Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Angry
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.
|
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Angry
OK, re read the proposals you've already read.
|
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Angry
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).
|
It states the rights holders will have to pay for each notification, it doesn't say that this fee will meet the entire costs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Angry
For the time being.
|
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 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by psyfur
So if I have a Usenet account using SSL and the server is located aboard can they still sniff my traffic?
|
No.