Re: Internet "cut off" date set for illegal downloaders
 

Not at all, the changes proposed are not drastic. They're still working on the principle of rights holders or ISPs being able to identify who is downloading what.

None of the proposed legislation gives any extra investigative measures, so there are no extra powers being suggested for going to 3rd parties to gather records of those who may be or may not be downloading what. It's simply a different way of dealing with those identified that doesn't cost the rights holders anywhere near as much as taking legal action now does.

Now if in the future the government announces that they're going to be mandating any data hosting service to turn over their logs for analysis to identify file sharers then the situation will be vastly different, but as it is the situation will be the same as it's always been, p2p is an easy way to get caught.

Re: Internet "cut off" date set for illegal downloaders
 

The new CO proposals make no reference to judicial involvement prior to disconnection. If these were not drastic measures then TalkTalk would not be getting into such a twist over the possibility of them having to hand over user data and disconnect account holders without a court order.

Re: Internet "cut off" date set for illegal downloaders
 

Talk talk are more interested in the cost of implementation rather than making any moral stand, their actions are purely from a business point of view and are two fold, one: by not having to disconnect those filesharing they don't incur added cost (which Mandelson wants split between the ISP and rights holder) and two: by making this stand they are getting a ton of free publicity.

They will not have to hand over user data, they will simply be told which customers are infringing (by the rights holders collecting IP addresses), and have to follow a set procedure, that being a series of warnings, then maybe eventual disconnection.

The proposal is that ISPs and rights holders work together to identify users that are downloading illegally, that can be done two ways, by the rights holders actively monitoring download sites and harvesting the IPs of those downloading their content, or by the ISPs monitoring traffic to detect downloads. Only the first one of those is actually being suggested, but both of these are not an issue if you're using SSL and a direct download. There is nothing in the proposals that will enable anyone to go to 3rd parties and request information on what people are downloading, the rights holders have to be able to identify exactly what you're downloading before they can start giving out warnings, your ISP will not act without being told that you're infringing, and even if they were actively monitoring their network just seeing that you're downloading a high volume of traffic over SSL from a newsgroup provider for instance would not be enough.

There's a huge amount of scare mongering going on about it, and there's no doubt that the proposals are bad news for p2p, but they really aren't for anything else. It'll stop a huge amount of casual infringement, but it's no silver bullet that's going to magically stop all file sharing, and they never will. But getting rid of the highly public mass of p2p sites will be more than enough for the rights holders.

Re: Internet "cut off" date set for illegal downloaders
 

What you are outlining above are the proposals as mooted in June & August of this year. What Mandleson is now proposing are new measures post the September consultation.

Legally they are very different beasts.

Re: Internet "cut off" date set for illegal downloaders
 

No, he's proposing exactly what I've said, even the talk talk site set up about it says the same. The entire proposal revolves around rights holders identifying who is downloading their content.

Re: Internet "cut off" date set for illegal downloaders
 

Again, with all due respect, it is not what he is currently proposing.

The TalkTalk site which you link actually links to the pre September 29th deadline consultation announcement in pdf format and, commenting on the at that time proposals, moots a hypothetical "It proposes an automatic process to disconnect ‘offenders’ which appears to run something like this:"

Post consultation he has removed the judicial requirement and introduced a levy per notification issued which will be payable by the rights holders to the ISP - ergo one might reasonably assume that the rights holders have no requirement to identify infringers but that this will fall to the ISPs. Hence TalkTalk threatening to throw their toys out of the pram.

Re: Internet "cut off" date set for illegal downloaders
 

Please point me to anything other than hearsay that says the monitoring is going to be down to the ISP. There is literally no chance it will be as for an ISP to monitor who is infringing they'd need a complete catalogue of every copyright work going, and it'd have to be constantly maintained. Rights holders have repeatedly refused to provide such a database to many download sites citing it as being impractical, so why would they be able to do it now?

Not even talk talk think it will be, and if there was any hint of it they'd be shouting it from the rooftops like they are with the rest of the proposal. Right from the very start it's been about rights holders notifying ISPs and then ISPs having to carry out the notifications to end users (which is what the rights holders have to pay for, added staff and technology costs to actually deal with the notices). It is up to the rights holders to protect their copyright, not any 3rd party.

