Illegal downloaders 'face UK ban'- VM to Pilot Scheme

Its a dark day when your hoping for the tories! Although tbh i'd probably vote for them over labour at the moment even if it meant dis-ownment from my family.

 

LOL. Great analogy!

 

Oh my here we go again.-....

but.... anyone a lawyer here? im sure ya can figure out if the RIAA MPAA and whatever are actually legal organizations?
Or.. can we file something like harrasment suits against em? Honest.. i feel harrased by them.. although.,... as germany isn't on the radar.. YET!!.. im with happy for now.. wouldn't worry about the privacy thing... the riaa.. or any other sub-org will just pay the freaking parties a nice contribution (so ya cant say they got bribed) and voila... wave yer rights goodbye... and im sure they are called Rights... so ya can see whats left...

...

 

They're as legal as any trade union is. And how are you being harassed?

 

lol, people still think they have a legal right to download or at least have access to downloading copyrighted material, strange, people need to take a step back and look at what they do/say

Granted I'm no saint, I won't deny that, but I certainly dont go around saying the RIAA and MPAA are harassing me and that the DMCA is a load of rubbish and encroaches on my personal/civil rights... Get a life, wake up and smell the coffee...

Anyway, back on topic, scare tactics thats all this is. All we have to do is stand back and watch the ISP's say "bugger off, we're not doing it" because at the end of the day, they know that 90% of their customers are downloading illegally and they sure as hell arent going to kick them all off and loose 90% of their revenue now are they... Not without a fight at least.

dragon2309

 

i dont use p2p much now any way to slow on an 20mb connection so this would not affect me as thay cant see what i am downloading when SSL is been used + not p2p download

Music and movies i tend to goto oden (was UCI) or rent it maybe, TV i do download as i tend to miss it in the day and as i am on Virgin cable UK i cant get Sky 1 2 or 3 so i download them as well up to sky to give virgin an good offer that an 4x price up for shitty 2-3 HD chans that the most of the UK would not pay for any way (not getting sky as i have to Rip up the floor and i prefer NTL cable)

not an fan of getting music any way as i drive alot so i get whats on the radio


the idea of paying an low fixed amount per broadband user (say £2) on top of you norm bb so you can download what ever you want, id probly go with that (on 20mb virgin bb it should be part of the £37 thay charge for it and set the Cap to frgin 5gb before speed drop to 5mb), that is if thay did that type of service

 

no it isn't. a correct analogy would be if you steal from a window factory, you are barred from entering that factory again (perfectly reasonable). unless they are going to bar you from going to a cd store and buying a cd after you get caught downloading three tracks.

 

The DMCA would infringe on many of your rights if you were a US citizen.
The problem with bill like this is it effectively passing law enforcement from the agency designed to deal with it to companies who really only want to extract money from people. As such it'll be a hash the bill will be poorly written and the ISP wills end up kicking people using torrents in general, so if there are complaints the ISPs will be forced to install software to actively snoop on the contents of your package and you will be forced to either run unencrypted or provide your encryption key on request (as they all ready can in terror cases i believe). So you end up via the back door with government able to monitor every piece of information that leaves or enters your house all for the sake of lining large corporations coffers. Sure we have no right to steal music, movies or television but we do have a right to privacy which this will effectively remove. It may not seem that bad while we have a benign government, but you never know what the next one will be like and besides that just look at this governments record or personally privacy, not exactly encouraging is it.

 

We have no right to privacy actually, especially if it a product provided by another company - they have every right to kick you off for abusing the terms of the contract.
I don't support them on this (it'll make my life harder) but I still can't claim it's abusing my privacy, etc.

 

Yep pretty much.

 

I'll quote an interesting post from the other forum I frequent.

I think the reason piracy (or should I say copyright infringement) is so common is that the perceived value of the music/films etc is so much lower than the prices asked by the record labels etc.

Also, if given a choice between:-
1) an illegal download of an album, at the quality you want, without the DRM, that you can resample and play on any of your players (car, MP3 player, home etc) that's with you in under 5 mins
or
2) a legal download, which is tied to the service you bought it from, and can't be played on several of your players due to DRM, is in low quality bitrates and costs more than you think its worth
or
3) a legal store-bought CD, that requires you to travel to the store, wait in line, pay through the nose, travel home, rip to your PC and then still get accused of infringement if you copy it to your MP3 player and car player etc

Which would you choose?
I know I pick 1 every time.

