PDA

View Full Version : Britain's six largest ISPs and BPI join forces to attack illegal filesharing


batchain
24-07-2008, 04:57
Virgin Media no longer all alone.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2451412/Parents-targeted-over-childrens-music-piracy.html

Britain's six largest internet service providers (ISPs) have agreed to send warning letters to hundreds of thousands of customers whose accounts are being used to download or share pirated songs.

The six internet companies are BT, BSkyB, Virgin Media, Orange, Tiscali and Carphone Warehouse, which sells broadband access under the AOL and Talk Talk brands.

Cobbydaler
24-07-2008, 07:20
Just a friendly note, remember that the thread discussing VM's agreement with the BPI ended up being locked.

Let's make sure that this one sticks to the point & doesn't drift into discussing the legality or otherwise of copyrighted filesharing.

Thanks...

geminian68
24-07-2008, 07:21
I wonder how much money these isp's are going to lose, when those who use p2p either leave for another isp, or downgrade to the slowest available speed.

Horace
24-07-2008, 08:56
A lot less money than they would if the government legislated and there arn't many cheap alternatives to the ISP's listed.

Berealwith
24-07-2008, 09:14
The six all the ones who have oversubscribed so its not thier fault its the customers.

who is Feargal Sharkey anyway.......some guy who wants to get back on tv, like all those clebs who are "has beens" so much for his song "Teenage kicks".

mart44
24-07-2008, 09:32
who is Feargal Sharkey anyway.......some guy who wants to get back on tv, like all those clebs who are "has beens" so much for his song "Teenage kicks".
Just someone who's been there and so knows the business I suppose. Perhaps a better representative or spokesman than someone who hasn't.

moiraf100
24-07-2008, 09:43
What made Carphone Warehouse change their minds?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7329801.stm

zing_deleted
24-07-2008, 09:48
arm twisting most likely

PeteTheMusicGuy
24-07-2008, 09:49
What made Carphone Warehouse change their minds?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7329801.stm

I bet the BPI is about to come to some sort of agreement with them all over a legal download service in return for this. ;)

Either that or the BPI has been threatening to drag them into court

zing_deleted
24-07-2008, 09:52
funny really how the BPI have big pockets for this when they claim the filesharing takes so much cash out of the artists pockets. Anyone see the irony of an organization worth billions spending millions to stop the loss probably an equal amount

Fatec
24-07-2008, 10:01
As noted Here (http://digg.com/security/UK_ISPs_Surrender_Agree_to_Fight_Piracy)

It's not just about sending warning letters.

ISP's can now throttle any users who are caught out downloading music etc, or put data caps on them specifically, that's why talk talk has now agreed to it.

Good justification for VM's STM then :rolleyes:

Maggy
24-07-2008, 10:20
The six all the ones who have oversubscribed so its not thier fault its the customers.

who is Feargal Sharkey anyway.......some guy who wants to get back on tv, like all those clebs who are "has beens" so much for his song "Teenage kicks".

He's spent much of his recent career spotting and encouraging new talent in various jobs in the record industry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feargal_Sharkey

Provided that it's illegal downloaders that are targeted I personally have no worries about this.I always thought it was inevitable that ISPs would be dragged into doing something even if it stopped short of what the BPI wanted.

PeteTheMusicGuy
24-07-2008, 10:39
As noted Here (http://digg.com/security/UK_ISPs_Surrender_Agree_to_Fight_Piracy)

It's not just about sending warning letters.

ISP's can now throttle any users who are caught out downloading music etc, or put data caps on them specifically, that's why talk talk has now agreed to it.

Good justification for VM's STM then :rolleyes:

Ah I see now people who get letters could be put on 24/7 STM. That is not good :(

Hugh
24-07-2008, 10:43
And not just from VM.

BenMcr
24-07-2008, 11:03
So all those who have just left Virgin to go to any of those six over the BPI letters are in for a shock ;)

LostintheNW
24-07-2008, 11:05
So all those who have just left Virgin to go to any of those six over the BPI letters are in for a shock ;)

Not really as we don't have STM to worry about so can merrily download other things to our hearts content :) - although I haven't gone to one of those who are signing up for this :D

Vegeta
24-07-2008, 11:21
Will they still know what you are downloading if you using SSL encrypted connections to newsgroups?

Kymmy
24-07-2008, 11:26
Will they still know what you are downloading if you using SSL encrypted connections to newsgroups?

It's irrelavant to this topic which is about p2p and the BPI using ISP's to chase offendors sharing music.

So downloading on newsgroups is not on-topic

Horace
24-07-2008, 11:36
Will they still know what you are downloading if you using SSL encrypted connections to newsgroups?

No.

Tarantella
24-07-2008, 11:39
Quote

"They have signed a memorandum of understanding which commits them to sending "informative letters" to customers whose accounts have been identified by the BPI as being used for filesharing."



Since when did VM start giving information to the BPI?

Maggy
24-07-2008, 11:42
Quote

"They have signed a memorandum of understanding which commits them to sending "informative letters" to customers whose accounts have been identified by the BPI as being used for filesharing."



Since when did VM start giving information to the BPI?

