View Full Version : Illegal File Sharing - Three Strike Rule
This has been talked about before, and now looks like becoming a reality.
Apologies if this has already been brought up.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/03/30/cnvirgin130.xml
Virgin Media looks set to become the first British internet company to crack down on customers who download music illegally.
The trial by the UK's largest residential broadband supplier will go live within months and disconnecting customers who ignore warnings, a sanction favoured by the record BPI, remains an option. The trial will also be open to film and television studios.
Welshchris
30-03-2008, 12:12
id like to know how they r going to be able to distinquish whats being downloaded. What if ur downloading from something like napster and paid for the music ur downloading and they get it wrong?
Everyone will claim that their mac had been traded ;)
Welshchris
30-03-2008, 12:23
i think this will cost them a lot of customers also that will just bugger off to ADSL to download.
i think this will cost them a lot of customers also that will just bugger off to ADSL to download.
Doubt it, and other ISP's will follow suite, or risk being regulated by Government. Be Unlimited have already sent letters to its customer about illegal file sharing, one such customer has posted on this forum.
---------- Post added at 12:53 ---------- Previous post was at 12:51 ----------
id like to know how they r going to be able to distinquish whats being downloaded. What if ur downloading from something like napster and paid for the music ur downloading and they get it wrong?
This is the BPI, they will know how their members legally share their works over the Internet, so will not be targeting those streams.
What about encrypted data, how will they know whats what ?
murfitUK
30-03-2008, 13:26
What concerns me is that the BPI will be given the power to decide who gets cut off and who can keep their internet connection.
The article in the Telegraph (and it has been covered in the Guardian at the end of February) states that the BPI hands over to the ISP an account number and it is then up to the ISP to take action.
But what if you insist you never downloaded pirated material? Who do you appeal to you after Virgin has cut you off? Not Virgin - they have to do what the BPI tells them. There won't be any point appealing to the BPI as it was them that identified your account number in the first place, the will say they just passed on an account number and it was the ISP who cut you off.
The government has said that if the ISPs don't act on the wishes of the BPI then it will pass legislation forcing them to.
The BPI wants to be judge and jury, and the ISP will have no choice but to act as their executioner, and you could lose your internet connection (which you no doubt paid for a month in advance) with no chance to challenge anything.
What concerns me is that the BPI will be given the power to decide who gets cut off and who can keep their internet connection.
The article in the Telegraph (and it has been covered in the Guardian at the end of February) states that the BPI hands over to the ISP an account number and it is then up to the ISP to take action.
But what if you insist you never downloaded pirated material? Who do you appeal to you after Virgin has cut you off? Not Virgin - they have to do what the BPI tells them. There won't be any point appealing to the BPI as it was them that identified your account number in the first place, the will say they just passed on an account number and it was the ISP who cut you off.
The government has said that if the ISPs don't act on the wishes of the BPI then it will pass legislation forcing them to.
The BPI wants to be judge and jury, and the ISP will have no choice but to act as their executioner, and you could lose your internet connection (which you no doubt paid for a month in advance) with no chance to challenge anything.
I guess the answer to that is simple. The evidence is provided to the customer by the ISP, advising them at the warning stage that if they wish to challenge it, they contact the evidence provider, in this case the BPI.
That is an assumption though, there's nothing in the article to say that.
---------- Post added at 13:31 ---------- Previous post was at 13:29 ----------
What about encrypted data, how will they know whats what ?
They won't. If the data encrypts the source IP address, then they have no case.
So therefore we can assume they will target open p2p networks and torrents.
zing_deleted
30-03-2008, 13:34
only in this country will we roll over and allow this to happen. If the French try they will march on the streets for privacy the Americans take it to court again cuz of invasion of privacy. Nothing will be done about in this country as usual doormat Britain will roll over
only in this country will we roll over and allow this to happen. If the French try they will march on the streets for privacy the Americans take it to court again cuz of invasion of privacy. Nothing will be done about in this country as usual doormat Britain will roll over
Wasn't it Sarkozy that developed the three strikes rule, passing the investigation and enforcement to a third party? Something I also think the government said they would work with France on, or at least review it.
TraxData
30-03-2008, 14:49
Wasn't it Sarkozy that developed the three strikes rule, passing the investigation and enforcement to a third party? Something I also think the government said they would work with France on, or at least review it.
In france they marched (and even rioted in some places) and made the govt seriously rethink it.
It wont get passed there, french govt actually listens to its people...and if they dont, hell breaks loose :)
In france they marched (and even rioted in some places) ...
There were riots to protest against a clampdown on illegal file sharing?
Do you have a link to that?
In france they marched (and even rioted in some places) and made the govt seriously rethink it.
It wont get passed there, french govt actually listens to its people...and if they dont, hell breaks loose :)
Yes, there are news articles about such activity back in 2003/4, but I am talking more recently, since Sarkosy came into power. I'll keep digging.
This is the most up-to-date (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080128-frances-plan-to-turn-isps-into-copyright-cops-on-track.html) on the French position I can find, and I know that the UK government has talked about this with Sarkosy.
TraxData
30-03-2008, 15:32
Yes, there are news articles about such activity back in 2003/4, but I am talking more recently, since Sarkosy came into power. I'll keep digging.
As am i...i'll try and dig the articles up (this is going back 2-4 months)
they rioted big time in some places.
---------- Post added at 15:32 ---------- Previous post was at 15:31 ----------
There were riots to protest against a clampdown on illegal file sharing?
Do you have a link to that?
I'm gonna try find the links.
And i think they saw it more as a privacy thing.
Wikipedia is your friend - Every riot listed since 120 BC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_riots
Had a quick scan through the list cannot see anything about French rioting about 'Privacy'.
TraxData
30-03-2008, 15:49
Wikipedia is your friend - Every riot listed since 120 BC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_riots
Had a quick scan through the list cannot see anything about French rioting about 'Privacy'.
Hmm thanks, i must of been dreaming then, lol.
i feel stupid now :D
Music trade body the BPI is working with Virgin on a pilot which could see dozens of customers sent warning letters.
Only "dozens"????
Should`nt that have at least been 100`s of thousands:erm:
TraxData
30-03-2008, 15:54
Only "dozens"????
Should`nt that have at least been 100`s of thousands:erm:
Long time no see :)
And yes...to be honest it's going to be interesting to see how they implement this, let's face it pretty much everyone who is using the top package is downloading something that they shouldnt, can you imagine the profit loss from this?
Of course smart people will just stick to newsgroups ;)
grubbymitts
30-03-2008, 16:10
Rules of Usenet:
1) You do not talk about Usenet
2) You do not talk about Usenet
12) Nothing is sacred. Except Usenet
34) If it exists there is porn of it and it is on Usenet
i didnt see your thread when i mentioned this on the Phorm thread Toto
currected link now.
an interesting new development adding yet more fuel to the fire,dont VM want to make any profits this year?
Virgin Media become the first British internet company to share responsibility for curbing suspected piracy.....
except it seems when it's they that are doing the suspected (clickstream copyright)Piracy perhaps!
http://www.ispreview.co.uk/news/EkpylyVFEVprNOiCbo.html
Virgin Media Adopts Three-Strikes Rule for Illegal Downloads (http://www.ispreview.co.uk/news/EkpylyVFEVprNOiCbo.html)
TraxData
30-03-2008, 16:19
Rules of Usenet:
1) You do not talk about Usenet
2) You do not talk about Usenet
12) Nothing is sacred. Except Usenet
34) If it exists there is porn of it and it is on Usenet
Kick.Ass.Movie.
i didnt see your thread when i mentioned this on the Phorm thread Toto
currected link now.
an interesting new development adding yet more fuel to the fire,dont VM want to make any profits this year?
Virgin Media become the first British internet company to share responsibility for curbing suspected piracy.....
except it seems when it's they that are doing the suspected (clickstream copyright)Piracy perhaps!
http://www.ispreview.co.uk/news/EkpylyVFEVprNOiCbo.html
Virgin Media Adopts Three-Strikes Rule for Illegal Downloads (http://www.ispreview.co.uk/news/EkpylyVFEVprNOiCbo.html)
I didn't think it would be appropriate in the Phorm thread, so popped it onto a new one, just to give it a bit more scope on topic as it were. :)
Not sure how it relates to their current advertising systems, but no doubt if there are any legal issues with VM copyright infringement, they will go to court.
Seem to remember an EPG company suing VM over theft of its patent, not sure how that went.
manxminx
30-03-2008, 16:40
Music trade body the BPI is working with Virgin on a pilot which could see dozens of customers sent warning letters
I wonder what the criteria is going to be for getting a letter? Will they start with the top 1% of downloaders then gradually increase that to the top 2%, 3% etc? They won't grab everyone because that would eat into their profits, and their main aim is to make money, not ban customers. So, maybe if we just download a little now and then, we'll fall under the radar and won't be bothered?
I've downloaded around 300Gigs this year so far (3.3 gigs/day approx). This is total volume, everything including emails, web browsing, torrents etc. Is this a lot or a little when compared to others?
Only "dozens"????
Should`nt that have at least been 100`s of thousands:erm:
To me, that indicates this is a PR exercise. Profits won't be affected, and the company can say they are "doing the right thing".
I didn't think it would be appropriate in the Phorm thread, so popped it onto a new one, just to give it a bit more scope on topic as it were. :)
Not sure how it relates to their current advertising systems, but no doubt if there are any legal issues with VM copyright infringement, they will go to court.
Seem to remember an EPG company suing VM over theft of its patent, not sure how that went.
the fact they are the first British internet company to share responsibility to do it, and the EU safe harbor/Conduit protection question falls directly into all this IMO.
so i had to at least mention it there, so the webs Phorm readers know now reading that cableforum Phorm thread can follow up in this thread.
i suspect its going to get rather big too...
---------- Post added at 17:01 ---------- Previous post was at 16:58 ----------
and besides we might get Zing ;) finally commenting on the Phorm/user copyright subject....
zing_deleted
30-03-2008, 17:40
Wikipedia is your friend - Every riot listed since 120 BC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_riots
Had a quick scan through the list cannot see anything about French rioting about 'Privacy'.
No but what I meant was if the government do something they do not like they strike on mass. Simply put they are less likely to take crap from their government than us
---------- Post added at 17:40 ---------- Previous post was at 17:33 ----------
Thing is doesnt the goverment need to makes some laws before this can work. As things stand a warrent is required to intercept netwrok traffic iirc. This will have to be overturned basically breaking down a civil liberty. Innocent files sent between people private files could be intercepted and if its an mp3 or video it could be investigated this to me is wrong. Im not arguing this as a leech im arguing this as a civil liberty issue which imo is going to be broken so the rich can perhaps get a little richer
Long time no see
Aw shucks TD,i`m surprised you even noticed:)
Carpals Tunnel Syndrome has been a bugger lately.She even took the batteries out the keyboards so she did.:(
I have been around though,got to at least keep track of what this mob are up to if nothing else eh.
And yes...to be honest it's going to be interesting to see how they implement this, let's face it pretty much everyone who is using the top package is downloading something that they shouldnt, can you imagine the profit loss from this?
Of course smart people will just stick to newsgroups
I`m just thinking about all the poor trees it will take for all those bloody letters;)
To me, that indicates this is a PR exercise. Profits won't be affected, and the company can say they are "doing the right thing".
That certainly sounds about right.
I didn't think it would be appropriate in the Phorm thread, so popped it onto a new one, just to give it a bit more scope on topic as it were. :)
Not sure how it relates to their current advertising systems, but no doubt if there are any legal issues with VM copyright infringement, they will go to court.
Seem to remember an EPG company suing VM over theft of its patent, not sure how that went.
This just makes me less trusting of VirginMedia. You can bet your bottom dollar that they will use the Phorm/121 Media spyware system to aid them with this. :mad:
rogerdraig
30-03-2008, 18:01
it is unlikely to work even if it does happen
two interesting articles on it here
http://www.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/~pdonnell/filesharing.htm (http://www.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/%7Epdonnell/filesharing.htm)
and here
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/22/burnham_dcms_filesharing/
and though i dont use this http://www.vpntunnel.co.uk/ i know a couple who do and i am sure there are free or cheaper ways to do so as well and they wont get near most real downloaders
One thing to note. I have often been told that in the event of legal action, a company providing internet access can get some protection from action themselves as long as they can demonstrate that they have procedures in place to deal with things like this and that they will (to some extent) co-operate with the companies enforcing copyright.
IF that is true for companies (I work for a Uni, while we are not allowed to breach copyright, we are allowed to under certain circumstances, so the rules may be different for us), then Virgin may just be playing along so they don't get action taken against them.
Cobbydaler
30-03-2008, 19:41
People in the know will just use one of the available blocklists...
kingwahwah
30-03-2008, 20:34
You can't go to legit sites because phorm will watch and hound you.
You can't go to dodgy sites because bpi will watch and hound you.
Is this the new traffic management strategy?
"I've downloaded around 300Gigs this year so far (3.3 gigs/day approx). This is total volume, everything including emails, web browsing, torrents etc. Is this a lot or a little when compared to others?" manxminx
A lot unless you run a company of 100 staff!
"I've downloaded around 300Gigs this year so far (3.3 gigs/day approx). This is total volume, everything including emails, web browsing, torrents etc. Is this a lot or a little when compared to others?" manxminx
A lot unless you run a company of 100 staff!
Some people around here do 3x that amount in 1 month. If only there was something worth getting these days to make it worth the while.
hmm, so heres your answer then, the Virgin Media's board/masters in the US have been listening to their U.S. Attorney General Says Piracy Leads to Terrorism
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/US-Attorney-General-Says-Piracy-Leads-to-Terrorism-93129
Oh, and we should probably allow wiretapping without a warrant
11:34AM Sunday Mar 30 2008 by KathrynV (http://www.dslreports.com/useremail/u/1411343)
....
Mukasey’s theories set the tone for him to defend warrantless wiretapping (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/28/BA69VROE9.DTL). “The government 'shouldn't need a warrant when somebody picks up a phone in Iraq and calls the United States,' Mukasey said in a question-and-answer session after a speech to the Commonwealth Club” in San Francisco.
In a humorous but illuminating response to these speeches, ZeroPaid (http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9366/Mukasy+-+Piracy+Fosters+Terrorism,+ZeroPaid+Offers+Pirate+ List) has published information about three anti-piracy organizations that are guilty of threatening United States security with their bad behavior."
TraxData
31-03-2008, 02:27
hmm, so heres your answer then, the Virgin Media's board/masters in the US have been listening to their U.S. Attorney General Says Piracy Leads to Terrorism
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/US-Attorney-General-Says-Piracy-Leads-to-Terrorism-93129
Oh, and we should probably allow wiretapping without a warrant
11:34AM Sunday Mar 30 2008 by KathrynV (http://www.dslreports.com/useremail/u/1411343)
....
Mukasey’s theories set the tone for him to defend warrantless wiretapping (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/28/BA69VROE9.DTL). “The government 'shouldn't need a warrant when somebody picks up a phone in Iraq and calls the United States,' Mukasey said in a question-and-answer session after a speech to the Commonwealth Club†in San Francisco.
In a humorous but illuminating response to these speeches, ZeroPaid (http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9366/Mukasy+-+Piracy+Fosters+Terrorism,+ZeroPaid+Offers+Pirate+ List) has published information about three anti-piracy organizations that are guilty of threatening United States security with their bad behavior."
Get to bed ;)
lol, did you read that ZeroPaid link ;)
interesting, perhaps a search on the BPI might find they got their cut though?
http://www.overlawyered.com/2008/03/riaa-hasnt-paid-artists.html
RIAA hasn't paid artists
By
Walter Olson (http://www.overlawyered.com/)
on March 30, 2008 12:03 AM
"None of the estimated $400 million that the RIAA received in settlements with Napster, KaZaA, and Bolt over allegations of copyright infringement has gone to the artists whose copyrights were allegedly infringed.
Now the artists are considering suing the RIAA." (Consumerist, Mar. 17 (http://consumerist.com/368663/riaa-pockets-filesharing-settlement-money-doesnt-pay-artists-whose-copyrights-were-infringed); David Utter, WebProNews,....
"
crazymaniac
31-03-2008, 10:42
Yeah I heard this a while back on the news, it’s just a load of rubbish! If they go ahead and track everyone it will
a. Make 6 million people criminals
b. Simply make people encrypt everything they send so it can’t be recognised
c. And Isn’t it against our privacy right? NO ONE has the right to come into my home, which includes what I download and do with the internet.
http://torrentfreak.com/isp-to-voluntarily-disconnect-file-sharers-from-the-internet-080331/
I do find it funny that Virgin are introducing this system whilst at the sametime improving their USENET binary service.
