×

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!

Ofcom Unveils Anti-Piracy Policy For UK ISPs

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the regh-yoo-late-uh-rhee dept.

Media 234

krou writes "Under plans drawn up by Ofcom, UK ISPs are going to draw up a list of those who infringe copyright, logging names and the number of times infringement took place. Music and film companies will then be allowed access to the list, and be able to decide whether or not to take legal action. '"It is imperative that a system that accuses people of illegal online activity is fair and clear," said Anna Bradley, chair of the Communications Consumer Panel.' The Panel, in partnership with Consumer Focus, Which, Citizens Advice, and the advocacy body the Open Rights Group, has released a set of principles it believes should govern the code of practice. The principles say sound evidence is needed before any action is taken, consumers must have the right to defend themselves, and the appeals process must be free to pursue. The code shall come into practice by 2011, and initially applies only to ISPs with 400,000 customers or more." Update: 05/29 09:11 GMT by T : As an anonymous reader points out below, that's 400,000 users, rather than 40,000 as originally rendered.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

234 comments

Correction (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32387334)

400,000

Re:Correction (-1, Troll)

timothy (36799) | more than 3 years ago | (#32387340)

Thanks for spotting; updated now.

timothy

Re:Correction (5, Funny)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#32387614)

Stop that! You keep doing that! Reading the comments and posting corrections is going to make the other editors look bad! Slashdot editors are not supposed to read the site, and they are definitely not meant to care about facts. You are doing it entirely wrong.

Piracy clarification (5, Interesting)

Rivalz (1431453) | more than 3 years ago | (#32387352)

Im just curious on how it is illegal to download content that is copyrighted.
I understand being prosecuted for uploading content to the internet but am I breaking the law if I watch something on youtube that was placed there illegally? Or if someone emails me a photo and they do not have the rights to it?
I'm pretty certain when I take a photo of my girlfriend in the city there is something in the background that I dont have the copyright of. If I post that on facebook am I doing something illegal?
Seriously I feel like no matter what I do Driving, browsing the internet, or taking photographs I feel like at any given moment I'm breaking the law and just waiting for it to be my turn to get caught doing something idiotically illegal.

Re:Piracy clarification (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32387404)

That's the point. Everyone is a criminal -> no one can stand against the system.

Re:Piracy clarification (0, Troll)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 3 years ago | (#32387458)

While I don't even know what to say about this UK law proposal, laws are generally made to protect the general goodness of society. Lets not kid ourself, warez is a problem and the creators need to be compensated for their work just like everyone else. But the thing is, technicality here isn't an issue - it's only about practicality. The old "but I'm only downloading it, I'm not giving anything to anyone" probably worked before internet age, but world develops. It's clear that the laws need to adjust, just like they need to adjust for email spammers. World changes, and has been changing rapidly in the last 20 years.

That being said, an year ago I said UK really likes to challenge US in the most draconian country in the world, and it looks like they were just foreplaying before.

Re:Piracy clarification (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32387844)

warez is a problem and the creators need to be compensated for their work just like everyone else

Yes, it takes a lot of effort to produce high quality warez.

Re:Piracy clarification (1)

mSparks43 (757109) | more than 3 years ago | (#32387406)

Its ok, don't worry about it. UK law courts have no moral standing anyway. Its all a money making scam. So just tell them to go f' themselves.

Re:Piracy clarification (5, Insightful)

arkhan_jg (618674) | more than 3 years ago | (#32387462)

Seriously I feel like no matter what I do Driving, browsing the internet, or taking photographs I feel like at any given moment I'm breaking the law

Well that's because you probably are; the laws about driving and copyright are so rediculously broad - and lightly enforced - that you're breaking the law most of the time, but simply aren't prosecuted for it until you appear on someones radar.

What I consider worst about this legislation is that major ISPs are going to have to monitor *all* traffic passing through them, make a judgement on whether it is 'infringing' then put you on a list, then hand that list over to the major label music industry to decide if they're going to take civil action against you. So not only am I having my privacy massively infringed by my own ISP, I'm paying them to do it, and act as enforcer and bearer of all the costs as evidence gatherer for another industry entirely - one I happen to be boycotting.

Thanks a bunch ex-labour government for pushing that little law through at the last minute without debate.

Re:Piracy clarification (3, Insightful)

JockTroll (996521) | more than 3 years ago | (#32387746)

Well, given how your rights are being violated by those industry thugs, and how your government will not protect you from the because they've been bought and paid for by the industry (which, by the way, is going to see megabucks in enforcing its own brand of private justice upon the netizens), isn't it high time to take the matter in your own hands?

Pass the word that for every user that is turned over to the industry mob, a price will be exacted: an office will be firebombed, an employee will be stabbed to death in a dark alley, an exec's family member will be kidnapped, tortured to death and the body never found. Have the message sent out that the streets are not safe anymore for these people. Yes, I know, you people in the UK have no firearms anymore but it only takes an IKEA steak knife to end someone's life and they would be begging for a bullet before the day's done.

If you really value "your rights online", understand one thing: those who want them taken away are powerful and will not stop at anything, they are winning and they know it; they see no resistance, they expect none. They are strangling the Internet by forcing the ISPs to cooperate through the use of their massive economic and legal power.

All you have against this is plain old violence. But you are cowardly geeks and will not do anything for fear of being pummeled.

What an irony if the loserboy nerds' playground, the Internet, will end up being saved by muscular, strong-willed jocks who will rip the industry goons' throats out and shit on their dead faces.

Re:Piracy clarification (2, Informative)

Keeper Of Keys (928206) | more than 3 years ago | (#32387878)

Don't mod him down! This guy understands the fundamental problem and even has a solution, albeit a morally suspect one.

Re:Piracy clarification (2, Interesting)

impaledsunset (1337701) | more than 3 years ago | (#32388102)

It's a morally disgusting one. And won't work. But I couldn't say I didn't like reading it. Copyright enforcement has become so ridiculous that it is expected to inspire violence in many people.

Re:Piracy clarification (3, Interesting)

JockTroll (996521) | more than 3 years ago | (#32388140)

Are you sure it wouldn't work? And morally disgusting - more so than the extortionist and illegal practices used by pigs like ACS:Law for instance? How do you fight the bad guys if you don't want to get your hands dirty?

