UK rattles 'three strikes' filesharing sabre (again) The culture secretary Andy Burnham has repeated government threats to legislate against ISPs if they don't voluntarily agree a system with the music and film industries to disconnect illegal filesharers. Ahead of the launch of the government's culture strategy document* today he warned that rules would be imposed in April next …
The idea of the government legislating for what I may and may not download (beyond current laws covering pron etc) is pretty frickin worrying. Coupled with the fact that government should be actually producing something useful like, oh, I dunno, an integrated public transport plan as a way of demonstrating their professed love of oversimplified environmentally friendly policies ("CO2 bad!").
"Under the system actually being pushed, copyright infringement would be identified by rights holders by joining a BitTorrent swarm, for example. They would then send a list of IP addresses to the ISPs who would send out two warning letters to their customers. Being detected filesharing illegally a third time would mean disconnection."
I may be being dumb but what will this mean for people whos ISPs use floating IP's?
I mean honestly, how will they know the difference between a legal download (iso distribution of linux on a torrent) and a video? And then what happens when the 'mainstream' way becomes encrypted and distributed to the point when no-one can tell what data is being transferred, and aren't web-servers just file sharing anyway?
As so many people have mentioned before, technically it's going to be pointless.
Once again we have another punishment done by bypassing the courts. The rights holders can monitor IP addresses now, pick the repeat offenders and sue them for lots of money.
That goes to court, has a judicial process associated with it, has the opportunity for appeal, both sides are heard by a person experienced in the law. You know, I think the word was 'justice' or some such?
They can even do it in small claims court if they wish.
What is it with the UK, always making little mini punishments that bypass the courts and appeals process. ISPs are supposed to be some vigilante organisation that dishes up proxy punishments on behalf of 'rights holders'? Some sort of judge and jury and executioner cutting off the net? And they're supposed to verify the veracity of the claim and the authenticity of the 'rights holder'? I don't think so!
Dumb. If you want to create a penalty for that, put it in a lower court, e.g. like littering and put a proper legal thing behind it with proper appeals etc.
We had a case recently of RIAA suing an 80 years old grannie when she obviously had nothing to do with it, and trying to appoint a legal guardian to little kids. It's the legal process that protects those people from RIAA showboating, but ISPs won't protect their customers from scattergun attacks like that.
All that will happen is RIAA, BSA and MPAA will send out scattergun claims to every file they see that happens to mention their clients products.
e.g. sharing "Office.zip" will result in an automated claim from BSA whether it contains MS Office or pictures of a new office. The ISP won't investigate each incident, and you've bypassed the court so there's no review there and no appeal possible.
Three SPURIOUS strikes and you're out!
So what's going to happen when you get warning notice for runing a Tor node ? If you're not doing the sharing how to you get strikes undone ? Whats the standard of evidence ?
For that matter if all thats required is a screenshot of a torrent swam then what happens if I fake one up showing somebody else is sharing my home movies - can I get that person disconnected ?
...aren't they then making a copyrighted work available for download due to the nature of the BitTorrent protocol? Is this then entrapment?
And if it's being offered by a representaive of the rights-holder, does that count as the rights-holder granting permission for others to download it?
Erm, if you know when the alleged 'copyrighted content' was downloaded, then you can tell who had what IP at that time (ISPs will keep a record of each IP's user at all times, obviously). D'uh.
The bigger technical issue is distinguishing between my (completely legal) torrent packets where I'm sharing my home videos between my friends and family, from the (possibly dubious) torrent packets being shared with the various pirate download sites I use.
And it's only going to get harder to detect as when the new obfuscating torrent protocol goes live.
people with unsecured wireless, internet cafe's, Starbucks, universities etc... will these all be disconnected when somebody using their network downloads copyrighted material?
Who will pay for the investigation to find the culprit?
How will the copyright owner provide the proof required? It will need to be legally rock solid proof for the ISP to kick somebody off without them being sued for wrongful disconnection in return.
This is just another stupid idea from a government who really don't understand the technology involved and should really be concentrating more on something that matters to the people who voted them in, instead of pandering to big businesses that are no doubt offering them directorships in return.
Perhaps if MP's were barred from using private health schemes, public schools and cars they would actually do something useful for the country instead of themselves.
Paris, because she's simple minded and only interested in what's best for herself, much like the people who run this country.
Juts imagine if a few people with enough cash were to deliberately trigger this.
Get the first letter - write back to the ISP telling them that the allegation is false.
Get second letter - write back to ISP telling them that allegation is false and if they follow through and disconnect you then you will sue them for breach of contract and a shed load of other stuff.
