Skip Navigation

Ireland starts 'three-strike' anti-piracy crackdown
Tuesday 25 May 2010 15:03:02 by John Hunt

Ireland are undertaking a crackdown on Internet piracy with the country's biggest Internet provider, Eircom, sending letters to people identified as being illegal file sharers in a pilot scheme. Eircom are using IP addresses provided by the Irish Recorded Music Association (Irma) which have been identified as taking part in Internet piracy. Irma are using a monitoring system from Dtecnet which identifies people who are sharing files rather than just downloading content illegally.

Initially, around 50 people per week will be identified and sent a letter, followed up by a phone call from Eircom to discuss the issue. If customers are identified a third time, their Internet connection will be stopped for a week, and a fourth occurrence will involve a ban for a year.

"There is a strong educational element, it could be that customers have a security issue with their home wi-fi or they might not know what kids are doing online. We are launching an online music service later this year."

Paul Bradley, Eircom spokesman

Other broadband providers in Ireland are likely to follow suit. Eircom have been forced in to this by losing a High Court ruling which ruled in Irma's favour as it was deemed Eircom were not doing enough to protect the intellectual property of Irma members. UPC, the second largest Irish provider and two other Irish providers are expected to face court action which will likely lead to the need for them to implement a similar system.


Posted by TaRkADaHl over 7 years ago
I wonder what evidence will be provided and how they will actually tie it to the account holder. Will also be interesting to see if they can compensate for IP spoofing.

Can't wait for the first person to stand up and fight them in court for breaching human rights by interfering and remove internet access...
Posted by Dixinormous over 7 years ago
Internet access isn't a human right any more than cable TV.
Posted by TaRkADaHl over 7 years ago
European law states that everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. This isn't happening. Also, the music industry can now report someone and demand that they are removed and if the ISP does not comply they face a £250,000 fine. Sounds pretty weighted towards protecting the music industry and ignore people. Fining and removing without actually establishing who did the deed, guilty without a chance to prove innocent, not my cup of tea.
Posted by TaRkADaHl over 7 years ago
Human Rights Act 1998... Article 10 of the Convention states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers”.
Posted by Dixinormous over 7 years ago
Refusing access to the Internet in no way impinges on the HRA. Not getting into a huge conversation with you on this as I'm sure it's easy to pick up other paragraphs and claim they main what they don't. Regardless the HRA is a UK law, not Irish.

Probably more to it than a simple disconnection on request, there will I'm sure be remedies in case of disagreement. Internet freedom provision btw isn't as one-sided as you imply.

Either way the simple solution is to be good and respect IP.
Posted by TaRkADaHl over 7 years ago
I know its not as black and white as some of the stuff I have said, the big problem I have is that this law is not that simple.

This whole digital rights thing has been rushed through too fast and not looked into properly, there are far too many loop holes and blank spots.

The simple fact that they can hold someone responsible for a crime they didn't commit is just plain wrong.

And if you don't have the technical ability to prove someone else used your connection, then you are stuffed.

Also HRA = European. Last time I checked Ireland was in Europe, maybe I need a new map...
Posted by TaRkADaHl over 7 years ago
And, blocking access to the internet is not a direct breach of human rights, but impeding peoples ability to receive and impart information is. Which could lead to an interesting debate for the first person who goes to court over this...
Posted by otester over 7 years ago
"We are launching an online music service later this year."

Think that explains it and also why VM took a favourable approach as well.

IP is just another form of censorship.
Posted by mishminx over 7 years ago
So VPN or newsgroups then, neither of which are expensive or in any way complicated. The only deterrent to a casual user being cost.
Posted by davolente over 7 years ago
This is despicable. It should be up to the courts to decide who is responsible for file sharing, together with appropriate punishment, not some kangaroo court set up by an ISP whom has already been shown to be toadying to the entertainment industry. Due process, anyone?
Posted by Somerset over 7 years ago
otester - so you would not mind if someone did not pay for something you produced?

Do you see any problems with someone making copies of ie. Dyson cleaners?
Posted by c_j_ over 7 years ago
"Do you see any problems with someone making copies of ie. Dyson cleaners?"

Mild case of right argument, wrong example?

Try "Do you see any problems with someone giving away free copies of a program [1] you wrote and which you sell for money?"

"Intellectual property" isn't censorship, but a lot of it does seem to be yet more opportunities for B-Ark non-value-added types like lawyers to rip off the rest of us.

[1] Or VHDL design, or musical recording, or ...
Posted by otester over 7 years ago

Being interested in my work alone would satisfy me.

If I didn't want it shared (like Coca-Cola and their recipe for example) then if I put it in a easy to copy format or place then I deserve all I get.

Not like sharing ever hurt anyone...

I always reward those who deserve it with my £.
Posted by otester over 7 years ago

You can compete with free, offer it on your site with ad support, either that or suffer the pirates rath :)
Posted by jtthedevil over 7 years ago
I wonder if they will class using p2p to download tv shows as illegal, then close down iplayer etc for the same thing?
And Dixie, the Human Rights Act is European Law, not UK. UK have taken certain parts of it on board and disregarded others. Some could argue it falls under peaceful enjoyment of property (1st Protocol)
Posted by otester over 7 years ago
Quote from makers of South Park:

"We're always in favor of people downloading. Always. It's how a lot of people see the show. And it's never hurt us. We've done nothing but been successful with the show. How could you ever get mad about somebody who wants to see your stuff?"
Posted by eded2000 over 7 years ago
@jtthedevil: Dixie is right, the Human Rights Act is UK not European Law. You are thinking of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) which the Human Rights Act seeks to incorporate into UK law.
Posted by Dixinormous over 7 years ago
otester I think we all know your feelings on this given your comments about dowloading TB a month of IP.

