Hear Hear !
Someone with some sense (and a spine) speaks. Now for the rest.
Carphone Warehouse has called the government's bluff by stating that it will not cooperate with the record industry to clamp down on copyright infringement over peer-to-peer networks. In a statement today, CEO Charles Dunstone said: "Our position is very clear, we are the conduit* that gives users access to the Internet, we do …
A spine? No, more likely a completely money oriented PR spun exercise with a side aim of splitting the technical community in their disgust over Phorm.
They most likely realise that all it would take is one litigious user kicked from their network to force them into a massive lawsuit with all the bad PR surrounding it. "We", the users, don't come into it really, it's all about profit.
That said, his argument is right. If the BPI have evidence of illegal filesharing, let them prove it in court, it's not the ISP's job to police the internet (or monitor/intercept/profile it)
Has to be said, but if they were to implement this, "Download music illegally, i'll cut you off" just would not work at all.
You'd have to disconnect the whole world from the internet as EVERYONE has and/or does download music illegally all the time, plus then you'll also get the false positives because someone saw an MP3 file fly down their fibre so it must be illegal!
The government and other related beings have nothing better to do. If stuff wasn't so bloody expensive, or restricted or put in some stupid thing they call DRM then people wouldn't do it. Plus music is the sound of the world, there should be no charge!
Its almost as a retarded as the email policy for paedophiles, hmm.. "lets get their email address and block it"... hold up a sec, "thanks, i'll just make another one.. F.Y government"
Lets all stop being stupid with these rules, it just makes people want to do it more!
Come all who upto no good, use TalkTalk, because nobody with sense will.
We don't have the sense/balls/technology/knowhow, to shut you down.
However for any normal people, we will monitor all your activity and sell it to the highest bidder.
Nah, profit. CPW is one of the biggest providers at the moment. They want to have more market share.
1. People will be pissed if they start getting disconnected for using P2P. By stating that they will not comply, punters and prospective punters will look more kindly on CPW as an ISP. Even if it becomes law and CPW are forced to comply, they can say "look, we did all we could, but now there's nothing we can do. We're on your side, guys!"
2. They've listened to the market on Phorm. At the start, it was BT, VM & CPW. Now it's BT, with possible VM / CPW involvement with a lot of changes from the BT model. Dunstone has said he wants it to be "opt in only", and using a changed technology so that there is no opportunity for opted-out punters to have any involvement at all. So punters and prospective punters will look more kindly on CPW as an ISP than they will on BT etc, because, even if CPW adopt a revised Phorm, they can say "Hey, we listened to what you had to say. We're on your side, guys!"
Overall, it's clever marketing designed to increase user base and profit on both sides. Remember that a lot of CPW broadband punters also use them for their telephone line, further increasing market share in that sector as well, so they have a benefit beyond the slim profits of broadband.
That said, I'm with CPW. Even though I know that what they're doing is for their own benefit rather than mine, it does give me benefit, so I'm happy enough as long as they continue in that vein.
What will be the 3 strikes situation for households sharing a connection? Teenagers with their own computers, or a shared house with 5 computers on the same connection?
I suspect a disconnection policy not been done successfully anywhere in the world yet.
Seriously El Reg, this has got to be fake. A big name corporation with a sensible stance on piracy? Its impossible!
Anyway, I'm glad that someone stands up to the BPI/RIAA mafia - it actually seriously influences my next choice of ISP.
Its got nothing to do with whether I do or do not use torrents, its to do with the attitude that the ISP is not a monitor or law enforcing agent. The proper authority to handle this is the police. If the BPI feels that a user is breaking the law, they should send the information they have to the police, who can then request information from the ISP. Why is this not an acceptable course of action?
I think organized music such as it is today is eventually doomed to die. This is because of the rise of digital distribution and independant labels. Also, I think the record companies, after all this time, still dont get - piracy is not the cause of their issues, its a symptom of their failure to present an attractive option to consumers. When they sell the right stuff for the right price at the right format, then they will find piracy will decrease.
"If the BPI have evidence of illegal filesharing, let them prove it in court, it's not the ISP's job to police the internet (or monitor/intercept/profile it)"
there WILL be change.
