Britain's six largest ISPs and BPI join forces to attack illegal filesharing - Page 8

**Hugh** · 25-07-2008, 18:26

That's because previously (imho) private copying was perhaps one or two copies - now it can be hundreds, if not thousands - so the scale of "private copying" has changed (again, imho).

dev · 25-07-2008, 18:29

private copying was never legal, they just didn't bother with it

bigsanta11 · 25-07-2008, 19:14

Quote:

Rejoice! "Three strikes and you're out" is dead in the UK. Music file sharers will no longer face the threat of seeing the household broadband connection severed. The plague that is currently endemic in France won't be jumping the English Channel

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07...s_dead_hurrah/

**Hugh** · 25-07-2008, 20:11

Loved this phrase from the article

"It would have involved the creation of a "National Freetards Register"."

Berealwith · 25-07-2008, 21:36

ok this might be a numpty way of looking at things. Say i make quite a few say a few gigs of dummy files, some look like a full cd and lots of single dummy files all names different but have song artists names and do not download anything say from limewire. I then allow people to upload from me. Then a few more do it and a few more would that be wrong ? and could i get a letter ? if so what for? and somewhere along the line i am sure it would fill thier inbox up with spam...

And doesn't channel 4 use p2p for it tv ? would you get a letter for that ?

Who knows i don't use p2p but its the start and in a few years time we could all be under the ISP's boot.

John Purser · 25-07-2008, 22:03

Hi, I run a small label and am a member of the BPI.
I have to say I don't agree with this move. Over the years labels have been very successful at persuading the public to buy all types of music. Unfortunately, the rules have changed. They failed to take note of the changes that were happening and found out that their business models no longer worked. They just wouldn't listen.
Either give it away or let advertising on the tracks pay for it!

Horace · 25-07-2008, 22:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Berealwith

ok this might be a numpty way of looking at things. Say i make quite a few say a few gigs of dummy files, some look like a full cd and lots of single dummy files all names different but have song artists names and do not download anything say from limewire. I then allow people to upload from me. Then a few more do it and a few more would that be wrong ? and could i get a letter ? if so what for? and somewhere along the line i am sure it would fill thier inbox up with spam...

And doesn't channel 4 use p2p for it tv ? would you get a letter for that ?

Who knows i don't use p2p but its the start and in a few years time we could all be under the ISP's boot.

I suspect the following will happen which should help clear things up for you.

The BPI's investigators log onto Limewire for example. They download the latest album by Coldplay, they check it's legit and log the IP's of everyone else who's uploading the same file. Files on P2P use a hash to ensure you're participating in sharing the same file. Filenames are fairly irrelevant and if you used Emule you'd see the same file with multiple different names. It's the hash which is composed from the file's binary code that's important and no two files can have the same hash unless they're identical.

They then take all the IP's coming from Virgin's IP ranges and send them to Virgin, Virgin then match up the IP to the customer who had that IP at the time the upload was made.
Assuming Virgin do log which IP's are tied to which customers (I'm pretty sure they have to for legal reasons) then the whole thing is water-tight.

Berealwith · 25-07-2008, 22:29

thanks bud it cleared it up for me smiles

Barton71 · 25-07-2008, 22:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Horace

I suspect the following will happen which should help clear things up for you.

The BPI's investigators log onto Limewire for example. They download the latest album by Coldplay, they check it's legit and log the IP's of everyone else who's uploading the same file. Files on P2P use a hash to ensure you're participating in sharing the same file. Filenames are fairly irrelevant and if you used Emule you'd see the same file with multiple different names. It's the hash which is composed from the file's binary code that's important and no two files can have the same hash unless they're identical.

They then take all the IP's coming from Virgin's IP ranges and send them to Virgin, Virgin then match up the IP to the customer who had that IP at the time the upload was made.
Assuming Virgin do log which IP's are tied to which customers (I'm pretty sure they have to for legal reasons) then the whole thing is water-tight.