Im pretty sure that the thing with the BPI is so that they can say to the government, "look we can do this ok voluntarily, there is no need for regulations!.
Yeah I heard this a while back on the news, it’s just a load of rubbish! If they go ahead and track everyone it will
a. Make 6 million people (who are already committing an illegal act) criminals (or don't you believe in Copyright Law?)
b. Simply make people encrypt everything they send so it can’t be recognised (I bet they hadn't thought of that :D )
c. And Isn’t it against our privacy right? NO ONE has the right to come into my home, which includes what I download and do with the internet.Best tell Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs that, then ;)
Technically, this sounds like a minor extension of what they already do. I remember a long time ago getting an email from NTL or Vivendi, about a couple of movies I'd downloaded/uploaded, this was on ed2k, actually it wasn't me but my nephew on my connection but that's irrelevant, and that I should stop and if I didn't bad things would happen. Nothing was specified and I know other people who'd recieved multiple emails with the same content. These were official and listed the movies my nephew had been downloading/uploading.
I guess with all the blatant sabre rattling by idiotic public torrent goups (the Pirate Bay comes to mind) about how untouchable they are that governments would be forced to intervene if the ISP's didn't. I suspect this is probably the better of the two evils.
Hopefully this might make people think twice about bragging on here and other public forums about how many terrabytes they downloaded this week. All it does is provoke the copyright owners who in turn will attempt to force ISP's or governments to act. We're not Sweden or Holland and our legal system tends to favour large bodies as opposed to the individual so bodies like the BPI will tend to get their own way eventually.
lucevans
31-03-2008, 11:32
i didnt see your thread when i mentioned this on the Phorm thread Toto
currected link now.
an interesting new development adding yet more fuel to the fire,dont VM want to make any profits this year?
Virgin Media become the first British internet company to share responsibility for curbing suspected piracy.....
except it seems when it's they that are doing the suspected (clickstream copyright)Piracy perhaps!
http://www.ispreview.co.uk/news/EkpylyVFEVprNOiCbo.html
Virgin Media Adopts Three-Strikes Rule for Illegal Downloads (http://www.ispreview.co.uk/news/EkpylyVFEVprNOiCbo.html)
Everything VM are doing now makes perfect sense:
VM is a US (New York registered) company that brands itself as a UK company, and has close links to music and movie industries
It will track-down and cut-off illegal filesharers on their network under the instruction of the RIAA
It will offset the cost of this (letters to customers, loss of income when they cut customers off) by generating new income from spying on all it's UK customers using Phorm (another American company that would like us all to think it's British)
It will effectively avoid interference in it's business by "foreign governments" - and by this I mean regulation by the UK government (don't forget, it's an American company that just happens to operate the service in the UK)- and so, as it sees it, will be free to make profit and be able to claim it is taking the moral high ground at the same time
Anyone see a pattern emerging here? US companies that have US attitudes to the rights of non-US citizens (i.e. as far as they're concerned, if we're not US citizens, then we're the Third World, and so have no rights - we're simply there to be exploited for the profit of shareholders) operating with impunity in the UK because our government is in their pocket. Pass the foil hat...
PeteTheMusicGuy
31-03-2008, 11:37
Sounds like VM have put this one out to keep the BPI and Govt off them. I mean I cannot see them going after everyone who uses Torrents P2P etc. It's not in their interest as they will loose far too many customers.
They will probby only go after the real bandwith hogs who DL 100s of gigs a month. I honestly cant see them hitting you for getting a few files from your mate via MSN :)
The people losing out to the millions in lost revenue think people kicked off their ISP will go back to visiting their local music store and purchase that overpriced CD, like the good old fashioned way?
I mean they're putting the fact that they have lost millions to illegal downloads, its not something I dispute to an extent but come on, there has been a trend over the last so many years of manufactured crap in the music charts. Surely this has to attribute to poor CD sales?
hmm, so heres your answer then, the Virgin Media's board/masters in the US have been listening to their U.S. Attorney General Says Piracy Leads to Terrorism
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/US-Attorney-General-Says-Piracy-Leads-to-Terrorism-93129
That's not the first time I have heard that. While I worked for Blockbuster, every couple of months, we'd get posters from FACT telling us that Piracy (and bootleg traders) was funding the IRA/Al Quaeda/Eta/any random terrorist group you care to mention.
While I can see that they might get funding from bootleg DVD/CD sales, they won't (directly) get funding from downloads. Unless they either charge for them (possible) or burn them to DVD and sell the DVDs (also possible).
Yeah I heard this a while back on the news, it’s just a load of rubbish! If they go ahead and track everyone it will
a. Make 6 million people criminals
b. Simply make people encrypt everything they send so it can’t be recognised
c. And Isn’t it against our privacy right? NO ONE has the right to come into my home, which includes what I download and do with the internet.
Actually, I believe if they can demonstrate reasonable suspicion that you are doing wrong, Customs do have the right to do this, although it's often easier if they obtain a warrant.
The people losing out to the millions in lost revenue think people kicked off their ISP will go back to visiting their local music store and purchase that overpriced CD, like the good old fashioned way?
I mean they're putting the fact that they have lost millions to illegal downloads, its not something I dispute to an extent but come on, there has been a trend over the last so many years of manufactured crap in the music charts. Surely this has to attribute to poor CD sales?
I personally believe that the current state of the music is due to many things. Undoubtably, Piracy doesn't help, but I don't believe it's the problem that it has been made out to be. It would seem that CapGemini agrees with us: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/19/vrs_value_gap_report/
I won't go into detail here (I have done a few times on this forum, and to do so would be a little off topic) but I believe that part of the problem is the formula music you talk about, and the fact that any halfway decent (or even sellable) single will appear on a compilation at some point. Why would people spend £1.99 - £3.99 for maybe 5 songs (at a stretch) when they can spend £15 and get nearly 50 songs?
brundles
31-03-2008, 12:37
The people losing out to the millions in lost revenue think people kicked off their ISP will go back to visiting their local music store and purchase that overpriced CD, like the good old fashioned way?
I mean they're putting the fact that they have lost millions to illegal downloads, its not something I dispute to an extent but come on, there has been a trend over the last so many years of manufactured crap in the music charts. Surely this has to attribute to poor CD sales?
Well said :tu:
Not to mention the fact they seem to try correlating download volume directly to lost sales - completely ignoring the fact that people may download 10 albums but would never have bought 10 in the first place.
Well said :tu:
Not to mention the fact they seem to try correlating download volume directly to lost sales - completely ignoring the fact that people may download 10 albums but would never have bought 10 in the first place.
While I philosophically agree with you, would you support that proposition for a burglar (when they took stuff from my house, they took stuff they wouldn't normally be interested in, but since it was there, they took it anyway) ;)
Markly Darkly
31-03-2008, 12:46
I guess you can argue as much as you like about why people download illegally but, at the end of the day, it is illegal, so their really is no argument against it being stopped, and those who do it taking the consequences.
I guess you can argue as much as you like about why people download illegally but, at the end of the day, it is illegal, so their really is no argument against it being stopped, and those who do it taking the consequences.
http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:Jmcx5USxZNE24M:http://web.mit.edu/songwriting/www/talkingheads.jpg (http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://web.mit.edu/songwriting/www/talkingheads.jpg&imgrefurl=http://web.mit.edu/songwriting/www/swc_archives.html&h=669&w=861&sz=59&hl=en&start=9&sig2=bc4PDXlMyQLGF3Ie8ihNBg&tbnid=Jmcx5USxZNE24M:&tbnh=113&tbnw=145&ei=cc_wR768C6bCwwHukIwV&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dstop%2Bmaking%2Bsense%2B%26gbv%3D2%26 hl%3Den)
:D
I would like to know how they are going to tell if you are downloading a music file, or watching a stream from a site. The reason for this is lots of singers & groups have either music videos & or songs streaming from their sites.
Theres more to this than what meets the eye, imo. What happens if you're using a cloned cable modem? :cool:
crazymaniac
31-03-2008, 13:41
Overall, there is always a way around everything. Ask any cracker/hacker.
What the music industry need to do is not blamethier business models on how they sell entertainment to people.
This world we live in is an ever changing one, new inventions and devices change the way we live and how we run our lives. They need to change their ways if they want to combat this obviously popular culture of poeple downloading music/films.
Even SONY have got caught recently with their hand in the piracy cookie jar (Slashdot link) (http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/03/30/1856232&from=rss)
Original link (http://www.01net.com/editorial/374727/la-major-sony-bmg-poursuivie-pour-contrefacon-de-logiciel/)
Google translation of French original (http://209.85.135.104/translate_c?hl=en&langpair=fr%7Cen&u=http://www.01net.com/editorial/374727/la-major-sony-bmg-poursuivie-pour-contrefacon-de-logiciel/)
I guess you can argue as much as you like about why people download illegally but, at the end of the day, it is illegal, so their really is no argument against it being stopped, and those who do it taking the consequences.
True, and I wasn't arguing against these efforts, merely arguing that it will not solve the record companies' problems.
I would like to know how they are going to tell if you are downloading a music file, or watching a stream from a site. The reason for this is lots of singers & groups have either music videos & or songs streaming from their sites.
Two ways I can think of. One is to use a system similar to Phorm's Webwise to monitor what you look at. This may actually be illegal though, but we already have a thread for Phorm, so I don't want any discussion on that subject here.
The other (and easier) way, and something the companies have actually done in the past is to set up special P2P machines. These machines appear to contain lots of music, and lots of films, but will track the IP of anyone who attempts to download from them. They may also look at what anyone downloading from them is sharing.
This works because p2p clients (including Torrent clients) will share the folder they download to, by default. Even if you move the download to another (unshared) folder when it finishes, it will still be shared while it is being downloaded.
I am not entirely sure how, without legal action, they would be able to monitor Newsgroups.
grubbymitts
31-03-2008, 14:38
The powers that be use the term "downloading" because everyone knows that term. It's the term that's used throughout the media when discussing piracy. What the BPI will really be after are the uploaders. Cut off the head and all those nasty downloaders lose their fix.
How will they do this?
Well, seen as torrents are the biggest P2P system at the moment and your IP is broadcast for all to see it is obvious to me that the BPI will simply watch a swarm (they can join a swarm and not actively upload or download - they can just use dummy files) and any UK IP addresses that pop up from the VM range will be reported. VM may then watch this IP address to see if any other naughtiness goes on and send out the letters.
Really, it is only going to affect those idiots in the UK who feel that they need to share and download terabytes of information. Really, you can't watch all those movies, listen to all those songs or play all those games in your lifetime. Just be sensible.
Of course, VM do need to be proactive in getting rid of the cancer that is the cloned modem problem. Innocent people may end up being cut off due to VM's inefficiency.
While I philosophically agree with you, would you support that proposition for a burglar (when they took stuff from my house, they took stuff they wouldn't normally be interested in, but since it was there, they took it anyway) ;)
Another analogy would be people who stand and read the books in Waterstones without paying the author or publisher. If all the book-buying public did that, the authors would be bankrupt.
Of course, after browsing a chapter or two from a couple of books, they might decided to buy them but, by reading them without contributing to somebody's coffers, they're copyright pirates!
Would bookshops survive if all the books were shrink-wrapped?
In reading this thread I'm beginning to wonder if VM have finally lost their marbles. It's bad enough that (as an ISP) VM provide a questionable service with regard to download speeds (regularly reported through this forum) but are the customers now expected (through their subscriptions) to fund a 24/7 surveillance on their activities as well.? :erm:
Now let's see what all that adds up to:
1) Questionable service.
2) No privacy, with regard to personal data being sold to third parties.
3) Restrictions with regard to the content that people can download.
Doesn't look very good, does it? So in reality if you're on the XL service then there's little point in having fast download speeds, as there will be nothing (deemed by VM as allowable) worth downloading. This being the case, VM's current XL customer base is very likely to downgrade to the cheaper options available, as there's no need for the high speed just for browsing. :erm:
How about that for cutting off your nose to spite your face - really intelligent business sense! It obvious that VM's arrogance with regard to their customers is really coming to the fore by the way that their pussing their luck. I bet if the government were to issue a notice of de regulation with regard to the cable network (like they did with BT on their franchise), VM would soon wake up and smell the coffee. :mad:
Now there's a thought!;)
Si thee
crazymaniac
31-03-2008, 15:05
In reading this thread I'm beginning to wonder if VM have finally lost their marbles. It's bad enough that (as an ISP) VM provide a questionable service with regard to download speeds (regularly reported through this forum) but are the customers now expected (through their subscriptions) to fund a 24/7 surveillance on their activities as well.? :erm:
Now let's see what all that adds up to:
1) Questionable service.
2) No privacy, with regard to personal data being sold to third parties.
3) Restrictions with regard to the content that people can download.
Doesn't look very good, does it? So in reality if you're on the XL service then there's little point in having fast download speeds, as there will be nothing (deemed by VM as allowable) worth downloading. This being the case, VM's current XL customer base is very likely to downgrade to the cheaper options available, as there's no need for the high speed just for browsing. :erm:
How about that for cutting off your nose to spite your face - really intelligent business sense! It obvious that VM's arrogance with regard to their customers is really coming to the fore by the way that their pussing their luck. I bet if the government were to issue a notice of de regulation with regard to the cable network (like they did with BT on their franchise), VM would soon wake up and smell the coffee. :mad:
Now there's a thought!;)
Si thee
So true about the download speeds... why would you now need a fast download speed if theres nothing to download :S
brundles
31-03-2008, 15:22
While I philosophically agree with you, would you support that proposition for a burglar (when they took stuff from my house, they took stuff they wouldn't normally be interested in, but since it was there, they took it anyway) ;)
Unless I misunderstand you (quite possible!), I think the theory still applies. Just because the burglar steals from you because it's there doesn't mean they would buy it themselves otherwise.
I'm not saying that it excuses even pinching one bit, but it just irritates me when the record companies harp on about lost revenue based on estimated download figures when they know full well that they'd only get a fraction of that revenue figure if there were no downloads anyway.
Re: Illegal File Sharing - Three Strike Rule
In reading this thread I'm beginning to wonder if VM have finally lost their marbles. It's bad enough that (as an ISP) VM provide a questionable service with regard to download speeds (regularly reported through this forum) but are the customers now expected (through their subscriptions) to fund a 24/7 surveillance on their activities as well.?
Now let's see what all that adds up to:
1) Questionable service.
2) No privacy, with regard to personal data being sold to third parties.
3) Restrictions with regard to the content that people can download.
Doesn't look very good, does it? So in reality if you're on the XL service then there's little point in having fast download speeds, as there will be nothing (deemed by VM as allowable) worth downloading. This being the case, VM's current XL customer base is very likely to downgrade to the cheaper options available, as there's no need for the high speed just for browsing.
How about that for cutting off your nose to spite your face - really intelligent business sense! It obvious that VM's arrogance with regard to their customers is really coming to the fore by the way that their pussing their luck. I bet if the government were to issue a notice of de regulation with regard to the cable network (like they did with BT on their franchise), VM would soon wake up and smell the coffee.
Now there's a thought!
Si thee
While these new developments do indeed make a mockery of offering 20meg,m from a revenue perspective, remember that 1 XL package at 20meg is only £37 while 2 L packages at 10meg (post upgrade!) each is £50. Of course that doesn't necessarily correlate to profit or take into account the people that would downgrade from the £37 package to the £25 one there is (possibly!) some form of logic involved.
Another analogy would be people who stand and read the books in Waterstones without paying the author or publisher. If all the book-buying public did that, the authors would be bankrupt.
Of course, after browsing a chapter or two from a couple of books, they might decided to buy them but, by reading them without contributing to somebody's coffers, they're copyright pirates!
Would bookshops survive if all the books were shrink-wrapped?
I think that analogy would be more accurate if the "browsers" were scanning/photocopying the books in Waterstones, to take the complete copies home with them - would that be allowed? ;)
arcamalpha2004
31-03-2008, 16:05
This idea is so flawed it is unbelievable.
They could not prove 100% that it was a customer who had downloaded the files, particularly when someone is parked in a car outside using a laptop.
Apart from which there are rights to privacy issues.
---------- Post added at 16:02 ---------- Previous post was at 16:00 ----------
I guess you can argue as much as you like about why people download illegally but, at the end of the day, it is illegal, so their really is no argument against it being stopped, and those who do it taking the consequences.
