Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

UK P2P Fight Brewing

timothy posted more than 6 years ago | from the they're-breakdance-fighting dept.

The Internet 244

forunder writes "Zeropaid has been covering a very hot topic going on in the UK right now. The government, prodded by entertainment lobbyists, has gotten six UK ISPs to agree to help police piracy on their networks. A leaked government letter says they are looking to cut internet piracy by 80%. In the same week Microsoft released a study which found that some 54% of UK file sharers are between 11-16. The UK's Green Party has already spoken up, calling the new policies an 'Attack on Civil Liberties.'"

cancel ×

244 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

How to cut internet piracy by 80% (3, Funny)

patio11 (857072) | more than 6 years ago | (#24429743)

Release a CC song as good as any one by Britney Spears.

Re:How to cut internet piracy by 80% (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24429757)

Release a CC song as bad as any one by Britney Spears.

There, fixed that for you.

Re:How to cut internet piracy by 80% (1)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 6 years ago | (#24430003)

Funny how Britney Spears somehow gets listened to a lot more then CC songs.

Re:How to cut internet piracy by 80% (1)

cheater512 (783349) | more than 6 years ago | (#24430053)

People are suckers for advertising.

Re:How to cut internet piracy by 80% (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24430121)

People are suckers for things they actually like for their own reasons, and not because some Cheeto-stained hippie thinks they should enjoy because it will stick it to the man.

No, people are suckers.... (1)

Nazlfrag (1035012) | more than 6 years ago | (#24430189)

and there's one born every minute.

Re:How to cut internet piracy by 80% (2, Insightful)

ettlz (639203) | more than 6 years ago | (#24430115)

Funny how Britney Spears somehow gets listened to a lot more then CC songs.

It's just the usual killer combination of low-brow material, high production values, and good old-fashioned fappability.

And Britney, bless her, hasn't had the latter for a long time now.

Re:How to cut internet piracy by 80% (4, Insightful)

oodaloop (1229816) | more than 6 years ago | (#24429773)

Yeah, all the free music from Beethoven can't hold a candle to Britney Spears.

If you check the bitorrent stats... (1)

patio11 (857072) | more than 6 years ago | (#24429983)

... I have no doubt, whatsoever, that it empirically does not.

Re:How to cut internet piracy by 80% (4, Informative)

mccalli (323026) | more than 6 years ago | (#24430017)

Yeah, all the free music from Beethoven can't hold a candle to Britney Spears

Unless you're playing it yourself, you will find there's still copyright on the performance of that music.

You're free to take Beethoven's music and form a string quartet to play it. You're not free to take a performance of Beethoven's 5th by the London Philharmonic Orchestra and stick it up on bittorrent - that's definitely still copyrighted.

Cheers, Ian

Re:How to cut internet piracy by 80% (4, Insightful)

RDW (41497) | more than 6 years ago | (#24430251)

'You're not free to take a performance of Beethoven's 5th by the London Philharmonic Orchestra and stick it up on bittorrent.'

You are if it was made before 1958, here in the UK (where copyright expires on audio recordings after 50 years). And there are plenty of excellent recordings from the 'mono era' that are well worth listening to. You get into a bit of a grey area if you've ripped the tracks from a modern CD rather than the original record, since the digital re-mastering may itself be subject to copyright. It'll come as no surprise that the audio industry wants this law changed, and there's already a proposal from the EU Commission to greatly extend the copyright term throughout Europe. Can't let those Beatles albums go free from 2013...

Re:How to cut internet piracy by 80% (1)

johannesg (664142) | more than 6 years ago | (#24430105)

Yeah, all the free music from Beethoven can't hold a candle to Britney Spears.

What "free" music from Beethoven is that? Is there any place on the internet where you can legally download "free" music from Beethoven?

Beethoven himself might not be in a position to claim copyrights anymore, but any recording is _also_ subject to copyrights by the individual artists performing the music (according to the Rome Convention - look it up). So any Beethoven CD you can find in the shops today, or any Beethoven record your grandparents might have in the attack, is still subject to copyright, and that copyright will outlast you just as much as Beethoven's would, were he still alive.

Let's face it, the system is very carefully designed so that you will never, NEVER, see any works appear in the public domain.

Re:How to cut internet piracy by 80% (2, Interesting)

RDW (41497) | more than 6 years ago | (#24430295)

'So any Beethoven CD you can find in the shops today, or any Beethoven record your grandparents might have in the attack, is still subject to copyright, and that copyright will outlast you just as much as Beethoven's would, were he still alive.'

In the UK this isn't true about the records in the attic, unless you have young grandparents (see comment above). It _might_ also not be true about the CD if the original recording was made >50 years ago - see 'COPYRIGHT IN REMASTERED SOUND RECORDINGS' here:

http://www.copyright.mediarights.co.uk/ [mediarights.co.uk]

Re:How to cut internet piracy by 80% (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24430029)

Coming up next on Radio 1, the new super hit song by the "GEEK GRLZ", "Big Fat Linus Love" ...

Ooooh oooh ooooooohhhhh
We love a man, oh we dooooo
Linus linus linus, we luv yooooooo
We've got da BIG FAT LINUS LOVE!

BIG FAT LINUS LOVE!
BIG FAT LINUS LOVE!
BIG FAT LINUS LOVE!
COMING AT YA! BAM BAM BAM!

etc.

Not only listening in... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24429765)

..but also filtering content. Let the process of tearing up your BT, Virgin Media, Orange, Tiscali, BSkyB, and Carphone Warehouse contracts begin!

UK Citizens (4, Insightful)

ilovegeorgebush (923173) | more than 6 years ago | (#24429769)

If this was truly about piracy and stopping people from infringing copyright, these fascist bastards would stop you from sharing CDs, Vinyl and tapes. Hell they'd bring down radio just to stop you sharing.

Why the hell are they so bent on MP3s? Why don't they get the fact that they stand to make a LOT more money if they embrace the technology and accept that their business environment has changed for the good? I am so sick of reading this, and seeing the everyday person either going buy without knowledge of what the BPI et al are doing, or not realising that it's breaching their civil liberties (and not even caring!).

Keep downloading. Bleed 'em dry - that's what I say.

Its about distribution (4, Insightful)

Freaky Spook (811861) | more than 6 years ago | (#24429865)

Why the hell are they so bent on MP3s?

Its not about MP3's at all, its about distributors holds over the distribution channels, which brings the majority of their revenue.
Digital music and the internet removes any artificial barrier the music/movie industry has traditionally held, and now they are having to resort to pressuring governments into making laws to secure their channels. P2P and file sharing is just the excuse they happen to use to get themselves more control.

Governments happily oblige because at the same time they get more control over the internet too.

Power via control (1)

Nazlfrag (1035012) | more than 6 years ago | (#24430215)

You cannot wield power over those who share of their own volition.

Re:Its about distribution (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 6 years ago | (#24430283)

Naah, it still has the usual barrier: Obscurity. Anyone can run an internet radio station, true, but few run a popular one. Control the popular ones and you control the market, doesn't matter if people can set up alternatives when noone knows about them.

Re:UK Citizens (1)

Bogtha (906264) | more than 6 years ago | (#24429923)

If this was truly about piracy and stopping people from infringing copyright, these fascist bastards would stop you from sharing CDs, Vinyl and tapes. Hell they'd bring down radio just to stop you sharing.