But once again, even if the ISPs do end up monitoring (which they wont) then it makes no difference to what I'm saying as they cannot do on the fly decryption of SSL, and unless they mount man in the middle attacks on every secure connection (which would land them in court within seconds) then there's no way they'll know what the traffic actually contains.

Re: Internet "cut off" date set for illegal downloaders
 

See the already published proposals.

In their draft form they state that once an infringer has initially been notified to the ISP the ISP will issue a first warning. The ISP will then monitor for subsequent / continued infringements and where appropriate issue further notifications explaining that if the account holder "persists the rights-holder may take legal action against them". This is neither the language nor the tact of a third party complainant. Whichever way you look at it (including even the Talk Talk diagram interpretation) it is monitoring on the part of the ISP.

As far as the database question is concerned you have partially answered your own question further down wherein you state "It is up to the rights holders to protect their copyright, not any 3rd party". The rights holders will readily identify infringements rather than afford ISP's the opportunity to suggest that their being required to do so is impractical or an onerous burden on their resources. Moreso now that they have a firm Government commitment to address the issue.

If, as is already agreed and clearly stated in the proposals, the rights holders have to foot the bill for the issuing of any notices then what do you think Talk Talk's "And they want you to pay for this new scheme" scaremongering regarding some supposed "copyright enforcement tax" is about? Could it be their way of levying a fee to offset their additional monitoring costs?

I think they are playing to the gallery - and handling it very badly.

Re: Internet "cut off" date set for illegal downloaders
 

Those two paragraphs go entirely against each other.

An ISP cannot monitor for future infringements if they do not know what data is infringing. If the rights holders are readily identifying infringements then they are the ones doing the monitoring, not the ISPs.

I've also read all the proposals, and there's nothing in there that I can see that states that ISPs will be made to monitor anything other than the number of notifications sent and to who. Please feel free to point me in the direction of somewhere that does though, and by direction I don't mean just going "read the proposals".

The current proposals are aiming towards a 50/50 split between the cost of carrying this out between the rights holders and the ISPs, the levy will simply be to make up the rights holders 50%.

But again, this is all academic, it's only going to effect p2p.

Re: Internet "cut off" date set for illegal downloaders
 

How many times do you think that an ISP might need to be notified of a particular work being subject to copyright? You are trying to argue an already failed / rejected proposal from the original BERR Report. Move long.

OK, re read the proposals you've already read.

Sorry, you missed the bit in the proposals you already read which states that the rights holders have to pay for the notifications - not the customers. Nowhere in the proposals does it say that the customers will have to contribute anything on behalf of the rights holder (or the ISP for that matter).

For the time being.

Re: Internet "cut off" date set for illegal downloaders
 

Sith lord Mandelson:

How the news paper title should have read:

"Unelected official with previous history of corruption announces a new law to punish the electorat for not giving big business the money they want"

From a good friend via facebook

So if I have a Usenet account using SSL and the server is located aboard can they still sniff my traffic?

Re: Internet "cut off" date set for illegal downloaders
 

Every single time the work is infringed. At the very least they'd need to be notified for every separate instance of it on every p2p site (and of those there are thousands). The rights holders can't just go "yeah we own the rights to this film" and then have the ISP track whoever downloads that, it's technologically impossible. The ISPs would either have to be notified of every infringing copy on every site, and then monitor them themselves to see which of their customers are accessing it, or would need a digital fingerprint of each copy of the work, which they could then check for through the use of DPI. Both of those are cost prohibitive, the only workable situation is exactly the one they're going with, rights holders monitoring, ISPs blindly send out notifications. This is why talk talk are going on about rights holders becoming judge jury and executioner.

As I said, I don't want some wishy washy "yeah it's in the proposals" I want you to post here, in this thread, the paragraphs from the proposals that state what you're saying. I've read the proposals many a time, there's NOTHING in there that mandates ISP monitoring of traffic on their networks, absolutely nothing, this is evidenced by the very fact that no ISP in the UK is currently complaining about having to do monitoring, not even talk talk. If there was the slightest hint that ISPs would have to start doing packet level monitoring of all their data traffic then they'd be up in arms about it because it would cost them an absolute fortune.

Your inability to pinpoint where it says what you're saying speaks volumes.

It states the rights holders will have to pay for each notification, it doesn't say that this fee will meet the entire costs.

