERNET SERVICES et al. From the majority opinion:

The Commission has historically not subjected non-facilities-based information-service providers to common carrier regulation. That history suggests, in turn, that the Act does not unambiguously classify nonfacilities based ISPs as âoeofferorsâ of telecommunications. If the Act does not unambiguously classify such providers as âoeoffering telecommunications,â it also does not unambiguously so classify facilities-based information-service providers such as cable companies; the relevant definitions do not distinguish the two types of carriers. The Actâ(TM)s silence suggests, instead, that the Commission has the discretion to fill the statutory gap. Pp. 21â"25.
Re:Pity the ISP by cheftw · 2009-08-20 13:05 · Score: 1

The name of the country, in English, is Ireland, read the constitution.

--
Always back up, never back down. ---- Think you're cool 'cos your uid is prime? Take mine, modulo the one digit integers

With one week left before it dies by Anonymous Coward · 2009-08-20 01:01 · Score: 0, Insightful

Is there any point other than to give the middle finger to their customers?

With actions like this I sure hope it doesn't remain the largest for long.

Eircom alternatives by BigHungryJoe · 2009-08-20 01:02 · Score: 4, Interesting

Does Eircom have competitors that subscribers can switch to, or is it like the "free market" United States, where many of us only have one choice for broadband access?

Re:Eircom alternatives by __aardcx5948 · 2009-08-20 01:25 · Score: 1

There's NTL (UPC Chello), but they only provide Internet via cable (eircom = adsl).
Re:Eircom alternatives by Anonymous Coward · 2009-08-20 01:31 · Score: 1, Informative

short answer: no.
The one and only cable provider: UPC/NTL only is only available in a few areas of Dublin. Not even entire continous regions, but specific streets.
On DSL your only choice is Eircom. There's several other DSL ISPs but all of them buy access off of Eircom (That's why there's a single line rental charge set by Eircom). Eircom owns the entire network in Ireland. There's a small exception that BT is laying its own cables but they've only got that done in a few areas now. Generally, BT uses Eircoms lines.
Re:Eircom alternatives by fuzzix · 2009-08-20 01:37 · Score: 1

there are plenty of alternatives to Eircom in Ireland, BT, Smart Telecom, Perlico, UPC, Meteor, O2, Vodafone to name but a few
You have some mobile providers listed there - they're not broadband...
Re:Eircom alternatives by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · 2009-08-20 01:42 · Score: 1

NTL is available in most metropolitan areas.

--
What he can't kill, he has sex on. Trent.
Re:Eircom alternatives by Anonymous Coward · 2009-08-20 01:48 · Score: 1, Insightful

Does Eircom have competitors that subscribers can switch to, or is it like the "free market" United States, where many of us only have one choice for broadband access?
There are some alternatives, Magnet and Smart Telecom are the main two, the others just resell Eircom BB. That is if your in one of the cities/large towns. Most of the country has to rely on 3G with shitty signal or dial-up/ISDN. The only real reason Eircom are the largest is because to get a phone line you have to get it installed by them then switch over to another provider, lazyness plays a large roll in why people go with eircom broadband.
Re:Eircom alternatives by MosesJones · 2009-08-20 02:02 · Score: 1

You have some mobile providers listed there - they're not broadband
Taking just Vodafone out of the list they do a full set of both mobile and home broadband in Ireland.
Mobile providers are almost all offering bundled broadband deals these days and of course you can get the mobile version is you want to move around more and don't mind coping with only a few GB of bandwidth.

--
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
Re:Eircom alternatives by PinkyDead · 2009-08-20 02:08 · Score: 2, Interesting

There seems to be some confusion here:
Eircom as the provider of the physical infrastructure
and
Eircom as an ISP
This restriction is applied by Eircom the ISP to its broadband customers. They don't have any control over how other ISPs using their hardware operate.
BT and UPC were told by IRMA to implement similar restrictions. BT and UPC told IRMA to fuck off (though with more legalese).
Eircom did this because they are still based on the semi-state culture from which they came. This is also reason why they are going out of business at an alarming rate, in spite of holding all the cards.

