UK Government To Terminate File Sharers' Net Access 411
An anonymous reader writes "New plans published by the UK Govt show that they hope to terminate internet access for people suspected of breaching copyright by file sharing. Under the proposed new laws ISPs who fail to enforce the policy will face prosecution in the courts. Users falling foul of the new law will be subject to a three strike policy: First suspected instance of illegal file sharing they would receive a warning, at the second — a suspension, and at the third they will have their Internet connection terminated. It isn't clear whether users will be prevented from ever using the internet again, or whether simply subscribing to a new ISP will reset the process."
Ummmm (Score:5, Insightful)
"Suspected" incidence (Score:5, Insightful)
Nice to see that they're not even going for proven guilt in this case. So what happens when some poor Brit has his internet connection pulled for downloading Ubuntu ISO's or WOW updates via BitTorrent... or the media companies just screw up and finger the wrong IP as infringing.
6 Million "Illegal Downloaders" in the UK (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ummmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Time to emigrate (Score:4, Insightful)
Enforcing this would require constant monitoring of all communication over the net. I'm not suprised our government doesn't see any issue with this as they are totally morally bankrupt. One tenth of the population is doing this and the first thought is surveillance and punishment. Good going.
I hadn't realised how much they were in the pocket of the **AA/BPI etc though.
This is a civil matter, for civil courts that should decide a reasonable fine and that be the end of it.
Re:Ummmm (Score:3, Insightful)
Um... you encrypt the transfer, not the file itself. Ever heard of SSL? Sort of like that.
Re:"Suspected" incidence (Score:4, Insightful)
FAIL (Score:2, Insightful)
It has in other places, your incredulity at that fact doesn't make it untrue though. Look at Canada, Spain, Germany etc.
"Are governments really going to say "tough shit" and encourage people to just pirate content?"
Some are imposing a tax, others are investigating just completely legalising p2p. Yes, remember that democracy is about the interests of the population, not just IP "owners".
"Like it or not 99% of the content on p2p services is copyrighted."
Irrelevant
"Like it or not, no business can compete with free, and still pay its staff."
Also false. Many people both download and buy an awful lot of media. On average it has been found the "pirates" buy more media than other folks. Many use p2p as a way of sampling things before deciding. Some don't, but you also make the fallacious assumption that each download is a lost sale.
"People I know who work in the sector are worried about future prospects and already looking at getting out into a 'bricks and mortar' style trade where they know they will get paid and not ripped off."
An awful lot of what's out there at the moment is lowest-common-denominator BULLSHIT. That's why it's failing.
"I have no sympathy with anyone who gets caught with this. Everyone pirating content is just leeching off the honest people who don't mind paying for their entertainment. It's fair to nobody, and unsustainable."
What is this "fair"? It seems perfectly sustainable to me.
"And to anyone saying "it wont work 100%". No it won't. Nor does locking my door work against a determined burglar, but it will help deter casual piracy, and its the mass casual piracy that is really hurting."
And someone releases a product with the crypto built in and "mass casual" piracy is back on the air.
In summary: FAIL.
Flatmates (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh wait, no-one's proposing that. They just expect me (internet is in my name) to police my flatmates computers for them. Bottom-up stazi citizenry for your future police state here we come.
Write to your MPs (Score:5, Insightful)
Write, phone, or email your MP. I'm doing it, are you?
Encryption won't save you (Score:5, Insightful)
Since the legal hurdle to invoke this penalty is merely "suspicion," encryption is no protection. Using an encrypted link to a suspect site or using an anonymizing service can be enough evidence in and of itself.
Re:welcome to the latest round of whack-a-mole (Score:5, Insightful)
So the movie makers, musicians, writers, software developers and game designers should all go do a basic course in plumbing and carpentry?
I don't know about you, but I need to pay the bills. You are basically saying that thanks to selfish leeches who think everyone owes them free entertainment for life, our entire collective digital industries are now dead and buried, to be pursued only by hobbyists at the weekends?
Personally, I'd rather it didn't come to that, and if that means using the law to crack down on people blatantly and repeatedly infringing copyright, then good. Someone copying a mates Cd was never the issue. Its people who leave servers on 24/7 distributing tens of thousands of files that were only released yesterday that is the problem.
