Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]

[Dephormation]

We win! Today's top ten;

[BadPhormula]

Originally Posted by Dephormation

Full House!!!

ROFL

I noticed some SOS brown nosing. Hi Hammy! (you need a lot of SOS's to get Kent Ertuscum some faux redemption )

No.15 ranking now !LOL!

[tdadyslexia]

Originally Posted by Dephormation

I've got a charming promo video, put together using a very old film clip from 1905 (taken from the 'Burglars slide for life').

I've used a brilliant royalty free recording of Dance of the Sugar Plum Fairies... by Kevin MacLeod of Incompetech.

The video is fab, and I'd love to share it. I can't because I fear it may still be in copyright (the script author died 67 years ago, worst case copyright may still exist for 70 years after the last performer/author's death).

Shame, I'd love to share it with everyone.

Makes me so angry BT think they can claim the right to ignore copyright with impunity, at the same time as they serve disconnection warning letters on their own customers for copyright abuse.

The Film and the Sound Track is copyright Free

There is no copyright on Dance of the Sugar Plum Fairies is from 1891 watt is copyright Free see wikipedia.

The Film is from 1905 watt is out of copyright, so it is copyright Free.

So lets see your version of it, and remember you can not clame copyright all derivative works are copyright Free.

[Ben B]

Originally Posted by tdadyslexia

The Film and the Sound Track is copyright Free

There is no copyright on Dance of the Sugar Plum Fairies

Wasn't this song distributed on Windows 95 computers, i seem to recall....

Ben

[tdadyslexia]

1. Kent Ertugrul (25)

Cool.

[icsys]

Sorry chaps... I don't want to be a killjoy , but the thread is starting to degenerate again.

Remember, the likes of Baroness Sue Miller has posted here and she, as well as other MP's, MEP's, Lords, who knows? may well be reading.

Just a thought.

The faultfinder will find faults, even in paradise.

[tdadyslexia]

Spoil Sport.

Originally Posted by icsys

Sorry chaps... I don't want to be a killjoy , but the thread is starting to degenerate again.

Remember, the likes of Baroness Sue Miller has posted here and she, as well as other MP's, MEP's, Lords, who knows? may well be reading.

Just a thought.

The faultfinder will find faults, even in paradise.

That's me out then - I've been soaking in gin again watching the Nelson Mandela birthday bash n Glastonbury...

Night All

[icsys]

I have just printed off the entire set of FoI information and assembled it in chronological order.
There is a page titled EU feedback on Phorm's technologies that states that Phorm initiated discussions on internet privacy with a range of EU audiences. The names in [ ] were blanked out and have been googled.

European Commission.
The Head of the Data Protection Unit [Philippe Renaudière] considered that OIX and Webwise were clearly Privacy Enhancing technologies, which were very much in line with what the Commission is seeking to achieve in terms of internet privacy. He invited Phorm to cooperate with the Commission to enhance privacy standards.

European Parliament
Phorm has met the Raporteur on the revisions to the E-Privacy Directive in the Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee, [?] (Conservative, UK), and [?] (Liberal, Germany), draftsman on privacy aspects in the Civil Liberties, Justice And Home Affairs Committee, on several occasions. [?] and [?] have been particularly interested to learn how Phorm's technologies offer solutions to MEP concerns regarding the storage of personal data. They invited [K*nt ?] to participate in an informal lunch discussion earlier this week to explain that the storage of browsing history is not necessary for targeted advertising, nor the use of IP addresses.

God help us.

[davethejag]

Originally Posted by Paul Delaney

That's me out then - I've been soaking in gin again watching the Nelson Mandela birthday bash n Glastonbury...

Night All

Much the same Paul!

Goodnight and thanks to all.

Dave.

[BadPhormula]

Originally Posted by icsys

Sorry chaps... I don't want to be a killjoy , but the thread is starting to degenerate again.

