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's 'Three Strikes' Piracy Measures Published

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the talk-about-micromanagement dept.

Piracy 150

judgecorp writes "UK regulator Ofcom has published details of plans to disconnect illegal file-sharers. It is the 'three strikes' policy which ISPs unsuccessfully appealed against, and it requires ISPs to keep a list of persistent copyright infringers (identified, as usual, by their IP address). ISPs will have to send monthly warning letters to those who infringe above a certain threshold. If a user gets three letters within a single year, the ISP must hand anonymised details to the copyright owner, who can apply for a court order to obtain the infringer's identity (or at least, an identity associated with that IP address)."

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

VPNs (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40454155)

VPNs will be the order of the day!

In other news: First Post! :P

Re:VPNs (4, Interesting)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40454751)

This 3-strike deal is just the latest in a series of dumb decisions by OfCom. They are also planning to turn-off the FM radio band.

No firm date has been set, but they proposed 2018 in their meeting minutes, after which listeners will be dependent upon the barely-functional MP2 DAB (digital audio broadcast). The switchoff of analog television was also handled poorly by these bureaucrats with many citizens unable to receive the new digital channels.

Re:VPNs (1)

second_coming (2014346) | more than 2 years ago | (#40455303)

I do wonder whether the likes of Murdoch had a hand in that to try and generate new customers for his BSkyB network

Re:VPNs (2)

Dr_Barnowl (709838) | more than 2 years ago | (#40455765)

Probably not ; it was more like the government saw little pound signs when they thought about all the money they could get from selling off the wide swathes of bandwidth that analogue transmissions currently occupy, and their corporate cronies saw little pound signs when they thought of all the lovely services they could charge you through the nose for that use the aforementioned bandwidth.

Digital is much more efficient. Alas, it's also much more difficult to produce reception equipment for - there won't be any more kids playing with their crystal radio sets. And it has some other unfortunate properties linked to the codec used for the content.

Re:VPNs (2)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 2 years ago | (#40456093)

This 3-strike deal is just the latest in a series of dumb decisions by OfCom.

Except it isn't a decision. From the very first line of TFA:

Today, Ofcom has published an updated draft of the proposed measures to combat online piracy

Re:VPNs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40456409)

Oh come on, just how long do you expect them to keep up FM and analogue TV? It's a waste of bandwidth. DAB is good, internet radio is good (and probably the future).

Please, Please, Please start a trend. (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40454177)

I really, really want it to become a trend to deliberately download red-flagged content from IP addresses other than your own. Do it over poorly-secured Wi-Fi, or public access or whatever, but do it to prove a point.

That seems like the natural activist thing to do.

Re:Please, Please, Please start a trend. (4, Funny)

The_Wilschon (782534) | more than 2 years ago | (#40454387)

Best would be to spoof the ISP's identification mechanisms so that IP addresses belonging to MPs, ISP executives, music and film industry executives, etc appear in their logs.

Re:Please, Please, Please start a trend. (4, Insightful)

cpghost (719344) | more than 2 years ago | (#40454427)

These influential guys will be added to a whitelist of allowed copyright infringers. Do you really expect anything else?

Re:Please, Please, Please start a trend. (2)

NettiWelho (1147351) | more than 2 years ago | (#40454903)

These influential guys will be added to a whitelist of allowed copyright infringers. Do you really expect anything else?

Doesn't matter if their IP's get whitelisted by ??AA-organization, because according to the article...

The plans include requirements for ISPs to “notify their subscribers if the Internet protocol (“IP”) addresses associated with them are reported by copyright owners as being used to infringe copyright”

You can report it yourself without any middlemen if you assert you hold copyright to something and its been infringed on from this IP, and if past is any indicator there are no penalties for false claims.

Re:Please, Please, Please start a trend. (1)

BlueStrat (756137) | more than 2 years ago | (#40456517)

You can report it yourself without any middlemen if you assert you hold copyright to something and its been infringed on from this IP, and if past is any indicator there are no penalties for false claims.

Yeah, but I'm certain it will be a totally different matter for anyone making a false copyright infringement claim against a member of the government.

You terrorist! You're likely also planning to bomb a tube station!