Why the hell are they so bent on MP3s?

Can you set up servers to monitor for people sharing CDs, vinyl and tapes? It's a lot more cost effective in terms of expenditure:detection to go after MP3s. I'm sure we'd all like it if grep worked in the real world, but I'm afraid it doesn't. Not for you, not for me, and not for the government.

Re:UK Citizens (1)

ilovegeorgebush (923173) | more than 6 years ago | (#24429947)

I was just trying to highlight the hypocrisy in their logic and to confirm my beliefs that this isn't about piracy, but about setting up laws & policies so they can keep their pockets lined until The Next Big Thing (TM); instead of adapting and embracing.

Re:UK Citizens (3, Insightful)

davester666 (731373) | more than 6 years ago | (#24430131)

The thing is, the internet IS "The Next Big Thing" [or rather, it was 5 years ago]. Both the major music labels and the major movie studios are risk-adverse to new ways of doing things. Even though EVERY SINGLE FORMAT CHANGE has earned both industries buckets and buckets cash.

Music went from LP to cassette/8 track to CD's and now to MP3's
Moves went from theaters to VHS/Beta cassettes to DVD's to BluRay/HD-DVD's [well, it's too early for the 'buckets of cash' for BluRay].

Both industries have millions of people literally begging to have a reasonable, easy, legal way to purchase both audio and video to use on their computers, TV's, portable devices, etc.. [particularly evidenced by the iTunes store, that even with it's crappy, arbitrary limitations required by both industries, has sold billions of songs and millions of movies, even though with only a minimal amount of additional effort, people could get the same thing WITHOUT the limitations for free].
Both industries are also facing rampant piracy on the internet.

What would any self-respecting industry do? Naturally, their first reaction is to keep throttling iTunes, both by refusing to permit it to sell DRM-free music [and DRM-free video], by forcing it to sell or rent a movie for the same price or more than the retail price of a DVD, but without any extra features included with the DVD. By arbitrarily requiring that a $3000 computer connected to a $3000 HD television is limited to 480P because the driver for your mouse is not signed by Microsoft [alternately, you can't view it at all on the Mac because Apple doesn't agree to the ridiculous demands that Microsoft caved to for viewing HD].

Re:UK Citizens (1)

Fungus King (860489) | more than 6 years ago | (#24429943)

I'm personally holding out hope that companies will start to adjust their business model to take into account the natural inclination towards 'sharing' that the Internet gives people.

As a semi-related example, Power Tabs Network [powertabs.net] was forced to close by a publishing body in the UK a while back. Quite a lot of sites offering transcriptons for guitar etc uploaded by hobbyist contributors have suffered in the last few years as a result of publishing associations like these, but as it happens negotiations between the two parties in this case have resulted in an agreement to be reached whereby the site will remain active and the publishing body presumably receive some part of ad revenue or something for royalty payments etc (I don't know the details).

I know it's not quite the same as sharing mp3s/videos, but since tab sites have been targeted quite viciously over the years, it's a start... hopefully...

Re:UK Citizens (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24430059)

Just look at the minister in charge of this.

Lord Triesmann - a fine old Irish name if ever I saw one.

Not a friend of the kikes and shysters that control the music, film and TV industries at all.

These bastards think we owe them a living, and they are so ingrained (deliberate use of that word - they are ingrained as dirt in a carpet) in our government that we have no hope of ever defeating them.

Send them all to Israel, and when we've got them all there, nuke the place.

Re:UK Citizens (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24430123)

Well that was nice and brave of you. And on top of your misplaced bigotry your naming is geographically misplaced. Triesmann is clearly Germanic. The double 'n' should have given you that.

Don't you racist trolls have anything better to do?

Re:UK Citizens (4, Insightful)

Mistshadow2k4 (748958) | more than 6 years ago | (#24430235)

These bastards think we owe them a living, and they are so ingrained (deliberate use of that word - they are ingrained as dirt in a carpet) in our government that we have no hope of ever defeating them.

The racist troll has a point there. Every damn singer or band out there seems to think they ought to be entitled to tax my income just because they once recorded a few songs, even if I don't listen to them. I'm still trying to figure out exactly why I'm supposed to care so damn much about the artists and the music executives. They wouldn't give a crap about me even if they knew me, so to hell with them for my part.

Re:UK Citizens (0, Troll)

aproposofwhat (1019098) | more than 6 years ago | (#24430303)

You think my bigotry is misplaced?

(Hint - 'a fine old Irish name' is a common piece of sarcasm related to Ashkenazi origin, where I come from.)

Oh, and I'll post as me this time - karma to burn, and I hate Israel and all who support the rotten cesspit that it is.

Re:UK Citizens (1)

EvilAlphonso (809413) | more than 6 years ago | (#24430255)

Keep downloading. Bleed 'em dry - that's what I say.

I replied instead of modding you down...

Stop consuming their products and be vocal about it, support the alternatives: Magnatunes, Jamendo, independent labels, ...

That is the only course of action that doesn't give them the kind of legal powers you don't want them to have. "Keep downloading. Bleed'em dry" as you advocate will give them the excuse for the power grab.

It is well past time to tell them "We're mad as hell and we are not going to take it anymore". Boycott their music and movies... read a book, explore the outside world and interact with other human beings. Spread the message. Anything else is playing the copyright holders' game.

Unfortunately (4, Insightful)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | more than 6 years ago | (#24429779)

the current UK government is run by people who are terrified that US companies will withdraw from the UK if we do not do exactly as they wish. Most of them are purely politicians who have never had jobs in the real economy, so all they know about the world is what they get told by lobbyists. The present Prime Minister is a typical example: PhD in the history of the Labour Party, no less, and then a knowledge of economics derived, basically, from what he gets told by people with lots of money. He is now trying to avoid admitting that our financial crisis is worse than that in the US, because the US actually has a lower proportion of its assets in the housing market and banking (US house prices started from typically half what they were in the UK, so a fall is much less serious.)

Unfortunately the alternative is a PR man, so you can guess how well that is likely to play out.

It would be kind of the US to vote in McCain and let us have Obama, thank you very much. Somebody who has at least spent years discussing civil liberties and civil rights with law students, even Chicago law students, has at least put in the groundwork to be allowed to have opinions on the subject, and politically he's probably on the moderate wing of our Conservative Party.

We do have one politician who has a clue about the subject, Jack Straw, but his current opinion seems to be "I'm far too clever to become Prime Minister and then lose an unwinnable election".

Currently Brown will do anything to try and keep the so-called service economy - entertainment, banking, supermarkets - onside. And the chance that a Government full of middle aged white men who single finger type, and only when they have to, will get a clue about the implications of almost free distribution of all kinds of data is extremely remote. Their idea of data sharing is leaving critical Government databases on unsecured laptops in taxis.

Re:Unfortunately (-1, Redundant)

mumblestheclown (569987) | more than 6 years ago | (#24429845)

I'm so glad your "insightful" comment has been modded up, given that THE ARTICLE HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM.

But please, don't let this stop your plans for a generalized semi-conspiratorial anti-government, to say nothing of anti-USA rant. Becaause clearly this is what qualifies as "insightful" here.