Remember, the likes of Baroness Sue Miller has posted here and she, as well as other MP's, MEP's, Lords, who knows? may well be reading.

Just a thought.

The faultfinder will find faults, even in paradise.

How do you know that Sue Miller wasn't the gal that started the KFO nominations, hmmm?

Here is the list so far

#1 Robert (killer) Magabe
#2 George (warmonger) Bush
#3 Gordon (Orwell) Brown
#4 Phorm

Well done Baroness! Lords, Ladies and Gentlemen your votes count, just ask #13 Kent Ertugrul what a KFO gong really means, he's more unpopular than Tory Blair, Chavs and STDs.

And don't forget to tell your friends and family they can vote again tomorrow, and every 24hrs. Kent Ertugrul and Phorm - the peoples choice for a good kicking.

[madslug]

After following this forum silently for some time I thought it best to add my voice and make a little more noise.

--------

I have just been reading Phorm's answer to PECR and 'valid informed consent'.
"Since Phorm technology does not use IP addresses to target advertising there is a strong argument that Section 7 of PECR does not apply to our service."

Everything else on that page only mentions the means of delivering the ads. This is all Phorm is, the deliverer of advertising. Nothing more. Dealing with anonymous information.

It is the ISPs who need to get the consent of their users, not Phorm. The inference is that all the ISPs are doing is obtaining their customers consent to having the adverts delivered to them, which includes being given a UID (they get that when they opt-in) and allowing the UID to be read by a javascript which is hosted on the web page delivering the ads.

What fools we have been to think that there could be anything else involved.
All that work done by Richard Clayton, none of his comments apply to the display of adverting, so nothing to do with this discussion.

I am reminded of what a member of the badphorm forum mentioned to me way back at the beginning - not a tech bod:
The whole Phorm / Webwise / OIX system is about stealing data - a burglary is taking place of personal data (profile) and web copyright (content). The content is used to help build the profile which is then 'sold' to a 3rd party without any payment to either of the parties who helped to create the resulting data - OIX uses both the profile and the content.
The defence comes along and says: the defendant is innocent of arson. Every question asked is answered with reference to the arson and everything looks above board because no one can see any evidence of anything that could result in a fire.

Even the Home Office has been brought in to provide answers that cover the fire.
Each question the ICO has asked has been answered with reference to the fire.

The more answers are given, the more everyone is told that the defendant is innocent of arson and everyone begins to agree that there is no fire.

Now, will someone please start giving answers about the theft. This is about burglary and not arson. There is no arson.

Does anyone know how to approach the Home Office and ask them to look into the case of burglary.

I have already asked the ICO to look into PECR with reference to the website - no request/method received from ISPs for the site to give informed consent to opt-in (only opt-out offered) to having its content copied and trial is now imminent. Perhaps a few more web site owners can ask the same question.

I have also complained to the HO that the opinion relating to implied consent for interception to enable the delivery of targeted adverts has been interpreted as there being implied consent from ALL websites, even those not involved in the delivery of adverts and that the intercepted data of all websites is being put to commercial use (contrary to copyright) by the ISPs who are using the data to create the user's profile.

Let us stop wasting time on the non-existent fire and get back to the very real theft: theft of privacy, theft of personal security, theft of intellectual property, theft of commercially sensitive data, theft of the freedoms offered by the internet, theft of internet neutrality.

Since the beginning, every question about the theft that has been put to BT and Phorm has had a response that there is no fire.

[icsys]

Originally Posted by madslug

After following this forum silently for some time I thought it best to add my voice and make a little more noise.

--------

I have just been reading Phorm's answer to PECR and 'valid informed consent'.
"Since Phorm technology does not use IP addresses to target advertising there is a strong argument that Section 7 of PECR does not apply to our service."

Everything else on that page only mentions the means of delivering the ads. This is all Phorm is, the deliverer of advertising. Nothing more. Dealing with anonymous information.

