UK: tougher piracy laws, blacklists of pirates

[Boeman]

This dates back to July 25th I believe.

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. Hard core file-sharers could see their broadband connections slowed, under measures proposed by the UK government. BT, Virgin, Orange, Tiscali, BSkyB and Carphone Warehouse have all signed up. Geoff Taylor, chief executive of the BPI, which represents the music industry, said: “All of the major ISPs in the UK now recognise they have a responsibility to deal with illegal file-sharers on their networks.” The plan commits the firms to working towards a “significant reduction” in the illegal sharing of music.

In addition to this chance, parents whose children download music and films illegally will be blacklisted and have their internet access curbed under government reforms to fight online piracy. Households that ignore warnings will be subjected to online surveillance and their internet speeds will be reduced, making it very difficult for them to download large files. The measures, the first of their kind in the world, will be announced today by Baroness Vadera, who brokered the deal between internet service providers and Ofcom, the telecoms body. About 6.5 million Britons are thought to have downloaded music illegally last year. It has been estimated that illegal downloads will cost the music industry alone £1 billion over the next five years.

Source: Times, BBC

American English Translation:

UK: Using the Law to Blackmail users of the Internet

The six biggest UK net providers have found a way to blackmail the users into either paying more for their services or stop downloading so many files which use up a lot of internet bandwidth. This deal negotiated by the government (which guarantees political kickback funds to the UK government) will see that hundreds of thousands of blackmail letters be sent to net users who use the net excessively which they can claim are suspects in illegal file sharing. Users could see their broadband connections reduced (while still having to pay full price for the connection), under these measures proposed by BT, Virgin, Orange, Tiscali, BSkyB and Carphone Warehouse (but will appear as the government proposed them, even if they have don't have a clue of how the internet works). Geoff Taylor, chief executive of the BPI (Blackmail People of the Internet), which represent the music industry (but never claimed to say which country of origin of the music his industry represents), said: “All of the major ISPs in the UK now recognize they have a responsibility to deal with illegal file-sharers on their networks.” (Translated: If any of the ISPs want a cut into this Blackmail plan, they better sign with us now.) The plan commits the firms to working towards a “significant reduction” in bandwidth and an increase in revenue by those users willing to upgrade to the higher commercial lines to avoid being monitored.

In addition to this, parents whose children download music and films illegally (does not have to be proven) will be blackmailed first and have their internet access curbed under government reforms until they have either signed for a higher priced service (which can guarantee them immunity) or try to fight a slow and long drawn out court process. Households that ignore warnings will be subjected to online surveillance, late night phone calls of threats and their internet speeds will be reduced, making it very difficult for them to download large files (but still pay full price). This measure, which appeared quietly first in the U.S., will be announced today by Baroness Vadera, who brokered the deal (and was payed a handsome royalty I might say) between internet service providers and Ofcom, the telecoms body. About 6.5 million Britons are thought to have downloaded music illegally last year. It has been estimated that illegal downloads will cost a (fictitious) music industry alone £1 billion over the next five years, however the return from this scam will bring them all a windfall profit.

Source: Times, BBC

AKA: Times are a changin', it Better Be Cash

[gautrek]

This dates back to July 25th I believe.

American English Translation:

UK: Using the Law to Blackmail users of the Internet

The six biggest UK net providers have found a way to blackmail the users into either paying more for their services or stop downloading so many files which use up a lot of internet bandwidth.

AKA: Times are a changin', it Better Be Cash

Whats the problem then mate.

I take it you download illegal stuff then do you.

Other wise i can't see what the problem is.

I don't download dodgy music or films.If i want to see a film i'll either rent it out or God forbid go and buy it.As DVd's are so cheap nowadays its not worth me downloading it.

So lighten up a bit mate.

[Boeman]

Whats the problem then mate.

I take it you download illegal stuff then do you.

Other wise i can't see what the problem is.

I don't download dodgy music or films.If i want to see a film i'll either rent it out or God forbid go and buy it.As DVd's are so cheap nowadays its not worth me downloading it.

So lighten up a bit mate.

An employee of BBC are we?

[Jev.Dk]

So if I download Linux, I get accused of piracy.

What if I rented a movie through the net. That is possible and legal, but its also alot of traffic, why should I be punished for being something legal?

The article says that they only watch for traffic, not what is downloaded.

[John Kettler]

Here in the States Comcast just got spanked by the FCC for interfering with Bit Torrent users by limiting their bandwidth. This is the first known victory of the so-called Net Neutrality regulations in this country.

Regards,

John Kettler

[flamingknives]

I would hope that uploads are measured as well as downloads.

ISTM that the main targets are those whose traffic is well over and above the norm.

[SSgt Viljuri]

Her Majesty's realms have had quite an ambivalent history with piracy, sometimes going well beyond classical British sounding ideas like "fair game".

