Internet "cut off" date set for illegal downloaders

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by martyh

well the law has to be specific ,they can't assume that all shared files are illegal ,granted ,a vast majority are but not all ,the same as some torrents are legal and some are not ,if they are going to prosecute file sharing each and every file will have to be examined

Marty I was referring to the distinction between "illegal files" and legal files.

They are two very distinctly different things in that whilst you can legally or illegally download a legal file you cannot possibly legally download an "illegal file".

[m419]

There are a number of ways:

Introducing a scheme where you can be offered an reward for grassing people up who share illegal files.

Offer ISP's money to catch and cut off users who share files illegally.

Or rather than getting people into trouble and criminalising people for something minor, offer downloaders a warning and then get them to pay small but very affordable fees towards wherever the file came from.

Its a matter of fact,that people are going to keep downloading because they don't realise they've done something wrong until they get a knock at the door. Its easy and very accessible and to be honest maybe ISP's,original file owners ect.... need to get better security systems and ways of preventing such leaks.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Marty I was referring to the distinction between "illegal files" and legal files.

They are two very distinctly different things in that whilst you can legally or illegally download a legal file you cannot possibly legally download an "illegal file".

i know that ,but how will they know which ones are legal and which ones aren't
how will they know which people to target ,do they target usenet or newsgroup users or all and when they have targeted these people how do they decide which files are the illegal ones

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by martyh

i know that ,but how will they know which ones are legal and which ones aren't
how will they know which people to target ,do they target usenet or newsgroup users or all and when they have targeted these people how do they decide which files are the illegal ones

It's simple, they share the file.

[TheDon]

Originally Posted by die5el

They'll have to prove you're downloading illegal material. if you're using torrents and have forced encryption then i don't think it can be determined what you're downloading other than the fact it's bittorrent traffic. If they were to do this then alot of isp would go out of business.

Except for the fact you're still listed in the peer list for the torrent.

Encrypting torrent traffic is ONLY good for avoiding traffic shaping (and even then sophisticated traffic shaping that monitors the traffic patterns will still detect it) it will not stop you from being caught downloading things you shouldn't be.

Encrypted newsgroup traffic is an entirely different story though, to find out what you're downloading from them they'd have to get a court order to get the logs from the newsgroup providers, they can't just go in with a "we think you're hosting copyright material, tell us what everyone is downloading" warrant, because no court would ever give one of those, they'd have to individually request the records of specific individuals, and for each one of those they have to show probable cause, and "oh my, you've been downloading a ton of data off giganews!" is not probable cause.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

It's simple, they share the file.

but sharinga file isn't illegal it's the content of the file that makes it illegal and to prove the illegality of a certain file download then surely that file has to be monitored
Now i know that the tech exists to monitor individual web connections but can it possibly monitor ALL connections ALL of the time which it would have to and can the content of such files be visible to the monitors to enable them to decide wether it is legal or illegal content

If i visit The Pirate Bay and download a software program, lets say, Open Office ,a free program ,will i be assumed to be a illegal downloader just because i visited a site notorious for illegal downloading ?

and yes i know there are better sites to get open office and other free software from,it;s just a example to show a point

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by martyh

but sharing a file isn't illegal it's the content of the file that makes it illegal and to prove the illegality of a certain file download then surely that file has to be monitored
Now i know that the tech exists to monitor individual web connections but can it possibly monitor ALL connections ALL of the time which it would have to and can the content of such files be visible to the monitors to enable them to decide wether it is legal or illegal content

If i visit The Pirate Bay and download a software program, lets say, Open Office ,a free program ,will i be assumed to be a illegal downloader just because i visited a site notorious for illegal downloading ?

and yes i know there are better sites to get open office and other free software from,it;s just a example to show a point

Where a copyright exists if you don't have the copyright holders permission to share a file then your sharing of that file is illegal - irrespective of what the content may be.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Where a copyright exists if you don't have the copyright holders permission to share a file then your sharing of that file is illegal - irrespective of what the content may be.

yes i know all of this .I am asking HOW they will know which of the files i have just downloaded are copyrighted and which aren't, without getting court orders and such like for everybody they think is illegally downloading

At the moment my understanding (and please correct if wrong)is the tech is available but on a limited scale i.e people downloading child porn ,this is illegal but suspects are subject to their computer being searched only after a court order is obtained through probable cause the same for terror suspects ect

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by martyh

yes i know all of this .I am asking HOW they will know which of the files i have just downloaded are copyrighted and which aren't, without getting court orders and such like for everybody they think is illegally downloading

At the moment my understanding (and please correct if wrong)is the tech is available but on a limited scale i.e people downloading child porn ,this is illegal but suspects are subject to their computer being searched only after a court order is obtained through probable cause the same for terror suspects ect

They only need to prove one instance. If they engage a third party to facilitate downloading of a file that they hold copyright on and you are then identified as someone who downloaded it from that third party then that pretty much nails it.

As for "probable cause" this is a (much over used) American constitutional term and therefore not relevant here in the UK from a legal perspective. The UK equivalent is "reasonable suspicion". The threshold for reasonable suspicion can be as simple as someone reasonably suspecting ie "thinking" that a crime has been or may in the future be committed.

