Headlines - Music industry and UK ISPs unite in battle against piracy

[Saracen]

Originally Posted by M0nkeyb0Y

Not at all - a more appropriate analogy would be: it's a cheek that police repeatedly stop and search me every time I walk to and from work.

I guess I just covet my privacy a little more than you.

Nothing was said in this statement about how evidence is gathered.

If the music industry approach ISPs with logs of the occasions an IP address has been used for illegal purposes, and at that time, the ISP had that IP address allocated to you, then they have every justification in looking into that.

Of course, if you aren't downloading illegal materials, that won't happen, will it?

Believe me, I covet my privacy very, VERY seriously. Take a look at some of my statements on this forum about this issue. For a start, I've pointed out that I'm very likely to give up all regular internet access (at least, other than via public connection, and maybe picking up mail) if Phorm goes ahead and I can't find a Phorm-less ISP.

But this is not about privacy. It's about piracy. And I have NO problem with people repeatedly and extensively abusing other people's copyright getting booted off their ISP. For a start, if all that illegal downloading and uploading gets stopped, maybe I'll actually start getting the ISP service I'm paying for without pirates gobbling up huge chunks of bandwidth with their illegal activities.

[M0nkeyb0Y]

My point was: how will they ascertain that one is a 'pirate' without keeping a log of what you download?

[Saracen]

Originally Posted by M0nkeyb0Y

My point was: how will they ascertain that one is a 'pirate' without keeping a log of what you download?

Well, if a third-party comes to them with log files ..... either they take them at their word, or then maybe they starting logging activity to see if those log files are accurate. But if they do, given reasonable grounds to suspect illegal activity, I can't see how they're not justified in checking up on that.

Also, is the focus going to be on downloaders, or uploaders? That article was quite carefully worded, referring to things like "sharing", and that could be viewed either way.

I suspect the emphasis will be on either very heavy offenders, or morel likely, uploaders. It is certainly uploaders that have got clobbered for some of the very heavy penalties that have been floating about from courts, based on the damage that uploading can do and the losses that can result.

[kalniel]

Originally Posted by AtomicFuse

Personally I think its an outrage, another form of control from the government, to which everyone just accepts. Does no one see this?

I don't see any aspect of goverment controlling in this. Even if there was, don't you think a govt has the right to enforce its laws?

Originally Posted by finnrogers

What about people whose computers have been "zombied" and are actually just being used by some hacker who is the real one doing the illegal downloading.

There has already been a number of people complaining that they have received these letters when they have never downloaded or shared music before.

What about people piggybacking your wireless connection to download music?

Recently a court in Germany rejected a case because the "downloader" said that his open wireless connection was misused and he couldn't be held responsible for the actions of somebody else (rightly so in my opinion).

That's precisely the reason they're sending out letters to the bill payers - to help them realise that someone is using their service illegally. Once you know there is a problem you can do something about it.

The pirate bay is currently looking at encrypting the data sent to and from bittorrent servers which sounds promising.

Or could do more damage.

Originally Posted by shaithis

Personally I fail to see how they can impose this until there has been a gigantic "wireless security education" initiative from the government......Something I can't see happening any time soon.

I think these letters count as a form of education.

Originally Posted by M0nkeyb0Y

My point was: how will they ascertain that one is a 'pirate' without keeping a log of what you download?

ISPs do have such logs.

[pollaxe]

I'm not a pirate, I don't download music nor do I advocate copyright theft either but I do greatly object to this on principle.

A friend of mine got a threatening letter from his ISP not so long ago alleging he'd downloaded some X-Box game via P2P. He owns a PC and a PS3 and whilst I can't claim to know a great deal about his 'net habits he did say the last thing he'd downloaded was weeks before and it was an Ubuntu ISO. So I'm not at all convinced of the accuracy of some of this monitoring regardless of our viewpoints on rights and wrongs of the ISPs monitoring their users' behaviour anyway.

You guys who support this are entitled to your opinion but for me this is a step too far and for all the wrong reasons. I still think it utterly stinks and hope people vote with their feet and change ISPs - assuming we will still have ISPs left who do not bend over so far to pressure from an industry which largely has itself to blame for the current predicament it finds itself in.

[M0nkeyb0Y]

I get your points Saracen - but I'm pretty peeved by the way our protector and servant (UK Gov't) seems to be dancing to the tune of a private industry...

as you say though:
Noli nothis permittere te terere

[dangel]

Originally Posted by kalniel

I don't see any aspect of goverment controlling in this. Even if there was, don't you think a govt has the right to enforce its laws?

Yes, and at any cost.

Comrade.

[kalniel]

Originally Posted by dangel

Yes, and at any cost.

Comrade.

Hehe. I'd be more annoyed if a govt didn't enforce a law if I'd voted them in because of it.

Of course if they tried to introduce laws I didn't like then I'd vote for someone else - but I'd rather the change was done at the law level rather than just deciding not to enforce. Which is why our copyright laws need a massive shake up IMHO.