At this point, many ISPs will spot the hole being dug and refuse to go to stage three - system collapses.
Or ...
Get third letter and cut off - sue ISP for malicious breach of contract, go to court, ISP is unable to defend it's position and loses. Brown stuff hits the fan and flies everywhere, ISPs then will not follow through with future reports for fear of losing and having all the legal bills that go with it.
Having won that bit, continue on to sue the BPI (or whoever it was told the ISP you were sharing illegally) for libel - after all, telling your ISP that you are breaking the law when you aren't would constitute "making a statement to a third person with the effect of lowering their opinion of you".
Then the biggie - take the UK government to the ECHR for passing a law which allows for forfeiture without a due legal process.
Of course, too many people will just roll over and take it. But if enough people hold fast, then the situation will end up back with the BPI (or whoever) actually having to produce evidence that is good enough for a court.
The bypassing of the courts is worrying.
The record industry have a great record of failing to identify a user by IP. Grannies in the states hauled up for downloading gangster rap for example.
So when they do get it wrong, and you get 3 strikes, who do you appeal to? ISPs like Tiscali have a pitiful record of customer support, and that's just when you want to use your internet connection for something simple, like browsing the web!
I think BBC's Watchdog had better go nightly!
Encryption and all that sort of thing won't help with the methods they are using.
The way they work is like this...
1) Do a torrent search for one of their artists
2) Start downloading this torrent with their favourite bittorrent client.
3) Look at the peers they have. Write down the IPs.
4) Check the IP ranges against the ISP list they have
5) Fire off letter to ISP with IP date, time and the details of the torrent.
I assume (hope) that they do bother to verify the content of the torrent before sending off the letters.
However, there are of course ways to avoid this... Block lists. Most good bittorrent clients support one or more.
I own the ENITIRE back catalogue of Iron Maiden in various formats, some of which it is economically unfeesable to convert to a format which can be listened to on modern equipment. I therefore visit mininova or thepiratebay or torrentreactor and download the tracker for the entire Iron Maiden catalogue, because technology has progressed past the point that my original PROPERLY LICENSED media is supported commercially.
When they send me the lovely letter saying I am a nasty nasty piewat, do I write back and tell them I own the license to listen to the music, but as some of it is on Vinyl I am aquiring a digital copy, or do I ignore it?
When they disconnect me, do I sue?
Is this an issue for the ISP to decide, the Record companies to decide, or the courts to decide?
"what will this mean for people whos ISPs use floating IP's?"
As far as I know, it means that the ISP will look at their logs to see which user account was using that IP address at the specified time.
Of course, if it comes down to it, we'll just do what we used to do (until somebody writes an effective anonymiser) - we'll get a copied disc from a mate. We were trading films and music by tape/disc long before this piece of idiocy.
There is no way this will be possible.
It will not take long before people are using proxys or some form of encryption to transfer the files or changing every file so the file name is the same, that would be very funny actually.
Lets change all torrent files to freefilesforeveryone.rar with just the link containing the actual files that way if every file is the same name then they could never find the "illigal" ones.
Result
mattmoo
Despite what they may think, someone would have to stand up in court and prove that you downloaded something. They basically would hope you bottled it before getting to court, however you just have to be brave and hang on in there. Just like with unfair bank charges where the banks take you to court and then dont show up or drop the case at the last minute.
Like most of these barmy laws that Labour dream up, they tend to get chucked out in the House of Lords anyway.
Since p2p is so last year for downloading material, I cant wait for this bit of well thought out legislation to hit town, should be fun to watch!
Because having the IP address of someone they say was connect to a bittorrent swarm isn't enough for them to get damages in court they will just bypass that step and get your service cut off instead. While it may be true that only the basic idiots would get caught using these simple methods it's still a bit of a joke.
This is just a license to knock anyone off line at anytime screen shots can be manufactured and how can you go and prove that you weren't sharing something at the times and dates they allege.It would mean you would have to keep detailed records of everything you do when online.
I don't file share but i'm totally and utterly against this.....perhaps we will all have to have webcams giving constant screen shots showing what we are up to to allow us to be on line.
ISPs (or their broadband wholesaler) keep records of when and to whom each IP address is allocated, so, as long as the rights holders' investigator supplies both the IP address and the time of the alleged infringement it is trivial to determine the customer involved.
IMHO, catching infringers is a better solution than attempting to block them. Blocking will, because of the nature of the beast they are trying to block, be a very blunt instrument and will impact a large number of legitimate users.