Re:Unfortunately (2, Interesting)

R_Dorothy (1096635) | more than 6 years ago | (#24429955)

THE ARTICLE HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM APART FROM THE ARTICLE ABOUT THE LEAKED GOVERNMENT LETTER

There - fixed it for you. Geez - I know this is /. but at least RTFS before commenting about TFA. Then again, you got modded insightful - by the same mods - so I don't know what you are complaining about.

Re:Unfortunately (5, Insightful)

segedunum (883035) | more than 6 years ago | (#24430021)

given that THE ARTICLE HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM.

Hmmmm, there is more than one article quoted here to give some background on this whole anti-piracy thing, so I'll give you the link here (actually given above):

http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9652/Leaked+British+Government+Letter+-+P2P+Will+be+Cut+by+80%25 [zeropaid.com]

Now, a leaked letter dated just two days before the major revelation has surfaced and shows that the British government is just as adamant over the idea of ISPs being copyright police as the major copyright industry - if not, more so......the British government has secretly set a goal of reducing file-sharing by 80% over the course of the next three years. The letter was signed by Baroness Vadera, the business minister.

Reading the whole article text usually helps. There you go. This is pretty much British government policy. You got modded insightful for not actually reading.

But please, don't let this stop your plans for a generalized semi-conspiratorial anti-government, to say nothing of anti-USA rant. Becaause clearly this is what qualifies as "insightful" here.

Fuck. You've been modded up to insightful because you believe that that comment was an anti-USA rant - which it wasn't in any way, because it describes the situation as-is from the point of view of someone who, presumably, actually, you know, lives in the UK? It certainly rings true with me and the article proves it.

The irony seems to go like this:

1. Attack a comment for something you believe it says, but actually doesn't.
2. Fail miserably to read the context around the article, or even the links, and say that it has nothing to do with something when in fact it does.
3. Add in a sarcastic comment about what passes as 'insightful' around here.
4. As a result of 3, get the mods second guessing themselves.
5. Get a stupid comment modded as insightful.

Re:Unfortunately (4, Informative)

arkhan_jg (618674) | more than 6 years ago | (#24430191)

UK government business minister Baroness Vadera is expected to announce a deal she brokered...

The UK government has stated [theregister.co.uk] that they will bring in legislation, starting after the summer, to force all ISPs to co-operate with the music labels on copyright infringement if they can't come up with a self-regulation scheme that satifies the labels' agency, the BPI. The UK government is working hand in hand with the french government, who've already started the implementation of the 3-warnings-and-cut-off setup the french government favours.

A number of UK ISP's, with the notable exception of virgin, have been telling the music business to piss off, that policing their customers for potential infringing content and invading their privacy without any say-so from a court or judge is not their responsibility. Unfortunately, the UK government disagress, and is piling on the pressure to co-operate voluntarily before they are forced to do so by laws very much in favour of the copyright cartel.

UK ISP's are already required to keep records on users email and web-traffic due to the RIP act; it wouldn't take much for that system to be expanded substantially and the government have already ballooned the idea of having it all stored in a giant government database instead of at the ISP.

A conservative government would likely be no better; they mooted the idea of extending the duration of copyright for music recordings in exchange for more 'family-friendly' lyrics from rappers for example.

Be under no illusion - this is a direct result of government threats against the ISP industry to spend their time and money to prop up the existing business model of the copyright cartels.

"Anti-USA rant" - can you read? (2, Informative)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | more than 6 years ago | (#24430355)

I suggested that Brown was wrong about thinking that he has to keep the US on side. I suggested that Barack Obama is better qualified than any of our present candidates to run GB., because, as a professor at Chicago, he made his students think about issues like civil liberties. And I suggested that the US financial crisis is much less severe than that in the UK. Wow, that's anti-US ranting, saying your economy is sounder than ours and some of your politicians are more intelligent. I also suggested that somebody whose entire career has been based around the fortunes and fate of a political party was not a good person to run the country.

Other than that, a number of other posters seem to have pointed out to you that you didn't read the original submission.

Re:Unfortunately (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24429871)

Brownie has made the best decision of the last 50 years by a politician in the UK.

Bank of England interest rate independance.

Wont say anymore cause Im not sure what he done is good/bad.

Re:Unfortunately (1)

aproposofwhat (1019098) | more than 6 years ago | (#24430155)

Yes, but he did that on the back of Ken Clarke's non-interference policy.

He has since fucked up the model by imposing taxes on investment and stupid actions like the fuel price escalator and the extra tax on diesel (hint - the worst polluters on the road are Tony Bliars old friends from Stagecoach who never maintain their filthy buses - most ordinary car drivers are keen to minimise the amount of shit that comes out of their exhaust...).

Bring back Ken!

Re:Unfortunately (1)

adam.jimenez (904480) | more than 6 years ago | (#24429969)

couldn't agree more

Re:Unfortunately (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24429989)

The present Prime Minister is a typical example: PhD in the history of the Labour Party, no less, and then a knowledge of economics derived, basically, from what he gets told by people with lots of money.

You know, all things considered, accusing the UK of having a prime minister with a PhD is not too bad. Somehow, people have got used to the idea of prominent Anglophone world leaders being dumb. I don't know where they could have gotten that idea!

And just so you know, the fact that the music industry brings billions of pounds into the country is true independently of whether lobbyists tell the ivory-tower prime minister so.

Re:Unfortunately (2, Insightful)

ettlz (639203) | more than 6 years ago | (#24430137)

You know, all things considered, accusing the UK of having a prime minister with a PhD is not too bad.

The GP isn't accusing the Prime Minister of having a Ph.D., the accusation is of having a Ph.D.-in-the-history-of-the-Labour-Party.

Re:Unfortunately (1)

aproposofwhat (1019098) | more than 6 years ago | (#24430111)

Actually, Brown is a pretty bright guy, if a little misguided (hint - Straw is the worst possible choice for us - he's an opportunist arsehole who would have crawled further up Shrub's arse than Bliar).

If he can cross the charisma gap, and persuade Ken Clarke to resume his duties as Chancellor, then we might not face a total meltdown.

I'm a natural Labour voter (one grandpa a boilermaker, the other a miner), but I could never vote for Milliband (Red Sea pedestrian) or Harman (useless tart).

Re:Unfortunately (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 6 years ago | (#24430177)

> If he can cross the charisma gap, and persuade Ken Clarke to resume his duties as Chancellor...
> I'm a natural Labour voter

Clearly not that much of a Labour voter if you believe the Conservative Ken Clarke will do anything the Labour PM Brown would ask him to.

Re:Unfortunately (1)

aproposofwhat (1019098) | more than 6 years ago | (#24430217)

Ken was against the Iraq war, and would make the best Chancellor we could hope for (if not Prime Minister).

Grow up.

Re:Unfortunately (1)

jez9999 (618189) | more than 6 years ago | (#24430317)

Indeed it's tragic that the moronic Conservatives didn't go for Ken Clarke as their next leader, I would've supported him wholeheartedly. It's even more tragic that they were probably correct in their assumption, in going for Cameron, that the British public wouldn't vote in Clarke because the Sun/Star/Express-reading imbeciles give much more of a shit about style than substance, and think Clarke is one of the 'old corrupt guys' rather than someone who has a clue.