--
Genesis 1:32 And God typed :wq!
Re:Eircom alternatives by fuzzix · 2009-08-20 02:19 · Score: 1

You have some mobile providers listed there - they're not broadband
Taking just Vodafone out of the list they do a full set of both mobile and home broadband in Ireland.
Mobile providers are almost all offering bundled broadband deals these days and of course you can get the mobile version is you want to move around more and don't mind coping with only a few GB of bandwidth.
Let's take Meteor... 5GB cap, high latency all the time, frequent connection drop outs, unavailability of 3G (or even edge) in many areas...
Not very broad, in other words.
Re:Eircom alternatives by zoney_ie · 2009-08-20 03:01 · Score: 1

It depends. On where you are and what you consider an alternative. Anyone in a UPC area is a bit crazy if they aren't with UPC.
A lot of the country still doesn't even have Eircom broadband! Even DSL-enabling all exchanges wouldn't solve that as they are too sparse in the countryside and most people on the exchange would be too far away for DSL.
A lot of people are turning to 3G mobile data as it's cheap and fairly widespread. It's not really broadband though as unless you're outdoors near a cell with no-one else on it you usually get speeds inbetween dial-up and basic broadband (1Mbit). Also you get charged outrageously per kilobyte over the low cap (15 GB).

--
-- *~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
Re:Eircom alternatives by ObsessiveMathsFreak · 2009-08-20 03:20 · Score: 1

Yes and no.
If you live in a major city (i.e. you live in Dublin), there are several service providers, the best of which is usually a TV cable company. However, if you live in the sticks, (i.e. almost anywhere else) Eircom(previously known as Telecom Eireann, the national telecom company) is generally your only option for high speed internet or frequently any internet at all. Ireland has a very low population density and essentially private industry is utterly incapable of providing any kind of public service in this country outside of Dublin.
If this trial succeeds (Because that's exactly what it is; a trial) I expect Eircom will shortly begin blocking anything and everything else that any belligerent lobby group starts moaning about. By the end of September, I wouldn't be surprised if 4chan and Lisbon Treaty sites were on the blocklist.

--
May the Maths Be with you!
Re:Eircom alternatives by RivenAleem · 2009-08-20 03:31 · Score: 1

I have 24Meg BB from BT in Dunlaoghaire. It's cheaper than Eircom and quite reliable.
Re:Eircom alternatives by wosmo · 2009-08-20 07:00 · Score: 1

I'm on UPC/NTL. On the other side of the country. But yes, regardless of how the service is branded, it's pretty much cable=UPC, DSL=Eircom. No matter whose name is on the bill
Re:Eircom alternatives by Anonymous Coward · 2009-08-21 07:58 · Score: 0

I use Chorus. There is also Perlico broadband (the newest entrant)

So Stupid by whisper_jeff · 2009-08-20 01:02 · Score: 5, Insightful

Once ISPs start regulating what they will and will not transport over their cables, they open themselves up to all kinds of lawsuits. You're willing to block piratebay.com but you didn't prevent that creep from downloading child porn? You didn't prevent that hacker from breaking into his school's records? You didn't block all kinds of other activities that are illegal?

I hate the concept of "slippery slope" but this really is exactly that. Either ISPs will start blocking anything and everything they are told is "wrong" and become de facto thought police or they'll become vulnerable to all kinds of lawsuits for failing to block "this" content given that they're willing to block "that" content.

The smart thing for them to do is just be dumb pipes. Provide access to the internet and let the people decide how to use it. If they use it illegally, let the police sort it out. Unfortunately, the various lobby groups (MIAA, RIAA, and their ilk) are probably offering up sweet deals that are financially appealing. Now. Over time, however, it will all come back to bite them in the ass. By then, however, the people who made these decisions will be rich and have moved on to other endeavours and won't care that they've ruined these companies and destroyed the integrity of the internet...

(Of course, the big joke of all this is that the internet was designed to route around problems such as this. The entire point of it was to provide a communication tool that could perform even when major disruptions occur. Not to mention, as is proven every single day, there are more people trying to break through the controls than there are trying to create them. More > fewer, always. These restrictions will only ever amount to temporary solutions, at best. It's a game of cat and mouse that they simply cannot win, ever, regardless of how hard they try.)