(Not you personally, NettiWelho)

Strat

Re:Please, Please, Please start a trend. (1)

ToadProphet (1148333) | more than 2 years ago | (#40456597)

You can report it yourself without any middlemen if you assert you hold copyright to something and its been infringed on from this IP, and if past is any indicator there are no penalties for false claims.

I wonder what's stopping us from flooding the ISP's with bogus claims, then? Seems like an easy protest.

Re:Please, Please, Please start a trend. (4, Informative)

Andy_R (114137) | more than 2 years ago | (#40456771)

The thing that stops this is the proposed claim process, which is insanely complex. It requires copyright holders to accurately predict in advance how many claims they will make, take part in a blind dutch auction over how much they are willing to pay per claim, and the cost of claiming more than doubles if you are claiming against someone connected to the 4th or 5th biggest ISP.

The does not to allow small copyright holders such as independent musicians, journalists or photographers to pursue actions. Ofcom's consultation shows that the only people pointing this out and insisting that this would be wrong were the Pirate Party UK â" we don't like the DEAct, but if we are going to have it, we want it to be fair.

Re:Please, Please, Please start a trend. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40456827)

Great info, thanks....

Re:Please, Please, Please start a trend. (2)

TFAFalcon (1839122) | more than 2 years ago | (#40456657)

It's not just that there are no penalties. The accused will only get to defend themselves if they fork over a 20 pound fee.

Re:Please, Please, Please start a trend. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40454927)

At least keeping track of those whitelists is not the problem of ISPs. This means that copyright cartels have to obtain court orders for a good chunk of influential folks as well, which isn't exactly helping them.

Re:Please, Please, Please start a trend. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40455367)

Better yet, spoof the IP addresses more typically used by their kids. Low-hanging fruit!

Re:Please, Please, Please start a trend. (1)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#40454675)

You don't have to spoof shit, they already pirate shit just the same as everyone else [slashdot.org] .

Of course, that doesn't matter, this is only going to apply to the hoi polloi anyway.

Re:Please, Please, Please start a trend. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40454809)

I could see this being an actual tactic done by a lawsuit-happy movie/music company. However, in that model they would only be downloading their own content, to confirm accuracy of torrent name and get a list of seed IPs.

Since the evidence indicates this is just grabbing whatever sounded interesting, it should be prosecuted with the exact same vigour as when civilians are accused of such copyright infringement.

Re:Please, Please, Please start a trend. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40454885)

Belay that order!

These guys, if it ever happens, have their assistant make one phone call, and the whole thing disappears and won't come back.

Unfortunately, the UK election system is just as fraudulent as most of Australia, Canada and the US ensuring only the "old boys" parties are/stay in power, so activism seems to be their only option. Unfortunately, the next step will be mandating secure WiFi and Ofcom vans will be driving around searching for "violators" (open, WEP), knocking on the door, and offering to secure it for them free of charge (or hand them a stiff fine).

Re:Please, Please, Please start a trend. (2)

slazzy (864185) | more than 2 years ago | (#40454389)

I'm sure this will happen for many reasons, but it will probably lead to more access points being secured properly rather than the law being changed. I think the internet is reaching importance that it should be considered a right that can't be taken away.

Re:Please, Please, Please start a trend. (1, Interesting)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40454631)

You don't have a right to break the laws when you're driving down the road, and if you do it too often, you lose the right to drive. I fail to see how the internet is any different..... in fact I'd say the net is LESS important than a car.

Re:Please, Please, Please start a trend. (5, Informative)

Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) | more than 2 years ago | (#40454789)

The key difference is that driving recklessly is a physical danger to other motorists, downloading of copyright material has zero physical impact.

Re:Please, Please, Please start a trend. (2)

queBurro (1499731) | more than 2 years ago | (#40454901)

wrong. the right to information and to be represented on tinternet is more important that your ability to get from A-B without taking a bus. using the car analogy tho', you tend to lose your licence (for a finite amount of time) for endangering other people's lives whereas this shambles wants to take away the internet for something as unimportant as copyright infringement.

