Irish judge okays ISP to cut internet access to filesharers

A judge in Ireland has given Eircom permission to start cutting off internet access to illegal music downloaders. The judgment by Mr. Justice Peter Charleton may compel other internet service providers to cut off services to users that do not stop their illegal activities.

Last year EMI, Sony, Universal and Warner filed suit against Eircom over the use by others of its services for illegal downloading. As part of the settlement Eircom agreed to put measures into place to help stop illegal filesharing. They agreed to disclose the offenders identity through the IP address and ultimately cut off internet access.

During the trial the judge said, Younger people were now so much in the habit of downloading copyright material they appeared to believe they were entitled to have for free what is not theirs, he added. While the removal of internet access over illegal downloading was a serious sanction, there was “no freedom to break the law”. There was “a fundamental right” to copyright in Irish law existing since the time of Saint Colmcille who was often quoted for his aphorism: “to each cow its calf and to every book its copy”, he said. “The right to be identified with and to reasonably exploit one’s own original creative endeavour I regard as a human right.

The record companies and Eircom proposed a “three strikes and you’re out”rule for dealing with illegal downloaders. Eircom will first give notice to the downloaders that their activity is illegal and should be stopped. If it continues, they will be warned and risk having their connection slowed down. If their illegal activity continues, Eircom will send a third warning stating their internet access would be cut off.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Zunes hacked, opened for homebrew development

Next Story

Palm's head of software resigns

35 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Another step in the right direction. There's no way to justify piracy and it's because of all the **** pirates that measures like these must now be taken. It's truly the lesser of two evils.

There's no reason to be upset or worried unless you are guilty of illegal downloading.

They should just make music cheaper because it's quality has gone down. $15 a cd is ridiculous for maybe 1 or 2 good songs. I mean seriously... How does a little kid like Justin Bieber even become popular with horrible music? Charge that money for good bands that actually put time and effort into their music and their presentations!

giantsnyy said,
They should just make music cheaper because it's quality has gone down. $15 a cd is ridiculous for maybe 1 or 2 good songs. I mean seriously... How does a little kid like Justin Bieber even become popular with horrible music? Charge that money for good bands that actually put time and effort into their music and their presentations!

by the way I don't illegally download music. I buy cd's I like and individual tracks off iTunes. I'm not condoning that in any way... I'm just thinking it would help alleviate illegal downloading.

I really don't see why people still pirate these days..........I will agree that with the amount of crappy music out there like *cough* Justin Bieber *cough* it almost makes it alright for such artists that want to make a quick buck then move to a private island and will never be seen again. But there are many artists from the past and a few from the present that DO work hard to write decent music and do deserve to get compensation for their work so please respect that. Also, there are MANY artists (both mainstream and not) that offer their music for free on either their website or on other websites that distribute music under creative commons license. Same goes for software piracy and movie piracy. In the US with Netflix, for 9$ a month you can stream unlimited movies to your computer or TV in SD or HD and that is less than the price of 1 movie.

Why I download my music? Because I'm one of those 70.000 people thay pays 150 euros per festival. I guess that will cover their expenses?

But what is counted as illegal sharing? Do they mean they'll block people that upload whole movies and CD's all the time (so the real pirates), or will the 15 year old girl sending an MP3 over MSN be banned from the internet as well?

I don't think anyone who wants to download anything but a few facebook (or bebo) pages is with Eircom any more. If they know what's good for them.
I'm not any way and when torrenting I use:
1) A private tracker
2) A VPN with multiple exits
3) Peerblock (updated, version of peerguardian)
4) utorrent enforced encryption

I'm sure this isn't anywhere near 100% bullet proof but I don't know of anything else I can do really?

So, if one is using torrents, one is downloading music. I know that about 80% of torrent traffic is illegal/copyrighted content, but this is not the way to go... Cool thing is, I'm not with Eircom and I have a VPN to an over-seas private proxy in case I start to fear for my freedom and privacy

I find it strange that the UK ISP's have been complaining like hell about the Digital Economy Bill, and the possibility of them having to cut users off. Yet this Irish ISP wants to do that.

WelshBluebird said,
I find it strange that the UK ISP's have been complaining like hell about the Digital Economy Bill, and the possibility of them having to cut users off. Yet this Irish ISP wants to do that.

Eircom Provide a digital music service in Ireland so that may have something to do with it. Aalso part of the reason the music industry filed suit was that Ericom were advertising on the pirate bay.

Sad times... And now the UK government has rushed through the Digital Economy Act in the wash-up before general elections, basically allowing ISP's to block entire sites from access that allow "substantial" infringement, and also internet suspension. With no protection for companies that offer Wi-Fi either as a service or for free, it'll never stand for too long (or at least I hope).

It's sad, in these times access to the internet is widely seen as a "right" (France, Greece, Finland....) with pressure being put on the UN to accept this. Cutting off internet access is virtual imprisonment, taking away someone's right to free speech... I hope the Liberal Democrats get a large portion of the seats in the election, they were the only party to object to the bill in any way.

They do unless you signed up for the service saying they don't get to look at your Internet traffic even for legal reasons.

notta said,
Why is it meaningless? They can break encryption?

