OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.

[Toto]

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:

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.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Lord Nikon

Not really, both methods could also be construed as lost sales...

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

[Lord Nikon]

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?

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Lord Nikon

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?

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.

[Toto]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

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.

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.

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Seems fairly reasonable, a key point is that people aren't going to be cut off arbitrarily.

The 'licence to sue' seems ok so long as it's not abused in the manner Sirius describes as a substitute for offering content in more convenient ways.

My one major frustration is that this does nothing for serial downloaders from newsgroups but will instead punish those who use P2P which will perversely push them into giving money to Paedoshare and newsgroup services who profit from supplying content.

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 ----------

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

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.

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.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

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.

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?

According to a U.S. study last December, Italy leads Europe in the number of illegal downloads, followed by Spain and France.

Nintendo said it saw sales of its DS software plummet in Europe and some other markets by 45 percent in April-December 2009, compared to the previous year.

The drop was significantly steeper than an 11 percent fall in the United States and a 7 percent drop in Japan during the same period.

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.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

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

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.

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

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.

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.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

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

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".

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

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

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.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

I cant find any independent reports backed with facts sorry.

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.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

even the one you linked to was very poor.

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.

[Chrysalis]

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.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

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.

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

D Using the services

1. You are responsible for the way the services are used. You must not use the services to do any of the following acts or allow anyone else to use the services to do such acts:...... ......Use any services (including, but not limited to, phone services) for commercial or business purposes;

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

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.

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

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

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.

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" .

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

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

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.

[Angua]

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

[Chrysalis]

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.