Trouble is, blocking is cheap, prosecuting is expensive.
Added to that, this is this Government's whole attitude to law and order. Far, far, easier and cheaper to attempt to prevent illegal activity by denying *everyone's* rights than putting money and effort into catching those who actually commit the crimes.
re "Erm, if you know when the alleged 'copyrighted content' was downloaded, then you can tell who had what IP at that time (ISPs will keep a record of each IP's user at all times, obviously). D'uh."
What if the time on my PC is wrong when I take the screen shot or produce the log that shows the IP addresses? Perhaps I'm in another time zone and they forget to take that into account. Maybe I want to get back at a competitor and produce fake evidence using their permanent IP address.
Real irrefutable proof will need to be produced for this system to have any chance of working. The only people who can provide that proof are the ISP, and even then it only shows the IP address being used and does not prove that the person that ip address belonged to at the specified time is the person who actually downloaded the files. That would require a police investigation and forensic examination of their PC for evidence. Anything short of absolute proof will result in thousands of court cases against the ISP's.
Who will pay for it all? Most copyright holders won't go to all that trouble when they will be facing an uncertain result and huge costs.
Yet another little known career politician, who will be happy now that he has his face in the papers.
It's amazing that it only takes him one sentence to show how he has a complete lack of understanding of the guiding principles that make a society democratic and a totally mutated understanding of the concept of liberty. Not to mention a level of understanding of the Interweb that technically is referred to as 'piss poor'.
In other news today apparently our prisons are rammed to the rafters, totally over capacity. Hardly a surprise when Mr Burnham's Ruling Elite Party has criminalised everything that we bloody do and still wants more.
Informed comments have been made time and time again on this website regarding the feasibility and the legitimacy of regulation like this. Also the entire model of the recording industry itself has been correctly identified for what it is. Slow to respond ill managed and vacuously deficient in understanding the nature of the changing market.
How is it that the denizens of the El-Reg readership and its authors can identify the issues involved here. Filter out the rhetoric and provide a realistic appraisal of the situation with all it's fallacies and assumed implications and perversities. And yet HMG with an army of focus groups, think tanks, quangos and parliamentary comities time and time again can only to come to an industry serving conclusion that screams systemic failure of the system?
Their are two possible answers here. Either the Government is corrupt and owned by Industry and no longer serves the people or the Government is incompetent to a level that should really nullify their right to govern.
I suspect that both are true and suggest that neither is surprising.
Ho hum.
"We need to find a balance which allows rights holders to target the criminals raking in huge profits from this crime without threatening basic civil liberties or dramatically changing the relationship between internet service providers and users".
Another politician who has little idea of the facts and throws an ignorant comment into the ring to garner support/publicity.
Mr Foster,
Filesharers, in the majority, I am sure don't operate for financial gain. Last time I looked, copyright infringement was a civil offence, therefore not a crime.
Unauthorised trading in copyrighted material is a crime - and we have sufficient bodies to deal with that offence. They're called "the Police".
By all means, target those who sell copyrighted material without consent - you can probably find them down the local car boot sale or street corner.
But I'm afraid that using *free* software to download *free* copyrighted material to use on your DRM *free* device does not by default make you a criminal* interested in making profit, no matter how you try to convince yourself and other (simple) like-minded folk that it does.
The arrogant, coked up execs in the Recording industry missed their chance to make money from downloadable distribution, that's their fault, not ours. And you, as OUR public servant, should not be supporting legislation to prolong their archaic, dead and rotting distribution model. Thank you.
*Whether it makes you a "criminal" for downloading said copyrighted content is a different story...:)
I believe that licenses are media specific. The music industry generally does nothing about people transferring music between formats (including between CD and iPod for example) but it is still against the terms of your license.
I believe there have been plenty of stories even here on el reg about various music industry attempts to sue/prosecute people for transferring legally bought CD music onto portable mp3 type players.
"I own the ENITIRE back catalogue of Iron Maiden in various formats, some of which it is economically unfeesable to convert to a format which can be listened to on modern equipment. I therefore visit mininova or thepiratebay or torrentreactor and download the tracker for the entire Iron Maiden catalogue, because technology has progressed past the point that my original PROPERLY LICENSED media is supported commercially.
When they send me the lovely letter saying I am a nasty nasty piewat, do I write back and tell them I own the license to listen to the music, but as some of it is on Vinyl I am acquiring a digital copy, or do I ignore it?"
