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!

BPI Requests ISPs Suspend Suspected Filesharers

timothy posted more than 8 years ago | from the sounds-like-a-reasonable-approach-overall dept.

224

MartinJW writes "The British Phonographic Industry (BPI) has written to two of the UKs larger ISPs, Tiscali and Cable & Wireless, asking them to suspend the accounts of 59 users they have identified as 'illegal file sharers.' The BPI says they have 'unequivocal evidence' of IP addresses that were used to upload 'significant quantities' of music. Although the IP addresses were used to identify the ISPs involved, the providers are the only people able to identify the exact individuals responsible. This marks a significant change in the BPI's tactics; previously they have targeted individuals but it seems that they are now taking it one step further and requesting the ISPs take decisive action to uphold the terms in their own 'acceptable use policies.'"

cancel ×

224 comments

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

I pay a tax on blanks (5, Insightful)

DrSkwid (118965) | more than 8 years ago | (#15696238)

so I will download the content I have paid to "pirate"

Re:I pay a tax on blanks (5, Informative)

arkhan_jg (618674) | more than 8 years ago | (#15696249)

There's no blank media tax in the UK as far as I'm aware, it's one of the few countries in the EU that doesn't have one.

Re:I pay a tax on blanks (4, Funny)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 8 years ago | (#15696313)

Shhhhhhhh its about the only thing we aren't taxed for.

Re:I pay a tax on blanks (4, Funny)

Gerzel (240421) | more than 8 years ago | (#15696482)

Exactly that's why we(the US) left.
Stamp Taxes
Sugar Taxes
Tea Taxes!

Bah you British.

Re:I pay a tax on blanks (1)

Duds (100634) | more than 8 years ago | (#15696605)

Neither sugar nor tea has any tax at all. Like most essential foods they're sales-tax exempt.

Re:I pay a tax on blanks (1)

Don_dumb (927108) | more than 8 years ago | (#15696381)

Although they still attract VAT dont they?

Re:I pay a tax on blanks (1)

CommunistHamster (949406) | more than 8 years ago | (#15696577)

Everything attracts 17.5% vat except uncooked food, childrens clothing and books.

Re:I pay a tax on blanks (1)

DrSkwid (118965) | more than 8 years ago | (#15696385)

hehe I could have sworn .....

I thought it was started in the 1990s with video & cassette tapes but I was wrong (a seemingly increasing phenomena, I must be feeling my age!)

Here's a 2001 article where various EU states were mulling it over

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1120199.stm [bbc.co.uk]

Re:I pay a tax on blanks (4, Informative)

Pofy (471469) | more than 8 years ago | (#15696415)

The other countries in EU that doesn't have any such tax or levy are Ireland, Malta, Cyprus and Luxembourg. On the other hand, in UK, Ireland and Malta there is really no allowance for private copies at all with the exception of things such as time shifting. Which means Luxembourg and Cyprus is about the only place in EU were you are both free to make various private copying and avoid paying such taxes or levys on media or equipments.

Here is a link to a document I found the information above, it holds quite a lot of information:

(Stakeholder Consultation on Copyright Levies in a Convergin World)
http://www.ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/ docs/levy_reform/stakeholder_consultation_en.pdf [europa.eu]

Re:I pay a tax on blanks (1)

rikkus-x (526844) | more than 8 years ago | (#15696646)

How come if you buy CD-Rs labelled as 'audio', 'for music', or similar, they cost several times the price of 'data' CDs? Is this not a tax?

Re:I pay a tax on blanks (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 8 years ago | (#15696364)

First off, this is about sharing or making available, not downloading. I have yet to hear of any action against downloaders. Could someone point to an instance if ever there was one?

Secondly, as another commenter wrote, there's no media tax in the U.K. But even if there were, it doesn't account for sharing, just downloading or local copying.

But one thing I would love to see is a case in which someone were sued for acquiring or otherwise being in posession of entertainment content on media that has been taxed. I'd like to see the argument made by the defendant that they already paid for the privilege through blank media taxes. And I'd be ecstatic to see the defense prevail on that argument. But as I initially indicated, I seriously doubt the first step in my fantasy would ever occur.

Re:I pay a tax on blanks (1)

Pofy (471469) | more than 8 years ago | (#15696401)

That tax is for legal copying though, not illegal one.

Re:I pay a tax on blanks (2, Insightful)

kaiidth (104315) | more than 8 years ago | (#15696679)

But legal copying by its very nature is untaxable - if you in your country have such a concept as fair use (we don't, though, in the UK), enabling you to legally copy then there is no justification to extract a levy for exercising that right. You paid for the original resource, so you already have the right to do with it whatever is legal in your country. Why donate further cash for no reason?

If it weren't for the fact that the government in the UK are utterly without capacity for rational thought, I would suspect that this is one of the reasons why they do not support the idea of taxing blank media. It isn't a very logical step to make.

Re:I pay a tax on blanks (1)

slippyblade (962288) | more than 8 years ago | (#15696705)

**if you in your country have such a concept as fair use (we don't, though, in the UK)**

Don't feel bad, in the USA we have a "Fair Use" in theory. In practice fair use has been trumped by things like the DMCA and similar laws.

damn dyslexia (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15696240)

must be the penicillin but i read that as pornographic, not phonographic :-/

Re:damn dyslexia (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15696441)

must be the penicillin but i read that as pornographic, not phonographic :-/
Either way, they're still whores...

Re:damn dyslexia (3, Funny)

RsG (809189) | more than 8 years ago | (#15696487)

Either way, they're still whores...
I respectfully disagree. It is my understanding that whores provide a pleasurable service for money. Lawyers and record company executives, on the other hand, do the opposite - and then charge you for the priveledge.

Please don't impinge on the good name of whores :-)

Not going to be a problem (4, Insightful)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 8 years ago | (#15696243)

Tiscali at least will fold like wet paper. They do not even have binary newsgroups because usenet is mostly used for piracy according to their helpdesk.

Tiscali heeft 1 nieuwsserver, namelijk news.tiscali.nl. Deze nieuwsserver geeft alleen tekst bestanden weer en ondersteunt dus geen binaries. Tiscali heeft hier bewust voor gekozen omdat binarie servers veelal gebruikt worden voor het illegaal downloaden van auteursrechtelijke bestanden. Tiscali stimuleert juist de legale verspreiding van auteursrechtelijke bestanden via tiscali.music en tiscali.video.

In dutch but I doubt it will be different for the english branch.

Sadly at the moment it ain't my choice to use them. It ain't my connection and for 1 year getting a second line installed is to expensive but I can't wait to get my xs4all account back.