For these reasons, I would recommended instituting keelhauling as a just and proportional punishment for those pirates that surrender themselves alive to the Royal officials.

[gautrek]

An employee of BBC are we?

No mate i just don't see what the problem is.

[JonS]

No mate i just don't see what the problem is.

The "problem" is that people are being assumed to be guilty of a BS interpretation of a BS law based on a flawed secondary indicators.

The "problem" is that ISPs are being used to do policing and investigation work.

The "problem" is that privacy is taking it in the shorts, again, so that the flawed business model of mass-market entertainment industry can be propped up at your expense.

The "problem" is that goverments everywhere -and especially in the UK - have been repeatedly untrustworthy when it comes to keeping prvate data in their care secure.

The "problem" is that 'if you've done nothing wrong you've got nothing to hide' is a fatally flawed way of approaching this kind of intrusion. If you've got nothing to hide, you won't mind telling us all what you earn, why your cars does as much mileage as it does, where you live, what your bank account and social security numbers are, what your favourite and and least favourite sexual position is, exactly why you bought those particular books over the last 5 years, why you look at pron sites, and exactly what you were doing at 8:15 on on the 13th of January. I mean, you've got nothing to hide, right? You've done nothing wrong after all.

But you're right, other than that it's a great idea.

Jon

[Bigduke6]

Seems to me that the whole deal is a suprisingly dumb plot by the six largest IPs, to send customers to IPs not part of the big six.

After all, unless the penalties are enforced across the market, people wanting to download will just find an IP that is willing to help them. It seems the big six have forgotten who's paying the bills.

Besides, the way I see it, in this world it's only a matter of time before IPs go international, and you'll be pick your service not just in your country, but from anywhere on the planet. Banking is already to that point after all, you want to run your money through an account in Latvia or Vanatutu or the Jersey Islands, hey, the market's ready to accomodate you.

Unenforcable law is worse than no law at all, because failed attempts to enforce it undermine the idea laws need to be obeyed. An attempt by companies producing software content that could be transferred by the Internet are doing just that: demanding compliance with rules that cannot, in the end, be enforced.

The only hope for the record labels is if the British consumer is too stupid to realize the people telling him they are always watching him and will catch him if he makes a misstep, are lying through their teeth. People who want content will get it.

Of course, the process of attempting to stop faux-illegal activity that cannot be stopped, can in itself be extremely profitable: look at the anti-narcotics industry. Maybe that's what's happening here.

[gautrek]

The "problem" is that people are being assumed to be guilty of a BS interpretation of a BS law based on a flawed secondary indicators.

The "problem" is that ISPs are being used to do policing and investigation work.

The "problem" is that privacy is taking it in the shorts, again, so that the flawed business model of mass-market entertainment industry can be propped up at your expense.

The "problem" is that goverments everywhere -and especially in the UK - have been repeatedly untrustworthy when it comes to keeping prvate data in their care secure.

The "problem" is that 'if you've done nothing wrong you've got nothing to hide' is a fatally flawed way of approaching this kind of intrusion. If you've got nothing to hide, you won't mind telling us all what you earn, why your cars does as much mileage as it does, where you live, what your bank account and social security numbers are, what your favourite and and least favourite sexual position is, exactly why you bought those particular books over the last 5 years, why you look at pron sites, and exactly what you were doing at 8:15 on on the 13th of January. I mean, you've got nothing to hide, right? You've done nothing wrong after all.

But you're right, other than that it's a great idea.

Jon

No mate the problem is that stupid tossers are abusing the internet.

These same tossers are not just happy with downloading the odd track or the occasional film.They are doing night after bleeding night.Taking and giving nothing back.A girl i knew a while ago had a new boyfriend.He was on broad band and he left his PC on every day downloading films.He had hundreds burnt onto CD's in his collection.It wasn't like he would ever watch them it was more a case of because i can i will.But when all is said and done its theft.

The fact is that piracy is a massive problem on the internet.End of argument.

[JonS]

Newsflash: there have been stupid tossers abusing technology since there has been technology and tossers.

Piracy is a 'problem' for a particular business model. It is not a problem for you, for me, for the police, or for anyone else. Also, tying to prevent copying on the internet is like trying to make water not wet. The internet is designed to facilitate copying. That's its whole purpose for being.

The police should go after criminals.

The police should not go after everyone at the behest of corporate interests, then sift through the results to see who they can charge with what.

ISPs should dump private information as soon as it is no longer needed, if not sooner, to prevent this kind of dubious information hoovering.

Incidentally - if your mate is copying movies but never watching them, what exactly is the problem? He hasn't profitted, nor even benefitted from his activity. He has paid for the electricity and teh intarweb pipes used in the download. The studios haven't lost anything since he wasn't going to pay for it anyway. Where exactly is the problem that demands massive intrusions into everyone elses privacy?