Re:Please, Please, Please start a trend. (1)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | more than 2 years ago | (#40456129)

wrong. the right to information and to be represented on tinternet is more important that your ability to get from A-B without taking a bus.

only if you live in an urban environment. where i live 20 miles from town there is no bus. (and it rains much of the years so bike is out) Car transport in much more important for people like me.

Re:Please, Please, Please start a trend. (1)

BlueStrat (756137) | more than 2 years ago | (#40456751)

wrong. the right to information and to be represented on tinternet is more important that your ability to get from A-B without taking a bus.

only if you live in an urban environment. where i live 20 miles from town there is no bus. (and it rains much of the years so bike is out) Car transport in much more important for people like me.

The UN's "Agenda For The 21st Century" (Agenda 21) says you lot should all be herded into a more-easily controlled, regulated, and monitored metropolitan center anyways under their "Sustainable Development" plans.

How else will the government be able to more easily & cheaply monitor absolutely everyone for potential "Thought-Crime"? After all, only terrorists and criminals want to avoid having their every move and conversation watched & monitored by CCTV.

Strat

Re:Please, Please, Please start a trend. (3, Interesting)

Githaron (2462596) | more than 2 years ago | (#40455169)

You analogy does not work. If the internet was a road, there would be two types of roads. The first type would be like a normal road. If enough resources, you can monitor who is going where and whether what they are transporting is illegal. The second type of road cloaks all information about the cars except where they are going and how often they travel. With some clever tricks, a lot of this data can be obfuscated and to some completely hidden. If you scare all the illegal activity away from the normal roads, it will move to the cloaking roads that are just as good. In the end, you have done almost nothing beneficial and actually harmed some existing and possible technologies. It also harms those that are hit with false positives. Fighting online piracy is like Wack-A-Mole. Companies would be smarter to uses knowledge about piracy as market indicators and compete with it rather than litigate against it.

Re:Please, Please, Please start a trend. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40455259)

You don't have a right to break the laws when you're driving down the road

But you do have the right to due process before they take away your license. That means being convicted in a court of law, not simply receiving three letters accusing you of driving over the speed limit. It's strange to see you on this side of the debate, given how you've admitted that if you received one of these baseless letters, you'd simply throw it out. You're basically saying that you would have no problem losing access to the internet after throwing out the third baseless letter.

in fact I'd say the net is LESS important than a car.

I don't need a car to do my job. I do need an internet connection though. And given past posts of yours, I'm willing to bet you also need the internet more than you need your car, if only by a tiny bit.

Re:Please, Please, Please start a trend. (1, Funny)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 2 years ago | (#40455657)

Driving isn't a right, it's a privelege. Of course, I'm of the opinion that internet access shouldn't be a right, either. Food and health care? Of course. But internet? One can survive quite easily without the internet, but not without food or health care.

Re:Please, Please, Please start a trend. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40456703)

I order the majority of my food over the internet. Online pornography is my healthcare.

and with a ticket you have the right to court (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | more than 2 years ago | (#40456161)

and with a ticket you have the right to court and there needs to be a standard of evidence.

Re:Please, Please, Please start a trend. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40456803)

You don't have a right to break the laws when you're driving down the road, and if you do it too often, you lose the right to drive. I fail to see how the internet is any different..... in fact I'd say the net is LESS important than a car.

Tell that to all the families that have lost loved ones to drivers then tell that to all the people that have lost loved ones to someone downloading some software.

Idiot.

A better trend. (1)

characterZer0 (138196) | more than 2 years ago | (#40454449)

End-to-end encryption. Your ISP should should only know what services you are connecting to, not what you are transferring.

Re:Please, Please, Please start a trend. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40454619)

Dont forget to spam infringement notices to whoever provides the UKRIA & other media groups with internet access.

New Prank (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40454179)

Troll around the neighborhood looking for open WiFi access and torrenting a bunch of random crap.

Re:New Prank (2)

ciderbrew (1860166) | more than 2 years ago | (#40454225)

That's not the worry. Drive around putting files on people computer that you wouldn't want on your own machine.
I need TIN FOIL!!

Onion Routing (2)

Githaron (2462596) | more than 2 years ago | (#40454203)

Wouldn't this make onion routing potentially illegal?

Re:Onion Routing (1)

YodasEvilTwin (2014446) | more than 2 years ago | (#40454245)

How is that even related?