Re:So Stupid by value_added · 2009-08-20 01:15 · Score: 1

Once ISPs start regulating what they will and will not transport over their cables, they open themselves up to all kinds of lawsuits.
Don't know whether that's correct, but if the recent flap between usenet providers in the US and various Attorneys General is any indication, the inverse (where the threat of lawsuits to mandate self-imposed regulation), is certainly true.
Re:So Stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2009-08-20 01:20 · Score: 2, Interesting

The lobby groups aren't offering "sweet deals" at all - in fact Eircom's compliance was reached under threat of lawsuit, the argument being that Eircom was liable for failure to prevent copyright violations committed by its users (remember that Ireland doesn't have the same sort of laws in place that US does - in the US, an ISP is explicitly not liable).
That said, it's telling that Eircom is the only Irish ISP to cave.
I'm a US expat living in Dublin, and I find Eircom caving to these goons to be appalling, but the sad fact is that Eircom remains the only ISP in my neighborhood. Eircom was already the slowest, most expensive, and had the worst customer service. With this, I literally cannot wait for BT, UPC or some other sensible company to come in and undercut their prices with better service.
Re:So Stupid by dissy · 2009-08-20 01:34 · Score: 5, Insightful

Unfortunately, the various lobby groups (MIAA, RIAA, and their ilk) are probably offering up sweet deals that are financially appealing.
Actually I thought this was the most genius part!
RIAA/MPAA/friends offer ISP big $$$ to block the pirate bay.
ISP accepts that dirty money, and announces they will block them on Sept 1st.
The pirate bay sell off is scheduled for August 27th, 4 days before the block will be put in place.
The ISP seems to realize that the pirate bay will be worthless to everyone a couple days before they block access to it, which no one will care about since the pirate bays new owners will have basically already blocked access by taking the site as-is down.
The ISP just took the RIAA/MPAA bribe and is giving them nothing of any value in return.
Awesome!
Re:So Stupid by IBBoard · 2009-08-20 01:35 · Score: 2, Interesting

I hate the concept of "slippery slope" but this really is exactly that.
Surely this is a good slippery slope, though? Once the ISPs get stung once or twice over this then maybe they'll stand up to the music industry and say "There are legitimate uses of X, and we're just a carrier. Want to stop people downloading your content? File the law suit against the person hosting it rather than the person carrying it, because we're not your police force".
Re:So Stupid by Demonantis · 2009-08-20 01:53 · Score: 1

That is why proxies exist. The internet is very adverse to central control. If people want it they will work hard to get it. You can't tell them what they can and can't do. There will always be a work around. Not to plug it, but UltraSurf seems to take care of any censorship I experience.
Re:So Stupid by cellurl · 2009-08-20 01:55 · Score: 1

Actually, this will fuel the distributed storage thing of thenewpiratebay.com
The new pirate bay will encourage [pay] you to hold files on your hard-drive. That will turn this on its head!
-Ich bin Ein Pirateer
cellurl
Re:So Stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2009-08-20 02:00 · Score: 0

You're in for a rude awakening. BT is no better in my opinion; same as what you just described of Eircom. Having had to deal with BT for 3 years I am so glad to be on fibrenet instead. The last two places I have lived, the first thing i look for is a telewest/virgin fibrenet connection. I am through with BT and DSL altogether
Re:So Stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2009-08-20 02:20 · Score: 0

Of course, the big joke of all this is that the internet was designed to route around problems such as this.
This is really the crux of the argument. The tool was designed to prevent single points of failure, this means that anything they can do in terms of URL blocking is a game of whack-a-mole. It might be inconvenient for people to find a new service, but a new one will emerge, and Google (hell even Bing) will find it and direct people to it faster than the **AAs can get it blocked. And when they do, the cycle will just start over again.
The whole idea of trying to block information on the net is pretty futile, to quote Joe from NewsRadio, "I can't take it down, once it on there, its on there for good."
Re:So Stupid by Lostlander · 2009-08-20 02:23 · Score: 1

Either that or they legis... ahem er umm lobby for some immunity.
Re:So Stupid by Kjella · 2009-08-20 02:42 · Score: 1