Ofcourse, as long as the ones " doing it " are not the customers not doing it.
The idea is very flawed.
---------- Post added at 16:05 ---------- Previous post was at 16:02 ----------
Another analogy would be people who stand and read the books in Waterstones without paying the author or publisher. If all the book-buying public did that, the authors would be bankrupt.
Of course, after browsing a chapter or two from a couple of books, they might decided to buy them but, by reading them without contributing to somebody's coffers, they're copyright pirates!
Would bookshops survive if all the books were shrink-wrapped?
Who do you think that guy is in the dark glasses looking over your shoulder at what you're reading.
;)
This idea is so flawed it is unbelievable.
They could not prove 100% that it was a customer who had downloaded the files, particularly when someone is parked in a car outside using a laptop.
Apart from which there are rights to privacy issues.
Also, the customer's mac address could have been traded 5 miles down the road and the cloners were downloading using the customer's mac address. They have no case, period.
Theres more to this than what meets the eye, imo. What happens if you're using a cloned cable modem? :cool:
According to Virgin Media there is now no such thing as a cloned modem. :LOL:
---------- Post added at 17:01 ---------- Previous post was at 16:58 ----------
This idea is so flawed it is unbelievable.
They could not prove 100% that it was a customer who had downloaded the files, particularly when someone is parked in a car outside using a laptop.
If a user is so stupid as to leave his connection unsecured then they deserve to be fined for being STUPID.
According to Virgin Media there is now no such thing as a cloned modem. :LOL:
Next VM will be saying there's no such thing as
https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2011/03/38.gif
Kymmy
arcamalpha2004
31-03-2008, 17:04
Would be far easier to charge less for the original material thus cutting into the need for " illegal " copies.
Interesting to read yesterday that Tesco apparently want their suppliers of music and dvd's to sell to them at a lower price, no mention of this cut being passed onto joe public mind :erm:
Also, the customer's mac address could have been traded 5 miles down the road and the cloners were downloading using the customer's mac address. They have no case, period.
They can detect which UBR and cmts card the download was done from as the modems will have different ip address's but the same macc address.. Then see which ubr and cmts card relates to the real customer. If it relates to the real customer then BAM they have you. Long winded but they CAN and HAVE done it.
---------- Post added at 17:08 ---------- Previous post was at 17:05 ----------
Next VM will be saying there's no such thing as
https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2011/03/38.gif
Kymmy
Love the flying pig :LOL:
arcamalpha2004
31-03-2008, 17:10
According to Virgin Media there is now no such thing as a cloned modem. :LOL:
---------- Post added at 17:01 ---------- Previous post was at 16:58 ----------
If a user is so stupid as to leave his connection unsecured then they deserve to be fined for being STUPID.
Sorry that is a different scenario.
So are you saying that the snoops will have you either way? if you illegally download on a secure system you will be done, if it is proven to be you.
And also, if there is illegal downloading done it doesnt matter that somebody has been piggy backing your connection we will do you anyway because you should have secured your connection.
:rolleyes:
---------- Post added at 17:10 ---------- Previous post was at 17:09 ----------
They can detect which UBR and cmts card the download was done from as the modems will have different ip address's but the same macc address.. Then see which ubr and cmts card relates to the real customer. If it relates to the real customer then BAM they have you. Long winded but they CAN and HAVE done it.
---------- Post added at 17:08 ---------- Previous post was at 17:05 ----------
Love the flying pig :LOL:
Can you point to any cases recently in your above quote?
Sorry that is a different scenario.
So are you saying that the snoops will have you either way? if you illegally download on a secure system you will be done, if it is proven to be you.
And also, if there is illegal downloading done it doesnt matter that somebody has been piggy backing your connection we will do you anyway because you should have secured your connection.
:rolleyes:
---------- Post added at 17:10 ---------- Previous post was at 17:09 ----------
Can you point to any cases recently in your above quote?
My point is that anyone that is stupid enough to leave a wireless connection wide open deserves everything they bloody well get. I would be embarrassed to admit i left a wireless connection wide open to the world and his brother. :rolleyes:
I download my self so i know what the risks are. I try to limit those risks by using secured connections and NEVER ever downloading from a torrent site that is not very very private.
---------- Post added at 17:18 ---------- Previous post was at 17:15 ----------
Can you point to any cases recently in your above quote?
No
Reason is that they were private conversations between me and a Senior Core network engineer in Virgin Media.
You can care not to believe me i dont really give a toss. Suffice to say it has happened end of story
Members of staff have been reprimanded for posting on this forum about cloned modems from within VM and i have no intention of getting a member of staff who works for VirginMedia into trouble over cloned modems.
Would be far easier to charge less for the original material thus cutting into the need for " illegal " copies.
It doesn't work that way. Radiohead allowed people to download their last album for free. People still pirated it..
Interesting to read yesterday that Tesco apparently want their suppliers of music and dvd's to sell to them at a lower price, no mention of this cut being passed onto joe public mind :erm:
Supermarkets do this with everything they sell. Even to the point of bankrupting the suppliers. Ask Homealone or Nugget.
TraxData
31-03-2008, 17:46
No
Reason is that they were private conversations between me and a Senior Core network engineer in Virgin Media.
You can care not to believe me i dont really give a toss. Suffice to say it has happened end of story
Members of staff have been reprimanded for posting on this forum about cloned modems from within VM and i have no intention of getting a member of staff who works for VirginMedia into trouble over cloned modems.
I know which cases your talking about, and there have been quite a few instances where they have caught people using 6-7 modems per household using the methods you mentioned, quite a few techs got fired for selling the modems as well.
Unfortunetly for VM since the introduction of STM (mistake 1), Phorm (Mistake 2) and now the 3 strike rule (really stupid mistake) the amount of cloners on the network have shot up MUCH higher than it was before, and now that they have got 50mbit already hacked and working using specific setups, VM are gonna be in for a rough ride.
I think that analogy would be more accurate if the "browsers" were scanning/photocopying the books in Waterstones, to take the complete copies home with them - would that be allowed? ;)
hehe
I guess it depends on the branch. I'll give it a go tomorrow and, if I'm still free, I'll let you know...
:)
Just when you think virgin couldnt get any worse bam they hit you with another dumb idea for a company that supplys broadband in the 21st century there thinking like a dial up company of days gone by, 1 speed forward 10 years backward hurry and implement phorm so i can leave under breach had enough.
They can detect which UBR and cmts card the download was done from as the modems will have different ip address's but the same macc address.. Then see which ubr and cmts card relates to the real customer. If it relates to the real customer then BAM they have you. Long winded but they CAN and HAVE done it.
Good point.
Consider this:
The legitimate customer wants to reduce his carbon foot print, so he switches his modem off at 8pm and switches it back on at 4pm next day, during the off period the cloner (few doors down the road) kicks in the same ubr with the customers mac. What's wrong with this scenario?
What I am trying to say, NTL cannot identify the illegal downloader for sure, no?
And the likelyhood of this is? :erm:
Anyway, in a civil case, the standard of proof is the "balance of probabilities", not 100% proof.
A question........................
If I set up a server that pretended to be a legitimate part of an application - but what it actually did was harvest information that I could then take and use for another purpose, would I be committing a crime under some kind of computer misuse act?
If I advertised something physically like free food or free drinks, yet filmed everyones car, took there number plate and then obtained addresses and then used that information for other purposes - do you think the police would come calling !!!
just a thought !!!
xspeedyx
31-03-2008, 18:44
I doubt this will happen, they already do this but havent announced it, I for one will just use IRC and maybe when I can get use to them newsgroups
Ok this might work for downloading MOVIES and SOFTWARE
But music, It wont work
HEre is why
www.VDownloader.es
Download VDownloader programme which allows you to remove any video from youtube you want and rip it into MP3 of any popular media format
So teachnically it would show up to virgin like your just browsing the website as your only downloading the FLV file and then converting it.
But thats so long that YOUTUBE dont crack down on the PIRACY thing
Is that software illegal?
No its just allowing you to obtain the FLV file to videos uploaded by the public such has homemade videos etc, Its YOUTUBE who are in breach of copyright since they have the material copied on to their servers. It only becomes illegal for you when you use that programme to download the music videos illegally uploaded by others.
I hate to think Virgin Media have been having meetings and planning about this for months only to find I have ruined it for them in a matter of 5 minutes
Good point.
Consider this:
The legitimate customer wants to reduce his carbon foot print, so he switches his modem off at 8pm and switches it back on at 4pm next day, during the off period the cloner (few doors down the road) kicks in the same ubr with the customers mac. What's wrong with this scenario?
What I am trying to say, NTL cannot identify the illegal downloader for sure, no?
And what if at the same time a cow jumped over the moon and there was the second coming of The Great Prophet Zarquon. We can debate what if all day. The real point is if you file share you stand a chance of having your bottom spanked :LOL:
And YouTube is such high quality......;)
brundles
31-03-2008, 18:53
A question........................
If I set up a server that pretended to be a legitimate part of an application - but what it actually did was harvest information that I could then take and use for another purpose, would I be committing a crime under some kind of computer misuse act?
just a thought !!!
You're not suggesting entrapment are you? In this case it wouldn't work - the whole point is that the BPI/RIAA aren't actually setting up their own server - just joining publicly available file sharing networks. They will be downloading and uploading to get the IPs but they're not (directly) providing the source material.
And a cloner posted:
(The three Strike Rule) might be a good way to get out of a 12 month contract lol!
Nose, spite, face, cut-off - springs to mind.
And cloner posted:
Might, but might not work
Since the contratc states you must not use the services for illegal activities. Therefore you breached your contract and because you made a commitment to obey by the contract whilst also staying with them for a minimum of 12 months or you will have to pay for the services for the equivelent time
Then they might just forcefully shut off your services and charge you the amounts due, failing that pass it to debt collectors etc (usual route)
xspeedyx
31-03-2008, 19:45
can they track you on irc servers?
can they track you on irc servers?
I believe they will monitor the bit rates and probably the source from where the data is coming from. If its coming from a reputable site that includes purchases etc then trey will probably ignore it as being legit
But IRC, Bearshare, Kazaa (if any one uses it still), etc will have IP numbers as the source etc
The Hitman
31-03-2008, 19:55
How will newsgroups be turned off?
Andrewcrawford23
31-03-2008, 20:03
Well i was already thinking of way to get away from Phorm but now i think i will go down server encryption and VPN Tunnels and rpoxys to get round it, will really need to use my brain for first time in ages ;) lol Virgin the brain movign people. but on more serious note they are goign to far in fact they are breaching human rights, data protection and god knwo what else now the eurpeon court of law has already ruled against a eurpeon isp who where doign similar and ruled it illegal as they have no right to pass on customers details withou there permission regardless if the cusotmer is doign illegal activites unless there is a court order
1. It wasn't me, my wifi was hacked
2. It wasn't me, you got the wrong name to go with that IP address
3. It wasn't me, my MAC has been cloned
4. It wasn't me, my PC was infected with a trojan
5. It wasn't me, I run a Tor node
6. It was a legal download
7. I'll sign up for a cheap VPN service anyway
8. If you disconnect me I'll sue you in court for falsely accusing me of a crime and libel
9. Copyright infringement is a civil offence, so you had better sue me as well and have the evidence to prove it
10. People will just move to another ISP. If you try to ban them from all ISPs, people will definitely sue you.
11. These are just pathetic scare tactics
Andrewcrawford23
31-03-2008, 20:20
true it is scare tactics but if they are giving customer details to them then it a illegal, it different if they are askign for the customer details to which they have ot make sure it is them, but even then they will have to have it legeally bidningthey cant give customer details out without there permission
i am all for legal stuff but at a fair price anda decent time scale and in video and audio case restored to the best it cna be
true it is scare tactics but if they are giving customer details to them then it a illegal, it different if they are askign for the customer details to which they have ot make sure it is them, but even then they will have to have it legeally bidningthey cant give customer details out without there permission
i am all for legal stuff but at a fair price anda decent time scale and in video and audio case restored to the best it cna be
Not if there is a court order given. Linky (http://community.plus.net/blog/2007/11/28/file-sharing-letters/http://)
"Amongst its powers under RIPA, the High Court can request from an ISP details about particular customers.
We have recently been requested to provide such details as part of an investigation by the game publisher Codemasters. They allege that a number of our customers and, from what we understand, customers of other ISPs, have downloaded and/or uploaded Codemasters’ software without their permission. They have provided the results of their investigation to an English court and that court has been satisfied that the information provided is sufficient to request details from the ISPs."
1. It wasn't me, my wifi was hacked
Its your responsibility to ensure it was secure, just like
If some one used your pc to download child pornography and the police found it on your PC.
You would be charged, its not down to the person who reported the crime to prove it was some one else but you since you would be making the allegation it was your friend or 3rd party user.
Plus as its your equipment your responsible for it at all times, similar to a car parked on a hill, if your breaks arent strong enough and give way and damage x y z cars on the way and kill a child, you would be responsible, even if you wasnt behind the wheel of the car when it happened, because you failed to maintain your car correctly
2. It wasn't me, you got the wrong name to go with that IP address
I cant see that one working personally, but if you think its that simple go ahead lol
3. It wasn't me, my MAC has been cloned
Its not down to Virgin Media to prove your MAC wasnt cloned, its your allegation therefore you must prove that its true, they will have the facts to show the download usage
4. It wasn't me, my PC was infected with a trojan
As part of your terms and conditions its your responsibility to ensure your adequately protected against viruses, trojans and malicous scripting. Your pc can also be requested for evidance to confirm there is a trojan, you will then be expected to have the content there, should you use a Hard Drive cleaner then you will look suspicious, and then be made to prove it to the courts not to Virgin Media that you once had a trojan and why you used a HD cleaner
Also why would a trojan be used to store the music on your hard drive, instead of the person behind the trojan, would it not make more scence to directly obtain the data to the individuals PC
Dont get confused with stealing data from individuals hard drives to copyright, either way the traffic being downloaded from your PC or uploaded to the Hosts PC will show on the system, so unless you have been hijacked to just download music to your pc without benefiting the host then your making your self look foolish in court and digging a hole
5. It wasn't me, I run a Tor node
Questions as to why and evidance will be asked of you. VM will just present the courts if it was to go to that stage with evidance of your download, your IP and times and compare that to the HD image
6. It was a legal download
You will be asked to provide evidance in court of which sites you used and receipts for your purchase / bank statements showing payments made to the company to make it a legal download, its common knowledge that getting music downloads for free is illegal and ignorance is not acceptable excuse in the eyes of the law
7. I'll sign up for a cheap VPN service anyway
N/C
8. If you disconnect me I'll sue you in court for falsely accusing me of a crime and libel
It will be them that will show your activities online, can compare your HD image and if using software designed to destroy your deleted files images then you will be asked further into why you felt the need to use that type of software, further more in your terms and conditions it does mention you shall not use the services for malicious, abusive, harrasing or illegal purposes (Illegal includes copyright infringements), therefore you will need to provide evidence to the contrary to their logs and information.
9. Copyright infringement is a civil offence, so you had better sue me as well and have the evidence to prove it
They would do, there not just going to go in at it guns ablaze, they have a legal team behind them bigger than any one you and i can afford, they have a press team they closely involved with the legal team before they go out and make these media arguments
And considering they have the Governments support (since they also are working to tackle the issue)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7258437.stm
Plus there is a reason why its 3 strikes and your out and not immediate action so they can go to the courts and say
Well on X date this person downloaded in 1 go X amount of MBs or GBs
Compared to the average user who uses only X amount of MBs a day / GB
We filter out 98% of known sites bla bla bla that are excluded from this list
This person had this IP registered to their name at the time (using a proxy still has to go via the original IP, that will only fool the 3rd party websites not the ISP)
This is our evidance, what is yours to state its not you?
If you come out with "Its not me i dont know what it is"
They will probably ask permission (Not virgin media) but the courts to cease your equipment and have it checked. If its found to have traces of the documents and stored on the hard drive at the dates and times matching with the ISP your gonna have a problem to prove otherwise.
10. People will just move to another ISP. If you try to ban them from all ISPs, people will definitely sue you.
Virgin Media wouldnt blacklist you, they would just remove you from their services but dare not say other ISPs will be taking the same approach as Virgin Media otherwise music industries and gorvernment will take a closer look at these ISP providers to query why there opting out of technology and action that AIDS the legal purchase of music, software and videos
11. These are just pathetic scare tactics
No they did do it back in 2005 where BT, Tiscalli and few others where involved
(Did try to locate the link but unable to find it, it was on the BBC news website) where 5 ISPS where instructed to pass on information on a set number of customers who may be suspicious of piracy, Telewest broadband I dont believe was one of them at the time as it wasnt listed on the BBC news article but it turned out to be a sucess.