Technically, when you bought a vinyl LP you only acquired the right to listen to the music on that LP only. Ownership of an LP (or CD, laser disc, DVD etc) does not automatically give you the right to convert the music into another format. Even if you own an original CD/LP/etc, your mp3's are only legal if they too have been paid for - whether they are self ripped or downloaded, it doesn't technically matter. Of course this is only a black & white view of copyright licensing. It has been well established (in the discussion surrounding a recent ongoing filesharing trial) that the industry is not (currently) interested in pursuing folks who rip their own mp3's, but who can say how long that will last?
Of course the funny thing is, P2P has probably done more to crush the terrorist pirate CD/DVD industry than anything the government ever did.
to revert to a P2P solution like the original Napster one where there's a central server that logs what happens... You can then readily prove what you were accessing and that it was all legal... After all the Napster model didn't go out of fashion because it didn't work, it went out of fashion because it was too easy to track down the pirates. It would work just fine for Linux distros, games updates and all the other 0.1% otr whatever of p2p traffic that's legitimate.
although their are some very savvy ways to get around this, using proxys and encryption (to some extent it would help) even if the record company/isp did manage to track the ip to a user and disconnect him on the 3rd warning wouldnt he just be able to go to another service supplier, sign up to them and start downloading again untill he becomes traced agian by another Riaa agent
Would also point out at least they give you a warning letter first, its about the only good thing since u can appeal the desision if the record companys thought their profits were a little low that month and just submitted a list of random ip's and times to the isp for cival proceadings
the flag cause were all pirates at heart
"people with unsecured wireless, internet cafe's, Starbucks, universities etc... will these all be disconnected when somebody using their network downloads copyrighted material?"
You should secure your wireless. Take the first warning letter as a memo to self to do same.
Any multi-user type sites (like internet cafes, universities etc.) should really be using a firewall of some description and really should be (1) limiting what software can be installed / run on their computers and (2) logging and investigating any "interesting" traffic patterns corresponding to any connected computer not owned by them. If indeed they allow 3rd party computers on their network.
I also suspect that most of these groups you mention would have a different relationship with their ISP and not be subjected to the 3 whines and your out policy.
This is geared towards reducing casual file sharing by home users.
Pretty soon it will be like living in a cold war era communist country.
Come to think of it why don't they just emulate China and build The Great Firewall of... hmmm.. I think we may need a different name China already has that one.
Stuff this, I'm off to learn mandarin and how to make fireworks.
So what happens when my friends band does a cover (NOT graphical artwork!) of something well known - lets say Def Leppard's "Hysteria" - then puts that on the net for people to check them out?
Let's call it "Def Leppard - Hysteria.mp3".
Would the BPI people just go by file name? Would they actually fully download the song and listen to it as verification? Even if they do, would they realise it's NOT Def Leppard's performance of it?
How did they verify the legitimacy of the "evidence of file sharing" for these first few people they've already disconnected?
Not saying it's impossible, but it sounds like it would certainly be difficult to get properly verified evidence.
Lest we forget who's running with the ball here, Andy Burnham it was who was, along with Tony McNulty, wheeled out to discuss the more technical bits of the ID cards scheme on the Today programme,thus being in my personal top 10 for people who've caused me to shout at the radio.
It always amazes me how naive those in charge are around technology. Is there a peculiar mindset with those who strive for power these days - didn't technology used to be what got it (sharper sword, better armour, better communications)?
Legislating for Utopia doesn't work - if it did, I'd be lobbying for compulsory hovercars (what do you mean they don't exist???) and for every British citizen to claim whatever they liked in expenses from businesses who trade here but don't pay taxes here (claiming disposal costs on all those AOL CDs from the last decade should at least start paying for the Montana bunker)
***"even if the record company/isp did manage to track the ip to a user and disconnect him on the 3rd warning wouldnt he just be able to go to another service supplier, sign up to them and start downloading again untill he becomes traced agian by another Riaa agent"***
I assume some kind of blacklist would be involved to prevent 3 strikers from going to another ISP. This would probably be address (street address, that is) based, so the perpetrator would have to move to continue downloading.
Potential problems involved for people moving *to* a blacklisted address, though.
re 3rd party computers and firewalls - I take it you never went to university? Time and time again University servers are found with thousands of illegally downloaded mp3's on them. You don't need to use a 3rd party PC, and universities also use p2p and torrents.
as for "You should secure your wireless"... try assuming that I'm an innocent granny who's router was provided by Sky. The default username and password required to log onto my router has been compromised through no fault of my own, because as has been reported elsewhere, Sky made a rather large mistake when deciding what to use. Then I start to receive nasty letters from my ISP about how I'm breaking the law and they are going to cut me off. I don't know what to do or even who to contact because the people I would have contacted are the ones accusing me of a crime.
