×

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!

70% of P2P Users Would Stop if Warned by ISP

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the oh-hai-there dept.

Privacy 318

Umpire writes "As the UK considers a three strikes policy to fight copyright infringement, a new survey reports that 70% of UK broadband users would stop using P2P if they received a warning from their ISP. 'Wiggin commissioned the 2008 Digital Entertainment Survey, which found that 70 percent of all people polled said they would stop illegally sharing files if their ISP notified them in some way that it had detected the practice. When broken down by age group, an unexpected trend emerges: teenagers are generally more likely to change their behavior than older Internet users.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

318 comments

I'm in the 30% (3, Insightful)

TheDreadedGMan (1122791) | more than 6 years ago | (#22627736)

that would get disconnected??

Honesty (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22628176)

I don't really have a problem with the content-controllers who are going around trying to convince people that it is morally wrong to duplicate data. Their agenda and incentives are obvious, and to some degree, I can't blame them for trying.

I DO have a problem with people who sincerely believe that data duplication is morally wrong. We are talking about the arbitrary imposition of limitations of freedom of *every human soul* in the world to prevent the proliferation of an inexhaustible resource. This is utter madness.

It is different in the case of data that could be directly harmful to a person, such as account numbers, passwords, a social security number (or similar), embarrassing medical information, and so on. The free distribution of this kind of data has a very direct, and harmful, impact on a person. Real dollars that this person has earned, owns, and has in the bank, can be taken out of said bank, due to this data duplication. That is genuine theft, and it is enabled by the distribution of the data. I could accept that duplication of this kind of data is morally wrong, for this reason.

Duplicating a song or a movie does not have this kind of effect. You can't use an MP3 file to entice a bank to deliver someone else's money to you. That category of harm is just not there. It is true that the free duplication of this data means that the original creator may not get paid for every copy duplicated...but I submit that the expectation that he is entitled to receive money for every copy made is unnatural, unreasonable, needless, and ultimately harmful (as it encourages the deprivation of people's control over their own actions and over their own hardware which they have paid for).

Once upon a time such limitations on freedom may have been necessary. Today, there are not. Despite the free data duplication which is alive and well, and has been so for well over a decade, there is no shortage of new art production. The art industry is bigger than ever. We are doing just fine, and as such we don't need any peculiar notions of the immorality of data duplication (for intrinsically harmless data) in order to keep things humming along.

Don't submit to a system of "virtue" which was designed by rich people for the purpose of keeping themselves rich, to your detriment.

Unlikely? (3, Insightful)

Conception (212279) | more than 6 years ago | (#22627742)

Teenagers don't pay the bill? So, they don't want to get in trouble?

Re:Unlikely? (4, Insightful)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | more than 6 years ago | (#22627880)

Actually, it is more like the older users (as in, used a computer more in their lifetime), are more aware of what concequences the ISP can really do. After all, they AREN'T the copyright holders. They aren't the police. "And what the hell are you doing looking at my traffic anyway? If you are going to be like that, I'll just go somewhere else!"

Re:Unlikely? (4, Insightful)

shmlco (594907) | more than 6 years ago | (#22627954)

Nearly every ISP on the planet has terms of service, and almost all of them have provisions regarding the unauthorized distribution of copywritten material, child porn, hate speech, and so on.

From my perspective, enforcing those policies would be entirely within their mandate.

Re:Unlikely? (5, Insightful)

mpathetiq (726625) | more than 6 years ago | (#22628008)

Just because something is stated in a ToS doesn't mean it's legally stated in a ToS.

Re:Unlikely? (2, Insightful)

Firehed (942385) | more than 6 years ago | (#22628294)

Sure it does. Their terms say you can't do something. If you go ahead and do it anyways, they have every right to end your service.

That's about the extent of what they can do given the terms, but given how few options there are for internet connectivity, it's a fairly serious threat.

Re:Unlikely? (4, Insightful)

Locklin (1074657) | more than 6 years ago | (#22628318)

The terms say you can't do illegal things. The terms don't say that they reserve the right to snoop in on your communications.

The terms are there to protect the ISP from lawsuit when the client gets sued by a copyright holder - it's not a mandate to become the police.

Re:Unlikely? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22628366)

No it doesn't. I'm sorry, but you're just wrong. If they put in the terms "and you agree not to be gay" and then they find you having sex with a member of the same gender and end your service because of it you get sue them for breach of contract. Doesn't matter if you knew it was there or not, it's illegal for them to end your contract for that. That's a kinda extreme example, but any terms that aren't legal don't count.

Re:Unlikely? (1)

Secret Rabbit (914973) | more than 6 years ago | (#22628408)

They may only enforce there policy within the law though. And any civilised nation that I know of prohibits such an invasion of privacy and requires PROOF that such things are going on before action is taken.

