FileSharing

[TVC_Admin]

Tweet

We have all done it, many still do, and yet it still makes headlines

Australia appears to have joined the USA in imposing crazy punitive measures against filesharers, with the person who first uploaded Super Mario reportedly settling a legal action for an astounding £847,00, according to the BBC.

At a time when the enforcement tactics against those hosting torrent sites appears to be failing at every stage (Rock and Overton of TV_Links, Alan Ellis of Oink, as two very recent examples), it's starting to make the whole "Digital Britain" effort look like too little, far too late for the content producers.

And with filesharers having far more choice than resort to the use of P2P, such as P2P via VPN, newsgroups, direct download sites, etc, few are going to be worrying that their ISP is going to send them a slap across the wrists by email.

Whilst I doubted that the TV_Links and Oink cases would be as it is, I'm happy that my worst expectations went unrealised - largely because othrough the ineptitude of the prosecutors. My congratulations to Simon Morgan of Morgan Rose for their hard work.

Interesting article here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme...ne/8513244.stm

[TVC_Colwal]

Australia have always strict restrictive laws where the internet is concerned and it doesn't surprise me in the slightest.
Gave up on file sharing ages ago as it is too slow and cumbersome and always pay for my files nowadays... "Sunday morning and off to church"

[tacoben]

About a year ago I was told off by my IP regarding a Hollywood film.

I did not dispute or admit to anything but I did feel it was a judgement that I was not at liberty to argue my case. I was not given any indication who had complained and it was assumed I was guilty.

This made me think that anyone could be targeted and have their internet connection removed.

The whole industry of pirates and content owners is forgetting the ordinary person. The content owners make vast profits. The people organising the pirating also make money. The ordinary consumer gets something for free but most of those involved make no money out of it.

What should happen is the content providers should be using the internet to sell their products at a reasonable price. It is a lot more convenient to find a film on the internet you want to watch than having to visit a shop to buy it.

As for paying for stuff they other day I wanted to find some software to create a font. The internet is full of different types of software for this. I had to download countless trial software packages to get something that would work for me. When I am looking around some software can cost £500. Though this software might have taken many hours to create how many people have money to spend on such stuff especially when they are probably like me and only really want to create a couple of fonts and then never use the software again.

Its the same with films. Maybe I do not want to spend £20 on a DVD for a film I may only watch once. I would be much happier to pay £1 download it for one time viewing.

There is also the issue of some films not getting distribution. I once watched a film at the LFF and wanted to see again. However it had been brought up by a French company and never released with English subtitles. My only option was P2P to be able to view the film with subtitles.

Lastly file sharing is not only done by the young its used by people of all ages and backgrounds. I have seen files with a demographic of over 50's have more than 10 000 leaching it.

At the moment file sharing is illegal but I think it would be wrong for government and industry to work against the people. It would be better to find ways to give a service that is legal and help stop the majority of people from breaking the law.

This is very similar to prohibition in America. Criminalising large amounts of people will not stop something from happening.

[TVC_H4U]

Very interesting news recently in terms of file sharing, im not surprised that TV-Links got off scott free as those allegations put against them should have been put against the big boys YouTube, Veoh and DailyMotion. Whilst the actions of TV-Links are questionable, It can not be illegal to link to some of the worlds most popular websites.

Im unable to find recent articles, but in the UK their has been good traction towards scrapping three strikes policies proposed in the UK as well as Europe making moves to stop this also.
Many ISP's now standing up for their selves (especially talk talk) and insisting not to cut pirate's off without a court order.
The government now taking note (election time) as Ive wrote to MP (and passed on to Mandelsons office) about flaws in 3 strikes plans and the lords calling current practices “A Scam & Legal Blackmail”.

Theirs more interesting times to come also, with the pirate bay still operateing when been told to close (and no longer a sale planed) and Newzbin Usenet Indexing currently in court.
Torrents not becoming .torrent less relying on magnet links and trackers being made redundant.

I agree currently file sharing is similar to prohibition. The content needs to be more available, open and affordable once it does, the underground providers will fade away.

Tacoben, I too have been accused in the past of file sharing by a 3rd party and presumed guilty by default. Once the letter was forwarded by my old ISP, I asked them for MAC address and changed provider. At which time I then notified them under the Data Protection Act, they no longer have any reasonable grounds to hold any personally identifiable data on me.