Or maybe you're just making up an excuse not to fight, huh? Is that so, loserboy nerd? Then kiss your precious internet goodbye, because they'll be taking it. Lock, stock and barrel. They will OWN it, completely. They will own your very lives, in the end, because a great lot of your lives will depend on the internet and those who control it will be supreme masters over your lives.

So, either realize that it's high time to take the fight to the next level, or get used to the taste of jackboot.
Seriously, do you think the partisans in occupied Europe got all fussy about moral high grounds so long as it helped put nazis six feet under?

Fight or lose. Jocks fight. Nerds can only lose.

Take a leaf from Gandhi's playbook (1)

bzipitidoo (647217) | more than 3 years ago | (#32388194)

Gandhi beat the Brits without violence.

In this case, get everyone's name on the ISP's list. Then I wonder if a "reverse" class action is possible? Soon as anyone is sued, turn it into a massive class action defense. If class action isn't possible, the sheer numbers will overwhelm the system.

Further actions would be things like boycotts. Not just boycotts of the music industry, but of the tax system and court system. The government will back down in a big hurry if half the nation is supposed to appear in court, and does not. Or does, but refuses to pay any judgements. Also, the ISPs may need reminding who their customers really are. Are they going to risk losing ALL their customers and going out of business, for being too willing to play along with this scheme to turn everyone into criminals? ISPs that fight this law and refuse to keep a list will get business, ISPs that go wobbily will be downsized perhaps all the way to oblivion.

Elect a few Pirate Party members. That'll scare the politicians, and they'll run away from their industry buddies faster than Chamberlain appeased the fascists. Everyone is so scared of piracy anyway that it won't take much to convince them to back off the insanity for fear of bringing down the entire system of copyright.

Re:Piracy clarification (1)

ydrol (626558) | more than 3 years ago | (#32387874)

> Thanks a bunch ex-labour government for pushing that little law through at the last minute without debate

I think it got cross-party approval. But of course no public debate. Probably plenty of golf lunches and champagne dinners with Elton John, Bono etc.

Re:Piracy clarification (2, Informative)

ConfusedVorlon (657247) | more than 3 years ago | (#32388038)

the liberal democrats voted against it

Re:Piracy clarification (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32388094)

the liberal democrats voted against it

Yes, the handful that could be bothered to turn up...

Re:Piracy clarification (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32387884)

What I consider worst about this legislation is that major ISPs are going to have to monitor *all* traffic passing through them

ISPs don't have to monitor anything. nothing. zero. zilch.

what they have to do, is accept 'infringement notifications' from copyright holders - and keep count how many each customer receives.

the first 3 times per-customer these notifications are received, the ISP must write to the account holder, detailing the alleged offence, offering advice about securing their wireless router and offering alternatives to downloading illegally. the customer can appeal these notifications, if they think they're in error.

if a customer receives more than 3 notifications within 12 months, then the ISP must anonymously list the customer on a 'list of possible repeated copyright violators'. copyright holders can periodically browse this list, and may decide to apply for a court order to reveal a customer's name and address. they can then choose to sue them in the courts, where they will have to provide unequivocal proof of wrong-doing.

every 12 months, each customer's list of 'alleged violations' is cleared.

Re:Piracy clarification (3, Insightful)

damburger (981828) | more than 3 years ago | (#32387892)

The ConDem coalition could repeal the DEA any time they liked. Nick Clegg even hinted he would make such a repeal a condition of joining a coalition, and this has now been shown to be an outright lie.

Re:Piracy clarification (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32387974)

monitor *all* traffic passing through them, make a judgement on whether it is 'infringing'

That's easy: If the target port isn't 80 or 443, you're infringing. If you cause more traffic than what's profitable for the ISP, you're infringing. There's no way you can plausibly defend against "we've seen you infringe on copyrights more than x times" type of accusations, so detection accuracy isn't important.

Re:Piracy clarification (1)

Beorytis (1014777) | more than 3 years ago | (#32388008)

What I consider worst about this legislation is that major ISPs are going to have to monitor *all* traffic passing through them, make a judgement on whether it is 'infringing' then put you on a list, then hand that list over to the major label music industry

The CCP is concerned about fairness in who gets prosecuted, but I see some unfairness in who has the opportunity to prosecute through this system.

From the ISP end, the monitoring & logging requirements might be onerous to smaller players, but they may then become havens for serious piracy, which may be a greater exposure and business risk.

From the copyright owner standpoint, if you're not a "major" you don't get equal protection. (I don't know UK law to know whether "equal protection" is promised as it is in the US.)

Re:Piracy clarification (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32388082)

I do all my pirating by paying £5 per month (through a well respected third part payment system) for access to newsgroups over SSL. I'm not too worried about this.

But yeah, charges will increase to pay for this. Sucks.

RIP Gary Coleman.

Re:Piracy clarification (4, Informative)

Elledan (582730) | more than 3 years ago | (#32387498)

This whole thing stinks. Badly. Allow me to explain:

Here in the Netherlands we got a similar debate going on, with some groups demanding the downloading of copyrighted works to be made illegal (currently legal for movies and music). My housemate and good friend Pieter Hulshoff was present at a debate on this last Thursday together with a number of politicians, artists, lawyers and many other types of people (including the very embarrassing Dutch Pirate Party). As he pointed out during this debate, there is no conceivable way one could successfully implement a 'roadblock' against the downloading of copyrighted content. First of all, there's the technical limitation.

DPI, or Deep Packet Inspection, is a technique which can look into the packets sent through an ISP's network and which is suggested as a way to find those guilty of infringement. There is no way to figure out in even a fraction of all cases, even after assembling multiple packets, what format the packet's contents are in, what encoding was used, how to read it, let alone somehow figure out whether it is copyrighted information.

P2P, or basically anything involving Bittorrent, eDonkey and similar networks used for filesharing can easily be anonymized using encryption, private trackers, making it very hard to get into a cloud or similar, or figure out what is being shared.