Teens are afraid of their parents (2, Funny)

davidwr (791652) | more than 6 years ago | (#22627958)

--snip--
From: ISP
To: Teen
CC: Parents
Subject: We know what you did last Summer
Dear Teen, we know you've been pirating music. The people who make the music you love so much want you to know PIRACY IS THEFT!!!! If this doesn't stop we will have no choice but to SICK THEIR LAWYERS ON YOU!!!
--snip--

Later that day:

Mom: Susy, we have to talk. We don't care if you spend all night online with your 35 year old boyfriend who sends you dirty pictures, but this piracy thing stops NOW or no more Internet for you!

Susy: But mo-om!

No surprise (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22627750)

99% of people downloading copyrighted stuff know its illegal, and also realize its wrong, and that they should be paying the content creators. The temptation of easy free stuff is just too great for some people.
It's like speeding. people speed every day, until they get flashed by a speed camera and given points on their license or a fine. Then they suddenly start obeying the law they ignored.
This would be a win for everyone. Nobody wants to waste time suing potential customers. People should be warned, and then we can go back to a normal, functioning market.

Reading the data another way... (5, Insightful)

Tackhead (54550) | more than 6 years ago | (#22627752)

> When broken down by age group, an unexpected trend emerges: teenagers are generally more likely to change their behavior than older Internet users.'"

When broken down by who's paying the bills, an obvious trend emerges: People who have to answer to Mom and Dad as to why nobody in the family can get their email anymore are generally more likely to change their behavior than people can just buy another throwaway account.

Real change? (1)

KublaiKhan (522918) | more than 6 years ago | (#22627758)

But for -how long- is the question--perhaps just until the 'new version' comes out that'd keep 'em from being caught?

Re:Real change? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22627826)

Lots of luck with that. The P2P traffic pattern is a dead giveaway regardless of how you encrypt it.

Re:Real change? (1)

nevali (942731) | more than 6 years ago | (#22627870)

Yup, but I'm pretty sure none but the cheapest of El Cheapo ISPs would implement a policy of no P2P whatsoever.

P2P traffic patterns just say you're doing P2P, not what you're sharing with peers. Plenty of legitimate applications use P2P (Skype, iPlayer, 4oD, not to mention legal BitTorrent sources).

Re:Real change? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22628156)

So, ISPs will just ban encrypted P2P or unknown protocols. If it's legal, you've got nothing to hide.

But (5, Informative)

slapout (93640) | more than 6 years ago | (#22627768)

P2P != illegal file sharing

Re:But (4, Informative)

nevali (942731) | more than 6 years ago | (#22627830)

Notably posted the day that Trent Reznor releases a good chunk of an album on ThePirateBay (amusing in itself simply because of TPB's notoriety).

Re:But (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22627910)

It was released not just on TPB, but also several other torrent sites, including the so called 'oink replacements'.

Re:But (1, Redundant)

shmlco (594907) | more than 6 years ago | (#22628094)

Right. Only, what, 70-80% of the traffic consists of illegally distributed content? Hardly worth mentioning, really.

Re:But (0, Troll)

shmlco (594907) | more than 6 years ago | (#22628404)

If "P2P != illegal file sharing" is +5 "Informative", then remarking on the amount of traffic devoted to legal and illegal sharing is equally informative, and not trolling at all.

Percentages (1, Redundant)

Wowsers (1151731) | more than 6 years ago | (#22627772)

And now many users would tell their ISP to take a hike and move? It's not their job to "police" the internet, just provide the access to it. I told my last ISP to take a hike when they started to use "traffic shaping", even on stuff like VoIP (many saw it as a way of being cheap on bandwidth while charging a tonne - and like me left).

Re:Percentages (1)

everphilski (877346) | more than 6 years ago | (#22628144)

I told my last ISP to take a hike when they started to use "traffic shaping"

And if removing 5% of users like you results in 50% more bandwidth to dish out to commercial customers who pay waaay more than you do, in the end, on a spreadsheet, it's a net win for the provider. They won.

Re:Percentages (1)

Wowsers (1151731) | more than 6 years ago | (#22628272)

And if removing 5% of users like you results in 50% more bandwidth to dish out
The ISP had at that time already forced out of the user base all the "heavy" bandwidth hogs, they just thought they could turn the screws on everyone else and people would accept it, well they didn't. 10GB a month (what I was doing and includes VoIP) is not a bandwidth hog. They also kept the price up whilst cutting a whole load of stuff like Usenet access. I was not going to pay the same money for less service, maybe you'd put up with it, but many didn't.

Re:Percentages (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22628328)

And now many users would tell their ISP to take a hike and move? It's not their job to "police" the internet, just provide the access to it. I told my last ISP to take a hike when they started to use "traffic shaping", even on stuff like VoIP (many saw it as a way of being cheap on bandwidth while charging a tonne - and like me left).


<sigh>If only it were that easy</sigh> My apartment complex has an "exclusive" deal with Comcast. I hate Comcast. I'd love to be able to switch to RCN, or Verizon FIOS. I'd consider DSL, but I don't want to give up my 10 Mbps speed (yes, I do get that on download - I regularly download kernel source tarballs and get 1MByte/sec).

So when I got such a notice from my ISP, I reluctantly shut down Azureus and haven't fired it up since...