Re:Unfortunately (1)

Nazlfrag (1035012) | more than 6 years ago | (#24430247)

Just count yourself lucky that you still hold Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Elizabeth is still my monarch here down under though, so you're not totally forgotten.

they think its the problem (1)

arbiter1 (1204146) | more than 6 years ago | (#24429807)

they think its cause people are cheap, but they put out shit and price it so much and most won't pay for it if its not worth it. i'll admit i download games, and try them out to see if they are even worth the ~50$ price tag they stick on it. if it is i will pay money and buy it, but most games and most music for that matter aint barely worth the cd/dvd they are burned on

Pointless (3, Insightful)

CmdrGravy (645153) | more than 6 years ago | (#24429815)

The UK government right now is in such a mess it's almost surreal. They have an unerring knack of seeking out absolutely dreadful headline grabbing initiatives which they seem to think will re-establish them as a party the public would like to vote for but which are in fact unbelievably stupid and ridiculed as such by the public at large. This is just yet another example and just highlights the fact the only people they are listening to are special interest groups and lobbyists.

The ISPs are only going to be sending out warning letters, they're not actually going terminate anyones contract or take any other sort of action except perhaps throttling P2P connections, which they probably do already and there is still a wide choice of alternative ISPs in the UK which have not signed up to this nonsense.

As I understand it the ISPs aren't doing any monitoring at all off their own bat, the arrangement seems to be that the media cartels do the monitoring, like they do anyway, and just tell the ISP a particular person might be doing something they don't like at which point the ISP simply sends the letter. A horrible arrangement for sure but not one which gives the ISP much grounds to go on when people start challenging their accusations of wrongdoing.

Hopefully at some point soon the ISPs will realise this is all much more trouble than it's worth and give up and the current government will call an election and get the boot.

Re:Pointless (5, Funny)

Goffee71 (628501) | more than 6 years ago | (#24429857)

I look forward to the debate hitting the House of Lords: Leader of the House: "Next motion - changes in copyright law to proscribe peer-to-peer file sharing."

Lord Knob: "Hold on one moment, we're the peers! We share files all the time. Law rejected!"

Lady Felch: "I've got a file! And a drill, in the garage next to my Range Rover, do you want to borrow it?"

House: "Murmur, murmur, mumble, Agreed!"

Re:Pointless (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24430237)

Don't diss the Lords. They have consistently stood in the way of every privacy breaking, ID introducing, DNA logging policy from the Commons for the past 5 years. Ironically, I find myself supporting their decisions far more than those of the party I voted in.

Re:Pointless (1)

Exanon (1277926) | more than 6 years ago | (#24430163)

Hey, if you find me a country where the government only do the will of the people and I'll move there.

Re:Pointless (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 6 years ago | (#24430213)

> As I understand it the ISPs aren't doing any monitoring at all off their own bat, the arrangement seems to be that the media cartels do the
> monitoring, like they do anyway, and just tell the ISP a particular person might be doing something they don't like at which point the ISP simply
> sends the letter. A horrible arrangement for sure but not one which gives the ISP much grounds to go on when people start challenging their
> accusations of wrongdoing.

They're warning people that what they're doing is illegal and threatening to disconnect them. And they will disconnect them, to be sure, if it's clear that what they are doing is illegal. I know of at least one person who'd got a letter from their ISP complete with a list of what they've been sharing (it's the uploading they are bothered about), so the technical ability to list exactly what they are sharing exists - you won't be able to say that what you were sharing isn't subject to copyright restrictions.

Sure, the dodgy downloaders might get another ISP but the original ISP doesn't care about that - they just want to be seen as not blatantly allowing piracy which could be avoided. This means the ISPs are less open to action by the BPI etc, and to government legislation carried out at the request of the BPI etc because of unstopped piracy.

Oh, and you can calm down about all this `the people won't stand for it and elect another party`. 98%+ of the UK voters couldn't give a shit about ISPs sending letters to people who are sharing/downloading other people's intellectual property, or even disconnecting/fining people who decide to continue sharing - and neither of the 2 main parties (who, let's be honest, are the only ones who are ever going to get voted into power) are going to condone piracy (even if one of them comes out in support of filesharing uncopyrighted stuff).

It's summer, and Slashdot is trolling (0, Flamebait)

mumblestheclown (569987) | more than 6 years ago | (#24429817)

Yet another slashdot troll headline. A not unreasonable cooperative attempt by private companies to cut piracy with no government intervention whatsoever is an "attack on civil liberties."

Let's see if I have the basic dance correct: if a GOVERNMENT program comes out that attempts to curb piracy, then you scream and yell that privacy is a private matter between individual and rightsholder. If a PRIVATE progam is developed to combat piracy, even one with quite mild constraints like this one, we get bitching and whining that corportations are acting in place of government.

Here are the golden oldies we expect to see in this thread:

  • I trade my linux binaries via P2P (fine - then you should have no problem of rightsholders doing file-hash-based enforcement)
  • I learned about band X from P2p (fine - in which case if it makese economic sense for a company or band to release thusly, they will.. it's their decision to make)
  • piracy involves guys with eye patches. this is copyright infringement. actually, it's both. get thee to a dictionary.
  • yes, but they can't tell with absolute certainty who is using a given PC. absolute certainty is not a condition of law - reasonableness is.
  • It's not illegal if it hasn't been released in my country (anime, etc). NONSENSE.
  • P2P is fair use. No, it isn't. Especially in Britain, where the concept of fair use is much more restricted than in the USA (which *IS* an actual problem with the british system). But, don't worry - your 1.5 tb of movies and music isn't fair use ANYWHERE.

have i gotten the more obvious ones sorted?

Re:It's summer, and Slashdot is trolling (3, Funny)

jcd2025 (1246142) | more than 6 years ago | (#24429875)

1.5tb of movies? Im assuming you didnt count pr0n in your movies category.

Re:It's summer, and Slashdot is trolling (1)

jambox (1015589) | more than 6 years ago | (#24429891)

I agree with your rant up to a point, although the bit about unreleased stuff doesn't make much sense.

The bit that concerns me is that the UK governmnet seems to be moving more and more towards US style enforcement. The law is the law, even copyright stuff. However, punishment must fit the crime and as we have seen in the US, these big media bodies are quite willing to sue poor people for tens of thousands of dollars.

That will never happen in Britain. The strong are not permitted to bully the weak here, as apparently they are in the US.

Re:It's summer, and Slashdot is trolling (-1)

mumblestheclown (569987) | more than 6 years ago | (#24429957)

While there's something to be said against people being sued for tens of thousands of dollars, what's the alternative? What's your solution to the piracy problem?

To me, tens of thousands of dollars does not seem unreasonable. It's not a crippling amount of money (but it will sting) to anybody who owns a computer, and at those rates it is unlikely that the companies are actually making any serious money, given their costs involved. to me, it's just about right.

let me ask you this question: let's say the subway (metro, tube) cost $20 per ride, but the ride wasn't to work or particurly necessary, it was just fun. What sort of punishment would be appropriate for somebody who was caught after jumping the turnstyle every day for 10 years? After all, the nominal "cost" to the metro company of another rider is effectively zero. Clearly $20 x (10 years) is not a reasonable punishment since there's no disincentive in this - we'd then ALL jump the turnstiles and just pay if we got caught, since we'd be no better off.

