UK ISPs react with anger to UK file-sharing policy

[breadfan]

Tweet

Internet service providers (ISPs) have reacted with anger to new proposals on how to tackle internet piracy.
The government is proposing a tougher stance which would include cutting off repeat offenders from the net.

Link.

[TVC_H4U]

"Its Illegal" thats what i said in an email to my MP.
.. I want them to pass this law, so I can sit outside MP's houses crack their WEP and download copyright software and music.
Will be a youtube hit, after I call their ISP and get lots of MP's disconnected "for ever". Good fun

[nujerzy]

How can they f******* lame mp's who sit on their a*** all day taking our money put this proposol up its that **** mp who had an operation f****** *****. let them cut us off as then the isp's wont have any customers also customers will downgrade to 4mb/8mb

[dj_gerbil]

In order for the ISP's to determine that you are downloading something illegal and not just downloading an update for say a game or something, it would mean checking every single packet of data for its content. Now I'm no expert, but I'd say that is one hell of a breach of privacy.

[TVC_H4U]

it would mean checking every single packet of data for its content. Now I'm no expert, but I'd say that is one hell of a breach of privacy.

I recon it is a breach of privacy, but on such a large scale it would be near on impossible to inspect every packet. I wonder what the lobby'ist David Geffen and Mandelson can come up with as a solution?

ISP's could not inspect every packet so would simply block all download sites, just moving the activity underground and back on the streets.

[tacoben]

The ISP would not check initially.

Your IP will show up when you download something illegally then the movie or music company would complain to your IP and they would investigate. Then you would get cut off.

At the moment there is a kind of three strikes and you out rule. So you need to be told off more than once before anything bad happens. Having been told off personally for my downloads I keep away from anything that is not commercially available.

Those people who think they can somehow hide their IP are foolish just think how many time TVC has been able to spot the European interloper. You could use VPN or piggyback but these back doors will be easily closed.

What I was wondering the other day was if I owned a DVD of say 'Spaced' the comedy series. I am allowed to make a copy for my own use. Maybe just in case the original gets damaged.

1. Does this mean that I can get a copy from the internet legally. Does this copy have to be the exact version that I purchased.
2. If I gave the original to a friend on long term loan am I still allowed to keep my copy.
3. If I had purchased it but subsequently got divorced, moved out of my house but the ex-wife still owns the original can I still be allowed to keep my copy.

For me I think there should be more emphasis of getting the law changed between personal use and personal gain. A person who misses Top Gear so gets a copy from the internet just to watch and delete is hardly doing the same thing as a person selling a copy of Top Gear the series in a local pub.

I wrote to my MP about this and I suggest everyone else does. They have a duty to take notice of their constituents especially as Gordon has to call an election soon. (Last available date would be 3rd June 2010)

[Iain_Begg]

The downloading of copyrighted material covers quite a large area.

Firstly it is important to realise that downloading copyrighted material for your own use is not a criminal offence - it is only a breach of copyright. If you start making CDs and selling it on, or some similar activity, it then becomes a criminal offence.

It is interesting to note that some people who subscribe to file-sharing software (whatever use it is put to) are sometimes bombarded by some media-protection organisations. This is potentially criminal activity. Current legislation, eg. Computer Misuse Act (1990) is quite out of date and is progressively being updated through other legislation.

Therefore what appears to be happening is that certain media organisations are putting pressure on government to deal with what may predominently be a civil offence. However, I believe that the government, in trying to do this, together with other things they might be planning, could be leaving themselves open to other potentially criminal activities. This is as was discussed at the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime in 2001. This could include illegal interception, data interference and system interference, as well as potentially other things.
http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN...s/Html/185.htm

Whilst the UK has put their signature to the Convention, it has still not been ratified by the UK. According to my MP, it should have been ratified by the UK in April this year, but is now due for ratification within around a month.
http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Co...CM=&DF=&CL=ENG

However, what I believe the bottom line is that certain media organisations are worried about possibly their revenue, rather than the more deserving artists. It seems therefore that they are trying to force the government to create offences over actions that the organisations themselves ought to be bringing in the civil courts! I believe that the government should not allow themselves to become involved in what already at the lower end can be dealt through the civil courts, and at the higher end, criminal processes.

[djdynamix]

Thanks for the informative reply, Iain.

For my own part, I think the entertainment industry as a whole needs to update their thinking. For one thing, the days of CD's, DVD's and "Record Shops" are gone. The future IS the internet, and any company which fails to take account of that will inevitably fall.

I am, myself, a record producer, dealing in low-volume specialist dance releases. I, and the record companies I work with, see the "illegal" downloads for what they are, i.e.: a) A tiny proportion of the total consumer base, b) Good for PR (A lot of the people who download this way are the most vociferous reviewers on the net!), c) Mostly of poor quality, so if people like the album/track, they will often buy it anyway! d) Manipulable - We have been known to put up 30sec "demos", size-matched to the illegal copies ;-), e) Possibly most importantly, IMPOSSIBLE TO STOP! For anyone to think they had the ability to stop people from sharing files on the internet, they would have to be either crazy or so full of their own importance as to ignore all sense and logistics!

The government (of any country) can no more stop the transmission of music & films over the internet than they can child porn (which, I have to say, imho, is a MUCH bigger problem, and in much greater need of tackling than a few people sharing the latest Amy Winehouse album)!

[TVC_NickUK]

They are just going to shoot themself's in the foot AGAIN.

I have said to my Family "Why don't they charge us an extra £5.00 and that goes towards copyright etc"

How many people in the UK use Broadband - How many Download
You add £5.00 to everyone's bill and the copyright holders will be pretty happy.

Catching people on Dynamic IP is going to be pointless - People download something reconnect to the internet "New IP" someone else gets that IP the ISP then gives the info of the poor guy who downloads nothing just checks his email gets a nice letter saying he downloads copyright infringement.

I was watching something which they said "People will stop downloading illegally if someone comes up with an idea that is free and legal"

BBC iPlayer I think is a great tool and if TVCatchup do bring back the PVR I will love that even more, I missed Mock The Week and my first thought was BBC iPlayer they will have it. I didn't think ohh.. The PirateBay or some dodge torrent site because that would be Illegal and it would take even more time.

[gareth86]

"How many people in the UK use Broadband - How many Download
You add £5.00 to everyone's bill and the copyright holders will be pretty happy."

Yes but a lot of the people who have to pay it and download nothing will not.

"Catching people on Dynamic IP is going to be pointless - People download something reconnect to the internet "New IP" someone else gets that IP the ISP then gives the info of the poor guy who downloads nothing just checks his email gets a nice letter saying he downloads copyright infringement."

They have logs about who is registered to which IP at what specific times. How do you think they know how many times you have connected etc?? Though some ISPs do seem more capable than others, as you say i've heard people getting charged when they have allegedly done nothing which doesn't really make too much sense. The only exception I can think of is ISPs like AOL who sometimes use 'proxy' ips where there are many users, using the same IP. How cheap lol