And I suspect the legal / non downloading majority will, as per usual, end up getting the shaft thanks to the actions of the freeloading minority (aka the Freetards)
This post has been deleted by its author
Thank god we have at last one decent ISP.
And I for one if they do decide to fight will switch to Carphone Warehouse.
Yet I dont even share files or use P2P.
Sod BT, who on earth wants to use that junk? They are happy to sell our their customers to some adware shop, so I cannot imagine them wanting to upset their former owner!
Hmm bit of a weird concept in this country - in the 'good old days' people were innocent until proven guilty - now we have the RIAA equipvalent trying to enforce the 'right' of disconneciton without this being proven in a court of law.
So they show a screen shot of my IP Address making files available - big deal, after all how hard is it to spoof a screen shot? What about (as has been pointed out elsewhere) the unsecured wireless hotspot - in fact BT have been pushing running unsecure hotpots for ages - http://www.btfon.com/ - who gets done if its the IP address of the FON router that's sharing files.(as an aside the disconnect between this service and recent prosecutions for 'illegal use of a hotspot' make my brain ache!)
What about the company provided broadband which is used by little jimmy in the evening - is Mr. MD going to get '3 strikes' - isn't the company just going to get pissed off with that - in fact how hard (other than cost) would it be for a new phone line, new ADSL connection and new IP Address to be installed by the company.
What about the 'mobile broadband users' if the land-line ISP's get their arms twisted into support this peace of crap then surely the same will be applied to mobile broaband - only in this case what will get barred - the SIM, the MAC address of the device? What happens if its a company owned SIM card used in a pool device is barred.
I'm pleased that good old Charlie has stood up to this dangerous precedent....next the government will be trying someting really well though out like forcing all the peados to register their email addresses so they can't register for facebook (oh wait a minute...)
I'll get off my soapbox in a mo.
It sounds like a damage limitations exercise until you get to the paragraph where the world's most badly compromised ISP tried it and lost munee.
I can't see that a penny pinching grabber like crap one whore house will put it's money where it's not going to make even more -and I doubt legality enters their equations except a financial benefit is forseen.
I don't download music at all, just not interested, If I am forced to pay a levy to allow me to download music, I shall make a point of downloading every bit of music available.
If the government can force ISPs to police what is transferred over the internet, I think it is reasonable to make BT police phone calls for attempted fraud, and block all premium rate SMS from a provider that has a couple of complaints against them.
This whole argument about making ISPs responsible for this stuff really makes my blood boil.
Firstly, what's so special about music & films? Why should anyone outside of these industries give two hoots about any problems they may be having with regard to copyright infringements? I hate the way this arguments is passed off as something important. It maybe important to the BPI, but it's NOT important to anyone else! ISPs DO deal with stuff like kiddie porn on the net. That's because THIS is important. Chasing people for peddling some dodgy CDs does not actually matter.
I don't download music and videos and stuff from the net. Not because of any high moral stance, but because I just can't be bothered - I just have other things I'd rather do. Therefore, I strongly object to the idea of charging me more for my internet connection just because I MIGHT or CAN download music & videos. Why the hell should I pay for something I don't want? Especially when the extra money won't even be going to the ISP - it'll be going to the BPI (or whoever); an organisation that I have absolutely no interest or dealings with!
I’m not surprised. If you agree to lose any customer simply on the say-so of any one rights holder claiming that their rights have been infringed three times, or any three different rights holders on single occasions, you’re a hostage to fortune. You can imagine an ISP saying, “you want us to disconnect 10,000 of our customers?!” With the rights holder replying, “yes, it was a particularly popular work” or “well, we have an extensive IP portfolio.”
Removing a person’s right to use something as punishment for repeat offences should be left to legislation and the courts. We do not have someone in a far away country watching this country’s roads, with technology unknown, using procedures unknown, who then forwards alleged speeding offences to a private company over here, to give penalty points to those named.
As an avid campaigner for 'net neutrality (hence my recent coments against Phorm), I really wish the record companies would check up on relevant legislation, including obligations under European directives, before e.g. haluing Ericom into court in the Republic of Ireland.
I admire anyone who takes a stand against the likes of IRMA etc just because of their strong-armed threatening tactics.