Then there's the aspect of determining whether a copyrighted work being downloaded is actually 'illegal'. If personal copies are allowed like here in the Netherlands, or some form of fair use exists and the person downloading Generic Movie #24 also has a matching copy of the DVD he or she legally bought but feels too lazy to make a rip off (or wants a rip of the Blu-Ray version... another huge grey legal patch). Look at for example the demands made by media companies at Youtube and similar sites to keep out copyrighted content. It should be clear that it isn't feasible for even a huge company like Google to keep people from uploading copyrighted material they supposedly don't have the rights to to YouTube. Automatic filters fail, reports aren't affective enough and employing people to sift through incoming videos is so ridiculous for being impractical that it's laughable.

In other words this is yet another wet dream of the companies behind such constructs as the RIAA/MPAA and their many cousins throughout the world, put into law thanks to bribes and clueless politicians and completely not feasible in the Real World (tm).

Re:Piracy clarification (4, Interesting)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 3 years ago | (#32387688)

This is just some ISP's PHB having a wet dream after being wined and dined by the RIAA. It's going to be impossible to put into practice. I've heard the boss of Spain's leading ISP ranting about this sort of thing and he's a barely coherent old codger who obviously doesn't have a clue about anything technical.

As a protest we should create a screen saver which maxes out an Internet connection 24/7 transferring random data to random people. Get your friends to install it ... let's see if the ISPs who sign up to these schemes can provide the bandwidth they've sold.

Re:Piracy clarification (3, Interesting)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#32387958)

Don't make out the bandwidth. Create 400 byte segments of copyright works - small enough to count as quoting for the purpose of fair dealings law. Have the screensaver exchange these segments. Make sure it's the same segment in each direction, so there's no possibility that they're building anything close to a complete work. Also have it join a few thousand random torrents selected from some popular torrent site, but not transfer any data to any of them. Look as suspicious as possible, but without actually breaking any laws. Don't stress the normal Internet infrastructure, but put a huge load on the monitoring stuff. If you get any legal action, get the FFII to sponsor a countersuit for barratry.

Re:Piracy clarification (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32388180)

I really like this idea. It is the "I'm Spartacus" defence:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8h_v_our_Q

Please, please somebody make this happen.

Re:Piracy clarification (1)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 3 years ago | (#32388046)

I like the random data idea. A lot. We've tried petitioning and achieved nothing, so more direct (but still legal and safe) action seems sensible.

It looks like a very good form of peaceful protest: they've agreed to monitor our connections, so in return we will swamp their monitoring tools with more data than they can hope to handle.

From a technical standpoint, a quick search has turned up CSpace [cspace.in] , which looks to me like a decent starting point. Any enterprising slashdotters feel like putting something together?

Re:Piracy clarification (4, Insightful)

Rich0 (548339) | more than 3 years ago | (#32387736)

Well, while I agree with your overall points and philosophy, there are a few things that DPI could do to make things really annoying for ISP customers:

1. They can probably detect http headers that have a GET line that includes a filename of something that seems to be infringing. Better not view any websites with photos of artists named "Mariah Carey - singing Name-That-Song.jpg" on them... Or, if you're going to post mp3s on a website maybe you should rename them to .jpg files once they start filtering those out...

2. They could detect http response headers that have a mime type the record industry doesn't like, such as a torrent file or mp3.

3. They could detect non-encrypted torrent traffic, or non-encrypted mp3s/etc in general. Assembling the packets would be hard, knowing they're being sent is probably not.

4. When "suspicious" traffic like any of the above is detected, they could probably start logging full packets and assemble full streams for further analysis - if you only do that on a small percentage of traffic and don't keep the captured packets around forever it may be practical.

Sure, all of the above will probably hassle lots of people who do nothing illegal, but I don't think the recording industry really cares about that. Don't want to prove your innocence? Well, just don't use bittorrent. Oh, we're not banning it - anybody can keep using it as long as they don't mind proving their innocence in court every six months (make no mistake, in the end the burden of proof will end up on the defendant since the industry will have some nebulous report output that has their name on a list).

As far as not being able to catch all of it - I don't know that they really care. If the ISPs give the music industry 1000 people to sue every year, or 1000 people who they can ban from the internet every year, that would be a victory for them. Once people are afraid to click on links lest they accidentally go to a "bad site" and end up with a ruined life then they will be happy. That's why I pretty-much don't browse the internet from work - with the laws in the US as they are all it takes is one misclick or typo and a zealous log monitor and you can be in VERY deep water.

Re:Piracy clarification (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32387848)

Shh.. shut up!

Re:Piracy clarification (4, Insightful)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 3 years ago | (#32387896)

The biggest flaw is not so much the difficulty in gathering evidence but the fact that in the end the copyright holder still needs to sue the accused individual.

The law in the UK makes it quite clear that they would need to sue the person who did the infringement. Good luck figuring out who that is in a household with more than one person. Being a civil matter they can't seize your PC or anything like that.

Even if they do somehow figure out who it is the chances are the evidence they have will not stand up in court. Even if it does they won't be able to ban people from the internet because it would infringe on their human rights. Without the internet you become cut off from your friends, unable to do your job, unable to use many mobile phones. The real kicker is that if you share a connection with someone else then they would loose their access too which is clearly unjust. No court would ever allow that.

Anyway, the current government said they would repeal. I know, manifesto promises... But at least they are in principal against it.

Re:Piracy clarification (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32387592)

Seriously I feel like no matter what I do Driving, browsing the internet, or taking photographs I feel like at any given moment I'm breaking the law and just waiting for it to be my turn to get caught doing something idiotically illegal.

Western countries are transitioning from a military industrial economy to a jail and criminal justice economy [usdoj.gov] , and that is where corporations and governments make their money [dlc.org] on enforcing laws and creating new and tougher laws (copyright, patent, obscenity, drug, think-of-the-children, etc and so on). Ignorance of the law is no excuse so you'd better keep up and have a good attorney ready to help you. If anything feels good or seems intuitively natural to do then there are probably laws against it.

At any given point in time the average person is breaking numerous laws without even knowing it, or on average about three felonies a day [businessinsider.com] . Just be grateful that you haven't been caught yet.

If you are rich and powerful enough you shouldn't have anything to worry about though, because as one United States President once [wikiquote.org] said, "... when the President does it that means that it is not illegal."