Re:Onion Routing (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40454263)

No, this is about monitoring your ISP, not the TOR proxy network.

Re:Onion Routing (5, Insightful)

Githaron (2462596) | more than 2 years ago | (#40454371)

If your computer is setup to act as a node on Tor or another onion routing technology and a pirate uses your computer as a exit node, the pirate's traffic would look like your traffic to your ISP..

Re:Onion Routing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40454745)

If your computer is setup to act as a node on Tor or another onion routing technology and a pirate uses your computer as a exit node, the pirate's traffic would look like your traffic to your ISP..

Indeed it would, but when your traffic terminates in China, or some other place, who gives a fuck?

Note: I don't condone using bittorrent thru Tor either. there are similarly designed protocols for that, like I2P.

Re:Onion Routing (3, Informative)

Jahava (946858) | more than 2 years ago | (#40455135)

If your computer is setup to act as a node on Tor or another onion routing technology and a pirate uses your computer as a exit node, the pirate's traffic would look like your traffic to your ISP..

Indeed it would, but when your traffic terminates in China, or some other place, who gives a fuck?

Note: I don't condone using bittorrent thru Tor either. there are similarly designed protocols for that, like I2P.

Someone using BitTorrent over Tor network wouldn't show traffic going through you to China (or wherever the Tor user resides). An ISP monitoring your traffic would see BitTorrent requests originate at your IP address, and BitTorrent responses terminate at your IP address, simple as that.

When you are a Tor exit node and someone makes a BitTorrent request through you, the actual request to the BitTorrent cloud is made by you (i.e., originates at your IP address) and the response is delivered to you (i.e., terminates at your IP address). At this point, your Tor software running on your system would encapsulate the response that you received and forward it through the Tor network back towards the actual requester.

Now, depending on whether or not your ISP is monitoring Tor traffic (or all traffic) as opposed to specifically BitTorrent traffic, they may very well be able to see a correlation between your receiving some packet (remember, Tor can be obfuscated) and making a BitTorrent request, and, likewise, you receiving a BitTorrent response and sending some packet. If they're smart and if they care to, they may even put two and two together and realize that you're just acting as a proxy for someone else. However, that's on them.

Makes running a Tor exit node as a method of plausible deniability seem pretty appealing though :)

The pirates are not concerned. (2)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#40454301)

We have the darknets ready to run.

Re:The pirates are not concerned. (1)

Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) | more than 2 years ago | (#40454813)

Darknets huh? Is that like Kazaa or Bearshare? I kid, I kid...

Re:The pirates are not concerned. (3, Interesting)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#40454857)

Even outside of that, we have old trusty, sneakernet [wikipedia.org] .

I'm a part of an unofficial club that meets every couple weeks explicitly for the purposes of sharing media with each other. A handful of laptops and external hard drives and we're sharing hundreds of gigabytes of shit in a fraction of the time it would take for us all to torrent it ourselves. We've even somewhat specialized our focus to make it more efficient; I'm the music guy, we've got our movie and TV show guy, our game guy, our PC software guy, our Apple software guy (who's also getting tons of eBooks/eMagazines and shit for us now as well).

Until we get a fully P2P internet, it's the best option for us to minimize risk.

Re:The pirates are not concerned. (2)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#40455641)

The Nigel. Every school, university and most workplaces have one.

Re:The pirates are not concerned. (1)

smooth wombat (796938) | more than 2 years ago | (#40456425)

explicitly for the purposes of sharing media with each other.

So when you're done "sharing" the media in question, you meet again to return the media, right? You're not keeping it because that's not how sharing works.

it's the best option for us to minimize risk.

Risk of what? If all you're doing is "sharing", not keeping the media, there is no risk. I've done that. Gave someone a tape to listen to, when they were done they gave it back to me.

That's what you guys are doing, right?

Your Wicket is Taken (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40454307)

Should not it be called "The Taken Wicket Policy"? What is this "Three Strikes" non-sense you speak of?

Off for a spot of tea...

Re:Your Wicket is Taken (1)

Sfing_ter (99478) | more than 2 years ago | (#40454811)

Pip pip Cheerio!

