Internet "cut off" date set for illegal downloaders

[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.

[Griffin]

I have always been led to believe its the uploading of files that is illegal, if you look round the net there are loads of places to download files of all sorts from.
There is also another loop hole which means you can download a rar file but it only becomes illegal if you extract the content. There is also encryption systems available which is going to make the whole process difficult to implement. Then there are the darknets that actually use high amounts of different users pc's to download parts of a file so no complete part is downloaded by any single user. There are also very competent hackers about that can readily use someone elses pc remotely to get the files they want with no come back to themselves. I personally think this scheme is going to be virtually unworkable, ie too much time to break things down to catch people unless they are using torrents

[TheDon]

Originally Posted by Griffin

I have always been led to believe its the uploading of files that is illegal, if you look round the net there are loads of places to download files of all sorts from.
There is also another loop hole which means you can download a rar file but it only becomes illegal if you extract the content. There is also encryption systems available which is going to make the whole process difficult to implement. Then there are the darknets that actually use high amounts of different users pc's to download parts of a file so no complete part is downloaded by any single user. There are also very competent hackers about that can readily use someone elses pc remotely to get the files they want with no come back to themselves. I personally think this scheme is going to be virtually unworkable, ie too much time to break things down to catch people unless they are using torrents

Indeed.

It's complicated, and has never been tested in a court, but there is good reason to say that the act of downloading infringing works in itself is not illegal.

The copyright act makes numerous exemptions for personal use, such as importation and possession otherwise than in the course of a business. Just simply having a collection of infringing copies for example is not illegal. The only things that are are having any dealings with infringing copies in the course of a business, distribution otherwise than in the course of a business that has a detrimental effect on the copyright holders business, and making infringing copies.

The test is if downloading is making an infringing copy or not. You could argue that the downloader makes the copy, you could argue that the host makes the copy. It's something that is untested and until it is we'll never really know the answer to. Personally I'd say it's the host, as the downloader never has access to the original to make a copy, the downloader just keeps saying "ok, send me the next bit".

The main thing the government care about is it's a perfectly workable scheme for p2p (especially as p2p has no gray area over legality, if you're using p2p you're not only downloading but also distributing) and it has the potential to kill off the public p2p sites in this country, but as for anything other than p2p, it's never going to work.

But then killing off the casual p2p infringer is propably going to be enough for the rights holders, they know they'll never stop it completely, they'll just hope that enough people don't just migrate over to newsgroups where they'll have far bigger problems stopping them.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by TheDon

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:

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!

21st October 2009 - publication of James Alexander's comments on a "backdown" as previously mooted by Bradshaw and kindly linked to by yourself.

28th October (seven days after that publication date - not four) and Mandleson (who happens to be Bradshaw's superior) delivers his latest proposals which Bradshaw subsequently - and unsurprisingly fully endorses in his closing speech to c&binet.

Go figure.

[AdamD]

Originally Posted by TheDon

Indeed.

It's complicated, and has never been tested in a court, but there is good reason to say that the act of downloading infringing works in itself is not illegal.

I often wondered on that myself
Anytime I've read about the lawsuits and threats of law changes, the newspapers/online sites always say it's the SHARING that's illegal (i.e the upload/transmitting of copywritten material)
It doesn't actually say it's illegal to download. hehe

[TheDon]

Well, even if they did class downloading as a form of copying making it illegal they'd still go for the distribution charge as it simply has a higher penalty.

Copying a copyright work for personal use is a civil matter, and as such the penalties for it are purely damages, that being the loss of a sale. Distributing to the extent that it damages a copyright owners business (which is the charge they go for in this country) is a criminal one, and as such carries not only damages, but also a threat of a fine or jail time.

[rogerdraig]

if they really want to make money they need to listen

see

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20091101...c-e1d36ba.html

this is only the latest of surveys to show this

[TheDon]

Originally Posted by rogermevans

if they really want to make money they need to listen

see

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20091101...c-e1d36ba.html

this is only the latest of surveys to show this

These surveys really have no use though for a range of reasons, the main two being:

1: They do nothing to separate out those who have no interest in music, so the average spend for those that don't download is dragged down by those that just don't care about music, and whilst the average spend might be higher for downloaders, downloaders make up a far bigger proportion of hardcore music fans than non-downloaders, so the average should in all likeliness be even higher. The data is essentially skewed.

