Long Live TPB where not everything is illegal on there.
The government has today unexpectedly revived plans for laws to disconnect persistent illegal filesharers, in a move to delight the entertainment industry and anger ISPs. The unscheduled changes to the Digital Britain consultation also envisage a more powerful, direct role for Lord Mandelson. Despite denials last week, the …
... had persuaded it to reconsider introducing the threat of disconnection from the internet.
Err, excuse me? "we will be extending the deadline for responses to 29th September 2009"
The fucking Consultation hasn't even *FINISHED* yet, but already you're deciding what you're going to do?
Why not just admit that, like every other damn consultation you've held, it's a complete sham because you're going to do what you like anyway?
How about we all club together and buy Mandy an expensive dinner? Maybe *THAT* is the way to get Government policy changed...?
I have watched over the past few years as freedom after freedom gets eroded by the 'Labour government' and I have shook my head watching no-one do anything about it.
I will be damned if I am gonna let this government think it can hound me in my own home... with it's powers to the councils, the fake coppers it puts out on the streets and everything else,this is one step too far,and I think any ISP that agrees to it needs abandoning... quickly...
Mines the one with the plane ticket to Guernsey, Working Permit and passport thanks!
I live in a house with 3 other people - all of whom are avid internet users, the internet account is in my name. I can ask them not to download - I can even block the ports on the firewall but either way if they know enough about technology they could circumvent this. Am I then responsible for their actions? I need the internet at home as I work from home often - for the government to then force suspension of my internet for the actions of another individual is illegal I am sure.
This country seriously sucks balls and good work to all of the people creating encrypted P2P stuff - lets make this as difficult for them as possible!
Stephen Timms, minister for Digital Britain, explained the change of heart.
"We've been listening carefully to responses to the consultation this far, and it's become clear there are widespread concerns that the plans as they stand could delay action, impacting unfairly upon rights holders," he said.
So they are going to ignore our rights in favour of a bunch of greedy <insert suitable offensive ephitet here>.
I'm not talking about our "right" to be a freetard, but our "right" to be innocent until proven guilty.
As has been shown already with certain legal firms use of threatening letters, odds are that there will be very little in the way of burden of proof before we find ourselves cut off. And, no doubt, there will be almost no way of proving that we weren't guilty once we have been cut-off.
Yes, I admit I download BitTorrent stuff, but I don't do it on my home connections. I lease a seedbox from a French company that does all my peering/seeding and then download from that using a simple FTP program. How are they going to police me???
I've got an unlimted (sic) account from BT and get an email once a month to say I've excedded their FUP (sic again) and I ring up every month and complain that the account is described as unlimited when it's plainly not...
Best of luck UK Gov - but I think you're on a non starter here...
I don't like the sound of this at all.
When the bandwidth speeds come up and people start hosting their own websites etc. This is going to be used to enforce some kind of internet tax.
Users will be determined as an unauthorised broadcaster and disconnected. It is a slippery slope.
Can we have a new icon with Mandelson in it?
He is not even elected. To give the man so much power of discretion is typical of nulabia's disregard for due process.
And are they complete morons? If they *really* have a case for preventing people using p2p illegally (or do they mean using p2p to breach copyright? after all, using p2p is not illegal per se as far as I know), and I am not convinced they have, why not block P2P access on that connection rather than blocking everything? Stupid, stupid, stupid.
I am not supporting blocking p2p anyway, but why block everything?
BB because he is....
This hugely influential plonker has been thrown out of government twice and could never get elected again. And yet, he gets to make huge decisions about what kind of country we live in because the elected officials are too busy crying to their bank managers about their sudden loss of income.
If you wanted to come up with a system of government that made it easy to buy influence you wouldn't be far from what we have here.
The most powerful non elected man in this country (At least brown is an MP) Mandelson is just toilet filling of the highest capacity as shown by his previously two sackings from government.
He is scum of the highest order and this is just one of many thigns the leech has done. He always reminds me of a skesis. From the dark crystal, evil to the core and the morals of a scorpion.
It won't change anything, it just means more eaves dropping, more meddling and even more legislation to get through before something is changed.
We need a symbol of guy Fawkes for any governmental meddling.
In short - here's why UK Gov has changed it's mind...
* Geffen was an early supporter of Barack Obama for president and raised $1.3 million for Obama in a star-studded Beverly Hills fund raiser
* Geffen has an estimated net worth of $4.6 billion, making him one of the richest people in the entertainment industry
My child requires internet access for their schoolwork. I can argue that I dont, and do it on my phone.
If this is criminal legislation, and if the contract is in my child's name, whilst he is below the current legal age of criminal responsibility, could (assuming he might not be expected at his tender age to have the technical knowledge required to secure his wifi beyond default) any "dodgy downloading" be done with impunity?
If not, then we'll probably all have informal agreements with the neighbours where they can show they were on holiday when their wifi was hacked for two weeks of data transfer every so often, thus holding them harmless.
When will these idiots learn?
3 strikes rule is too broader punishment for an individual as they clearly stated themselves it would punish innocent people who live with said person. I’d be interested to know how they can categorically prove that this person has downloaded illegal goods?
Also why the hell should ISP’s have to monitor what Joe blogs does? I was under the impression that it’s the copyright holder’s responsibility to look after its own goods not a 3rd party.
iTunes, spotify, last.fm, steam, etc etc.... prove that if the “entertainment” industry pulled their finger out and produced a good distribution model people will use it and buy legally
so in short GIVE US THAT GOD DAMN OPPORTUNITY TO BUY HOW WE WANT TOO
sorry if it's very disjointed too many cups of coffee
I'd like to say, please bring on the election so that we can get rid of the rotten stench of it all.
If the music industry wish to take me to court in a civil copyright infringement case, by all means do so.
If, however, they want to simply introduce guilt by accusation, with no due process of law, they can fuck right off.
"UK's Intellectual Property minister, David Lammy (elected by Tottenham), said the government would not force internet service providers to pursue file sharers.
'We can't have a system where we're talking about arresting teenagers in their bedrooms,'"
- BBC News 12th May 2009
So now Mandy (elected by nobody apart from Gordon), who was twice sacked after corruption scandals, has now decided that the elected ministers don't get to make the rules - he does, coincidentally after a nice spot of lunch with David Geffen?!
Please, do fuck off Peter...
How the hell do we take the power back from these corrupt, money grabbing, self serving, conniving toss pots? Serious question...
An unelected appointee of the Labour Government dictating policy to please his chums in Corporate land. He is of the firm opinion that he rules this country rather the elected people representing us.
The fault lies with the music/film industry not getting its act together with an effective DRM system. They prefer their old rip off prices for music/films.
Just one more reminder to never let the Labour Party regain the reins of power again.
I wonder if there will be a concerted effort to disconnect the phone lines of those companies using CD's or MP3's etc of licensable music on their hold or queue systems where it is proved they don't have a PPL/PRS license?
It strikes me that this should be treated in exactly the same way. It is distribution of unlicensed material, over the POTS, so the phone line should be cut off, shurely?
"This does not necessarily mean that suspension would be used," the government said.
It should - let them deal with the outcry & mess (immediately and at the ballot box). Wasn't it a Roosevelt who said something like 'The quickest way to the abolition of bad law is rigid enforcement'?
Too much law is selectively applied, and often inappropriately (Anti-Terrorism laws used against Iceland???)
A couple of points:
On the one hand, we have a government that proposes a levy on all fixed-line services, the funds raised to be used a resource for a more general upgrade and extension to an aging infrastructure (we're told). If that doesn't say that internet access is now a requirement for all- a utility- rather than a luxury, then I dont know what does.
So, its a utility? Well, we are told that this utility will be cut off if we abuse it. This isn't fair; if we take the example of water or gas, there's no threat to be cut off if we use too much, we're merely billed more. There's no 'fair use' policy attached to any utility that I know of.