(Of course, the big joke of all this is that the internet was designed to route around problems such as this. The entire point of it was to provide a communication tool that could perform even when major disruptions occur.
That's about as big an abuse as the general application of Moore's law to everything. It was designed to be able to route around node failures like if we nuked them off the map, for one you don't have redundant connections to your ISP and even if you did this wouldn't be that kind of failure. Internet was never ever supposed to prevent a route from dropping certain destinations or certain protocols/data that it didn't like, except to treat that node as nuked. Every form of encryption and security has been bolted on afterwards, like SSH, HTTPS, DNSSEC etc. and anonymity tools are barely usable.
What you're basicly seeing is mass civil disobedience all over the world. Nothing to with the Internet or how it's designed, when millions and millions of people do something it's not practically possible to stop. Technology? It might as well be prohibition in the US or the salt march in India, it's first and foremost a matter of strength in numbers not bits and bytes.

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Re:So Stupid by Golddess · 2009-08-20 02:46 · Score: 1

The ISP just took the RIAA/MPAA bribe and is giving them nothing of any value in return.
Ignoring how many people will ditch TPB after the buy out, I wouldn't say that it gives them nothing in return, but what it would do I think depends on exactly what the new TPB deal will be.

If the money that TPB collects goes direct to artists (thereby bypassing the RIAA/MPAA), then blocking TPB is still a good thing as TPB is removed from the list of options for a consumer/artist to avoid giving the RIAA/MPAA money.

But if the money would go to the RIAA/MPAA to distribute, then the RIAA/MPAA just bribed the ISP to do worse than give them nothing, they just bribed the ISP to restrict access to a site that would give them money.

--
"I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
Re:So Stupid by elrous0 · 2009-08-20 03:48 · Score: 2, Insightful

Actually, as the grandparent pointed out, this ISP is giving them something VERY valuable. This ISP is now permanently stripped of the "We can't block it for technical/legal/consumer reasons" defense. Now the RIAA and its ilk are free to flood them with demands to block other sites, and the ISP will have no choice but to do so.

--
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Re:So Stupid by elrous0 · 2009-08-20 03:51 · Score: 1

Once you've given in, it's too late. Block even one site for the RIAA/MPAA, and you've given up any right to deny blocking the thousands of *other* sites the RIAA/MPAA have a problem with too. You've essentially given up any defense you might have had in a lawsuit in any future case.

--
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Re:So Stupid by AlgorithMan · 2009-08-20 09:58 · Score: 2, Informative

These restrictions will only ever amount to temporary solutions, at best
Especially when the pirates start using anonymous p2p with obfuscation - by now it's to slow, because there aren't enough users, but if the MAFIAA is stupid enough to chase a significant amount of users in there, then they are totally done for. when anonymous p2p catches on, EVERYONE can download EVERYTHING without fear of being caught - THEN there will be so much downloading that the years around 2000 will seem like years of plenty to them.
of course they will try to outlaw anonymous p2p, but bad luck: with obfuscation you can't even find people using anonymous p2p!

personally I hope, that they are stupid enough to dig their own grave. may they rot in hell!

--
The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
Re:So Stupid by Ernesto+Alvarez · 2009-08-20 14:07 · Score: 1

The ISP seems to realize that the pirate bay will be worthless to everyone a couple days before they block access to it, which no one will care about since the pirate bays new owners will have basically already blocked access by taking the site as-is down.
Not only that, but the TPB index itself is for download. In a few days, not only they will be blocking a worthless (and probably aligned with the media industry) site, but they won't be blocking tens of copycat sites.
Definitely a bullet-foot interaction by the RIAA/MPAA.

--
GPG 0x1B479C78
Re:So Stupid by Santzes · 2009-08-20 18:18 · Score: 1

It is pretty awesome, unless you're a shareholder of Global Gaming Factory X and going to spend over $7M next week for a blocked domain.
Re:So Stupid by nollaigoc · 2009-08-21 01:44 · Score: 1

From Eircom and other ISP's viewpoint, blocking torrent access reduces their traffic substantially and leaves more bandwidth available for spam! Priceless!