Encryption won't let the ISP see the traffic, but anyone connected to that torrent can see what's gonig on, I'm assuming. I haven't really kept up on the "hiding" aspect.

notta said,
Why is it meaningless? They can break encryption?

It's meaningless because at it's best it worked against P2P (protocol) throttling. It no longer does since ISPs use things like Ellacoyas to detect P2P on a more basic level.

It does NOT work against anti-piracy companies since you need to sumbit your IP and some data to be part of the cloud.

boo_star said,

It's meaningless because at it's best it worked against P2P (protocol) throttling. It no longer does since ISPs use things like Ellacoyas to detect P2P on a more basic level.

Easily bypassed by compressing your files into split archives. Also no way to detect difference between pirated files and legally downloaded files. Which will just lead to people who download files through say iTunes been targeted as possible pirates. Not to mention this leads to ISP server costs which will probably mean their users have to pay more for the service.

It does NOT work against anti-piracy companies since you need to sumbit your IP and some data to be part of the cloud.

Peerguardian.

Edited by -Razorfold, Apr 17 2010, 5:01am :

/- Razorfold said,

Easily bypassed by compressing your files into split archives. Also no way to detect difference between pirated files and legally downloaded files. Which will just lead to people who download files through say iTunes been targeted as possible pirates. Not to mention this leads to ISP server costs which will probably mean their users have to pay more for the service.

Peerguardian.

/- Razorfold said,


Peerguardian.

Look,I understand what you're saying. But torrent "encryption" = header encryption which was only ever useful against ISP traffic shaping, it was never designed to thwart copyright holders knowing who you are.

I would also add that peerguardian is NOT encryption, it simply prevents your PC from interacting with known/suspected anti-piracy IP's.

boo_star said,

Look,I understand what you're saying. But torrent "encryption" = header encryption which was only ever useful against ISP traffic shaping, it was never designed to thwart copyright holders knowing who you are.

And I never said it was did I now? I would also like to point out deep packet sniffing is not used by every ISP in the world, the only ones I can think of that have used it and been caught using it is BT and their subsidary Plusnet.

I would also add that peerguardian is NOT encryption, it simply prevents your PC from interacting with known/suspected anti-piracy IP's.

And I happen to know that too. Which is why I quoted it separately. All I'm trying to point out is you can make a billion security tools to try and prevent piracy, but its still going to happen. DRM has already proved to be ineffective, throttling has proven the same, and w/e they come up with next will be the same.

So instead of spending millions upon millions of dollars on finding ways to stop piracy, why not use that money to make a better product?Torrent clients are used for more than just piracy, and can save corporations money because its distributed rather than just their servers serving you the content and a lot of companies already use it; linux distributions are passed through it, Blizzard uses it in their updater etc. Ubisoft's DRM just ****ed off people who bought the game, and not the pirates since it was cracked so fast. No-cd cracks can also be used "legally". I'm sure you get my point.

Edited by -Razorfold, Apr 17 2010, 7:16am :

/- Razorfold said,

And I never said it was did I now? I would also like to point out deep packet sniffing is not used by every ISP in the world, the only ones I can think of that have used it and been caught using it is BT and their subsidary Plusnet.

Virgin use DPI.

I do get your point, it' s just a shame it took 3 posts for you to make it.

I am not arguing for rights-holders here, but trying to correct the seemingly common misconception that encryption within the torrent client will protect you from litigation, it wont.

However I am in complete agreement that if conpanies spent less time and therefore money trying to prevent piracy, they would have more money to spend on improving their product.

Encryption indeed does not prevent your IP being given out.
Still, it's probably not much use for the RIAA/MPAA to go after people. The next step is that they'll move to anonymous communication networks, so they''ll be pretty much untraceable.

boo_star said,
I do get your point, it' s just a shame it took 3 posts for you to make it.

I am not arguing for rights-holders here, but trying to correct the seemingly common misconception that encryption within the torrent client will protect you from litigation, it wont.

However I am in complete agreement that if conpanies spent less time and therefore money trying to prevent piracy, they would have more money to spend on improving their product.

Actually I said it in my very first post, read up. And nowhere did I state that encryption protects you from litigation. Protocol blocking is one of the most common ways to throttle bitorrent, at least where I live (my uni does it, my friends uni does, and my old ISP did it). Simple way around that? Enable encryption. That was the point I was making in my very first post.

*Yawn*

Soon enough we'll start hearing stories of old grannies who had their Internet cut even though they didn't do anything (Ref. Kazaa RIAA incident)

Most people have encryption enabled on their torrent clients, and you can always find megaupload/rapidshare results. How haven't these guys learnt yet, theres no way to completely block pirated content. If someone wants to get it, they will. All the RIAA/MPAA etc are doing is ****ing off the people who actually buy their products, or use torrents for legal stuff.

Nightwind Hawk said,
Encryption for torrents? I've never heard of that... what exactly does it do?

Header encryption?

But I will agree it's meaningless against the like of MediaSentry/RIAA/MPAA etc.

Nightwind Hawk said,
Encryption for torrents? I've never heard of that... what exactly does it do?

It masks the bitorrent protocol so you can get around ISPs and Unis that block/throttle torrent usage