Stop, or stop now and try again later? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22627778)

That's all

Suggestive question (5, Insightful)

Yokaze (70883) | more than 6 years ago | (#22627790)

"Would you stop doing illegal things, when reprimanded by someone?"

Did they also asked: "Would you stop your perfectly legal activity, when reprimanded by your ISP?"?
Or: "Do you think it is right, that your ISP should monitor your activity on the internet?"

Re:Suggestive question (1)

IANAAC (692242) | more than 6 years ago | (#22627884)

I use bit torrent all the time. On one occasion I received an email from my ISP (Speakeasy) stating that they had received a letter from HBO stating that I was found to have been downloading a show (I was. This was prior to On Demand). That was the only time I ever received anything from them, and I regularly download ISOs via bit torrent.

On top of that, the email I received didn't even directly implicate me. Basically they suggested I "secure my wireless connection".

I believe, at least with Speakeasy, that they will only contact a user when they are contacted.

Re:Suggestive question (3, Informative)

dbolger (161340) | more than 6 years ago | (#22628310)

I used to work for the abuse department of a major Irish ISP. We received hundreds of emails a day about our users allegedly breaching copyrights. Some were from studios, most were from outfits like Web Sherriff [websheriff.com]. Under the law at the time (now sure how it goes these days), we were under no obligation to follow up on these and had no inclination to either. The vast majority of the mail was from automated systems and we bulk deleted them without even reading them. The very occasional would be written by a human (or at least, would be a boilerplate mail with a human contact's name attached). These got a boilerplate reply in turn, telling them that we were not required by law to enforce their copyrights, and referring them to the police if they wanted to make a complaint. We would of course have handed over our logs had we been requested to by the police, but in the two years I worked there, we never were.

Re:Suggestive question (1)

smallfries (601545) | more than 6 years ago | (#22627960)

What about: "Would you stop doing something that you weren't doing if somebody accused you of it with no real proof?

Re:Suggestive question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22628174)

Response based on first hand experience:

Several years ago I downloaded a torrent of a game based on a major movie franchise. Something or other from Lucas Arts. At that point I was still living with my parents and my father received an email from our ISP which stated the the IP holder had evidence of what I was doing and advised our ISP to disconnect service because of the activity. I haven't download anything illegaly since then.

Fast forward to last year while living with a roommate. I showed him what BitTorrent was because LimeWire wasn't working right for him, and my roommate being the nice guy that he is, downloaded a handful of movies. As the account holder I received a certified letter from my ISP stating the same thing as the first. Somebody, using my account, downloaded movies/software/etc and the IP holder requested that my service be discontinued. I addressed this with my roommate, who chose to ignore my warnings, so I unplugged his ethernet cable, disabled the WiFi, and limited the IP range the router could issue. Problem solved. He still owes me a bunch of money, but I'll probably see that they day I see DukeNukem:Forever in BestBuy. I basicly had to act as parent for my roommate, and chose to not let him use that service any longer.

Now I've moved, and am getting married in May. I've got my fiance using a non-iTunes, no DRM website for music, and we get movies through Time Warner's On Demand service when we want to watch one. I purchase all software that I use, hoping that there is a demo version available for whatever I need so I can try things out beforehand. If not, then I find reviews, and hope that the reviewer is not a sellout.

The bottom line is that things are not what they used to be. Programmers, musicians, actors, directors, etc all deserve to paid for what they do. As a programmer and musican myself, I hope that others feel as I do, and believe that proper education of both the consumer and the corporation as to CURRENT, MODERN production and distribution methods are important steps to combat piracy.

Teenagers (2, Interesting)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 6 years ago | (#22627802)

When broken down by age group, an unexpected trend emerges: teenagers are generally more likely to change their behavior than older Internet users.

Because teenagers are more likely to feel they can't live without the internet. Older internet users may have been on it longer, but can remember a time when they easily lived without it.

is this the internets version of speeding (3, Interesting)

petes_PoV (912422) | more than 6 years ago | (#22627808)

people know (downloading copyrighted stuff) it's wrong, but they reckon that so long as no-one gets hurt ...

Just like with speeding. You get pulled over, maybe you get off with a warning, maybe you get a fine and points (In the UK 12 points on your license and you lose it for a time), or maybe you get off with a warning. Either way you are more aware for a while - then you're back to your old habits.

Will downloading P2P copyrighted material be the same?

You get a warning, stop for a while (maybe change ISPs, so the new one doesn't have a record of your "offence") and then drift back to your old behaviour.

If this is a good analogy (comments?) is there really any way to stop it completely - or do people just expect to punish the most blatant offenders and keep everyone else, more or less, under control?

Re:is this the internets version of speeding (1)

Sciros (986030) | more than 6 years ago | (#22627876)

Terrible analogy, although it does involve automobiles so you get bonus points making it an "alright" analogy.

The thing is, you can download all the copyrighted material your HDs can possibly hold and no-one will really get hurt.

