[TheDon]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

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.

If you read what I said properly, I said it's technologically impossible to do it based on the name of the copyrighted work alone.

Youtube does do video and auto fingerprinting to remove infringing content, but it relies heavily on rights holders to identify work themselves and submit dmca requests first. Their system relies on them being manually notified that a video is infringing, and then it's added to a database of known violations. It cannot detect anything that hasn't been manually reported to them through a dmca request.

This is my entire point, you can't just say "yeah we own the copyright to latest hollywood blockbuster" and then expect the ISP to be able to track every download of it, they'd need to be notified of EVERY version of it to be able to track copies of each of them.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

"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.

Yes, it does, it wants the costs split between the ISP and the rights holders, giving the ISP any additional costs means the end users end up paying.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

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."

Technical measures = speed restrictions and eventual disconnection, as stated in all of the proposals:

We also proposed a mechanism whereby Ofcom would be granted reserve powers to oblige ISPs to utilise specified technical measures against repeat infringers should these two obligations prove to be deficient in reducing infringement.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

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.

Firstly, Mr Alexander is only a media spokesman, he isn't privy to any of the internal communications about this, he's speaking solely as an outside observer.

If anyone is in any doubt that Mr Alexander is not privy to anything that's not public, I point you to this quote from him just four days before Mandelson dropped the disconnection bombshell:

James Alexander, Deloitte Media Partner said: "The fact that the government has retreated from the technical clamp down on persistent file sharers is no surprise.

A strange comment from a "mover and shaker" ahead of an announcement that they were looking at going further with the technical clamp down then they have ever suggested before!

(Thanks for bolding the part that backs up my point that they want the costs split between the ISPs and the rights holders that you seem to disagree so strongly with though!)

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

I hadn't figured you for the sarky type.

Well you can sit discussing the ifs and buts of what might happen in future till the cows come home. My point stands, the currently proposed measures ARE NOT drastic law changes of the sort that would be needed to target anything but p2p (which is also why the entire consultation has had p2p in the title)

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

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.

And what about the laws that restrict who can access that information, and the burden of evidence to get a court order to see it? As I've said, fishing expeditions are illegal, you can not just get someone to hand over their logs so you can go looking through them to see if anyone might have infringed your copyright, and until there's a drastic law change that changes that, doing so will remain illegal, and it doesn't matter what data is being held as long as no one gets to see it (I'm also not refering to ISPs here, but 3rd parties like newsgroup providers).

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

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.

I'm not missing anything. The measures are for dealing with those that have been identified, my point is that outside of p2p identifying people that are infringing is next to impossible without actually going through the courts to get information from 3rd parties, and there would have to be drastic law changes that as they'd have to essentially rip up the DPA to make it possible.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

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!

Yes, they will be.

You will not crack SSL even given 10 years.