Their has been cases where the elderly have been accused and paid the accusors when they do not own a computer.
Their has been cases where 3rd partys claim right to persue copyright, when they are not even authorised by the copyright holders.
Their has been many cases where people have been abused by virus or lack of security and others have been accused when they are being used as a proxy.

.... hmm lots of text. Will have to read what ive wrote at top, forgotten by now.

[L.Rawlins]

It takes one good programmer to create a Wi-Fi driven protocol and you could share content as simply as by walking past someone in the street.

Simply create a 'wishlist' in the application on your device (instead of a search), walk around your local town or city, and by the time you get back home from your days activities you could have all kinds of audio/video goodies sat in your device; especially if the app. could multiplex connections for speed based on how many devices with the desired content were in your vicinity...

If there was an app. for that, the industries wouldn't have a hope. How do you police something that's tracker-less, anonymous and completely offline?

[TVC_H4U]

Thats a good theory Leon, but wouldn't people (like the tv licensing agency) drive around in white vans spying on people and their content they offer? .. Less anonymous than the internet.

.... The device you are talking about is though quite possible, In sweeden they have a Torrent Booth. Where you go and download stuff, i think it was a temporary thing.

Their is also a recording application Ive seen on a video. Where you write the songs you wish to have, then it scans on-line radio stations (as part of a community) reports back what the songs are on. If its on your "wish list" it then captures the audio.
This to me is genius, as its useing broadcasters as the "trackers".

[TVC_Admin]

More importantly, the case of Regina v Gregory Straszkiewicz sets the precedent that "wireless hijacking" constitutes a serious criminal offence, regardless of the use to which it is put. £500 and 12 months sentence (albeit conditional) is a high price to pay.

The defendant in this case was found guilty of dishonestly obtaining an electronic service under the Communications Act, similar charges to those used for tapping into a cable or telephone network

I'd hardly say that TPB have walked away unscathed, there is the little matter of a custodial sentence to be served and the failure of appeals. Ultimately it comes down to money, and the Swedish legal system has shown how weak it is through the delays in enforcing the judgment.

Frankly, the only reasons why Rock and Overton (TV_Links) and Ellis (Oink) have walked away is because the cases against them for money laundering were insubstantial and ineptly brought. To have any proceeds from a crime to confiscate, you have to prove the crime in the first case. For various reasons I can't go into them too deeply Read into that what you will) but the use of a skilled legal team would have resulted in a very different outcome, without having to drum up dodgy charges of money laundering

[tartist]

It takes one good programmer to create a Wi-Fi driven protocol and you could share content as simply as by walking past someone in the street.

Simply create a 'wishlist' in the application on your device (instead of a search), walk around your local town or city, and by the time you get back home from your days activities you could have all kinds of audio/video goodies sat in your device; especially if the app. could multiplex connections for speed based on how many devices with the desired content were in your vicinity...

If there was an app. for that, the industries wouldn't have a hope. How do you police something that's tracker-less, anonymous and completely offline?

YouTube already has videos explaining how to crack wifi access to WEP, WPA and WPA2 protected networks. Although the method requires more time than would be required to simply "walk around your local city" the time required is only between a half and two hours to get onto someone else's network, effectively allowing you to download files anonomously. After that you can return time and time again and have access immediately.

Surely prosecutors are on very dodgy ground when they try and prosecute someone; anyone's network may have been used by such a downloader without their knowledge, even though they may have taken reasonable precautions to secure their network.

[L.Rawlins]

I don't know who you were responding to there Dan, but my comment was based around a theoretical application that a user would have to knowingly install onto their device first in order to share content amongst others with the very same using nothing more than Wi-Fi. There's no 'wireless hi-jacking' involved in what I've posted to my knowledge. It's just a network of offline, obliging devices.

[TVC_Admin]

It wasn't pointed at anyone Leon, more a general shot in anticipation of someone advocating mass wireless hijacking.

I am in favour of open networking, what you appear to be suggesting is a form of wireless mesh networking. Great in principle, but falls apart when the local village paedophile decides to use your network for accessing illegal sites against your IP.