For the time being murder is illegal. Maybe in future it won't be!

You're still ignoring the fact it's technologically impossible to extend this measure to anything but p2p, and the only way to do so would by to force every data host in the world to hand over their logs for analysis, which would NEVER happen because it's in breach of just about every privacy law in every country. Fishing expeditions are not allowed in law.

Seriously my entire point here is that it's not the end of filesharing because there's many alternatives out there that have end to end encryption, end to end encryption that CANNOT be broken, and definitely can't be broken on the fly to enable real time analysis of what's being downloaded.

---------- Post added at 19:55 ---------- Previous post was at 19:55 ----------

No.

Re: Internet "cut off" date set for illegal downloaders
 

...tries to resist.....

Sorry, couldn't resist mentioning Phorm. The ISP's didn't exactly help their arguments against DPI (i.e. packet level monitoring of all their data traffic) when they tried to embrace Phorm, did they?

Re: Internet "cut off" date set for illegal downloaders
 

In fairness they are entirely different beasts, Phorm is relatively easy to implement.

Phorm just relies on being able to see what sort of sites people are visiting, which is plain text data, identifying infringing works means they need to keep a database of all infringing works, and examine all the data that passes through their networks against the digital fingerprints kept in that database, whilst also checking if it's coming from a legitimate download site or not.

Re: Internet "cut off" date set for illegal downloaders
 

I'm sorry, but you are wrong on several levels.

It is not technologically impossible to track downloads by any stretch of the imagination. I'd refer you to Youtube as just one example of the most benign version of such technology.

"Both these are cost prohibitive" - Yes, that's exactly what TalkTalk are crying about whilst trying to drip feed their customer base the idea that the Government wants the end users to pay - it doesn't.

Good ploy, you know as well as I do that the most recent proposals (not the previous ones which I have already pointed out to you your reliance upon is flawed) are not yet in the public domain - as such I'm not at liberty to post "here, in this thread".

What I can do however is draw your attention to the careful language of Mr Heaney when he says "TalkTalk will continue to resist any attempts to make it impose technical measures on its customers unless directed to do so by a court or recognised tribunal."

For those who have difficulty in translating corporate speak I would recommend that they read the musings of a certain James Alexander;

"ISPs will be aware of upsetting legitimate and loyal customers in a fiercely competitive market. ISPs will use the twelve-month monitoring period to not only measure the effectiveness of deterrents but also to hone their own detection processes. Detection is reliant on a combination of technologies and supporting processes to analyse the huge volume of data generated by all the broadband connections in the UK.

"Making this detection process efficient and effective may well be a challenge, and while direct costs may be measurable and therefore split with content owners, indirect costs such as managing calls from customers, may be harder to capture. This may be easier to swallow if the ISP is also a content owner but may still be a burden for ISPs generally".

Mr Alexander is the senior media partner at Deloitte - one of the primary Government movers and shakers post the September consultation. I'm sure if people look further they will find more.

Neither does it say that customers should be expected to contribute.

I hadn't figured you for the sarky type.

And you, again with all due respect, are ignoring - amongst other things - the DPA in its various incarnations and various subsequent Acts which have been passed which require ISPs to record and retain data for extended and specific periods of time.

When Mr Heaney bleats on about rights holders becoming "judge jury and executioner" he is highlighting something that you are missing.

When he talks about "extra judicial measures" he's not talking about "additional" judicial measures placing a burden on either his company or his customers. He's talking about measures that do not require the involvement of, or sanctioning by, the judiciary - ie, Court Orders in relation to the disclosure of personal data. Heaney knows this and that is why he's threatening to go to court to prevent the removal of this requirement. His business could potentially haemorrhage around him because he, like others, has fastidiously protected illegal filesharers by using the Court Order requirement as a cost prohibitive gateway. The Dark Lord is resolute in his determination to put a stop to it and the extra judicial move will do just that.

Seriously, the debate here is not about filesharing but illegal filesharing.

There is no point in singing the virtues of end to end encryption in real time. The argument has moved. Rights holders are not interested in "the now" - they never have been - royalties were always paid quarterly in arrears. It makes little odds to them whether they identify the infringer in real time or several months later by way of data records provided under certain legislations.

For the time being end to end encryption is safe in real time- but in the future the records of it wont be!