If all that happened from my driving 125mph on the interstate was that some execs at Sony BMG lost a couple of bucks... man I'd go buy a Z06 and drive 175mph across the country fifty times!

Speeding doesn't kill, stupid drivers do. (1)

Bryansix (761547) | more than 6 years ago | (#22628060)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Roy [wikipedia.org]

Alexander Roy beat the record for the Cannonball Run while hitting up to 160 mph and averaging 90 mph and yet did it all completely safely.

Re:Speeding doesn't kill, stupid drivers do. (1)

Shagg (99693) | more than 6 years ago | (#22628252)

If by "completely safely" you mean "a complete idiot who treated public roads as his personal race course and put innocent lives in danger, but luckily no one was killed", then yes.

Re:Speeding doesn't kill, stupid drivers do. (2, Insightful)

garett_spencley (193892) | more than 6 years ago | (#22628352)

Hypothetical scenario:

Let's say everyone on a free way is driving 100mph when the speed limit is 70mph. What is the safer speed to drive: 70mph ? Or 100mph ?

Of course that might not be a fair example since if EVERYONE was speeding you don't really risk getting pulled over.

But the point is that driving fast does not necessarily mean driving dangerously. If you're alert, matching traffic, keeping your eye on the road and leaving adequate space between you and other vehicles you can drive quite fast and still be completely safe.

Anyway in my opinion speeding limits are just another preemptive law designed to make the government richer at the expense of the population. Does imposing speeding fines lead to fewer accidents ? The answer may be "yes". However, throwing the book at anyone who physically injures another while driving could have the same effect. If you're driving dangerously and you end up killing someone there is still manslaughter, reckless driving, public endangerment, charing them for any repairs to public property and to the victim's vehicle, medical bills etc. I'd rather punish people for actually hurting people rather than for nothing.

Re:is this the internets version of speeding (4, Insightful)

Robber Baron (112304) | more than 6 years ago | (#22628000)

people know (downloading copyrighted stuff) it's wrong
Some people "know" a different reality...that it's about as wrong as me going over to my friend's place to listen to a CD or watch a DVD movie he's purchased or rented.

In any case it's not the place of the ISPs to impose a (flawed) version of morality on anyone, just like it's not the place of the phone company to monitor my phone conversations for possible illegal or immoral content.

Re:is this the internets version of speeding (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22628180)

people know (downloading copyrighted stuff) it's wrong, but they reckon that so long as no-one gets hurt ...
If just downloading copyrighted material is wrong and made illegal then might as well disconnect from the internet cause there will be nothing to read, view, or listen to cause everything there almost is copyrighted unless it has been moved to public domain via assignment of the creator or through expiration of copyright. The public domain stuff is even ruled out because methods currently used to view most of it requires you also download copyrighted material. Of course some copyright agreements state that you are licensed for its FREE use, but it is still copyrighted.

People pretty much look at stuff on the internet as being like radio or television, once they get the access method and pay their monthly fees for it then they can look at what is there and listen to it as well. They view downloading and saving movies, books or songs as being no different from recording them off the television or radio.

IRC channels started a good bit of the early exchanges simply cause the channels were often regarded as meeting in the channel owners' homes or coffee shops and people wanted everyone to share in what they were listening to like playing an album at a gathering or sticking a quarter in the junkbox. At first the music came only in bits and pieces and with relatively poor quality, but it gave others the idea of what the person "playing" the song wanted to say with their choice. With higher bandwiths and the introduction of .mp3 this of course attracted the desires of many to improve their "jukeboxes" and thus eventually brought the attention of the RIAA.

The price of cable and satellite television seems to be forever increasing while the quality goes down and the commercials still exist. Now there is even radio you have to pay for and may get entirely moved to that business model. You can be sued for letting people listen to "your music" over the internet while sitting on IRC etc. One good thing coming from all of this is that independent production of music and video is on the upswing and probably will increase more as the corporations and government seek to force fees on us for other people seeing whats on our screens or hear what is on our radios/phonographs/tapedecks/etc if it happens to have been corporate produced.

If nothing else maybe houses will start being built with front porches again and people will again be jamming on the front porch, in the garage or dancing to the music in the barn. Of course if they chose any corporate "owned" songs they might have to go for sound proofed basements but prefer to think many will discover their creative side.

Profit (1)

shmlco (594907) | more than 6 years ago | (#22628210)

"... maybe you get a fine and points..."

Interesting idea there, as it turns enforcement from an expense into a profit center, just like banks and credit card companies who make big bucks from overdraft charges and late fees.

And if the points add up and you lose your account, then what? Most people only have a few choices as to DSL or cable providers. Having a 6-month hold on any data lines to your house could be a major disruption.

But I think they'd like the idea of just slapping a $100 per-occurrence fine on your account even more. Why kill the golden goose?

Re:is this the internets version of speeding (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 6 years ago | (#22628222)

It's a decent enough analogy.

The points system is a key difference but then, nobody ever got killed through copyright infringement. Personally, I'm a proponent of something more akin to parking tickets for copyright infringement. A fine large enough to make people think twice before infringing, but small enough that if anyone is caught they get no public sympathy.