False Positives? (1)

mfh (56) | more than 2 years ago | (#40454309)

What about all the false positives from people who have no clue how to work wifi? Throw away the key! They teased us in school. I'm sorry but it really is a temptation to enjoy this.

If you want free copyright material, there is usually a way to get it with a magic marker, some duck tape and a deep voice. No jail time!

Nice language (2)

davester666 (731373) | more than 2 years ago | (#40454311)

Shouldn't that be "alleged persistent copyright infringers"?

Seems fair (1, Interesting)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#40454381)

There might be some traps I didn't notice but this seems fair to me. It notifies the accused, forbids the ISPs from sharing the data they collected of them and has due process. Altough if they really want people to respect copyright laws they should concentrate on fixing them first.

Re:Seems fair (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40454651)

There might be some traps I didn't notice but this seems fair to me. It notifies the accused, forbids the ISPs from sharing the data they collected of them and has due process. Altough if they really want people to respect copyright laws they should concentrate on fixing them first.

The problem is, legislation like this might cause the arrest of some people who want to download ALL the movies and such for free. Sure, it might catch a few people who never pirate any movies or music (people who are, as we all agree, stupid morons and deserve to die alone, afraid, and preferably post-brutal-homosexual-rape), but it COULD affect some of the freeloaders. I can't imagine how that at all seems fair.

It's a trap alright (3, Interesting)

HalAtWork (926717) | more than 2 years ago | (#40454721)

Well, the trap is that they could be mislabeling infringing content, there could be content you own that you're uploading/downloading to a cloud service they're unaware of that they could flag, they don't know who's using the computer at the time, nor the IP address really. Could be automated by a trojan for all they know.

Re:It's a trap alright (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40454763)

Oh yeah, and you'll be taken to court and forced to pay hefty fees just to prove you're innocent.

Re:It's a trap alright (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40454853)

The guy named Alex Jones has been targeted a lot recently with "false positives". Several of his older shows have been yanked because a record company (Warner Bros?) is claiming ownership of all interviews by a man they just signed to a contract. Apparently they believe they have ownership not just to present products, but also previous products 4-5 years old. So the interviews get labeled "copyright infringement". Under this 3-strike law Mr. Jones would now be up for legal troubles.

Re:It's a trap alright (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40455465)

Apparently they believe they have ownership not just to present products, but also previous products 4-5 years old.

So I take it you've acquired a copy of the contract, read it over, and it absolutely positively does not grant WB the rights to those 4-5 year old products? I mean, otherwise you're just talking out of your ass, and we all know you'd never do that.

Re:It's a trap alright (1)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#40454859)

Which why there is a court that has the last word.

Good Show (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40454383)

ISPs should be LRO compliant to ensure YRO. In fact, why not just use the RFC 1130.5 protocol but remove the obviously useless section 5.1.5 [ietf.org] . Then all that would need to be done is TTLA the WRG on a section 554(b), and let the GNIC handle the rest. Easy peasy!

Re:Good Show (1)

dead_user (1989356) | more than 2 years ago | (#40456559)

WTF?! If you are fluent enough in these acronyms to parse that sentence, then you didn't need to read it in the first place.

£20 to appeal (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40454405)

Yes thats right, even though it is only an accusation, it will cost the innocent £20 to deny the accusation! telegraph article [telegraph.co.uk]

Re:£20 to appeal (1)

Githaron (2462596) | more than 2 years ago | (#40454743)

The accuser should have to eat the £20 no the accused.

Re:£20 to appeal (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40455079)

If your appeal is successful, that fund is refunded to you.

Re:£20 to appeal (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 2 years ago | (#40456243)

You could always use Small Claims Court to recover the ï20, plus ï30 court costs and any other costs (time off work to attend the hearing, transport, photocopying etc).

Of course the moment you are banned from having an internet connection you could just sue to get it back. It will also be interesting to see how the ban is administered. For example if someone moves house will the next person find the address blacklisted? What if two people share a flat, one is banned but the other wants an internet connection? Will it apply to non fixed line broadband, or will the person be able to get a mobile broadband connection?

I have scaped (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40454437)

Because of stupid laws like that I am glad that I moved out of the country!