Oh and did anyone else notice that if this happens then people are being punished without ever having seen a judge or even a police officer. No sworn in official will be involved just people from two companies. Welcome to the justice system of the 21st century.

Re:Not going to be a problem (4, Interesting)

grasshoppa (657393) | more than 8 years ago | (#15696258)

Oh and did anyone else notice that if this happens then people are being punished without ever having seen a judge or even a police officer. No sworn in official will be involved just people from two companies. Welcome to the justice system of the 21st century.

Grand stand much?

A private business has every right to refuse service to anyone, for any reason ( despite what the equal rights groups may tell you ).

This isn't a government organization exacting punitive measures against citizens on a private organizations say-so. This is one private org asking another to "punish" their customers.

Their paying customers. Which to me seems like a bad idea. But whatever.

Not correct (2, Informative)

aepervius (535155) | more than 8 years ago | (#15696303)

In many EU country, you cannot refuse to serve somebody on ground of gender, disablities, religion or race, nationality (well I should say skin color since the concept of race for human is blatantly bunk). There are naturally a few exception (like where serving a disabled person where it would be impossible to ensure their security or would be contrary to the purpose of the service), but the law is quite clear on that point. And I think the anti segregation law are the same in the US (feel free to correct me on that one). So yes, *NO* private business offering a service to the public have a right to refuse service for those reason. No granted they can come up with anything else : financial reason for example, or that you have an obnoxious attitude degrading the quality of service to other client. But bottom line, your "for any reason (despite.... tell you)" is bunk.

Re:Not going to be a problem (4, Informative)

arkhan_jg (618674) | more than 8 years ago | (#15696316)

A private business has every right to refuse service to anyone, for any reason ( despite what the equal rights groups may tell you ).

Under UK and EU law, you're entirely wrong. You cannot refuse service based on race, sex, age, disability and now I believe religion - based upon the Race Relations Act, Disability Discrimination Act and Equal Opportunities Act.

'Needing my internet fix' however, I believe doesn't fall under any protected class at this time.

Re:Not going to be a problem (1)

irw (204684) | more than 8 years ago | (#15696437)

Your post would have been so much more useful if you'd cited your references.

The Race Relations Act 1976 is not yet on OPSI.

The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (III,19) [opsi.gov.uk] says (amongst other things):

19.(1) It is unlawful for a provider of services to discriminate against a disabled person (a) in refusing to provide, or deliberately not providing, to the disabled person any service which he provides, or is prepared to provide, to members of the public;

The Equal Opportunity Act 1984 is not yet on OPSI.

For those thinking (correctly) that no party can be forced to enter into a contract against their will, recall that a general announcement of goods or of a service (e.g. an advertisement, a price tag) is an offer, indicating willingness to enter into a contract.

Re:Not going to be a problem (1)

Pofy (471469) | more than 8 years ago | (#15696496)

>For those thinking (correctly) that no party can be forced to enter into a
>contract against their will, recall that a general announcement of goods or of a
>service (e.g. an advertisement, a price tag) is an offer, indicating willingness
>to enter into a contract.

Are you talking about UK specific or in general? Because if you talk in general it is not true. In many countries such general announcements, advertising and such are not an offer for a contract but a more of a show of products or goods (don't know the correct english law terminology though). For it to be a binding offer for a contract, it has to be at leats somewhate targeted to more limited groups of people.

Re:Not going to be a problem (1)

matress (871339) | more than 8 years ago | (#15696544)

In UK law, and generally across the common law world (as far as I know at least), just showing a price tag or advertisement is an invitation to treat, that is, an indication of willingness to negotiate for the item advertised. For it to be an offer, there has to be an intention to be bound on sufficiently certain terms. If you have these two things you can in fact make an offer to all the world.

Re:Not going to be a problem (3, Funny)

FireFury03 (653718) | more than 8 years ago | (#15696447)

'Needing my internet fix' however, I believe doesn't fall under any protected class at this time.

You could probably start a religion requiring Internet access though :)

Re:Not going to be a problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15696326)

Water supply is a private business in the UK. Would you argue for their right to refuse service?

Yes, I realise internet access isn't quite up there with water, but consider that at least one country has judged it to be human right, and that depending on where you live, some UK government services are only practically available online.

Re:Not going to be a problem (4, Insightful)

bitkari (195639) | more than 8 years ago | (#15696426)

Parent makes an incredibly important point here in comparing water with the internet - it is, or at least soon will be, a vital utility for people living this century.

So much of our daily lives are being carried out online. The much-vaunted "digital divide" is something that governments are at pains to resolve, otherwise they will see a new social underclass evolve, and will lose general productivity amongst their population.

One can see, then, that if industry groups such as the BPI are able to remove someone from being online now, this could set a dangerous precedent for the future that would see large companies [or their representatives] being able to control who is or who is not online with out any legal oversight whatsoever.

Re:Not going to be a problem (1)

zakezuke (229119) | more than 8 years ago | (#15696588)

Parent makes an incredibly important point here in comparing water with the internet - it is, or at least soon will be, a vital utility for people living this century.

So much of our daily lives are being carried out online. The much-vaunted "digital divide" is something that governments are at pains to resolve, otherwise they will see a new social underclass evolve, and will lose general productivity amongst their population.

One can see, then, that if industry groups such as the BPI are able to remove someone from being online now, this could set a dangerous precedent for the future that would see large companies [or their representatives] being able to control who is or who is not online with out any legal oversight whatsoever.


Agreed... though I would not consider it as vital as water, more along the lines of telephone. It is communication after all. You'll have to excuse me for being ignorant on the practices of telemarketers.... While I know that you can complain to an ISP regarding spam in the hopes they will drop the user, I don't think the same holds true for telemarketing. But the way I see it if the BPI wants to issue a complaint under penality of purgery or the UK legal equlivent that a user is infringing on one of their member's works... and this complaint results in terminination, then they also have to be fully accountable if they are wrong. This would include any damages their claim makes, including the extra money you have to spend to shop in a store rather than hitting the website and electing local pickup.

Hogwash... (1)

Ogemaniac (841129) | more than 8 years ago | (#15696683)

I know people who still choose to live without TELEPHONES, let alone the internet.

Is the internet useful? Yes. Comparable to food, clothes or shelter? Absolutely not.

Might still be breach of contract (1)

Lonewolf666 (259450) | more than 8 years ago | (#15696345)

Once the ISP has agreed to deliver a service, he is bound to that contract. IANAL but I think refusing to provide the service would be a valid reason for the customer to cancel the ISP contract immediately and take his business somewhere else.
An interesting side note (from Germany, where I live):
ISPs frequently offer a nice hardware package (DSL router, often with WLAN) in exchange for a minimum contract duration of 1-2 years. If the provider now breaks the service contract, chances are that you could cancel the ISP contract and keep the goodies. Of course, you'd better NOT do this if you have reason to believe that "they" can prove you have illegaly distributed other peoples' IP.