Not everyone knows how to reconfigure their router. Most people hardly know how to use their PC properly.
As for being geared towards casual file sharers - surely the major file sharers are the ones they should be concentrating on and not the casual home user?
But Andy Burnham is a muppet. Did anyone see his painted, plucked face stammer through Question Time a couple of weeks ago? I have never seen a dimmer, more plodding example of the kind of weak-minded, inexperienced social sciences graduates who form the bulk of our junior ministers.
the way bt works is working agents here
they join a suspect swarm
takje note of the ips in it
when they have got the files being shared by the swarm they analise them
it tey are copyrighted they keep moniteriung the swarm and send out the letters to isp
fearly easy
"So what's going to happen when you get warning notice for runing a Tor node ? "
The Government hate things like Tor and darknets. They undermines their ability to monitor what we do. I would therefore imagine that .gov would regard any disincentive to people running such nodes as a plus point of this idea. The same for anything that scares the fear of **** into stupid people and gets them to secure their wireless. The other poster was right, when the masses are driven into the dark the volume of traffic will impair the ability of law enforcement to track serious criminals there. Guess running or using a darknode will be a crime soon.
Yes, I do find it ironic that P2P has done more to break the link between piracy and organized crime / terrorism than the Government ever has. Just goes to show how the industry will use any argument they find convenient to advance their aims regardless of what their objection to something actually is. I seem to remember something all those years ago in sunday school like "the devil can cite scripture for his own purpose."
Oh well, I'll sign up for a certain well-known virtual ISP and get "broadband Swedish style!" 5 Euros a month is cheap enough. The stupid thing is that the music and movie industries could probably have most of the 5 Euro a month payments themselves if they made all this legal.
The Minister for Corporate Grovelling has issued the following statement.
"The government has considered submissions from the advertising industry which relate to a marked decline in revenues from internet sources. After careful and protracted examination of the industry's proposals the government is minded to introduce legislation that will impose a modest 'click quota' on internet users. The initial quota will be 20 clicks per day per user, and compliance will be the responsibility of ISPs who may pass any additional cost burden on to customers.
The click quota will be subject to review on a monthly basis in consultation with the advertising industry."
In the House of Commons today NuLabour MP Joshua Lickspittle congratulated the minister and asked a question: "Does the minister not agree that his proposed legislation could be further enhanced by banning troublesome software such as Firefox, Adblock, Adblock Plus and blocking lists?"
The minister indicated that he was ruling nothing out at this stage.
Yes you have read that right, just remember that the real crooks here are the BPI and the recording industry as nearly 70% of the profits from a cd single are split between them with the rest going to the retailer, artist and song writer. Basically the BPI are losing there wedge from the sells of a artist record
“Being detected filesharing illegally a third time would mean disconnection.”
I fear that that will be appearing in a future El Reg article as “Having your IP address appear three times in a single list, or different lists sent within hours of each other, would mean immediate disconnection, with no discussion or appeal.” That would be consistent with the way Davenport Lyons, on behalf of Zuxxez, fired off multiple letters to some UK Internet users. If the list Davenport Lyons used to send out letters resulted in the same letter going to the same person multiple times, I can only assume there was similar duplication in the list of IP addresses sent to ISPs.
Harsh as it may sound, legislation may be better than some vague system that could only be scrutinised by individuals trying to take civil action against their former ISPs. If we’re going to go down this route, it would have to be similar to traffic offences. We should expect similar rigorous standards of evidence and procedures to be adhered to, and, if they’re not, people are not punished.
I appreciate that even the above is not perfect. A lot of people don’t challenge accusations of traffic offences, even if they believe they’re completely innocent and not just trying to get off on a technicality. But, if we’re looking at something as serious as taking away the Internet connection from a whole family, and who knows if that would mean them effectively being band from all other ISPs in the country, things need to be done right.
In actual fact I am a 24 year old skinny IT support lackey who also has the entire Iron Maiden back catalogue. If you had ever seen them live you would understand why.
Mines the one with the "Bollocks to P2P, back to USENET for me" printed on it...
"Any multi-user type sites (like internet cafes, universities etc.) should really be using a firewall of some description and really should be (1) limiting what software can be installed / run on their computers and (2) logging and investigating any "interesting" traffic patterns corresponding to any connected computer not owned by them. If indeed they allow 3rd party computers on their network."
You mean monitor what they do, since the problem isn't P2P related, downloading attachments also, downloading from websites etc,. all potential infringement.