But this argument really goes nowhere. The fact is that 'illegal downloaders' as they are known are not the responsibility of their ISP, any more than a bus company is for taking me the library so that I can steal books, or that phone companies are when I make a dirty phone call. Its just a pipe. The ISPs are a soft target.
There is an election coming up, and the Labour Party will let Mandleson bypass Parliament and introduce yet another measure sure to be hated by the voting public?
And him being a Lord, he doesn't care, because he can't lose his seat, but them being MPs do care because they can?
All this just after YET ANOTHER holiday on a yacht with rich special interest groups, which will inevitably raise questions about back room deals?
What happens if you use the P2P Sky Player? That uses P2P technology. As do many other things. TVOD will probably use some form of P2P.
As Mandy (and indeed the Labour Government's recent policies) is preposing a "Guilty until proven Innocent" situation, Joe Bloggs could have his broadband disconnected and be dragged into court for LEGALLY downloading.
What if someone hacks your Wireless? I'm sure that with these laws, Wireless hacking will increase dramatically as downloaders try to evade detection.
...and is nothing more than the logical, if unhappy, conclusion of what happens when governments realise their citizens (or subjects, in the UK's case) actually might be enjoying a little too much freedom online. Time to close that freedom down. Governments do not like the interweb, not one bit. It makes them nervous that their populations might actually have a place to communicate freely, to read 'off-message' journalism and generally disregard the manicured, pre-digested information they would rather we all consume.
Sure, they'll wrap it all up claiming they are 'clamping down' on file sharers, pornographers and terrorists, but in the end all they really want to do is to enact a mechanism for closing down net access to those citizens it would prefer did not have access to the online world. Once the power to confiscate net access is granted, does anyone seriously imagine things will stop there?
The UK government watches in mute envy as Australia's lunatic politicians sabotage all pretence of a free and open society with some of the most breathtaking attacks on online freedoms in recent years - all in the name, of course, of 'protecting' it's citizens from the veritable armies of pornographers out to corrupt an entire nation, no doubt. But Parliament here in the UK would very much like to follow Australia's lead - indeed, it shows every intention of doing so just as soon as it can get the draft legislation through the consultation stages.
Things were always going to end badly. It's not over yet.
What i would ever really need even a 10meg connection (the smallest virgin offer on cable) for without firing up P2P occasionally. I used to get by fine for online gaming, web, email, etc on my old BT 256k broadband. I can't see why i'd need more than 1 or 2 meg for the most part
ISP's would love it though, as it would mean that most connections were Idle 99% of the time and they could oversubscribe them even more.
It will work exactly as mentioned, if your house mates P2P (and get caught) then it is *your* connection that will be cut.
Although not exactly morally clear cut, I very much doubt it is illegal for the ISP to cut you off - possibly breach of contract but probably not, some clause will state that the connection should not be used for blah... and that the account signatory is responsible for actions taken with / through the account.
Failing that there is the precedent with taking / crushing unlawfully driven cars. If I lend you my car, which has valid tax & MOT and I am covered by appropriate insurance and it turns out you lied to me about your license / insurance then the filth will impound *my* car if you are caught - this deprives me of my car due to the actions of another.
I assume (though I may be wrong when TPoD is involved) that there would be some degree of warnings before you got suspended so what you would need t do is to warn your housemates against breaking the rules and if you then get warned you need to cut them off.
Although the trick of leasing a seedbox helps you, how about helping the ones that get disconnected?
I suggest FON: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FON
In order to share your wireless network with everybody. I would like to see the court make an argument that you actually did the download. And also other people that get disconnected can then still get Internet.
Of course if the government really pushes it's people then I think most will start using TOR for online anonymity.
No way you can limit the Internet (or mess with network neutrality), Pandora's box is already open....
Every street market in South America, Russia and Asia is awash with the latest CDs and movies, none of which are legal, whilst there isn't a single record shop or movie rental place to be found.
Unlike in Europe and the US, that's piracy for profit not personal use. And there are far, far more people in Asia.
So, I assume a hardline stance is being taken right across the world, especially in places where it's consumed instead of rather than as well as paid-for content?
This repeatedly refers to 'illegal downloading'
Leaving aside the veracity of that statement, surely the Courts are there to rule on such things?
If criminal activity is taking place (I did say 'if') then the evidence should be presented, and an appropriate sentence handed down. Politicians should have nothing to do with this, nor should ISP's.
Starting off legislation before the consultation has finished is not new, they've done it before. There's a home education consultation in progress at the moment and they've already announced legislation on the subject for the next session of Parliament.
Your fundamental mistake is assuming that they take notice of anything said in a consultation that isn't in support of what they wanted to do in the first place. The rest of us are irrelevant until about four weeks before the next election, at which point they'll repent, utter three Hail Gordons and plead with us to vote them in again because the other lot are the spawn of the devil.
An un-accountable fuck like Mandy being given the power to kick people off the net without any consideration by a court or legal recourse.
They want to give police more power to hand out fines and penalties and MP's more powers to impose sanctions while side-lining the long standing legal processes which have protected us for hundreds of years.
Welcome to the neo-police state.
"If you don't P2P then you don't have a problem.
What's that you say? You can't control your kids? You don't know where they are? If that's the case, you shouldn't have an internet connection anyway."
Yes, because it really is so simple isn't it? All use of P2P is illegal.
What a lovely simple world you live in. If someone steals your car and kills someone with it, I hope you enjoy your life term.
Just when you think the Labour party can't get any less popular, you hear things like
"...a more powerful, direct role for Lord Mandelson"
I'm sure he must be the most hated politician in the country right now (aside from Brown). If you told me he flew to work on a Fell Beast, I honestly wouldn't be surprised.
...if you are 'sharing' hooky copies of the latest hollywood shitefest, you deserve to be disconnected.
I used to 'tape-to-tape' to C90s, have been lent the odd DVD (if I thought it was any good, I might have bought my own legal copy), can't wait to vote against Labour/Mandy), and agree with most general comment threads on El Reg, but isn't complaining about this similar to complaining about having one too many points on your driving licence?
How can they possibly think this will work?
I'd love to know how this is going to be monitored - so not only will I be paying for massively under performing broadband but I will also be funding people to monitor my online actions.
Why don't they wake up and realise that the uploaders are the ones fueling pirating, not the downloaders? When people can just download a music video off youtube then extract the audio how can they think they will catch every illegal download?
I'm not a pirate but still think that this policy is unacceptable and will only push those who download illegally to think of harder to track methods which will make it even more difficult for them to be caught.
All this hassle to solve the "problem of unlawful peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing".
If this behaviour is already "unlawful", why do we need new legislation to deal with it? Just take the file-sharers to the courts, show them your evidence and bingo!
If the record companies don't have evidence that would stand up in court, that's no reason to decide to skip the "proven guilty" bit and go straight on to sentencing, quite the opposite in fact.
That's the truely chilling element to this proposal, and a real challenge to our human rights - not the human right to be on the internet (a bit shaky, that one), but the right to justice. According to this proposal ISPs have to "send notifications to subscribers *alleged* by rights holders to be infringing copyright", and to take further action against anybody receiving too many such notifications. There's no mention of any of these allegations having to be proved true, nor of their recipient having the right to defend him/herself from them.
This one's got Mandelson's grubby little paw prints all over it, but I wouldn't get to hopeful for a change next year - the tories aren't exactly the sworn enemies of big business are they?
Politicians are self-serving venal scum. All of them. Without exception.
Your opinion may differ but that's mine.
The Labour variety of this scum KNOW that many of them are going to be unemployed this time next year or at best being made irrelevant in opposition (Mandy being one of them). Their earning potential will be GREATLY reduced as their influence declines.