Re:Not going to be a problem (2, Insightful)

pimpimpim (811140) | more than 8 years ago | (#15696376)

It's not about refusing a service, but about a breach of contract. If you are in breach with their Acceptable Use Policy, which will likely state that you should not spread illegal content, then they have all rights to end your contract, both the provider and the user agreed with this at the start of the contract.

An end of a contract happens all the time, you can end your contract with your employer if you don't like your work, the other way around, etc. etc. Therefore you shouldn't see this as a punishment, you won't get a criminal record, or have to get involved into the court system. Everybody wins! The worst that can happen is that you'd have to pay your remaining fees for the planned duration of the contract, but I'm not even sure if that will be the case.

Re:Not going to be a problem (1)

Pofy (471469) | more than 8 years ago | (#15696421)

>If you are in breach with their Acceptable Use Policy, which will likely state
>that you should not spread illegal content, then they have all rights to end
>your contract, both the provider and the user agreed with this at the start of
>the contract.

And who decide if you have done that or not? Some third party entity just claiming so? Typically that (if you commit an illegal act or not) is decided by courts.

Re:Not going to be a problem (1)

timbo_red (112400) | more than 8 years ago | (#15696499)

And who decide if you have done that or not? Some third party entity just claiming so?

No. Have you RTFA? Have you even RTF headline? It says "BPI requests ISP's Suspend Suspected Filesharers". "Requests", not "orders". The decision will be taken by the ISP, who are party to the contract. The contract will incorporate the AUP, and will als specify what the ISP may do in the even that the AUP is breached, which will typically range from a warning through to termination of the account.

Typically that (if you commit an illegal act or not) is decided by courts.

Well, yes. But that isn't the issue at question here. The issue at question is whether you have breached the AUP. If you haven't, and the ISP cancels your account this may well be a breach of contract, which would be a relevant matter for the court to decide.

Re:Not going to be a problem (1)

Pofy (471469) | more than 8 years ago | (#15696606)

>No. Have you RTFA? Have you even RTF headline?

Of course I have. Have you read my post?

>It says "BPI requests ISP's Suspend Suspected Filesharers". "Requests",
>not "orders". The decision will be taken by the ISP, who are party to the
>contract.

Yes, and they can't determine that you commit an illegal activity any more than the BPI or anyone else EXCEPT police/courts. Those are the only ones to decide or determine if you commit an illegal activity. Hence, the ISP can't on their own decide you commited an illegal activity and shut you down. Which is exactly what I was saying.

>Well, yes. But that isn't the issue at question here. The issue at question is
>whether you have breached the AUP.

Were were talking about the situation were you would commit a copyright infringement, which is a legal issue. For you to breach an agreement of not doing illegal acitvities, you must first have been determined to have done something illegal which only courts can do. Again, this is exactly my point.

So it has nothing to do with the AUP or agreement iwth your ISP, it would be a case of the IS acting contrary to their agreement. Basically the BPI is asking the ISP to ignore the contract with their customer of providing their serivce and terminate the agreement in a situation were there is no decision yet by any authority that you have acted illegally. Again, this was the point I made. It has nothing to do with folloinw their AUP or agreements, it is acting in direct opposite of it.

Re:Not going to be a problem (1)

pimpimpim (811140) | more than 8 years ago | (#15696651)

Let's take the Terms and Conditions [tiscali.co.uk] of tiscali uk. I remove the stuff about the user not paying etc. since those are easy to prove and trivial. The main question is, who decides 'what is illegal'.

...
2.2 We can end the service immediately if:
2.2.1 you fail to meet any of these terms and conditions (including but not limited to clause 5);
...
2.2.4 you use abusive or threatening behaviour while using the service.
...

Does tiscali go to court to prove that you have or have not been using threatening behaviour? They won't. You might, if you want to stand in your right, but do you really want to? Won't you get into more troubles if you actually go this procedure than just switch your provider? And what's so special about clause 5? Take a closer look:

5 Responsibility
5.1 You agree to use the service in line with our most recent instructions and also in line with all relevant laws, regulations and licences.
5.2 You agree not to use the service to transmit any material that may be considered illegal, defamatory, offensive, indecent or connected with any criminal offence.
5.3 Any advice or information, whether spoken or in writing, that you get from us will not create any guarantee that is not specifically referred to in these terms and conditions.
5.4 The service is only meant for residential purposes. You must not use it for business or commercial purposes, or to resell the services to anyone else. We can monitor your calls to check whether or not your call patterns are what we would expect for a residential customer.

So, the BPI goes to tiscali, gives them server logs of whatever, that connect your ip to some 'indecent' (how the hell is that defined) activity. Will tiscali bring that to court? They might have some internal commission to judge on this, but at first hand they'll decide themselves if they turn your connection off or not. Probably if you are spreading lots of copyrighted content, you are a heavy dsl user and they might just activate the Fair Use Policy on you. Why not? In the end, it's damaging all their other costumers. And what's this 5.4? Seems pretty nasty and vague. If you just sum this all up, the ISP is more likely to try and find causes to put away with 'problematic' users than to keep them. You can always bring this to court, but do you really want to spend money and time on that?

Re:Not going to be a problem (2, Informative)

asuffield (111848) | more than 8 years ago | (#15696422)

An end of a contract happens all the time, you can end your contract with your employer if you don't like your work, the other way around, etc. etc


Under UK law, an employer CANNOT end your contract if they "don't like your work". They have to prove (before the unfair dismissal tribunal that is now almost inevitable) that you are incompetant, acting in bad faith, or that they have made a determined effort to explain why they don't like you and to get you to change your behaviour. The employee is free to leave, but the employer can't do anything without a good reason.

Short of willful destructive behaviour (calling the customer a faggot), genuine inability to perform the task (hired as a software developer but doesn't know how to write code), or continued disobedience (you were told in writing not to wear fishing waders to work but continued anyway), it's almost impossible to fire somebody.

UK companies very rarely fire people nowadays. Instead, they either engage in 'constructive downsizing' (where you fire x% of the least productive parts of your workforce to cut costs, but can't show favouritism), or they approach the problematic employee and offer them three months salary if they'll resign now and not come back. Most employees are willing to be paid off, especially since it guarantees them a decent reference (you can't give somebody a bad reference unless you fired them - more laws about that stuff).

UK law is often like this. It only recognises free contracts between equals. Two citizens are equals and can form any contract they like; a corporate entity and a citizen are probably not equals, the corporation is probably dictating the terms of the contract, so there are lengthly and complicated restrictions on what they can and cannot do, plus a truly immense quantity of case law about how that contract is to be interpreted.