Wouldn't stop, just change (2, Insightful)

Starturtle (1148659) | more than 6 years ago | (#22627812)

People wouldn't stop, usage would simply change as people found other methods of acquiring their music, movies and software such as usenet, irc etc. This could also lead to the discovery of new and unthought of methods.

Encryption (5, Insightful)

mrbill1234 (715607) | more than 6 years ago | (#22627814)

They can't stop legal P2P - there is nothing illegal about that. All that will happen on the illegal side is it will go encrypted - then the ISP will have no idea of what is being transferred which kind of absolves them.

Re:Encryption (1)

shmlco (594907) | more than 6 years ago | (#22628050)

No, it just means that sooner or later they'll start shaping encrypted traffic, whereupon we can thank all of the parasites for having screwed up yet another legitimate internet protocol.

Re:Encryption (1)

garett_spencley (193892) | more than 6 years ago | (#22628218)

Technical Question: How do you differentiate encrypted traffic from, say, any other kind of binary data ?

Technical Question #2: (assuming that #1 has a solution) What do you when <big corporate customer> calls and complains that their IT staff can't use SSH to connect to the web server from home and must, instead, spend 30 minutes driving to the office on a Sunday morning at 2am to figure out why it's not responding ?

Re:Encryption (1, Informative)

shmlco (594907) | more than 6 years ago | (#22628368)

Other than https/port 443? Torrent traffic, with large amounts of data coming in (and going out) to a widely distributed network of IP addresses is a relatively distinct pattern. Personally, I'd just charge on a per megabyte basis for upstream traffic, turning the majority of torrent users into leaches.

"What do you when calls and complains that their IT staff can't use SSH to connect to the web server from home...."

Like I said, torrent traffic is a different pattern. An SSH connection is a steady link to a particular IP address, which is also known from an RDNS standpoint. Pretty easy to tell corporate accounts from IP blocks designated as belonging to home service providers.

Re:Encryption (1)

mrbill1234 (715607) | more than 6 years ago | (#22628424)

Ah, but how do you differentiate between legal and illegal torrent traffic?
There are plenty of legitimate uses for torrent type P2P traffic - and if anything, this will only increase.

Re:Encryption (1)

BlackSnake112 (912158) | more than 6 years ago | (#22628064)

How would an ISP determine this? Is the ISP going to have to look at what you are downloading to see if you P2P is legal? It is a lot easier for the ISP to block all P2P traffic then to see if you are downloading a Linux ISO or mp3 file. Then again what is to sop Sony and the rest of the *IAA groups from sending letters to all the ISPs stating that these ranges of IPs have been downloading their content. Accuse first to get the downloading stopped then show proof later. I hope it doesn't happen but someone will do it at some point. By me, Cox is pausing my network connection all the time. I only run the P2P when I am downloading something. When it is done I shut it off. (Linux ISOs and other stuff that is listed as free is legal to download) And for days with no P2p running my net connection gets paused. Not for long usually 1-3 minutes just long enough to time everything out. I have called and all I get is there are no outages in your area. It is a pain but DSL costs more and no fiber connection for my area.

Re:Encryption (1)

mrbill1234 (715607) | more than 6 years ago | (#22628136)

"Then again what is to sop Sony and the rest of the *IAA groups from sending letters to all the ISPs stating that these ranges of IPs have been downloading their content. Accuse first to get the downloading stopped then show proof later."

Isn't this what they are doing now?

Commandment 11, Don't Get Caught (2, Insightful)

Sorthum (123064) | more than 6 years ago | (#22627824)

I'd take a warning as "You need to find a better method of obscuring what you're doing, like tor..."

Re:Commandment 11, Don't Get Caught (1)

pikakilla (775788) | more than 6 years ago | (#22627894)

Even though you said "...like tor", please do not suggest using tor for p2p. It will slow the already congested network. It would be better to say "an encrypted vpn in a country with better privacy laws than "

Re:Commandment 11, Don't Get Caught (1)

pikakilla (775788) | more than 6 years ago | (#22627918)

meh, forgot about the html

"an encrypted vpn in a country with better privacy laws than [insert country here]"

i didnt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22627846)

I was warned by my ISP when getting a torrent of Rome.
I stopped using torrents for that sort of thing. Now its encrypted usenet (www.usenetserver.com is my provider) or i live without it.

it was further found (5, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 6 years ago | (#22627860)

that 100% thought that traffic encryption and ip obfuscation would be desirable features of the next generation of file sharing apps

get clue, riaatards. the game is over. you lose. your business model is dead, and cannot be extended with legions of lawyers

Re:it was further found (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22628192)

The age of Digital Piracy has only begun, but that doesn't mean this isn't a golden age of piracy.

I think it would be quite easy for congress to make a law and P2P to be filtered nationwide. The sudden end of P2P would mean it would likely never rise to the same level again. Without defenses in place to thwart filtering, the user base would quickly vanish and those who got back on would find a fraction of the content was left.

