Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

I'm not sure that DPI kit is the only way forward.

Based on the report, as I understand it, the ISP will need to keep records of those who have been accused of infringements, based on reports sent to them by the rights owner. Said Rights owners must provide a lot of information including the following:

That implies work on behalf of the Rights owners, and further on in the Ofcom report it also deals with the issues of quality control and audit of the data.

We can assume then that all an ISP has to do is create the appropriate DB's to store the CIR's, this certainly would not require DPI kit. But I'm still seeing a lot of costs here.

The DPI kit VM touted was to help them enable their music service, which to date has not taken off. Given the Digital Economy Bill, and this latest Ofcom proposal, it may not be required any longer.

You could argue though that DPI kit would have to be deployed as a solution to restrict infringer's from using certain network protocols outside of a suspension or termination of service, however such kit wouldn't require the layer of network interrogation in order to prevent inbound/outbound traffic of P2P traffic on a per user level.

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

OK, so now at least you are acknowledging that illegal downloads might well constitute lost sales.

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

do you also concede that illegal downloading might well increase product awareness and encourage sales from people who may not have been interested in paying money to see a film based on the trailer itself?

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

It's a tough call I have to admit.

The optimist in me would like to think that there may be some merit in that synopsis but the realist / cynic in me tells me that people who can get stuff for free will, for the greater part through human nature, prioritize other essentials before purchasing the media legally once they've seen / heard acquired it illegally.

That's not to say that their behaviour is entirely cost related but rather that the popular perception on their part is that everything should be available for free on a try before you buy basis.

I'm sure there is a common ground approach to this somewhere on the horizon but I'm afraid many people, on both sides of the argument, are going to suffer some very considerable financial pain in the very near future / interim.

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

Fully agree.

I know plenty of people who after all reasonable living expenses being paid, will still not pay for something if they don't have too.

What makes my blood boil is that at least two of those people are in the service industry, where their salaries are determined by sales.

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

Can I as a subscriber challenge the media companies for harrasment if I start getting letters?

---------- Post added at 16:34 ---------- Previous post was at 16:24 ----------

Here is my view.

I am sensible enough to know a certian section of the population will never buy media, the only legal media they own would be whats given to them as presents, for the media companies they are a lost cause and they should be ignored.
There is a section of the population who would buy but dont currently if the media companies adapted to the global market and internet. I dont feel they would buy tho via the bullying methods currently been implemented.
There is also a section of the population who buy anyway regardless of ease of piracy. Including people who download and still buy media.

My honest view is on a overall basis, that piracy should be considered as free advertising and publicity by the media companies. They should consider that to give out promotional media costs money in manufacturing and advertising, on torrents and the like all this cost is removed for them, the end user and the isp pays the cost instead. The facts speak for themselves, there is no evidence whatsoever that internet piracy reduces sales, there is evidence that people who download on average buy more media than those who dont download. There is also evidence that much of the media been downloaded is not even available to buy.

I will use F1 as an example, looking at youtube, I notice that the clips been removed are the ones with english audio, in particular itv/bbc audio. As if bernie has a problem with us in the uk watching on youtube but not people in brazil. The content that gets removed is not available to buy. Its down to a power thing, the power to control the distribution, not down to lost sales. Of course they cant go to governments with that so instead they come up with trumped figures claiming they losing billions every year so the government panics and legislates.

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

The studies that have indicated this are in no way scientific.

As far as there being no loss perhaps you'd care to tell Nintendo this?

Also http://www.edge-online.com/news/esa-...hest-in-europe

With a few seconds of Google, I'm sure I could find plenty more easily enough.

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

Absolutely.

I'm sure once you've made it clear to them that "there is no evidence whatsoever that internet piracy reduces sales" they will see the error of their ways, issue you with an apology and simply go away.

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

I mean can I take legal action in the same ease they can against me with this legislation.

There seems to be no protection for people been wrongfully harrassed eg. when ip's get spoofed.