Welcome to the New World Order! (same as the Old World Order, but with bigger prisons and more CCTV).

a short explanation (4, Insightful)

petes_PoV (912422) | more than 3 years ago | (#32387606)

First of all, forget about the sorts of examples you've cited. That's not what it's about. Really it's only about emerican film and music companies wanting to punish (as opposed to simply recover any lost revenue) who look at their products but haven't paid them before doing so. The basic problemm with all f this is that if you download a movie then they're after you not just for the £10 or so that a top selling DVD goes for, but they want to ruin you - take your house, all your money and make it impossible for you to live normally forever after that.

Although I'm not an expert, I wouldn't be surprised to discover that a convicted rapist has a less onerous punishment placed on them than someone in the grips of these film studios.

Re:a short explanation (4, Insightful)

Rich0 (548339) | more than 3 years ago | (#32387818)

Agreed. What's wrong with a $200 fine like you have with speeding? It isn't like people go flying down the streets at 200mph with impunity since they don't mind paying the fines 3 times a week. Really, even just a slap on the wrist will tend to moderate bad behavior when you're talking about stuff that isn't all that serious.

Suppose a 15-year-old downloads some songs - either they or their parents are at risk of a seriously damaged life (and I mean effects that will last decades even with bankruptcy "protection" / etc). If a 15-year-old stabs somebody with a knife the penalties are FAR less onerous. The parents won't be prosecuted at all, and the child will be tried as a minor and will have an expunged record in many jurisdictions. If the kid turns himself around he could still have a fairly normal life. A 15-year-old who commits homicide might end up in worse shape, although I suspect a 15-year-old rapist could do better. We're effectively placing teenagers downloading music in the same category as aggravated assault, rape, and murder. I looked up somebody I knew who was convicted (as an adult) of simple assault and associated minor crimes (first time conviction) and they paid $4k and a year's probation.

Re:Piracy clarification (0, Troll)

stms (1132653) | more than 3 years ago | (#32387612)

I'm pretty certain when I take a photo of my girlfriend in the city there is something in the background that I dont have the copyright of. If I post that on facebook am I doing something illegal?

When you're being sued for that photo you could just use that argument that you're on /. therefore you don't have a girlfriend and you couldn't have uploaded it.

Re:Piracy clarification (5, Interesting)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#32387622)

Even if you have a complete list of all files that are copyrighted and require a license to distribute, it becomes hard. For example, my publisher and I frequently exchange files that are illegal for most people to distribute, but not for us because one of us owns the copyright. This system would be required to spot when two people exchange the file, determine that it is copyrighted, and then note that we are the copyright owners and so are legally able to distribute it so should not go on the list.

Requiring a system to do two impossible things is generally considered a case of bad specification design.

Just make sure.... (3, Interesting)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 3 years ago | (#32387660)

Just make sure all your windows are closed when you play the radio in your car and you should be OK.

Re:Just make sure.... (2, Interesting)

xOneca (1271886) | more than 3 years ago | (#32387804)

That may sound crazy, but here, in Spain, things are getting somewhat like that.

Spanish RIAA (SGAE) has people going to small businesses like hairdresser's or gyms to see if they're playing music (or radio) and employers have to pay a fee if they're. The odd thing is that if customers were listening to portable media players with headphones, they aren't required to pay.

Re:Piracy clarification (2, Interesting)

Xugumad (39311) | more than 3 years ago | (#32387922)

> am I breaking the law if I watch something on youtube that was placed there illegally

If you are aware of the content, certainly you would be in the UK (UK copyright law, last time I read it, even made it illegal to rip CDs you owned to MP3 for your own use, because it's a copy). You could almost certainly make a strong defence against such charges if the content was mis-represented (I don't mean if it's labelled "Not the latest blockbuster movie, lolz", I mean "Videos of my cat") and you stopped once aware of the true nature of the content, but if you're knowingly copying (by requesting YouTube send you a copy) copyrighted content that you do not have a right to, it's illegal.

On the other hand, at the time these laws were written, the sort of invasive monitoring being suggested here wasn't even a consideration. I don't think they were ever intended to catch someone who might genuinely make a mistake about this.

As someone whose day job is creating digital content, I want people to stop pirating content (and I want to strangle anyone who thinks they have some sort of moral high ground by illegally copying stuff - if it's overpriced, don't buy it, but don't copy it either). However, I also think the effort being put into stopping piracy is misguided, and vastly disproportionate to actual damage done. I would much rather see an emphasis on teaching people to make their own content, to show them the value of it, rather than this ineffective negative-reinforcement approach.

How about... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32387354)

First of all, I don't live in the UK.

How about limiting damages to thrice the MSRP value of the infringed content for the first offense, and subsequently doubling (6 times the MSRP for second offense, 12 times the MSRP for third offense, and so on...)

This way, people's lives won't be ruined the first time they get caught infringing.

So, if the MSRP is $29.95 for a given movie (think how expensive Blu-Ray is), then on the first offense, that's $89.85. Or, maybe multiple movies were pirated on the first offense. Well, that is 3 times total MSRP sum.

Re:How about... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32387408)

because law is supposed to be based on actual damages, and that would result in it being like 97 cents. double each time, etc? sure. But let's start at reality.

Re:How about... (1)

Uranium-238 (1586465) | more than 3 years ago | (#32387464)

That's what the first Anon was suggesting you retard. If the damages are based on the MSRP value then that would be the ACTUAL damages rather than letting the MAFIAA demand you pay in excess of £100,000 pounds for say 5 illegally downloaded items with say a total value of £100.

Re:How about... (1)

digitig (1056110) | more than 3 years ago | (#32387702)

IANAL, but as far as I can see doubling each time would mean that it is no longer "damages" and has become punitive, which takes it out of civil law and into criminal law. There are cases in UK law where punitive can be applied in civil cases, but they're very few and far between and unlikely to apply here. And there are cases in which copyright violation falls within UK criminal law, but they're essentially on the supply side, not on the receiving side so again they don't apply. So no, doubling each time would be a major violation of a basic legal principle, at least, without new legislation to criminalise receipt of copyright material. Expect anybody trying to introduce such legislation to get mail-bombed with lots of copyright music and video clips.

Re:How about... (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#32387726)

There are cases in UK law where punitive can be applied in civil cases, but they're very few and far between and unlikely to apply here.

Not yet, my dear, not yet. If the content industry considers it a worthwhile idea, I'm sure a few bucks placed in the right hands will quickly blur the lines.