Re:Ummmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:please dob yourself in (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ummmm (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Ummmm (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Ummmm (Score:3, Insightful)
go ask the aztec and incan nobility (Score:5, Insightful)
or, refuse to adapt to change and obsolescence, and fight bravely agains tthe dying of the light. go ahead, pass more laws against file sharing. go ahead, hire 10x more pit bull lawyers. go for it dude
as if it will actually matter
accept reality, or don't, i don't care. whatever you think is right or wrong doesn't mean reality is going to necessarily reflect that. you can't realistically enforce your beliefs. so your beliefs will not be reality. sorry, but that's the truth. there is in fact naturalistic morality, and beleiving in real moral right and wrong. i'm sorry to break this to you, but intellectual property is not naturally moral. and os it is a completely articifial construct, and, when unable to be enforced, ceases to be respected. you can't reason or argue with a teenager as to why they must pay bertelsmann $10 because they want to listen to michael jackson. there is natural, moral compelling reason for them to respect intelelctual property. it's a fucking joke
furthermore, the real losers of this game is the distributors, not the artists. they already screw the artists with hilarious contracts. go look up "monkey points" on wikipedia and tell me again about how pirates are hurting artists. they aren't hurting artists at all, they are hurting distributors. distributors are screwing you, and have been screwing you long before the internet even existed
if distributors are removed, i think maybe 1/10th of the money involved goes away. but as before artists saw only 1/1,000th of the money in play, now they will see 900% of the money in play. so artists make out better for the destruction of distributors
so pirates are good for artists, by destroying the people that really screw you
you, like many people, mistake disrespect for a defunct distribution model as disrespect for artists
wake up
Just switch to wifi (Score:3, Insightful)
The next step (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok so we have Britain proposing the monitoring of the entire internet, Australia is proposing an ISP-level filter, US cable companies are doing their own selective torrent throttling and various countries such as China already have expansive firewalls and filters in place. Even if this proposal falls through, or is modified somehow, I think we're going to have to accept that governments are in the pockets of the media companies and service providers will target users of p2p because, in their opinion, they aren't making as big a profit as they might like.
The next step is to ask what we, as the science, engineering and computer-loving community who have been using BitTorrent and various other protocols for legitimate uses before all the kids figured out they could score Amy Winehouse albums for free, can do to either circumvent the policies initiated by the above various groups or to bypass them completely.
Napster, Limewire and the first generation p2p clients collapsed so BitTorrent was designed and users flocked to it. Now it appears that BitTorrent is going to suffer the same fate (if not now than definitely in the near future - the increasing pressure put on ISP's and governments around the world by copyright holders is going to see to that).
We can't afford to fight fire with fire. Invasive laws and techniques used by companies such as Comcast may be un-Constitutional, or against the terms of service but the average p2p-user can't afford to launch a civil case against one of the biggest corporations in the USA. My suggestion is for a new protocol to be established, with the emphasis on sharing legitimate files such as patches, Linux ISO's, videos, game demo's etc. Inevitably the first people to jump onto the new system will be the true geeks (By this I mean your average Slashdotter) and by doing so, they can utilise it to its full extent (Something like the early days of BitTorrent) whilst the MPAA/RIAA flog a dead horse.
Of course it's only a matter of time before pirates jump onto the new protocol and then we watch the whole show unfold again. However p2p-users have proven resourceful and it's only a matter of time before yet another protocol is developed and the cycle continues. But the advantage lies with us. The cost to the developer of something like BitTorrent is minutely small when compared to the hundreds of millions of dollars MAFIAA throws away in its attempt to stop piracy. If we keep it up long enough we might finally get the message across that p2p != piracy, or we might simply bleed them dry.
Re:welcome to the latest round of whack-a-mole (Score:3, Insightful)
Been there, done that (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately they simply responded to tell me that p2p destroys the creative industries, is responsible for terrorism and organised crime and that it must be stopped at all costs.
Of course, this ignored every legitimate point I put across to them and when I replied back asking if they could instead answer my points and how they can justify their decision when my points are taken into account I simply didn't get a response.
Writing to people with counter-points whose minds are already made up seems rather futile no matter how many people tell them they're wrong. Of course, I wont be voting for either of these parties but still I'm convinced stronger action such as protests, civil disobedience of the laws and so forth are required. Hopefully some people will take it as far as hijacking wireless of prominent people such as MPs to get them cut off so they can experience the problems first hand.
Re:Ummmm (Score:3, Insightful)
Read the article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7240234.stm [bbc.co.uk]
Here are extracts.
This is a draft proposal for discussion, so now is the time to act.