---------- Post added at 18:57 ---------- Previous post was at 18:56 ----------

I cant find any independent reports backed with facts sorry.

even the one you linked to was very poor.

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

Yes, of course you can.

It is, however, always worth remembering that in the real world - in the event that someone, based on evidence, decides to sue you - denying that you are a habitual infringer is somewhat more expensive than posting on a forum and any such denials, in order to be plausible, will require more than just a statement along the lines of "It wasn't me" or "there is no evidence whatsoever that internet piracy reduces sales".

See above.

There is nothing new here as far as culpable responsibility is concerned.

Every ISP that I'm aware of makes (and has always made) it expressly clear that account holders are responsible for what goes on with their account (wireless or not). The fact that people might now actually be brought to account for allowing their service to be used for breaking the law seems to be an issue for some.

If someone needs to have this pointed out to them three times (in addition to existing T&Cs) then they only have themselves to blame.

Whilst I'm not sure what you might consider to be "independent" or, for that matter what you might consider to be "facts", I am sure that if you were ever to find yourself in the unfortunate position that you were sued and you used the "there is no evidence whatsoever that internet piracy reduces sales" defence you would go down in history as a comedic genius.

I'm also sure that in the eyes of the law ignorance is no defence.

You're an adult - I'm quite sure you are capable of finding links / facts to substantiate the fact that internet piracy reduces sales. If it didn't why would you bother referring to it as "piracy".

Also, it's rather interesting that in your earlier post you said "there is no evidence whatsoever that internet piracy reduces sales" whilst simultaneously offering your "view" on how the big bad media companies might go about reducing something that, by your assertion, even they can't prove.

As I said, comedic genius.

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

so someone is responsible for when they get accused of something they did not do on their account?

I am not talking about unsecured wireless etc. I am talking about if the accuser gets it wrong.

I have read the ofcom document and you are wrong in regards to counter prosecution, ofcom have not added a mechanism where the accused can do a complaint and get the media company fined for harrasment.

In addition ofcom have made an assumption the isp will appear in court alongside the media company, the owner of aaisp has already made clear he will not honour this.

If I was to unsecure my wireless and announce it I would then become a service provider and not be accountable under this legislation.

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

You would then be breaking VM's T&Cs -

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

As foreverwar has pointed out - you have no idea, whatsoever, of what you are talking about.

I'm afraid you are the one who is wrong. OFCOM are not the "Be all and end all" of legal avenues - that falls to solicitors. All you would need to do, in the event you are threatened with being sued but are absolutely adamant that you are innocent, is to find a solicitor who is prepared to represent you.

Good luck with that if your defence is still going to be your comedy classic "there is no evidence whatsoever that internet piracy reduces sales" .

What a big brave ISP they are. You obviously haven't read their AUP. AAisp does not need to appear in court because, get this, they will have already done their bit by providing the rights holders with the details of infringers in the event that they request same or get a court order to do so - that's how the people will end up in court.

Good luck with that too. Do come back and let us know how you get on with it. Don't forget to tell your ISP that you're illegally subletting bandwidth.

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

As long as OFCOM does nothing about overseas text scams ripping off children (and therefore their parents) I will have no sympathy for them.

Re: OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.
 

mr angry.

I think you are just so blind its not worth discussing this with you.

You think I dont know what I am talking about when I point out there is and will be letters going out to people who's connection hasnt touched pirated content?

If you think the detection is 100% reliable you are the one who is misinformed.

My point is as well on the counter is why do I need a solicitor to take action against the media companies but they need to only have 3 letters sent to get me cutoff?

But I will stop caring about this anyway.

They cannot police this no matter how they try barring the uk internet going into lockdown with every port been blocked. The media companies (and now the parliament) is just too out of touch to realise whats going on. Its nothing more than a few corporates moaning about the fact they cant adapt to a new market and their profits are not as high as they like (they not losing money).
In america they even trying to get tv companies to block analogue recording now.
Whenever someone from the copyright holders gets interviewed they also get very agressive when questioned about copyright.