View Full Version : Irish ISP sued over file-sharing by users.
Ireland's biggest internet service provider (ISP) is being sued by the four biggest record labels over illegally downloaded music. The labels are demanding that Eircom take action to prevent its network being used to share copyright-infringing material.
The Irish subsidiaries of EMI, Sony BMG, Universal and Warner are taking a case under copyright law. They say that Eircom is infringing copyright because its network makes available copies of music without the owners' consent.
rest of the article here
http://www.out-law.com/page-8944
OUT-LAW News, 17/03/2008
Ireland's biggest internet service provider (ISP) is being sued by the four biggest record labels over illegally downloaded music. The labels are demanding that Eircom take action to prevent its network being used to share copyright-infringing material.
The Irish subsidiaries of EMI, Sony BMG, Universal and Warner are taking a case under copyright law. They say that Eircom is infringing copyright because its network makes available copies of music without the owners' consent.
rest of the article here
http://www.out-law.com/page-8944
OUT-LAW News, 17/03/2008
LOL!
That is genius. Suing an ISP because someone is doing something illegal on the internet?
Quick, sue Ford because some of their cars are used in crimes.
At least some of the article gets it.
"Electronic rights pressure group Digital Rights Ireland (DRI) has condemned the court action and its chairman, a barrister, said that the case has no basis in Ireland's Copyright Act.
"ISPs are intermediaries. They are not, in law, responsible for what internet users do, any more than [the post office] is responsible for what individuals send in the mail," said TJ McIntyre, chairman of DRI. "In fact, European law specifically states that they may not be put under a general obligation to monitor the information they transmit.""
Thanks for the laugh.
LOL!
That is genius. Suing an ISP because someone is doing something illegal on the internet?
Quick, sue Ford because some of their cars are used in crimes.
At least some of the article gets it.
"Electronic rights pressure group Digital Rights Ireland (DRI) has condemned the court action and its chairman, a barrister, said that the case has no basis in Ireland's Copyright Act.
"ISPs are intermediaries. They are not, in law, responsible for what internet users do, any more than [the post office] is responsible for what individuals send in the mail," said TJ McIntyre, chairman of DRI. "In fact, European law specifically states that they may not be put under a general obligation to monitor the information they transmit.""
Thanks for the laugh.
Iam glad you had a laugh at least they are acting on
illegal downloads,whether they are right in law or not.
If even a small percentage of the public stops downloading illegal
content after seeing the announcement then the action has
achieved something.
Hmm, I can see where DRI & it's Chaiman are comming from but on the flipside couldn't the Labels have a case here for "Aiding & Abetting" against Eircom given that they have been made fully aware that their operations are assisting in criminal activity (Theft) & are doing nothing to stop it ? :twocents:
A criminal charge of aiding and abetting or accessory can usually be brought against anyone who helps in the commission of a crime, though legal distinctions vary by state. A person charged with aiding and abetting or accessory is usually not present when the crime itself is committed, but he or she has knowledge of the crime before or after the fact, and may assist in its commission through advice, actions, or financial support. Depending on the degree of involvement, the offender's participation in the crime may rise to the level of conspiracy.
For example, Andy draws a floor plan of a bank, knowing of Dan's intention to rob it. After Dan commits the robbery, Alice agrees to let him store the stolen money at her house. Both Andy and Alice can be charged with aiding and abetting, or acting as accessories to the robbery.
Iam glad you had a laugh at least they are acting on
illegal downloads,whether they are right in law or not.
If even a small percentage of the public stops downloading illegal
content after seeing the announcement then the action has
achieved something.
Ah, so however ridiculous the lawsuit, it's good because talking about piracy being bad will stop people downloading music?
Ah, so however ridiculous the lawsuit, it's good because talking about piracy being bad will stop people downloading music?
Stopping all the illegal donwloaders of content will never happen.
I suspect that the legal counsel of the respective music companies
advised the decision makers that under Irish law they had no
basis for a lawsuit.