But why bother? They can already sue for whatever amount they want to, why should they ask to be limited?

"Violation of a basic legal principle"? Fffffft. We can extend copyright to life and beyond, do we look like we care about such petty things like "basic legal principles"?

Re:How about... (1)

digitig (1056110) | more than 3 years ago | (#32387794)

But why bother? They can already sue for whatever amount they want to, why should they ask to be limited?

Remember that this is about UK law. Although I'm sure the major players would love to try it, I'm not aware of any equivalent of the silly numbers in US cases being awarded in UK cases. (Silly actions, yes, silly numbers, no.) Maybe I've missed those cases?

Re:How about... (1)

Keeper Of Keys (928206) | more than 3 years ago | (#32387914)

There are no details that I've been able to find about people sued by the BPI. Try it; the trail always goes cold. Maybe a few settled out of court, possibly nobody was actually ever threatened; they just announced they had threatened people in order to ride on the backs of the RIAA's climate of fear without risking the backlash.

Re:How about... (0)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 3 years ago | (#32387484)

First of all, I don't live in the UK.

How about limiting damages to thrice the MSRP value of the infringed content for the first offense, and subsequently doubling (6 times the MSRP for second offense, 12 times the MSRP for third offense, and so on...)

This way, people's lives won't be ruined the first time they get caught infringing.

So, if the MSRP is $29.95 for a given movie (think how expensive Blu-Ray is), then on the first offense, that's $89.85. Or, maybe multiple movies were pirated on the first offense. Well, that is 3 times total MSRP sum.

This is actually one of the most reasonable suggestions for piracy on slashdot. Piracy is already widespread but only randomly prosecuted and when it is, you're destroying someones life. This style would be great for actually hitting the problem without destroying people and giving them a change to learn and not do it again.

How? Passive traffic analysis? (5, Insightful)

Sean (422) | more than 3 years ago | (#32387364)

Encryption will make this difficult. It'll be right back to making unsubstantiated claims that some IP address was serving up copyrighted content then demanding to know the subscriber details.

Re:How? Passive traffic analysis? (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32387460)

Indeed, why don't torrent sites and trackers already run over https? Wouldn't that kill this idea entirely, plus any other ISP-based snooping?

Re:How? Passive traffic analysis? (1)

game kid (805301) | more than 3 years ago | (#32387554)

If you use an https site that's not run by a bank, credit card issuer, school, or the guy who built your second home as a campaign favor, you are a dirty pirate and must pay.

Re:How? Passive traffic analysis? (1)

Znork (31774) | more than 3 years ago | (#32387562)

Well, on the upside, these actions certainly encourage the adoption of encryption, vpns and distributed darknets on a much more massive scale. Soon enough the evolutionary pressure towards unmonitorable connections will have put private communications permanently out of reach of any agencies.

Encrypted f2f sharing is certainly the killer app for the emerging distributed social networks.

Re:How? Passive traffic analysis? (1)

gilgongo (57446) | more than 3 years ago | (#32387758)

Most people I know here in the UK are simply installing VMs on their machines and having them connect to P2P and Usenet services via VPNs. I'm not sure whether DPI would be able to detect what they're downloading, but it would seem at least pretty difficult to do so. Bitorrent over I2P is also starting to speed up now too with more users (well, to the point where you can probably download an 8Gig movie file in about 7 days).

Sucks for my neighbour (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32387366)

I've been using his open wifi for years to download stuff

Re:Sucks for my neighbour (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32387934)

I use my work VPN

Infrigement. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32387380)

Is so hard to prove, you just might as well not try.

Re:Infrigement. (1)

TiberiusMonkey (1603977) | more than 3 years ago | (#32387538)

I doubt this is going to stop them, I also doubt it's going to stop them destroying someone's life based on little solid evidence.

"Music and film companies" (1)

Timmmm (636430) | more than 3 years ago | (#32387382)

The biggest problems I see with this are:

a) How do they decide what is copyrighted? If *I* were to write a game/song/whatever and it got pirated I'm pretty sure they wouldn't even notice.
b) How do they decide who is a film or music company? What's to stop anyone getting access to this list? Conversely why couldn't smaller film and music companies access it?

List details (2, Interesting)

Alwin Henseler (640539) | more than 3 years ago | (#32387490)

What's to stop anyone getting access to this list?

I'd be more worried about what's recorded in that list - I don't read anything in the article that says person-identifying data is hidden / kept in a separate, inaccessible list until a court orders such data be handed over.

If all details are free for checking by 3rd parties, that would mean they could get private and/or identity data without any involvement of a court. Basically sidestepping any legal checks & balances. That is bad for many reasons. And of course once they have such data, they have it, period.

IMHO, ISP's should only turn over private/identity data on direct order of police/intelligence authorities in acute, life-threatening cases (terrorism, kidnappings, that kind of thing). For non-lifethreatening cases, anyone fingered should be able to defend themselves, and a court deciding, before the other party gets private details. Anything else should be regarded as careless handling of customer data on the part of the ISP. And I wouldn't want to be a customer of an ISP that handles private data (mine or anyone else's) carelessly.

Re:List details (1)

infolation (840436) | more than 3 years ago | (#32388156)

I don't read anything in the article that says person-identifying data is hidden / kept in a separate, inaccessible list until a court orders such data be handed over.

ofcom's website [ofcom.org.uk] says exactly this:

ISPs will have to record the number of notifications sent to their subscribers and maintain an anonymised list of alleged serial copyright infringers.

Copyright holders can then request information on this list and pursue a court order to identify serial infringers and take legal action against them.

Re:"Music and film companies" (2, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#32387742)

a) Whatever film and music companies want. When in doubt, record it. Until someone takes it and uses it, there won't be any harm in recording that movie.avi was sent from A to B. Huh? What is that "privacy" you're talking about?
b) Whoever inserts sufficient coins.

Re:"Music and film companies" (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#32388158)

"a) How do they decide what is copyrighted? If *I* were to write a game/song/whatever and it got pirated I'm pretty sure they wouldn't even notice."