Logging isn't enough, you'd have to either watch people in real time, or get an ID from them so you can find them later.
Perhaps like China, we need to take some form of ID before an Internet Cafe can let someone use a PC.
Or an access point, like a Hotel/Airport etc. currently these are open, but perhaps in future we'll take peoples IDs before letting them access the net via some sort of login manager. A party official could watch everything they say do and download to make sure it's not a copyright violation.
Some sort of license to access the internet perhaps, with biometrics and annual fees?
@Common Law
"Despite what they may think, someone would have to stand up in court and prove that you downloaded something."
No, they'll threaten the ISP, the ISP will have a term in their contract saying they can cut your connection at their discretion, then they'll cut it simply because they are threatened and the 20 quid profit they make a year from you isn't worth the 20 thousand in legal costs it would cost to defend each and every incident. So no, there will be no court, there will just be ISP's cutting connections.
You will then find it extremely difficult to challenge because the ISP won't help you confirm that the reason was a copyright claim from someone. Just like fake DMCA notices now, you wake up, a website has been taken down, you can argue with the ISP, but usually you just move ISPs.
Sarkozy is a flop here BTW, his popularity lasted only a few weeks, then he divorced, legislated while drunk, can't see to keep his story straight. Starts dating a woman whose the village bicycle (gee what could possibly go wrong there, if he can't make the right choice of wife how can he make the right choice for France??). There's a sense of regret that he was elected.
Already been done. MiVii was a website that told you to download their client and you get lots of free movies and music.
It was MediaDefender working on behalf of the RIAA/MPAA.
These are proxies for the labels.
They already have given out free music and movies.
However, they have done their best to hide it since they were first found out.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070916-leaked-media-defender-e-mails-reveal-secret-government-project.html
Thinking of the number of times I've uninstalled Limewire from our (shared) home PC, or had to tell one or another of our kids to please stop downloading crap off the 'tubes, I can see that our internet connection isn't going to last very long if this legislation goes through...
Bloody kids.
A completely unworkable idea Codec/bitrates are all over the place. No copyright information in the file, no id in the filename. Even if the process could be automated, which seems unlikley, the cost of checking users downloads for copyrighted material will be prohibitive. No ISP will be able to bear the cost.
It's not about Rock Music. It's about the government using powerful media groups to gag Internet trouble makers. The government does not really care much about piracy. Howver the Govenment cares about the BPI and mainstream media, mutual back scratching, helps get the right message accross. The BPI will lean on the ISP's and the ISP's will lean on the users. It may not be effective for stopping piracy, virtually everybody does it.
So if the Government wants to silence an Internet user, it can do so through the ISP. They don't have to give the real reason, music piracy will probably do it. Courts are not required. If the user complains I am sure they could find some child porn or terror manuals. Remember they will have a spy on your PC so they can load this stuff for the police to find.
Better stick to Linux.
If BT refused to release your phone line to an ISP then you would have problems reconnecting. If you really are a P2P person then it's unlikely that your neighbours will want to share Internet with you. You could use a Cable or WISP company but the blacklist would probably prevent them from connecting you.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/22/eu_article_29_group_hear_our_roar/
"IP addresses - particularly when times are logged - can be tied to locations and often to individuals, and as such can be viewed as personal information. Exact details of the compliance regime are expected to appear in the full report."
So surely that scuppers any transfer of IP address information as it would be against EU Data Protection laws.
Also one assumes that the data from the torrent has to downloaded to verify that it is infringing, if the person that uploads the torrent includes data that is copyright to them then the BPI would be infringing on the uploaders copyright and therefore could be taken offline themselves. Or perhaps an even more cunning plan would be to add some scientology texts to music torrents, so the scientologists and the music industry could battle each other over who was infringing whos works, sort of a copyright Godzilla vs Mechagodzilla?
It is little wonder why more and more of the public are saying 'NO' to being ripped off by greedy music companies, and are instead using BitTorrent peer-to-peer file sharing technology to download for FREE!!
With many BitTorrent apps allowing the user to;
1) Randomize the port used for incoming connections, each time the app is used.
2)Eiither Enable or Force Protocol Encryption, to make it difficult for ISP's to throttle-back P2P traffic.
3)Use 'Blocklists', most P2P clients can download and use one. A decent one can be found here: http://www.bluetack.co.uk/. Alternatively free software like PeerGuardian can be used. http://phoenixlabs.org/pg2/
How would ISP's and the music industry implement such a scheme?
How would they cope with P2P using TOR to connect to the trackers to give a limited measure of anonymity. Or even using a matured I2P protocol in the future?