The decision makers probably made the decision to go ahead, however ridiculous the action was perceived, to show shareholders and artistes
that they are acting to curtail this problem.
As I said if a small percentage of people that downloaded illegal
content stop after seeing the annoucement, then the lawsuit
has at least achieved something.
If an issue is not in the public forum people will not debate it as much,
and it will take longer for a solution to be found.
Hmm, I can see where DRI & it's Chaiman are comming from but on the flipside couldn't the Labels have a case here for "Aiding & Abetting" against Eircom given that they have been made fully aware that their operations are assisting in criminal activity (Theft) & are doing nothing to stop it ? :twocents:
Good point.
As I said if a small percentage of people that downloaded illegal
content stop after seeing the annoucement, then the lawsuit
has at least achieved something.
If an issue is not in the public forum people will not debate it as much,
and it will take longer for a solution to be found.
Sadly it seems facts* prove your personal theory wrong. And time and time again traffic at file sharing networks increases massively with every big public action against them.
http://www.google.com/search?q=increased%20traffic%20at%20piratebay
Pick any of the sources you would prefer to trust from the list, but they all point to the fact that traffic massively increases. Alexa shows it's traffic doubled after the famous RIAA lawsuits.
So, you carry on posting news stories about bans and legal action if you want, but bear in mind you are seemingly actually helping the pirates by doing so.
Sadly it seems facts* prove your personal theory wrong. And time and time again traffic at file sharing networks increases massively with every big public action against them.
http://www.google.com/search?q=increased%20traffic%20at%20piratebay
Pick any of the sources you would prefer to trust from the list, but they all point to the fact that traffic massively increases. Alexa shows it's traffic doubled after the famous RIAA lawsuits.
So, you carry on posting news stories about bans and legal action if you want, but bear in mind you are seemingly actually helping the pirates by doing so.
Thanks for the info, interesting read can't argue with facts.
I will have to try a different angle to help fight the pirates as opposed
to helping them with my posts.
These law suits are great publicity, eventually they will have managed to let everyone know how they can get what they want for free.
But as far as porn is concerned file sharing is a drop in the ocean in terms of the effects it has on sales compared to illegal tube sites
If Smith and Wesson sells .38 police specials to their customers who turn around and commit crimes with them, should they be held liable?
If they know that customer is going around shooting people and still sell them bullets, then yes
If they know that customer is going around shooting people and still sell them bullets, then yes
So they have to watch every gun customer, all the time to check.
Like the post office opening every letter that is sent, to check there is nothing illegal.
So the ISPs will have to look at every packet, thus infringing any privacy you might have. What if they then sell that info? Or someone steals it. Fuck the gonvernment can't keep our data safe, why should an ISP be able to.
So you are searching for cancer information for a friend or relative, then try and take out insurance, but the insurance person has access to your searches and refuses you cover because you were searching for cancer info and there he concluded you have cancer.
You were looking at perfectly legal porn and apply for a job as a teacher. Schools to a quick check on your online activities and decide a porn surfer wouldn't make a good teacher and reject you.
Isn't that the logical progression?
So they have to watch every gun customer, all the time to check.
Like the post office opening every letter that is sent, to check there is nothing illegal.
So the ISPs will have to look at every packet, thus infringing any privacy you might have. What if they then sell that info? Or someone steals it. Fuck the gonvernment can't keep our data safe, why should an ISP be able to.
So you are searching for cancer information for a friend or relative, then try and take out insurance, but the insurance person has access to your searches and refuses you cover because you were searching for cancer info and there he concluded you have cancer.
You were looking at perfectly legal porn and apply for a job as a teacher. Schools to a quick check on your online activities and decide a porn surfer wouldn't make a good teacher and reject you.
Isn't that the logical progression?
What has that got to do with what I said? Oh yes nothing.
Originally Posted by refund
If Smith and Wesson sells .38 police specials to their customers who turn around and commit crimes with them, should they be held liable?