Prison (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40454447)

As far as I'm concerned, if you're running BitTorrent you deserve to go to prison. I'm not sure why ISPs don't just monitor for BT traffic and report those users to the police right away. This technology has only ever been used for piracy. I've never encountered a legit use for it.

Re:Prison (0)

PIBM (588930) | more than 2 years ago | (#40454499)

Should have used sarcasm tags at least, just so that no one gets angry for nothing.

Re:Prison (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40454613)

It's not sarcasm, it's a troll.

Re:Prison (1)

Githaron (2462596) | more than 2 years ago | (#40454645)

I use it legitimately every time I want to download a new Linux ISO. There is nothing inherently illegal about the technology.

Re:Prison (1)

queBurro (1499731) | more than 2 years ago | (#40454983)

and eclipse etc., I make a special point of using BT whenever I can for legitimate porpoises

Re:Prison (1)

Zocalo (252965) | more than 2 years ago | (#40455679)

I make a special point of using BT whenever I can for legitimate porpoises

Well sure, of course you'd only use BT for legitimate seafood - it's like the Sea Food Association of America PSA says; "You wouldn't eat Flipper..."

Re:Prison (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40454985)

The technology isn't illegal, just every practical application of it is. People only use it to steal. Don't even get me started on how much stolen crap is in your average Linux ISO.

Re:Prison (1)

PT_1 (2425848) | more than 2 years ago | (#40455097)

As far as I'm concerned, if you're running BitTorrent you deserve to go to prison. I'm not sure why ISPs don't just monitor for BT traffic and report those users to the police right away. This technology has only ever been used for piracy. I've never encountered a legit use for it.

a hhttp://www.debian.org/CD/torrent-cd/

Re:Prison (1)

Uhyve (2143088) | more than 2 years ago | (#40455771)

World of Warcraft patches, though yeah, nobody plays that anymore *rolls eyes*. Actually quite a few MMOs are now using their own custom bit torrent clients to share patches instead of having an unneeded patching infrastructure in place. Also yeah; Linux, Open Office, Eclipse. It's a shame that nobody has compiled a list so we can just c&p the counter argument to that common hyperbole.

Re:Prison (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 2 years ago | (#40456707)

As far as I'm concerned, if you're running BitTorrent you deserve to go to prison.

I seeded the book I wrote, BT is the only place it's available (unless I email it to you). I also share a few Linux distros, Star Wreck, and movies that the makers want shared.

I've never encountered a legit use for it.

That's because you're a fucking dumbass with a two digit IQ who doesn't belong her. Now go away, MAFIAA shill.

Fuck OFF steve (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40454475)

Your mom did last night.

What about a home run policy? (4, Funny)

ravenscar (1662985) | more than 2 years ago | (#40454479)

For every three strikes policy there should be a home run policy. A home run would be a crime of such complexity and grand proportion that its perpetrators would get off free and clear. The US seems to have an unspoken home run policy that is frequently applied to those who work on Wall Street. The UK has a similar policy in their own investment banking sector.

So, what would be a home run in this instance? Uploading the top 10 movies and songs of 2012 onto every web-connected machine?

Of course I jest.

Re:What about a home run policy? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40455653)

So, what would be a home run in this instance?

Replacing the CBS web page with a forward to another web page that actually has the entire current season of each show freely available for anyone who wants to catch up. Include links to the Amazon page to buy DVDs of prior seasons, and have non-invasive, passive banner ads above and below the video stream.

CBS would get some letters thanking them for the new, user-friendly web site. When they eventually fix the hack, they'll get flooded by demands to change it back.

(I want to see this year's back-episodes of NCIS, not just the latest 4 and a two-parter from earlier in the year!!!!)

Re:What about a home run policy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40455793)

Additionally, a 3-strikes rule for government and industry should apply as well. Get caught performing some misdemeanor three times, lose your privileges to conduct business / political affairs. This whole 3-strikes thing could really benefit society, if employed across the board.