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/article/403/virgin-media-to-co-operate-with-bpi-in-campaign-against-illegal-downloads

Tarantella
24-07-2008, 11:58
Thanks Maggy.

And do you know when will VM sign an agreement with representatives of the American Film and Software industries, Microsoft and everyone else with a vested interest? :angel:

buckleb
24-07-2008, 12:01
I thought that Virgin didn't actually give any information to the BPI, but just passed on the letters themselves without revealing the customer details?

Maggy
24-07-2008, 12:07
Thanks Maggy.

And do you know when will VM sign an agreement with representatives of the American Film and Software industries, Microsoft and everyone else with a vested interest? :angel:

No idea!I personally don't have anyone on the inside at VM.;)

BenMcr
24-07-2008, 13:17
Thanks Maggy.

And do you know when will VM sign an agreement with representatives of the American Film and Software industries, Microsoft and everyone else with a vested interest? :angel:
Probably when threatened by government legislation instead if they don't (which is the main reason the six ISPs have done it)

Berealwith
24-07-2008, 13:29
So its ok to sell, sell, sell bandwith get more customers upgrade 4 to 10, 10 to 20. and as what i would call a normal users (someone who has 10/20mb and just checks holiday sites and emails) dont need it, but we'll upgrade anyway,

This has fuel'd the downloaders, most of them had to leave thier pc on all night so with the upgrade they dont have to. the ISP's have created thier own bottleneck it has nothing to do with p2p. its the ISP's who gave the bandwith in the first place

All they want is somebody else they can use/blame other than themselves, a 3rd party and they have it now and it's been on the "BBC".

When will the ISP's have a "code of conduct" for the things that we need ie oversubscribing, UBR upgrades, and Hefty fines for mis-selling "Un-Limited.

And in the big picture "What is 20mb used for" ha ha i see the "20mb your all pirates" lol

Soon the "50mb SUPER PIRATE" will appear.....

BenMcr
24-07-2008, 13:36
That seems a bit off topic for this thread ;)

Maggy
24-07-2008, 13:57
Yes I believe my fellow moderator pointed out that the other VM and BPI filesharing thread got closed because people would not stick to the topic or behave well.

So lets keep to topic please.:D

Kymmy
24-07-2008, 14:05
For clarification.

The BPI whichever method they use gets the IP/DATE and TIME of the person who they have confirmed is file sharing (probably from the P2P networks). They then pass on this information to the ISP's, The ISP's without divulging the users details to the BPI send the user the letters that have already been linked to in this thread.

The only way the BPI will ever get information from the ISP's is via a court case in which they'd have to ask a judge to order an ISP to divulge the information.

Kymmy

BenMcr
24-07-2008, 14:23
According to thinkbroadband.com http://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/3631-bpi-and-six-major-broadband-providers-sign-agreement.html

The MPAA has also signed up the goverments 'Memorandum of Understanding' not just the BPI

Phormic Acid
24-07-2008, 15:10
Provided that it's illegal downloaders that are targeted I personally have no worries about this.As suggested by Kymmy, it’ll all come down to the method used. The BBC’s article is similar to the Telegraph’s. However, it’s different in emphasizing ‘suspected.’

https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2008/07/23.png Net firms in music pirates deal (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7522334.stm)

The deal, negotiated by the government, will see hundreds of thousands of letters sent to net users suspected of illegally sharing music. https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2008/07/24.png

If hundreds of thousands of letters are to be sent out, the diligence afforded to each one is likely to be very low. The BPI could:

Connect to, and transfer enough data through, the connections belonging to each of those hundreds of thousands of subscribers, to ensure their evidence is of a sufficient level; or,
Hoover up all the IP addresses that have been submitted to trackers, without testing the accuracy of those addresses.
If we’re into the hundreds of thousands of subscribers, I’d have to assume it’s number two. As has been mentioned here before, the paper Why My Printer Received a DMCA Takedown Notice (http://dmca.cs.washington.edu/uwcse_dmca_tr.pdf) explains why this methodology is unsound.

If one of those letters turns up on my doormat, copies are going to be sent to both Virgin Media and the BPI with a covering letter demanding a retraction. It would seem more sensible to send out a general letter to every subscriber. Even if the ‘informative letter’ lacks the claim of a specific infringement that previous letters have had, limiting a letter’s distribution would make it an implied accusation.

djdust
24-07-2008, 15:25
So, has anyone on here received any of these letters from VM then? If so, does it give details of what you're supposed to have been guilty of sharing?

dev
24-07-2008, 15:42
For clarification.

The BPI whichever method they use gets the IP/DATE and TIME of the person who they have confirmed is file sharing (probably from the P2P networks). They then pass on this information to the ISP's, The ISP's without divulging the users details to the BPI send the user the letters that have already been linked to in this thread.

The only way the BPI will ever get information from the ISP's is via a court case in which they'd have to ask a judge to order an ISP to divulge the information.

Kymmy

exactly, the BPI are doing nothing that me or you can't do, you start a torrent up, look at the IP addresses and then you *can* contact the ISP the IP belongs to and tell them what a user was downloading, the ISP then yells at the user. ISPs have been sending these letters out for years.

chamoan
24-07-2008, 15:47
A few things that bother me with all this, even if everyone said ok this is a fantastic idea let's pay a fee and carry on with merry downloading till your heart is content.
This is the BPI who is making some money out of this, how long is it going to be before the movie, and software, and games industry jump on this bandwagon? Everyone is going to be wanting to make you have a license.