Watch for all sorts of spurious legislation/initiatives in the next year. Most of them will be sneaked out on "bad news" days. Most of them will benefit some private industry which has an active lobby.
You're intelligent people. You work it out.
That won't hold water, a contract has to be signed by a party who can be held accountable to the contract. It would be in your name I'm afraid.
Given the civil cases that Davenport tried to bring, and in quite a few cases fell flat on their @rse as the person didn't download the material in question - what is the standard of proof?
IP address - Can be spoofed easily
Access point - Will the legislation now make it an offence to run an open access point? My local council have one in the library down my street, if I piggy back onto that who is held responsible?
Will there be any opportunity to have a case heard or will it be another case of a pseudo law like ASBO's, where they don't have enough proof to bang you up, but they will grab enough power to make your life hell?
We have seen far too often the New Labour have devalued the rule of law in this country by introduction of legislation that reduces the burden of proof and increases the sanctions available. There are many examples, and it is normally done in the name of anti-terrorism.It used to be that you needed to have used something to be convicted, mere possession was a slap on the wrist. Now, with creeping legislation, it is intent to use, and possession is described as intent, and that is a criminal offense.
Now we see that use of P2P is going to be illegal. Really? Well, I download my Linux distro (Ubuntu since you asked) by P2P. I download Eclipse the same way. And Java. In fact, all the big apps come down by P2P and very fast they are too.
But do I KNOW, before I hit the torrent, what the copyright restriction is on the stuff I am downloading? If its an application, then the license terms are not displayed until I try to install it. Suppose I download some application, lets call it Whinedoz, and try and install it and decide I don't like the license terms. I don't know this until I attempt to use it. What am I supposed to do then? By this time my torrent client has already started seeding and uploading. So I have no inadvertently distributed something I have not actually used myself, which I could not know was restructed before I tried to use it. What am I guilty of here?
Go further. The recording industry has long been known to seed torrent sites with false files. One case was some Madonna music (and I use that term in the loosest possible sense) that looked like it was a song, but was actually a rant against people who download her music (presumably this was at a time when she needed to buy another child). If I do download and keep this rant for my amusement, knowing it is a rant and not the actual music, have I broken any law? In order to be guilty the law would have to deem that I had intended to down load the actual music, but I had not.
Go futher. I support some indie music. In order to build a following they have put a number of songs online, via P2P, for people to download and comment upon. This is a legal use of the Internet to create a market. At a later stage, yes they will make this licensable, and will charge for it. But at this time, I am allowed to legally download their music. So not all P2P is illegal, clearly.
But how am I to KNOW , in advance, that a certain film or piece of music, can not legally be downloaded until I have downloaded it and I see that it is copyright protected? Take another example. The fan short piece called "The Hunt for Gollum", was created for fans of Lord of the Rings, bu fans of Lord of the rings. Fine to watch onlibe. But this one could be downloaded, but was not legal for distribution. How does that work with P2P? I can download and watch it, but I can't upload it. If I download the full Lord of the Rings films, I am breaking copyright, but I can't KNOW that before I have completed the download.
So the crime is now that I should have known the copy right restriction of each and every individual piece of media before I download it. Its not the act of distribution that is creating the crime, it is the act of choosing to download it, even though I can not know that this is a crime until I have downloaded.
I can see a few test cases coming here. It is normally the prosecutions task to prove that I have commited a crime. I only have to state that I could not reasonably have known that the media I was downloading was copyrighted in a manner that prohibits my downloading this in juristriction I am resident in, and that only by downloading this could I have known this. If I then state that I deleted and ceased uploading the material as soon as I knew this to be the case, then surely I have commited no crime.
Then you have policing of this. ISPA is not set up as a policing organisation. They equally cannot know what is copyright, and certainly cannot know the use to which the material is put. For what I pay a month, they are clearly running an efficient organisation with no excess. To impose a requirement to police the proposed criminal activity of P2P media downloaders would mean they need a new, huge, compliance team. Who pays for this? Well, I guess that we, the subscribers do.
But who benefits? Clearly the media copyright owners do. This is the same argument that was used when compact cassettes came it. Then it was the makers of compact cassettes that should pay a levy to the media copyright owners because people MIGHT use the medium for infringement. This time the cost of policing this should be paid clearly and wholy by the interested parties. That is, if the copyright owners (RIAA, MPAA, FAST, etc) want their products protected then they, and they alone, should pay the full commercial costs for doing this. Commercially, this is the only model that make sense. This way they get what they really want: a policed download policy, policed to the full extent that they commercially feel is justified.
Until then, this whole debate is just going to run and run.
Sorry if I want on too long here. Mines the copy of "Torrent Tracking for Profit" in the pocket.
How about actually deciding what the problem is before trying to fix it? This son of an almond has, for want of intelligence, decided the problem is "piracy", i.e. illicit file copying. Surely the actual problem is songwriters and musicians not getting a fair return for their efforts?
So, what's the best way for artists to be paid better? Impose a license fee on internet use, something like Britain's (former) radio licence and (current) TV licence. This would entitle each Internet user to download copyright files freely. Somewhere between £10 and £200 a year would surely be OK. You divide this up amongst the artists by sampling the Internet, measuring how much of each song/video/.... is circulating the wires.
Yes, this would be costly and perhaps a bit unfair. But it's got to better, and cheaper than the authoritarian punitive measures proposed by the current copyright holders.
Yeah, but if you were to hose your water into the street, say by breaking the pipe just after your meter, or pipe your gas to the roof and light a 20ft high flame 24/7 (without CORGI/GasSafe regs nor planning permission) and persistently do that after being told not to, I think you *would* be cut off. The point is not using a lot of resource, it's doing something illegal with that resource.
Not that I agree with this insane legislation, not that I disagree with any of the comments here, I just don't think the "if you use a lot of water/gas/leccy you just pay more" analogy is valid.
More headline grabbing PR guff from an out-of-touch administration who apparently believe it is their moral duty to project the illusion of a capacity to intervene, subordinate and control every aspect of people's lives.
It's pretty funny to see national government struggling to maintain the appearance of authority over a de-centralised, distributed global peer-to-peer network that refuses to bend to the old geo-political divisions of nation state.
The clueless departments and individuals in government (and the civil service) responsible for generating this incessant insubstantial, irritating and foul smelling propaganda guff should be the first to face the axe when the new wave of public spending cuts are actioned.
The writing is on the wall, and we will just have to get used to paying for it, as we did previously.
As far as I can see, they certainly have the technology to prove that what most people are downloading is copywritten or not, as most people don't use encryption (and using encryption reduces the size of your peer group on P2P because so few other people use it, rendering your file transfer rate slower).
I suppose this can be dealt with the old-fashioned way - walled BBSes and encrypted FTP. Or use the old newsgroups with an encrypted client. But that really reduces the variety of what you can recieve, and payment is usually going to be required in some form (to the BBS operator, or to the newsgroup host).
Of course, the solution is for the studios to build their OWN netshops for digital content, and put the DVDs directly on the web with a payment mechanism, either streamed or downloaded. And priced reasonably. Hmmm....of course that obviates much of their current distribution model and business partners (WallMart/ASDA, Tesco, etc.), and will make lots of people very unhappy. Has to happen eventually though.
And to whomever wrote above that the "success" of iTunes and other digital distribution models PROVES that no enforcement is necessary of only the studios would provide their own legal system, I might counter that the HUGE amount of music piracy that still exists despite iTunes existance proves otherwise. The vast majority of music listings on TPB are in fact for copywritten work, most of it on iTunes should someone have wanted to buy it...but the download stats on TPB say that an awful lot of people are not choosing to buy it.
Free was nice whilst it lasted, but in the end you have to pay the artists and their studios...blast it. Thankfully, FreeviewTV with a timeshifting recorder usually has all the video that I really want to see anyway...