Write to your MP, explaining how the proposed legislation would be
Going after downloaders would seriously inconvenience legitimate users of P2P networks, such as those who use them for FOSS distribution. Driving people to encrypt their distributions would just result in an escalation of the problem and the gov't would start to encroach on uses of security mechanisms used by banks and merchants to avoid fraud.
There is no need for further legislation, since the distribution of copyrighted works without the permission of the copyright holder is already covered by other laws.
It is morally wrong to go for the easy target at the risk of hitting innocent bystanders, when the alternative of going for the hard target with no risk of collateral damage is possible.
By this, I mean that the real target should be the uploaders of the copyrighted works.
For decades the government has been telling us that the way to fight the war on drugs is to hit the producers, importers and dealers; that the users should be considered as victims of their own addiction.
If you want to kill the snake, cut of its head, not the end of its tail.
K.
Re:Not so fast (Score:5, Insightful)
If that is the case, how do you explain the masses of Free Software?
How do you explain the rich culture and works that were created before copyrights were even invented?
How do you explain the fact that publishers struggled to be the ones to get to publish the 9/11 Commission Report, even though they could not get a copyright on it, and even though any other publisher could publish it as well? How do you explain that this report made quite a buck for the publisher that published it anyhow?
If indeed copyright drives quality content (which I believe it does not), is it really worth the extra laws that have to imposed on all citizens? Is it worth the trouble of policing information?
Overreaching will kill it (Score:5, Insightful)
Globalization and Cheap Copies (Score:4, Insightful)
Big business (and their sock puppets big government that they own completely and control now in the modern corporacracy (which is what are governments are now mostly) care not a whit how many "little people" are hurt economically, as long as their "cheap copy" business model stays intact. they promise and insist this is the "best method" possible for the modern economy.
We are told by our business and governmental leaders that this is the new plan of the 21st century, that to be efficient, we need the cheapest copies of a good or labor-hour as possible, with the tradeoffs to those disposed of their previous employment that they will receive-cheaper copies of whatever-else, could be the same exact thing they used to make, and frequently is. Lather rinse repeat across the board in the employment world.
The official rule now is, you accept globalization, take your day to day chances with your job, in exchange, big business and big government are promising "cheap copies" for you as a consumer. Of everything, no exceptions, the cheapest copies possible.
OK, fair enough! That is the economic "deal" they have created for everyone to enjoy. Globalization rules! Cheap copies of everything for everyone!
But...wait a minute..something isn't quite right here yet... exactly where are the "cheap copies" of digital bits "for sale" legally?
We have this "cheap copy" replicator technology now that shows us the cost of making the cheap copies of digital bits is pretty low, amazingly low. But the business world insists on "legal" copies that are vastly higher in end user retail price than what their own globalization cheap copy models suggest should be the actual true "tradeoff price" according to their "you must accept globalization no matter what, it is the new law and practice" rules.
Critics of that might say "you are leaving out the costs of producing the original in the first place, someone has to pay for that as well!". True enough as a criticism on the surface level, but let us go just *one* step below that and look at it.
When big business, with big governments help and permission, moves non-digital bits copy manufacturing to the "cheaper to make copies" place, they are *also* sidestepping why this new move becomes cheaper. A primary reason is they can completely sidestep a series of societally imposed environmental regulations, or actual costs of production...they can "make more profit" by *not* paying their previously worked out societal "bill" or "cost of original production" of being a little more respective of our commons, the environment. They usually also-at the same new "cheaper to make copies" place- can get to use and exploit the "cheap copy" of lower cost per hour labor by being allowed to support local near-slave drivers tied to repressive regimes who can seriously exploit their own labor force slaves in complete avoidance-avoiding a previous production cost- to what they previously had to include in the cost of making copies, by ignoring such things as child labor laws, workplace safety, and so on. But see, that doesn't matter, as long as a "cheap copy" can then be resold back to "the consumer". That's the globalization trade structure we are under now.
So that counter
Re:Not suprising, and tbh about time (Score:4, Insightful)
When an industry fails because technology made the production damn cheap and within reach of everyone, there is a real, structural growth in the economy. It means productivity has gone up. This is exactly what happened with music and film. It has become cheap to make and cheap to distribute. The huge costs of studio equipment and record factories are gone. More digital content will be made for less money. More budget will be available for art and entertainment of a higher quality, like live gigs and high quality film theatres.