Incompetent idiots by oobayly · 2009-08-20 01:03 · Score: 3, Interesting

Hmm, I've had to speak to them as they bought indigo.ie. When I called them to inform them that their smtp server (actually an eircom server) was having load balancing issues they suggested that I try webmail instead.

Me: OK, I'll give the webmail a go for the moment, what's the address for it?
Them: Umm, I don't know, google indigo webmail
Me: OK
Them: I've just googled it for you, it's the 1st result: something something dot indigo dot ca
Me: That's a Canadian TLD, how's that going to help me?
Them: <Silence>

Good luck to them, you couldn't rely on them to arrange a piss up in St James's Gate.

Re:Incompetent idiots by Skrynesaver · 2009-08-20 01:54 · Score: 2, Funny
Their mail tech support is hilarious, I had a similar but different problem, mail from eircom customers never reached my domain. This was due to an extinct domain with my domain name having been hosted on Indigo back in the day.
I rang them to get them to remove their MX record for the domain, their responses were hilarious:
- "Which mail client are you using?" "pine(just for kicks :)"
- "What is the account number of your hosting account?"
- ...
After 3 days of this shit I eventually began each call with "Do you know what an MX record is?" Eventually I got a guy who sounded insulted by the question, half an hour later it was working, but their tech-support guys are beyond ignorant.
--
"Linux is for noobs"-The new MS fud strategy
Re:Incompetent idiots by oobayly · 2009-08-20 02:06 · Score: 2

After 3 days of this shit I eventually began each call with "Do you know what an MX record is?"
I was sorely tempted to do that, but I just gave up, gave my Dad access to our SMTP server rather than dealing with a bunch of numpties.
After several weeks of trouble shooting a BT issue (which turned out to be faulty hardware in the exchange), I started asking support if they knew the difference between UDP & TCP, if they could tell me then I felt they had some networking knowledge and at least could understand what I was talking about.
Re:Incompetent idiots by Anonymous Coward · 2009-08-20 11:18 · Score: 0

"Them: I've just googled it for you, it's the 1st result: something something dot indigo dot ca
Me: That's a Canadian TLD, how's that going to help me?"
Not only that, but indigo.ca is the web store for the Canadian retail bookseller known as "Chapters".
It wasn't even the right site if you were in Canada.

Whack a mole by Blackhalo · 2009-08-20 01:10 · Score: 3, Interesting

So they are blocking the one torrent site that is pretty much self-destructing on it's own? I guess it could set a precedent for when the **AAs show up with entire domains and IP ranges they want blocked, but the sharing will just move to an anonomized format or into clustered cells of private peer groupings.

It has been my experience that the web does a very good job at routing around damage, and moves much more quickly that some trade association with an antiquated business model.

--
"There is nothing to do it. But to do it." -Floyd Pepper

Re:Whack a mole by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · 2009-08-20 01:33 · Score: 1

What about this part: Eircom agreed to cut off customers found to be repeatedly downloading music illegally.

--
What he can't kill, he has sex on. Trent.
Re:Whack a mole by Blackhalo · 2009-08-20 01:38 · Score: 1

For Eircom, out side of potential liability for no longer being indifferent to content, it is a big win. If they kick the bandwidth hogs off of their network, they can sell the same pipes to more customers, at a lower rate and perhaps a greater profit. For the **AAs not so much, as those same customers will find an alternative.

--
"There is nothing to do it. But to do it." -Floyd Pepper
Re:Whack a mole by Kjella · 2009-08-20 01:50 · Score: 1

but the sharing will just move to an anonomized format or into clustered cells of private peer groupings.
It's two ways you can win, you can either improve your own convienience or lower that of the opposition. Private groups are (duh) private, meaning they're not that easy to find or get into and it'll have less obscure content. Anonymous networks tend to have very little in terms of control and QA which is what torrent sites (private and public) provide. Remember kazaa towards the end? Full of spam and trojans and poor quality shit and deliberate crap flooding the network. People have tried forever implementing some kind of P2P trust system (PGP anyone) without ever making it usable to the public. I'm sure it'll somehow transform P2P to adapt but it's not trivial issues that need to be solved if the public torrent sites disappear.

