[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by TheDon

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.

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.

Originally Posted by TheDon

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.

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".

Originally Posted by TheDon

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

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.

Originally Posted by TheDon

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

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

Originally Posted by TheDon

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

I hadn't figured you for the sarky type.

Originally Posted by TheDon

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.

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.

Originally Posted by TheDon

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.

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!