I don't believe there is much precedent in the field of ISP AUPs, they're quite a recent invention that isn't quite the same as anything else. Courts could go either way on this, but it's entirely plausible under UK law that a court would reject a clause saying that the ISP could cancel the customer's account at whim. If this happened, and the customer can show actual damages as a result of their account being terminated (lost mail, websites offline, etc) then the court would almost certainly order the ISP to pay for it all. To the best of my knowledge there hasn't been a significant case like this yet, so this is rather speculative - but I don't think anybody in the UK legal industry would be particularly surprised by either outcome. Could go either way. IANAL, TINLA, etc.

Re:Not going to be a problem (2, Informative)

irw (204684) | more than 8 years ago | (#15696467)

Under UK law, an employer CANNOT end your contract if they "don't like your work".

Correct, but note that the Right not to be unfairly dismissed has a qualifying period, during which any dismissal is considered fair,

Employment Rights Act 1996 [opsi.gov.uk] (two years) reduced to one year by Statutory Instrument 1999/1436 [opsi.gov.uk] sections 2-4.

Re:Not going to be a problem (1)

timbo_red (112400) | more than 8 years ago | (#15696542)

it guarantees them a decent reference (you can't give somebody a bad reference unless you fired them - more laws about that stuff).

This is entirely anecdotal on my part, but I've heard that the outcome of this is that references are entirely fact based these days, rather than 'good' or 'bad' per se. For example, they may include details of attendance records, punctuality records, that kind of thing, so that the new employer gets the facts and can make a decision based on that.

Re:Not going to be a problem (0, Troll)

LubosD (909058) | more than 8 years ago | (#15696516)

I think that most of ISPs will just update their spam filters to automatically delete e-mails from organizations like BPI.

Who pays your ISP? You do, not BPI. So I think that most ISPs will protect their customers and ignore BPI-like organizations (that's current situation in my country).

Re:Not going to be a problem (2, Interesting)

sauron_of_mordor (931508) | more than 8 years ago | (#15696654)

Hmm the BPI has my IP address, the ISP has my personal details. The ISP cannot provide my detail to the BPI due to the data protection act. How will the BPI *know* whether or not the ISP terminated my contract? If the ISP cannot inform the BPI in a reliable fashion that they did terminate a particular account (after all the IP changes and is dynamic), then why should the ISP bother to lose a customer? SoM

Re:Not going to be a problem (1)

gsslay (807818) | more than 8 years ago | (#15696596)

Oh and did anyone else notice that if this happens then people are being punished without ever having seen a judge or even a police officer. No sworn in official will be involved just people from two companies. Welcome to the justice system of the 21st century.

Did you notice that the UAT of the ISP, that the people signed up to, forbids using the service for illegal file sharing? That these people are therefore in breach of a contract they have with the ISP? That therefore the ISP is within their rights to withdraw from that contract?

Welcome to the justice system of the 21st century.

Welcome to the notion of a legal contract, as has been since the 17th century. Where have you been?

Re:Not going to be a problem (1)

grim4593 (947789) | more than 8 years ago | (#15696700)

Sadly a good portion of Internet bandwidth is used for illegal file sharing. You don't think all that bandwidth is going towards Linux distro's and music videos do you? If they cut off their file sharers... guess what, no one needs high speed Internet anymore. Slow DSL, slow cable, hell even dial-up is good enough to read email and surf the web. If the ISPs cut off their customer base, then they WILL lose money.

Re:Not going to be a problem (1)

kkiller (945601) | more than 8 years ago | (#15696637)

Tiscali at least will fold like wet paper. They do not even have binary newsgroups because usenet is mostly used for piracy according to their helpdesk.

Does usenet have any other use these days? I thought it had been largely supplemented by mailing lists, bulletin boards and blogs?

optical delusion ? (0, Offtopic)

phreakv6 (760152) | more than 8 years ago | (#15696248)

oooh my eyes.. i read it as "The British Pornographic Industry (BPI)"...

Re:optical delusion ? (2, Insightful)

KinkyClown (574788) | more than 8 years ago | (#15696330)

I had the same delusion. Or is it just plain wishing?

You're not alone! (Was: optical delusion ?) (1)

Baracat (966816) | more than 8 years ago | (#15696459)

You know... Me too.

They'll give in, and they probably should... (3, Interesting)

HMC CS Major (540987) | more than 8 years ago | (#15696250)

ISPs have very strict AUPs, and will probably kill the cheap accounts rather than risk a lawsuit. Realistically speaking, if I were running an ISP, I'd do the same thing.

It's worth noting that the users may not be intentionally violating the (civil) law, it may just be open proxies or misconfigured P2P clients, in which case the accounts can be re-established later (after reasonable assurance that the problem's been 'fixed').

Re:They'll give in, and they probably should... (1)

scum-e-bag (211846) | more than 8 years ago | (#15696358)

ISPs have very strict AUPs, and will probably kill the cheap accounts rather than risk a lawsuit. Realistically speaking, if I were running an ISP, I'd do the same thing.

If the ISP gets paid by other networks to recieve data from the ISP then the ISP might think twice about closing accounts that create large amount of revenue for it.

Revenue... (1)

Savage-Rabbit (308260) | more than 8 years ago | (#15696444)

If the ISP gets paid by other networks to recieve data from the ISP then the ISP might think twice about closing accounts that create large amount of revenue for it.

I think the point he was trying to make is that the revenue generated by those users who own the accounts which are being used to illegaly download music generate less revenue than it would cost to deal with the flood of lawsuits from the BPI. Also keep in mind that in many European countries the party that loses a civil lawsuit pays the costs of the proceedings. I don't know if that's the case in the UK but even if it isn't any business person with a modicum of sense will draw the obvious conclusion which is: Close the filesharing users down and get the lawyers of your back cheaply.

Re:Revenue... (1)

Pofy (471469) | more than 8 years ago | (#15696504)

On the other hand, what lawsuit would the ISP lose and thus pay the costs for? If THEY were doing anything wrong, the BPI would obviously go after THEM, not the costumer. If the customer breaches an agreement with the ISP that is of no bussiness to anyone else than those two. A third party can't drag you to a court for not fullfilling an agreement between you and someone completely different.

Re:They'll give in, and they probably should... (1)

muftak (636261) | more than 8 years ago | (#15696530)

Most ISPs have to pay for thier bandwidth. 20% of the customers generate 80% of the traffic, so killing filesharers benefits the ISP.