It is clear from Directive 2000/31/EC that ISPs are not obliged to monitor the information they transmit, whilst Directive 2002/58/EC gives a general right to individuals' privacy of communications, as enacted in the UK under RIPA.
Whilst copyright protection lobbyists continue to play hard-done-by, arm-twisting governments and ISPs into eroding individuals' fundamental rights, I fully support anyone taking a stand against this, even though, kids, it IS wrong to steal ;)
That's not really a good analogy, as there are no identifying markings on a bullet (using the bullet = packet analogy).
A better one would be a man with a video camera reporting speeding outside his house to the DVLA, submiting a video of the car, and asking them to not renew his tax disk. Even this isn't an ideal analogy, though.
It does, however, take into account that jurisdiction doesn't fall with the owner of the road (connection), and that the driver of the car may not be the owner...
"You'd have to disconnect the whole world from the internet as EVERYONE has and/or does download music illegally all the time"
Please don't try to justify your illegal activity by claiming that everyone does it so it must be ok. I pay for all of my music, thanks.
Not that I disagree with CPW's view. I think record companies need to wake up and smell the rot of their out dated business model and start producing quality music packaged so we can actually use it. I'm pretty sure that all of their posturing is just the death calls of a lumbering beast, NIN, Radiohead et al have shown the way.
I think the "True Fan" model (http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2008/03/1000_true_fans.php) is the way to go for all content creators.
Did anyone mention ISPs monitoring information on behalf of the BPI? What I read was, the BPI wants ISPs to actually pay attention if the BPI supplies IPs and times for computers that are part of a torrent swarm for copyrighted material.
"Dunstone continued: "I cannot foresee any circumstances in which we would voluntarily disconnect a customer's account on the basis of a third party alleging a wrongdoing". So if someone posts child porn on my forums, and I provide server logs, IPs etc. they're going to tell me to get stuffed? If I find one of their IPs sending out virus spam they're going to tell me they're not interested?
All the BPI are saying is, "Here are our procedures for gathering evidence, if these meet with the ISPs approval we'd like a fast-track system so we don't have to start again from scratch every time we contact them"
The alternative would be the RIAA's way, where rather than letting the ISPs deal with it via a slap on the wrist, or make them go to one of the other multitude of ISPs, they apply to the courts, get your details from the ISP (note that under the "three strikes" system, the BPI need never know your personal details), and sue you.
Given that downloading the stuff they are talking about is, in fact, illegal, I find it surprising so many people are moaning about having to face the consequences of their actions. And I speak as a frequent user of bittorrent with virgin media as my ISP.
(I'm not saying that some of my downloads are illegal, but I don't play WoW, you only need game patches once, and how many ISOs of linux would one person need?)
If they crowbar a "music subscription fee" or whatever they want to call it into ISP costs, people will then start downloading more music / movies. I know I would if I'd paid for it. Couple this assumption with the "ISP bloodbath" stories going around and...
Well let's just say I don't want to be stood any where near the fan.
Let's not forget the Data protection Acts: I don't now how passing Personally identifying Data to the British Phonographic Association could be legal to a business (because that's what the BPI is, at the end of the day) that
(1) is unlikely to have clearance from the Security Industry Authority to perform Private investigations, and
(2) is probably not signed up to the Criminal Records Bureau, and is certainly not a Police Service under the Police Act;
furthermore given the above, they're highly unlikely to be able to obtain search/seizure warrants under their own remit - they have to get the Police to do that, and for that to occur there has to be an overwhelming burden of proof that wrongdoing - illegal wrongdoing, more specifically - has occurred.
So, yes, they might say they're protecting their customers, but in fact, reading between the lines, they're protecting their bottom line.
Let's say that a person, who for the sake of argument we'll call "Mr. Victim", has his details passed by CPW to the BPI; this includes a full event log of his browsing and downloading habits. Because it's also a customer file, his address, phone number, in fact his full contact details, are included in the data, and possibly even his bank details. Because this data can positively identity him, this is then passed to the police with a request for a full search warrant - basically a legal excuse for a rummage/fishing expedition.