Probably where this stems from
This has been talked about before, and now looks like becoming a reality.Indeed we've talked about this once or twice before...and unfortunately I believe it will become a reality too.an interesting new development adding yet more fuel to the fire,dont VM want to make any profits this year?It's exactly for THAT reason and no other, which is why VM will do this.
Would be far easier to charge less for the original material thus cutting into the need for " illegal " copies.I agree fully, but I think it will be some time before we get sensible prices, but it will come. There is no way everyone is going to pay £1.99 each time for a downloaded tv episode.
------
Just as a reminder... here's my post from exactly two years ago on this subject. Some people thought it was funny at that time:
Believe me, ntl's bosses are very aware they need to make money...This is how they're going to do it, I think...The legal downloading of film/tv and other content, for a fee, from ntl's own systems using bittorrent or such like system. Which has already been publicly announced. Of course to free up bandwith, those pesky folk illegally downloading stuff needs to be controlled a bit more than as is now. I'm whiter than white on this issue of course..:)
The question is, if people are getting stuff for free now, would they pay for it in the future? Perhaps that's why a "nudge" is needed now to turn people away from the dark side and into the paying light:)Link here to the thread in which this was originally being discussed:
http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/12/45320-traffic-shaping-page-6.html#post718043
If the company I work for can tell what I am downloading from where.
ISPs can most definately tell.
Andrewcrawford23
31-03-2008, 21:13
Not if there is a court order given. Linky (http://community.plus.net/blog/2007/11/28/file-sharing-letters/http://)
"Amongst its powers under RIPA, the High Court can request from an ISP details about particular customers.
We have recently been requested to provide such details as part of an investigation by the game publisher Codemasters. They allege that a number of our customers and, from what we understand, customers of other ISPs, have downloaded and/or uploaded Codemasters’ software without their permission. They have provided the results of their investigation to an English court and that court has been satisfied that the information provided is sufficient to request details from the ISPs."
point is ther eis no court order, fair enoguh if they get a court order you cant do anything if they giv eit without one then they are
---------- Post added at 21:13 ---------- Previous post was at 21:12 ----------
If the company I work for can tell what I am downloading from where.
ISPs can most definately tell.
With the right entwork toosl you can inspect ever packet that pass through your netwokr it what i have to do at times, but you have to have legal grounds and suspiosn to do it and it have to be in the person contract
You said
true it is scare tactics but if they are giving customer details to them then it a illegal, it different if they are askign for the customer details to which they have ot make sure it is them, but even then they will have to have it legeally bidningthey cant give customer details out without there permission
i am all for legal stuff but at a fair price anda decent time scale and in video and audio case restored to the best it cna be
I stated not if they get a court order; then you said
point is ther eis no court order, fair enoguh if they get a court order you cant do anything if they giv eit without one then they are
erm, yes - that would be the point of getting the court order, surely, to make VM give up the details.:erm:
There's a lot of people in this thread assuming VM will actively monitor customers connections which I doubt will be the case. Do you really think they will spend any money on hardware for that, not to mention manpower when the only outcome would be losing customers? They'd probably lose a quarter if not more of their broadband customer base if that were to happen.
If I'm wrong please enlighten me.
I can understand the debate that is going on in his thread, but to me, the biggest concern is yet more monitoring of the public and loss of liberty.
I am sure this will happen, and I am sure guilty and innocent people will suffer with no recourse whatsoever.
This is yet another way to spy on individuals.
There will be many work arounds springing up when this happens, which will no doubt result in innocent people getting banned for what others will be doing, but at the end of the day, it is us who are allowing this.
I run a "rough Justice" type site, (I am not pushing it so will not post the web address), and I can assure you, compared to other things that are going on, this is just another extension of controlling the masses, with no real way to complain, (have you ever written to anyone in the government?) we have already allowed control to pass from our hands.
grubbymitts
31-03-2008, 21:46
simple maths makes this seem like VM will be providing lip service only. Say the BPI catch 1000 VM subscribers downloading a few popular cds. They alert VM who send out the warnings and later after the third warning disconnect them. If they are all on 4 - 20mb lines then VM will be losing £25-37K a month. In ten months it is over 1/4 million in lost revenue. They only have to cut off 4000 people to lose over a million a year. Eventually VM will start telling the BPI that they require compensation for this loss of earnings.
The wonder of capitalism - the beasts will turn on each other and begin to devour each other until the whole idea of ISPs policing their own networks will be thrown out as unworkable.
munkyboy04
31-03-2008, 21:49
problem solved.
BPI wont be able to moniter you if you register here
http://www.btguard.com/
problem solved.
BPI wont be able to moniter you if you register here
http://www.btguard.com/
Dead link from a 1st time poster - whodathunk.
Cobbydaler
31-03-2008, 22:04
Umm, Not a dead link for me, but it's a paid for service at £3.80 a month...
GraphiX2004
31-03-2008, 22:07
wow someone who's been here for that long doesnt know how to click a link?
be it a first time poster or not you might wanna re-fresh the browser
the link works fine, its basically a VPN service which to me looks great
but looks like its been designed by a 4yr old so it wont gain any users no doubt.
As for blasting 1st time posters and shooting your mouth off
don't you feel stupid now? that you didn't have the common sense to "click again"
lol at least the guy who posted it knows how to "get to" the site unlike you.
As for this 3 kicks policy it's amazing just how stupid an isp really is.
give us all 20mbit/50mbit lines which costs alot of money a month and then find
if we try to use them for what they are actually designed and provided to us for
we get kicked ... and still to this day VM offers not a single service for downloading lol
it's a weird world we live in like being provided with a cable box and then being
told if we use it or watch it we have the chance of being kick off
here's what should happen from a common sense point of view.
kicking 4 million people of a isp because of the bpi isn't going to encourage
them people who's now lost their Internet to then go and start giving money to
the people who's lost them their Internet are they
1. VM should provide the downloading service of every type of content free
without drm without restrictions otherwise if they cant do it and its the public
who's saying since they cant offer us the service we'll take it into our own hands.
basically back to the point what is the point in 20mb/50mb lines if we cant use them?
they are providing the lines and the service but not supplying anything for us to use their service on?
so when we take matters into our own hands and find a reason and content to use the service on.
were then told we can't use their service to get what they should be supplying in the first place?
sheer madness if i was a isp and supplying users with a 20/50mbit contract a month
i would then include a content service so they'd actually have a god damn use for their 20mb/50mb lines
why has no-one who's paying this subscription every single month actually said anything about this?
if you cant use your 20/50 lines for anything and have no way of using them for what they was designed for
because VM doesn't provide any content at all so you can make use of your lines why do you keep paying?
we can all read emails and websites perfectly fast on a 1mb line so why do they push 20/50? if once you got it
you have nothing legally you can use it on?
grubbymitts
31-03-2008, 22:09
basically back to the point what is the point in 20mb/50mb lines if we cant use them?
To download streamed media provided legally by VM in the future for a fixed price, perhaps?
themelon
31-03-2008, 22:11
The BPI or whatever pointless waste of space organisation (probably the real music industry profit suckers, with over paid busy bodies pen pushing) will shoot themselves in the foot with this kind of idiotic move.
There was a time when I used to download albums decide if I like them and then buy them if I liked them. If I didnt like them I would delete them no point wasting space. The quality of a proper CD professionally made CD will always be better than an MP3 burnt to disc or on an MP3 Player and I and I am sure many others will always buy albums from their favourite artists no matter what when they can afford it.
In the past I have brought albums that were crap, and never listened to them again, wasting £10 or more.
Unless the music industry brings in a 'PROPER' evaluation service (no crap quality 10 second clips) then they will lose out to people like me if they enforce this rubbish as I will not waste £10+ of my hard earned cash on something that may or may not be rubbish, I just wont bother at all.
So what exactly can I use my 20Mbit/50Mbit line for then? Streaming videos/TV off the internet? Isn't that kind of the same thing?
Time to find a new ISP then.
GraphiX2004
31-03-2008, 22:18
so im paying for a 20mbit/50mbit line right now and for the past few years
just so at some point sometime into the future i might actually have a use for it?
o come on come back to earth the only reason we have them now is so
we can find our own content and download it 24/7 if we like
if their was no way or anything stoping us from doing this you really think
people would continue paying expensive line prices for something that they
may one day in the future be-able to use for what it was created for?
if VM offer a 20mbit/50mb or what ever connection then they should
give or offer a service where you can infact use what you've subscribed too.
if i subscribe to blockbusters or netflix and i found i wasn't allowed to
rent movies what the hell would be the point in signing up for it?
if i got a 20mbit/50mbit line then i best damn well be provided with
content or a reason to warrant me wanting or having a fast connection
i see alot of people here defending VM for what they've done or doing
but i dont see a single person actually asking for the one question to end them all
if VM is selling 20mbit or 50mbit lines to customers and offering them nothing what so ever to use them lines on.
then what are VM or any ISP doing selling us something that we have no use what so ever for?
why after all this time do we not have a legal or even a realistic reason to warrant having fast connections?
why is a service provider providing us with a service with nothing to use that "service" with of fear of everything
in the future you do with that service you risk getting warnings or terminated.
most of you on here are breaking copyrights in your avatars as they have come from somewhere.
so in fact you in turn regardless of what media ...you would in theory get letters for pictures/text
if this thing got a good hold, every website you loaded up is filled with copyrighted content in some form or other.
and a company as big as VM provide TV/Cable which is quite decent you pay for your package.
you get usage out of that package, but when you sign upto a broadband package you have nothing to use it with?
can anyone see the logic/
munkyboy04
31-03-2008, 22:31
What if you use Private Tracker's?
From what I can see the only way the BPI has of finding people's IP address is by entering a torrent swarm/Other P2P protocol and recording people IP address from in the swarm. which sounds worryingly easy. It is on a public tracker. but surley on a private tracker (i havnt checked this but i'm guessing) The BPI first have to get into the tracker then get the admins permmision to take the IP addy's to use. Im sure that it must be stated in the terms of use of the site that your not allowed to use the tracker if your an ******** BPIer and want to screw over other members.
So if I'm right if you use public trackers to download music will be the ones who get the letters from VM. and people on private trackers will be okay.
Also I read that better newgroup access was going to be offered if that the case anyone on VM will be okay. It goes into detail here http://torrentfreak.com/isp-to-voluntarily-disconnect-file-sharers-from-the-internet-080331/
if your not in a private tracker and want into one google "p2p talk"(i cant post the link) and register at the top link. there is a really good forum there where people will invite you if you want to.
Dead link from a 1st time poster - whodathunk.
Umm, Not a dead link for me, but it's a paid for service at £3.80 a month...
When I initially clicked on it, I got 404 (btw, I know a little about IT, what with being an IT Director and all ;) ).
So, where are they going to draw the line, then?
Most music videos/clips with music/tv clips on YouTube are uploaded without the copyright owner's permission. So every time you watch one you are infringing copyrights and as the law says it, downloading illegally. Are people going to get disconnected for that?
Of course, that relies on Virgin and/or YouTube tracking downloaders; not the BPI tracking then passing details onto Virgin. But what will they do about this kind of downloading? Just turn a blind eye to it (and presumably, other HTTP services) while disconnecting other customers for technically doing exactly the same thing?
As for the wireless network argument, yes you are stupid to leave your network unsecured, but using WEP encryption (which most people seem to do) is really no better. For someone who can be bothered, WEP is breakable in under 10 minutes, no matter what 128-bit key you use. I even broke the key on my home network to test this and it's completely true. You might say that there is no motivation for people to do this, but if the "three strike rule" becomes widespread among ISPs then why wouldn't there be a massive surge in WEP key cracking between neighbours' wireless connections?
I can see no benefit to VM at all in implementing this. They are essentially guaranteed to lose customers over it. They'd be better off blocking access to this illegal content with a message like "Sorry, you've been blocked from accessing this content as we'd have to report you to the BPI for it" rather than disconnecting their paying customers...
And what happened to EU Law (http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/01/eu-law-does-not-require)? I really have no clude what Virgin Media could have been thinking when they agreed to this deal.
Edit:
Also, not sure about this:
Plus as its your equipment your responsible for it at all times, similar to a car parked on a hill, if your breaks arent strong enough and give way and damage x y z cars on the way and kill a child, you would be responsible, even if you wasnt behind the wheel of the car when it happened, because you failed to maintain your car correctly
What if a vandal broke into your car though, released the handbrake, damaged a few cars and killed the child. Would you be held responsible then for not "securing your car correctly"? I don't think this is a very good analogy.
1. It wasn't me, my wifi was hacked
Its your responsibility to ensure it was secure, just like
If some one used your pc to download child pornography and the police found it on your PC.
You would be charged, its not down to the person who reported the crime to prove it was some one else but you since you would be making the allegation it was your friend or 3rd party user.
Plus as its your equipment your responsible for it at all times, similar to a car parked on a hill, if your breaks arent strong enough and give way and damage x y z cars on the way and kill a child, you would be responsible, even if you wasnt behind the wheel of the car when it happened, because you failed to maintain your car correctly
Actually, you are wrong on all three counts. If my wifi is hacked because my router only supports WEP, it's not my fault. It's like saying it's your fault if someone robs your house because you didn't fit better locks.
If someone uses your PC to download child porn, you are not automatically responsible. The person who did the downloading is. A man was cleared a couple of years ago on that very charge because his PC was infected with a trojan which he claimed did the downloading.
As for the car analogy, even then it's not clear cut. It is your responsibility, but if you had had the car serviced and MOTed the week before you could successfully argue that you had fulfilled your responsibility in maintaining the car, and the garage had failed in theirs.
2. It wasn't me, you got the wrong name to go with that IP address
I cant see that one working personally, but if you think its that simple go ahead lol
Courts in many countries around the world have repeatedly ruled that an IP address is not enough evidence to prove it was a specific person.
Also, the EU wants to make IP addresses personal information, with suitable protections.
3. It wasn't me, my MAC has been cloned
Its not down to Virgin Media to prove your MAC wasnt cloned, its your allegation therefore you must prove that its true, they will have the facts to show the download usage
Actually, no. In a court of law on a civil matter, it comes down to a balance of probabilities. Since cloning is demonstrably possible and apparently happens quite regularly, VM would have to show that you are lying. If they can't (and they can't) then there is no reason not to believe you, and you win.
4. It wasn't me, my PC was infected with a trojan
As part of your terms and conditions its your responsibility to ensure your adequately protected against viruses, trojans and malicous scripting. Your pc can also be requested for evidance to confirm there is a trojan, you will then be expected to have the content there, should you use a Hard Drive cleaner then you will look suspicious, and then be made to prove it to the courts not to Virgin Media that you once had a trojan and why you used a HD cleaner
Terms and conditions do not define the law. Also, they cannot request your PC as evidence in a civil case.
[/QUOTE]Also why would a trojan be used to store the music on your hard drive, instead of the person behind the trojan, would it not make more scence to directly obtain the data to the individuals PC[/QUOTE]
Some trojans download music or child porn to get the owner of the PC into trouble. I imagine more will be written to do just that now. Some give other people remote access, so they can use your PC for downloading. Remember, they don't know the music files are on your PC, or even which PC did the downloading. All they have is a screenshot of a BitTorrent client with what they claim was your IP address at the time connected to their PC and downloading the music.
Dont get confused with stealing data from individuals hard drives to copyright, either way the traffic being downloaded from your PC or uploaded to the Hosts PC will show on the system, so unless you have been hijacked to just download music to your pc without benefiting the host then your making your self look foolish in court and digging a hole
Actually, you seem to be the one who is confused. Copyright infringement is not a crime, not a criminal offence. It is a civil offence, and must be dealt with in civil (not criminal) court. The rules and standards are different.
5. It wasn't me, I run a Tor node
Questions as to why and evidance will be asked of you. VM will just present the courts if it was to go to that stage with evidance of your download, your IP and times and compare that to the HD image
They don't have the HD image, and running a Tor node is a completely legitimate activity.
6. It was a legal download
You will be asked to provide evidance in court of which sites you used and receipts for your purchase / bank statements showing payments made to the company to make it a legal download, its common knowledge that getting music downloads for free is illegal and ignorance is not acceptable excuse in the eyes of the law
Except some legal downloads are free, e.g. some NIN or Radiohead music. Lots of people put stuff on P2P for free.