They should not expect people to pay more for crap they wouldnt pay for to begin with, that would be like a top premier league team being religated, and then charging more for tickets next season cos they cant afford to lose the money.

Secondly they are targetting "file sharers" if my understanding is correct? What's to stop everyone jumping over on to newsgroups where you dont have to "share" anything, and tell the bpi, isps go stick it where the sun dont shine. (and no i dont mean Scotland lol)

Also with news providers such as Giganews which offer ssl, surely then if you got a letter, you could bring a case against your ISP for breaching your privacy?

Forcing people into something they dont like or don't want to do, will only make them all rebel.

to: The Government, BPI - as max and paddy once said in an episode, If you play with feathers, you gonna get your arse tickled :D.

PeteTheMusicGuy
24-07-2008, 15:55
I think ISPs and the BPI could be paying a few peoples houses off by the time this is over

If I get one of these letters they can expect to find themselves in court and I will ;). Easy money

Phormic Acid
24-07-2008, 16:00
…does it give details of what you're supposed to have been guilty of sharing?The original letters that came in envelopes threatening disconnection did include allegations of specific infringements. Example copies are on The Register website. There are links to them in the article Virgin Media and BPI join forces to attack illegal filesharing (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/06/virgin_media_bpi_deal/). I’ve not seen anything that suggests what the letters for the new carpet-bombing approach will contain.

ultimate
24-07-2008, 16:26
Does this affect http downloads using SSL?

How about Rapidshare and Megaupload?

Kymmy
24-07-2008, 16:42
Does this affect http downloads using SSL?

How about Rapidshare and Megaupload?

As with the NEWSGROUPS comment it isn't really rellavant as truthfully no-one knows what method the BPI is using...

BUT.. it is likely that P2P applications (i.e..anything that shares a file from your own storage via your own connection) is probably the source of the IP's that the BPI are passing to the ISP's.

Kymmy

Horace
24-07-2008, 16:51
There might be a knock-on effect to Usenet, since ISP's might be more pro-active towards complaints against uploaders but directly this will probably only affect public P2P where your ip is visible to all downloaders, Gnutella which includes Limewire and Bearshare probably being the most prolific at the moment. If you see those installed on your kids computer and you get a letter then you know why.

Kymmy
24-07-2008, 16:55
That's the thing, the emphasis is on sharers and not downloaders, usenet I think will be safe for the time being...

Though the BBC news report on this subject at midday did keep saying "DOWNLOADING" but I think that's more ignorance on thier part.

Kymmy

BenMcr
24-07-2008, 17:04
thinkbroadband.com have a response from Be broadband for all those interested

http://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/3634-be-broadband-asserts-its-position-over-illegal-file-sharing.html

SOSAGES
24-07-2008, 17:05
this would only be vaguely usefull if it happened 8 years ago..

ive yet to read/listen to anyone who actually has a clue how it all works on the tv or radio.

also if you do get a letter thats your fault for not being super sneaky and covering all your bases.

oh and remember its illegal!

eth01
24-07-2008, 17:05
you've been watching the news then................




SEARCH.

dev
24-07-2008, 17:13
They should not expect people to pay more for crap they wouldnt pay for to begin with, that would be like a top premier league team being religated, and then charging more for tickets next season cos they cant afford to lose the money.

so i'll be around 7ish at your house to take the keys to your house, i mean i wouldn't pay for your house but...

Sirius
24-07-2008, 17:27
The only way the BPI will ever get information from the ISP's is via a court case in which they'd have to ask a judge to order an ISP to divulge the information.

Kymmy

And in my opinion will be the next step.

However i can also see the BPI offering money to VM in return for that data as people's data will be sold by VM to anyone for advertising shortly anyway. Its a logical step on the road to our ISP selling us down the road.

Kymmy
24-07-2008, 17:47
They can't, VM can't give or sell personal data to the BPI, even Phorm won;t know the names and addresses of the connections it profiles..

If VM or any ISP did so then they'd be in more trouble than any file sharer

Kymmy

Hugh
24-07-2008, 17:48
thinkbroadband.com have a response from Be broadband for all those interested

http://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/3634-be-broadband-asserts-its-position-over-illegal-file-sharing.html

Erm, isn't this what the other six ISPs are doing (in principle)
From the link -
"Where a content owner (like a record label or a games company) approaches Be and requests the details of a member because of an alleged copyright infringement we will not supply this information direct to the requester unless they have a Court Order. To keep members informed of what’s going on in most circumstances we will try to contact the member in question to make them aware that we have had a request from the rights holder."

From the OP Telegraph link
"The six internet companies are BT, BSkyB, Virgin Media, Orange, Tiscali and Carphone Warehouse, which sells broadband access under the AOL and Talk Talk brands.
They have signed a memorandum of understanding which commits them to sending "informative letters" to customers whose accounts have been identified by the BPI as being used for filesharing."

Eric Knapper
24-07-2008, 20:04
With the problem VM have with cloned modems on their network what's the situation going to be for the customer's who have had their modem cloned would they get these warning letters when they have not used illegal file sharing?.