It's simple, P2P sucks because it gives mainstream users the ability to do what elite users had been doing for years. Piracy worked just as well for be before it was super popular. Most people don't host files I want anyway.

We don't need that extra 80% of users that just download and never offer anything. If we got rid of them ISP's would go back to not caring as would the RIAA. The masses of tards will ruin the warez scene downloading HD porn after HD porn.

I can't see how the current batch of P2P will dodge filtering. It's like trillions of dollars of piracy going. Now of course that money doesn't actually exist for anyone to spend, but none the less under capitalist rule stealing content weakens the industry you steal from.

In this case we are weakening our music and video selection and variety by forcing Hollywood and record companies to bank on sure things more often since they have less money to burn they will take less chances.

I expect that means art will stagnate as fewer innovative artists can get noticed and records companies bank on existing and mainstream artists instead to generate money. For a nation like the US, it's pretty stupid to support the piracy of industries that you lead in. That's major lost tax revenue to China and other epicenters of piracy from OS's to apps to videos to music.

All those industries will suffer less innovation through long term mainstream piracy, it's unavoidable. The pay off of getting lower quality content for free isn't worth it. If you want high quality apps, music and movies you need to pay for them.

As a higher percentage of the world gets online this becomes a greater problem, specifically for the American culture which is highly profitable export. Though, arguable if they choose to 'Americanize' themselves that will also benefit us.

I think as long as the wires and hardware is all privately owned we cannot assume P2P can last.
They just haven't stopped us ... yet. It's profitable overall for now as many people need broadband specifically to P2P, but I can't figure where the culture doesn't get harmed by making art forms like music and video less profitable. I guess in the short term art will have to suffer for the sake of profit until record companies and video producers embrace lower profit models and ensure they don't thwart new artists for the sake of banking on known profits.

More like... (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22627866)

70% of P2P users would lie about stopping if polled about "illegal file sharing". The other 30% just don't care.

And the other 30% (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22627874)

The other 30% replied, "Luckily my ISP is smart enough not to harass me for downloading linux iso disks."

70%? and for how long? (4, Interesting)

sckeener (137243) | more than 6 years ago | (#22627890)

Change their behavior? come on...these are teenagers...they'll just look for another way...say a friends computer or a shared computer. I'm willing to bet that it is = to a gambling urge and the moment something that the want comes out that they can't get any other way but by downloading...they will download. And they should.

If you want to get paid for your stuff, you better make sure all those that would pay for it legally have the option to...

case in point...regions on dvds. If say a blockbuster movie was released in DVD in the US but not in, say, ASIA...do you really think everyone of that 70% (that wanted it) will wait for it to be released?

The media groups need to embrace 'online'. They need to release product 'online'. They need to market it 'online'. They need to get everyone so hooked on getting their information 'online' that people 'offline' are looked at as pathetic. Then the media groups can release to the world...launch Ad campaigns to the world...and never have to worry about this region stuff again!

Re:70%? and for how long? (1)

Kalriath (849904) | more than 6 years ago | (#22628114)

Wont happen. If they do that, they can't price fix their content over different regions (for example, $5 in Thailand, $30 in UK, $20 in USA, $40 in NZ)

Mass warning-spam in 3, 2, 1... (2, Interesting)

6Yankee (597075) | more than 6 years ago | (#22627892)

Although I use P2P so rarely that they'd have to be pretty lucky with their timing to scare me, I'm sure that plenty of users could be frightened off the practice by a suitably vague mass mail. Rather than, "We have detected P2P usage", a strongly-hinting "Customers are reminded that..." might be non-accusatory and hand-wavy enough to get away with, while still having the desired effect. Now how much do you think the *AA would pay ISPs to do that?

Re:Mass warning-spam in 3, 2, 1... (1)

Fx.Dr (915071) | more than 6 years ago | (#22627942)

Now how much do you think the *AA would pay ISPs to do that?

Zero, zip, zilch. They expect the ISP's to have done that from the get-go. It's in keeping with this sense of entitlement of theirs.

Re:Mass warning-spam in 3, 2, 1... (1)

Alsee (515537) | more than 6 years ago | (#22628160)

Now how much do you think the *AA would pay ISPs to do that?

Oh goodie!
That means my ISP would be giving me a rebate check on part of my bill, right?

-

Oh shit dudes, look what the bird is doing! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22627924)

http://smoke.rotten.com/bird/

Warning! Contains picture of bird

Response to the EU Commission (5, Interesting)

CrystalFalcon (233559) | more than 6 years ago | (#22627932)

The European Commission recently had a public consultation about this. I'm surprised not more understand the issues involved - my response deals with just a few of them:

Response to Commission from Pirate Party leader [falkvinge.com]

(the first few lines is a preamble in Swedish, followed by the actual letter in English.)

In short, this does not deal with copyrights and culture anymore. It deals with the cost to society of enforcing today's copyright. That cost involves the abolition of the messenger immunity, freedom of the press, and private communications as a concept.