Also, someone could simply rename "The Beatles - Penny Lane.torrent" to "NIN - Ghosts Part 1.torrent". You might not notice until the download was complete. As the victim of a scam, you would not be liable unless the BPI could prove you kept and listened to the music (obviously they can't).
7. I'll sign up for a cheap VPN service anyway
N/C
Exactly. Consider they are available for only 5 euros a month and that price will only fall, all the BPI are doing is setting up VPN companies to make more money.
8. If you disconnect me I'll sue you in court for falsely accusing me of a crime and libel
It will be them that will show your activities online, can compare your HD image and if using software designed to destroy your deleted files images then you will be asked further into why you felt the need to use that type of software, further more in your terms and conditions it does mention you shall not use the services for malicious, abusive, harrasing or illegal purposes (Illegal includes copyright infringements), therefore you will need to provide evidence to the contrary to their logs and information.
Well, aside from the fact that they will not have a HD image, there are many legitimate reasons to use secure deletion software. I own a shredder, because I like to shred old bank statements. I do it because I value privacy and do not want to be a victim of identity fraud, and because if I kept them my house would fill up with old documents. Everyone has legitimate reasons to destroy documents that others one day may like to use in evidence, but doing so does not imply guilt, merely normal behaviour.
Again, what you don't seem to understand is that this is civil court. The law says you can't just go around making false allegations and spreading libel, yet the evidence the BPI has is not enough to prove those allegations.
9. Copyright infringement is a civil offence, so you had better sue me as well and have the evidence to prove it
They would do, there not just going to go in at it guns ablaze, they have a legal team behind them bigger than any one you and i can afford, they have a press team they closely involved with the legal team before they go out and make these media arguments
Yes, because in British law, the size and cost of your legal team is the deciding factor in any case.
You seem to have missed the point. The BPI will be forced to file a civil case against anyone disconnected, otherwise they will leave themselves open to being sued. If they loose that case, they will be sued.
I bet the wording of the warning letters will be very careful, so as not to make any actual accusation that could lead to legal action.
And considering they have the Governments support (since they also are working to tackle the issue)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7258437.stm
Yeah, full support. "ISPs should do... something... voluntarily..."
If they really wanted to do something, they would pass a new law. In reality they give lip service to industry while being aware that criminalising and attacking 6m potential voters is probably not a good idea.
Well on X date this person downloaded in 1 go X amount of MBs or GBs
Compared to the average user who uses only X amount of MBs a day / GB
I bought six packs of paracetamol the other say in Savers. Most people buy only one or two. I must therefore be some kind of paracetamol abuser.
Actually, I need a lot of pain medication.
Maybe one day I downloaded a lot of wallpapers for my PC. Maybe it wasn't me. Maybe I was watching TV on Joost or 4OD. What you fail to understand is, it's up to the prosecution to show otherwise, and they can't.
This person had this IP registered to their name at the time (using a proxy still has to go via the original IP, that will only fool the 3rd party websites not the ISP)
Using a VPN bypasses that, as does using an anon proxy. Sure, the ISP can monitor it, but the BPI is not the ISP. Virgin are not policing this. The BPI are, and all they have is a BitTorrent client and some screenshots.
If you come out with "Its not me i dont know what it is"
They will probably ask permission (Not virgin media) but the courts to cease your equipment and have it checked. If its found to have traces of the documents and stored on the hard drive at the dates and times matching with the ISP your gonna have a problem to prove otherwise.
They can ask, but they won't get it. In a civil case where no crime has been committed, they don't have a chance or depriving you of equipment.
Just look at the number of libel cases Private Eye has lost. They probably asked for documents and PCs to gather evidence from every single time, but civil law does not work that way so they lost.
10. People will just move to another ISP. If you try to ban them from all ISPs, people will definitely sue you.
Virgin Media wouldnt blacklist you, they would just remove you from their services but dare not say other ISPs will be taking the same approach as Virgin Media otherwise music industries and gorvernment will take a closer look at these ISP providers to query why there opting out of technology and action that AIDS the legal purchase of music, software and videos
Actually, there is no special technology involved. VM simply agreed to identify the person who pays the bill on a BB account at a specific time, based on an IP address. Legally, they don't have to, it's entirely voluntary. You couldn't really blame an ISP for complying with the law, which says they don't have to without a court order.
11. These are just pathetic scare tactics
No they did do it back in 2005 where BT, Tiscalli and few others where involved
True, they sued a few people. Some of those idiots even paid up. The OiNK incident was the most shocking - they tricked the police into raiding the guys house. The police statements didn't even make sense, they clearly didn't understand what they had been asked to do.
Any ISP who does start handing over information en-masse (remember, conservative estimates say 6m people in the UK download music) they will soon get a lot of negative publicity.
info4u, you are wrong in every way. Even your quoting is wrong. You are a massive FAIL.
Or people could just stop committing copyright theft.
just use usenet folks and go SSL! simple
Some trojans download music or child porn to get the owner of the PC into trouble. I imagine more will be written to do just that now. Some give other people remote access, so they can use your PC for downloading. Remember, they don't know the music files are on your PC, or even which PC did the downloading. All they have is a screenshot of a BitTorrent client with what they claim was your IP address at the time connected to their PC and downloading the music.
Not to mention the fact that the files don't even have to save on your PC at all. The hacker/virus writer could easily make a virus that acts as a proxy so they can do all of their illegal downloading through your PC, while saving the files on thiers and making you, the infected user, look 100% to blame from IP records.
This does happen, it's how SPAM emails are sent for a start. Nothing to stop hackers reusing this technique to avoid their ISP's "three strike" rule.
munkyboy04
31-03-2008, 23:06
Or people could just stop committing copyright theft.
dude things are changing.
I know i commit copyright theft I dont want to be a criminal. But I have been using P2P in one form or another for 10 years now. and I Love it.
I would absolutley love to use a service that was legal that offered me Flac music downloads (Not crappy itunes fluff) at a reasonable price. I would gladly pay. But unfortunatley that service is not available. CD's are inconvienient and expensive
I really dont understand why the the music industry dont just work out a way for us to pay for what we want and not be criminals.
freakgirl
31-03-2008, 23:21
The BPI or whatever pointless waste of space organisation (probably the real music industry profit suckers, with over paid busy bodies pen pushing) will shoot themselves in the foot with this kind of idiotic move.
There was a time when I used to download albums decide if I like them and then buy them if I liked them. If I didnt like them I would delete them no point wasting space. The quality of a proper CD professionally made CD will always be better than an MP3 burnt to disc or on an MP3 Player and I and I am sure many others will always buy albums from their favourite artists no matter what when they can afford it.
In the past I have brought albums that were crap, and never listened to them again, wasting £10 or more.
Unless the music industry brings in a 'PROPER' evaluation service (no crap quality 10 second clips) then they will lose out to people like me if they enforce this rubbish as I will not waste £10+ of my hard earned cash on something that may or may not be rubbish, I just wont bother at all.
That's how I feel about movies, not one's that go to my cinema cause I always pefer to go and see a movie in the cinema first but if a movie goes straight to dvd do you really want to pay £15 for it without seeing it first
so whats going to happen when your mac gets cloned?
Read this, seems Virgin may not be so evil after all!
http://torrentfreak.com/isp-to-voluntarily-disconnect-file-sharers-from-the-internet-080331/
Or people could just stop committing copyright theft. Hear hear! I've tried it, and it doesn't work. I've stolen loads of copyrights. I put them on the market, and there just aren't any buyers...
To clear things up a little on how this scheme will operate (as far has been told). The BPI (or whoever) will do the actual "investigation" by for example joining a torrent swarm and noting the IP addresses of those involved.
Where those IP addresses belong to VM customers they will be sent (together with details of the infringement - one hopes) to VM who will then take the agreed action. That is to say VM will not be inspecting packets or making assumptions based on protocols used or assuming heavy use = illegal use. All they will do is send out the warnings.
VM and other ISP's are in an impossible position in that if they don't come to some agreement with rights holders then HMG will step in with legislation. If you don't like this system I can guarantee that you will absolutely hate anything devised by HMG.
To clear things up a little on how this scheme will operate (as far has been told). The BPI (or whoever) will do the actual "investigation" by for example joining a torrent swarm and noting the IP addresses of those involved.
Exactly. Nothing much more than has already been done by NTL and most other ISP's in the past, the only difference is there's a possibility of punishment at the end of it. I don't think the posters in this thread are bothering to read and just randomly making assumptions. This isn't anything close to Phorm and doesn't deserve to draw attention away from that issue. Anyone who gets three letters and continues to use public trackers probably deserves to be booted just for ignorance.
You could probably call this the internet's version of natural selection :).
hokkers999
01-04-2008, 00:33
Or people could just stop committing copyright theft.
ho hum, except that it isn't, THERE IS NO SUCH THING what there is though is "copyright infringement" - a civil matter theft is a criminal matter. please next time take the time and trouble to actually check the facts and not jump on the riaa or mpaa bandwagon.
1:Be sure to keep up to date
2:http://phoenixlabs.org/pg2/
3:Vista users may want to check their forums and use the Launcher.bat
4:Profit
Cheers :)
PS i do not condone warez.
leadbelly
01-04-2008, 00:43
hmm... i wonder if people will continue to buy their premium and overpriced broadband now?!
why would people need it if they're not dowloading warez?!
hmm... i wonder if people will continue to buy their premium and overpriced broadband now?!
why would peole need it if they're not dowloading warez?
VM advertise 5000 tunes a day for the 4mb or something. @99p each from itunes of course that's what they meant.
zing_deleted
01-04-2008, 00:45
ho hum, except that it isn't, THERE IS NO SUCH THING what there is though is "copyright infringement" - a civil matter theft is a criminal matter. please next time take the time and trouble to actually check the facts and not jump on the riaa or mpaa bandwagon.
Here is a little quote that might make you want to apoligse for your little out burst there from the FACT site
What are the penalites?
While it is not an offence to buy pirated DVDs, the production, distribution and sale of pirated DVDs is a criminal offence and those found guilty can be punished by a maximum 10 years imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine in the Crown Court, and a maximum of £5,000 and/or six months imprisonment in the magistrates court.
http://www.fact-uk.org.uk/site/about/faq.htm#20 link to information
Now I am not saying everyone who downloads sells but almost everyone who downloads via BT or P2P distibutes via the seeding
GraphiX2004
01-04-2008, 00:48
someone please give me a logical reasonable answer to my question
if VM is offering 20/50 lines to customers and customers are using them.
what service is vm making available for them customers to use them lines?
cable provides you with a box to watch shows.
tv provides you with a box to watch tv.
cable now provide you with faster and faster broadband to users like us.
but don't actually give us a service or a reason or a way to use our connections.
if they didn't want us to use it for downloading why are they advertising just that?
and if they didn't want us to download why are they increasing everyones speeds?
there is no sense to provide everyone with superfast broadband and then not
offer their customers any content to use that service with and if we decide to
find our own content because they wont provide any we get slammed for it?
VM takes sky 1 of us, lost been going since 2004 everyone gets into it.
they then pull sky from us and we no longer can watch them shows?
i pay a increasing every year price for a TV license so if I'm paying that
and paying the top tier for the packages and miss a show I've paid for then
I'm damn well going to use my "INTERNET Super Fast Connection" to see them shows.
leadbelly
01-04-2008, 00:49
VM advertise 5000 tunes a day for the 4mb or something. @99p each from itunes of course that's what they meant.
LOL
but then people are not going to buy £5000 worth of tunes. :D
downloading illegal software, movies and music has got to be one of the bigger reasons to have a 20mb or 50mb connection.
Or people could just stop committing copyright theft.
Umm... you can't steal copyright. The copyright holder still has it, they don't loose it.
You can commit copyright infringement, but it's not theft. It's not even a crime unless you do it on a massive scale, merely a civil matter.
---------- Post added at 00:52 ---------- Previous post was at 00:49 ----------
While it is not an offence to buy pirated DVDs, the production, distribution and sale of pirated DVDs is a criminal offence and those found guilty can be punished by a maximum 10 years imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine in the Crown Court, and a maximum of £5,000 and/or six months imprisonment in the magistrates court.
That proves my point rather nicely. Even buying pirate DVDs is legal, it's just that manufacturing a profiting from them is not. Since I only every copy DVDs for friends (free) or download from the internet, I have not committed an offence.
LOL
but then people are not going to buy £5000 worth of tunes. :D
downloading illegal software, movies and music has got to be one of the bigger reasons to have a 20mb or 50mb connection.
Yes i tried once to download 5000 tunes in 1 day as advertised on Virgin Medias website but i was capped after 800mb so i couldn't even spend my 5 grand.
zing_deleted
01-04-2008, 00:53
Umm... you can't steal copyright. The copyright holder still has it, they don't loose it.
You can commit copyright infringement, but it's not theft. It's not even a crime unless you do it on a massive scale, merely a civil matter.
---------- Post added at 00:52 ---------- Previous post was at 00:49 ----------
That proves my point rather nicely. Even buying pirate DVDs is legal, it's just that manufacturing a profiting from them is not. Since I only every copy DVDs for friends (free) or download from the internet, I have not committed an offence.
Dude that is distribution and therefore a crime whether free or not
GraphiX2004
01-04-2008, 00:54
VM was advertising about downloading music and movies WAAAY before
itunes was even in the press or media
tell me without them being around in the past what was they advertising for?
Without any legal services around they was still saying get your media mp3
movies and what not on our superfast connection?
Ok so using logic if legal services wasn't invented by that time.
where prey tell was they telling you to get the content from?
leadbelly
01-04-2008, 01:00
Yes i tried once to download 5000 tunes in 1 day as advertised on Virgin Medias website but i was capped after 800mb so i couldn't even spend my 5 grand.
LOL
yeah... i tried to download once and was capped because downloading anything is a big no, no, and is advised not to do so by virgin media.
i download 300mb a day in peak hours. i am in the top 3% of people who abuse their internet connection. i feel guilty and agree i should be punished.
LOL
yeah... i tried to download once and was capped because downloading anything is a big no, no and is advised not to do so by virgin media.
i download 300mb a day in peak hours. i am in the top 3% of people who abuse their internet connection. i feel guilty and agree i should be punished.
Nothing to do with the 3 strike rule sorry for getting OT but if going over 300/350mb cap in peek times puts you into the top 3% as stated on the VM site then everyone else in the UK must be using their connection to read plain text emails and nothing else.
This coupled with the new 3 strike stuff and things are starting to go backwards in the cable modem world.
Is this some sort of attempt i wonder to bring back 56k as "retro"? Im gonna break out the demon spider-modem just in case.
Cheers.
AntiSilence
01-04-2008, 01:14
hmm... i wonder if people will continue to buy their premium and overpriced broadband now?!
why would people need it if they're not dowloading warez?!
Well for starters there's people who have more than a couple of computers on a network. More bandwidth is very useful for keeping the internet connections up to speed.
I have a 20Mb connection, and I don't download movies or games/software (except free ones, or ones I buy).
leadbelly
01-04-2008, 01:18
Nothing to do with the 3 strike rule sorry for getting OT but if going over 300/350mb cap in peek times puts you into the top 3% as stated on the VM site then everyone else in the UK must be using their connection to read plain text emails and nothing else.
This coupled with the new 3 strike stuff and things are starting to go backwards in the cable modem world.
Is this some sort of attempt i wonder to bring back 56k as "retro"? Im gonna break out the demon spider-modem just in case.
Cheers.
LOL
you knw the cap was originally 340mb for 2mbit users, and they claimed that put you in the top 5%. they then changed it to 300mb and claimed it put you in the top 3%.
i would like to know who works this stuff out. it just seems to me like someone has just made it up out of thin air. :D
---------- Post added at 00:18 ---------- Previous post was at 00:14 ----------
Well for starters there's people who have more than a couple of computers on a network. More bandwidth is very useful for keeping the internet connections up to speed.
I have a 20Mb connection, and I don't download movies or games/software (except free ones, or ones I buy).
well a network with multiple computers on, is one legitimate reason. one of the very few legitimate reasons there is though.
i would take a guess that a bigger percentage have got it solely for downloading a lot of stuff though
GraphiX2004
01-04-2008, 01:30
thats the sole purpose of 20/50mbit lines lol
and when people stop playing the denial game in their own heads
and start waking upto the fact that, this is all fast Internet speeds was created for
the quicker we can all move on and come up with alternatives so we can continue
to use our fact connections for what they was once solely created for
So what exactly can I use my 20Mbit/50Mbit line for then? Streaming videos/TV off the internet? Isn't that kind of the same thing?