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Re:Whack a mole by Anonymous Coward · 2009-08-23 23:32 · Score: 0

What customers?

Irish State paternalism by Anonymous Coward · 2009-08-20 01:12 · Score: 0, Troll

Younger Americans probably have a rosy view of the old sod - for 50years post 1923 it was a theocratic state with strong (at times overt) fascist tendencies (remember the famous 1945 telegram) supported by remittances from those working in the hated UK. It was only saved by billions of EU money - good to see that it is now reverting back to form.

Re:Irish State paternalism by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · 2009-08-20 01:38 · Score: 1

The EU is quite upset with Irish success actually, since it was achieved almost entirely by our low corporate tax rates, and the tax harmonisers dont like that one bit. Whatever aid was received was returned to the EU in spades via our fishing rights, and as for the Catholic state, that was largely the creation of the lunatic Spanish-American DeValera with his "comely maidens dancing at the crossroads" vision, a shambles we are still trying to unpick from our constitution. Remittances from the UK? Hardly. The US was the destination of choice for Irish emigrants, people who went to the UK rarely earned enough to send much home, since the local population viewed them as subhuman. Still, all this is besides the point, which is why you have turned a poor corporate decision by a group that isn't even Irish owned anymore into a spew of racist bile against the Irish people?

--
What he can't kill, he has sex on. Trent.
Re:Irish State paternalism by fiannaFailMan · 2009-08-20 05:57 · Score: 1

It was only saved by billions of EU money.
Billions of EU money never accounted for more than 5% of GDP. Quoth The Economist (from memory): "Nor is it the result of EU handouts. The Irish success is of Irish making, as successive governments have reduced taxation, improved education, and managed the public accounts in a sensibly austere manner."

--
Drill baby drill - on Mars

Eircom alternatives by Anonymous Coward · 2009-08-20 01:13 · Score: 0

there are plenty of alternatives to Eircom in Ireland, BT, Smart Telecom, Perlico, UPC, Meteor, O2, Vodafone to name but a few

Not ireland's oldest ISP by ballyhoo · 2009-08-20 01:20 · Score: 1

Eircom are not ireland's oldest ISP. They started operations as an ISP in 1996 (or in 1995 as Indigo, which they later bought out) and at the time, there were several other operators in the market: eunet ireland (the oldest commercial), ireland online, heanet (nren), connect ireland and internet eireann.

I used a computer in Eire by Anonymous Coward · 2009-08-20 01:25 · Score: 0

I used a computer in Eire
my need for warez was dire
but pirate bay was blocked
and I was shocked
that I'll be stuck
in the open source quagmire

Re:I used a computer in Eire by 2phar · 2009-08-20 01:39 · Score: 1

It's Éire, not Eire.

Eircom is not Irish owned... by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · 2009-08-20 01:46 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Its owned by Australian investment bank Babcock Brown, soon to change hands most likely. http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2008/1030/1225303611201.html

--
What he can't kill, he has sex on. Trent.

Mod parent down by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · 2009-08-20 01:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

What idiot keeps modding this racist trash up?

--
What he can't kill, he has sex on. Trent.

Re:FTP by Sfing_ter · 2009-08-20 02:01 · Score: 1

Who does he record for? Perhaps you could send us a playlist?

AAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaahahhahahaha.

--
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing. Emo Philips

Re:Missed it by... THAT much by Anonymous Coward · 2009-08-20 02:09 · Score: 0

search is disabled, because make the site very slow a new code or something will be here in few hours

Simple by ILongForDarkness · 2009-08-20 02:16 · Score: 1

They don't care. I think the logic is thus: "There is some of our IP on TPB that we didn't authorize. Therefore they are an infringing site and should be blocked." TPB pretty much tells the industry to go screw themselves every time they ask them to take something down so the industry has decided to have the ISPs take it down for them.

USB Drives FTW by Anonymous Coward · 2009-08-20 02:17 · Score: 0

So what happens if they ever do achieve their imposable goal of stopping all internet based file sharing, what will they do about 1TB portable hard drives?