Jail is another option, but people would be screaming if, for example, the US actually followed its own copyright codes and put people in jail for more than i think it's $3000 of copyright infringement (a target that many p2pers easily meet).

Single multiples of the infringement amount are likewise unrealistic - there are huge costs involved in bringing somebody to trial and it seems that at least those at absolute minimum should be covered by the judgment against the infringer.

so, the sums i see bandied about in the USA are not that unreasonable, I think. they send a strong warning and will cause real financial pain, but only for a short while (a few months to a few years).

There are also some 'creative' solutions, such as 'if you pirate, that's fine, but then since you believe information wants to be free, we will put your medical records, etc etc on the web.' But, of course, this is not really a workable or reasonable solution.

You only need to read through some of the comments of many of the blatantly pirating idiots (pirating and unrepentant, thinking of themselves as gandhi-equivalents or whatever) here to see that it is a problem, especially now when they can no longer make claims like "well, there is no digital legal alternative" in the face of ituned and so forth, which was their long-time fall-back argument.

Re:It's summer, and Slashdot is trolling (4, Insightful)

jambox (1015589) | more than 6 years ago | (#24430077)

That's an absolutely appalling post and I couldn't agree less. You think someone on minimum wage, trying to bring up kids, should have their income garnished for 10 years so some wealthy executives can carry on collecting their bonuses? That's sick.

Let's agree something - burning a copy of a Coldplay CD isn't going to ruin anybody. It's a victimless crime and not at all like physical theft.

What this is about is the US Corporate Empire bearing down on weaker countries, trying to protect it's revenue at the expense of others. That is bad enough by itself, but not only that, the music industry in itself is horribly broken. Governments don't seem to care whether cheap trash is peddled at 95% markup, with dozens of companies all sticking their fingers in the pie. Music sales have been falling for years, because it's overpriced, overexposed and often of a poor quality.

Perhaps governments shouldn't care about that. But they should protect their own citizens from vicious attacks by immoral lawyers working for executives that care not for right and wrong, only for personal gain.

Re:It's summer, and Slashdot is trolling (-1)

mumblestheclown (569987) | more than 6 years ago | (#24430147)

Let me ask you this: what should be the penalty for a shoplifter who shoplifts, say, candy? The cost to all involved for one individual crime of some candy are essentially zero.

Please tell me more about this theoretical person on minimum wage who owns a computer and pays a sufficient bandwidth bill every month to support illegal downloading, eh? And, there's something to be said for the candy - it at least provides a poor person with calories, and in that sense can be broadly interpreted as a 'need.' A coldplay download is completely unnecessary.

Also, if you'll see on P2P, piracy is not limited to stuff of "big evil" companies who can "take it." You'll find software from the smallest of the small shareware companies being pirated regularly. clearly, piracy is an issue of greed, not some overblown nonsensical issues of 'social justice' like you pretend them to be.

But please, don't let my reality intrude on your comic book view of the world.

Re:It's summer, and Slashdot is trolling (4, Insightful)

jambox (1015589) | more than 6 years ago | (#24430207)

Let me ask you this: what should be the penalty for a shoplifter who shoplifts, say, candy?

A slap on the wrist, first time. Repeat offenders could be taken to task eventually but stealing small amounts of candy should never result in giant fines or prison sentences.

But please, don't let my reality intrude on your comic book view of the world.

I do not live in a comic book. I live in the UK, where virtually everyone agrees that we should not allow corporations to run roughshod over families.

Please tell me more about this theoretical person

Not theoretical! [wikipedia.org] Also, stumping up $20 a month for broadband does not make someone "fair game" for lawyers earning $300,000 per year.

You'll find software from the smallest of the small shareware companies being pirated regularly.

I agree that's bad. Where is the software industry body that's going after those guys? There isn't one. So if you steal software, you get away with it. If you steal music, you get financially crippled for life? Real nice.

Re:It's summer, and Slashdot is trolling (2, Interesting)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 6 years ago | (#24430167)

"After all, the nominal "cost" to the metro company of another rider is effectively zero. " The nominal cost of 1 more rider is small, the nominal cost of 10,000,000 extra riders would be huge. The cost to the music company for one song downloaded on a p2p network is exactly zero. the cost of 10,000,000 songs downloaded on a p2p network is exactly zero. Changes the game a little. Now of you might say they won't sell albums if people can get them off p2p sites, and you could call that a "cost". Of course then you have to show that their sales droped because of filesharing for that "cost" to be valid. Unfortunatly since the advent of filesharing the sales of most big labels seem to have climbed in a very healthy manner. Now comes the point. I never used to listen to music. At all.Had no interest. I tried out some filesharing sites in the napster days cause "hey, why not, I'm bored" Got some music, I liked it. Then I did something very very strange, I went and bought a copy because I like having a solid CD with a nice case, just like I like to own solid paper books. Bought a bunch of other CD's as well. Many of my friends are the same. Total cost to the copyright holders: 0.00 Total income which they never would have seen otherwise: ~200.00 Total lost revenue: 0.00 But they could haul the guy I got the copy from to court and say "HE COST US 200 THOUSAND DOLLARS!" On the other hand since napster died I've downloaded no music at all and I've bought none. Who's lost revenue there? It doesn't matter if a billion copies are going around online. If you get two thousand sales where you would have only got one thousand otherwise then you haven't "lost" anything to piracy. The pirates have not harmed you in any way shape or form. The metric of "take [number of downloads]*[retail price]" and claim that as how much you've "lost" is stupid if in the meantime you've gained sales which you never would have had otherwise since if you've gained sales you would not have otherwise then you've lost nothing. if you've lost nothing then what case do you have for claiming you've been harmed?

Re:It's summer, and Slashdot is trolling (1)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 6 years ago | (#24430185)

I keep forgetting that slashdot doesn't understand the idea of newline characters and so needs fecking HTML code to work.

Re:It's summer, and Slashdot is trolling (1, Insightful)

aproposofwhat (1019098) | more than 6 years ago | (#24430205)

What a load of (pardon my French) cuillons.

Yes, copyright infringement is similar to riding a train with no ticket - the train is going to the destination anyway, and it's only a social contract that makes you think that you need to pay for a ticket.

That's your choice.

The music is available by virtue of being digitised - it's now as free as a train ride.

Me - I pay for my music, and my train rides, but I don't object to others sharing my ride (unless they play rap shit!).

Re:It's summer, and Slashdot is trolling (4, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 6 years ago | (#24430229)

To me, tens of thousands of dollars does not seem unreasonable. It's not a crippling amount of money (but it will sting) to anybody who owns a computer[...]

Is it? Does it? Says who?

Fixed fines favor rich people. When you're rich, 100k USD is pocket change. That's the fine you threaten me with? Ok, send the bill when you catch me, but don't bother me 'til you do. That's one of the reasons why you can see a lot of rich people participate in illegal activities where it's even likely to get caught. I mean, who cares about being caught speeding in an illegal street race when the worst you have to fear is a few 1000 bucks fine when he makes more money by just sitting around?