It is the ISPs who need to get the consent of their users, not Phorm. The inference is that all the ISPs are doing is obtaining their customers consent to having the adverts delivered to them, which includes being given a UID (they get that when they opt-in) and allowing the UID to be read by a javascript which is hosted on the web page delivering the ads.

What fools we have been to think that there could be anything else involved.
All that work done by Richard Clayton, none of his comments apply to the display of adverting, so nothing to do with this discussion.

<snip>.

I was under the impression that it was the ISP that everyone was after as regards the informed explicit consent. After all, if the ISP drops webspies because it cannot get the consent then Phorm can pack up and go home.

Section 7 and 8 of PECR does apply in regards informed consent, presumably to the ISP

Section 3 RIPA applies in regard informed consent again presumably to the ISP.

That particular document mentions:- Since Phorm technology does not use IP addresses to target advertising there is a strong argument that section 7 of PECR does not apply.

PECR defines "traffic data" to mean any data processed for the purpose of the conveyance of a communication on an electronic communications network or for the billing in respect of that communication and includes data relating to the routing, duration or time of a communication;

It's not just about IP addresses!

The Home office document, 'targeted Online Advertising' dated january 2008, states that consent under RIPA for the ISP customer can be obtained via suitable T&C's I would suggest that is misleading and would be unlawful under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations

To be fair, Rrichard Clayton did a technical analysis. It was Nicholas Bohm that did the legal analysis and that analysis mentions that it was the Information Commissioner who drew attention to the provisions of PECR.

It's getting late and I can't think straight.

[Dephormation]

Originally Posted by tdadyslexia

The Film and the Sound Track is copyright Free

Ok, after 2 hours detailed law research, I've looked harder at the rules. I can't see anything to indicate the film is covered by UK or US copyrights.
I agree. I'll upload it. (There's no sound track, it was silent film!).

Originally Posted by tdadyslexia

There is no copyright on Dance of the Sugar Plum Fairies is from 1891 watt is copyright Free see wikipedia.

You have to be careful (I am very careful). There is copyright in the musical arrangement and copyright in the performance.
Copyright in the musical arrangement may have lapsed, but Kevin MacLeods performance of that music is still covered by a copyright. Fortuneatly the terms and conditions of his copyright make it possible for me to use the music without payment of royalties.

I take copyright very seriously, can you tell?

---------- Post added at 07:17 ---------- Previous post was at 07:04 ----------

Incidentally, after spending 2 hours hand wringing trying to establish whether a 103 year old film in which all the performers are certainly stone cold dead decades ago, where the film was lodged as a paper series of photographs, and after reviewing 100+ years of USA, UK and EU copyright legislation to make certain there was no violation of copyright for non-commercial use...

... you would have to be smoking crack to believe it is legally possible to copy web pages, in effect literary works which are mostly less than 1 year old.

---------- Post added at 07:41 ---------- Previous post was at 07:17 ----------

Enjoy. Click on the picture below.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8bUa_wooeA

Credits to the creative genius of Thomas Alva Edison, and Kevin MacLeod of Incompetech.

---------- Post added at 07:50 ---------- Previous post was at 07:41 ----------

Restlessness and discontent are the first necessities of progress.
Thomas A. Edison

[tdadyslexia]

Originally Posted by Dephormation

[Snip]
Enjoy. Click on the picture below.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8bUa_wooeA

Credits to the creative genius of Thomas Alva Edison, and Kevin MacLeod of Incompetech.

[Snip]

Well that was werth the wate to see. What Film editor did you use? Is it Free?

---------- Post added at 08:57 ---------- Previous post was at 08:50 ----------

Originally Posted by Dephormation

[Snip]
I take copyright very seriously, can you tell?

Yes I can

... you would have to be smoking crack to believe it is legally possible to copy web pages, in effect literary works which are mostly less than 1 year old.

Hmmm I wonder is that watt Kent Ertugrul is smoking.