If they know that customer is going around shooting people and still sell them bullets, then yes
What has that got to do with what I said? Oh yes nothing.
Oh, you were actually talking about actual guns.
I thought you realised refund was making an analogy.
My bad.
Oh, you were actually talking about actual guns.
I thought you realised refund was making an analogy.
My bad.
Whether I realised or not, whats that got to do with anything? Oh yes again nothing
Whether I realised or not, whats that got to do with anything? Oh yes again nothing
Well, let's say you realised...
The analogy was people commit crimes with guns you said gun sellers should be prosecuted for selling bullets to criminals. In order to work out if they are criminals or not, they would have to be under surveillance 24/7.
This is the same as prosecuting an ISP. The idea of an ISP looking at every packet to determine if a possible crime is being committed is as ridiculous as a gun dealer having to watch every potential customer 24/7 top check they aren't doing any crimes before agreeing to sell them a bullet.
I then expounded this, with the idea of the post office opening all your mail, and then an insurance company refusing you cover because of your searching history.
Hope that helps clarify why it is mental to suggest a gun dealer should be prosecuted if someone commits a crime with merchandise he has supplied them in good faith.
Well, let's say you realised...
The analogy was people commit crimes with guns you said gun sellers should be prosecuted for selling bullets to criminals. In order to work out if they are criminals or not, they would have to be under surveillance 24/7.
This is the same as prosecuting an ISP. The idea of an ISP looking at every packet to determine if a possible crime is being committed is as ridiculous as a gun dealer having to watch every potential customer 24/7 top check they aren't doing any crimes before agreeing to sell them a bullet.
I then expounded this, with the idea of the post office opening all your mail, and then an insurance company refusing you cover because of your searching history.
Hope that helps clarify why it is mental to suggest a gun dealer should be prosecuted if someone commits a crime with merchandise he has supplied them in good faith.
I can't be arsed to read that
But to clarify do you agree or not agree that If smith and weston know that its customer is going around shooting people and still sells them bullets, then yes they should be prosecuted?
A simple yes or no will be fine :)
I can't be arsed to read that
But to clarify do you agree or not agree that If smith and weston know that its customer is going around shooting people and still sells them bullets, then yes they should be prosecuted?
A simple yes or no will be fine :)
How does it know other than by putting all its customers under 24/7 surveillance. Can't answer until I know that.
How does it know other than by putting all its customers under 24/7 surveillance. Can't answer until I know that.
Ok, well we do KNOW that Eircom are Aiding & Abetting criminal activity (Just to use the case in point) as well they do, therefore Damian, do you think that Eircom should be held accountable for their actions or be allowed to walk away scott free ?
:)
How does it know other than by putting all its customers under 24/7 surveillance. Can't answer until I know that.
Makes no difference how they know, but they know. But if you want a for instance to be able to answer here is one
Someone sees the person shooting people in the head and says to the chairman of Smith and Weston, look there is someone shooting people in the head and the chairman of smith and weston sees the people with his own eyes being shot in the head. In fact better than that he has it also recorded on his CCTV.
Simple enough?
In that case and the murderer comes to buy more bullets, and smith and weston sell them to him. Should they yes be prosecuted or no, not be prosecuted?
Ok, well we do KNOW that Eircom are Aiding & Abetting criminal activity (Just to use the case in point) as well they do, therefore Damian, do you think that Eircom should be held accountable for their actions or be allowed to walk away scott free ?
:)
They are providing a service. They should not be held accountably for the activities of those who they provide a service to. They shouldn't police the internet.
That is one point.
The other point, which disturbs me more, is the only way this could happen is if the ISP 'opened' every packet that went through it. I think that infringement of privacy sets a very dangerous precedent. As I outlined. Insurance/cancer etc.
If you think they should be accountable, then Ford are accountable for drunk drivers, any crime with a getaway car involved, etc.
To bring it closer to home you can also find illegal content via google very easily. (search filename.mp3). So they too, are accountable for piracy.