Re:What about a home run policy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40456461)

unspoken home run policy that is frequently applied to those who work on Wall Street

Also Presidents: Andrew Johnson (Impeached & acquitted), Harry Truman (never charged), Richard Nixon (Resigned & pardoned), William Clinton (Impeached & acquitted), George Bush Jnr (never charged)

SPONGE (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40454629)

Is 3ying.Things OpenBSD, as the (I always bring my

Guilty until you pay up (4, Informative)

Mr_Silver (213637) | more than 2 years ago | (#40454697)

I can't believe the submitter missed out the worse bit!

From the BBC News [bbc.co.uk] :

Suspected internet pirates will have 20 working days to appeal against allegations of copyright infringement and must pay £20 to do so, according to revised plans to enforce the UK's Digital Economy Act.

So now you're automatically assumed guilty .. and can only prove you're innocent after you've paid for the "privilege" to do so!

Re:Guilty until you pay up (2)

jeremypbennett (1829930) | more than 2 years ago | (#40455195)

But the BBC did note how sluggishly the bureacracy was dealing with this aspect of the DEA. Anyone would think the civil service could see a disaster in the morning (contrary to the popular image, some of the guys at the top are really quite clever). It's taken them two years to do this first consultation and the BBC suggested it won't come in until 2015 (curiously just around the time of the next general election). I am tempted to suggest that the £20 fee has been inserted to ensure public outrage in the run up to a general election, thus ensuring this law will collapse. Surely civil servants wouldn't be so devious in undermining the will of Parliament. Oh yes they would minister!

Re:Guilty until you pay up (3, Informative)

digitig (1056110) | more than 2 years ago | (#40456791)

I can't believe the submitter missed out the worse bit!

From the BBC News [bbc.co.uk] :

Suspected internet pirates will have 20 working days to appeal against allegations of copyright infringement and must pay £20 to do so, according to revised plans to enforce the UK's Digital Economy Act.

So now you're automatically assumed guilty .. and can only prove you're innocent after you've paid for the "privilege" to do so!

No. After the three warnings, if you don't appeal to any of the warnings, your details are passed to the copyright owners who may choose to take legal action through the courts. The £20 (refundable if you win) is for if you want to avoid having to bother with due process; it isn't part of the due process which is still there. This looks to me to be a big improvement over the existing system where the first you might hear of copyright infringement accusations is a court summons.

How many? (1)

Sfing_ter (99478) | more than 2 years ago | (#40454773)

Soon we will see just how many David Camerons, Tony Blairs and Gordon Browns there are in Britain...

Back door revenue stream? (3, Interesting)

andy16666 (1592393) | more than 2 years ago | (#40454825)

"...to those who infringe above a certain threshold."

The sliding window approach allows ISPs to harvest just enough infringers to keep big content supplied with a steady stream of lawsuits with ready-made payouts. Not that big content is suffering in any measurable way from copyright infringement to begin with. The problem with these approaches is that they falsely assume that every download is another lost sales opportunity. The flaw in their reasoning here is that people's pockets don't suddenly get deeper as soon as they have no choice but to pay for content...they just view less content.

Very telling (4, Interesting)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 2 years ago | (#40455067)

It's interesting when you think about it. The media producers are pushing for the so-called pirates to be punished by removing their ability to pirate or assist others in doing so by uploading.

If they were truly motivated purely by profit, wouldn't they be pushing instead for massive civil penalties, or perhaps some sort of tax?

Banning pirates from the internet does little to increase profits even IF you follow MAFIAA logic that every single pirated file equates to one "stolen" sale, because where are people most likely to buy music? Online.

This leads to several possible conclusions (ranked in order of probability (by my analysis), descending):
1) The entire music/film industry is basically panicking and is unable to think straight due to the massive upheavals caused by the Internet, and they're lashing out like a scared animal.
2) They actually do not care about pure profits, but are instead concerned primarily with maintaining control of distribution, making this as much an attack on iTunes as The Pirate Bay.
3) They are fully aware of how ineffective this will be at curbing piracy, and plan to use this as a stepping-stone to something bigger and worse ("Look, even with the Three Strikes law, we're still making only billions of dollars per minute, we need a law that taxes people by the megabyte to use the Internet because they might use it for PIRACY!").
4) They're just a pawn in someone else's Evil Master Plan.

Re:Very telling (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40455613)

If they were truly motivated purely by profit, wouldn't they be pushing instead for massive civil penalties, or perhaps some sort of tax?