The warrant is granted, and lo and behold, all manner of music files are seized when Mr Victim's home is raided by a dozen (he's described as a "major criminal at the centre of a criminal copyright distribution organisation" in the bundle of documents given to the judge who signed the warrant). On analysis, he's found to have downloaded the music files using a peer-to-peer software package, so yes, technically speaking he was also distributing them.
Cut to roughly nine months later, and the crown court. Mr. Victim is found guilty of copyright theft, fines, and sent home with a criminal record, and a VERY depleted bank account.
The very next day, backed by a digital freedom organisation that we will, for the sake of argument, call the EFF, he sues his former ISP, CPW, for three times the fine he received, on a civil charge of illegally releasing his data to the BPI. Forget the criminal conviction he's just received, he can still sue them for illegally passing his details over - it's contrary to the Data Protection Act. The court sees it his way, and Mr Victim changes his name to Mr Moneybags. He then sues just about everyone he can for using illegally obtained data to effect a prosecution. Only the High Court can judge the merits of that one, but you can bet that it'd side with Mr Moneybags, and quash the conviction on this legal technicality. You can imagine what kind of floodgates in civil litigation THAT would open up.
So. CPW're protecting their bottom line. Simple as, folks :)
I'll have you know I spend a fair few £100 on CD's and Downloads, and not all illegal music thank you very much.
Being a DJ entitles me NOT to get my ass kicked for being a total freetard with 6 1TB hard drives sat on my table all full of music.
Other than that I like a CD, as much as you can alter MP3 settings, it'll never be CD quality.
Its people like you who feed these industries, like a bull with a ring through its nose. Just like every other person who doesn't play risk. Do us a favour, be a paedophile and test out their email plan.. see if that works eh? Or even better go play with your records and cassettes and tell me you never dubbed them from one to the other a teenage kid back in the day. I bet you did.
Further more, when music gets "DELETED", the only way normally without deporting your self to China in the middle of some mahoosive mountain to go and find it, some genius has probably shared it, which in a sense can justify that illegal download to some extent.
Anyone else with a ring through their nose, with a rope being pulled by the RIAA want to fire some more stupid "I'm a good boy, I love you mummy, I never do anything bad in my life because I never got shagged until 40" crap at me?
Feel free to bring it on!
I don't support music suckers who'll go and download the world, but I do support people who have very little money in this stupidly expensive world who just want a some music to keep their sanity.
"So if someone posts child porn on my forums, and I provide server logs, IPs etc. they're going to tell me to get stuffed?"
Why would you not send that to the police?
Which is the same question they BPI should be asked. They're attempting to get a foothold into the comms arena to set precedents for future activity (which they no doubt have roadmapped) to be based upon.
As I read the article, the ISP does not pass *anything* to the BPI. The BPI pass a list of IP addresses & datetimes to the ISP and say "These IPs are illegally sharing my Copyrighted stuff." Then ISP writes to the holder of the account that used that particular IP at that particular datetime and says to account holder "Dear Mr/Mrs/Ms Scumbag, this is your 1st/2nd/last warning for ripping off nice Mr BPI." And then they disconnect the account.
So no problem there with the DPA.
The BPI have already got a method of protecting there copyrighted stuff. It's through the courts. However this will cost them money. Unlike America the damages in the UK are not punitive, thus the BPI cannot make a 'profit' on each court case to keep them running. Just a few cases, successful or not would most likely put the BPI out of business (or force the BPI members to cough up loads more money.)
So most commentors are correct, this is all about money and who will bear the cost of policing the BPI's copyright. The BPI don't want to. The ISP's won't. So probably our spineless and stupid Government will use taxpayers money to do it.
Paris, cos even she knows better than the BPI.
I believe this is what they're trying to side-step. The BPI spoof torrent tracker connections, and when someone connects to them they record the IP and send it off to the relevant ISP. That ISP then looks at it and sends a mail off to their customer who uses that IP, or used it at the logged time. No data is exchanged between the two other than that. After 3 letters the user is disconnected.
