Eircom forced to implement “3 strikes and you’re out” for filesharers

Eircom has been forced to implement “3 strikes and you’re out”, according to Adrian Weckler:

If the music labels come to it with IP addresses that they have identified as illegal file-sharers, Eircom will, in its own words:

“1) inform its broadband subscribers that the subscribers IP address has been detected infringing copyright and

“2) warn the subscriber that unless the infringement ceases the subscriber will be disconnected and

“3) in default of compliance by the subscriber with the warning it will disconnect the subscriber.”

My thoughts — it’s technically better than installing Audible Magic appliances to filter all outbound and inbound traffic, at least.

However, there’s no indication of the degree to which Eircom will verify the “proof” provided by the music labels, or that there’s any penalty for the labels when they accuse your laser printer of filesharing. I foresee a lot of false positives.

Update: LINX reports that the investigative company used will be Dtecnet, a ‘company that identifies copyright infringers by participating in P2P file-sharing networks’. TorrentFreak says:

DtecNet [...] stems from the anti-piracy lobby group Antipiratgruppen, which represents the music and movie industry in Denmark. There are more direct ties to the music industry though. Kristian Lakkegaard, one of DtecNet’s employees, used to work for the RIAA’s global partner, IFPI. [...]

Just like most (if not all) anti-piracy outfits, they simply work from a list of titles their client wishes to protect and then hunts through known file-sharing networks to find them, in order to track the IP addresses of alleged infringers.

Their software appears as a normal client in, for example, BitTorrent swarms, while collecting IP addresses, file names and the unique hash values associated with the files. All this information is filtered in order to present the allegations to the appropriate ISP, in order that they can send off a letter admonishing their own customer, in line with their commitments under the MoU.

[...] it will be a big surprise if [Dtecnet's evidence is] of a greater ‘quality’ than the data provided by MediaSentry.

More coverage of the issues raised by the RIAA’s international lobbying for the 3-strikes penalty:

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

4 Comments

  1. Posted January 29, 2009 at 11:45 | Permalink

    I don’t see how they are going to collect the offending IP addresses in the first place? Are they going to set honey pots amongst the torrents and collect IP addresses?

  2. Posted January 29, 2009 at 12:07 | Permalink

    hi coc –

    I’ve just updated the post with some details of how MediaSentry used to do it (apparently) –

    ‘Just like most (if not all) anti-piracy outfits, they simply work from a list of titles their client wishes to protect and then hunts through known file-sharing networks to find them, in order to track the IP addresses of alleged infringers. Their software appears as a normal client in, for example, BitTorrent swarms, while collecting IP addresses, file names and the unique hash values associated with the files.’

    One expert witness reckoned that ‘their systems and techniques have not been properly tested, are “overly simplistic” and “fail the test for accurate peer to peer file sharing measurement”’: http://torrentfreak.com/riaa-expert-witness-is-borderline-incompetent-080221/

  3. Posted January 29, 2009 at 12:51 | Permalink

    Well, if all they go on is being on the bittorrent cluster claiming to be serving a file, then they’d be vulnerable to an attack where everyone runs a client that clams to serve the file but rejects requests. That would force DtecNet to actually download something from every client, increasing their costs and hitting their productivity significantly. I

  4. Posted June 26, 2012 at 20:27 | Permalink

    Has anybody actually gotten a strike yet?