Misconfigured my ass (1)

caitsith01 (606117) | more than 8 years ago | (#15696386)

It's worth noting that the users may not be intentionally violating the (civil) law, it may just be open proxies or misconfigured P2P clients


Which, as the innocent denizens of Slashdot often remind us, are no doubt being used for purely non-infringing purposes, such as downloading home made movies and Linux distros...

Or perhaps you meant 'misconfigured' in the sense of 'not running PeerGuardian'.

Realistically, it is quite likely that the individuals being targeted are uploading copyright material. The more significant question is whether this type of 'denial of service' justice is appropriate, especially when the apparent 'victim' is not the same company that is denying you access to their services.

Personally I find it very disturbing - take it far enough and we could have the power company switching off power to your home if the RIAA or non-US equivalent declares you a 'likely copyright thief'. Cue 'free market' rants, but in the end, if you are blacklisted by telcos you will not have Internet access, free market or not.

Re:Misconfigured my ass (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15696477)

Misconfigured my ass

Ewww

Re:Misconfigured my ass (1)

timbo_red (112400) | more than 8 years ago | (#15696531)

we could have the power company switching off power to your home if the RIAA or non-US equivalent declares you a 'likely copyright thief.

Sigh.

Have you explicity and voluntarily agreed to an Acceptable Use Policy with your power company stating that you will not make available for downloading any copyrighted material that you do not have the right to make available using a computer powered by their electicity?

War against Communism is a holy crusade! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15696253)

I hope illegal file sharers will be suspended ... from gallows. Communist ideas destroy human progress and protestant work ethics. Everything should be free, so nobody does anything, because nobody works for free. File sharers if they ever have a kid (since girls do not like losers) will raise their children to be lazy hippies, indulging, never diligent and the west will go down the sink. A hundred years ago the money-counting honest yank was the ideal and America became great and prosperous. Today it is Che Guevara t-shirt and China takes over the world.

Look on the bright side (1)

Umbral Blot (737704) | more than 8 years ago | (#15696254)

Well at least they aren't suing them. That means I still have a little respect for the BPI. (although not much)

Re:Look on the bright side (5, Informative)

arkhan_jg (618674) | more than 8 years ago | (#15696270)

The BPI have sued some people in the UK for copyright infringement, it's at the bottom of the FA.

"BPI has taken legal action in 139 filesharing cases. The four that have gone to court have produced verdicts in BPI's favour, while 111 individuals have settled out of court."

Remember, the RIAA and BPI are just the legal mouthpieces of the major international record labels. Anything they do, they do at the behest of:

        * Universal Music Group ($7 billion revenue), which includes A&M, Decca/London, Deutsche Grammophon, Geffen, Interscope, Island Def Jam, Motown, Philips, Rampagge, Universal, and others;
        * Sony BMG Music Entertainment ($5 billion), which includes: Arista, (American) Columbia, Epic, J, Jive, LaFace, Ravenous, RCA and others;
        * EMI Group ($4 billion), which includes Angel, Blue Note, Capitol, European Columbia, Elektrola, Odeon, Parlophone, Pathé Marconi, Positiva, Virgin and others;
        * Warner Music Group (a.k.a. WEA) ($2.5 billion), which includes Asylum, Atlantic, Elektra, Erato, Heiress, Reprise, Rhino, Rykodisc, Sire, Sub Pop (49% Warner ownership), and others.

Let this inform your music purchasing choices appropriately.

Re:Look on the bright side (2, Informative)

MadMoses (151207) | more than 8 years ago | (#15696392)

Here's an easy way to figure out if an album is a release...

from a BPI label:
BPI Radar [magnetbox.com]

from a RIAA label:
RIAA Radar [riaaradar.com]

I haven't used the BPI one yet, but I use RIAAradar all the time. My advice, for what it's worth, is to support the independant labels by buying their stuff. On the other hand, if you want a physical copy of a RIAA/BPI album, consider buying it used.

Do they have court? (1)

Antony-Kyre (807195) | more than 8 years ago | (#15696261)

Doesn't the U.K. have a court system? Don't those people deserve to go to court before having anything done to them? The BPI isn't even a government agency or anything, right?

Re:Do they have court? (1)

Unlikely_Hero (900172) | more than 8 years ago | (#15696268)

It doesn't really matter. BPI has a bunch of lawyers. That's really all that matters in the end. They have enough legal resources to make it so that its cheaper for the ISPs to just fold than to fight it out. Isn't it sick that legal systems designed to give the little guy a chance are still subject to this kind of crap? Consider the nuisance lawsuit itself, and why they're even legal. The idea of essentially punishing someone you dislike by filing meaningless suits when its barely a scratch on your finances but could cripple theirs. No one wants to fight a goliath. Extortion...just like it always has been.
Justice....pshhh...what a joke.

Re:Do they have court? (5, Informative)

arkhan_jg (618674) | more than 8 years ago | (#15696290)

The way this works, the BPI is asking the ISP's to enforce their Acceptable Use Policies. Since the AUP's UK users agree to are pretty draconian in order to get internet access, the ISP has the right to terminate our accounts at any time based upon breach of them. Of course, the ISP's don't actually monitor the traffic as such, because then they might be expected to catch all of the dodgy traffic going across their wires.

So in effect, the BPI are doing the same thing that anti-spammers do; ask the ISP to enforce their existing contract terms with the user, and terminate it for 'abuse'.

Once the contract is terminated, then the ISP is done. No further action would be taken by the ISP, so the courts don't get involved. Of course, the customer could start a civil suit against the ISP for breach of contract (good luck with that!), or breach of EU data privacy laws if the ISP handed personally identfying info over the BPI without a court-order. Note, I'm not a solicitor, so the previous paragraph could be complete rubbish, but it's how I understand it.

The BPI are a trade organisation, like the RIAA; no government powers at all. They have to go to court to pursue civil cases, or ask the police to investigate criminal cases, just like everyone else. This however is just one company asking another to enforce their contract against a 3rd party, i.e. the users. No doubt the ISP's will jump through hoops to do it though, they've not got a great history of standing up for their users against accusations that may or may not be true.

Re:Do they have court? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15696410)

Well, under the European Data Privacy act, the alledged offenders should ask for it to be produced. Proof - could be willfully misleading and deceptive making claims like that - maybe defamatory.
Those not doing anything dodgey should ask for their information, once the ISP publishes the addresses of the claimant/requestor.
Make them bleed in red tape for collecting information.

Re:Do they have court? (1)

Pofy (471469) | more than 8 years ago | (#15696433)

>The way this works, the BPI is asking the ISP's to enforce their Acceptable Use
>Policies. Since the AUP's UK users agree to are pretty draconian in order to get
>internet access, the ISP has the right to terminate our accounts at any time
>based upon breach of them. Of course, the ISP's don't actually monitor the
>traffic as such, because then they might be expected to catch all of the dodgy
>traffic going across their wires.