Time to find a new ISP then.
No because your not storing the live stream
Therefore you havent copied anything and the only way for you to watch it again is by waiting for it to replay etc
TraxData
01-04-2008, 01:38
No because your not storing the live stream
Therefore you havent copied anything and the only way for you to watch it again is by waiting for it to replay etc
Technically you are storing it, the site will cache it to the HD so the next time you visit it will play instantly....so technically you have copied it :p:
leadbelly
01-04-2008, 01:40
thats the sole purpose of 20/50mbit lines lol
and when people stop playing the denial game in their own heads
and start waking upto the fact that, this is all fast Internet speeds was created for
the quicker we can all move on and come up with alternatives so we can continue
to use our fact connections for what they was once solely created for
well i can think of another reason, but the cap kind of ruins that. LOL
downloading HD movies: you can do that on xbox live now.
to be honest, i don't think that specifically justifies the price you pay for that package though. oh, and a HD movie is around 6gig in size. the cap for the 20mb package is around 3gig, so you'll be capped most times you try to download a movie if it's in peak hours. LOL
Technically you are storing it, the site will cache it to the HD so the next time you visit it will play instantly....so technically you have copied it :p:
Not a live stream
What your reffering to is Video on Demand.
Click and watch that 1 video thing or song
But if its something like www.di.fm which is live radio, it doesnt store other than maybe the last 20 seconds before erasing it or loading into the RAM and temporary memory
TraxData
01-04-2008, 01:42
well i can think of another reason, but the cap kind of ruins that. LOL
downloading HD movies: you can do that on xbox live now.
to be honest, i don't think that specifically justifies the price you pay for that package though. oh, and a HD movie is around 6gig in size. the cap for the 20mb package is around 3gig, so you'll be capped most times you try to download a movie if it's in peak hours. LOL
If your going for quality 4-6gig is the size of a HD tv ep nevermind a movie, movies weigh in at 16+gig in any real sort of quality...
---------- Post added at 01:42 ---------- Previous post was at 01:41 ----------
Not a live stream
What your reffering to is Video on Demand.
Click and watch that 1 video thing or song
But if its something like www.di.fm which is live radio, it doesnt store other than maybe the last 20 seconds before erasing it or loading into the RAM and temporary memory
But still, technically it's still caching it to the HD while the page is open, and there is indeed ways to keep the file once u have closed the browser, but we wont go there ;)
rickyg01
01-04-2008, 02:53
am i correct at... illegal = they look at torrents, ect,
would it include file hosts, eg mu, rs,
hi just been reading this-
Virgin Media is planning to take action against subscribers who illegally download copyrighted material.
The provider will work with the British Phonographic Institute and potentially television and movie studios under the scheme which, according to the Sunday Telegraph, will be implemented in coming months.
The BPI will pass details of users it believes are breaking the law to Virgin. They will be sent warnings and, if they continue to download content believed by the BPI to be pirated, disconnected.
A spokesman for Virgin Media said: "We have been in discussions with rights holders organisations about how a voluntary scheme could work.
"We are taking this problem seriously and would favour a sensible voluntary solution."
The scheme is similar to a "three strikes" approach mooted by the Government earlier this year.
Ministers said they would force ISPs to take action with legislation if no voluntary solution was found by April next year.
does it mean there going 2 stop us all download free stuff like music etc
Not to be rude, but do you ever use the search button, or use your eyes? Ive read other threads started by you on multiple occasions, when there is a thread of the exact same discussion more than 7 pages long on the same page... exactly like this one? :grind:
lostandconfused
01-04-2008, 06:32
http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/12/33630685-illegal-file-sharing-three-strike-rule.html
grubbymitts
01-04-2008, 06:49
It'll be public trackers. They are the most frequented tracker by 99% of BT users. It will be far easier for the BPI to trace people from them than usenet/RS/MU/http/FTP/IRC.
Those using cloned modems will more than likely be scene members moving vast amounts of data to and fro via private dump sites or topsites. A few of them may be on their own elite DC+ hubs or private trackers. Whilst not impossible to track this activity, it is far from easy and usually is the realm of law enforcement rather than trade bodies due to the expense, time and the large scale copyright infingement going on.
Apparently VM are still only in talks with the BPI and no agreement has been made (if you can believe that).
Virgin Media (VM) has informed us that, contrary to recent reports concerning adoption of the "three-strikes" system (news) for use against illegal downloader’s, the operator has not yet reached an agreement and is at present only talking to the BPI.
read rest HERE (http://www.ispreview.co.uk/news/EkpZpFyFZkfYSUeZdB.html)
These schemes have been on the backburner for quite a while. It seems obvious why they are taking so long and are still "in talks". Just take a few questions that need answering before it goes ahead.
Is it to be a national scheme? Or can I just hop ISP's on my cut-off date?
How long will a ban last? 6 months? 2 years? a lifetime?
(Some in HMG talk of BB in the same sentence as social exclusion)
What is the appeals process?
Will a ban apply to everyone in a particular house or a named individual?
(a bunch of students or a family sharing a single connection - will the postal address be banned or just the infringing individual)
Is this scheme just for the BPI or can any rights holder use it?
(there are a lot more rights holders than just the music biz)
Given that the music biz uses (multiple and separate) outside investigators what is to prevent me going from warning to cut-off in a single download?
This list could go on for pages (and hence the "in talks") but the one I want answered as I don't download music. Who exactly is going to pay for it all? :mad:
just use usenet folks and go SSL! simple
:tu:
Seems a bit rich considering their advertising makes great play of downloading music and films, aswell as the new beta newsserver for increased binaries retention.....
Does the left hand not know what the right is doing?
Dude that is distribution and therefore a crime whether free or not
No. Distribution refers to the criminal act of commercial distribution, i.e. for profit. Although making copies for friends or off the radio is copyright infringement, it is not distribution. Also, until now individuals have not been sued for this kind of thing, only traders.
---------- Post added at 14:55 ---------- Previous post was at 14:54 ----------
Technically you are storing it, the site will cache it to the HD so the next time you visit it will play instantly....so technically you have copied it :p:
Caching is explicitly allowed. Otherwise, VM would have been violating copyright en-masse for years with their web proxy servers. So would every ISP, and everyone who uses a web browser (web pages are copyright protected).
I too would love to know what the appeals process will be. Hopefully it will not involve suing VM and the BPI.
batchain
01-04-2008, 15:16
Apparently VM are still only in talks with the BPI and no agreement has been made (if you can believe that).
http://www.bpi.co.uk/index.asp?Page=news/press/news_content_file_1134.shtml
BPI statement on media reports of a Virgin Media "deal"
"Unfortunately it simply isn't true that we have agreed a pilot - or any sort of deal - with Virgin Media, though we continue to work towards that. We think that every socially responsible ISP should help their customers avoid the illegal use of their broadband account.”
See my comments earlier on the complexities of such a scheme. But before the celebrations start bear in mind that HMG have said they will legislate if no agreement is found. You can only imagine the knee-jerk cock-up they have in mind.
GraphiX2004
01-04-2008, 17:18
i hope the government does the legislating because what a holly cock up it will be.
them people wouldn't understand technology or Internet if it jumped up and bit them
with government imposing their version i cannot wait for the knock on effect.
in effect it will change the rules of time for everything i.e post offices
if the law states they have to check every single packet for copyrighted.
then the post office would also be required to open every single post/letter too.
it would then role down to other company's/businesses that operate online.
soon as anything you legally own copyrighted gets through you can sue then.
if you get spam/viruses anything that harm the pc then the ISP is at fault for
not checking the packets and the data to also see if its safe/copyrighted.
oOh the mess this is going to cause world wide is out of this world.
isp's going to be shutting their doors, media companys will go bust.
as people who get kicked offline will start world wide boycotts of the media industry
i mean if you get your net cut off, you really think your going to go give money
to the shop on purchases that goes back to the industry who screwed you over? ha
look at the mess creative labs is in world wide now over daniel_k a normal user
making the drivers work for vista OS and creative has stoped all his hard work.
Shops all over the country will not now sell the X-FI creative cards boycotting it.
this happened in just 2 days flat, creatives stock has now fallen 6.7 % in a day!
Next hard-drive makers will go out of business pointless having 1tb or more drives.
pointless even having 600gb or less drives since there is no content to mass store.
optical media companys will also be put out of business no point having burners
or even blank media to store mass content on as backups as their would be nothing
legal to warrant buying or using mass storage since its sole purpose is to "store"
This will then hit graphics card makers, DivX Company and DivX players/hardware.
what legal company or service allows you to downloads DivX format AVI ???
All your mp3 makers will also go out of business as their wont be anyway to
download bare DRM free media Amazon and other Stores will go back to DRM content.
Millions on millions on millions of devices sold world wide will be no longer needed.
they make DivX players in their millions and to this day i fail to see what legal store
you can buy to play your DivX player??? nothing exists but funny enough
companys keep making millions of these players when in reality if you look at it.
all these DivX Content is Pirated content,
Welcome to the World of the Screwed up .. cannot wait
alferret
01-04-2008, 17:56
BIG BLOODY SNIP!!!!!!!
Cor blimey!!!!!!!
You need to chill some, all these long bloated post's will only raise your blood pressure somewhat.
Regardless of how\if\when until it becomes fact\law its not worth worrying about.
As for you paying for a speed that you cant use (as you mentioned in a previous post) move to a lower tier.
Thankyou and now your long bloated post's are on ignore :D
Next hard-drive makers will go out of business pointless having 1tb or more drives.
pointless even having 600gb or less drives since there is no content to mass store.
optical media companys will also be put out of business no point having burners
or even blank media to store mass content on as backups as their would be nothing
legal to warrant buying or using mass storage since its sole purpose is to "store"
This will then hit graphics card makers, DivX Company and DivX players/hardware.
what legal company or service allows you to downloads DivX format AVI ???
All your mp3 makers will also go out of business as their wont be anyway to
download bare DRM free media Amazon and other Stores will go back to DRM content.
Millions on millions on millions of devices sold world wide will be no longer needed.
they make DivX players in their millions and to this day i fail to see what legal store
you can buy to play your DivX player??? nothing exists but funny enough
companys keep making millions of these players when in reality if you look at it.
all these DivX Content is Pirated content,
Welcome to the World of the Screwed up .. cannot wait
The internet exists beyond the UK. Even if this country sunk into the sea, all of the above would still be around.
Virgin Media (http://www.virginmedia.com/) (VM) has informed us that, contrary to recent reports concerning adoption of the "three-strikes" system (news (http://www.ispreview.co.uk/news/EkpylyVFEVprNOiCbo.html)) for use against illegal downloader’s, the operator has not yet reached an agreement and is at present only talking to the BPI. It wouldn't actually be in the BPI's interests to have to come to agreements with individual ISP's but to stall and let the government introduce legislation which is what nobody wants (except the BPI).
I wouldn't be surprised if this happens, watch for the BPI dragging its heals on this one.
rogerdraig
01-04-2008, 19:51
Here is a little quote that might make you want to apoligse for your little out burst there from the FACT site
What are the penalites?
While it is not an offence to buy pirated DVDs, the production, distribution and sale of pirated DVDs is a criminal offence and those found guilty can be punished by a maximum 10 years imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine in the Crown Court, and a maximum of £5,000 and/or six months imprisonment in the magistrates court.
http://www.fact-uk.org.uk/site/about/faq.htm#20 link to information
Now I am not saying everyone who downloads sells but almost everyone who downloads via BT or P2P distibutes via the seeding
not quite he same though FACT seem o think it is
yep if you make a dvd an take it down the pub an sell it that law will bite you if caught
but downloading is not theft it is just copyright infringement
zing_deleted
01-04-2008, 20:26
P2P and BT rely on sharing im sure you already know this . So everyone who seeds peers and therefore is distributing which is illegal ie theft> So to download via these methods you share the parts you have downloaded ergo not actually just downloading but actually uploading as well and its the uploading that perpetuates the theft
Raistlin
01-04-2008, 20:29
but downloading is not theft it is just copyright infringement
I suppose, strictly speaking, it could also be 'receiving stolen goods' ;)
deed02392
01-04-2008, 20:40
"Unfortunately it simply isn't true that we have agreed a pilot - or any sort of deal - with Virgin Media, though we continue to work towards that. We think that every socially responsible ISP should help their customers avoid the illegal use of their broadband account."
Socially responsible ISPs like to give out 'free' wireless to the population, pre configured to use WEP. WEP which I can break in 10 minutes. I'm 16, if I can do it, sure as hell one of your neighbours within range of you can do it. Then sit and sniff for an unencrypted login, such as most ISPs POP accounts? Goodbye privacy.
Ha, socially responsible ISP. Is there such a thing?
Just seen a post in the support groups saying that he can only post pictures to groups with binaries in the name and only then as long as it does not include the word warez.
Can anyone confirm this? if they are blocking the posting of binaries then they've given up their common carrier status.
According to Virgin Media there is now no such thing as a cloned modem. :LOL:
---------- Post added at 17:01 ---------- Previous post was at 16:58 ----------
If a user is so stupid as to leave his connection unsecured then they deserve to be fined for being STUPID.
haha. please give me strength.
TraxData
01-04-2008, 23:17
I suppose, strictly speaking, it could also be 'receiving stolen goods' ;)
But for it to be "stolen" you actually need the goods in your hand, strictly speaking your not stealing anything, your just exchanging data ;)
tucker61
02-04-2008, 07:17
So hypothetically if I ditched utorrent and used a newsgroup with SSL would they still be able to trace ?
this'll just be an excuse to target heavy downloaders, anyone who downloads over a set limit a month will be probably be sent a letter warning them.
So hypothetically if I ditched utorrent and used a newsgroup with SSL would they still be able to trace ?
as far as im aware if your running ssl your safe
Just seen a post in the support groups saying that he can only post pictures to groups with binaries in the name and only then as long as it does not include the word warez.
Can anyone confirm this? if they are blocking the posting of binaries then they've given up their common carrier status.
Seems that Alan Gordon from Virgin acknowledges that there is a problem with the posting of binaries to warez groups. giving up their common carrier status is not a very wise move for them so lets hope they fix the problem.
It does apprear that "binary" groups with warez in the name are getting filtered I am still waiting to hear back on this one.
deed02392
02-04-2008, 19:00
So hypothetically if I ditched utorrent and used a newsgroup with SSL would they still be able to trace ?
Yes it seems the Internet savvy users will do just the thing. Pay for services which allow far faster download rates than P2P. So while Virgin try to reduce the heavy downloading via P2P, they will find that the REAL heavy users will simply upgrade to faster methods.
Although of course, they will still lose a lot of the illegal traffic, it's virtually impossible to see how they would implement this.
I said it before, I will say it again, this three strike rule system will not be integrated, and if it actually DOES, it will be VERY easy to get around it. So what would be the point.
Yes it seems the Internet savvy users will do just the thing. Pay for services which allow far faster download rates than P2P. So while Virgin try to reduce the heavy downloading via P2P, they will find that the REAL heavy users will simply upgrade to faster methods.
Although of course, they will still lose a lot of the illegal traffic, it's virtually impossible to see how they would implement this.
I said it before, I will say it again, this three strike rule system will not be integrated, and if it actually DOES, it will be VERY easy to get around it. So what would be the point.
i think the point is virgin will be "seen" to be doing something but the people who want to will just have to poay a bit extra and go down the ssl binary route, i can also see some enterprising site developing the vpn idea to defeat the phorm issue
deed02392
02-04-2008, 19:11
Exactly what I mean. Even if it is implemented, it won't be anything to worry about.
I got the OK to post these emails.It's a Long read but those with interest in the whole situation will find it informative (i hope).
Back in Febuary when it was 1st announced about the new legislation that was being pushed into goverment i decided to send out an email to a few of the members of parliament/MEP's/Lords etc. for my local area.
Below is a copy of the email sent and under that are the various replies i got from the various party's and groups. (some personal info removed due to it being posted on a forum)
Recently there have been increasingly desperate attempts by the music
industry to control how individuals consume media.
Since these measures have in large parts failed (as a public relations
disaster and an expensive, ultimately ineffective process), the
industry is attempting to force ISP's to bear the blame for users
actions and police information consumption.
