Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

You are confusing the issue yet again:

RIPA applies to the actual communication itself irrespective of the content within it.

Appears to me that you are phising phorms argument on trying to wriggle out of the RIPA issue.

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

Many will see it that way, yes. The law is fluid. Laws evolve over time to adapt to updated methods and new technology. "Bad" laws are passed as well as "good" ones. High court opinion doesn't always go the way of public opinion nor does it always take what appears to be the obvious route.

Not a popular view but why do content owners have an absolute right to all the revenue from their content? They didn't pay for and build the IP networks. They're making money off the back of this significant investment by communications companies, who in turn are making money off the back of the content (either directly through subscription or indirectly through advertising).

Whatever you think of me or my views is mostly irrelevant. What matters is how the legislators, the enforcers, the regulators, the courts etc will be swayed by arguments. The ISPs and Phorm most likely have a lot more money than any campaign has. Their views will be heard.

Don't shoot the messenger.

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

Can someone do a short and sweet letter that we all can use that covers everything?

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

As I've said numerous times, please re-read my original messages. The RIPA argument relies on consent. It is reasonable to assume that the ISPs will present a powerful case for the implied consent argument in relation to web-published content.

I am actually trying to strengthen the anti-Phorm argument by challenging some of what I see as the weaker points being used in letters to MPs to hopefully focus people's minds on what I see as the stronger points.

My view, my opinion, your choice.

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

Yes its your view and your opinion which is your right but I disagree vehemently with you. RIPA relies on informed consent not implied consent. This is the very reason we have all argued that the ISPs cannot simply introduce this with a change of terms and conditions.

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

First of all, the vast amount of investment required to develop the architecture for the Internet in the UK was paid for with public money. The PSTN which is the basic framework for ADSL was installed when BT was a nationalised company and even after privatisation BT have been heavily subsidised by our taxes/

Secondly, to suggest content owners don't have exclusive rights to their content is crazy. They pay their provider for the transport of that content to their subscribers and they generally pay significantly for that.

I have been in the IT industry for a long long time and have spent time in negotiations with IDC owners in and around London for large online projects (Globix, Level3, WorldCom, Redbus and BT to name just a few) and the cost of datacenter real estate (in this country mostly owned by the backbone providers) and bandwidth for a busy website (which would allow you to monetise it) is not cheap by any stretch of the imagination. So suggesting they should give up some of their revenues from that content is ridiculous. The network providers get their remuneration through their tariffs, if they are unable to make satisfactory profits they have the right to raise those tariffs.

This is exactly why Net Neutrality is so important and exactly why it is causing such global concern.

Alexander Hanff

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

A big thanks to phormblonsky for reminding us just how obnoxious and tricky phorm is

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

Oh dear. Are you insinuating I'm crazy? I really wish you would try and read and understand what I wrote before replying. I was suggesting that content owners should not expect to an absolute right to all the revenue from their works when they publish online.

They have an absolute right, bit when they choose to publish online it is only reasonable to expect that others will be making money off the back of the decision to publish online, just as record companies make significant money off the back of the artists when really they are just providing a distribution and marketing channel.

ISPs (even clean ones) do already make money off the back of content owners.

You pay a subscription because you want to access the good stuff on the net provided by others.

You wouldn't pay the subscription, or maybe not as much, if the content was fewer and less varied. Content owners also pay to put their stuff online.

What is the difference between the existing model and the Phorm model (considering only the copyright arguments)?

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

you make some interesting points, and they sure need to work it far better, but i have said before there is ONE SINGLE model that can be made to work, there's NO BIG money in it for the likes of Phorm though.

that model (with a lot of work)is the "walled garden" extended to all partys..., giving their consent including the website owners involved making their opted-in website exclusive to the prison walls ;)

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

I think virgin media's T&C's Changed when they rebranded to virgin media (must have already had talks with phorm prior to the 2006 illegal bt trials and ammended there T&C's so they could run trial's and think they were covered going on phorm's word it was ok).

I think i was part of such a illegal trial and it caused damage to my computer (Time to write directly to them by hand as e-mail isnt getting replied).

If when Dr Richard Clayton examined the phorm system this year 2008 does anyone think that this was the same dodgy equipment that was used in 2006 and 2007 illegal trials my very good guess is no it wasnt so who knows what damage phorms kit (hardware and software) did at that time.

These early stages of kit as in any developing hardware\software and distribution would have had more holes and glitches than the system of 2008 especially when it is alpha/beta prerelease peice of hardware and or software this isnt scaremongering this is known for any product or service (Did they do the old here have a rootkit trick before deciding to use cookies ;)) especially when it is due to affect a national network.