Good on them i say, and i hope Entanet and others follow :)
and the day i stop downloading stuff to preview/checkout before perhaps buying is the day
the uk gov stops being incompetent, money wasting, data losing, privacy invading, petition ignoring, truth hiding, over taxing, lying bunch of Bastards
Q. What's 9 inches, red & hangs in front of an Arsehole?
A. Gordon Browns Tie
Btw Gordon, WTF is my expense account?
does that mean the phone company's such as BT, Vodafone, T-Mobile etc are liable for converstations that occur over their network such as co-ordinating terrorist activities for example because they are providing the connectivity and not necessarily restricting its use? How about royal mail, they provide a means for communicating, are they going to be held liable for the contents of each and every envelope?? bah, stoopid nanny state, its getting worse
If copyright was strictly enforced no-one could go a day without breaking it. For example, do an image search on Google for "birth certificate". You probably just downloaded enough images which the national archive holds copyright on and you are not allowed to view on-line to be disconnected according to 3 strikes.
Frymaster - do your homework before posting.
The "threat" of legal action if ISPs didn't acquiesce to me hinted strongly at the suit against Eircom in Ireland, which is part of the EU, as is the UK, and which I mentioned in my original post, alongside relevant EU legislation.
They [IRMA] are challenging Eircom's refusal to use filtering technology or other appropriate measures to voluntary block, or filter, material from its network which is being used to download music in violation of the companies' copyright and/or licensing rights.
Also you may want to check Wikipedia under Deep Packet Inspection and, anyone on the thread who wants to help keep this wiki balanced, ensure that reference to the disputed legal position in Europe is kept in the wiki under “Copyright enforcement” subheading.
It would be a nightmare job trying to intercept traffic & police it. Presumably you'd have to check each p2p packet to see if it was a download/upload of a copyrighted song/movie or if it was just some, er, amateur production which was without copyright. That said, is copyright automatic, and if so can it be waived?
Perhaps more people may like to make a habit of sharing non-copyright material. However, that said, say I take a recording of me playing Bohemian Rhapsody on the spoons, which would presumably be non-copyright, how do engines like the pirate bay pick up it's existence; i.e. how does one create a brand new torrent link? It's probably obvious to many.
If the BPI gets it way then all manner of industries could have an opportunity to say to the ISP that Tom Dick or Harry has download x and I want then stopped and banned.
Say, a person takes a picture out of his web cache and uses it for his own web site, could not then the copy writer write to the ISP to complain.
Say, a person copies a paragraph out of a a web page and submits it as part of his course work at school, could not then the copy writer write to the ISP to complain.
Say, a person reads an online book with out paying,should not then the copy writer write to the ISP to complain.
I actually think the ISP are just a conduit system for delivering packets from A to B just like the Post Office, you don't see the BPI writing to the Post Office saying that Joe Bloggs of 43 Numpty Rise, PhormTown has brought a priate CD and had it posted, can you please stop allowing post to this individual.
It looks like Carphone Warehouse is set to corner the market now. As a Virgin customer, I have been pondering a move to Carphone Warehouse for months now because of Virgins ever growing costs and pure underhandedness.
I would personally like to congratulate Charles Dunstone and those from Carphone Warehouse that have been involved in this issue, for having the backbone to stand up to the government and for not allowing bullying tactics to intimedate them.
Nowhere, in all these articles and debates, have I seen any real mention of a burden of proof. Everyone, government included, seems to be saying that ISPs should be disconnecting users on the basis of information provided by the BPI.
If the BPI are going to use ISPs effectively as police, providing them with 'evidence' - which I've read/heard is as basic as a screenshot of some application ... how does the ISP validate this 'evidence'. Surely there is a huge conflict of interest here?
All it takes for this system to go completely pete tong and screw the wrong person is for the alledged date/time supplied by the BPI to be slightly wrong, and the ISP will dig up the wrong user its dynamic IP address.
The system also fails to take account of multi-user connections. It victimises the subscriber - not the actual perpetrator of the alledged copyright infringement.
I don't think we should blame the BPI for this, in the end of the day they are a business and they have to protect their bottom line. The blame for this lies at the feet of the gov, for pandering to special interest groups and trying for force the ISP's to toe the line.
The annoying thing is this really is only the start, if (and probably when) this gets implemented it will only be the first nail in the coffin. Getting kicked from one ISP really isn't the end of the world, a far more effective measure are blacklists. How long before people are getting banned from the internet?