There is no practical way to detect the difference between legal and
illegal material - particularly if the content is encrypted therefore
this will effectively ban the use of some methods of transferring data.
ISP's should not be encouraged to invade a users privacy by analysing
their data if they are not suspected of any crime, this sets an
extremely dangerous precedent which very quickly leads to censorship of
the internet.
The government should not legislate on behalf of the music industry but
should support open internet policed if necessary by public authorities
using the usual mantra of innocent until proven guilty, requiring
evidence and a court order before a users privacy may be invaded in
this way.
Despite lots of legal difficulties regarding Internet privacy, the UK
government is going ahead with plans to punish ISPs for allowing their
customers to download illegal music and films.
The claim is that there is "rampant piracy" in Britain with more than 6
million broadband users downloading files illegally every year. "The
government will on Friday tell internet service providers they will be
hit with legal sanctions from April next year unless they take concrete
steps to curb illegal downloads of music and films.
Britain would be one of the first countries in the world to impose such
sanctions. Service providers say what the government wants them to do
would be like asking the Royal Mail to monitor the contents of every
envelope posted."
Please Support ISP's in not bowing to pressure from a desperate
industry into becoming defacto net police.
Yours sincerely,Dear ,
Thank you for your email of February 22nd, which Caroline has asked me to respond to on her behalf. Please excuse the delay in doing so.
Greens are fundamentally opposed to the idea that ISPs should be monitoring activity by users to prevent fraud, copyright breaches, illegal file sharing and so forth. We uphold the right of all users to privacy and security whilst using the internet.
The European Parliament is currently debating proposals to better support cultural industries across the EU, and some Christian/Liberal Democrat MEPs have used this as an opportunity to promote the idea of 'spying' on users of the internet.
In January, the European Parliament's Culture and Education Committee voted on a report into Cultural Industries in the context of the Lisbon Treaty. Green MEPs on the Committee, and the majority of their colleagues, opposed those amendments to the report that sought to force ISPs to cooperate in the fight against online piracy via eg filtering technologies or blocking of content. A priority for Green MEPs is to ensure that consumers are not criminalised and to urge the European Commission to play a role in defending an open society via the internet, with reference to eg Burma and China.
The text of the draft report can be seen at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/pr/684/684266/684266en.pdf
The report was adopted but the amendments calling for ISPs to monitor users were rejected. It will now come before the full Parliament, where Caroline and her fellow Greens will again vote against any attempts to to oblige ISPs to work with governments, law enforcement agencies, corporations and so forth to tackle online piracy.
Please be assured that Caroline is doing her utmost to protect the internet from corporate control and Greens in the Parliament also led the European campaign to oppose software patents in 2006. See http://www.greens-efa.org/cms/topics/dokbin/102/102955.save_our_software@en.pdf
Thank you for taking the time to write to Caroline and please do not hesitate to get back in touch if you require any further information.
Kind regards,
Cath.
Cath Miller
Constituency Coordinator and Researcher
Office of Dr Caroline Lucas
Green Party MEP for SE England
Suite 58, The Hop Exchange
24 Southwark Street
London SE1 1TY
Tel: 020 7407 6281
Email: carolinelucas@greenmeps.org.uk (carolinelucas@greenmeps.org.uk)
www.carolinelucasmep.org.uk (http://www.carolinelucasmep.org.uk/)
Cath, You rock!.
Dear,
Thank you for your message about the folly and menace of state-regulation of the internet.
In some continental (including other EU-) states - and under unashamedly totalitarian régimes - such regulation is already standard. In such countries, users are legally obliged to record, and surrender to the authorities, on demand, the encryption-codes, they are using. This has been the law, in France, for example, for more than ten years.
I am not sure about the stage EU-legislation has reached, in this area - such is the volume of the output of the Commission's 3000 secretive committees - but I assume that HMG's proposals are "harmonised" with EU-intentions and are thus "anticipatory" of EU-regulation.
In this case, UKIP's opposition to EU-authority - whether this is exercised directly, or through anticipatory, or harmonising, legislation - is reinforced by our general dedication (a) to freedom of communication (b) to the exclusion of civil matters from the criminal code and (c) to breaking the political stranglehold of the media-giants; and, on these grounds, the Party will do all it can to halt HMG's initiative to hobble the internet.
Unfortunately, our representation in Parliament consists, at the moment, only of a few seats in the House of Lords; and our presence in the EU's consultative assembly ("parliament") - where we won 12 seats in 2004 - is not usually sufficient to worry the Commission. It is true that, in 2005, we were instrumental - through building an alliance with Greens, Communists and elements of both conservative and socialist Groups - in defeating the "Computer-Implemented Inventions Directive", which would have permitted the patenting of software, and which was the only Commission-proposal defeated in the current session of "parliament"; and, hopefully, we shall be able to do something similar again, when EU-legislation, on this subject, rears its ugly head.
Yours sincerely
Andrew S. Reed
(Office of Nigel Farage, Brussels)respect to Nigel Farage :)
This next reply has nothing to do with the email i sent them but it shows that the Labour Representative for the South East of England doesn't care or even read mails and will send you a canned response
Dear ,
Thank you for your recent letter concerning European Union policy on
biofuels and your concerns about the environmental sustainability, and
social consequences of this alternative fuel source.
As part of our work to tackle climate change, MEPs are looking very
seriously at the development of biofuels and their potential for
reducing CO2 emissions. The transport sector is responsible for about
21% of the EU's harmful greenhouse gas emissions and the development of
biofuels as a substitute for traditional petrol and diesel could make an
important contribution to tackle this problem.
However, I am equally well aware of the debate about other potential
impacts of biofuels, such as on food prices and the environment. We
need to do a lot more work to ensure that any alternative energy sources
are environmentally sustainable.
The Thomsen Report, that was adopted by the European Parliament in
September 2007, dealt with this matter in a measured and practical way,
and paragraph 47 of the report specifically calls on the Commission to
"develop a mandatory, comprehensive certification scheme" that would be
applicable to imported and EU grown biofuels.
The Report also states that any certification scheme must ensure that
biofuels "do not cause, directly or indirectly, a loss in biodiversity
and water resources, any reduction in carbon stocks through land use
change or social problems such as rising food prices and the
displacement of people".
In response to this report the Commission published proposals in
January, which set out a greenhouse gas emission saving of at least 35%
compared to conventional fuels, and the sustainability criteria for
growing biofuels in the EU, and outside the EU.
Labour MEPs will be pushing for these proposals to be considerably
strengthened, with specific attention to the issues that you raise in
your e-mail. The UK's domestic policy already has sustainability
criteria applied that are being currently reviewed in light of the
emerging academic studies that have raised concerns about the
sustainability of biofuels.
The UK Government will also be working with other Member States to bring
forward more stringent and far-reaching criteria to ensure that biofuels
do make significant greenhouse gas savings.
We should take note of the warnings that have been given on biofuels and
move forward to address the issues in a practical way, with sensible
targets that take account of the science, and we will be pushing for
this in the forthcoming Renewable Energy Directive.
Once again thank you for your correspondence on this issue. Labour MEPs
will continue to follow this issue closely and work towards a sufficient
and workable certification system.
I hope this is helpful.
Yours sincerely,
Peter Skinner MEP
Labour Representative for the South East of England
European Parliament
ASP 13G142, Rue Wiertz
Brussels, 1047, Belgium
Tel: 0032 2 284 5458
Fax: 0032 2 284 9458
peter.skinner@europarl.europa.eu
www.peterskinnermep.eu (http://www.peterskinnermep.eu)
No Mr Peter Skinner you are an idiot actually for not being able to read but I'll let that slide for now.
All other emails i sent to Lib dem , Conseritives and The Lord that gets to speak in parliment for my area went unanswered.Take their silence as you will.
Cheers.
deed02392
02-04-2008, 21:27
Excellent, great work! A very interesting read.
eram, great post, some interesting emails in there, if I may though......
There is no practical way to detect the difference between legal and
illegal material - particularly if the content is encrypted therefore
this will effectively ban the use of some methods of transferring data.The first part of that quote is not factually correct assuming that an ISP would have to inspect inbound/outbound packets. The fact of the matter is that the interested parties, say for example the BPI (UK agency responsible for enforcing copyright abuse for UK music labels and artists) can provide the evidence, including the copyright material, transport method and IP address to the controlling ISP. ISP's to my knowledge do not perform that kind of deep packet inspection, nor can they say for certain what is legal or illegal in terms of content (its not their job to so that).
ISP's can act for the rights holder if sufficient evidence is presented to them, and would do so in most cases.
Encrypted data of course cannot be sufficiently unencrypted in terms of working out what network or IP address was used, therefore making the task of detection very difficult indeed.
It could happen though that unless the ISP's voluntarily agree with rights holder bodies they will be forced by law to act, thus making the EU "Mere Conduit" defence null and void, and ISP's wouldn't want that, as much as the press want to avoid state regulation.
The article that I have originally quoted has now been corrected by Virgin Media and the BPI, but I don't think we have heard the last of it.
Lobbying parliament can have its benefits, particularly if its a just cause, in this case however copyright infringement can lead to legal or civil prosecutions, and the governemt would be hard pressed not to step in if a voluntary arrangement is not made.
For what its worth I think a fair system should come into play. I believe that rights holders have a right to be fairly rewarded for their work. We all deserve our pay at the end of the day if we have put our heart and sole into something.
Copyright abuse is simply theft, no matter how you present it. The Internet has provided the means for such activity to become big business, with the rewards not getting back to the rights owners. I think we've had a good free ride so far, but the train is slowing, the platform is in sight, and the ticket collectors are waiting for us.
Thanks toto.Yes i agree that my initial statement may have not been 100% accurate but i think it still brings up a valid point in that there is as of yet no practical way to detect the difference between legal and illegal material. ( practical way ).
If legislation as stated above turns into policy then such an invasion of privacy makes the statement innocent until proven guilty a bit of a moot saying, Don't you think?
Excellent, great work! A very interesting read.
Cheers :)
As you say, practical is difficult. But a counterfeit, even a very good stood one side-by-side with the real thing can be identified by an expert.
ISP's are not required to say what is a legal or illegal file, they would leave that up to the rights owner to prove. All they have to do is make the presentation to the account holder on their network, light the blue touch paper.....and stand, well back. :)
Is it me or am i missing the point, you download & watch (or use) copyright material from various sources, we all know this is illegal, yet we continue to do it without looking to purchase the relevant license.
If i get an email advising me to moderate my usage, as i have been downloading said material, then, im a grown up, i take responsibility for my own actions, i downloaded it & used it, there isnt much of an argument there as far as im concerned.
If someone else uses my connection ( Kids, wifi piggy back ) well its my connection, i pay the bill, im responsible for its use & who uses it, again responsibility for my own actions & equipment. ( Dont forget many cases VM didnt supply your Wifi router, its your equipment you added it to your network, your responsible for it ).
With regard to the cloned modems, well if it can be traced holders ip & pc mac address, that will limit the chance of yourself being mistaken for a cloner, other than that, thats the only grey area where there can be contentious issues.
At the end of the day, you choose to download & use torrents etc, take the responsibility that comes with it, i do.. or am i just a responsible leacher..
At the end of the day, you choose to download & use torrents etc, take the responsibility that comes with it, i do.. or am i just a responsible leacher..
I think most people do make responsible decisions when it comes to legal material, after all, just look at iTunes. It was (maybe still is) a huge success for Apple, and the choice of material is huge.
Those who don't fall into two groups in my opinion, those who think they are not the problem, and those who do but do a good job of covering their footprints.
You only have to join a DCC+ hub to see how blatant the problem is, and how naive the file sharers are. Unencrypted torrents and basic peer-to-peer systems such as limewire are full of naive file sharers, and gathering evidence of their abuse is almost akin to sitting next to them and watching them offer up material for sharing. Sad really.
BarFly i should say now (i've started once before a few pages back) i dont condone warez but im not going to preach about it or try and change anyone's ideas about it. Just In case that was directed at myself as well as everyone else.
My main gripe is the whole privacy issue the "everyone is guilty" way of thinking, that and the the unrelated fact that capped download speeds are enforced almost ever day from 4-9 regardless if you are in the top 3% or not.iplayer, 4od, Itunes, Steam ,Xbox Marketplace and D2D are by far my main download sources.
Privacy example: Browsing forums gets the attention of the following people.
http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/8617/2minutesws9.jpg
Tony Hendrix.
03-04-2008, 19:23
only in this country will we roll over and allow this to happen. If the French try they will march on the streets for privacy the Americans take it to court again cuz of invasion of privacy. Nothing will be done about in this country as usual doormat Britain will roll over
Microsoft were asked by the American Music Industry to stop putting cd player/recorders on their machines to stop piracy,they did this for a few months,result? people stopped buying their computers.
They weren't long in changing them back again.
Are virgin going to implement the rule or not, i found an article which said virgin werent planning to do anything but the article was dated the first of april so i wasnt sure if it was an april fools joke
AFAIK, it is not an april fool.
Microsoft were asked by the American Music Industry to stop putting cd player/recorders on their machines to stop piracy,they did this for a few months,result? people stopped buying their computers.
They weren't long in changing them back again.
:erm: Microsoft don't make PCs - they just supply Operating System and Application Software packages.
Microsoft were asked by the American Music Industry to stop putting cd player/recorders on their machines to stop piracy,they did this for a few months,result? people stopped buying their computers.
They weren't long in changing them back again.
You just made all that up. The only change MS made was to make a version (XPN) of XP available in Europe without Media Player to appease the EU.
Welshchris
04-04-2008, 03:11
Have u seen that AOL UK have dismissed this and stood up for their customer base saying they will NOT be intergrating this.
I have 2 friends on AOL LLU and they dont have a problem, both get a decent connection of around 6mb on their UPTO 8mb service.
Phaps i will switch to them when i move.
batchain
04-04-2008, 03:21
Are virgin going to implement the rule or not...
Apparently not.
http://www.computeractive.co.uk/computeractive/news/2213475/virgin-distances-itself-three
Andrea-Marie Vassou, Computeract!ve 03 Apr 2008
Virgin Media agreed that it had discussed a 'three strikes and you’re out' policy with the music industry trade association, the British Phonographic Industry (BPI).
However, Virgin Media said it felt that this measure was too draconian, raised privacy and legal issues and would also be too costly for ISPs to run.
A representative for Virgin Media said: “There is no pilot in place. There are no details to confirm as we haven’t come to any sort of agreement with the BPI.
“The BPI wants the Government and ISPs to adopt the three-strikes system, we don’t want to go down to that level as it raises questions about privacy and funding.â€Â
:erm: Microsoft don't make PCs - they just supply Operating System and Application Software packages.
They do, in India ;)
this morning talk talk have effectively told the BPI to go shove it see this link :-
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7329801.stm
But Charles Dunstone of Carphone Warehouse, which runs the TalkTalk broadband service, is refusing.
He said it is not his job to be an internet policeman.
Mr Dunstone, whose TalkTalk broadband is Britain's third biggest internet provider, said the demands are unreasonable and unworkable.
He also said his firm will refuse to cooperate with the BPI, despite threats of legal action.
Ravenheart
04-04-2008, 08:11
There's just been a piece on BBC Breakfast with the head of Talkt Talk refusing to impliment this :)
PeteTheMusicGuy
04-04-2008, 11:04
Well done to talk talk :)
deed02392
04-04-2008, 13:10
Whatever. Believe it or not some things are published on the 1st April that aren't jokes. And besides, they won't implement it, it's most likely a public stunt to scare the retards that download music knowing it's wrong. Stop worrying.
Whatever. Believe it or not some things are published on the 1st April that aren't jokes. And besides, they won't implement it, it's most likely a public stunt to scare the retards that download music knowing it's wrong. Stop worrying.
By they way see when you finished downloading th UK TOP 40 can you send it to me... Just kiddin, decided it was time for something a little lighter
Bring it on....
I surely can't be the only who can't wait for all this to happen, (hopefully via legislation), not because it'll stop downloaders which I say each to their own regardless, I don't care who does what with their connection. But just for the fireworks, and for those who think it's a good idea on paper to end up looking like idiots when they find out it's basically unworkable on so many levels.
AntiSilence
04-04-2008, 19:11
And when customers start suing their ISP for wrongful disconnection.
So if this is to be implemented?
Who is going to get virgin media 50 mb lines when they roll out?
What would we need them for :DD
No illiegal filesharing means,not a big connection needed.
Nobody will need these lines quiet frankly?