And how would the ISP now if you breached the contract in this particular case? Because someone just tells them they think that is the case? Should an ISP (or any part that enters into a contract) just accept any notice of breach by anyone? Of course not. In this particular case, the relevant part is if you do something illegal, only the police or courts can decide if you have done so. Unless they say so, you have not commited an illegal activity and hence have not breached the contract no matter how many outsiders may say so.

>Of course, the customer could start a civil suit against the ISP for breach of
>contract (good luck with that!),

Quite easy, they have a contract for an internet service and is not geting any at all. How hard is THAT?

Re:Do they have court? (1)

Don_dumb (927108) | more than 8 years ago | (#15696608)

Quite easy, they have a contract for an internet service and is not geting any at all. How hard is THAT?
Having seen my and some other peoples phone, internet and other (usually Direct Debit) service contracts, they usually have a clause that states something along the lines of "We withold the right to terminate the service/contract at any point". The principle being that if they want, they can stop providing the service and the contract ends at that point, if you have already paid for a period after that time then your going to have trouble getting you money back.

Unfortunately, for some of my friends it doesn't seem to work the other way around, when you want to stop your mobile contract because the phoneco isn't holding up their end of the deal, you either have to pay the rest of the contract (several months) or you have to get the bank to stop the Direct Debit (which the banks do not like doing) and ignore the bills that come through from the Phoneco.

My rather verbose point is that the contracts in the we sign in the UK, dont require the provider to really provide much service.

PS. Oh, and dont buy phones on 3mobile.

Re:Do they have court? (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 8 years ago | (#15696662)

you have to get the bank to stop the Direct Debit (which the banks do not like doing)

Really? It's three clicks with my Internet banking service (Barclays, for reference). The problems come when the telephone company decides that you are in their debt and notifies the agency responsible for your credit rating. A better bet is to pay, then take them to the small claims court for breach of contract and get the money back.

Re:Do they have court? (1)

AndrewRUK (543993) | more than 8 years ago | (#15696656)

>The way this works, the BPI is asking the ISP's to enforce their Acceptable Use >Policies. Since the AUP's UK users agree to are pretty draconian in order to get >internet access, the ISP has the right to terminate our accounts at any time >based upon breach of them. Of course, the ISP's don't actually monitor the >traffic as such, because then they might be expected to catch all of the dodgy >traffic going across their wires. And how would the ISP now if you breached the contract in this particular case? Because someone just tells them they think that is the case? Should an ISP (or any part that enters into a contract) just accept any notice of breach by anyone? Of course not.
An ISP can, and should, listen to complaints about the behaviour of its customers from anyone. They should not, of course, do anything unless the complaint includes good enough evidence that the customer has breached thwe contact between them and the ISP. When I send a complaint to an ISP about a spammer on their network, I include as much evidence as I can, and I would assume that the BPI have done the same.
In this particular case, the relevant part is if you do something illegal, only the police or courts can decide if you have done so. Unless they say so, you have not commited an illegal activity and hence have not breached the contract no matter how many outsiders may say so.
What makes you say that? The contract between ISP and customer could quite easily be worded in a way which mean that the ISP doesn't have to wait for a court to decide before they can cut off the customer. For example, my own ISP's terms of use state:
9.2 You shall not use the Services...to send, knowingly receive, upload, download, use or re-use any material which is...in breach of any copyright.
9.3 We shall have the right to enforce such provisions set out in paragraph 9.2 above by suspending or terminating in whole or in part the provision of the affected Services at our option to you if we reasonably believe that you are in breach of such obligations.
(Emphasis mine.)
They don't need to go to court, they don't need to be able to prove it beyond reasonable doubt, they only need to have a reasonable belief that a customer is in breach of that section (which also covers things like sending spam) to terminate service for that customer.
>Of course, the customer could start a civil suit against the ISP for breach of >contract (good luck with that!), Quite easy, they have a contract for an internet service and is not geting any at all. How hard is THAT?
You're missing a bit - they have a contract for an internet service that is conditional on them not doing certain things and is not geting any at all. Looking again at my ISP's terms, to be successful in a case for breach of contract against the ISP, a customer would have to show that on the balance of probabilities the ISP's belief that they had breached that section wasn't reasonable.

Re:Do they have court? (1)

Tim C (15259) | more than 8 years ago | (#15696560)

Since the AUP's UK users agree to are pretty draconian in order to get internet access

Speak for your own ISP's AUP; mine [eclipse.net.uk] isn't what I'd call draconian (scroll past the terms for the one month trial). In summary, my obligations are to obey the relevant laws, and not try to claim that it's Eclipse's fault if I get caught breaking one.

Re:Do they have court? (1)

Duds (100634) | more than 8 years ago | (#15696609)

Yes but since this isn't a legal matter that doesn't matter. It's an acceptable use policy.

It's just a business refusing to serve you. If you feel they've done it unfairly, THEN you can sue THEM.

I wonder . . . (4, Insightful)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 8 years ago | (#15696293)

What these kind of organisations would say if pirating were to totally dissappear and they still kept "losing" money.

Re:I wonder . . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15696324)

"What these kind of organisations would say if pirating were to totally dissappear and they still kept "losing" money."

That a new threat looms over the horizon of hard-working corporations everywhere. A criminal whose moral depravity knows no limits: the uninterested consumer. These social deviants have taken it upon themselves to decide what their purchasing habits should be, depriving corporations who have fairly bribed their elected officials of a potential sale. Depriving of them of their God-given right to make money.

This cannot go on, people. Think of the children, the terrorists have won, and you're either with us or against us.

Re:I wonder . . . (2, Funny)

gbobeck (926553) | more than 8 years ago | (#15696328)

What these kind of organisations would say if pirating were to totally dissappear and they still kept "losing" money.

I would venture a guess that they would make claims that the distinct lack of piracy is causing them to lose money. After making those initial claims, I bet they would start a campaign to sue people who purchase large ammounts of albums legally from their local music stores. Once they sue and ruin their most loyal customers, they will revert to their "piracy bad" statements and start the whole process over again.

Re:I wonder . . . (1, Flamebait)

scum-e-bag (211846) | more than 8 years ago | (#15696375)

They'd (US oil barons) create an enemy that no one could see (terrorists) and declare war on weaker nations (iraq) and plunder their resources to improve their bottom line (profit).