Welcome to the brave new world: individual creativity is ignored, because the major corporations are in control and do not care about individuals.

great (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32387392)

i will have to look again through those emails sent from my MP
it would be a shame if there was an x-originating-ip: mail header
and a way of injecting it into a torrent tracker ;)

That's fine... (4, Insightful)

Manip (656104) | more than 3 years ago | (#32387402)

It is great that people who create content might get paid for doing so (*genuinely). The real issue here is the publishers who's 1980s business models cannot adapt to the 2000s with high speed internet in every home and multiple mobile devices per person. In the long term these publishers will go out of business but not without dragging their feet ruining it for everyone else in the mean time.

Why can't I buy online instead of a DVD and get all the extra features?
Why does online content cost more than a physical disc?
Why when I buy online content can't I put it on my iPad, Google Phone, Laptop, and PC?
Why can't I watch Hulu and YouTube in another country? What's this international border junk doing on the internet?
Why is content priced unfairly between different countries (*even taking into account taxes, duty, and cost of living)?

Publishers claim they can't compete with free/"stolen" and while for the poor that is often true, there is a large percentage of people who would LOVE to pay for content but literally cannot. For example if I slept through last week's episode of a TV show, and cannot watch it online in my country -- what other options do I have? Wait for the DVD a year from now?

Re:That's fine... (2)

jez9999 (618189) | more than 3 years ago | (#32387440)

It is great that people who create content might get paid for doing so

Only if they're doing it through a successful business model, not having it extracted from people through an obscenely backwards law.

Re:That's fine... (1)

Bobakitoo (1814374) | more than 3 years ago | (#32387456)

"what other options do I have? Wait for the DVD a year from now?"
Exactly, that is the honest way to watch the show. You wait until it is avaible in your market. Been honest is a choice. I suggest you just stop caring about them. Stop bothering yourself with all those questions and just go full pirate! Arr!

Re:That's fine... (1)

Mathinker (909784) | more than 3 years ago | (#32387578)

> I suggest you just stop caring about them.

I was with you 100% there.

> and just go full pirate! Arr!

Oh. And here I thought that there was a chance you'd continue: "and just watch free legal content, there's tons of it".

Maybe we should start a slogan campaign: "Media unavailable? Pirate it! Show you care!". (This is a hypothetical suggestion to show that some people might believe that copyright infringement is moral in certain circumstances, where they believe it actually benefits the rights holder).

Re:That's fine... (2, Insightful)

Bobakitoo (1814374) | more than 3 years ago | (#32387628)

What is immoral is:

1. lying about obscene profit and claim to be losing money to priracy.
2. stealing gouvement and artist by employing clever hollywood accounting.
3. stealing, as in depriving the public domain, from its culture by copyrighting expired publication and ever extending copyright duration thru 4.
4. corruption, by lobbying for theire immoral need, they are undermining democracy.


I dont claim that pirating is moral, but i just dont care anymore. And neither should you since they dont care themself.

Legislating one's business model into relevance (1)

Vekseid (1528215) | more than 3 years ago | (#32387492)

After all, they can't compete legitimately. They're still going to run into the old issue of respected laws needing to be respectable. The more onerous and invasive they get, the more people will notice.

Crooked politics (1)

Alwin Henseler (640539) | more than 3 years ago | (#32387604)

It is great that people who create content might get paid for doing so (*genuinely). The real issue here is the publishers who's 1980s business models cannot adapt to the 2000s with high speed internet in every home and multiple mobile devices per person. In the long term these publishers will go out of business but not without dragging their feet ruining it for everyone else in the mean time.

No the real issue here is that publishers have enough power to corrupt our political system. To the point where ridicilous/draconian laws are passed in a so-called 'democratic' society. Creating an enormous gap between those laws, and what an average person feels is reasonable.

In a proper democratic society, movie studios' deep pockets & their lobbyists should make exactly 0 difference, copyright/patent/trademark issues should be decided on hard economic evidence and/or scientific merit, and optimal length for those calculated (and lacking hard evidence, be abandoned). Outdated business models would simply die in the free market. None of which is happening. It's okay for anyone (including music business & movies studios) to have an influence on our political systems, but that influence should be limited to arguments, and the number of people working in those businesses (as part of the total population), not how much money they spend on lobbyists, or throwing all-paid private parties for 'friendly' politicians.

Re:That's fine... (4, Interesting)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#32387780)

Do you know why train stations are usually at the outskirts of towns? Nooooo, not because of the steam engines causing so much pollution. You're kidding? Back when these things were fashionable, the average steel mill in the middle of the town blew more black smoke constantly into the vicinity than the occasional train possibly could.

The reason is that hackneys and cabs were fearing that they'd go out of business. They immediately noticed that they will (and did quickly) lose all the business between towns. Nobody wanted to be transported like cargo when they can sit comfortably in the "luxury" of a train waggon. So they campaigned and clamoured, citing the most impossible and unbelievable dangers and threats of those horrible machines (look it up, some are quite entertaining. Like claiming that just watching "zip" by at that breathneck speed of 40 mph will send people into seizures and a delirium furiosum and that train tracks have to be shielded off so nobody gets to see these trains) until the politicians caved in and put the stations at the edges of towns, to protect their failing business.

Of course the whole deal completely floundered when cars started to become the next big thing (and again, accompanied by similar ridiculous laws, like requiring a man with a lantern running in front of the car to warn others). But by then the train stations were already at the outskirts of towns, and of course they stayed there because by then nobody wanted to spend the money to lay tracks through the growing towns.

A perfect example how an outdated business model keeps progress at bay with harebrained claims and artificial scaremongering. People don't want to adapt. That's nothing new. And companies even less so. Who likes to change his job? But standing in the path of progress for the sake of retaining your comfy job makes you nothing more than a sponger. You contribute nothing to the progress and expansion of the economy but you leech off it.

Re:That's fine... (1)

gilgongo (57446) | more than 3 years ago | (#32387788)

It is great that people who create content might get paid for doing so (*genuinely).

Really? As far as I understand the music and recording industry at least, if you are an artist, you will have a contract with a publisher (eg a record company). That contract usually says you get some money up front, then some percentage of sales as determined by a collection agency like ASCAP. If the publisher shops a bunch of people downloading your stuff and gets the courts to fine them, then there is probably nothing in your contract that says you get any of that money at all.