Sirius
24-07-2008, 20:06
With the problem VM have with cloned modems on their network what's the situation going to be for the customer's who have had their modem cloned would they get these warning letters when they have not used illegal file sharing?.

I have asked the same question, However Virgin will never admit that cloned modems exist. As far as i understand it, Yes they would because when VM check the IP it will be logged against a Mac address. That mac address will be tagged to a users account. If the person doing the letter sending does not check for duplicate or more mac address on various DHCP servers then potentially the owner of that mac address will receive the letter while the **** bag cloner gets nothing done to him.

dev
24-07-2008, 20:39
Erm, isn't this what the other six ISPs are doing (in principle)
From the link -
"Where a content owner (like a record label or a games company) approaches Be and requests the details of a member because of an alleged copyright infringement we will not supply this information direct to the requester unless they have a Court Order. To keep members informed of what’s going on in most circumstances we will try to contact the member in question to make them aware that we have had a request from the rights holder."

From the OP Telegraph link
"The six internet companies are BT, BSkyB, Virgin Media, Orange, Tiscali and Carphone Warehouse, which sells broadband access under the AOL and Talk Talk brands.
They have signed a memorandum of understanding which commits them to sending "informative letters" to customers whose accounts have been identified by the BPI as being used for filesharing."


tbh any ISP has always sent on warning letters, if they don't they'll come under legal attack from the copyright holders, AOL were doing it years ago. All the BPI are doing is requesting something concrete that requires ISPs to warn their users and do something about the problem, which imo is fine and much better than starting legal procedings against users like the RIAA etc.

a question to those complaining about, you make a piece of software or a web site design and host it on your site for free. some person comes along, realises it's good, downloads it, makes a site and starts selling it. now i bet most of you will want that site taking down as that guy is making money out of you and i bet you'd be rather ****ed off if the ISP turned around and said 'meh, we'll ask them to take it down'

ryuzaki
24-07-2008, 21:05
So, they are just going to send letters but because there is so much doubt (cloned modems, dodgy evidence etc) there will be no legal action or "three strikes" or anything like that?

Seems pointless, just a waste of paper, designed to shut the government and BPI up.

The idea of a levy sounds better, although £30/year for music is a bit much as I don't spend anything like that much on music anyway. How would I decide which bands it goes to or would I still have to buy their actual CDs to support them?

Angry@VMedia
24-07-2008, 21:12
I smell BS here...
I party (that news article) stating that all these ISP's have signed up, yet there are a few ISP's who have categorically stated they will not do this, so i wish to know which side is telling the porkies and would love to see that lying side in court!!

Barton71
24-07-2008, 21:28
So, they are just going to send letters but because there is so much doubt (cloned modems, dodgy evidence etc) there will be no legal action or "three strikes" or anything like that?

Seems pointless, just a waste of paper, designed to shut the government and BPI up.

The idea of a levy sounds better, although £30/year for music is a bit much as I don't spend anything like that much on music anyway. How would I decide which bands it goes to or would I still have to buy their actual CDs to support them?

Apparently there will be a three strike rule in place. Firstly, they will send out letters, next is a suspension of your account, until you agree in writing not to "re-offend", and lastly, your account will be terminated.

Just for the sake of argument, there are 6 million file sharers in the UK, so that 1 million for every ISP. Say 10% of those file sharers (the figure will probably be higher) dont stop sharing files, are the ISP's really going to terminate 100,000 accounts each? I think not. I suspect that there is something else in the pipleline which will make sharing music, movies, TV shows, etc... legal. Whether its the ISP's getting together and developing their own file sharing network, or an yearly fee levied on each account, we dont know, but something must be being developed. If it isnt, then the ISP's have become the bitches of the BPI.

ryuzaki
24-07-2008, 22:02
Apparently there will be a three strike rule in place. Firstly, they will send out letters, next is a suspension of your account, until you agree in writing not to "re-offend", and lastly, your account will be terminated.

All the stuff I read says specifically that there will NOT be a three strikes rule, or any enforcement at all. Just threatening letters.

I wonder what you are supposed to do if you get one by mistake - just ignore it? If you have to write to them every time and explain, you had better hope no-one cloned your modem...

Barton71
24-07-2008, 22:07
I read about it on the Guardian website http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/jul/24/digitalmedia.piracy1

"The first step is a letter, "intended to be educational" to an internet user about the "account abuse", the second a suspension of the account until the customers agrees in writing not to offend again, and the final step is cancelling an account."

ryuzaki
24-07-2008, 22:16
BPI scaremongering I think:

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080724-whats-right-with-the-groundbreaking-uk-p2p-compromise.html

"Note what's missing from the deal: a three-strikes rule. In fact, the deal contains no enforcement mechanisms of any kind."

Horace
24-07-2008, 22:29
Re: cloned modems.

The BPI collects IP addresses not MAC addresses so that completely negates the possibility a customer being warned/advised due to someone else using the same mac addy on a cloned modem. Pity because it might of pushed VM to do even more about the cloning problem if they had thousands of irate customers suing them.

I suppose the conclusion might be reached by a lot of people who are tier hopping, i.e. paying for the lowest tier and using a cloned modem for 20meg to cancel the subscription altogether due to worries about the BPI.