Re:I wonder . . . (1)

Elemenope (905108) | more than 8 years ago | (#15696676)

That we should make books illegal. After all, for competition they are the epitome of unfair (they don't require a player, they have free rental distribution, they don't effectively track users, they are portable, user friendly, and have low power consumption, and, goddamit, people have been training to use them since the age of five!), and clearly if there were fewer books distracting people, they would see more movies and listen to more music.

Going after the offenders (5, Insightful)

xav_jones (612754) | more than 8 years ago | (#15696322)

Everytime a story appears about the music or movie industry coming up with some draconian method[1] for protecting their copyright (illegal to even own circumvention devices, DRM, DMCA, etc etc) -- wherein it appears as though they assume all people are criminals unless they happen to have been proven innocent -- I usually think, 'Why don't they go after the offenders and leave the rest of us be?'

Now, in this case, they do appear to be going after the offenders and so good luck to them. I believe they do have a right to protect their copyright but I don't believe it should be at the expense of everyone, just those who are offending.

[1] Which (as a side "benefit") means you often cannot use your own legally purchased media in legally/morally accepted ways.

Re:Going after the offenders (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 8 years ago | (#15696377)

> Now, in this case, they do appear to be going after the offenders

Offender is a technical legal term describing someone who has been convicted of an offence. "They" are going after suspected offenders, which is what they always do, for varying values of "suspected". It remains to be seen how many 6 year olds, dead people and dogs are being included in this particular trawl.

Re:Going after the offenders (1)

xav_jones (612754) | more than 8 years ago | (#15696403)

Offender is a technical legal term describing someone who has been convicted of an offence.
My apologies for not including the full technical legal term.

It remains to be seen how many 6 year olds, dead people and dogs are being included in this particular trawl.
Doesn't that completely depend on how many 6 year olds, dead people and dogs are on the ISP's books? I thought "they" only had IP numbers.

And next time my dog is sharing the internet connection! I don't care, even if he uses those puppy dog eyes on me.

Re:Going after the offenders (1)

Pofy (471469) | more than 8 years ago | (#15696513)

Yes, but they should go after the offenders the proper way, that is through the police and the courts. They should not turn the judge themselves and then go after ISP's and ask the ISP to carry out the judgement.

ISPs are not going to like this (4, Insightful)

ravenspear (756059) | more than 8 years ago | (#15696327)

Even though most ISP AUPs prohibit illegal music downloading, most broadband providers know that illicit downloading is one of the primary allures of their service and that a significant portion of their customer base engages in it. Some even advertise the ease of it (albeit circumspectly) in their advertising. If they project the image that they actually enforce their AUPs that may drive customers to competing providers that are more willing to overlook such behavior.

ISPs move away from that practice in Sweden (5, Interesting)

peope (584706) | more than 8 years ago | (#15696338)

Here in Sweden ISPs have warned and disconnected people accused of copyright infringement.
However in recent time people have been aware of the issue and some ISPs has gone against the practice.
Nowadays ISPs here are reluctant to be known as a party to disconnect you because of those reasons.
Customers simply move away from their services.

Re:ISPs move away from that practice in Sweden (1)

scum-e-bag (211846) | more than 8 years ago | (#15696379)

Here in Australia similar things happen. ISPs forward emails to users whos IP has been identified by the the "so-called owners" of data. Further action beyond this is unheard of.

Well the problem is simple (3, Insightful)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 8 years ago | (#15696399)

If you can't use an ISP to "pirate" then why should you use it? At least in holland several ISP's have advertised with "download music/movies/games at high speed" while they had no service to offer these products in a "legal" manner. So where they advertising piracy?

Perhaps in the same way that a fast car ad advertises speeding. What after all is the point of a fast car when you can only drive as fast as everyone else?

ISP's might realize that there intrests are not the interests of the copyright holders. Same as xerox interests are not the interests of book publishers. If xerox made their copiers incapable of copying copyrighted works they might possibly find their entire market share collapsing faster then you can say "cheap chinese clones".

It reminds me a bit of those pay sex phone lines. Nobody likes them, banks hate doing business with porn companies. The phone company hates them because they are a hassle but both the banks and the phone company love the money they bring in. As long as you keep your company "clean" enough to touch they are happy to help you peddle smut.

Same with ISP's, while they would love to be just email and light web browwsing comapnies the momey is in p2p and porn. Nobody is going to need 24/7 super adsl to check their email.

AUPs need to go away (1)

Schraegstrichpunkt (931443) | more than 8 years ago | (#15696342)

This is somewhat offtopic, but if we want universal wireless Internet access (which we do... well I do), then eventually AUPs are going to have to go away, and network protocols that take this into account will have to be used (email and universal IPSEC come to mind)...

The most correct approach so far (5, Interesting)

erroneus (253617) | more than 8 years ago | (#15696344)

I'm really very sympathetic to the cause of file sharing. I only see the file-sharing-universe as the participant that I am. I don't do it all that much but I feel a bit grateful for those that share stuff... whether intentionally or not. (Hehehe... one of my favorite boredom-killing past times is to open a gnutella client and search for p*.jpg or *.doc or *.xls... you might be surprised as what people are stupid enough to share!)

As a rule, if I really want something, I buy it. I would like to assume (and from what I hear it's generally true) that when people fully appreciate something or functionally use it, they buy it. That goes for software, music, movies... whatever... okay, I admit I don't buy porn... but anyway.

But if ever there was a "correct" approach to their handling, this would be it. Their [the clients'] anonymity is preserved. They don't get a criminal record. They don't pay thousands to defend themselves. They don't settle for large amounts of money. And in my guess, the worst they might initially get is an interruption of service as a warning and probably resume connectivity (after turning off sharing) shortly thereafter and lives go generally unharmed.

It's not that bad really.

Re:The most correct approach so far (2, Funny)

scum-e-bag (211846) | more than 8 years ago | (#15696393)

Hehehe... one of my favorite boredom-killing past times is to open a gnutella client and search for p*.jpg or *.doc or *.xls... you might be surprised as what people are stupid enough to share!


Thanks! You've just entertained me for an evening.

Re:The most correct approach so far (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15696660)

Ok, from a practical POV the (maybe) filesharers were lucky.

But how on earth is this the right approach??

If the ISP gives in, some people were disconnected because a non-government(correct me if wrong) association thought they might be filesharers. There is no proof. And they didn't go through that entire pesky, time consuming judicial system (the one where people get a chance to defend themselves). Because an ISP was intimidated by the BPI. That sounds right to you?

I hope they give a little time before disconnect (5, Informative)

brunos (629303) | more than 8 years ago | (#15696363)

About 4 years ago, I was working in quite a large company that had many online shops all over the world. We had two connections to BT. One day they did not work anymore, we checked the equipment, all was OK, we phoned BT and they said that we had payd in time and that there was no problem at all. This basically took a lot of our servers down, and we lost a lot of money. The next day, whe phoned BT again and asked what had happened, and they told us that someone had posted a file to a newsgroup, and therefore they disconnected us. (The file in question was a BSD package). So a stupid employee at these companies can really do some damage without a proper legal procedures.

