Internet ban on illegal downloading

[the_bloke 17]

What hasn't been brought up in this thread yet, is how your ISP distinguishes between your downloading something via torrent/p2p/ftp that is legally available to download, and that which isn't.

 

Answer? They can't, and they are also very very against trying to become the Internet police. Your ISP doesn't want to employ hundreds of extra admin staff and buy hundreds of extra servers to process all the files and things that you download to see if you are being naughty or not.

 

So how would they know? The answer is the companies employed to protect the copyrights of music and film publishers. They literally employ people to scan torrent sites and P2P sites to see who has illegal files to download, and who is actually downloading them.

 

They then do their best to find your IP address, then write to your ISP asking them to release your personal information so they can sue you. With the exception of Virgin in this country, very very few ISPs were willing to hand over information to RIAA et al.

 

Basically this new law has been brought in to force ISPs to do more when faced with proof of it's customers downloading things they shouldn't be. It doesn't mean your ISP is going to start examining your activity to see if that P2P connection you have just opened is the new Arctic Monkeys album or World of Warcraft downloading a patch, but it does mean the RIAA can lean on the ISP and have you disconnected - saves going to court, saves them money.

[esme 10]

the plan is to cut people off on suspicion of being illegal file sharers, proof doesn't come into it see http://news.zdnet.co.uk/communications/0,1000000085,39727101,00.htm

[the_bloke 17]

the plan is to cut people off on suspicion of being illegal file sharers, proof doesn't come into it see http://news.zdnet.co.uk/communications/0,1000000085,39727101,00.htm

 

That was the plan, but if you follow the news, ISPs and Consumer Groups - even the EU - have come down hard on this. Mandelson himself has been forced to respond with:

 

'I made clear to the content industry that we would consider legislation that includes temporary account suspension only if it was seen as the sanction of last resort. It would only follow a well-established series of warnings and clear evidence that they were taking action to defend their own rights. This will not turn your ISP into Big Brother. The process is driven by rights holders reporting activity on public file-sharing websites rather than service providers monitoring individuals’ internet traffic.'

 

(my bold)

 

see: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6814187.ece

 

So it's exactly the same as it has always been, only this time you can have your connection suspended as punishment - the third strike of a 'three strikes and out' policy which is being ushered in.

[sheffield_uk 10]

erm.... what about Oink? That was successfully targeted and closed down.

 

yes they still get closed now and then but theres plenty more...

i just meant they mainly try to target the big public ones like piratebay etc

when its in the news..a lot of the smaller ones close after getting the threat letters

 

If i want anything off a torrent site i download it to my seedbox at lightning

speed and then ftp it back to my pc..

Edited August 30, 2009 by sheffield_uk

[Alky 10]

err.....whats a seed box?

[sheffield_uk 10]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seedbox Edited August 30, 2009 by sheffield_uk

[Agrajag 10]

So it's exactly the same as it has always been, only this time you can have your connection suspended as punishment - the third strike of a 'three strikes and out' policy which is being ushered in.

 

What's worrying is the "guilty until proven innocent" approach they are taking.

 

How do you prove that, for example, your wireless network has been hijacked? I'm not just talking about unsecured networks, there are tools freely available now that would allow even the most novice PC user to connect to their neighbour's secure wireless network.

 

Getting tougher on P2P users is just going to make it even more likely that someone would not want to use their own network for "illegal" file sharing.

 

A lot of innocent people are going to get dragged through the courts with no way at all of proving their innocence.

[XLDS 10]

If I am paying for 50mb Broadband, I will download what I bloody well like I find

[Karis 11]

What's equally bizarre (as the response above shows) that people download stuff from the internet with a certain glee, almost as if it's their 'right' to do so.

 

You don't. It's basically stealing. You only do it because you know you won't get caught.

 

I've heard all the arguments (well, I wouldn't have bought it anyway), but that's a weak argument.

 

The sooner the ISPs are made responsible for internet piracy the better.

[Grandad.Malky 11]

Sorry I haven’t read all the posts, what I would like to know is what’s the difference to copying the charts on a Sunday night (do they still have them) when I was a kid everyone copied the charts off the radio on a Sunday night.

[Agrajag 10]

The sooner the ISPs are made responsible for internet piracy the better.

 

The better for who? Surely you dont think they would suddenly drop DVD prices if piracy was stamped out? On the contrary, with no competition they could charge what they liked.

 

Why should ISPs be responsible?

 

Would Royal Mail be held responsible if someone sent illegal DVDs through the post? Would it be OK for them to start intercepting and opening your mail just in case any copyrighted content was being sent to you?

[sidbobs 10]

No matter what the ISP's or anyone does, its never going to stop it, I and millions of others will continue to 'steal' movies,apps,music etc for a long as the internet is available

Edited August 30, 2009 by sidbobs