Re:USB Drives FTW by Molochi · 2009-08-20 04:57 · Score: 1

You'll probably have to pay a special tax on your station wagon to compensate them for the potential piracy due to its non-underestimatable bandwidth

--
"The Adobe Updater must update itself before it can check for updates. Would you like to update the Adobe Updater now?"

uhh. by binaryseraph · 2009-08-20 02:19 · Score: 1

ok so 120,000 people use their ISP (maybe more in a household or small biz)... Thats small time considering the vast size of the internet user pool. Granted the implications kinda suck, but this will have the same effect as a small town just blinking out of existence on the web (even though we are talking about blocking just one site). Interesteing news, yes- impactful? Not really.

Re:uhh. by Molochi · 2009-08-20 05:12 · Score: 1

I think the point is that it sets precedence and may have other effects. If Eircom is successful they can go back to the courts and demand similar actions from other ISPs. According to TFA another ISP, BT, has refused on legal grounds already.
I note also that TPB is on the verge of going legit under new ownership (before Sept 1) and this is sure to deflate the perceived value of the brand/URL. It could even sour the deal.

--
"The Adobe Updater must update itself before it can check for updates. Would you like to update the Adobe Updater now?"
Re:uhh. by binaryseraph · 2009-08-20 05:56 · Score: 1

I totally agree. The precedence could have some major implications for other European ISP's, or even just those operating in that neck of the woods. We have seen how complacent the UK's ISP's have been with the government there (even though this is not a government imposed change), it would not be a surprise to see a few others fall like dominoes. Especially with RIAA lawyers at their heels.

Profit by Krneki · 2009-08-20 02:27 · Score: 1

1. Create a free worldwide download service.
2. Reject all the legal threats
3. Get blocked by stupid ISPs
3. Sell the project
4. Legalize it.
5. Sue the stupid ISPs
6. Profit.

--
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.

Bad Timing? by meist3r · 2009-08-20 02:51 · Score: 1

1st of September? When the last "true" TPB user will stop caring about the project for good? Nice going. Good Luck with your useless block then.

I've never used it myself but... by kalirion · 2009-08-20 03:11 · Score: 1

Wouldn't most people accessing The Pirate Bay, especially for "illegal content" be using TOR or other web proxies anyway?

ha! by rockoutwithmecockout · 2009-08-20 03:18 · Score: 2, Insightful

The best thing about blind censorship is that if they just equate one site with illegal downloads then it gets pretty easy for people to just keep changing sites, client software, protocols, etc. Laws that only deal with the surface symptoms of a problem never really solve anything and they actually just distract people, allowing pirates pretty much free roam.

"out of court agreement" by shentino · 2009-08-20 03:21 · Score: 2, Informative

Sounds like the ISP got their asses sued off and that their decision to block access to TPB wasn't necessarily completely willing.

Ireland Offline... by carathas · 2009-08-20 03:42 · Score: 1

I remember going to an Ireland Offline meeting where Eircom had a representative. During the Discussion it came out that Eircom were taking BT to court for not allowing LLU in London while BT was Taking Eircom to court for not unbundling in Dublin...typical

Global Gaming Factory (GGF) on 27th August 2009 by SniffTheGlove · 2009-08-20 04:02 · Score: 1

Global Gaming Factory (GGF) on 27th August 2009 will turn TPB into a legal p2p site, then they could have grounds to sue Eircom for blocking access to a legal download site. It could all happen and then duck when the fan gets switch on.

Re:Global Gaming Factory (GGF) on 27th August 2009 by Asclepius99 · 2009-08-20 04:14 · Score: 1

This is the first thing I thought. I don't really see a point to start blocking next month when the conversion to a legal download site is taking place this month.

check riaaradar.com by Dan667 · 2009-08-20 04:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

When you buy music, make sure to check http://riaaradar.com/ to see if the album is from a company that funds the RIAA. If they do, don't buy it and stick it to them a couple dollars of lost earnings at a time.

anytime you want by Archfeld · 2009-08-20 04:56 · Score: 1

open up that host file and loopback the offending addresses.

--
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?