OTOH, when you sue someone who is paying back a student loan or, worse, a teenager who is about to want one, a 100k fine ruins a life. Forever. Ever tried to get a student loan with a debt like that on your back?

If you want a fine to sting (and only that), make it income dependent.

Re:It's summer, and Slashdot is trolling (2, Informative)

Zironic (1112127) | more than 6 years ago | (#24430253)

>let me ask you this question: let's say the subway (metro, tube) cost $20 per ride, but the ride wasn't to work or particurly >necessary, it was just fun. What sort of punishment would be appropriate for somebody who was caught after jumping the turnstyle >every day for 10 years? After all, the nominal "cost" to the metro company of another rider is effectively zero. Clearly $20 x (10 >years) is not a reasonable punishment since there's no disincentive in this - we'd then ALL jump the turnstiles and just pay if we >got caught, since we'd be no better off.

Atleast in sweden the punishment for jumping the turnstyle every day for 10 years is exactly the same as the punishment for jumping it once, aproximately the cost of 2 months of metro access.

Re:It's summer, and Slashdot is trolling (1)

Sique (173459) | more than 6 years ago | (#24429893)

You missed one:

- Two wrongs don't make a right.

Re:It's summer, and Slashdot is trolling (2, Insightful)

the_brobdingnagian (917699) | more than 6 years ago | (#24429951)

I trade my linux binaries via P2P (fine - then you should have no problem of rightsholders doing file-hash-based enforcement)

I still oppose to the filtering and thus monitoring of my downloads. Especially if I'm downloading legal stuff.

I learned about band X from P2p (fine - in which case if it makese economic sense for a company or band to release thusly, they will.. it's their decision to make)

Doesn't make it legal maybe, but can make it morally acceptable to me. Why would it be illegal if you are not hurting anyone?

Re:It's summer, and Slashdot is trolling (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24429953)

ISP's shouldn't be in the business of monitoring anyone's internet any more than BT should be in the business of listening into private telephone calls and reading private faxes. Neither should governments. So I feel perfectly justified in complaining about both.

How about neither the government nor ISPs spy on internet use? The people complaining about 'piracy' carry on starting civil suits against those they believe are committing copyright infringement. With evidence to back them up mind, not just wild shots in the dark like at the moment. They could also try asking for reasonably realistic compensation instead of the pie in the sky figures they currently come up with.

Amusingly, as of my post the, only jackass posting the 'golden oldies' you mention is you. Congratulations.

Re:It's summer, and Slashdot is trolling (-1)

mumblestheclown (569987) | more than 6 years ago | (#24429981)

Please. These are no "wild shots in the dark". If they were, they wouldn't work and wouldn't hold up in courts. As we've seen from cases in the USA and elsewhere, this is done algorithmically first by analyzing the shape of traffic to see that it is indeed p2p (by which ports it uses,etc) and then it uses a hash lookup table to identify known infringing files. These files are the ones that by definition you actually MAKE PUBLIC by using the various p2p software out there and the hashes do uniquely identify known infringing files well beyond the point of reasonable doubt.

More to the point - you'd like your ISPs unmonitored? We all would. But, I also like to live in a society of law and economic progress, and, well, I believe that copyright laws, while clearly imperfect, in general do much much much much more good than harm. In fact, I'm sure of it. If i don't, I have a mechanism to change this, which is to elect people who will change laws in ways that are amenable to me.

Re:It's summer, and Slashdot is trolling (1)

jambox (1015589) | more than 6 years ago | (#24430151)

I also like to live in a society of law and economic progress

Define economic progress! The gap between rich and poor is growing under right wing politics. Predictably so, since your aim is to make the rich richer and oppress everyone else through legal and economic tools.

Re:It's summer, and Slashdot is trolling (2, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 6 years ago | (#24430291)

Well, I stopped believing in the copyright laws when they turned from a tool to balance the interests between creators and users into a tool of creators to keep an outdated and obsolete business model afloat.

We're currently in a state similar to the one we were with hackneys a century ago. Trains began to make them useless for cross country transportation. Did you ever notice how train stations are outside of towns, or at least were until the towns grew around them? Say your thanks to the laws that should protect hackney business of taking passengers to the train station. Know the silly laws about men with flags running in front of automobiles that we enjoy to laugh about so much? Same lobby at work.

Did it work? Fortunately, it did not. We do have cars today, we may drive them at leisure and, while still in effect today in some areas, the pointless flag-laws have been in disuse for decades. People simply ignore laws that serve no purpose, you see.

Hackneys turned into cabs and they still exist. They probably don't make so much business anymore, a lot of their biz was also eaten up by public transport, but you may be surprised, they somehow survived, even without forcing the people to exist without alternatives. Because they're usually more comfortable than trains or busses, and cheaper than your own car if you only need them rarely.

The parallels are quite stunning. Except that using the content industry's idea of content is usually anything but comfortable.

Re:It's summer, and Slashdot is trolling (0)

bobbocanfly (1061244) | more than 6 years ago | (#24429967)

"""it's not illegal if it hasn't been released in my country (anime, etc). NONSENSE. """

If that is nonsense then how are we supposed to watch something that hasnt been released here? If the company behind it see no value in releasing it in your territory (and therefor making no money from it), there is absolutely no reason to stop you downloading something. It doesnt hurt anyone.

I like the way sites like UKNova or TheBox do it. If a show is going to come out on DVD, it cant go up on these sites. Im pretty sure there is also a time restriction rule, so shows can only be up for a month or two. Basically its like BBC iPlayer, except it works on all platforms (without flash, which is non-free and a no go for the hardcore freedom lovers), its a much higher quality and completely DRM free. Sites like this let Americans (or anyone else for that matter) catch up on shows they watch in the UK, without hurting anyone (if its not going to come out on DVD, no money will be "lost").

Re:It's summer, and Slashdot is trolling (1)

Nazlfrag (1035012) | more than 6 years ago | (#24430301)

Indeed, can't have your cake and eat it too. Get rid of region encoding or complain about foreign piracy, not both.

Re:It's summer, and Slashdot is trolling (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24429985)

- WoW Patches (not affected)
- legal p2p-tv (not affected)
- technically unenforceable (that's right)
- trolls bashing the British government (TFA isn't about that)
- Admittances of illegal filesharing featuring bullshit-excuses
- some car analogies, in Soviet Russia jokes and other memes

That should about cover it. Thread closed.

Re:It's summer, and Slashdot is trolling (2, Insightful)

cabalamat3 (1089523) | more than 6 years ago | (#24430257)

A not unreasonable cooperative attempt by private companies to cut piracy with no government intervention whatsoever is an "attack on civil liberties."

Nonsense. The UK government's plan is that the MAFIAA (in the guise of the BPI -- British Phonographic Industry) will get to institute a "3 strikes and you're out" system whereby if they say they've caught someone illegally filesharing 3 times, they will force their ISP to disconnect that person.

This is an infringement of civil liberties, because:

1. it's all to be done on the BPI's say-so. There will be no trial, no court case, so presumption of innocence. Note that even the government admits in their consultation document that the MAFIAA gets it wrong in 30% of their accusations.

2. it presumes collective guilt -- a principle alien to British justice; if one person in a household is making illegal downloads, then everyone in that household is punished.