Exactly, the wait for US tv shows to make it to the broadcast companies this side of the pond is fucking ridiculous - why is there even a delay? I know some of the past popular shows like Stargate & Lost were only about a week behind the US but some shows take years, that is if they ever make it to here. Currently the only thing I'm regularly following on UK tv is (ironically for this snooping topic) Big Brother... mostly everything else is unwatchable pap
"This does not necessarily mean that suspension would be used"
Mmmm in the same way that RIPA would only be used for the prevention/detection of crime - until the Local Authorities interpreted that as meaning they could snoop on you if you happened to place recyclables in your ordinary rubbish bin.
Its a slippery slope we're on and Mandy is waiting at the bottom to gobble you up
Once upon a time, people in Britain used to stand up for what they believed in. We hand the miners' strike, the Poll Tax riots, Castlemorton Common, the protests against the CJB, and the protests against road building.
Where is that spirit today?
What happened, in the last 10 - 15 years, that made us just bend over and take it like good little martyrs?
You're a bit thick, aren't you?
@AC: "Yes, because it really is so simple isn't it? All use of P2P is illegal."
I'll repeat it slowly for you freetard dunces. If you don't P2P fileshare movies, apps and albums you have nothing to worry about.
Hopefully we'll get a freetard behind bars - they'll probably think the law doesn't apply to them.
.....Yes. If you associate this with instances where it has been PROVEN you were speeding/driving carelessly/jumping lights at red.
Bear in mind when you pass a speed camera and are clocked it is almost certain you were travelling at whatever speed you are going ~1-2MPH. You are either caught by pold or camera and summonsed to court for your infraction where you can be DEFENDED, either by yourself or by representation.
When you get disconnected what PROOF will Mandy require and what chance to DEFEND yourself are you to be offered?
This autocratic fuckwit should be strung up by the testicles by a fishing line.
I can't wait to vote his lot out although he will still be a threat.
Sith Mandy icon needed.
"might be too long to wait given the pressure put on the creative industries by piracy".
OH BOO FUCKING HOO
This is about monitoring and controlling the population on the internet and nothing else, don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
Besides, as soon as someone crates a secure VPN based system all these proposals aren't worth wiping my arse on. They still don't understand the unstoppable nature of the Internet in a free country.
RE: Craig Roberts - You get rid of fuckers like Mandleson by waiting for them to die or you have to remove them from power yourself because those types don't walk away from anything once they get their fingers dug in.
It will start with this loose and wide spread carpeting of what's legal and illegal relating to the "creative industry" and will end with our every move online monitored, recorded and archived. Labour has already come right out and said that's the plan with Jaqui Smiths uber-database of all internet use by everyone in the UK under the ruse of our protection from terrorism.
It won't be long before they start implementing more and more rules and regulations on basic internet use. As has been mentioned above, there are SO many question marks to all of this. Multiple users in one household, wireless network security, openly sharing connections, who's going to be held accountable? They'll soon figure they need more stringent methods of nailing users to the wall above just saying, "we have your IP downloading/uploading files which have copyright protection".
All Dark Lord Mandelson has to do is say the word and a new method/technology will be used to monitor our use even further (P2P user or not). It starts with the excuse of the protecting copyrights and ends with even more liberties being eroded and erased.
Just look at all the different and bizarre ways the anti-terrorism legislation has been used to harass citizens. You don't think this new scheme won't start spreading into everyday, legitmate internet use? It won't be the first or the last time it happens...
The internet is one of the last bastions of true freedom of speech and anonymity and that's bad for the business of politics.
I find it interesting that these new proposals come to light after the Prince of Darkness, King of all he surveys, Mandleson has had a meeting with one of the largest media moguls in the US. A coincidence too far?
Although I do not condone piracy, the media companies only have themselves to blame. They have failed to adapt to the new models of delivery provided by the internet.
Also, this does not take in to account that a lot of the money they claim to be losing is mythical. I would bet that the majority of pirates download music and films that they would never pay to watch – if that’s the case, it’s not really lost revenue. The money was never there in the first case – the sums claimed to be lost are reached by extrapolation not through research in the real world.
Sadly, they want to keep the world locked in their past where they control what we see, what we hear, when we see it, when we hear it, how we see it and how we hear it.
The internet has blown all of that control away and yet the old views persist. Why should I pay nearly the cost of a full blown CD package to download music of inferior sound quality, with no art work, no packaging, no distribution logistics and with at least one link removed in the profit chain (retailer) only to find that the file I download is locked to one delivery device – reducing my freedom to listen to the music wherever I decide – in the car, on the home Hi-Fi, on my PC, on my MP3 player etc.
Why can’t they embrace new delivery media and offer me a choice of quality on a sliding cost scale so audiophile quality would cost the equivalent of a CD (less packaging and distribution costs) all the way down to the type of quality suitable for a mobile phone speaker for peanuts.
On the film front, why can’t I have a selection of download qualities – really low res for my phone, better res for my PMP or iPhone, VHS quality for those of us more interest in content rather than quality, DVD quality and finally Hi-Def.
If media were presented in this way, I’m sure many pirates would migrate.
>So, what's the best way for artists to be paid better? Impose a license fee on internet use, something like Britain's (former) radio licence and (current) TV licence. This would entitle each Internet user to download copyright files freely. Somewhere between £10 and £200 a year would surely be OK. You divide this up amongst the artists by sampling the Internet, measuring how much of each song/video/.... is circulating the wires.
Great Idea! The problem with this model? Its a "communist" idea that works on the basis of fair distribution. Fair and proportionate wealth distribution unfortunately runs contrary to the vested interests of those who profit from a skewed and corrupt "democratic" capitalist model.
The capitalist idealogue preach "free market" mantras but actually this is largely nonsense; a smokescreen to protect the protectionist status quo - that is to protect the wealthy, privileged, powerful status of the entrenched minority elite and their capability to exercise control over the majority of the population.
Control of media and distribution is one technique of soft power in western societies - that is to say a means through those at the top of the stack seek to maintain control. The media "business" and those who seek to enforce their dominance are closely aligned to their paymasters the wealthy elite. In this respect the principle difference between our society and repressive regimes such as the Chinese Communist Party is the degree of openness about the methods of control.
Any radical new system that rewards fairly in proportion to popularity or that opens the door to a population doing/viewing/thinking what they wish is sadly doomed to failure a priori.
... what you Wish for in CyberIntelAIgent Magic Circles and/or Temporal Fields.
" Perhaps New World Order is the best idea after all." .... By Jesse Dorland Posted Tuesday 25th August 2009 13:00 GMT
IT is on its WAI, Jesse, with some MODified Assistance, too, but as you would expect, it will be something Uniquely Spectacularly Silent and QuITe Unprecedented in these times, for you can surely imagine that there are quite a few traitors to trap in the comfort of their own feathered nests, blissfully unaware of their Coming Fate, but it is no secret for it is transparently revealed and already shared online in the following part post submission, lifted from "Seek and Ye shall Find" ........ ""amanfrommars makes absolutely no sense, .." ... posted by : p0ln, 25 August 2009
That is quite obviously far too sweeping a false statement, p0ln, and I would correct it for you with the accurate submission of "amanfromMars can seem at times to make absolutely no sense" because it would invariably be a third party failure to understand the bigger picture issues which would be nestled in some posts, with such issues being at times deliberately encoded to a Different IntelAIgents Level [and it would be an arrogance for me to say that it is a higher level] for the Stealthy BetaTesting of an Advanced MODified Artificial Intelligence ProgramMING for New World Order Projects with Novel Virtual Cloud Programs. As you can surely imagine in such new Virtual Fields, are there many old and powerful vested interests vying to remain Relevant and retain Absolute Control with a Currency Supply for Power, which would be compromised and threatened by the notion of their Powers being Beta Used Remotely by Invisible and UNknown Third Parties, and maybe even rendering them Hopelessly Exposed to Catastrophic Common Assault should the Perverse and Subversive Nature of Past Controls be Outed and Freely Shared Globally Online for every man and his dog to see/read/understand. "
And you just would never know what GGF were buying into, would you, whenever the rules are Free Phormed and not Rigged for the Markets and their Naked Short Sales? :-) .... "Meanwhile, Swedish company Global Gaming Factory X AB (GGF) is hoping to complete acquisition of the tracker site on Thursday (27 August). However, any such buyout is looking increasingly unlikely.