Or even 3rd Generation networks such as ANtsP2P? http://antsp2p.sourceforge.net/
The latest version (beta1.6.0) was released on 26 January 2008.
Not to mention VPN solutions ie Sweden based https://www.relakks.com/ !!
cor >> Yeah, and it's "Def Leppard". Tsk, youth of today.
Yes sorry about that, possibly a few too many De Konnicks at lunch time coupled with the fact that Firefox on the Mac won't spell check the title text box.
But being lectured on musical taste by a Dutchman* Priceless!
*Note to Holland, dance music stopped in 1989 and Helmut Lotti is not cool.
I always end up metaphorically banging my head off the monitor due to articles like this.
I mean do the Government actually believe that they can legislate this away or require the imposition of effective technical solutions to Police said legislation?
The best analogy for P2P is the human immune system or alternatively virus's depending on which side of the fence your on. Lets consider the steps so far suggested:
Action - ISP's start doing a comcast and traffic shape their netwrorks and then later get requested to deep packet scan the date flowing over their networks to combat P2P use.
Reaction - P2P software implements easy to use Transport Encryption making deep packet inspection impossible or cost ineffective.
Action - ISP's requested to record visit to known P2P sites
Reaction - P2P Sites utilise SSL encryption stopping ISP's monitoring them
Action - "Rights Holders" use swarm IP data gathering techniques to use either in a court process our in a future potential 3 strikes system.
Reaction - P2P software implements IC2 host obfuscation and encryption software making all P2P users anonymous to each other.
Action - Law enforcement go after the P2P sites and P2P software directly
Reaction - Pirate Bay and other Off shore hosting.
This doesn't even consider the use of VPN' connecting to offshore rented P2P servers which are so cheap now its insane.
In summary every strategy thus far suggested has a counter strategy already waiting. Its like an arms race where one side has already invented all the guns and is just waiting for them to be necessary. Copyright infringement cannot be fought like this.
Perhaps the government should instead be asking why the copy right holders are demanding protection for the outdated, exploitive, cartel based business models.
What happens if I use my internet link for business, "secure" the wireless bit properly, but my wife/kids start downloading illegal stuff?
If I'm cut off, can I sue for loss of income or is the law saying only one person can use an internet link?
What if I download "locomotion.doc" and it actually turns out to be an mp3? Who will be after me, Kylie or the Bluebell Railway?
I have to agree with some other posters - its a really difficult problem to tackle with the law so in an effort to cozy up to the industry, the government is simply trying to bypass that inefficient, inconvenient thing called the legal system. How very new labour.
<off-topic-rant>
I remember when there was a left-wing party in the UK. Politicians who believed the little-guy needed help when up against those who have the privilege of having large financial resources. Whether you agreed with them or not, there used to be the opportunity to vote in a government with different policies every few years so that power didn't accumulate for too long with either side. Now we have a one-party state with both sides of the house beholden to corporate interests. However anachronistic people may think the House of Lords is, however out of touch with modern society or incompetent they may be, they are more independent, and therefore generally better, more principled guardians of freedom than the bought representatives in the lower House. </off-topic-rant>
Jolly Roger - because the ship of state has been taken by privateers.
This post has been deleted by its author
Didn't they predict that home taping would kill the recording industry? Well it didn't. I still have some tapes I made years ago, which I incidentally lent to a mate of mine to have a listen. Have lent them out several times before as well. Will the relevant authorities be coming round and taking my car away, as this was the means of travel which I used to get to my mates house (or can I travel there 3 times with 3 different tapes first?????)
Mines the tweed one with the reinforced leather elbow patches.......
"Huh? Deep packet inspection is the technique being discussed by the BPI."
You are incorrect, but it isn't surprising you have this impression given the misreporting of the issue elsewhere. Please read this story to understand how the proposed system has and would operate.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/15/tiscali_bpi_agreement/
- Chris
Tim: "...the kind of weak-minded, inexperienced social sciences graduates who form the bulk of our junior ministers."
Richard: "It always amazes me how naive those in charge are around technology."
Holy dripping vampire bat feces, Batman, there's The Explanation of The British Political System: it's C. P. Snow's two cultures at war, with the soft-centered social scientists winning and in the flush of victory doing their best to suppress intellectually elitist bodies of knowledge like mathematics, chemistry, physics, astronomy, biology, and (ta da!) technology.
Okay, I'm being silly, but when I read those two remarks (thank you, Tim and Richard!), it was like fitting the last piece into a difficult jigsaw puzzle.
