Illegal downloaders face Internet ban?

[nichomach]

Steady, Lee - politicians? Common sense? Law of unintended consequences? Eh? What?

[M0nkeyb0Y]

The Times reported that private downloads will be monitored by ISPs - any evidence of illegal downloading could lead to prosecution.

Hello Big Brother state

Surprised this hasn't been posted. Apols if a repost!

it has , and I've merged the threads - Moby

[Lee H]

What happens in the cases where a communal wireless setup is being used, or even on of those services like FON where you share your wi-fi access with other FON members.

This has not been thought out one bit as it would hit comminities like FON straight away. Nobody would share their Wifi if they had the chance of getting banned.

[chuckskull]

So anyone whose ever watched something on YouTube faces a ban? The vast majority of that would be considered "illegal" if the industry got it's way.

Also, whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Silly me; I thought that was one of the founding tenets of our society.

[nichomach]

So anyone whose ever watched something on YouTube faces a ban? The vast majority of that would be considered "illegal" if the industry got it's way.
Also, whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Silly me; I thought that was one of the founding tenets of our society.

Ah...no. Remember when we all decided that if we had nothing to hide then we had nothing to fear? And that we didn't really need a "burden of proof" so much? And that the whole "trial" thing was just getting in the way? And who really worries about privacy anyway?

[pollaxe]

Really, I wonder if as well as a petition we should do something a little more pro-active. Namely, photocopy a picture of our posterior and send it (along with a reasoned response as to why we think this proposed legislation is flawed) to our beloved Government's representatives and see if that actually stirs them up a bit.

[nichomach]

Problem is that a reasoned response without a photocopied bum or similar gets ignored, because they just take for granted that we won't do anything, whereas with one it just gets ignored because it's obviously not a serious issue...

[chuckskull]

Ah...no. Remember when we all decided that if we had nothing to hide then we had nothing to fear? And that we didn't really need a "burden of proof" so much? And that the whole "trial" thing was just getting in the way? And who really worries about privacy anyway?

Of course, all we need is a few million more police officers then they can watch every citizen 24 hours a day. Just incase someone commits a crime or has the audacity to cost a multi-billion dollar industry a few cents, by watching a clip from House on YouTube.

[nichomach]

Of course...by watching a clip from House on YouTube.

*cough*

[Giraffe]

Now, where there are 2 or more on the same computer, all using the same connection/login, stopping the 'guilty' one but not the others...?

Oh, I forgot, implicitly guilty.

Why is it that only human beings don't have human rights? - even politicians have them!

[ajones]

One of the most legislation-crazy governments in UK history is coming up with more stoopid laws. This is were our tax money is going.. to some little bar on a sun drenched beach whilst half a dozen idiots with large expense account dream up new laws...

Whatever you do, don't send a picture of your backside... They'll probably decide you are not using it for it's intended purpose and therefore tax you for it!

[matty-hodgson]

i dunno if it will.. but i'm sure them scanning all internet transfers would slow the internet to a pulp at peak times unless they had hundreds of huge super computers for scanning the internet..

sounds ridicilious!

[Salazaar]

ISPs demand record biz pays up if cut-off P2P users sue | The Register

In a small twist to the tale, it looks like the ISP don't really want to play ball. At least if they're the ones footing the bill for the law suits which'll come flooding in following unproven/wrongful denial of service.

[nichomach]

Looks more to me as though ISPA's just jockeying to get themselves (effectively) indemnified. From their point of view, the more high usage content they bar people from going near, the less bandwidth they actually have to provide to back up their ludicrous "8 Mbit" claims.

[s_kinton]

After graduating in 2003 I continued to live in a shared house of 5. We all shared the same internet connection wirelessly. After about 3 months we got a letter from BT warning us about a copyright infringement, naming the p2p program used and the exact file name of the films obtained. They enclosed a copyright notice from Paramount Pictures.

The account was in one of my housemates names, but the person who did the downloading in question was someone else. I guess nobody will want to share their connection if its in their name only if this legislation came in. That'll mean lots more individual accounts and more monthly fees coming in for the ISPs.

[slypie]

it's basically unworkable. For one imagine the overheads for the ISP's to trawl through our data and the costs involved. Also there would be heavy opposition to this due to data protection laws and privacy laws. I would be suprised if this was made law.