2: Nearly everyone who downloads claims to "try before they buy", but very few actually do. It's an easy way to justify your download habits to people.

[rogerdraig]

Originally Posted by TheDon

These surveys really have no use though for a range of reasons, the main two being:

1: They do nothing to separate out those who have no interest in music, so the average spend for those that don't download is dragged down by those that just don't care about music, and whilst the average spend might be higher for downloaders, downloaders make up a far bigger proportion of hardcore music fans than non-downloaders, so the average should in all likeliness be even higher. The data is essentially skewed.

2: Nearly everyone who downloads claims to "try before they buy", but very few actually do. It's an easy way to justify your download habits to people.

sorry but lots of different surveys are showing the same thing the fact that some of the non downloaders may not be interested in music doesn't skew the results in any meaningful way as some of the downloaders wont be interested in music either

i for example don't really bother with music at all but download quite a bit on occasions mostly video

the customer base they need dont listen to music like we used to my kids only ever listen to the radio in the car with me going to school or shops etc

most of the music they hear is on you tube or similar sites or what their friends put on or stuff on X factor etc

they truly do try before they nag me or the wife for the CD

if they had any sense they would start to put their music out there for free on mass at say 128 bit quality and only go after those sharing high quality stuff there after


till then they are fighting a loosing battle that just cost them money they supposedly ( rofl ) don't have because those pesky downloaders pinched it all hmmm

i can quite happily stop them finding me if i want though at the moment i really don't feel the need to hide if they dont want it on you tube they can get it off there themselves not up to me to police what the kids listen to or download on the highly public sites they ( they dont use the torrents or news groups i use ) use to listen to music or music videos

as far as i am concerned they are already using the try before you buy approach but want to have a way to completely control their market if they get the chance as well ( cake and eat it come to mind )

the video industry seems to be breaking ranks slowly though we have blueray / dvd / mpeg box sets coming out which seem to realize at last that you have a right to view your purchase any way and any where you wish , which is a big change from their original idea of being able to lock your blue ray purchase to being played on 1 blue ray player :O

if they try releasing films online at a lower quality they may find their sales go up too if the movie is good enough

[TheDon]

Originally Posted by rogermevans

sorry but lots of different surveys are showing the same thing the fact that some of the non downloaders may not be interested in music doesn't skew the results in any meaningful way as some of the downloaders wont be interested in music either

I think you should reread the articles, mainly this bit:

People who illegally download music spend more on official releases than those who obey download laws, a survey suggested.

There won't be a single person who downloads music that isn't interested in music, as by definition they must have an interest in order to download it.

The results are therefore severely skewed as there isn't a similar qualifier on those who don't download music.

If you were doing it in a scientific way you'd first establish peoples interest in music, and then draw comparisons across different groups, but none of them ever do so they get the obvious outcome, people that like music spend more on music.

[rogerdraig]

i suggest you read the full report at http://www.demos.co.uk/

[TheDon]

Originally Posted by rogermevans

i suggest you read the full report at http://www.demos.co.uk/

I have done, it's a pretty poor report that constantly pulls out figures without showing where they're coming from, I'd be very interested to see the source data as without it the report is next to useless.

Despite it stating fairly regularly that a third of users use illegal sites to obtain music, less than 10% of those surveyed actually admitted to downloading illegally, and it's from these 88 people that they pull the £77 average spend figure. I'd be far more interested to see what the figures were for the 20% of people that admit to using file sharing networks, but claim to do so legally, I'd be willing to bet that their average spend is way way down (after all, if they're getting free legal music, why would they spend money on getting the same legal music again?).

[rogerdraig]

though this report is more about legal downloads it shows the same thing

http://www.musically.com/theleadingq...090716-cds.pdf


those who use the downloading services also spend more on cds

and though i cant find the report on thier site a report by them mentioned here

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/07...gal_downloads/

which i do have some where also shows the same as the Demos findings and that was 5 years ago

also in a IPSOS MORI poll earlier this year shows almost exactly the same thing

http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpu...x?oItemId=2355

there are more cant find them at the mo most likely have a few more stored on my main computer

the one thing that is consistent is that those who down load be it legal or not buy more music than those who don't

[Mr Angry]

Point well and truly missed.