In many countries, they are already getting the tax: Every hard drive purchased includes a tax, which is sent to the music industry. Yes, really.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_copying_levy

The fines now applied are just double dipping by the music industry.

Get the tax, and the fine.

Get it all.

Re:Very telling (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40456371)

How about:
5) All of the above.

Don't see any of the other points as being completely mutually exclusive.

ISPs need to pick a side (1)

nashv (1479253) | more than 2 years ago | (#40455115)

Assuming they want to retain their customers, this should spark a competition between ISPs to demonstrate , ironically, their incompetence at implementing relevant monitoring processes.

The next time a lawyer asks them for a user's data transaction list, they should be saying "Oh sure, here is a list of PING request sent from this users connection since January...."

How about record-destruction and rapid IP changes? (0)

davidwr (791652) | more than 2 years ago | (#40455373)

How about if ISPs

1) didn't keep IP address records longer than a week or two

2) For new customers who didn't opt out and for existing customers who opt in, you get a new IP address every time your device tries to get or renew a DHCP-issued IP address. Set DHCP lease times at less than 2 weeks.

Unless the copyright industry was fast with the subpoenas, there wouldn't be any way to identify who the alleged offender was.

Artists (2)

CanEHdian (1098955) | more than 2 years ago | (#40455409)

Don't forget that this is all done to "protect the Artists" (we all know the truth, but most don't).

It is therefore reasonable to attack the artists that come out in favour.

The Telegraph article has a photo of Adele. Don't know her opinion, but either they come out against soon or they are presumed in favour (though for 20 quid I will review their case) Boo outside their concerts. Use "xxx Kills The Internet!" Or, organize a public "CD burning" (have some real ones, have a bunch that you printed covers with a quality colour printer). The point is: make it personal. It's no longer the Grey Anonymous Regulatory Organization that is the bad guy. Give them a face.

But: make sure to not bother those artists that come out against, to the contrary, support them.

ID by IP? (1)

cvtan (752695) | more than 2 years ago | (#40455617)

This is sort of like people getting parking tickets when they are not responsible for the infraction. If my 18+ grandchild parks my car illegally, I get the ticket even though there is no proof that I parked it. Things like this happen all the time, but I wonder how. Maybe a parking ticket is not considered a criminal offense like a moving violation??

UK is officially... (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40455655)

U$A little bitch...

How about the ISPs grow some balls (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40456031)

And tell the media companies to fuck off, by blocking every site owned by any of them and all major sites that they have content on?
If every one of them done it at the same time, you can bet your ass every single person would complain.

These idiotic ISPs keep trying to bring up some sort of notice about these things and just hide it it behind 404s or whatever other scrubby methods of denying content.
LET PEOPLE KNOW AND THEY WILL TAKE ACTION.

Seriously.

Simples (1)

maroberts (15852) | more than 2 years ago | (#40456185)

Download all the crap you want within a single calendar month, then get one letter. Wait 6 months till you need more stuff and repeat, getting 2 letters in a year and not enough to trigger the restrictions.

It's nicely fragile. (2)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 2 years ago | (#40456635)

"Oh you've got evidence that this person was infringing? Well, it's a dynamic IP, so we can't guarantee that's the same person..."
(a week goes by)
"Oh right, so you've somehow worked out that it is? Yeah, I guess it does look like it fits a pattern of a single user. Is that definitely copyright-infringing material?"
(a week goes by)
"Yeah fair enough, you can apply for the anonymised details. Just sign here... and here... and here... and have your solicitor sign here... here... and, uh, here... Good. And how do you want to pay for that admin fee? Ah, we don't take Amex."
(a week goes by)
"Right here's your anonymised data"
(a month goes by, while the court paperwork gets filed, lost, refiled, buried in a peat bog, posted to Azerbaijan and eventually found in the ruins of a disused hospital somewhere near Glasgow)
"Oh, the contact details? Sure, just need you to sign here, here, and here... cool, and your solicitor needs to sign here, here, here, here and here... Lovely. Now, how would you like to pay the admin fee?"
(a week goes by)
"Oh, the contact details? Sorry, it's run over its time limit and we've wiped them. Would you like me to send out new forms?"

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?