Use OneSwarm instead of piratebay by wealthychef · 2009-08-20 06:42 · Score: 2, Informative

Everyone should consider using OneSwarm instead of piratebay. This eliminates the need for a central tracker, improves privacy, and seems to eliminate the ability of copyright holders to track you without your permission. FTF website:

OneSwarm is a new peer-to-peer tool that provides users with explicit control over their privacy by letting them determine how data is shared. Instead of sharing data indiscriminately, data shared with OneSwarm can be made public, it can be shared with friends, shared with some friends but not others, and so forth. We call this friend-to-friend (F2F) data sharing.

--
Currently hooked on AMP

Re:Use OneSwarm instead of piratebay by skangas · 2009-08-20 18:03 · Score: 1

I will use OneSwarm too, as soon as they fix headless usage (i.e. no X).
Re:Use OneSwarm instead of piratebay by wealthychef · 2009-08-20 18:28 · Score: 1

Don't hold your breath -- it's a team of grad students and they sound busier than hell. But it's open source, hint hint.

--
Currently hooked on AMP

Re:How do they determine "legal"? by StikyPad · 2009-08-20 06:46 · Score: 1

I've downloaded music via TPB's index. Repeatedly. ALL of it was music put on bittorrent by the someone pretending to be the artist/copyright holder themselves for free download -- i.e. not "legal" at all. How do they determine whether or not bittorrent downloads are "legal"? Or do they just blindly assume "protocol == legal"?

--
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere

And coincidentally... by UbuntuniX · 2009-08-20 06:51 · Score: 0

I will be changing to UPC in the next week. Eircom's support is ridiculous; I've had numerous problems all due to them and their hardware, and one of their engineers lied to me. It's bad enough they're being DDoSed daily now (which they don't know how to handle), but censorship isn't going to encourage customers to stay.

Haven't they heard? by nurb432 · 2009-08-20 08:00 · Score: 1

TPB is about to be neutered.

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----

it will all come back to bite them by nurb432 · 2009-08-20 08:03 · Score: 1

Oh really? How so? They are a monopoly, and if they can keep the stranglehold on content and distribution ( and upcoming laws ) long enough to mould the next generation by 'reeducation', they have it licked.

As far as integrity of the internet, that was broken long ago. Pretty much day 2 after it was opened to commerce.

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----

mod parent up by Anonymous Coward · 2009-08-20 11:12 · Score: 0

as an American with no Irish heritage, I completely agree with this guy's viewpoint. racist? no. factual? yes.

ISOHunt by Anonymous Coward · 2009-08-20 11:16 · Score: 0

There are plenty of sites from which people can find torrents. i.e. ISOHunt, pizzatorrent, etc.

Are they going to block those too? Will they go Comcast's route and throttle all p2p transfers?

Re:FTP by cheftw · 2009-08-20 12:45 · Score: 1

I hate to say it, but this is not a troll, only an oblique literary reference.

It's a line from a poem by Michael Longely, a poet from Northern Ireland. The full quote goes

Here are two pictures from my father's head--
I have kept them like secrets until now:
First, the Ulster Division at the Somme
Going over the top with 'Fuck the Pope!'
'No Surrender!': a boy about to die,
Screaming 'Give 'em one for the Shankill!'

and can be found here.

It's a hard to work out precisely his point, but let's not be so quick to call troll next time eh?

--
Always back up, never back down. ---- Think you're cool 'cos your uid is prime? Take mine, modulo the one digit integers

They already block isohunt in Texas... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-08-20 14:51 · Score: 0

The ISP my parents use in McGregor Texas blocks isohunt.com and all other well known Torrent sites. I know because I tried go to them to download the latest ubuntu netbook remix recently and was redirected to opendns.com instead. Censorship is upon us. Are there any options for my poor family in Texas to get around this?

Google FTW by quotationspage · 2009-08-20 18:04 · Score: 1

http://www.google.com/cse?cx=003849996876419856805:erhhdbygrma&ie=UTF-8&q=&sa=Search

--
check nagaiah portfolio to buy or sell financial assets in bombay stock exchange

No00ooo00o by Anonymous Coward · 2009-08-21 08:06 · Score: 0

my online repository is doomed! but really this stinks!
At least I still have aXXo.

Slashdot Mirror

Irish ISP To Block Access To Pirate Bay

169 comments