Given all the isp's known to be associated with phorm having the cog's and wheels in place already i.e change in t&c's, webwise faq e.t.c. for a while they must have hoped that the model XIIIIIIIII would have passed without much fuss and would more or less be active now, but knowledgable people threw a spanner in there works and with there model in tatters are beavering away still trying to make it half legal but will still fail imo.

Previous Alpha or Beta models deployed in such a way during illegal trials to help development/assesment could have had unknown effects on peoples machines causing infinte loops (processor usage running abnormally high and a real general slowdown in computing tasks) very very slow or total failure of redirects as the routing that takes place fails or gets jammed with data flow as a couple of examples.

Phorm and the Isp's themselves are as transparent as mud and as open as a black hole theres a huge void there they could fill and back up with solid facts but they dont and wont do in the future imo and untill then i wont belive a thing phorm/webwise and or any isp tell me, the charles stanley document confirmed in my eyes the fears i had about isp's involvment.

As sure as phorm change kit to the next deployment model once it is deployed it does nothing in the confidence of myself to trust these guys in anyway now or in the future.

Is there anyway i myself can request to get information about any trials that took place on an isp involving the public from anywhere that is recorded?

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

I don't want to be seen to be defending Amy Winehouse, but in the context of this thread, is it just me that finds it ridiculous that she could be arrested on suspicion and held overnight for questioning on the basis of a tabloid provided video, but no white collars are felt at BT when they admit to unconsented interception?

Justice - banana :)

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

I've been thinking more about the robots.txt situation.

To stop Phorm pimping the information on our sites when visited by a user on a Webwise ISP I have to stop Google indexing my site. Phorm know damn well that the majority of people want their site indexed by Google and are quite cynically using that as a way of forcing us to allow them to profile our site.

There's a term for that: BLACKMAIL - They are trying to force us in to a particular course of action for their own financial gain.

I wonder if we could get the police to investigate that crime?

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

I don't want to wade into a heated debate here but isn't it true to say that Google wouldn't exist if it couldn't scan pages and index websites, arguably breaching copyright in the process?

But as I said I don't want to stir controversy - seems like its been a hot afternoon!

---------- Post added at 18:24 ---------- Previous post was at 18:19 ----------

I see this as a very interesting topic. At the risk of poking the angry bear(s) (not a reference to Old Bear) I'd say that Phorm have a duty to identify themselves as an indexing or profiling engine of some sort.

I'm not sure of the laws or even the recommendations and RFCs but I feel it would be wrong for Phorm to use a browser user agent string when asking for robots.txt (but "okay" to mimic the browser agent of the user when transacting with the website - "okay" if you agree Phorm is okay in the first place!).

It would also clearly be wrong for it to impersonate any of the major indexing robots, which leaves them with 2 choices - use a unique identifier that sooner or later someone will work out as Phorm or leave it blank.

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

If Google scan my website, which I allow, a client may find my services from the search. Good for me good for the client. If Phorm scan my website, which I do not want, a client may be shown an alternative website with a rival service : absolutely no benefit to me whatsoever and naturally not such a good service either in my opinion.

Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
 

I disagree and so does the law, specifically the Copyright Designs and Patents Act which explicitly states all copyright owners maintain sole rights to their works and licensing of those works is through choice not mandatory, as is who they license them to.

I find it unreasonable and utterly unacceptable and again so does the law and again this is one of the reasons the Net Neutrality debate is so crucial at a global level, because the second you start employing that model is the day that providers start blocking content because content owners refuse to be extorted. Then that devolves even further and providers start blocking content because competition to that content is paying them to do so, and then it devolves further where political and religious content gets blocked and so on and so forth until eventually the net is nothing but a manuscript with 98% of the words blacked out and censored. Am I passionate about this never being permitted to happen? Damn right I am and so should everyone be.

Furthermore, no the record label is again a terrible analogy and does not fit. The record label pays scouts to find the bands, they pay studio time to make the records, they pay manufacturing costs, they pay distribution costs, they pay marketing costs and most importantly they usually -buy- the copyright, which gives them the right to monetise it anyway they see fit (legally) and they then pay royalties to the artist. So as you see a completely different scenario altogether.


The difference is the ISP making money off me to access the internet is exactly that, it is nothing to do with the content on the Internet and they don't read everything I do on there, profile me from it and hit me with behavioural advertising so some company in the US can get minted off the back of my personal data and communications and off the content (not licensed) provided by the resources I visit.

From the content owner's perspective, the ISP is not making a derivative works of -their- content and then using that works to build a profile of their users for the purpose of hitting them with behavioural advertising in order to generate revenue which the content owner will never see, the content owner will never get any fiscal benefit from their own work whilst unlicensed 3rd parties make billions.

Alexander Hanff