Water tight as far as finding out the name and address of the account holder, but not the person sharing files. If you have 4 students sharing a flat, and an internet connection, and only one is file sharing, how can you tell which one is file sharing? It may even be the landlord who is the account holder, and he has nothing to do with what his tenants do online. Unless (and iam not sure about the legalities), the account holder is responsible for what passes though his networks. But, if the acount holders were responsible, that would open up a whole new can of worms, with regards to privacy, and/or one person being sued for the crimes of another.

---------- Post added at 22:36 ---------- Previous post was at 22:33 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Purser

Hi, I run a small label and am a member of the BPI.
I have to say I don't agree with this move. Over the years labels have been very successful at persuading the public to buy all types of music. Unfortunately, the rules have changed. They failed to take note of the changes that were happening and found out that their business models no longer worked. They just wouldn't listen.
Either give it away or let advertising on the tracks pay for it!

How does your company make its money? Are you exploring other ways to make music pay?

**Hugh** · 25-07-2008, 22:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barton71

Water tight as far as finding out the name and address of the account holder, but not the person sharing files. If you have 4 students sharing a flat, and an internet connection, and only one is file sharing, how can you tell which one is file sharing? It may even be the landlord who is the account holder, and he has nothing to do with what his tenants do online. Unless (and iam not sure about the legalities), the account holder is responsible for what passes though his networks. But, if the acount holders were responsible, that would open up a whole new can of worms, with regards to privacy, and/or one person being sued for the crimes of another.

---------- Post added at 22:36 ---------- Previous post was at 22:33 ----------

How does your company make its money? Are you exploring other ways to make music pay?

My daughter has VM in Leicester, and it is usually one of the tenants whose name is on the contract, rather than the landlord.

And on this VM T&C page (re your comment about the other "sharers" in the flat/house

"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:

Send a message or communication that is offensive, abusive, defamatory (damages someone's reputation), obscene, menacing or illegal;
Cause annoyance, nuisance, inconvenience or needless worry to, or break the rights of, any other person;
Perform any illegal activity;
Break, or try to break, the security of anyone else's equipment, hardware or software;
Deliberately receive, use, own, post, transmit or publish obscene material (including, but not limited to, child pornography);
Upload, post, publish or transmit any information or software that is protected by copyright or other ownership rights without the permission of its owner;
Copy or distribute any software or services we provide (but you may make a backup copy of the software we provide for your personal use); "

and

"You agree to take responsibility for all liabilities, claims and losses which are in any way connected with misusing the services supplied to you under this agreement"

Also, in VM's AUP (section 3)
3.2. You must not use the Services in any way that is unlawful or illegal or in any way to the detriment of other Internet users. You also must not allow anybody using your connection to use the Services in any way that is unlawful or illegal or in any way to the detriment of other Internet users.
3.3. During an investigation, if we believe that a violation of this AUP or our Terms and Conditions has occurred, we may take immediate remedial action. Such action may include temporary or permanent removal of material from our servers, the cancellation of newsgroup postings, warnings to the User responsible, and the suspension, restriction or termination of the User's account. We will determine what action will be taken on a case-by-case basis. Please note that we have a policy of open co-operation with all relevant authorities and regulators.
3.4. In addition to and without prejudice to your obligations pursuant to our Terms and Conditions, you agree to comply with (and ensure that others using the Services comply with) all applicable laws, statutes and regulations in connection with the Services. As the User of record, you are responsible for all use of your account, irrespective of use without your knowledge and/or consent.

Toto · 26-07-2008, 01:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kymmy

The goverment aren't involved with the BPI/ISP collaberation, in fact the goverments privacy laws are probably the only thing stopping them.

Well, that's not totally correct. The government have put significant pressure on ISP's to work with the BPI and other rights holders representatives, otherwise they have said that they will force legislation.

This latest deal, was brokered by BERR.

Here.

Quote:

Six of the UK's biggest net providers have agreed a plan with the music industry to tackle piracy online.
The deal, negotiated by the government, will see hundreds of thousands of letters sent to net users suspected of illegally sharing music...