So in other words, this isn't about protecting existing artists, it's about the publishing and recording industry making money for themselves. The publishers' line is that in fining and jailing transgressors, people will be terrorised into paying for music and films in the future, which of course does in theory put money in the pockets of artists, but that's a purely theoretical outcome. It may be just as likely that being terrorised means you simply watch and listen to less media - or at least less that's owned by litigious publishers.

FTFY (5, Informative)

jez9999 (618189) | more than 3 years ago | (#32387424)

UK ISPs are going to draw up a list of those who are suspected of infringing copyright

Re:FTFY (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32387980)

I want a copy so I can sue for slander if I'm on it.

Access to detailed information (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32387426)

Music firms and movie studios can request details from the list so that they can decide whether to start their own action against serial infringers.

If music firms and movie studios can request such information i hope it is available to the account holder as well.

I imagine a large percentage of 'serial infringers' will be under age and living at home. Parents - and all account holders - should have access to this information if they and going to be handed on a platter to music firms and movie studios.

It does look like this assumes P2P is all piracy, (1)

qwerty8ytrewq (1726472) | more than 3 years ago | (#32387436)

there is no statements about how copyright infringement will be detected, and engaged with. At least there is some engagement with suggesting legal digital frameworks or 'alternatives' as the article calls them. Soon, the old-skool 1982 power-suit-jockeys will lose their tenuous hold on power, and the new wave of network savvies will start voting in some sane laws. Not soon enough from the looks of it.

This is simply wrong (4, Insightful)

Budenny (888916) | more than 3 years ago | (#32387450)

"Under plans drawn up by Ofcom, UK ISPs are going to draw up a list of those who infringe copyright, logging names and the number of times infringement took place. Music and film companies will then be allowed access to the list, and be able to decide whether or not to take legal action."

No, its not those who infringe. It is ONLY those who are ACCUSED without proof of any kind in any forum which is legitimate to establishing the truth of that accusation.

We should consider similar cases. Do we want to draw up lists of those who three people accuse of speeding, and on the fourth accusation, take away their driving licenses?

The utterly ridiculous and anti-democratic aspect of this is the following: there is a move in this particular case to substitute accusation for proof. This is wrong. We need to treat all violations of law in the same way: require proof before sanction.

Re:This is simply wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32387560)

It's not a policy - and without regard to the law - is a good reason for abolishing Dfcom.

Whatever happened to EU Privacy?
What about the expenses scandal - there was a list but hey different stroke for different folks.
How about 3 falsified expenses and you are named.

So many principles of natural justice and equity are recklessly being trashed. I don't know about illegal either - it is at best a would-be unproven civil matter, yet names are being made available?
If defamation is bad - how does one think drawing up lists is any different?

Compare this with *breaking the law and committing a criminal offence* for
say naming and posting the abode of released criminals, peodaphiles - although the legality of gag/supression orders is under a cloud.

There is no benefit to Britain by doing this. The only course of action is to file this in a round bin, and save some money by firing those participated.

Re:This is simply wrong (2, Informative)

rtb61 (674572) | more than 3 years ago | (#32387568)

Via the proposed OFCOM list on one hand we have people suspected of infringing copyright and on the other hand we have proof of ISPs monitoring, recording and invading the privacy of citizen upon a nationwide scale. That diseased myopic organisation is proposing that private corporations have the right to monitor and record every action of their customers. What next those tin foil hatters, cameras and microphones in cable TV boxes to monitor people in their homes, compulsory mobile phones that cannot be turned off and can be activated by OFCOM memebers to monitor suspect activity.

There is absolutely no way an ISP should be aware of what a customer is doing on the internet, it is none of their fucking business. They provide a service, the transmission of data at the defined bandwidth via interconnected services. It is not their place to intercept record and, monitor private communications of their customers.

That POS http://www.ofcom.org.uk/ [ofcom.org.uk] organisation is proposing the trappings of a totalitarian corporate state, where corporate masters will monitor all your and your families digital communications for anything "THEY" deem to be infringing upon their profit and control humanity. I find it disgusting to see how readily greedy socipaths will sell away the freedoms and rights of their fellow citizens and even their future descendent all to line their own pockets and feed their ego today, basically an ideology of fuck the future I want more now, now, now.

Re:This is simply wrong (1)

qwerty8ytrewq (1726472) | more than 3 years ago | (#32387602)

True this is wrong. I do however like your ..(sarcastic I know).. idea of a system that uses Mod Points for grassroots traffic enforcement. On the many occasions a dangerous driver has narrowly missed me and then sped off into the distance, I have wished I could add a strike to the three, for example, that are required to suspends their license. Sorry to mess with your car metaphor, but a driving license is a priviledge, not an inalienable right. I do agree with the spirit of your argument, that for citizen rights, like access to the internet, freedom of speech, the onus should be on proving guilt.

Re:This is simply wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32387672)

Instead of this stupid law, I suggest that all copyright infringers own up and turn themselves in to the authorities now.

Dear customer (5, Funny)

91degrees (207121) | more than 3 years ago | (#32387452)

It has come to our attention that you have been frequently accused of piracy. As a large ISP we are required to log this information. However, we would be willing to transfer your account details to our wholly owned sister company which currently only has 399,998 customers and has no policy of logging your information.

Re:Dear customer (2, Informative)

Mathinker (909784) | more than 3 years ago | (#32387792)

> which currently only has 399,998 customers

From the summary:

>> only initially(emphasis mine) applies to ISPs with 400,000 customers or more.

Anyway, we all know that the more the fight against piracy revs up, the more pirates will find ways to circumvent the enforcement. And the worse and worse PR this will generate for the media companies.

We live in interesting times, as the Chinese might say.

Re:Dear customer (1)

tumnasgt (1350615) | more than 3 years ago | (#32387984)

Not only will pirates find ways to circumvent the the enforcement, ISPs will too.
It costs the ISPs money to track all this data, they aren't getting paid for it, and customers will either have no opinion or be extremely against the monitoring. Lots of ISPs are willing annoy their customers if it increases their profits, but I have never heard of an ISP (or any company) that likes having to pay to reduce customer satisfaction.