The firm's trading was halted Friday after Swedish stock market authorities said GGF hadn't provided proof it has the necessary financing to acquire The Pirate Bay.
Separately, GGF is under investigation for insider trading following an unusually large jump in trading volumes a week before the planned TPB acquisition was announced." .... http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/25/pirate_bay_down/
Have a nice ZerodDay, y'all.
Being resident and paying tax in the UK but not actually being English, I am struggling to see why a corrupt scumbag like Mandelson - having been ejected in disgrace from government - is now not only a lord but is making policy in place of the actual prime minister.
It has been noted in the media that Brown has been silent on many big issues of late, but not our friend - and it seems new master - Mandelson.
Another sign that this government is well past its sell by date.
I'm sure we all trust the government and all the tin-pot civil servants to only implement this as a last resort after due consideration, just like they only use the serveliance laws when it absolutely will stop terroist activity, (if said terroist is not putting the correct litter in their recycling bin or not cleaning up after their dog).
Will the last sane person out of the country please turn of the light.
You are correct in what you say, but the reality is different. They won't / don't want to take people to court for the very reasons you state, they know they can't prosecute someone for *downloading* stuff.
They want to be able to cut off internet access simply with no court proceedings taking place, no judge and jury, just a set of letters sent out automatically and then you are cut off. No legal proceedings, burden of proof or a case to put forward.
You will no longer have that liberty.
There is nothing we can do about it except build another internet that the government cannot meddle in and go low tech. lets face it, the internet is mainly all bollocks nowadays anyway, it's no where near as cool as it was.
""Yeah, but if you were to hose your water into the street, say by breaking the pipe just after your meter, or pipe your gas to the roof and light a 20ft high flame 24/7 (without CORGI/GasSafe regs nor planning permission) and persistently do that after being told not to, I think you *would* be cut off. The point is not using a lot of resource, it's doing something illegal with that resource.""
no you would be arested for vandleisum ,at least charged, taken throught the due process of law and impresioned/fined but who ever was still living in the house/moved in would still get water and gas
the point there is due process of law
Someone asks what is the best way for artistes to be paid ? How about having them clock their working hours and when they've finished pay them an hourly rate for the job ? It's more or less how us mere mortals are paid. Then you add in the cost of materials and distribution, add a small profit on top, and sell at a reasonable price to the punters who then have no incentive to try to avoid extortionate pricing.
........is unelected folk in power and government advisors that are part of the old boys network, supporting their own selfish interests. It stops the government evolving quick enough to deal with societies ills, and stops the powers that be dealing with corruption, immorality and greed. Part of the reason for this is because the power is held by immoral greedy people. Now, filesharing of copyrighted material isn't right, but it's not as bad as a talentless record exec ripping the £'s out of a musician and the musicians fans, for example. I mean, our government supports the arm industry, it's all so mad I can't get my head round it.
In my world there are far bigger issues than filesharing that are not being dealt with. Democracy is crippled. At least communism realized it failed, in the main. Our society will just implode some day. And if you think Cameron and his lot will make any difference, history really is doomed to repeat itself.
Bring on the revolution!
The *first* step on a slippery slope? Methinks you jest, sir. Britain™ is already a long, long ways down the SlipperySlope™, may indeed have fallen over the edge, with this latest piece of disgusting behavior by BigLabour™ being merely a spasm in mid-air.
I wonder how many people have bailed out of Britain™ since Blair™ was first elected? It would be no exaggeration to say that they are political exiles or refugees. Nice going, GB and friends!
Today's pop quiz: who is the puppet and who is the puppet master: Mandelson™ or Brown™?
Disgusting, horrible, small minded, control-freak, delusional, incompetent™, stupid, dishonest™, uncaring scum™: that's BigLabour™.
The thing that bugs me most about are current government is the number of unelected members of the cabinet. Funny isn't it the Brown claims to be old Labour, but old labour generally objected to the whole concept on an unelected upper house (and so do I) and yet he sees fit to stuff his cabinet with members of that house.
And lets bear in mind that the lords is packed with failled and even disgraced ex MPs who probably wouldn't stand a chance of being elected to the commons were they to have the nerve to stand, but Brown sticks them in his cabinet. Why? Because he knows full well that he hasn't got enough competent MPs left who would actually agree with him, or at least do as they're told.
So here we have a Minister who has not been elected to a position in parliament being given more power. Excelent.
So yet again, another day and another erosion of our remaining liberty in the name of that ever changing uncrossable line we laughingly call "the law". These days the law is more like an instruction manual on how the rich stay rich and the poor must obey their ever more powerful masters.
Almost every day more controls on us. Almost every day yet more spying on what we do. Now they want to monitor everything people download and then they can punish anyone for download anything they don't like. How long before the government feature creep allows them to monitor, profile and tag anyone who dares to read political web pages? Or reads about any group that opposes government plans. (Like that well known terrorist organization the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, who's two million members dares to oppose environmental damage e.g. from more runways etc..) ... the more anti-government tags you get the more the government moves to find quiet ways to automate punishing you to hold you back and distract you from being a political opponent. Divide groups that oppose the government, because they know only people standing together in a group can oppose them.
We all know knowledge is power, but the Internet is a vast source of knowledge, therefore control of it gives a vast source of power, so its no wonder the power hungry political elite want to control and monitor access to so much knowledge and in doing so gain ever more knowledge on everyone else.
Also one of the worst power hungry manipulative political control freaks is Mandelson. At times I find Mandelson a truly scary character because he seems to have immense political power behind the scenes. Time and time again he has been linked with corruption. He has even been thrown out of Government twice, yet he is back for a 3rd time and within months of being back has one of the most powerful jobs in New Labour. He must have some very powerful friends and considering the speed he has got back to such a powerful position I wonder if he has also enough dirt on other MPs to blackmail and force himself back into such power. He isn't even elected, so how can he have so much power?! ... Plus lets not forget he is the chief architect of New Labour! So do we actually have any kind of democracy at all these days?! Also why don't we hear much from our (unelected) leader these days, meanwhile Mandelson seems to be pulling strings on so many areas since he got back. What the hell is going on?!
We have banks being given hundreds of billions of our money while their greedy corrupt leaders openly steal millions from us for themselves. We have MPs openly stealing our tax payers money in fraudulent expenses claims. Meanwhile we have by far the biggest ever police state clamp down on all our lives ever in world history, let alone just the history of the UK. Just about every day they find another way to feature creep ever more controls onto us all. So just what the hell is going on?! Do they want a revolution against their ever more insidious corrupt closed minded arrogant control of us all? ... Is that all they are waiting for, to use as an excuse to clamp down even more on us all?
I fear this won't end once the Conservatives wipe out NuLabour at the next election. The Conservatives are very likely to just keep using what NuLabour have created and just blame Labour for the mess. In one core regard, everyone in politics (regardless of which party they are in) is at their core, the same kind of person. They all seek power over other people. Thats why they go into politics. So as they are all power seekers then they all seek the personal gain they get from having such power over us all. So this decent into a police state isn't going to stop. The better technology gets the worse they will get. They will just build on what they already have from NuLabour. All MPs seek power over others and new technology is given them ways to gain ever more power their predecessors could never have ever dreamed possible. Almost every day it seems they are dragging us all nearer a nightmare level of state control unlike the world has ever seen before. There needs to be a line they cannot cross but they don't want to listen.