Makes no difference how they know, but they know. But if you want a for instance to be able to answer here is one
Someone sees the person shooting people in the head and says to the chairman of Smith and Weston, look there is someone shooting people in the head and the chairman of smith and weston sees the people with his own eyes being shot in the head. In fact better than that he has it also recorded on his CCTV.
Simple enough?
In that case and the murderer comes to buy more bullets, and smith and weston sell them to him. Should they yes be prosecuted or no, not be prosecuted?
It's a flawed analogy JT. The ISPs are not providing bullets AND guns. It's all in one. For your one to work, S&W would be prosecuted for selling guns as they are sometimes used in crimes.
There is no "bullet" in the ISP argument.
Unless you are just talking about guns. Which would be odd.
:D
However, let's say an ISP is selling guns and bullets combined. Sees evidence of a file sharer, and allows them to carry on sharing files.
It really is essential for me to answer to know how they know who is sharing files.
I think it's wrong to have the ISP sniff every packet. And I cannot think of another solution to finding out other than packet sniffing.
a) invasion of privacy
b) ruins legitimate and legal uses of file sharing (the BBC are launching a TV delivery service that uses p2p for example).
c) ISPs are not policemen.
But someone shooting someone with a gun is bad. Monitoring all S&W customers 24/7 is bad too.
If you have another solution to packet sniffing, I'd be interested to hear it.
It's a flawed analogy JT. The ISPs are not providing bullets AND guns. It's all in one. For your one to work, S&W would be prosecuted for selling guns as they are sometimes used in crimes.
There is no "bullet" in the ISP argument.
Unless you are just talking about guns. Which would be odd.
:D
However, let's say an ISP is selling guns and bullets combined. Sees evidence of a file sharer, and allows them to carry on sharing files.
It really is essential for me to answer to know how they know who is sharing files.
I think it's wrong to have the ISP sniff every packet. And I cannot think of another solution to finding out other than packet sniffing.
a) invasion of privacy
b) ruins legitimate and legal uses of file sharing (the BBC are launching a TV delivery service that uses p2p for example).
c) ISPs are not policemen.
But someone shooting someone with a gun is bad. Monitoring all S&W customers 24/7 is bad too.
If you have another solution to packet sniffing, I'd be interested to hear it.
So thats a yes they should then.
They are providing a service. They should not be held accountably for the activities of those who they provide a service to. They shouldn't police the internet.
That is one point.
The other point, which disturbs me more, is the only way this could happen is if the ISP 'opened' every packet that went through it. I think that infringement of privacy sets a very dangerous precedent. As I outlined. Insurance/cancer etc.
If you think they should be accountable, then Ford are accountable for drunk drivers, any crime with a getaway car involved, etc.
To bring it closer to home you can also find illegal content via google very easily. (search filename.mp3). So they too, are accountable for piracy.
You are missing the point.
I'm not asking them to police the net but do feel that where they KNOW that they are assisting crimes such as in this case then they should take remedial action or be held to account for not taking such action.
Im not asking them to "open" every packet, that I understand is unreasonable but when it's been bought to their attention & they have been asked to stop (In the assistance of criminal activity, i.e. theft) then they should co-operate.
So, back to my question Damian, do you think that Eircom should be held accountable for their actions or be allowed to walk away scott free ?
:)
oh & just to add, yes, I do think Ford should be held accountable for drunk drivers, any crime with a getaway car involved, etc. If they knowingly sell a car to someone they KNOW will undertake the aforementioned activities.
:judge:
So does that mean the movie studios should sue camera makers for allowing people to record there films and upload or sell them ?
You are missing the point.
I'm not asking them to police the net but do feel that where they KNOW that they are assisting crimes such as in this case then they should take remedial action or be held to account for not taking such action.
Im not asking them to "open" every packet, that I understand is unreasonable but when it's been bought to their attention & they have been asked to stop (In the assistance of criminal activity, i.e. theft) then they should co-operate.
So, back to my question Damian, do you think that Eircom should be held accountable for their actions or be allowed to walk away scott free ?