A good quote (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32387468)

American movie makers have always held a deep reverence for composers whose works lie in the public domain — Cecil Adams

Harvesting low hanging fruit? (1)

lostsoulz (1631651) | more than 3 years ago | (#32387480)

So, some of the mooing masses that use the larger ISPs will find themselves targeted for file sharing. Will this really make any appreciable difference to the issue of downloading illegal content? This is no more than an attempt to target the low-hanging fruit (porn downloading pun unintended.) Tech-savvy downloaders will improve their attempts to maintain online anonymity. The rest of the great unwashed will continue as before...and a few may even find themselves excommunicated from the 'net. Until the content providers embrace a little more flexibility, allow us to consume their garbage in a more convenient fashion and generally act their age, this bizarre legislation will only cause more problems than it solves. On the ass-ometer scale (where Australia's great firewall hits a 9 out of 10,) Baron Mandelson's swansong is worth an 8 - annoying, but not the biggest challenge to common sense.

Re:Harvesting low hanging fruit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32387670)

"mooing masses" LMAO

Re:Harvesting low hanging fruit? (2, Interesting)

gilgongo (57446) | more than 3 years ago | (#32387808)

I also think it may be an example of "copyright theatre" - OFCOM is seen to "do something" which in reality has very little effect on anything at all, and - crucially - puts the legal ball in the copyright holders' court. You wanna sue somebody you suspect of downloading your movie? Go ahead and have lots of fun proving it, just don't complain that OFCOM got in your way.

It just could be an example of some crafty legislation to get the crazy music and recording industries off the government's back while actually protecting the voting public. Nice!

Proxy, proxy, proxy (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32387522)

Like it's not pathetically easy to proxy yourself out of the whole mess. For those inclined a small VPS can be obtained for a few dollars a month in one of the more liberal european countries such as the Netherlands or Sweden, or if you feel the need go further afield to the obscurity of Panama, Hong Kong or Malaysia. Setting up Squid server and SSL tunnel is then the work of less than an hour. Alternatively if that's too complex there's any number of companies offering private non-logged VPNs for a similar price.

If the media companies pursue this then all that's going to happen is it'll be increasingly lucrative for companies to set up anonymising VPN services in regimes around the planet where their copyright writ doesn't run or is practically impossible to enforce. Instructions for how to use these will pass from geeks to common knowledge, and furthermore because people will be paying a few dollars a month for the proxy they will be more inclined to use it to "get their money's worth", and hence 'piracy' will actually increase.

Of course the sensible alternative would be to provide a widespread service such as Spotify which would effectively do the above but legally, but the media companies are too short-sighted to see that.

Re:Proxy, proxy, proxy (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32387720)

Paying for piracy kind of defeats the whole idea of stealing stuff for free.

Fine, just be prepared to pay for my time (1)

bedouin (248624) | more than 3 years ago | (#32387576)

Interestingly, I could be placing my own copyrighted works on-line for download -- even while selling it, but get prosecuted for distributing my own content. One could say -- no big deal, just appeal the decision. That's another issue though: a few hours or days of my time should not be wasted over someone else's mistake. At that point they should be reimbursing me for damages.

Quick! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32387636)

set up encrypted torrents of live images of free operating systems!

A couple of Linux distros (GNU or otherwise), some BSDs and a GNU Hurd or two plus a smattering of smaller ones (FreeDOS comes to mind) should do fine.

Muahahahahahah (1)

Tei (520358) | more than 3 years ago | (#32387650)

I think, I am going to embed something like this on all my websites.

<img src="http://megaupload.com?downloading=jkjkhdfgsjdfgiuyiumnsdfg&#241;lkgsdfg" style="display:none"/>

I see two problems with this (2, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#32387698)

First, most P2P protocols work by the idea of "pushing" instead of "pulling". I.e. a connection that I establish is used to "push" my content towards the receiver. The idea is to discourage people from using NATing routers to simply block off those that would like to download from them (because, well, that way you'd be blocking the incoming content, not the outgoing).

But that means I'm not downloading anything. I provide someone with the ability to upload. If this is illegal, anyone running an insecure FTP server (knowingly or unknowingly, like, say, a Linux bos being run by an idiot who can't configure it properly) is due as well. Anyone here willing to join me in a port scan of politicians' machines to see whether we find a server that accepts incoming connections? And then fill it with ripped midget porn? Or, can anyone provide midget porn, I didn't have any use for it 'til now.

Aside of that, it smells a lot of "guilty until proven innocent". A list gets assembled and the MAFI-UK can pick and choose who to sue. Anyone else feeling like this gets rubberstamped "guilty" fairly easily unless you somehow manage to stand up in court against it?

And then the smart ones will find a way to profit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32387722)

https://www.ipredator.se/?lang=en

Blatent abuse of their power (3, Insightful)

gilesjuk (604902) | more than 3 years ago | (#32387820)

Ofcom are a telcoms regulator. Their job is to ensure competition in the telcoms sector in the UK. They were set up to keep the privatised BT under control to stop them abusing their dominance (they still own a lot of the UK's telephone network).

Their job is not to assist in copyright enforcement.

Re:Blatent abuse of their power (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32387858)

Ofcom are a telcoms regulator. Their job is to ensure competition in the telcoms sector in the UK. They were set up to keep the privatised BT under control to stop them abusing their dominance (they still own a lot of the UK's telephone network).

Their job is not to assist in copyright enforcement.

hello speaking as a bt home customer they are no good anymore than virgin
  or any others all they sell is faked up 2mbps with 123kbps upload they may
  have hispeed network somewhere, but i believe they rent that service to the
police and other high paying civility.....big brother is watching ya!!??
  smacks of to me

2 months to respond (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32387854)

From TFA:

Ofcom has begun a consultation exercise on the proposals which will conclude on 30 July.

So I guess there's time to do something. Or maybe the new Government will
squash this? They've already dumped the ID card thing.

Any Deep Packet Inspection scheme is inherently a violation of privacy.

Write to their complaints email !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32388040)

graham.howell@ofcom.org.uk

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/about/accoun/complaints/

Only a matter of time... (2, Insightful)

History's Coming To (1059484) | more than 3 years ago | (#32388166)

"Hello? Canonical? UK-ISP here, we've got loads of people downloading your 'Ubuntu' programme for free over P2P, do you want their details to sue them? What? Don't be silly....no, seriously, we spent a lot of money getting this data for you...."
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...