Jelly
24-07-2008, 22:33
As far as I know, cloned modem = cloned IP address.

buckleb
24-07-2008, 22:50
As far as I know, cloned modem = cloned IP address.

No, this can't be true. The cloned modem must have to pick up its IP address just like a legit one.

Cobbydaler
24-07-2008, 22:50
So would anybody pay £30 per year for legal downloads?

I would if the catalogue was huge & not limited to artists the industry wanted to promote to death...

Kymmy
24-07-2008, 22:52
Personally I don't tend to listen to anything but radio stations, whether that be on my mobile, via my internet media player or on the PC so no to that question.

Kymmy

buckleb
24-07-2008, 22:53
So would anybody pay £30 per year for legal downloads?

I would if the catalogue was huge & not limited to artists the industry wanted to promote to death...

Yes, I would too... as long as it really was 'unlimited', but ISPs don't have a great track record with that term!

dev
24-07-2008, 22:54
As far as I know, cloned modem = cloned IP address.

only one modem can have a certain IP address so a cloned modem gets a different one.

Re: cloned modems.

The BPI collects IP addresses not MAC addresses so that completely negates the possibility a customer being warned/advised due to someone else using the same mac addy on a cloned modem. Pity because it might of pushed VM to do even more about the cloning problem if they had thousands of irate customers suing them.

I suppose the conclusion might be reached by a lot of people who are tier hopping, i.e. paying for the lowest tier and using a cloned modem for 20meg to cancel the subscription altogether due to worries about the BPI.

although the BPI sends an IP address, how do VM convert the IP address to a customer? First they'd need to check the dhcp records which no doubt would match to a MAC address, they then check who has the MAC address on their account.

Kymmy
24-07-2008, 23:05
although the BPI sends an IP address, how do VM convert the IP address to a customer? First they'd need to check the dhcp records which no doubt would match to a MAC address, they then check who has the MAC address on their account.

Surely though they'll be a register of two IP's for that MAC address and this would be flagged up on VM's system putting in doubt that the account holder is the culprit.

Kymmy

Fatec
24-07-2008, 23:07
So would anybody pay £30 per year for legal downloads?

I would if the catalogue was huge & not limited to artists the industry wanted to promote to death...

No, why? because i dont want low bitrate 192Kbit/s mp3s, i dont want DRM and i still will not just buy an album/track without hearing them first.

Sirius
24-07-2008, 23:14
Re: cloned modems.

The BPI collects IP addresses not MAC addresses so that completely negates the possibility a customer being warned/advised due to someone else using the same mac addy on a cloned modem. Pity because it might of pushed VM to do even more about the cloning problem if they had thousands of irate customers suing them.

I suppose the conclusion might be reached by a lot of people who are tier hopping, i.e. paying for the lowest tier and using a cloned modem for 20meg to cancel the subscription altogether due to worries about the BPI.

So when a ip is given to virginmedia and they then look on the ubr what do you think they check that ip address against. Answers on a postcard to

The mac address.

on the DHCP

Linked to the account database

Your address



And before you ask :-

I have worked in the past on Cable modem infrastructure and ADSL infrastructure. Then i got better and left.

---------- Post added at 22:14 ---------- Previous post was at 22:10 ----------

Surely though they'll be a register of two IP's for that MAC address and this would be flagged up on VM's system putting in doubt that the account holder is the culprit.

Kymmy

But it depends on how busy the person looking into each account is. If that person cannot be arsed to check each DHCP server for Each of the areas that mac is in then some poor unfortunate will get a letter.

If VM could check that easily, Would you not think they would be able to stop the clones in the first place.

The fact of the matter is someone WILL get a letter even when they have not been using P2P but the **** bag who has cloned there modem and IS using P2P will not.

It kinda makes a mockery of all this.

Cobbydaler
24-07-2008, 23:18
No, why? because i dont want low bitrate 192Kbit/s mp3s, i dont want DRM and i still will not just buy an album/track without hearing them first.

Ah, but they don't have to be fixed bitrate mp3s, vbr mp3s or flac's a possibility.

You can hear music without buying it, try the radio... ;)

buckleb
24-07-2008, 23:26
So when a ip is given to virginmedia and they then look on the ubr what do you think they check that ip address against. Answers on a postcard to

The mac address.

on the DHCP

Linked to the account database

Your address



And before you ask :-

I have worked in the past on Cable modem infrastructure and ADSL infrastructure. Then i got better and left.

---------- Post added at 22:14 ---------- Previous post was at 22:10 ----------



But it depends on how busy the person looking into each account is. If that person cannot be arsed to check each DHCP server for Each of the areas that mac is in then some poor unfortunate will get a letter.

If VM could check that easily, Would you not think they would be able to stop the clones in the first place.

The fact of the matter is someone WILL get a letter even when they have not been using P2P but the **** bag who has cloned there modem and IS using P2P will not.

It kinda makes a mockery of all this.

I'm probably missing something here, but are you sure about that?

An IP address is mapped to a particular host (for example mine is xxx-xxx-xxx-xxx.cable.ubr05.craw.blueyonder.co.uk). Wouldn't Virgin just look on that UBR, and not the one where the cloned modem was (assuming I was doing the downloading)?

