Quote:
Originally Posted by Sirius
I agree the equipment is off topic but i think that the ISP's will decide its the only way forward, VM i feel has realised this already and its why they have decided to take that route. The impact that this will have on the isp's will be large to say the least. All the requests for information on who had a ip will grow and grow as the rights owners realise they have a new revenue stream to tap into.
|
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:
Quote:
4.3 We are proposing that Copyright Owners must include the following information within a CIR:
• the name and registered address of the Qualifying Copyright Owner;
• where relevant, name and registered address of the person on whose behalf the Qualifying Copyright Owner is authorised to act and evidence of authorisation;
• identification of the work in which copyright in the UK is said by the Qualifying Copyright Owner claims to subsist (the “Relevant Work”), including the title of the Relevant Work and a description of the nature of the Relevant Work;
• a statement that there appears to have been an infringement of the owner’s copyright in the Relevant Work;
• a description of the apparent infringement, including the filename, a description of the contents of the file, and (where appropriate) hash code12
of the infringing content;
12 A hash code is a unique identifier, attached to a digital content file. A hash code is created when a digital content file is created and a new hash code is allocated if the content file is edited or modified. hash code matching can also be used as part of the process of verifying the identify of a content asset.
Online Infringement of Copyright and the Digital Economy Act 2010
18
• a statement that, to the best of the Qualifying Copyright Owner’s knowledge, no consent has been given by the owner of the UK copyright in the Relevant Work for the acts described in the preceding paragraph to have occurred;
• the date and time using Universal Coordinated Time (UCT) on which the evidence was gathered, including both the start and end time of the relevant session;
• the IP address associated with the apparent infringement;
• port number used to conduct apparent infringement;
• the website, or protocol, via which apparent infringement occurred;
• a Unique infringement identifier (UII) allocated to CIR by the Qualifying Copyright Owner; and
• the date and time of issue of CIR.
This list is based on the information currently produced by agents working on behalf of Copyright Owners. We believe that this matches the standard of evidence required by the courts in relation to civil proceedings by Copyright Owners for copyright infringement.
|
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.