:)
They, Eircom, have had the situation brought to their attention so
therefore they should act to rectify their position.
How they can do that is the problem.
So does that mean the movie studios should sue camera makers for allowing people to record there films and upload or sell them ?
If the camera makers are knowingly selling them to such people then yes, the movie studios should sue.
:judge:
Makes no difference how they know, but they know. But if you want a for instance to be able to answer here is one
Someone sees the person shooting people in the head and says to the chairman of Smith and Weston, look there is someone shooting people in the head and the chairman of smith and weston sees the people with his own eyes being shot in the head. In fact better than that he has it also recorded on his CCTV.
Simple enough?
In that case and the murderer comes to buy more bullets, and smith and weston sell them to him. Should they yes be prosecuted or no, not be prosecuted?
does the potential buyer have a bullet left? can make all the difference to his arguments.
does the potential buyer have a bullet left? can make all the difference to his arguments.
lol
You are missing the point.
I'm not asking them to police the net but do feel that where they KNOW that they are assisting crimes such as in this case then they should take remedial action or be held to account for not taking such action.
Im not asking them to "open" every packet, that I understand is unreasonable but when it's been bought to their attention & they have been asked to stop (In the assistance of criminal activity, i.e. theft) then they should co-operate.
So, back to my question Damian, do you think that Eircom should be held accountable for their actions or be allowed to walk away scott free ?
:)
Brilliant.
a) how do they know if someone is doing something illegal without packet sniffing
b) if there is some magical way of detecting what someone is doing WITHOUT packet sniffing (clue - there isn't), how do you differentiate between legal p2p packets (ie linux distros, game patches, legal albums by NiN, and soon programmes from teh BBC) and illegal packets? No way I know of.
So the entire question is moot really. They cannot know what is legal or not, so cannot be held responsible.
Unless someone can explain to me how you can tell the difference between a packet that is Red Hat and a packet that is a hollywood movie.
They, Eircom, have had the situation brought to their attention so
therefore they should act to rectify their position.
How they can do that is the problem.
It's technically impossible.
Just as it would be impossible for Ford to work out which of it's customers is committing a crime in one of their cars.
Hence a distinct lack of law suits against Ford for aiding and abetting.
Brilliant.
a) how do they know if someone is doing something illegal without packet sniffing
b) if there is some magical way of detecting what someone is doing WITHOUT packet sniffing (clue - there isn't), how do you differentiate between legal p2p packets (ie linux distros, game patches, legal albums by NiN, and soon programmes from teh BBC) and illegal packets? No way I know of.
So the entire question is moot really. They cannot know what is legal or not, so cannot be held responsible.
Unless someone can explain to me how you can tell the difference between a packet that is Red Hat and a packet that is a hollywood movie.
Oh come off it, I did say:
"where they KNOW that they are assisting crimes such as in this case"
Followed by:
" but when it's been bought to their attention & they have been asked to stop"
So, in relation to both the above: Do you think that Eircom should be held accountable for their actions or be allowed to walk away scott free ?
:)
It's technically impossible.
Just as it would be impossible for Ford to work out which of it's customers is committing a crime in one of their cars.
Hence a distinct lack of law suits against Ford for aiding and abetting.
Don't be silly, of course its not imposible, because you and me don't know the answer doesnt meen it is impossible, it just meens me and you don't know the answer. I also don't know how to split and atom but apparently it's been done
There could easily be a licencing of file sharing for example, or a legit file sharing system. To file share you need software. Software that is only allowed for legit file sharing reasons would be simple enough.
The reason ISP's dont do anything about file sharing is because they can't be arsed and in fairness why should they. But if they are made to which it looks like they will be, http://www.out-law.com/page-8868 they will come up with a way
Oh come off it, I did say:
"where they KNOW that they are assisting crimes such as in this case"
Followed by:
" but when it's been bought to their attention & they have been asked to stop"
So, in relation to both the above: Do you think that Eircom should be held accountable for their actions or be allowed to walk away scott free ?
