Madam, – I take great exception to the inference by Éibhear Ó hAnluain (June 2nd) that I am gullible. My stance remains that I have ensured no illegal downloads will take place from my internet connection, and I don’t live in fear of imminent disconnection. Mr Ó hAnluain asserts that the record companies and Eircom will disconnect “gullibles” like me on a whim, with no evidence to support their allegations. Well, I hope the irony of that remark is not lost on him. I haven’t read of it happening yet.
If my “ban” isn’t as effective as I believe, then I must pay the price. It’s not an issue. In my home, everyone understands and supports the banning of illegal downloads, so enforcement is not an issue. Like me, they also appreciate the convenience afforded by the internet.
If I might make a comparison, if someone other than me is caught speeding in my car I get the points and fine in the post. If the actual offender is not identified, I get to pay the fine and keep the points. I don’t have a problem with that. It’s my car, I should know who is driving it. In the extremely unlikely event that it ever happens, I’ll blame the perpetrator, not the gardaí. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – I write in response to Andrew Callaghan’s letter (May 29th). The issue with the recent Eircom ruling is not that people may be caught for illegal downloading. The issue is that Eircom may simply cut off anybody (after the three strikes) it deems suspicious, without proof, and presumably with little recourse.
The music industry has a history of falsely accusing people of illegal downloads in various countries, and indeed a third party will be doing the inspections in this case. Mr O’Callaghan forbidding illegal downloads in his home is excellent, of course, but it won’t guarantee any lack of trouble with Eircom under this new ruling, as he has claimed.
I’m also interested to see how Eircom will differentiate between open-source filesharing and illegal filesharing. Guilt by association or a third party going through all my traffic? – Yours, etc,