Apparently not.
http://www.computeractive.co.uk/computeractive/news/2213475/virgin-distances-itself-three
Andrea-Marie Vassou, Computeract!ve 03 Apr 2008
Virgin Media agreed that it had discussed a 'three strikes and you’re out' policy with the music industry trade association, the British Phonographic Industry (BPI).
However, Virgin Media said it felt that this measure was too draconian, raised privacy and legal issues and would also be too costly for ISPs to run.
A representative for Virgin Media said: “There is no pilot in place. There are no details to confirm as we haven’t come to any sort of agreement with the BPI.
“The BPI wants the Government and ISPs to adopt the three-strikes system, we don’t want to go down to that level as it raises questions about privacy and funding.â€Â
Yes i red that and thats why i wasnt sure as id read a few stories that virgin were considering it, good news that virgin dont have any plans to put it in place
I think if downloading stuff that you wasn't meant to was stopped, there would be very little point in a large number of users having BB in the first place. Emailing, patches for rushed out half finished games, patches for OS's that are bug ridden, antivirus updates, firewalls, blah blah blah.
sparky01
05-04-2008, 19:49
if they are gonna 'track' what you download or even upload is that not against the privacy laws we have? im pretty sure it is over at another forum we talked about this and someone posted particular laws that this 'trial' or whatever they want to call it would not only contradict but break themselves
im curious as to how it would turn out if i get any kind of letter through my door id be quick to ask where my privacy is as a consumer
if they are gonna 'track' what you download or even upload is that not against the privacy laws we have? im pretty sure it is over at another forum we talked about this and someone posted particular laws that this 'trial' or whatever they want to call it would not only contradict but break themselves
im curious as to how it would turn out if i get any kind of letter through my door id be quick to ask where my privacy is as a consumer
Isnt agaisnt copyright laws to begin with that starts thiss off? I see when the tables are turned, we dont like it.
bigcats30
05-04-2008, 22:03
Isnt agaisnt copyright laws to begin with that starts thiss off? I see when the tables are turned, we dont like it.
he never said copyright laws did he he said privacy laws!!! what their doing is basically looking at what your doing which to me is the same as looking at my post before it comes through my door which to me is invading my privacy!!! simple
VM and other ISP will loose loads of buisness because i for one would rather not have the internet if VM start sending me letters about hwat i download....their digging their own grave
Welshchris
05-04-2008, 22:05
he never said copyright laws did he he said privacy laws!!! what their doing is basically looking at what your doing which to me is the same as looking at my post before it comes through my door which to me is invading my privacy!!! simple
VM and other ISP will loose loads of buisness because i for one would rather not have the internet if VM start sending me letters about hwat i download....their digging their own grave
Thats what i have been saying and people disagree with me saying that all other ISPs will sign up. AOL UK has publicly said they will NOT be doing this.
he never said copyright laws did he he said privacy laws!!! what their doing is basically looking at what your doing which to me is the same as looking at my post before it comes through my door which to me is invading my privacy!!! simple
VM and other ISP will loose loads of buisness because i for one would rather not have the internet if VM start sending me letters about hwat i download....their digging their own grave
The point was and very hypocritical by the said poster is that its ok for us to download but not ok for them to try and stop us, or that is what it sounded like. Dont download illegaly, and then you wont get your privacy took away.
Like I said, now the tables have turned, none of us like it.
Welshchris
05-04-2008, 23:16
The point was and very hypocritical by the said poster is that its ok for us to download but not ok for them to try and stop us, or that is what it sounded like. Dont download illegaly, and then you wont get your privacy took away.
Like I said, now the tables have turned, none of us like it.
Its not the point any of us dont like it its the point no one likes their privacy invaded, what next? if u send emails with certain things in u get a letter warning u? its rediculous!
Its not the point any of us dont like it its the point no one likes their privacy invaded, what next? if u send emails with certain things in u get a letter warning u? its rediculous!
Well thats what we get for downloading things that dont belong to us. surely? Dont like it, stop downloading illegally. We have been doing it for years and now there might be a clamp down on it, we all cry for our privacy.
Complaint based strikes have been with us for ages - normally generated by snoops working for the BPI/RIAA etc. and passed on by the ISP, since the minimally dynamic IP of cable is reasonably traceable - not sure if the same applies to ADSL.
The idea that all traffic would be intercepted without a warrant, is just WRONG.
Welshchris
06-04-2008, 01:58
Well thats what we get for downloading things that dont belong to us. surely? Dont like it, stop downloading illegally. We have been doing it for years and now there might be a clamp down on it, we all cry for our privacy.
I was pulled up by Virgin for running an FTP from my PC now and then to transfer files from my home PC to my partners PC.
These files wernt illegal, they were such things as Documents, Jpegs of scans we had done or pictures we had created.
Its rediculous!..
Complaint based strikes have been with us for ages - normally generated by snoops working for the BPI/RIAA etc. and passed on by the ISP, since the minimally dynamic IP of cable is reasonably traceable - not sure if the same applies to ADSL.
It's worth noting that the BPI are pushing for ISPs to disconnect 'offenders' because their snoops' 'evidence' has proved largely inadmissible in law and court actions generate negative PR.
I believe that ADSL ISPs are still required to maintain IP logs for security reasons, even tho' the security services have direct access to most UK ISPs data under RIPA...
The idea that all traffic would be intercepted without a warrant, is just WRONG.
Agreed.
It's a shame that TalkTalk's boss, Charlie Dunstone, can't see the irony in objecting to the BPI-supported monitoring while the ISP hopes to profit from Phorm's even more intrusive clickstream interception!
Luckily, it's not lost on The Observer's, John Naughton (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/apr/06/carphonewarehousegroupbusiness.internet).
I was pulled up by Virgin for running an FTP from my PC now and then to transfer files from my home PC to my partners PC.
These files wernt illegal, they were such things as Documents, Jpegs of scans we had done or pictures we had created.
Its rediculous!..
I wonder if lots of torrent users 'permanently' sharing fake 'copyright-offending' files (an archive of your holiday snaps cunningly renamed as the latest blockbuster movie?) would confound the BPI's paid informers and might lead to an interesting test case of an unwarranted disconnection?
With a bit of luck some genius is already developing the next, secure version of bittorrent!
:angel:
sparky01
07-04-2008, 11:36
its been that long since ive even downloaded 1 mp3 but what i do with my net isnt or wasnt my point....all because ppl out there do illegal stuff online they are gonna do this? Maybe if the stuff wasnt so easy to get then maybe everyone wouldnt be chastised for it.
I actually had a similiar experience to the guy that posted about them complaining about his FTP i had a similiar experience while i was transferring stuff to a work computer from home and they tried to more or less nit pick i must of been doing something illegal.
Secondly i use my net for work also along with banking and so on that is what bothers me about this 'trial' i dont want someone sitting watching what im doing when alot of the stuff i do do should be confidential.
But as i said arent they breaking some laws themselves to do what they want to do?
think at this rate VM is just gonna dig themselves a very very big hole
only reason i switched from BT to NTL (VM now) is because BT tried to overcharge me 3 months in a row that is and would still be the only reason. VM technical support plain rightly just sucks half the time you get a barely able to speak english guy on the phone. Secondly they argued with me that you cant do certain things with their cable which i had previously had done for 2 years or so before VM took over
personally wish VM never took over NTL they have killed alot of the aspects i liked it
JadeFalcon
07-04-2008, 12:54
and also another point... to be able to see who is using torrents u need access to the torrent itself, therefor that involves downloading and uploading of data from the same torrent, therefor it becomes entrapment, as they have aided you in commiting any offense
also another point how are they to tell that i will be downloading illegally, i could chose to download ANY of the albums in my collection behind me, but as i already own the said albums i would not be infiringing copyright laws as it is the same as making a legal backup of something i already own, yet the threat of connection closure still hangs over my head via a letter from the bpi.
this is just the passing of the buck because the bpi and government know it would actually cost too much money to investigate each and every individual download to see wether copyright laws are being infringed, which could literally blow up in virign and the bpi's face with a fat lawsuit when my connection is terminated for downloading something that i already own, plus then there is the invasion of privacy by a non-judicial establishment, which is also illegal
come on i dare these ppl to spy on me
Well thats what we get for downloading things that dont belong to us. surely? Dont like it, stop downloading illegally. We have been doing it for years and now there might be a clamp down on it, we all cry for our privacy.
you are correct, people dont like the tables being turned on them. As ive siad before, if your happy to download copyrighted material, take what comes with it.
People are happy for ISP to use spam filters, what you think this does with your mail, scans it for certain words & what source it has come from, but as this helps people, there is no outcry over this, & this is not a infringement of privacy :dozey:.
On a seperate point, downloading the material isnt really the issue, as you can always claim you were going to acquire the license before use, how this would work with terabytes of data im not sure, but if u havent watched it, you havent broken copyright law, its when you re-seed or distrubute the material, then the problems are likely to occur
I was pulled up by Virgin for running an FTP from my PC now and then to transfer files from my home PC to my partners PC.
These files wernt illegal, they were such things as Documents, Jpegs of scans we had done or pictures we had created.
Its rediculous!..
when was this? when the service started you were not allowed to run servers on your connection
when was this? when the service started you were not allowed to run servers on your connection
As far as i was aware, you were (and still are) allowed, i used to get my server hit by their end at least 3/4 times a day mind, not sure why, but i did. As long as you're not hosting illegal things, why should they care?
FYI, i was hosting a p/w protected streaming of my music, so i could listen to it all at college.
As far as i was aware, you were (and still are) allowed, i used to get my server hit by their end at least 3/4 times a day mind, not sure why, but i did. As long as you're not hosting illegal things, why should they care?
FYI, i was hosting a p/w protected streaming of my music, so i could listen to it all at college.
AFAIK, you can host them provided they don't interfere with the network. I have my IIS set to 20 kB/s max upload.
dilli-theclaw
07-04-2008, 18:09
HHHmmm I have a game/ftp/web server running here at chez dilli and they don't seem to mind, yet ;)
HHHmmm I have a game/ftp/web server running here at chez dilli and they don't seem to mind, yet ;)
I have a forum! And a few other things, mainly IRC scripts. They haven't mentioned it... but then I'm not hogging bandwidth. I like to keep some for myself!
Ravenheart
08-04-2008, 20:25
not sure if folks have seen this, seems the EU have turned tables on this
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/04/eu-politicians-strikes-back-against-three-strikes
the-cable-guy
09-04-2008, 06:32
? does the three strikes also cover apps & movies etc or is it just musik ? also i use encryption & Safe Peer but ppl can still see my IP address so how else can we protect ourselfs ?
As far as i was aware, you were (and still are) allowed, i used to get my server hit by their end at least 3/4 times a day mind, not sure why, but i did. As long as you're not hosting illegal things, why should they care?
FYI, i was hosting a p/w protected streaming of my music, so i could listen to it all at college.
not when the broadband service first started you couldnt run servers on it, ntl then relaxed a bit and allowed them
I have to admit, I have mixed feelings about this. While I can accept that ISPs need to be seen to be doing something (although I don't know if, legally, ISPs can be held responsible for anything that goes through their network but is not stored on any of their servers*), this whole idea smacks of being guilty until proved innocent (as do many of the copyright protection schemes)
Also, the systems themselves would probably be automated, so would generate a lot of false positives. For instance, I would be perfectly in my rights to create a text file, call it "the bill", share on a P2P system, but despite the fact that the file would be entirely my own creation (therefore I would be the copyright holder), I would be risking action being taken against me.
I say I have mixed feelings because although piracy isn't having as much of an effect on the music industry as they would have us believe, copying copyright protected content is illegal, and people do lose money. I'm talking about the "little people" who work on a project (be it a TV show, film, album), not the suits who run the company, so I can understand why they want to stop piracy.
I say I have mixed feelings because although piracy isn't having as much of an effect on the music industry as they would have us believe, copying copyright protected content is illegal, and people do lose money. I'm talking about the "little people" who work on a project (be it a TV show, film, album), not the suits who run the company, so I can understand why they want to stop piracy.
I'm not so sure there are many "little people" in the music industry, for instance, that have been negatively affected by the rise in popularity of music 'piracy'.
I don't see the record companies releasing fewer albums although they may not be supporting as many new bands to the extent they used to.
But the number of bands touring the UK and Europe has dramatically increased over the last five years, giving extra work to a large number of people not least myself occasionally.
The small drop in sales that can be attributed to 'piracy' rather than fans switching to non-physical formats aren't even evident in the UK where sales have increased. I imagine that the crash in CD prices (brought on by supermarkets selling them as loss-leaders barely above production costs) have had a much more damaging effect on industry bottom-lines than P2P.
Which "little people" are you thinking of?
I'm not so sure there are many "little people" in the music industry, for instance, that have been negatively affected by the rise in popularity of music 'piracy'.
I don't see the record companies releasing fewer albums although they may not be supporting as many new bands to the extent they used to.
But the number of bands touring the UK and Europe has dramatically increased over the last five years, giving extra work to a large number of people not least myself occasionally.
The small drop in sales that can be attributed to 'piracy' rather than fans switching to non-physical formats aren't even evident in the UK where sales have increased. I imagine that the crash in CD prices (brought on by supermarkets selling them as loss-leaders barely above production costs) have had a much more damaging effect on industry bottom-lines than P2P.
Which "little people" are you thinking of?
You actually highlighted one group: The new bands. I will stress, I am not ONLY talking about the music industry. A film or TV production (for instance) will employ a *lot* of people (ranging from studio cleaners through technicians, camera operators, lighting people etc up to the director) , and may (particularly if it's a major film production) create a lot of jobs in companies connected with the production.
If they start losing money, those productions get cancelled. I will say (again) that I don't believe that piracy is the problem that they say it is, but I also don't believe it helps.
There is also the flip side of the coin what about all the p2p that has actually added to sales of certain things, i have downloaded something to watch before now & then gone out & brought the extended dvd trilogy. I can state as a matter of fact that by watching a download drove me to buy something in the region of £70, which i would not have brought before seeing it
...by watching a download drove me to buy something in the region of £70, which i would not have brought before seeing it
Similarly, a friend asked me to find out about a band who's single she'd heard on the radio but only heard part of the song title not the band's name.
So I tracked down the band (all praise be to Google) and downloaded the band's latest album via P2P for her.
She was so impressed that the following Saturday, she went out and bought three or four CDs at High Street prices -- she didn't even bother to find them cheap online!
Then she gave the 'pirate' CD I'd burned for her to a friend she thought would like the band too.
And I've seen exactly the same thing happen with 'pirated' US tv series: gave a friend a few episodes of Lost but he doesn't get Sky so when the DVD boxset was released, he had no problem paying a small fortune for it.
PeteTheMusicGuy
09-04-2008, 13:51
There are other ways of getting to hear a bands new single apart from downlading it on P2P. Myspace is a good place for that. I know you dont get the actual MP3 but you do get to hear the song :)
There are other ways of getting to hear a bands new single apart from downlading it on P2P. Myspace is a good place for that. I know you dont get the actual MP3 but you do get to hear the song :)
That's fine *if* you have access to t'intertubes -- my friend who asked me to "find out more about the band" doesn't have regular access and lacks enough clue to find myspace, let alone a band she didn't even have an accurate track name for.
Oh, and in my view myspace isn't much different to P2P except it makes money for Murdoch!
:)
There are other ways of getting to hear a bands new single apart from downlading it on P2P. Myspace is a good place for that. I know you dont get the actual MP3 but you do get to hear the song :)
You try and find some of the stuff I listen to on Youtube let alone myspace.
The only y/t of a piece I like is one I asked the guy if he could vid and put up.
the-cable-guy
09-04-2008, 18:50
There are other ways of getting to hear a bands new single apart from downlading it on P2P. Myspace is a good place for that. I know you dont get the actual MP3 but you do get to hear the song :)
you do get the mp3 if you rip it :o)
Looks like the 'three strikes and your out' idea is a no go.
http://www.techradar.com/news/internet/illegal-downloaders-shouldnt-be-disconnected-316125
and
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7342135.stm
the-cable-guy
11-04-2008, 15:12
good cuz alot of ppl would be fooked otherwise.
TraxData
11-04-2008, 15:48
Looks like the 'three strikes and your out' idea is a no go.
http://www.techradar.com/news/internet/illegal-downloaders-shouldnt-be-disconnected-316125
and
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7342135.stm
It's not a no go, it's just not going to be implemented like people think it is.
It's not a no go, it's just not going to be implemented like people think it is.
do tell
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.