:)
I know what you said. Don't see how that changes what I said. Not being deliberately difficult here.
"It's been brought to their attention"
Do you mean the MPAA and RIAA called them and said "Hi Eircom, you are an ISP and the internet can be used to steal content. You provide the internet therefore you have to stop the content theft or we will sue you"?
That's as laughable as packet sniffing.
Let me know how it was brought to their attention please. I might be able to answer you then, but you best be quick, my bird is cooking for me and I have to go in a minute. I know it's tempting to stay, but...
Let me know how it was brought to their attention please. I might be able to answer you then, but you best be quick, my bird is cooking for me and I have to go in a minute. I know it's tempting to stay, but...
I would guess by the very fact that they are being sued (See post #1 in this thread & the link) might well have given them a clue ;)
Enjoy the meal.
:)
my bird is cooking for me and I have to go in a minute. I know it's tempting to stay, but...
That didn't take long, only a couple of weeks ago she was a lovely
young lady and now she is your bird. You have shagged her then?:bonk:
Enjoy your meal and don't forget to get the bird to do the:washingup:
my bird is cooking for me and I have to go in a minute. I know it's tempting to stay, but...
What's he making for you?
I would guess by the very fact that they are being sued (See post #1 in this thread & the link) might well have given them a clue ;)
Ah. So the MPAA and RIAA told them.
No I don't think Eircom should be held accountable for piracy committed by its customers on the internet based on a letter from the RIAA and MPAA.
There, I answered you!
It will be laughed out of court, if it even gets that far. Just like the ISP bill proposed in the UK. It will fade away and nothing will happen when they realise it is technically impossible to differentiate between legal and illegal packets.
Right, off to hers now.
xxx
What's he making for you?
Fuck all, Jerry's here with me :gaylords:
That didn't take long, only a couple of weeks ago she was a lovely
young lady and now she is your bird. You have shagged her then?:bonk:
Enjoy your meal and don't forget to get the bird to do the:washingup:
No shagging before marriage, that is a sin.
But yes, we are an ITEM now. My facebook relationship status is changed and EVERYTHING.
Sorry Ruth, you had your chance, kid.
Fuck all, Jerry's here with me :gaylords:
I think he is away celebrating the annual "His ancestors killed god day"
No shagging before marriage, that is a sin.
But yes, we are an ITEM now. My facebook relationship status is changed and EVERYTHING.
Sorry Ruth, you had your chance, kid.
You can't just be a couple then, like normal peeps?
Never understood the phrase 'we're an item' I always have the
urge to ask how much did she cost!
Never understood the phrase 'we're an item' I always have the
urge to ask how much did she cost!
Mine charges me by the hour, but its a reasonable price
Mine charges me by the hour, but its a reasonable price
Lol, I wondered who would post that first.
You win a free Thai bride.:cheer:
Willie_Ekkerslike
03-20-08, 08:24 PM
Mine charges me by the hour, but its a reasonable price
Somebody told me that she charged by the inch, and that's why you can still afford to keep her :)
Quote:Japan's major internet service providers have joined forces in
an anti-piracy alliance to treminate the contracts of users
who are repeatedly engaging in piracy.
The announcement was made by the Telecom Service Association
and the Telecommunications Carriers Association of Japan,
who will, from April 2008, take joint action against repeat offenders.
According to reports in Japan, the IPSs will come up with their
proceedures in cooperation with copyright organisations, including the
Japanese Society for rights of Authors, Composers and Publishers as
well as the Association of Copyright Software.
Under the provisional terms of the agreement the most likely course of action
will be to send pirates a notice that they have infringed copyright,
then bring in a period of suspension if they break the laws again.
The final sanction would be a termination of contract.Unquote.
artcle from www.advance-television.com
I make this post at the risk of increasing pirate activity on the net.
I would think that the Japanese would find a way to implement this,
they are pretty good at innovation.
vBulletin® v3.7.2, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.