Britain's six largest ISPs and BPI join forces to attack illegal filesharing

[eth01]

it's a very responsible motive, and I applaud those ISP's in question.

[piggy]

Originally Posted by eth01

it's a very responsible motive, and I applaud those ISP's in question.

do you think the isps want to do this?

for the average user what is the point of fast bb if you dont download, the new generation of users have never bought vinyl/tape/cd they see the latest mp3/film as throwaway the rules have changed thats why im a big believer in paying a copyright tax (say £30 a year) then also charge for the quantity downloaded this will keep the isps happy then let everybody get on with it and share what they want.

[jtaylor06]

Whats the point of (soon to be) 100Mbps just for browsing and checking email.
What are you supposed to download when you can't download much anymore.

I'm new to the forum btw

[Kymmy]

There's lots of legitimate reasons to use high speeds, even P2P reasons..

I think that most people are tarring P2P here with the "It must be illegal" brush, where as it's already been pointed out that P2P apps such as iPlayer which will not be on the BPI's or the goverments targets

So please stop this "we won't be able to download anything scaremongering" as it's only the illegal downloaders that should be effected (hopefully )

Kymmy

[eth01]

Originally Posted by piggy

do you think the isps want to do this?

for the average user what is the point of fast bb if you dont download, the new generation of users have never bought vinyl/tape/cd they see the latest mp3/film as throwaway the rules have changed thats why im a big believer in paying a copyright tax (say £30 a year) then also charge for the quantity downloaded this will keep the isps happy then let everybody get on with it and share what they want.

er, they do

[dev]

Originally Posted by piggy

do you think the isps want to do this?

for the average user what is the point of fast bb if you dont download, the new generation of users have never bought vinyl/tape/cd they see the latest mp3/film as throwaway the rules have changed thats why im a big believer in paying a copyright tax (say £30 a year) then also charge for the quantity downloaded this will keep the isps happy then let everybody get on with it and share what they want.

if that happens, you can pay my copyright tax then

[Impz2002]

The way this will be enforced will be exactly the same as it is now. the high profile artists will be the target of this. They will be monitoring the trackers like they do already. You will be much more likely to be done for downloading an amy winehouse or arctic monkeys album than some obscure artist. Technology is always going to outsmart any restrictions they try to impose. The only way they could practically control this would be with DPI but that is a long way from being approved as a standard thing without the users consent.

Impz

[iFrankie]

what is file sharing? is it sharing illegal files with others? and does this include downloading illegal content yourself?

[Kymmy]

File sharing is commonly called P2P (based on the mothod it uses) and it's basically using P2P software to give others access to your files (they might be illegal or they might not be)

Some people will scream and shout that they just use P2P to download, but the nature of MOST P2P software means that anything you are downling is also shared to give more instances for others to download. So if you download a copyrighted MP3 lets say on Emule as you're downloading each completed section becomes available for others to download, hence you end up file sharing a copyrighted file as well as downloading.

[iFrankie]

Originally Posted by Kymmy

File sharing is commonly called P2P (based on the mothod it uses) and it's basically using P2P software to give others access to your files (they might be illegal or they might not be)

Some people will scream and shout that they just use P2P to download, but the nature of MOST P2P software means that anything you are downling is also shared to give more instances for others to download. So if you download a copyrighted MP3 lets say on Emule as you're downloading each completed section becomes available for others to download, hence you end up file sharing a copyrighted file as well as downloading.

right i understand now this is the same with torrents aswel isnt it, but what about usenet isnt that something totally different?

[Kymmy]

Usenet is based on propogation. A person uploads a file to a news-server, this file then gets propogated to all news-servers connected to that one news server and so on. A new client (program on a downloaders PC) gets a list of all the files available on a news group and then selects the files to download, so in essence only the original uploader is the file sharer and the news server hosts for some reason aren't held accountable

So for P2P anyone downloading a file is then file sharing that file along with the original sharer, where in usenet only the original uploader is counted as the file sharer. Also as P2P you make a direct connection to the sharer thier IP is visible where in usenet the originators IP is only known by thier usenet provider...Hence the BPI are targetting PSP filesharers as it's simple to get thier IP

[iFrankie]

Originally Posted by Kymmy

Usenet is based on propogation. A person uploads a file to a news-server, this file then gets propogated to all news-servers connected to that one news server and so on. A new client (program on a downloaders PC) gets a list of all the files available on a news group and then selects the files to download, so in essence only the original uploader is the file sharer and the news server hosts for some reason aren't held accountable

So for P2P anyone downloading a file is then file sharing that file along with the original sharer, where in usenet only the original uploader is counted as the file sharer.

got it now thanks for ya help

[dev]

Originally Posted by Kymmy

Usenet is based on propogation. A person uploads a file to a news-server, this file then gets propogated to all news-servers connected to that one news server and so on. A new client (program on a downloaders PC) gets a list of all the files available on a news group and then selects the files to download, so in essence only the original uploader is the file sharer and the news server hosts for some reason aren't held accountable

So for P2P anyone downloading a file is then file sharing that file along with the original sharer, where in usenet only the original uploader is counted as the file sharer. Also as P2P you make a direct connection to the sharer thier IP is visible where in usenet the originators IP is only known by thier usenet provider...Hence the BPI are targetting PSP filesharers as it's simple to get thier IP

the usenet server owners will use the same excuse as ISPs / YouTube etc do, there is simply too much data to check and it's not their job to censor the net

[peanut]

Originally Posted by dev

the usenet server owners will use the same excuse as ISPs / YouTube etc do, there is simply too much data to check and it's not their job to censor the net

But it wasn't that long ago NTL blocked access to the main binary groups which had the most commonly wanted illegal material yet when there is a clampdown they open the access again. To me that doesn't make much sense.

[dev]

Originally Posted by peanutkp

But it wasn't that long ago NTL blocked access to the main binary groups which had the most commonly wanted illegal material yet when there is a clampdown they open the access again. To me that doesn't make much sense.

true but aren't these new newsgroups ran by different people? it could have been simply overlooked and if anyone complains or whatever the access will be removed again