I think its only the thought of an election that is stopping the risk of what was once unthinkable in the UK, a full scale revolution against them all, but the more I see the more I fear an election is actually going to delay a full scale revolution rather than stop it. Ultimately as technology gets ever better, the people who seek power over us keep showing they are going to abuse whatever new technology they can to gain ever more power over us all, because they ultimately gain personally from having ever more power over others. That growing control is creating a growing pressure for change away from their increasing control. So sooner or later the increasing controls are going to grow ever more intolerable until public anger explodes. The public anger at the corrupt MP expenses claims already shows how much public anger has built against them all. That anger is only going to get worse no matter who is in power as long as technology keeps giving them ever more power to control us all and that will not stop.
Sadly the more I see these days, the more I fear we are heading into a full scale global revolution against the political control freaks and their ever growing more intolerable control over all our lives. What I find shocking is to think we could be witnessing the start of the world's first global civil war. The people vs the minority of control freaks in every country who seek to control people ultimately for their own gain. The Internet has already revolutionized some industries, it looks like the battle for control of the Internet and power it gives over all our lives could be dragging us all into a full scale global political revolution. The more I see the more I fear we are being dragging into a nightmare so bad that future generations may look back on it as the world's first global civil war. :(
I think that Lord Peter Mandelson has probably unlawfully downloaded something that's probably mine.
I'll send this email every day for the next several years until you disconnect him from the Internet.
As per his proposed rules, I do not have to offer any proof of this accusation, merely to repeat it enough times.
Yours, A Voter"
``The fault lies with the music/film industry not getting its act together with an effective DRM system.''
There's no such thing. If it plays, it can be circumvented, initially through the analog hole and later by a determined hacker (who can then simplify the procedure for the masses). Outlawing the circumvention of DRM is an even worse solution (even though it's already in place) than this new proposal - at least the new one is attempting to punish the actual infringers.
Deep packet inspection to log one's downloads is spying plain and simple. It is the same as listening in on my phone calls, reading my text messages or unpacking my parcel at the sorting office to see what I am getting, it should be unacceptable in the free world, unless some kind of warrant is issued, As our rights slowly diminish at what point do we stand up and demand the bulling stop.
The internet and the community it supports are resilienttt and with ssh, i2p, tor, vnp, ssl, and more angry skilled programmers, hackers, crackers, and administrators I am sure we will sort this mess out.
can anyone suggest how i can get on one of these numerous Quango groups.
who do i have to bend over for (other than Dandy Mandy)...
times running out for these quango groups. the penny might have dropped when they announced they were having to increase quantative easing....
yeah more like break out the lube mandys back from his hols'
and the uk population is about to get shafted again...
need dandy mandy in sith black logo.....!
> If you don't P2P then you don't have a problem.
And if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about...
Any other dumb, cliched platitudes you'd like to trot out?
Now consider this:
A couple of weeks ago my Sky+ box glitched whilst I was on holiday and failed to record the episode of Dollhouse that was on.
I didn't want to miss it, but it wasn't available for "legitimate" download from anywhere I could access. So I downloaded it using utorrent instead, watched it, then deleted it.
So was that illegal because I didn't get it from a "legal" source? What copyright did I actually infringe? Was I contributing to terrorism (or whatever) by doing this?
What if I'd said to a mate "You recorded it, can you bung it onto video for me?"
I'm sure in your nice little black-and-white world, I'm a criminal who belongs behind bars.
just use perfect dark.
On the everyone should pay money so the poor starving artists get paid, will any of my money go to bands/anime producers I watch/listen too? No... What a suprise, it'll go to some middle class arse hole that wants to tell me how to live my life whilst snorting cocaine through a tube in his backside.
Oh and yeah I download music from my fave j-bands, but then if I didn't I wouldn't have £2000 worth of concert dvds and other merchandise (and 2 trips to the states to see concerts and 2 trips to Germany to see concerts or 3 trips to Japan to see concerts.)
The Sith Lord Mandelson, only way to get rid of him is to stake the monster.
Really Paul, than can you answer this questions. How come the RIAA sent demand letters to people had not illegal shared files ? Their have been cases were they sent demand letters to people with out internet. Those people didn't P2P so how come they got letters ? How come they had to worry ?
Will people who have been disconnected simply apply to an new ISP under another name? After all, if you've moved into a property and taken over the phone line where the previous occupant was banned, then it shouldn't affect you, right?
How long before this fascist Labour Government makes it compulsory for biometric ID cards to be presented before allowing anyone to get internet access (in order to prevent multiple sign-ups by the same person).
Of course the ID card will still be voluntary, but if you refuse it then you'll just have to go without any internet access. Your choice ...... No pressure.
First of all - the sooner the dark lord is removed from power the better. He represents everything a labour voter should hate (as does the labour party).
I don't understand why a complete cut off is necessary. Simply blocking all ports except 80 and 443 would provide a way of neutering those that have been "proven" to be file sharing, without cutting off what I believe to be an essential resource. Yes they would be stopped from running a mail server, vpn, or using ftp, but that would seem an appropriate penalty.
People that are boasting about their encryption and ssl peering. it's no good if you happen to peer with the people monitoring you, and that's how they get you. You're only encrypting the traffic between the 2 ends. It's a bit like phoning up MI6 on a secure line and telling them your plans for world domination (which they will note down and run by the dark lord to see if they are better than his).
Sky player desktop client does currently use peering, but I would expect they'll follow the tune of the iPlayer and 4oD and move to a direct download or streaming. In fact I expect most services aiming to offer video content for download will realise that peering tech is just not worth it.
Revolution?, Its coming, you'll see more police intimidation of peaceful protests. The police have alienated themselves from the public, god help them. Time to raise a new model army and execute the scum that is pretending to be our elected representatives. Time for a republic!
Watch this its a hoot
As I have written elsewhere (http://huwy.eu/uk/news-blog/2009/08/25/does-peter-mandelson-understand-what-it-is-like-to-grow-up-with-the-internet/) the basic problem is that the civil servants and politicians have not grown up with the Internet. They grew up when we had to pay for information, and sharing was limited to passing round your magazines. They don't understand how the Internet is now an integral part of daily life, and not just commerce.
A statutary act is NOT law
A statute or act is a RULE of society given the FORCE of law by CONSENT of the governed.
We are fooled into consent every time.
can i have your name and address sir?
would you sign this sir?
Oops you just consented!
Only once you fully undrstand this will you regain your freedom.
Failing that there is the precedent with taking / crushing unlawfully driven cars. If I lend you my car, which has valid tax & MOT and I am covered by appropriate insurance and it turns out you lied to me about your license / insurance then the filth will impound *my* car if you are caught - this deprives me of my car due to the actions of another.
That would be unlawful (forget illegal/legal, big difference) if you really OWNED the car, but sadly you were fooled into registering it. Register in legalese (yes they have there own language) can mean "to hand over title and deed" that's why they can crush it because they own it! you are just the registed KEEPER.
We are all Guy Fawkes, just need to wake up and start saying NO!
Oh, and a copy of a good quallity law dictionary is helpfull
Hope some of you realise what i'm saying and look into it.
What exactly does copyright protection give us, the general public? Today's cultural works will never be available in our lifetime, we will be charged for our own culture until the day we die. Copyrights aren't some fundamental right, we, society give a temporary monopoly to creators and forfeit our freedoms to remix and to share. These freedoms never used to be important because we couldn't use them, but this digital age is different; we will exercise these rights and nothing can stop us. Not Mandy, not DRM, not copyright law.
