back to article ISP CAN cut off pirates with 'three strike' rule, says Irish beak

Four music record companies have won a court order in Ireland overturning a ban placed on an anti-piracy policy operated by the country's largest internet service provider (ISP). In December last year Ireland's data protection watchdog had issued an enforcement notice banning Eircom from operating its 'three strikes' system. The …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
Silver badge

Why cut of the entire web access

Wouldn't it be more logical to simply refuse outgoing peer-to-peer traffic or throttle upload speeds.

We no longer live in age where disposable income will simply be handed to the "media" moguls. They need to embrace that idea not fight it.

2
1
Stop

Re: Why cut of the entire web access

No good. Peer-to-peer is used for a huge number of legal services. Upload speeds are throttled ANYWAY.

2
0
Silver badge

Re: Why cut of the entire web access

It isn't a question of whether or not the service has a legal use. It is a question of cutting off the person who is infringing. His proposal strikes the right cord with me: take the least intrusive means of protecting IP, not the most. But then being one of those crazy 'Merkins, I'm kind of fanatical about making sure you have the right person on the infringement charge, and that they have had their day in court. It strikes me that neither of those requirements are met with the agreement between the ISP and the Music moguls. And while I'm all in favor of letting people who enter freely into contracts work out the terms of those contracts, I believe there must be actual negotiation for that to be controlling. Take it or leave it contracts don't meet that requirement.

1
0

Re: Why cut of the entire web access

You don't.

News at 10.

If you do, welcome to the slippery slope, thin wedge etc.....

0
0

EU rights

In addition to the right to privacy in personal communications, there are also rights issues about collective punishment and self incrimination. If it would have been wrong to punish a group of policemen when they all refuse to say which one of them altered surveillance logs following the shooting of a Brazilian electrician, then punishing entire families for the actions of one of them would also be wrong. Then there is presumption of innocence, as opposed to be required to prove it and the right to a fair trial. I think these "3 strikes" laws in various EU countries are going to run into more trouble.

8
0
Bronze badge

Testing time

This is the perfect time for someone in Ireland to test Eircomm's analysis with the old dummy pirate files. Would be good to see just how they are supposedly testing for copyright infringement without breaching privacy....

Just needs one false positive cut-off to throw this back on the record labels as unenforceable.

0
0
FAIL

the court ruled that IP addresses are personal data...

...which renders the use, outside any legally recognised structure, illegal. Simples.

1
0
FAIL

The EU is clear on what constitutes personally identifiable data

If the IP address can be linked directly to an account holder it would be classed as personally identifiable information.

Just because the monitoring company have to pass the IP address to the ISP does not make it any less personally identifiable, the whole process only works becuase the data is personally identifiable.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Ahhh no Tinternets for you

To be sure

To be sure!

1
0
Silver badge
FAIL

"customers suspected of illegal file-sharing"

And that's the problem, it's not *proven* to have been engaged in illegal file-sharing, but simply *suspected* of it.

Paragraph 2 of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights states "2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law", but it seems that Big Media doesn't need such stringent criteria and can just say "We think you dunnit, so we're cutting you off"!

0
0
Silver badge

Re: "customers suspected of illegal file-sharing"

I don't disagree with the sentiment, but read your quote again

Paragraph 2 of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights states "2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law"

Copyright infringement is a civil offence not a criminal one. Personally, I'd consider it simply a matter of semantics (in that it should apply to both) but those in a position to abuse the difference seem perfectly willing to do so.

Considering how much is online nowadays, it'll be interesting to see what happens if people are cut off. As a UK example, you can only file a VAT return online now. If I'm cut off based on suspicion and then get fined because I filed my return late (though you'd need a good reason why you couldn't use another connection) could I then attempt to pass the charges onto the media companies?

If I'm cut off (again based on suspicion) and my (theoretical) gran's posh new pacemaker can't connect to the net, causing a minor panic at the local surgery, who's fault is it? They've already shown that they can get false positives, just as RBS has shown the world that any system can fail. So what happens when they fuck up?

0
0

Database of those banned?

Is there only one ISP in the Irish Republic or what's to prevent you going to the next one down the list? Rinse, repeat. Failing that, don't pay as you go 3G dongles exist over there? But I'm sure they've carefully thought all that stuff through beforehand...

0
0
Anonymous Coward

As it should be

If they are still in denial after three warnings, they don't deserve to have Net access.

0
6

Than God I read the article

I read the headline as 'ISP CAN cut off privates.......'

0
0
This topic is closed for new posts.

Forums