Oh, and I'm still wating for you to tell us all what you earn, why your cars does as much mileage as it does, where you live, what your bank account and social security numbers are, what your favourite and and least favourite sexual position is, exactly why you bought those particular books over the last 5 years, why you look at pron sites, and exactly what you were doing at 8:15 on on the 13th of January. I mean, you've got nothing to hide, right? You've done nothing wrong have you? Nothing you might be embarrassed about, or nothing you just might not want anyone else to know about?

You want everyone to give up their privacy, well ... you first. All your privacy. Gone. Then we'll decide if it's such a great idea for us to give up our privacy.

[Other Means]

Did he pay for his bandwidth? Yes. Was is stated in his contract how much he could use? Of course. So the issue isn't abusing the internet it's not paying people for watching things that they made - which is fair enough but policing it like this and undermining everyone's privacy isn't the way to go.

ISP's have over sold their capacity in an attempt to undercut each other and when people actually use the bandwidth they've bought and paid for ISP's get twitchy and "manage" their bandwidth.

How about this - if you haven't got it, don't sell it.

The issue of piracy is of course a bad one - and I'm all in favour of it being addressed - but all the current ways to clamp down on it; DRM, going through the courts and this stupid idea just don't work.

For example The Pirate Bay, which is the largest torrent site in the world, is going to start sending data of SSL so it will be encrypted between the servers so the ISP won't know what it is.

So who misses out because of these measures? Well, everyone. Our privacy gets further undermined and our rights circumvented by people who want our lives to be under tighter and tighter control. Authority is reacting to a new threat in an old way - tighter restrictions and new laws.

[Bigduke6]

JohnS touches on an important point I think. The entertainment corporations are dead-set on defending their property, and power to them, but are they doing it because of their deeply-felt loyalty to the concept of private property and ownership rights?

This is the entertainment industry we are talking about, where ideas cross-pollinate, accounting is so dirty there is a Wikipedia entry on it (Hollywood accounting), and because everything has gone digital in the last 10 - 20 years a substantial actual production and distribution costs are going through the floor. Think about it, casts of thousands can be replaced by CGI, the original whatever it is can be manipulated and transferred, world-wide, at the press of a button. Sure, the artists and the production people and the lawers are all getting their cut, and power to them, but are they expecting us to believe the entertainment industry will crumble, if their products get tossed about the world? Too late. India, China, Russia, Central and South America, the entire African continent, are all pretty much happily consuming 1st world entertainment product and not paying a whole heck of alot. This is product, many people in many of those countries would point out, that is forcing out and in many cases has destroyed home grown entertainment media. These people would ask, what is the point of increasing the profit margin of Hollywood and major record labels, seeing as they already are undermining if not have already demolished local production?

For the major entertainment companies to argue, as they do, that they can control their content, and make people in someplace like England pay every time that content gets moved, is ludicrous. The English count money just like every one else, and if they judge the entertainment companies are overcharging, they will bypass the entertainment companies or just find some other form of entertainment. What possible sense does it make to try and clamp down on English IPs, when a person with just a little bit of motivation can download whatever he wants from China or Russia, and if the entertainment companies want to interfere then the transfer can easily be encoded.

The bottom line here comes down to two questions: Where is the incentive for the pirates outside the reach of the entertainment companies to stop the pirating, and do the entertainment companies have a prayer of doing anything about worldwide piracy?

If it's just a few pirates, then maybe. There's an ongoing game between NATO and the Afghan resistance to see whether there can be an official Taliban web site, it shows up, the NATO people bomb it, it goes somewhere else, and so on. There is some limiting there when you are targeting a few sites. But what if there are hundreds? Thousands? Operating in languages the entertainment companies don't speak? Able to make, by many poor country standards, substantial money by however many hits they can get from people in rich countries wanting to download something?

Other Means (somewhat darkly I might add) points out quite correctly that the upshot of this is more regulation of the most-effectively regulated societies.

[Boris London]

Seems to me that the whole deal is a suprisingly dumb plot by the six largest IPs, to send customers to IPs not part of the big six.

I know a few people who have switched already...

[Boris London]

this is the sort of thing virgin does..

I don't mind as much as they don't tell you.. I had to wade through the small print onsite to find out why my speed went to grindingly slow all of a sudden

its not unlimited broadband its traffic managed..

they also move the goalposts around.. the advent of streamed video, iplayer in particular has hit virgins bandwidth

if your watching streamed tv distributed via a router busting these "unlimited" accounts happens.

our house has 4 computers sharing 1 service and we have to watch the clock for tv online

collecting information is a no no in my book

Boris

London