If there was a 4th option of:-
4) buy legally online at a reasonable price, download as many copies as you like in various bitrates/formats and have it playing on any of your players in minutes

I know I'd probably pick the 4th option, definately if it was music I knew I liked.
All they'd need to do is allow streaming of the first half of the songs in low quality to get people 'hooked' and they would see sales.

I think until the 4th option is available, I will always download my music from less than legal sites...

 

We just upped our download limit to 25 gigs. Assume that I get 2 letters for downloading music, which mind you I usually buy on CD if it's any good for the CD quality, and I stop downloading music. Suddenly I don't need to pay $80 a month for 25 gigs, and I only need the $10 a month for 1 gig package...

I don't see how this will benefit the Telcos & ISPs if EVERY Joe Bloggs goes through the same process of down sizing their usage by a lot?

 

QED my arse. An encrypted anonymous proxy is one solution. That could be implemented in various ways, even in a new p2p protocol (torrent tor?), but that will mean slower transfers, etc. This crap will just lead to more encryption (probably a good thing anyway) and more anonymising and more private networks.

Their major problem is going to be differentiating legal torrents from illegal torrents. Probably no big deal as they will just craft the law so you can't do **** to any ISP or government for being banned, even if you've done nothing wrong (hi-jacked wifi, incorrect pattern match, whatever).

Would love to see this go ahead and see some politician get banned because they only run WEP on their wifi or have their box rooted. Sure would be a nice way to set someone up!

 

because most people will up their plan when they get a letter from their isp telling them they've gone over their limit, but then never drop it after they stop downloading.

 

Ramble,

the Internet isn't a product, its a service.

Of course a company can cancel your plan if they want to, hell they can do that for any reason if they want to I bet, the thing is, just because they can kick you off, doesn't mean you lose your right to privacy.

It's a simple first amendment right. Just like your right to privacy at home, where a police officer cannot just walk in and search your house (they need a warrant; spare me your patriot act mumbo jumbo right now, as its irrelevant to this discussion) they shouldn't be able to just search your internet traffic for whatever they want.

10-20 years ago when we had tapes, did random RIAA people come into your house searching for mix tapes you and your friends shared? did they do this without a warrent???
(didn't think so)

 

Two words: they can't.

Why? Well, because they aren't able to check every packet out there, and because they can't single out users with huge traffic either. Remember internet TV? BBC iPlayer, anyone? Huge p2p traffic doesn't mean illegal downloads, and if they try to filter using this criteria they will step on someone's foot rather sooner than later. Traffic will grow, there's nothing anyone can do to prevent that.

Next thing: encryption. Bit torrent isn't the single protocol out there. Some p2ps are encrypted by default. Also there's IP tunneling.

And the last thing: cost. How much will it cost to monitor users? I'm sure, ISPs will be able pull it with their budgets. But will they be able to pay in court to many users they will accuse wrongly? This part is inevitable. IP doesn't give you a person. In fact IP gives you location, nothing more. Some open router being used by every neighbour and their dog too. How much time they want to spend in the court pursuing someone else's needs? Not too much I presume.

They have desire, but they lack the plan.

 

Greetings!

ISPs do not need to inspect the data.

When a ISP receives a letter saying that IP X.X.X downloaded copyrighted material they warn their customer, receive a second letter and suspend the customer, receive a third letter and cancel the service.

ISPs do not need to inspect the data.

 

And how exactly are they going to know if I've downloaded copyright material?

 

Anyone can join a torrent swarm and as such, if they are downloading kylie.mp3 illegally, they can list the IPs of users in the swarm they send data to.
Send those IPs to the ISPs along with the date&time, the ISPs match the IP to their logs of subscribers and link your personal details to the IP.
Boom, letter through the door saying you've been naughty.

If it ever gets to this, I can see a lot of people deliberately leaving their wireless routers unsecured as a get-out clause.

 

Greetings!

ISPs already receive letters from this:
http://www.mediasentry.com/
And similar companies.