I can see that if no regard was given to the MAC address/UBR comination then a letter might be sent to the wrong person, but wouldn't this be fairly easy to refute (and flag up the existence of a clone on a particular UBR)?

BenMcr
24-07-2008, 23:57
Exactly, the only way cloned MAC addresses work is that they run on a different UBR to the authentic one. Which means they would have to be assigned a different IP address

Fatec
24-07-2008, 23:58
Ah, but they don't have to be fixed bitrate mp3s, vbr mp3s or flac's a possibility.

You can hear music without buying it, try the radio... ;)

Music i like isn't played on the radio, i find alot of mainstream stuff complete carp.

Yea, could you imagine a service which actually knows how to encode mp3s properly to V0/V1/V2 VBR mp3s? wouldnt matter, flacs? not a chance.

Cobbydaler
25-07-2008, 00:06
Well, I'd hardly call everything on this (http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/radio/bbc_radio_one/music/dance_and_electronica) list or this (http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/radio/bbc_radio_one/music/rock_and_indie) mainstream. ;)

And that's just Radio 1...

Fatec
25-07-2008, 00:12
Well, I'd hardly call everything on this (http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/radio/bbc_radio_one/music/dance_and_electronica) list or this (http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/radio/bbc_radio_one/music/rock_and_indie) mainstream. ;)

And that's just Radio 1...

Dont like any of that.

I'm picky with music, i'm more into classical rock, rock (some, not much newer stuff), country (laugh and i hit you :p:) classical (for relaxation purposes), j-pop/j-rock, infact i listen to whatever suits my mood.

Cobbydaler
25-07-2008, 00:13
Dont like any of that.

I'm picky with music, i'm more into classical rock, rock (some, not much newer stuff), country (laugh and i hit you :p:) classical (for relaxation purposes), j-pop/j-rock, infact i listen to whatever suits my mood.

Yee Hah! ;)

Enuff
25-07-2008, 00:25
I think the only concern I have with this at the moment, is if my MAC address has been cloned and the scally that is using it is downloading and uploading GB's of copyright material. I don't, and never will use P2P programs, they're a magnet for trojans and virus's.

I just remembered, I won't be with Virgin for much longer, I'm being disconnected on the 16th of August. :dozey:

---------- Post added at 23:25 ---------- Previous post was at 23:18 ----------

Dont like any of that.

I'm picky with music, i'm more into classical rock, rock (some, not much newer stuff), country (laugh and i hit you :p:) classical (for relaxation purposes), j-pop/j-rock, infact i listen to whatever suits my mood.

Have you tried Screamer? http://www.screamer-radio.com/

Cobbydaler
25-07-2008, 00:32
Dont like any of that.

I'm picky with music, i'm more into classical rock, rock (some, not much newer stuff), country (laugh and i hit you :p:) classical (for relaxation purposes), j-pop/j-rock, infact i listen to whatever suits my mood.



Have you tried Screamer? http://www.screamer-radio.com/

Or last.fm (www.last.fm)?

buckleb
25-07-2008, 00:32
Dont like any of that.

I'm picky with music, i'm more into classical rock, rock (some, not much newer stuff), country (laugh and i hit you :p:) classical (for relaxation purposes), j-pop/j-rock, infact i listen to whatever suits my mood.

My wife is also very into Country,and I'm an old classic rocker. My needs are catered for to a very limited degree, but hers not at all. Internet radio is the only way we can both fill our boots with as much of our favourite sounds as we can manage (Pinnacle Home Music thingy).

Maggy
25-07-2008, 00:34
I think we are getting away from the topic myself but at least it's uncontentious stuff. :)

Fatec
25-07-2008, 01:05
Yee Hah! ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aa9mNistHSs

is all i'm gonna say ;):p:

Edit : youtube video i wanna link to u cant view in the UK lol.

---------- Post added at 00:05 ---------- Previous post was at 00:03 ----------

My wife is also very into Country,and I'm an old classic rocker. My needs are catered for to a very limited degree, but hers not at all. Internet radio is the only way we can both fill our boots with as much of our favourite sounds as we can manage (Pinnacle Home Music thingy).

Yep, very hard to find this sort of music in high quality and i'm not willing to pay for it drm'd to the hilt and in low quality!

Nice to see another country listener :) old rock is great, stuff they put out today is terrible, it's no wonder people just download it instead! :D

Kymmy
25-07-2008, 09:36
Back on topic please guys

---------- Post added at 08:36 ---------- Previous post was at 08:33 ----------

If VM could check that easily, Would you not think they would be able to stop the clones in the first place.

The fact of the matter is someone WILL get a letter even when they have not been using P2P but the **** bag who has cloned there modem and IS using P2P will not.

It kinda makes a mockery of all this.

Perhaps then the emphasis (on VM as ADSL doesn't have this problem) should be for the ISP to first confirm that the person they're sending out the letters too are the account holders of the account used for file sharing. For gawd sake if they worked out how to do that they'd not only get the BPI off thier backs but also the cloners off thier networks... Perhaps a centralised DHCP bank is in order???