No right exists in a vacuum - there is always a cost to society of enforcing that right. Without a proper cost-to-benefit analysis, no informed decision can be made.

I got one of those... (1)

kinghajj (941068) | more than 6 years ago | (#22627940)

...but I didn't stop downloading, I just stopped using BitTorrent unless absolutely necessary. Luckily, I've found a great, more secure, faster alternative.

When the warning comes, I would have questions... (4, Insightful)

MarkKnopfler (472229) | more than 6 years ago | (#22627952)

And they would be

1. Yes I have been using P2P, but I have been torrenting legal stuff like unlicensed media and free software. So why the warning ?
2. Could you please give me the reasons as to why you think I am downloading illegal content ?
3. Could you please show me the logs which show I have downloaded illegal content ?
4. What are the methods you have followed to come to the conclusion that the stuff I am downloading is illegal ?

If the ISP has valid answers for my questions, I will have no choice but to comply. It after all, is the law. The answers however, I would need.

Re:When the warning comes, I would have questions. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22628138)

And they would be

1. Yes I have been using P2P, but I have been torrenting legal stuff like unlicensed media and free software. So why the warning ?
2. Could you please give me the reasons as to why you think I am downloading illegal content ?
3. Could you please show me the logs which show I have downloaded illegal content ?
4. What are the methods you have followed to come to the conclusion that the stuff I am downloading is illegal ?

If the ISP has valid answers for my questions, I will have no choice but to comply. It after all, is the law. The answers however, I would need.


I have received such a notice from my ISP (thus my anonymous post). In the initial notice, they identified the specific torrent that I was transferring (an episode of Law & Order, not that it matters), which was accurate. The notice cited a complaint from the copyright holder. Presumably it came via one of the *AAs. I'm assuming it was a poisoned torrent. Since I work from home and can not afford to lose my Internet connection, I killed Azureus and haven't fired it up since.

Strike what? (1)

Ungulate (146381) | more than 6 years ago | (#22627962)

My friend has gotten his cable internet shut off a multitude of times because he can't seem to remember to stop seeding torrents. Each time, he calls up the cable co, gives them some excuse about how it was someone other than him, and swears it'll never happen again. Each time, they warn him about their "three strikes" policy, but he's on at least his sixth strike. Delightfully toothless.

Source? (2, Insightful)

BlueParrot (965239) | more than 6 years ago | (#22627982)

Just who is "UK media lawyers Wiggin" ?

I'm a self proclaimed British Media Expert, and I can hereby announce that a credible source has revealed to me that 85% of artists think privacy and free speech is more important than profit.

Sorry, but based on previous events "media lawyer" is not something which smells particularly credible.

Re:Source? (2, Funny)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 6 years ago | (#22628250)

Just so everyone in the world understands this once and for all, any name that is or sounds like "wiggum" will forever lend an air of ineptitude. The only way this is offset is if the person has read "ender's game" more recently than they're watched the simpsons; that number will always be low enough that you just shouldn't risk it. They should have gone with the other partner, hopefully something with a lawyerish name, like "Bruckheimer" or "McBeal".

Hilarious (4, Insightful)

GlL (618007) | more than 6 years ago | (#22627992)

I work for an ISP in the US, and I find this to be hilarious! 70%! Bull--oney! I have told customers about cease and desist letters our ISP received, and the response that I have gotten universally has been: So what?

Maybe in a less independantly minded country 70% is the case, but on this side of the pond the best response you will get is laughter.

Whoever posted this article, thanks for a much needed laugh.

Re:Hilarious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22628436)

Maybe in a less independantly minded country 70% is the case, but on this side of the pond the best response you will get is laughter.
If the american public don't play ball the powers that be will just find something to scare them into submission with. 'Terrorists are using p2p to undermine american society and create funds to make bombs and perform abortions on underage girls'

From The Homeland of (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22627996)


Tony "Cheney Lapdog" Blair.

Blow it out your ass.

Thanks for nothing.

well then (2, Funny)

deathtopaulw (1032050) | more than 6 years ago | (#22628054)

70% are pussies and are only doing it because they're cheap
Some of us pirate to help the current Music and Movie industries implode quicker

Re:well then (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22628226)

you arrogant cunt. I'm sure all the people whose hard work you pirate really love what you are doing.
Fucking grow up

Re:well then (3, Insightful)

Z34107 (925136) | more than 6 years ago | (#22628292)

Some of us pirate to help the current Music and Movie industries implode quicker

Too bad pirating something you never would have bought does about $0 in economic damages.

What was your media budget pre-internet? That's about as much damage as you can inflict regardless of how much you piss off your ISP.

Re:well then (4, Funny)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 6 years ago | (#22628296)

Some of us pirate to help the current Music and Movie industries implode quicker
I downloaded the complete discography of Metallica 13 times, just to show them what's what!