It is the duty of all citizens to ignore and campaign against all unfair laws. You're welcome join us at The Pirate Party UK.
(Beer because it's free, for all)
I think this is hilarious ! Like most politicians Lord Mandle is a complete idiot when it comes to computers and the internet, I enjoy anyone trying to use the internet while their ISP sniffs all their packets, 64 Kbs here we all come !
The European court has already ruled that cutting off someones internet when they have not been proven guilty of a crime violates human rights.
As I said hilarious, the biggest joke since putting Mandy back on the cabinet.
Labour are really making sure we are going to have Conservative government for the next 12 years.
P.s Any right thinking person must now know Mandy is in David Geffen's pocket, I wonder who elses ?
How to lose a General Election: Threaten to disconect millions of internet users by way of introducing facist laws.
How to gain funds for a political party by way of courting the entertainment industry with proposed promises and favours.
How to become detatched from reality and the general public, retain Mandleson and allow him to keep on keeeping on.
'Once upon a time, people in Britain used to stand up for what they believed in. We hand the miners' strike, the Poll Tax riots, Castlemorton Common, the protests against the CJB, and the protests against road building.
Where is that spirit today?
What happened, in the last 10 - 15 years, that made us just bend over and take it like good little martyrs?'
They made it illegal to protest. They actively send out the police to use force and detain people without trial, they created and surrounded holding areas when their was any unnaccounted for gathering. They shot an innocent person then fed the media a bunch of misinformation ('he was running, why would an innocent person run?' (he wasnt) 'he was wearing a big jacket on a hot day, it looked like a bomb' (he wasnt)). It takes a bold person or set of people too be arrested and have a smeer campaign then put against them, in the hope that another country will help you. They have created community support officers (what can only be be described as secret police) who have the ability to arrest you if you disobey them. They created a bunch of subjective laws which mean you can be fined and arrested on the spot - 'yep youre drunk and disorderly' 'no im not, im sober' 'are you arguing with me? arrest him.' They become consultants for businesses that then have the opportunity to shape law.
These people ought to be ashamed of themselves, and as a nation we can only hope that there are a handful of politicians with morals left who will stand up against this injustice.
***In the consultation we set out proposed legislation that would introduce two obligations to be imposed on ISPs by Ofcom – to send notifications to subscribers alleged by rights holders to be infringing copyright, and to monitor the number of notifications each subscriber is associated with; the ISP would then make this data available to rights holders on receipt of a court order. We also proposed a mechanism whereby Ofcom would be granted reserve powers to oblige ISPs to utilise specified technical measures against repeat infringers should these two obligations prove to be deficient in reducing infringement. ***
This is really interesting.
1. Notification are sent to subscribers ALLEGED by RIGHTS HOLDERS to be infringing copyright (not evidence based then?)
2. Monitor NUMBER OF NOTIFICATIONS based on ALLEGATIONS (not evidence based here either?).
3. Use 1. and 2. above as *data" (?) to utilise measures against repeat infringers (based on what evidence? - as the only named purpose with the court order mentioned is the access to the *data* from point 1 and 2 above?).
What is really worrying in this whole proposition is that the text avoids to elucidate us in the issue of EVIDENCE and appear to treat "allegation of infringement" equal with "evidence of infringement".
Dear Labour MPs
Do you think that this is a vote winner or vote loser?
Do you think Mandleson's wish to rush it through with secondary law will result in a better or worse law?
Do you think his party yacht visits with special interests will be seen as corrupt..... again?
Do you think that piracy is such a serious problem that it above everything needs special urgent treatment, just before an election and just after Mandy has had one of his 'holidays'?
If so why now? Why not 5 years ago? This is not a new problem, why is he so urgently trying to fix a problem, bypassing Parliament in the process just after a holiday in which he partied with very rich special interests?
Face it, this is Mandy, he is a nasty piece of work, he is notorious for looking after his own interests, he resigns often, and he has nothing to lose, because he is not elected.
You do have something to lose, think about it.
IP's can be spoofed, connections hacked etc so the only concrete way of proving someone has downloaded/shared anything copyrighted is to PHYSICALLY check a pc's hard drive.. like someone is gona take the time and trouble to do that...more posturing from the corrupt elite trying to appease the entertainment moguls in return for free lunches and campaign funds
I'm sure there would be less opposition to all of this if the way to get someone's internet feed cut off was via a proper court appearance with evidence and all that. However, it appears that the standard of proof for conviction is going to be non-existent and require people to demonstrate innocence (and even then it'll probably be ignored).
I would like to propose to David Cameron that when he gets elected, he puts a bill through Parliament to repeal all legislation back to what it was in 1997. A very short list of the few things since then worth saving could be tacked on as an exception, or better-written versions could be passed instead.
The preferred choice of the unelected, power hungry official.
What those companies are *really* saying is "We can't be bothered to spend money chasing people for their pirating. We want the UK government to force ISP's to do it for us."
This is no better than debt collection agencies who send threatning letters but know if they go to court the case will cost them more than they will ever recover. It's the cost of doing business.
289 days maximum to go.
Mandelson is a right wing wanker who should be locked up, the key melted down and shoved up his arse.
We all know what will happen if this goes ahead - a witch hunt where the "little guys" get shafted and the real pirates continue sharing their warez.
But hey, Mandelson wants to get this bandwagon rolling, chumming up with the media to stop this terrible plight - forget poverty, education, violent crime, jobs, the recession - far too difficult to deal with. Lets go for the media headline soft targets instead...
How on earth did the shower of shites currently ruining this country ever get in power?
Oh yeah, we voted them in... that was it...
Never mind, we have a great choice in the next general election - The current shower of shites, the TV friendly NHS hating Tories or those dull as ditchwater losers, the Lib Dems - wooohooo!
If the idea is that the "creative industries" (tell me that's not a tautology!) will start making loads of dosh once the deterrent effect of a cut-off is in place, then it's obvious that the "creative industries" should bear the full cost of any such scheme.
And if (when) it becomes clear that this scheme does nothing to improve the financial situation of the "creative industries", then the scheme should be immediately jettisoned as the nonsense it obviously is.
I emailed my local MP complaining about his today - Got a quick reply on his behalf (so don't know if that means he'll ever read it)
I told him that it meant one person doing something naughty could cut off an entire family.
the reply I got is below. Does this reassure you??:
It is still early days on exactly how the internet piracy will be dealt
with. I believe there is more detail to follow this announcement.
Taking it to the extreme which you have in your comments, it is always
possible to have more than one internet connection per household. I
trust I have reassured you, that you personally, will not be
disconnected because of the misbehaviour of other people.
You know, they really CAN tell what you have been downloading, by putting their own peers into the torrent streams and checking what IP addresses become their peers for different files and file types, and then building a database, and then performing basic analytics. And by the way, not even encryption will defend against that - you still have to join a group of peers, and if the authorities have a machine in that peer group they WILL get your IP address. It isn't rocket science, it doesn't even demand a tap on your network - it just demands anyone that is willing to set up a few hundred or thousand virtual machines, put torrent software on them, configure it to participate in certain types of file sharing groups, and then record who connects to them as part of the peer group. Hell, you can play at home if you would like by setting up your own clients and recording their connectivity - it's just that YOU can't force the ISPs to release the identity of the actual IP address holder. (N.B - yes, I realize that you can always randomize or cloak your IP address via various methods, but for most people that is still a stretch).