I know that the original letters did say about disconnection, these were altered after the initial news reports to be a general educational/guide as to someone on your account may be file sharing and were not a definative accusation like the original.

Kymmy

SOSAGES
25-07-2008, 10:25
The world's largest web-based retailer of just about everything has improved on forecasts by announcing a net profit that has doubled to $158 million over the three months of April, May and June this year.
Interestingly, one of the biggest margins that contributed to the success was from sales of books, CDs and DVDs, which were up 31%

http://uk.gizmodo.com/2008/07/24/amazon_doubles_profits_in_pira.html

Kymmy
25-07-2008, 10:35
http://uk.gizmodo.com/2008/07/24/amazon_doubles_profits_in_pira.html

Which is again off-topic, the amounts that retailers are earning through online sales is another subject entirely. This topic is about the BPI and ISP's in relation to file sharing.

There will be no more warnings guys and all future off-topic posts may be deleted

SOSAGES
25-07-2008, 10:39
did anyone see the 2 women the bbc had on talking about this yesterday evening?
a mother and daughter team..
possibly the worst people to try and justify stealing music and movies.

Kymmy
25-07-2008, 10:43
There's no justification stealing/copyright infringing (please lets not have the downloading is not stealing arguement as that's what closed the last thread) any movies/music at all......

But thousands do it and will do it probably after the BPI take action and force ISP's to stop them. Using current methods though all it's going to do is to increase the shares in companies offering anonymous proxies ;)

As far as mother/daughter they're probably the only people that the BBC could get to go on-air and say that there is justification downloading..

SOSAGES
25-07-2008, 11:10
check out
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00cp44t

skip to 20 mins into it
the family is at 21 mins but its worth watching the whole thing as the tech expert at the bbc is a bit of a fool

such classics as:
its not harming anyone
and my fav

everybody does it

dev
25-07-2008, 11:20
check out
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00cp44t

skip to 20 mins into it
the family is at 21 mins but its worth watching the whole thing as the tech expert at the bbc is a bit of a fool

such classics as:

and my fav

tbh, the "its not harming anyone" is true in a lot of cases, there a few people who download stuff,

1, those who'll download it regardless and never pay for anything
2, those who download stuff they think isn't worth the price
3, those who download to try

in 2 / 3 there are no lost sales so no harm done, people in number 1 don't make any sales so no losses there either

on the customers side, you buy a game/album/whatever, take it home, realise it's complete ***** and go to take it back and get a refund, you can't so you're stuck with something you don't want

Hugh
25-07-2008, 11:41
Doesn't the same argument apply the purchase of books and magazines?

Kymmy
25-07-2008, 11:46
Doesn't the same argument apply the purchase of books and magazines?

Correct, also as far as games/movies there's enough trailers, demos, reviews around to totally nul that arguement.

Kymmy

SOSAGES
25-07-2008, 12:04
trailers + demos are designed to show the best side of something
i can spend a few mins on the apple trailers site and point out some awesome trailers for films that generally suck :)

Kymmy
25-07-2008, 12:11
Then simply wait for them to come out on free TV.....as it's still no justification for downloading.

BUT then again the BPI aren't curently going after downloaders but the actual file sharers... (I know in P2P the downloader becomes a file sharer but again that's no justification)

Kymmy

dev
25-07-2008, 12:36
Then simply wait for them to come out on free TV.....as it's still no justification for downloading.

BUT then again the BPI aren't curently going after downloaders but the actual file sharers... (I know in P2P the downloader becomes a file sharer but again that's no justification)

Kymmy

well for games, demos are usually ok but also come out after the actual game, trailers for games are pointless as bad gameplay can make a game worthless (<insert ea sports game here>)

for movies, as said trailers they show the best bits and if the trailer shows all the best bits then the rest of the movie would be crap and pointless to go and pay for. i can't remember the last time i paid to watch or movie (or even downloaded one) they all end up following a generic plot which is usually obvious and boring.

waiting for movies to come onto tv to become free - what difference does it make if someone downloads it then, they still got it for free and the movie company makes neither more or less money.

what about downloading tv episodes? if you miss it on tv for free, why should you be forced to pay for a dvd to watch it in a few years?

SOSAGES
25-07-2008, 12:42
Then simply wait for them to come out on free TV.....as it's still no justification for downloading.

BUT then again the BPI aren't curently going after downloaders but the actual file sharers... (I know in P2P the downloader becomes a file sharer but again that's no justification)

Kymmy

fyi: i am not justifying stealing anything
its just simple you cant stop it

in 10 years time this will all be forgotten as we move to a large scale media on demand network over the internet no one will have any hard copies anymore.

Kymmy
25-07-2008, 13:06
In reality they can stop it as the technology is there and is being used by the goverment, but it would mean the ISP's inspecting your data and using this to determined any illegal downloads, even SSL won't get past DPI as only the content in encrypted and not the location/address...

But as our legal framework stands no ISP is allowed to do that though if the BPI do make a stand any legal victory by them will take the ISP's a step closer :(

Kymmy

Damien
25-07-2008, 14:48
If I have got this right this is actually quite a fair deal, all they are doing is sending letters to suspected file-sharers and agreeing to a set of meetings to work out what to do with heavy uploaders.

No mention of the 3-strike deal or anything like that.