3. it's grossly disproportionate. If someone commits a ctime while on a pavement -- for example beinbg drunk and disorderly, or causing a fight, or whatever -- they are not banned from using any pavement for the rest of their life.

Re:It's summer, and Slashdot is trolling (1)

noob749 (1285846) | more than 6 years ago | (#24430285)

I agree with you in principle, but for me the issue is with boundaries.

1.5tb/mo isn't fair use? ok, then what is? and who decides? my concern is that isps will soon be capping us at 1.5GB/mo and still call that fair use. and is 1.5tb/mo really so unreasonable in a world where people are about to start downloading (legitimately) high def movies? with apple tvs and other similar gadgets taking off, who gets to decide what's reasonable?

same thing with trading linux binaries etc. i know i only download legal stuff, but who decides what is and isn't fair? what's stopping isps going crazy and flagging anything they like? don't forget about all those folks who are lobbying against net neutrality (i don't like those people).

also, on a seperate point, don't mess with the kids. under 18yr olds should not be fined because they realistically can't afford to buy stuff. it's not their fault all the cool brittney spears crap is targetted at a market with no income. but thats another argument altogether.

Re:It's summer, and Slashdot is trolling (1)

Beriaru (954082) | more than 6 years ago | (#24430319)

P2P is fair use. No, it isn't. Especially in Britain, where the concept of fair use is much more restricted than in the USA (which *IS* an actual problem with the british system). But, don't worry - your 1.5 tb of movies and music isn't fair use ANYWHERE.

Wrong

In Spain, the non-comercial copy of copyrighted media is fair use. Search "private copy" ("Copia Privada" in Spanish) for more information.

Re:It's summer, and Slashdot is trolling (1)

arkhan_jg (618674) | more than 6 years ago | (#24430333)

This is a government ordered process. As I've gone into more here [slashdot.org] , the UK government has already told [theregister.co.uk] the ISPs to bend over and do what the BPI and other copyright cartel representatives want, or they'll pass a law forcing them to in the autumn session. Remember, this is a 'private' initiative for one set of companies to spend time and money propping up the business model of another set, with potentially innocent customer's privacy being invaded and service degraded purely on the say so of the music labels - no court, no judge, no oversight of any kind.

I don't use torrents for copyright infringement (my existing old CD collection is far better than the crap on p2p these days) but I'll going to still be caught up in this as all customers will be. What if my IP is spoofed, or my wireless hacked? What right of appeal will I have with this 'private' agreement? my ISP is MY ISP, not the record companies. The labels can gather evidence and go to court like everybody else to have their evidence examined - the british court system is nowhere near as supine as the US one, which is why you've not seen the vast swell of lawsuits. They might actually lose because of crap evidence techniques and barratry.

Remember the outrage over youtube handing all their logs over to viacom? Now imagine if google had done that voluntarily without a court order. That's how I feel right now.

Pirate anti-defemation league. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24430337)

Arrr! We arrrr against all copyright infringement. We arrr not that kind of scum! We steal ships and boats and occasionally kill the crew. Arrr. But illegally download music, movies, and other copyright material?!? Nevarrr!

We arrr by no means associated with those despicable and wimping activities as illegal file sharing.

Arr!

Infringe till they pry it from my cold dead hands (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24429839)

I don't pirate, I obviously infringe. In a world where we have less and less control and things seem to spiral away, we need a place where we can 'Stick it to the man', and the internet is it. I don't care about letters. The internet will adapt to meet the challenge. New protocols, new encryption. Hell, private groups who burn DVD's and mail them like the good old days. This genie isn't going back into any bottle anyday soon.

Re:Infringe till they pry it from my cold dead han (3, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 6 years ago | (#24430327)

I don't pirate, I obviously infringe.

I do neither, but obviously I must infringe too. I don't buy the crap that is currently produced. I don't even download it (it's not even worth the bandwidth it takes). Yet still, the dwindling sales (what dwindling sales, btw, I hear year after year that the content industry makes a record plus?) are due to copy culture.

The dwindling sales are not due to people infringing. The dwindling sales are due to a lack of supply that meets the demand. I don't want movies that consist of SFX to hide the threadbare plot. I don't want music that sounds exactly the same as the other moronic American Idol crap you tried to cram down my throat last year. Meet my demand and I will buy your supply.

But no, that can't be it. When people don't buy, it has to mean they copy, because it can't be that they simply don't want the crap.

It's all a PR excercise by the ISPs (2, Interesting)

91degrees (207121) | more than 6 years ago | (#24429849)

The ISPs know who pays their bills. They're not going to get rid of customers unless they become a net cost. They might ditch a few of their customers but only because their bandwidth use is too high, and a complaint from the BPI will be an excuse.

Keep your torrenting to a reasonable level and ignore any complains from the ISP (and maybe install peerguardian or something). They really don't give a damn what you do.

Re:It's all a PR excercise by the ISPs (2, Interesting)

spasticfantastic (1118431) | more than 6 years ago | (#24429931)

I think you're spot on - it's a bit like the "TV detector vans" of years gone by (They claimed they could determine who was watching tv without a license using high tech vans but it was just a fake antenna on a van) The ISP's cannot realistically determine who is downloading copyrighted material - even a complaint from the BPI will not be proof that this is happening. I'm out of contract with Talk Talk so have just cancelled with them and I suggest others start to do the same.

Here we go (3, Insightful)

kvezach (1199717) | more than 6 years ago | (#24429863)

Bring in the encryption and the trackerless DHT system again boys! Then they can't tell if you're sharing Linux or.. something else.

Come try this shit in Australia (-1, Flamebait)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 6 years ago | (#24429877)

You chicken shit motherfuckers. Bring it on. We'll sue your ass for breach of contract and then we'll take down your conspiracy. Get it through your thick heads, the days of your draconian control over the distribution of our culture is over.

Re:Come try this shit in Australia (0, Flamebait)

Goffee71 (628501) | more than 6 years ago | (#24429941)

Indeed, I'd liken our nation's respective attitudes to those of our respective Marines when confronted with the Iranian Navy in the Gulf:

British Marines - 'Don't cause a scene lads - we surrender'

Aussie Marines - 'F**k off!'

Guess which lot spent a month in a jail, were humiliated on TV and a disgrace to the nation. Go the Aussies on this one

Re:Come try this shit in Australia (1)

meringuoid (568297) | more than 6 years ago | (#24430061)

British Marines - 'Don't cause a scene lads - we surrender'

Those weren't Marines, they were sailors from the Royal Navy. The Royal Marines are a separate organisation.

Vote With Your Feet (1)

prophecy (5448) | more than 6 years ago | (#24429881)

The problem is that there is a portion of the ISPs who market towards heavy users and as a result: pirates. Companies with cross chatter from their media devisions such as virgin may be happy to help cut piracy but those who are targeting the heavy users will mop up the profits.

Re:Vote With Your Feet (1)

Lyrael (1196443) | more than 6 years ago | (#24429965)

Fortunately, all six of these companies are ones that already invoke a 'fair use' policy and throttle bandwidth at peak times. Anyone who actually cares about this already flocked to better ISPs long ago. :)

Re:Vote With Your Feet (1)

iainl (136759) | more than 6 years ago | (#24430075)

I'm on Virgin Media, one of the Big Six. Their definition of throttling as per the website [virginmedia.com] is to drop my download speed back to what they were giving me for the same money last year anyway. So I can't say I'm that put out by it.