Is this only in the US? (2, Informative)

dteichman2 (841599) | more than 8 years ago | (#15696365)

In the US, our ISPs aren't supposed to filter or block anything, at all. It's what allows them to stay neutral parties. Does the UK have anything similar?

Re:Is this only in the US? (1)

paedobear (808689) | more than 8 years ago | (#15696511)

It's not clear - the cases that have gone to court have gone both ways. Mind you, I'd be stunned if anyone with any seniority in the government at any real level had any idea of technology at all. It's not that they're luddite, just ignorant.

Re:Is this only in the US? (1)

BenjyD (316700) | more than 8 years ago | (#15696520)

The law isn't so clear in the UK: rights like free speech don't seem to carry so much weight over here.

There was a case [bbc.co.uk] a while back where someone sued an ISP when they didn't remove libellous Usenet posts which was settled out of court in favour of the plaintiff. I'm not sure of the effect that has had on ISPs, or if the law has changed since.

So.. (0, Flamebait)

Frightening (976489) | more than 8 years ago | (#15696388)

Even if this madness ensues, the 59 people can sign up with another ISP that understands the internet within a week. They can then launch a blog-campaign or something to put the idiot ISP out of business.

There will always be hundreds of providers that allow all sorts of filesharing. If the ISP goes so far as to defame the users/cause blacklisting in other providers for this issue alone, lawsuits should fly, heads must roll.

Piracy is not always nice, but big brother is so much worse.

C&W (Bulldog) and Tiscali (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15696427)

I used to use Bulldog broadband until about a month ago. Their service was great in 6 months the connection didn't drop once. That was until I got a letter stating they were no longer signing up residential customers and were moving to business customers only. Within a couple of days after that their service went to pot. I was disconnected every 5-10 mins Needless they say if they cancel peoples accounts they really will not be bothered. As far as I aware tiscali have a max of 2gb download limit a month so there can't be much downloading there!

Better than being sued (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15696446)

It's better than being sued by the BPI, for sure!

Why shouldn't ISPs turn a blind eye? (3, Insightful)

IAmAI (961807) | more than 8 years ago | (#15696451)

In the article, it quotes Peter Jamieson, BPI chairman:

"We have said for months that it is unacceptable for ISPs to turn a blind eye to industrial-scale copyright infringement."

Is it really in the interest of ISPs to not turn a blind eye? As I see it, it is potentially against their interest: First of all, ISPs are barely, if it all, affected music piracy. In fact they may even benefit from 'pirates' choosing to use their service because they, for example, don't block P2P ports (although on the flipside, the increased bandwidth usage of P2P may be to their detriment). If I recall correctly, Tiscali attempted to set up a music store of some kind, which was thwarted, presumably by the music industry, so ISPs can't get in the way of effects of piracy, even if they wanted to! I'm fairly confident that piracy having a direct negative impact on the business is not a reason for why it is disallowed in their EULAs (legal requirement, minimisation of legal action against them are probably more likely reasons).

So even if ISPs kindly decided to be altruistic towards their fellow big business, the BPI, and help root out big-time pirates, they would have to go to all the trouble of trawling through all of its paying customer's activity, invading their privacy, handing them in as criminals and then loosing their custom. That seems like a great deal to give up for no gain!

Unequivocal? (2, Interesting)

Kaemaril (266849) | more than 8 years ago | (#15696468)

"We are providing unequivocal evidence of copyright infringement via their services"

I'd like to see that evidence. The article suggests it's IP addresses associated with uploads. At worst it's simply the IP address and at best surely it could only be a list of IP addresses and what they uploaded - i.e, IP address xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx uploaded (file) on (date and time) to (server).

Is that enough to be 'unequivocal'? And if so, since the article also suggests they're only after those who upload a lot ('It was unacceptable for ISPs to turn a "blind eye to industrial-scale copyright infringement", said BPI chairman Peter Jamieson.') why aren't they going after these guys for damages in court instead of going the easy route of simply shutting them off? After all, it's likely they'll simply go to another ISP ...

Re:Unequivocal? (2, Interesting)

Pofy (471469) | more than 8 years ago | (#15696517)

>And if so, since the article also suggests they're only after those who upload a lot....

Which makes one wonder how they know someone has uploaded "a lot".

Re:Unequivocal? (2, Informative)

Tim C (15259) | more than 8 years ago | (#15696568)

Which makes one wonder how they know someone has uploaded "a lot".

Well, you could simply download a lot from them, making a note of their IP address. Any IP that uploads more than X to you, you go after.

Yes, a lot of them will be dynamic IPs, in which case the ISP can simply reply to that effect and that's the end of it. However, a lot of people have static IP addresses - I've had one for about 5 years now at no extra cost, and a lot of ISPs hand them out either by default or on request, often for free.

Short of breaking down doors and confiscating PCs, there's not a lot they can do. The law gives them the right to protect their copyrights, you can hardly blame them for trying to do so. At least they're not just blanket suing people (at the moment...)

Pornographic music? (-1, Redundant)

Big Nothing (229456) | more than 8 years ago | (#15696510)

Did anyone else wonder why The British Pornographic Industry would care why filesharers share MUSIC?

By the fourth time i read the posting text i got it.

Re:Pornographic music? (1)

gsslay (807818) | more than 8 years ago | (#15696698)

Did anyone else wonder why every time the BPI is mentioned in a slashdot story someone posts this exact same observation?

Customers Pay the Cash (1)

segedunum (883035) | more than 8 years ago | (#15696594)

The music industry gets more money out of Britain than most other countries combined when it comes to music. Small wonder we're called 'treasure island'. It just seems really, really, really rich coming from them. They even seem to be completely redefining the definiton of ownership:

BPI has identified 17 Tiscali IP addresses and 42 Cable & Wireless IP addresses which were used to upload "significant quantities of music owned by BPI members".

Stuff them. I'd just give a two-fingered salute and move ISPs. However, it's difficult for ISPs because allowing file sharing makes them money, and I would imagine they will all be dragging their feet over this. It's the customers who pay the cash at the end of the day, and not the BPI, but I'd imagine they would eventually be wanting a slice of an ISPs revenue.

I wonder (1)

eipgam (945201) | more than 8 years ago | (#15696669)

I wonder how many of the people complaining about this (i.e. the ISP enforcing their AUP) are also the ones that complain when the ISP doesn't crack down on users spamming.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

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