Given the accuracy and high quality of personally identifiable evidence available through credit / debit card subscription payments to certain services which explicitly advertize their services as being capable of carrying out illegal actions as part of their allure then it is entirely reasonable to assume that those types of activities are engaged in by subscribers.

The days of illegal filesharing are numbered. A generation has spent the best part of the last 12-15 years arguing their right to steal / infringe on others copyrights.

While they were stuck to their screens agog with wonderment and busying themselves with free copies of albums, softwares and movies the legislators were eroding civil liberties and privacy laws to the point that council officials can now seize your goods, civil servants and others can force entry to your home and detain you with no warrant and young men can be brought to trial by jury for "thinking" about a school massacre.

Anyone who thinks the "without a court order" nonsense will continue to hold up in the face of the decimation of an industry which had previously contributed billions to the British GDP against some half baked (nazi funded in the case of the site you mentioned earlier) ideal of a cultural free for all is living in cloud cuckoo land.

Sorry, but that's how it's going to pan out.

[TheDon]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

As for "probable cause" this is a (much over used) American constitutional term and therefore not relevant here in the UK from a legal perspective. The UK equivalent is "reasonable suspicion". The threshold for reasonable suspicion can be as simple as someone reasonably suspecting ie "thinking" that a crime has been or may in the future be committed.

Given the accuracy and high quality of personally identifiable evidence available through credit / debit card subscription payments to certain services which explicitly advertize their services as being capable of carrying out illegal actions as part of their allure then it is entirely reasonable to assume that those types of activities are engaged in by subscribers.

It might be an American term, but the same principle exists in UK law. You cannot simply draw a straight line from "downloads from newsgroups" to "downloads copyright material", no reasonable person would say a crime was being commited just because someone was downloading from newsgroups.

Then there's the point that search warrants are only obtainable for criminal copyright infringement, that being making copies in the course of a business, or mass distribution, neither of which are applicable for people downloading from newsgroups. An end user downloading a copy is a civil case, and without reasonable proof of you infringing on a specific copyright work a civil case isn't going to get off the ground.

I'm also not aware of any newsgroup provider that explicitly advertises the fact that binary newsgroups carry copyright material. In fact I can guarantee they don't as then they'd lose their safe harbour provisions.

[webcrawler2050]

Originally Posted by TheDon

It might be an American term, but the same principle exists in UK law. You cannot simply draw a straight line from "downloads from newsgroups" to "downloads copyright material", no reasonable person would say a crime was being commited just because someone was downloading from newsgroups.

Then there's the point that search warrants are only obtainable for criminal copyright infringement, that being making copies in the course of a business, or mass distribution, neither of which are applicable for people downloading from newsgroups. An end user downloading a copy is a civil case, and without reasonable proof of you infringing on a specific copyright work a civil case isn't going to get off the ground.

I'm also not aware of any newsgroup provider that explicitly advertises the fact that binary newsgroups carry copyright material. In fact I can guarantee they don't as then they'd lose their safe harbour provisions.

The problem is, Torrents are used for alot of Linux Distros and RPM's aswell. So how do they get around that?

[TheDon]

Originally Posted by webcrawler2050

The problem is, Torrents are used for alot of Linux Distros and RPM's aswell. So how do they get around that?

Scrape the tracker and you get a nice list of IPs that are downloading whatever copyright work you want, you have to register with the tracker to download, so there's always a nicely updated list of who is infringing your copyright.

This is why p2p is bad, with p2p you cannot avoid people being able to see what you're downloading, because it's a vital part of how it works, if no one can tell you're downloading the latest hollywood blockbuster then they can't download from you. Newsgroups, ftps, and other direct downloads don't have that, if your connection to them is encrypted then no one knows what you're downloading, only that you are downloading something, unless they can get hold of the sites logs, and the sites either don't log, or if they do you need to go through a court to get access to them, and as long as the site is complying with the relevant legislation (for example DMCA for the American based ones) they'll never be able to get one baring some drastic law changes.

[Tarantella]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

..........The days of illegal filesharing are numbered. A generation has spent the best part of the last 12-15 years arguing their right to steal / infringe on others copyrights.

While they were stuck to their screens agog with wonderment and busying themselves with free copies of albums, softwares and movies the legislators were eroding civil liberties and privacy laws to the point that council officials can now seize your goods, civil servants and others can force entry to your home and detain you with no warrant and young men can be brought to trial by jury for "thinking" about a school massacre.

Anyone who thinks the "without a court order" nonsense will continue to hold up in the face of the decimation of an industry which had previously contributed billions to the British GDP against some half baked (nazi funded in the case of the site you mentioned earlier) ideal of a cultural free for all is living in cloud cuckoo land.

Sorry, but that's how it's going to pan out.

I suspect before that happens there will be a few test cases going to court that will result in the judgement that terms and conditions in a contract that state that the account holder is totally resposible for the data passing to and from his/her/its ip address are illegal and unenforceable.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by TheDon

...they'll never be able to get one baring some drastic law changes.

The Don, with all due respect you appear to have entirely missed the point.

[pazor]

There will always be a way for people to get warez no matter what is done some clever people will find a way around it.