As for these letters, I think they're a good idea. They're not a threat of a lawsuit, they're not a threat of disconnection. That Microsoft study demonstrates that most of the letters will be going to the PARENTS of the infringers, not the kids performing illegal acts themselves, so it should have a fair-sized impact anyway.

Considering they way they punish 999 callers (1)

sleeponthemic (1253494) | more than 6 years ago | (#24429925)

I would imagine their idea of enforcement goes something along the lines of savage rick rolling on the limewire network.

Build it, and they will... (1)

Atari400 (1174925) | more than 6 years ago | (#24429933)

So, 54% of UK file sharers are 11 - 16? Like little Johny is listening to "MP3s" in his bedroom? Yeah, right. Can't wait for the festival of denial when the head of the household gets a letter inquiring about *those* downloads...

Surely a real vote winner.

Protect yourself (3, Interesting)

spasmhead (1301953) | more than 6 years ago | (#24429949)

Just Install peer guardian [phoenixlabs.org] and configure it to use the Level1 Bluetack blocklist... then your safe as this blocks the vast majority of all anti P2P organisations worldwide. If everyone did this the BPI's job of detecting file sharers would be a WHOLE lot harder and their deal with ISP would become worthless.

On another point, I think its naive to think that if your ISP send you one of these "informative" letters that they wont pass on your personal details to the BPI, who identified your IP address in the first place. The next logical step after is you end up in court fighting a copyright infringement case against the BPI or one of its "partners".

The real reason (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24430035)

They want access to download data to sample the market. As we know the music business has been in decline for many years. The internet has a lot to do with this, but copyright infringement is not the cause. It really comes from the disconnect between the companies and their audience. In the old days the music companies ran the musical culture of their respective territories. They had A&R men who trawled the clubs and gigs, there was a national, official chart show that everybody watched, and you bought your discs from record stores that logged the sales. Now, these relatively tiny companies, thinned out by cutbacks and run by a small group of lawyers have lost their grip. They no longer select the next big thing and dictate music culture to us because the distribution channels have fragmented and changed. They are no longer staffed by musically literate and culturally connected people who can make value judgements on their product.

By and large, young people buy what they are told is cool. The question is, who is doing the telling? What they want is access to download data, otherwise the market is effectively hidden from them. When the next big musical movement comes around they could end up completely cut out of the loop. The excuse is "Piracy", but, as we all know, rather than equating to lost sales "Piracy" is actually a free form of advertising. It's all about control of the data for marketing.

So, this toothless arrangement is rather comfortable for all. The record companies pretend that they want to catch "pirates", and the ISP's and government play along because that seems a reasonable excuse. In reality, they don't want to prosecute too many copyright infringing file sharers, because that would create a storm (since everybody does it). The ISP's are happy to play along, because eventually, once the right to unfettered access to public data channels is cemented they will begin legitimately selling the media companies access. The theatre of suing the occasional filesharer is just a smokescreen to hide the fact that they just want access to the data for other reasons.

Error in summary (4, Interesting)

Lewie (3743) | more than 6 years ago | (#24430087)

The summary says that 54% of filesharers are children, when the linked article says that in fact 54% of children are filesharers, which is actually much more interesting.

A Microsoft study says what? (2, Informative)

Zephiris (788562) | more than 6 years ago | (#24430103)

"Microsoft released a study which found that some 54% of UK file sharers are between 11-16."

That's a very different statement from what the article says.

"UK kids are driving a new wave of digital piracy, and 14yos are the most likely to be file sharers, according to a recent "Real Thing" anti-piracy study conducted by Microsoft.

The "Real Thing" survey involved 270 children and 1,200 adults (16 and older).

Some 54% of children aged 11-16yo use illegal P2P and file-sharing services compared to 15% of adults."

Some 135 children surveyed do not constitute 56% of all illegal pirating activity in the UK (as claimed by the slashdot article?), and this seems like a case of intentional (or merely bad) pruning. Supposedly 145 children (54%) out of those surveyed pirate. A rather equivalent number of the adults, 180 (15%) do.

Studies tend to be up there with lies and benchmarks, but comparing two groups with radially disproportionate sample sizes? And where are the samples from? Are these at specific places? Why such a disparity in the group sizes? Then again, it does admit to be an "anti-piracy" study, so I guess they aren't exactly that interested making it fair or unbiased.

At any rate, the statement in the slashdot version and in the the article linked are very different, regardless of the supposed validity of the study.

Re:A Microsoft study says what? (3, Funny)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 6 years ago | (#24430353)

It should probably say "54% of 14 year olds don't know yet that you better shut up when you break a law while most adults wised up when they grew up".

UK Government undertaking consultation on this.. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24430129)

This issue is under currently consultation.

The consultation document can be found at http://www.berr.gov.uk/consultations/page47141.html which explains the background to the issues, the legal issues and the questions BERR are requesting feedback on.

I assume the Green party (and many others) will respond via this mechanism.

Some areas I found interesting were the thoughts on possible technical measures, and what is being undertaken in other countries in this area, such as France.

it's publicly financed anyway (1)

speedtux (1307149) | more than 6 years ago | (#24430161)

The only entertainment worth anything coming out of the UK in recent years seems to be the BBC productions. Given that they are publicly financed through TV fees, why should the British not be allowed to share them freely?

Who gives a damn ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24430265)

Their strongest threat is to throttle heavy P2P users which they're already doing.

Talk Talk's MD has publicly stated that they believe it to be illegal to provide user/IP details to anyone who doesn't have a warrant, and that they have no intention of cutting off users.

So anyone daft enough to be a Carphone Whorehouse customer might get stiffly worded letter warning that downloading is illegal ? O Noes !

From the linked article:

"Say what you will about the corporitization of the US, but at least we do have some privacy on what is the world's leading and single most important means of knowledge and communication."

Presumably it will remain warm, safe, and cozy under the author's rock, right up until the RIAA letter arrives ?

Churn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24430297)

I guess there will be a lot of people moving from the big ISPs to small ones. Then some of the small ones will become big ones, start "policing piracy" and users will move again, either to a newer small ISP or maybe to one of the old big ones that has become a small one again having lost most of its users.

A smart small ISP would seize the moment, ensure that their inward migration system is smooth and easy, and make appropriate mention of the fact that they are not one of the six...

Bad UK P2P, bad! (2, Funny)

codeButcher (223668) | more than 6 years ago | (#24430311)

I like brewing! Why on earth do they want to fight that?

Not that I have RTFA or even the B'ing Summary, but still....

relax (1)

afkcpu (1335605) | more than 6 years ago | (#24430339)

Filesharing has always existed whether it be in a digital form or physical form. In the 70s im sure people lent each other vinyls of their favourite bands. It was strictly illegal but it was overlooked because the police had bigger fish to fry. The same applies to today, they only intend to crackdown on hardcore users who are making a business from copyrighted material. However I think because of digitalisation and lighting-fast internet speeds, downloading say a few gigs worth of songs has become the norm, which is too much in the eyes the big coporations. (however that could be justly argued.) In simplified british terms, 'don't take the piss.'
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>