Your position that IP is censorship while claiming they deserve what they get for making the content available is laughable, as are your comments about making things available for free with ad support.
Posted by Dixinormous over 7 years ago
You'll forgive me if I ignore the legal thoughts of people who confuse

Posted by mattspchelp over 7 years ago
There is no way of tracking a user and blaming them , what about piggy backing , will you be peanalised for not having security on your Wifi Router? , also what about Proxy software and Tor they all bounce packets to different connections to avoid tracking for this sort of thing , not to mention any encryption methods to avoid it also, yeah ok people are stealing films ect... so why dont the film makers move to the internet and make it cheaper? would change a DVD from £20 to £5 with all the
Posted by CARPETBURN over 7 years ago
QUOTE"You'll forgive me if I ignore the legal thoughts of people who confuse.........."

Its obviously you who is confused Dixi...
Even Mandlescum knows cutting someone off affects their human rights... quote"Lord Mandelson told the Committee that he agreed that the cutting off of internet accounts used by suspected file sharers was likely to affect those rights, but that it was justified." (fourth paragraph from bottom of the link).
Posted by useful over 7 years ago
I went to a few of movies recently. I am sick seeing computer graphics all the time. They never build a set nowadays. There will be a few geeks sitting on a computer & they will have any set they want. They can use the technology, but the public can't. They release everything in the UK very late. Sometimes couple of years late. I am glad about Sky showing Lost Finale with the US. They hv learnt.
Posted by otester over 7 years ago

Piracy is actually a good indicator of how good your business is, at the moment people want the stuff but they aren't willing to deliver.

Valve provides an excellent service, hence is reaping the rewards.

People care more about user-friendliness than price (within reason).
Posted by Dixinormous over 7 years ago
No Carpetburn no confusion you're talking about something completely different. I merely pointed out that the HRA is UK law while ECHR is European.

otester - no it isn't, think about what Steam is the need for online authentication to play online. It's an indicator of DRM strength.

Quote from my Facebook 'Why would I want to watch it at 5am when I could be sleeping? Which is exactly what I did. And why pay for Sky TV when I can download it for nothing? Which is exactly what I did.'
Posted by Dixinormous over 7 years ago
Incidentally otester while we're discussing things remember saying this?

'Also Hulu sucks epic balls, torrent and usenet are king!'

You can't have everything exactly as you want it, doesn't justify downloading it any more than not liking how a vendor of anything else does things so helping yourself whatever justifications you try and bring in.
Posted by otester over 7 years ago

You can play offline after first authentication and anyways...all my current games are online anyways...

You can even use a GPRS connection to authenticate as I have in the past to play offline.

I have no problems with software companies protecting their products, it's when they start using the government as their own personal hammer that it starts becoming ridiculous.

I also have a full Sky subscription (HD as well) so don't try that one on me :)
Posted by otester over 7 years ago
I only download latest episodes if I'm going on a train journey before the day it's shown on Sky or I am feeling impatient.

That previous stance towards Hulu hasn't changed either especially as they pulled out of UK.

Downloading doesn't hurt anyone, and I have the South Park crew on my back with that one!
Posted by jtthedevil over 7 years ago
Sorry Dixie, my fault for reading posts late on. You are correct in one way and wrong in another. The Human Rights Act 1998 is indeed a UK law which mirrors exactly the bits the government wanted from the ECHR, right down to the acts and protocols. Ireland also has The Human Rights Act 2003 which mirrors it too. So really UK and Ireland both have the same laws.
Posted by jtthedevil over 7 years ago
What the ECHR does state though is that the rights can be engaged where someone is involved in anything in contravention of the law. Stealing IP is illegal, so I think anyone would have a hard time finding protection from it. Except terrorists of course, who get payouts and allowed to remain in the country. But thats a separate issue!!!
Posted by otester over 7 years ago

Not stealing... copying.
Posted by herdwick over 7 years ago
“Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers”

let's test that....

most paedophiles are homosexual
Posted by lilamadison over 7 years ago
The biggest issue all these "music and video police" which is what Irma and the ones in UK and States are is they just want to save an outmoded business model. Face it: they not we forced digital recording and they not we forced how we listen to music. Now that most people have embraced that they want the genie back in the bottle and try as they might, it won't happen. Their disconnects and threats are like buggy whip makers trying to save their industry when the car came along --- too little, too late and doomed to fail.
Posted by ControlFreaks over 7 years ago
Is the cost of blank media going to come down in price now then?, as I have heard that there is already a tax on blank media to cover the loss of copies.
Why should anyone get cut off from the Net without trial just because their IP address has been cloned, spoofed, falsely added to a tracker, or because some one has hacked their wifi router using the default login that most I.S.P's seem to have left on them, any noob can look up the default logins, did anyone watch Panorama’s program about wifi routers being hacked via the default logins, then used to download illegal files?.
This is Madness.
Posted by c803513 over 7 years ago
If enough innocent people get cut off, this could lead to a mass take-up of VPN anonymity services, not just by pirates (who will be using it anyway unless very newbie) but by ordinary folk who don't want to be spied on 24/7. For obvious reasons, the Authorities would not like the masses all using VPN. But will the Authorities do what is needed to stop this endgame outcome? That is, of course, to ensure this witch hunt of home users does not get out of hand.
You must be logged in to post comments. Click here to login.