The question is, how a company can make money off kicking people off the internet? I believe that this is only the first step in setting up a system where the BPI sends threating letters to people who they believe may possibly have at some point listened to a mp3, forcing people to pay to keep quite about it. I wonder what the wording on the racatering laws are like?
Honestly its a sad state of affairs when people start getting more afraid of what draconian measures their own elected government will bring in next, as part of their nanny state policies than they ever were of the threat of terrorism. Hell even the years of IRA violence didn't provoke the sort of knee jerk reactions that we see today, the difference I guess is that America now believes that it must police its own people and we all know that were America leads, England will follow.
I worry because we also all know that where England leads Ireland will follow. At the moment all of this doesn't sound too bad, but honestly imagine the outcry if they were to introduce the whole thing at once, as they say if you give an inch.
Basically CFW. like every other ISP, has margins so tight they can barely break even on the services, the extras that make the money. CFW simply doesn't want the overhead of having to deal with the BPI's request, new staff, updated hardware, higher paid legal eagles, etc. All about the spons at the end of the day.
Oh and on a related note, please stop this "Well if it was cheap enough, I'd stop ripping it off and pay." Bollocks you would! Between the choice of pay something and pay nothing, human nature wins everytime and you will take the cheapest option, ie gratis!
Give people in the UK a fair deal on CD's DVD's etc in line with the US etc and people will buy more ligitimate products.
Keep shafting us with excessively high prices and we will go where it is cheapest/free.
I also would have less of a problem if it wasnt the record labels creaming it all too.
Having departed dear old yUK a few years back, I do feel that the way forward for the .gov.uk is to:
1) Enact a bill to ensure that every internet user has a webcam focused on them and their monitor to watch what they do on the internet
2) Tax internet usage. Obviously P2P stuff generates high usage and therefore the more bandwidth you use the more you should be taxed.
3) Tax ipod usage, because you must be dodgy if you have music on a pod - how did it really get there?
4) Tax anything else not mentioned, guns, knives, rolling pins just in case.
5) Extra extra extra tax on gas guzzlers, all those nasty cars that run on LPG must be forced off the roads.
6) Tax anyone how doesn't vote for them.
7) More tax -just in case
8) oh and more camera's
Make it clear to the fukwits in Government that if this goes ahead they will be out on their ears next election time - they are too stupid as they think they have a chance anyway.
A Class action lawsuit in European courts against the BPI for running a cartel and overcharging for music media. CD's must be at least 80% dearer than they should be, look at Apple UK prices etc - Stores, Record Companies and the Cartel are the cause of all this. This will make them think twice.
Nationwide music strike. If enough people in the country/world decide they have had enough and stop buying music becuase of what's going on...things will change big time.
Guess there's too much CSI or something.
It's looking bad for ballistics experts these days. The FBI is currently reviewing the past 30 years of their ballistics work because it has been shown that the entire ballistic striation bit has been incorrect in a large number of cases, and on top of that some of the FBI's senior scientists have stood up and said that the science behind striation analysis is just bad.
I'll let you do your own research, but bullet striation analysis is no more effective than sheep innards analysis.
No wonder Jaguar is going down the pan, after all those bank robberies in the sixties the banks must have laid the blame on Jaguar because they made the cars that were used to speed away from the scene of the crime. The government agreed being a bunch of left wing loonies, yes my opinion, nationalised the whole lot and the rest is history.
I've looked at the Wiki page etc. Just a quick one. If the data is encrypted it can not be inspected. Is this correct?
I mean surely that's all that has to happen. encrypt the data each packet data is encypted and that's it. Thus they can't tell the difference between legal and illegal file sharing.
Who is actually collecting the evidence ??, and is monitoring peoples Internet Usage Is that not exactly the same as illegal wire Tapping someones phone line.
Surely there should have to be the proof of breaking the law, before the AUTHORITIES can get an order to monitor an individuals Internet Usage.
Phorm to me, is clearly a breach of Individuals rights.!!!
Imagine if someone came up with a bright idea to monitor peoples phone usage, so they could target them services over the phone, it would never be allowed.
So why should they get to do it without control on the internet.