I have, in that OTHER thread offered my views on the subject, both as an Internet user and an interested party. In my opinion what this represents in this first stage is basically a carpet bombing exercise without any collateral damage. If that doesn't significantly "educate" Internet users in the UK, and I wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't, the next stage will likely see the worst offenders in each of the big six getting court orders dropping through the door.

---------- Post added at 01:33 ---------- Previous post was at 01:17 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Berealwith

ok this might be a numpty way of looking at things. Say i make quite a few say a few gigs of dummy files, some look like a full cd and lots of single dummy files all names different but have song artists names and do not download anything say from limewire. I then allow people to upload from me. Then a few more do it and a few more would that be wrong ? and could i get a letter ? if so what for? and somewhere along the line i am sure it would fill thier inbox up with spam...

And doesn't channel 4 use p2p for it tv ? would you get a letter for that ?

Who knows i don't use p2p but its the start and in a few years time we could all be under the ISP's boot.

Would it be wrong? Probably not, but extremely annoying for other sharers

Could you get a letter? Very unlikely. Part of the evidence gathering actually requires the files to be examined for content, in other words if the file says it is a work by an artist then that has to be confirmed by listening to it, you can't rights protect a song title.

Horace · 26-07-2008, 01:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barton71

Water tight as far as finding out the name and address of the account holder, but not the person sharing files. If you have 4 students sharing a flat, and an internet connection, and only one is file sharing, how can you tell which one is file sharing? It may even be the landlord who is the account holder, and he has nothing to do with what his tenants do online. Unless (and iam not sure about the legalities), the account holder is responsible for what passes though his networks. But, if the acount holders were responsible, that would open up a whole new can of worms, with regards to privacy, and/or one person being sued for the crimes of another.

Well things haven't gone far enough for that example to be meaningful but I guess the landlord would cut the connection completely if he was smart and tell the tenants to find their own alternative.

Marloe · 26-07-2008, 01:37

I fully admit my whole music collection has been downloaded illegally, being from the slightly older generation I started my collection by buying records (a rather large collection)

They then had this great new invention called the walkman. I saved my money and replaced all my records with tapes.

Then to my surprise an even better way to listen to music came out called the CD. Again I had to pay for exactly the same music which I had already paid for on Record and Tape so I could upgrade to CD.

Now they have this even better way to listen to music called MP3. Basically the buck stops here. I’ve paid for the same music three times. Why should I have to pay for the same music again? Yes I could convert the CDs to MP3 or record the Records to tape but at the end of the day for me it’s the same thing making a copy of music I already have.

I’m just waiting for that letter to tell me that I’ve been illegally downloading and I will be happy to take my large collection of LPs Tapes and cds to prove that I have actually more than paid my dues to the artists.

Rant over.

Pedro1 · 26-07-2008, 11:40

As far as i go, if i am denied my downloads and stuff then VM can ram there 20MB.
Everyone likes the down and up speed we are getting.. More would be cool>>>> LOL...
Jings these isp's must know what they are gonna loose.
If we all canny download and do what we like, then who is going to meet the demand for the broadband?
Am sure isp's have the right and are bound by the data protection act to say screw you.

Us are creating the demand for broadband technology these days. if they want to keep it that way then they will protect us. This aint America.

I talk for millions here i think, cap me, reduce, send me letters whatever then stick it up yer ********SSS.

knet2020 · 26-07-2008, 11:49

For me the quote of the year in all this can be read in an article by Andy Burnham, although slightly more focused on the other hot topic on the net 'child saftey' he does include this corker:

Quote:

In different ways, government is beginning tentatively to articulate a new way forward. Wherever possible, it should be voluntary, self-regulatory or co-regulatory, such as the successful way in which the advertising industry has operated for many years.

This approach was at the heart of Dr Tanya Byron's excellent report about child safety online and it can be seen in yesterday's announcement on illegal downloading.

If we can't make copyright work in the new age, the prospects look bleak for young creative talent and good for those who seek to make money off the back of them.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...le-876679.html