So - to those that worry about legal and legitimate use of P2P, there simply isn't much reason to worry - because they CAN target those that are downloading illegally, and as seen above, very simply. That's not to say that the power to shut off net access won't be used illegally in some situations, or on flimsy grounds - but you can say that about ANY government power, from taxation to criminal prosecution. So I am much more concerned with the supervision and openness of the prosecutions that take place than any of the proscribed penalties at this point...and they haven't really speced that yet. If it IS open, and they have to show detailed proof (which we know they can do, see above) of piracy, then hey, by all means restriction of net access may be a valid strategy of enforcement. It won't be popular, and should only be used in egrarious cases, but I can certainly see it as a last resort - a computer version of capital punishment. And frankly, I still feel that there are activities that fit that penalty...even the non-computer one.
"I'll repeat it slowly for you freetard dunces. If you don't P2P fileshare movies, apps and albums you have nothing to worry about.
You are wrong.
If you have an internet connection, you can be accused of filesharing ( even if you have never done it ).
You can lose your internet connection just by being accused. Even if all you have ever used it for is checking your email.
It removes your right to be innocent unless proven guilty.
This post has been deleted by a moderator
Just get the ISP association to release a press release saying that they'll have to charge all account holders an extra fiver a month to pay their 50% to implement this. That'll get some letters written to Mandy. Is it true? As true as the view that all free copies equal a lost sale.
I'd like to see how many fans that would make of World of Warcraft when people try downloading a 1Gb+ update at <1Kb/s. Also, what about that podcast that uses P2P to download its podcasts (to reduce traffic on the primary network). Or servers hosting Linux distributions and updates.
'Hopefully we'll get a freetard behind bars - they'll probably think the law doesn't apply to them.'
Copyright infringment is unlawful not illegal and is a civil offence - very rarely would a person be locked up for a civil offence rather than a criminal one and off topic as Murder seems to only get a couple of weeks in nick what should be the length of sentence for sharing the latest 'Now That's What I Call Crap 99'
Mandelson boyo was once a tory twat for employment when there were three million of em.
Now I wonder how much he got paid to bring this industry "death wish" to fruition.
They haven't noticed that peer to peer file sharing is unneccesary for screwing the "creative industries", they have been screwing the punters and them selves since the glorious sixties, which of course they can't remember.
Who f*ckin' cares what out of touch, twisted, thieving, old timers like Mandelson think ?
Not me and hopefully not the ISPs.
Which are about as plausible as:
"Well nurse, I was climbing into the bath you see, and didn't notice the bar of soap I must have slipped on - my kids must have left it there - and I really have no idea what that cucumber was doing floating in there either" lol.
I mean, has anybody ever been prosecuted for *not* sharing files?
And it's hardly likely that one is going to get nicked for catching up on the occasional missed episode of Holby City is it?
You are quite right in what you say with regard to copyright holders placing their "stuff" into torrent streams and then bringing about their complaints and allegations of who has then downloaded their "stuff".
However, I suspect that if this were to happen, and if a "freetard" were to challenge any allegation brought against them and request a trial to disprove the allegation as "Entrapment".
Afterall, if the media and entertainment industry and indeed copyright holders placed their "stuff" into P2P and torrent streams, then I assume that they are happily and freely waiving their right to any copyright law infringement by way of them sharing so freely, and therefore I also assume it would become a legal minefield to bring about any prosecutions in a court of law. Probably why Mandelson and co, are wanting filesharers to be disconnected from the net on the sole basis of "allegations" and not factual evidence. Which is the main stay reason why this country and it's people should not accept this as a basis for law, nor should they vote for a political party who wants to introduce such laws that will rely on Allegations".
The thrust of the debate has been pointing out that people who do not share, whether legally or not, still have something to worry about.
The changes proposed by Meddlesome require allegations only, not evidence, and so you will be "prosecuted" purely on the basis of sufficient allegations being made.
The reader in the case I cited was alleged to have been illegally sharing and in fact he had not.
The requirement to provide evidence or go to court ti defend yourself is removed by Mandelson's proposed changes.
So no, the distinction was not lost on me, but perhaps you could read the rest of the comments before adopting the smugness of a simpleton in preference to any substantial contribution to the debate....
I don't condone illegal p2p but feel that its a bit heavy handed and be difficult to identify actual legal p2p to the illegal p2p content. Not sure why they can't keep the current system of ISP contacting person with cease order.
"Mandelson himself would be granted powers to decide which technical measures to bring into law by statutory instrument and when."
If you look at the link from the Office of Public Sector Information, you can see that the SI's are now in the numbered sections and up to 2200-2299 for JUST THIS YEAR. I'm counting around 30 per section so that would be around 690 Statutory Instruments since January...
They are changing laws all the time that affect a lot of people and slip them through here... without much media coverage.
We need them out now... not in a years time. The damage is already done.
Mandledick's will get hoist by his own petard. Someone's bound to pose as him online in order to get him disconnected and when he does can you imagine the glee of his ISP as they try 'in vain' to track down his details ... "I'm sorry sir, I'm sure we had them around here somewhere ..."
Oh dear, still missing the point I see...summary disconnections are not going to happen no matter what Mandy states.
The point is that people who do not share copyrighted material will not get prosecuted for sharing copyrighted material., and any ISP are going to provide some firm evidence before proceeding with anything.
Stating that they definitely will disconnect just like that is the usual FUD-tastic Freetard posturing, which is hardly bringing anything worthwhile to the debate.
Sorry for the stark headline, but what do you think will happen once little johnny schoolboy has his broadband cut off (Apart from going to somewhere like a park with houses adjoining that has a weak/cracked net connection... if he's intelligent enough, that is). Why he is going to go straight to the shops and buy all the stuff he is downloading.... ROFPML.... yeah, right... He's more likely going to go to his local market and find a dodgy cd/dvd seller and buy the stuff off of them (with the money he's stolen from gullible mum/dad or from mugging someone) handing his ill gotten straight over to these dodgy sellers where the cash does go to places you really dont want it going.... Of course the government (NOT the big music/film companies mind you) do try and stop them, but like any organised gang, after ones taken down, there will be someone else there the next day.... The film/music industry make a loud hullabaloo about cracking down on piracy by arresting little johnny schoolboy but not these organised gangs... i wonder why that is.... It couldnt be because that if Johnny is taken down, he's unlikely to go around some music exec's house or the main companies building (in the states more than in the uk) with a fully automatic machine gun and get their own back?
Or is this me being FAR too cynical that the music mafia (after all, what other multi million business tries to extort money out of old ladies and children) are taking the easy route to keep their crumbling business models afloat... And perhapse if said same companies got their arse into gear and actually keep producing good material that is worth watching, then perhapse more people would actually buy the stuff, after all, how often do you see the latest blockbuster releases on full price in the shops, then, in some cases, less than 2 weeks after and very rarely more than a month after release have their prices dramatically slashed... If the title was that good in the first place, people would want to still buy it at full price (again, if they got their pricing right) after a month....
its just that with this law they seem to be trying to dam a small stream instead of stopping the river right next to it as its the easier option and can be seen to be doing something to their shareholders.
Oh, and one last point (adding into the mafia / extortion reference earlier). The RIAA have admitted from a few high profile cases that none of the monies actually recovered actually went to the copyright holders........ This is the money that they got through the courts for copyright infringement, i.e. Witholding monies from the true copyright holder.... Like they just did.
OK.... /rant off
So everyone.... Just stream your music legally from the likes of spotify.... or do it old school and record it off the radio...
You need to add a kermit the frog or fozzy bear icon... for these total business MUPPETS!
Not everything can be reduced to the simple straw men you like to knock down. It is not as simple as saying disconnection will or won't definitely take place. Many here have tried to point out, that *allegations* are sufficient to start the process. So you may never have shared anything, but you get a threatening letter saying you have, and it is not going to be a pleasant process to then go through to prove your innocence. Three such *allegations*, no proof necessary, and the proposal is you are disconnected, so innocent people are going to be affected by this.
But if it helps you to feel superior by labelling everyone who disagrees with you as a freetard, then go ahead. Have a nice day.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020