Clearly the BPI are hoping for a surcharge on Internet Connections as with Tape Cassettes. This would be money for doing nothing and punishing the innocent.
The music/video industry should get their act together and issue a public standards based individual digital Id's to the music listening public on security dongles. In that way individual media recordings can be personally encrypted for sale. This avoids the debacle of centrally administered Digital Rights (DRM) where access to the music ceases when the supplying organisation decides to cease its service.
The second step is to have fair pricing of the music/video's.
The current Gov't and BPI approach is a bit like using a beam trawler to catch a few shrimps. Very destructive and not at all focussed.
The BPI said :
"Contrary to Talk Talk's claims, passing advice on to their customers is not 'unreasonable' or 'unworkable'. We are not asking ISPs to act as the police. We are asking them to act on information we provide to them."
So, the BPI are acting as the police and expecting the ISPs to act on their information.
There seems to be a lack of legal bits and bobs here, such as court cases, trials, juries, evidence etc. etc...
I'm pretty sure the police can already get someone cut off from the net, probably by disconnecting their whole phone line or whatever, so why don't the BPI go to the police, the police investigate and the ISP act only on the police's request?
Presumably because the police are too busy chasing ASBO wielding chavs and drunks to bother with a comparatively victim-less crime (only victims are the record companies and the artists , who are already both very rich).
Which should be resolved by the government spending more money on grass roots policing and less money on these pie in the sky idiot unworkable ideas.
There's no point building a house on dodgy foundations.
It may be true that the markings on a bullet can identify where it came from... But -
It still can not tell why it was fired or whom it was aimed at.
The intention to hit a designated target must be proven in order to profile a crime.
Otherwise it may simply have been an accidental discharge aimed at no-one in particular and by virtue of a number or random ricochets, ended up in an unknown target.
What this Phorm stuff was and why it seems to be mandatory at the moment for the UK's biggest ISP's to use it.
1) It is legalised spyware.
2) It is there to find out what we do and when in case we are terrorists or paedophiles or p2p users.
3) All data will be sold to the highest bidder (if it is not lost in the post) and shall include our bank details, postal address, ID etc etc.
4) It will beome a legal obligation to be a part of it if it is not already.
5) Death knell has been sounded for the www (wild wild west) internet - welcome to the absolute police state and removal of that last bastion of freedom and privicy we have left - the internet.
It strikes me that spoofing torrent connections could well be a form of entrapment, which is not usually an allowed form of evidence gathering; at least not by our boys in blue.
Also, I'm surprised that there aren't ways of filesharing which would avoid all outside attentions.
Europe deals blow to piracy plan
April 11, 2008
Plans proposed by the music industry to have persistent pirates cut off from their internet services have been dealt a blow in the European parliament.
MEPs today backed an amendment to a wide-ranging report on creative industries, which said that banning people from the web interfered with civil liberties and human rights.
"The vote shows that MEPs want to strike a balance between the interests of rights holders and those of consumers, and that big measures like cutting off internet access shouldn't be used," said a spokeswoman for the European Parliament.
The music industry slammed the amendment, saying it was "badly drafted".
Frances Moore, the executive vice president of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), said: "One badly-drafted, rushed-through amendment was adopted which is in contradiction to the rest of the text.
"If the aim of the report is to protect creative content, including in the online environment, we should be looking at all options available in the fight against copyright theft. Instead, this amendment suggested discarding certain options before there is even a proper debate," Moore continued.
The row centres around the "three-strike" proposal which is currently being implemented in France and is favoured by the British Phonographic Industry (BPI).
The BPI has been having discussions with several UK ISPs, including Virgin Media about a policy that would see first-time pirates warned, second-time offenders suspended from their accounts, and a third offence leading to a permanent ban from the web.
However, The Carphone Warehouse, which owns the AOL and TalkTalk brands in the UK and is rumoured to be interested in bidding for Tiscali, has rejected the BPI's proposals outright.
In retaliation for the rebuttal, the BPI has said it will take The Carphone Warehouse to court if it does not take positive action against piracy.
The government has said that it will introduce legislation to cover this issue if ISPs and the music industry cannot implement a voluntary agreement by April 2009.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020