Edit: Besides, aren't the people who want music for free more commie than this old capitalist who believes people should pay for things as they use them, rather than increases the expense for everyone just so a minority can enjoy something for free?

[Lucio]

Whilst I'm a little concerned at how much information is being kept on us by the ISP's, it's hardly the end of the Internet to have this put into place. From what I understand, the databases that are being looked at initially are simply logs of an IP's actvity, which is all numbers that to a human, are meaningless.

It's not until the ISP's are given evidence that that need to look at a specific IP address, are the activities examined and tied back to a person.

Unlike Phorm this actually *does* seem to be fairly anonymous because there's no automation in place to go "Mr Bob of 123 Fake Street" visisted a porn site, a bank, and then spent 3 hours on gaydar.

[M0nkeyb0Y]

Originally Posted by Lucio

"Mr Bob of 123 Fake Street" visisted a porn site, a bank, and then spent 3 hours on gaydar.

What I'd like to know is where the hell did you get my name and address from?!

[Zhaoman]

I know several people who have multi-terabyte collections of downloaded movies and music; to be honest I can't see the point of downloading so much media. You're probably never going to get through all that in your lifetime. They are not selling it or anything but they are the people who are likely to be targeted, and I guess, for wanting the biggest music/movie collection possible.

[DavidM]

<snip>

[Saracen]

Originally Posted by pollaxe

.....

A friend of mine got a threatening letter from his ISP not so long ago alleging he'd downloaded some X-Box game via P2P. He owns a PC and a PS3 and whilst I can't claim to know a great deal about his 'net habits he did say the last thing he'd downloaded was weeks before and it was an Ubuntu ISO. So I'm not at all convinced of the accuracy of some of this monitoring regardless of our viewpoints on rights and wrongs of the ISPs monitoring their users' behaviour anyway.

Even if exactly as outlined there, though, that's an argument against sloppy procedures, not the principle of booting repeat offenders off the net in the way that's proposed.

It's also worth commenting that that seems to have happened before this agreement was reached, so if it was already happening, it's hardly an objection to this proposal. It's an objection to sloppy procedures or high-handed ISPs.

And, as has been pointed out, it could have been someone using his link. Friend visiting, perhaps? Or depending on his age and situation, a brother or sister, son or daughter, etc. Or someone hijacking his wifi. In any of these situations, that he didn't download it (assuming he didn't, and from what you say, it seems unlikely .... though it's plausible he could have done it for someone else even though he doesn't have an XBox) doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't downloaded via his IP.

But the proposal to boot people off the net is for repeat offenders. So, when someone gets a letter like that, they can :-

- write back pointing out they did NOT download this. Check the log data please.
- check their own firewall logs for intruders, and perhaps tighten settings
- beef up PC or network security and monitoring
- encrypt, or even temporarily close, their wifi.

..... and so on.

[dangel]

Originally Posted by kalniel

Edit: Besides, aren't the people who want music for free more commie than this old capitalist who believes people should pay for things as they use them, rather than increases the expense for everyone just so a minority can enjoy something for free?

Nah, you don't get orf that easy - even if piracy was eliminated the MI wouldn't drop prices

The whole thing is daft because a: we'll see lots of people falsely accused (with little comeback no doubt) and b: those who want to do dodgy things can easily sidestep such measures. This sort of thing categorically *does not work* in the way it's being promoted. We've sat and watched the travesty of the RIAA etc who were doing much the same - the difference here is no real level of 'evidence' has to be achieved. Sure, the penalties aren't bad up front but these things tend to trickle under the door before the main flood brings the house down.
So congrats to the people with the big piles of money and lots of lobbyists - because their voice (comrade) is a lot more important that yours. Tis a sick world.

[shaithis]

If this gets enforced, it could well be the beginning of the end for wifi.

Is just way too easy to hack.

[kalniel]

Originally Posted by dangel

Nah, you don't get orf that easy - even if piracy was eliminated the MI wouldn't drop prices

Oh I agree there - we can let market forces sort that one out though. I was more refering to the blanket compensation in return for free music downloads idea that was mooted.

Another problem with piracy is that it acts against normal market forces and ends up keeping prices high.

The whole thing is daft because a: we'll see lots of people falsely accused (with little comeback no doubt) and b: those who want to do dodgy things can easily sidestep such measures.

I think the false accusation thing is relatively simple - if it ever got to the point of any life affecting action to be taken against an individual then you should be able to get a warrant out for a forensic computer examination which would prove once and for all if someone who had physical access to that machine was responsible.

As for people who deliberately want to break the law, they will always find a way around these things like they do car alarms, but they are in such a minority that it's not as much of a problem.

Originally Posted by shaithis

If this gets enforced, it could well be the beginning of the end for wifi.

Is just way too easy to hack.

I don't see how getting a letter telling you that someone is using your internet connection for illegal activities is the beginning of the end for wifi. If it goes further than that then they should have to collect the evidence from your computer IMHO, which should quite quickly determine if that computer was us