Stupid Statistics (4, Funny)

kellyb9 (954229) | more than 6 years ago | (#22628100)

70% of P2P users would stop because its kind of difficult to download music and movies without an internet connection.

well, that's easy (1)

nguy (1207026) | more than 6 years ago | (#22628112)

Just send out a warning "We have detected that you're using illegal file sharing." to 100% of the users. Of the x% that use P2P, 70% will stop and 30% will ignore it. The (100-x)% who aren't using illegal file sharing will simply ignore it.

Re:well, that's easy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22628238)

That sort of warning message looks almost exactly like the wording in spam doing the rounds about 18mo ago - from the "FBI", a warning that "you have been downloading porn images... click here".

Has no one noticed... (1)

PC and Sony Fanboy (1248258) | more than 6 years ago | (#22628140)

That older, more experienced users wouldn't stop ... because they are experienced enough to circumvent detection. I, for one, would just do more proxy surfing, and encrypt my .torrent downloads.

Then again, I'm canadian, and the police/government/etc are more focused on the criminal groups which make money off illegal downloads - not end users!

I stopped sharing... (1)

b0bby (201198) | more than 6 years ago | (#22628172)

So, back in the day, I was using DC++ & sharing lots of stuff. Then my ISP passed on a Cease & Desist from one of the movie studios about a movie in my share. This was when the RIAA was starting to take people to court etc. I stopped sharing anything except Linux ISOs and the like after that, and I only use torrents for the same. The risks don't outweigh the benefits, so while I would prefer not to be a leech, until (if?) there's a truly anonymous form of p2p, that's what I am. I'll still download from DC++ hubs, but there's nothing exceptional in my share :(

Surely a mistake.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22628208)

"...teenagers are generally more likely to change their behavior than older Internet users."

According to the media, all us teenagers are running around stabbing each other and generally being Anti-Social with out friends. How propostorous that we actually care about the law.

Ohwell, it wont be reported by the main stream media as this, its more likely to be "Teenagers admit thieving music and stealing millions from Record Companies". Why do people listen to it?

I wouldn't (2, Insightful)

AlgorithMan (937244) | more than 6 years ago | (#22628228)

since i only use bittorrent to download CC material, linux distros and DRM protected videos, I wouldn't stop using P2P if i got a warning... I think I'd sue them for trying to stop me from using legal software for legal purposes...

Cox Communications (1)

j3wwy (848834) | more than 6 years ago | (#22628232)

I once had my service suspended by Cox Communications because I was seeding the movie Munich (which I ended up not even liking). They said that they received a complaint about the file being shared and that I would have to stop it from seeding before my service was restored. They also informed me that after 3 incidents, I would be blacklisted from their internet service.

That was some two years ago. I haven't changed my P2P habits much since, and Cox has never contacted me again for such practices.

-
I miss demonoid!

How is this an unexpected trend? (1)

smellsofbikes (890263) | more than 6 years ago | (#22628326)

Teenagers are vastly more likely to be peer-influenced. If their friends are downloading, they will too, just like if their friends are listening to dippy singers or getting their eyebrows pierced. Similarly, their behavior is very easy to change -- many of them will stop doing things on request because they're not committed to the behavior, they're just doing whatever comes to mind. As people get older, they get increasingly set in their ways and increasingly persistent about their habits, whether it's downloading or driving without using turn signals or what have you.

It's pretty hard for people to accurately assess what they'd *actually* do in a hypothetical situation. We're very good at saying what we think we'd do, though, and saying that we're very sure that's what we'd do. I bet something more like 80% would *actually* stop their bittorrent habits if yelled at by their ISP... for a while, and then a new movie/song would come out, six months down the road, and a big chunk of them would go back to their old habits, and pretty soon it would ratchet back to where it was in the first place. I bet more than 70% of drivers say they'd stop speeding if they got pulled and got a verbal warning from a cop.

Empty threat (1)

Chess Piece Face (247847) | more than 6 years ago | (#22628382)

Most teenagers aren't as experienced at recognizing these sort of things as the hot air that they are.

And how many of those who said they would stop would simply change to another P2P client until the warnings cease?

Poor Association (4, Insightful)

Jekler (626699) | more than 6 years ago | (#22628442)

I absolutely despise that "illegal" is almost always used in reference to file sharing. No one words other activities that way, such as illegal retailing. People need to start applying the descriptor to the appropriate specific activity, not to the activity as a whole. Stop calling it "illegal file sharing", refer to it as "illegally distributing copyrighted works" if you must, but don't word it in such a way as to marginalize file sharing as a concept. Some people might this this is nitpicking, but I do think that the way we phrase the activity shapes the public perception. Lobbyists just want to beat it into everyone's head that file sharing itself is illegal, but it's not, and shouldn't be thought of as such.

Total ignorance of teenagers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22628458)

That statistic demonstrates just how little people understand the minds of teenagers. OF COURSE they'd stop downloading music if warned, just like they'd stop speeding if warned, stop promiscuous sex if warned, and stop ditching class if warned. ...or perhaps they'd just lie to (or otherwise placate) the authorities and do whatever they wanted to, like teenagers have been doing since the beginning of time. I'm surprised that ONLY 70% said they'd stop if warned.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...