Judge Dredd art imitates life? (Score:3, Insightful)
For a long time, I thought there were laws and rights inbetween
Re:Ummmm (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately, that does not imply that it cannot lead to successful prosecution when an ISP is identified as being in violation...
Re:No actually, you're wrong, and stupid (Score:3, Insightful)
How am I supposed to "police my internet connection"? Buy the same filtering kit that my ISP uses in order to detect infringements on my internet connection and expect me to give a shit that my flatmate is downloading Britney Spears? I don't give a shit what my flatmates are doing and they can fuck off if they expect me to police ANYTHING that isn't my data. You're saying I'm responsible for all data going across that network link. You are wrong.
Sorry to so infururiate you with saying "stazi", clearly this completely invalidates my point and means I obviously have an IQ of five or less. In fact, it's a wonder I can even string a sentence together without being aware how to spell the abbreviation of an "invented" word in a language I don't speak. Yeah, I could have googled it, apologies for not realising that such as heinous mistake would result in you suffereing an apoplectic fit.
And, as I'm sure you're aware (being a troll an' all) that copyright infringement is not stealing. Secondly, your "copyright infringement = police state" remark isn't so much a false dichotomy as an apparent complete lack of understanding of my whole point (but, like you say, my point is invalidated because I didn't spell "stasi" - I shudder to think how you'd react if I pointed out that I didn't even capitalise it) - if you REQUIRE every internet connection to be monitored, if you REQUIRE people accessing "unauthorised" content to be denied internet access, if you REQUIRE people to police other peoples computers for fear of being wrongfully accused themselves you have the perfect set of circumstances for implementing a totalitarian regime.
I feel like I should call you a cunt or something so as to tread more down the "Yeah! Ad hominem FTW!" road of things, but your argument is more pitiable than anything else I'm afraid, and I couldn't really insult you with any real conviction.
Re:Not suprising, and tbh about time (Score:2, Insightful)
It's really about time we started to see some of the negative effects of piracy. The RIAA has been promising for years that music will simply stop getting made, but god damn it, it just seems to keep getting better.
Frankly, I'm calling bullshit on the whole damn crisis. As an artist, and an appreciator of art, I'm a richer man today than I've been for decades.
Yet, were it "spammers" instead of "file sharers" (Score:2, Insightful)
This proposal truly could destroy lives... (Score:3, Insightful)
I live in the UK as does my grandma. She used to have support from government funded community workers for her shopping, because she isn't mobile they used to collect a shopping list from her weekly and would then go out and get her shopping and bring it back for her. Unfortunately she lives 200 miles away so it's not something we're able to help her with from here. The goverment reduced funding to this scheme such that they no longer support it for her, and when she asked what she was supposed to do she was told they will give her computing tutorials and help with providing internet access for her so she could shop online and have the supermarkets deliver to her, this wasn't as good as the previous scheme but it works in a similar way now she has the hang of it.
So what happens if someone hijacks the wireless that came with her internet access that the goverment recommended and uses it for P2P getting her cut off? Is she supposed to just starve then or something? Another good example is homework, are kids without internet access meant to be at a disadvantage by being unable to perform decent research? I work in IT in the education sector and have recently encountered goverment proposals to get local-goverment supported IT kit and internet access to disadvantaged families so there appears to be a fair bit of evidence the goverment wants every kid to have net access when it comes to education.
The problem is the goverment here in the UK have recently done things that suggest the internet is an essential service like electricity, gas, water, telephone which is great because it can indeed serve as such an important service. After they've gone to such great lengths to recognise it's importance how can they possibly turn around now and suggest it's something that can just be taken away when kids futures and pensioners lives quite literally depend on it?
I'm not aware of any other crime in existence that would take away a service that is essential to both our children's future and our pensioners well being as a result of goverment proposed schemes.
Re:Ummmm (Score:3, Insightful)
That's a stupid argument. If I buy your logic, Rosa Parks should have given up her seat when asked.
Before I get slammed in any replies, no I'm not making the comparison between Rosa Parks and p2p file sharers. But the argument that unjust laws should be followed just because they are laws is idiotic.
(And no, I'm not passing judgment on whether or not I think IP laws are "just")
Whoopee (Score:4, Insightful)
Buying a ship and heading off to sea is starting to sound more and more tempting.
Re:Lawmakers (Score:3, Insightful)
Guantanamo Bay.
Shit, at least we're just proposing disconnecting people from the internet.