Still at sea, still wondering if I've gone to the Martian side? Let me try again:
cause: degree in social sciences
effect: naivety about technology
Der Penguin 'cause he's the closest icon to a vampire bat and penguin feces are pretty stinky too.
This entire system of entrapment seems to rely on the BPI capturing your IP from a tracker tracking files called <insert_name_of_artist_and_album>. So the solution is simple. Call the files <common_oss_application> and their 'evidence' evaporates - or at least, their job is made MUCH more difficult - Your IP is only linked to a tracker which says you were downloading <common_oss_application>. They can claim the files were something else, but they can't easily prove that...
When the initial reports came out, I attempted to register a petition at the 10 Downing Street site, as follows:
" We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to: 'Abandon
plans to deprive people of internet access on the basis of
"suspicion" of illegal downloading'
It is reported by the BBC and the Times that the government is
considering requiring internet service providers to cut
internet access for people "suspected" of illegally downloading
copyrighted material. The monitoring that this policy would
require is an invasion of privacy; further, there already exist
legal avenues for media companies to take action against people
who unlawfully share copyrighted material.
If a media company has a "suspicion" that their material is
being unlawfully shared or downloaded, then let them use the
law as it stands to prove that and then have action taken to
stop it.
This proposal gives private media companies an utterly
unwarranted privileged status and reverses the burden of proof
to the detriment of ordinary citizens who may well be perfectly
innocent of any wrongdoing, yet be punished on the basis of no
more than "suspicion".
Internet access is extremely important to a massive number of
people in this country, and to suggest that it should continue
only at the whim of media companies and their "suspicions" is
utterly unacceptable.
We call upon the Prime Minister to abandon this draconian,
intrusive and fundamentally unjust proposal."
It was rejected as follows:
" Hi,
I'm sorry to inform you that your petition has been rejected.
Your petition was classed as being in the following categories:
* Potentially libellous, false, or defamatory statements
Further information: No such proposals have been put forward."
Which is, fairly obviously, an outright lie.
Some extremely interesting figures from a dot gov website:
There are 22 Million Households in the UK.
Of these households, only 6 out of 10 have Internet access.
This means we have 13.2 Million homes who are actively online.
The BPI's own figures say 6 Million of these very people are illegally filesharing, this means from a possible 13.2 Million Internet connections that 46% are participating in grey-legal-area downloading... That is incredible!
AND may I add, this 46% National UK downloading figure is despite public knowledge of facing possible legal action... Years ago it would have been HIGHER and the Net connections were LOWER so I guess 80-90% were downloading when the waters were less shark infested.
OK, putting this into context, every UK street you walk down, 1st house would be Legally downloading, 2nd house is using (allegedly illegal) filesharing, and 3rd house has no Internet....(repeat this pattern over entire UK)
WOW thats a MASSIVE 'problem' isnt it, how are the BPI going to stop this? The answer is they WONT be able to stop this. Never, if these are the figures - and they certainly seem to be...
If ISP's start disconnecting this amout of subscribers the future of the net might swing back to penny a minute dial up because if there is no multimedia to download for free then whats the point in broadband...? Why pay 20-30 pounds when you can pay a penny a min to surf ad-hoc?
ISP's have dark times ahead if they agree to this utter cack from the BPI.
If these BPI and RIAA morons introduced a Download Licence say £5 added to broadband subscription a month then they might have a hope in hell of making some money this millennium. Only add the fee if you exceed a set dl figure, say 10Gb a month...? only a guesstimate mind. I think i would certainly pay that fee for the content that out there today...
Loveheart because I will LOVE to see the massive shock-horror failure of the BPI/RIAA idiots in charge when they realise even the 3-strike wont stop the powerful downloading wagon now... BPI, wake up and grab the chance to make money now via ISP £5 fee's or lose everything, including face.
My current usage for this month is standing at 55.75GBS purely from VoIP, surfing, downloading back-ups, streaming/downloading music made available by unsigned artists on their websites, watching TV on Demand (BBC iPlayer, ITV.com and 4OD), as well as downloading back-ups.
While I agree those stealing should be made to pay in some way, I have to say that I would be mighty put out at having to pay anything to anyone on the presumption that I was downloading copyrighted material without permission based on my heavy usage.
Hell, if you download all 12 videos made available by Warner Bros to promote REM's new single on http://www.supernaturalsuperserious.com/ you'd be looking at around 6GBs right there, then you could add the remaining 4GBS easily by downloading the miniseries legally (in high def), from the sister site http://www.ninetynights.com/.
10GBS really does go nowhere these days my friend.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