Kymmy
25-07-2008, 14:56
Correct, but you know the BPI, give them an inch and they'll expect the whole mile :(

Kymmy

Hugh
25-07-2008, 17:09
Correct, but you know the BPI, give them an inch and they'll expect the whole mile :(

Kymmy
What, like illegal downloaders? :D




<only joking> ;)

Kymmy
25-07-2008, 17:48
It's like any organisation that's losing PROFIT through a 3rd party activity... The BPI won't be appeased by the named ISP's sending out these letters, they'll then push for stricter guidelines and especially details of people that they can prosecute. Where in the end do they stop? Surely after P2P is cleaned up then they'll approach usenet providers for details of the posters IPs????

I know such thoughts go against privacy laws but when has privacy laws ever dominated over legal wrongdoers :(

Kymmy

Impz2002
25-07-2008, 17:57
The government are foolish if they beleive this will stop any of the more knowlegeable downloaders. Whatever technology they develop will soon be out-smarted by the clever peeps on the net. I will continue to download torrent legal or otherwise. Where there is a will there is a way and this latest wheeze from the suits high up in the governent or the anti-piracy brigade wont have a noticeable difference. It may scare your average joe into stopping but it certainly dosnt wash with me.

Sorry if my views are not to your liking but thats the way it is :)

Impz

Kymmy
25-07-2008, 18:02
The goverment aren't involved with the BPI/ISP collaberation, in fact the goverments privacy laws are probably the only thing stopping them.

SOSAGES
25-07-2008, 18:03
indeed they cant stop it
all they can stop are the fools that probably think limewire and bearshare are the best things on the web..

Impz2002
25-07-2008, 18:07
Limeware is an obvious example of what not to use. Newsgroups with SSL is the obvious choice for the smarter people !

Impz

ryuzaki
25-07-2008, 18:10
Well, if they get silly about it I'll just get retentions to knock another few quid off to cover an Relakks account.

Honestly, haven't they ever heard of King Canute?

Kymmy
25-07-2008, 18:14
I don't think anyone on here even thinks that the letters will stop anything (apart from the oik on his parents internet connection), but if there's no reaction to the letters then surely the BPI will look at other tougher methods.... :(

It's like the speed limit on motorways, early on there wasn't one but because some idiots were doing rediculous speeds compared with the flow of traffic we all have to now plod along at 70...

I'd personally be happy if VM blocked the P2P ports, but that would push everyone into other methods...

Worrying thing is where does all this end as to make the BPI happy internet access in the UK would have drastic changes :(

Fatec
25-07-2008, 18:41
I'd personally be happy if VM blocked the P2P ports, but that would push everyone into other methods...

Blocking ports which plenty of legal services use would not go down well...

Kymmy
25-07-2008, 18:45
I didn't say everyone would be happy ;)

ryuzaki
25-07-2008, 19:22
[QUOTE=Kymmy;34608381It's like the speed limit on motorways, early on there wasn't one but because some idiots were doing rediculous speeds compared with the flow of traffic we all have to now plod along at 70...[/QUOTE]

At the risk of extending an analogy too far...

When motorways first appeared, the average family car had a top speed of 50mph and certainly could not sustain that for long. Later faster cars came along and average speeds rose a lot. The roads could not cope with people doing those speeds for a variety of reasons (unlike the German autobhans which were designed for it) so speed limits were introduced.

Similarly, the internet started out with dial-up and because it was 1p/min or more you kept your usage down. Later unlimited dial-up came along and a lot of ISPs were stuffed because they hadn't built their infrastructure to support it. In came the automatic disconnects and 2 hour limits etc. Then came broadband, again slow at first but eventually ramping up a bit. Once more the infrastructure creeks and the limits come in again.

Another interesting parallel is that something which was effectively legal is now attempting to be made a civil offence. Where once private copying was tolerated, now the BPI wants to threaten you for doing it, if not actually wanting to sue you.

Hugh
25-07-2008, 19:26
That's because previously (imho) private copying was perhaps one or two copies - now it can be hundreds, if not thousands - so the scale of "private copying" has changed (again, imho).

dev
25-07-2008, 19:29
private copying was never legal, they just didn't bother with it

bigsanta11
25-07-2008, 20:14
Rejoice! "Three strikes and you're out" is dead in the UK. Music file sharers will no longer face the threat of seeing the household broadband connection severed. The plague that is currently endemic in France won't be jumping the English Channel

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/25/three_strikes_dead_hurrah/

Hugh
25-07-2008, 21:11
Loved this phrase from the article

"It would have involved the creation of a "National Freetards Register"."

Berealwith
25-07-2008, 22:36
ok this might be a numpty way of looking at things. Say i make quite a few say a few gigs of dummy files, some look like a full cd and lots of single dummy files all names different but have song artists names and do not download anything say from limewire. I then allow people to upload from me. Then a few more do it and a few more would that be wrong ? and could i get a letter ? if so what for? and somewhere along the line i am sure it would fill thier inbox up with spam...

And doesn't channel 4 use p2p for it tv ? would you get a letter for that ?

Who knows i don't use p2p but its the start and in a few years time we could all be under the ISP's boot.

John Purser
25-07-2008, 23:03
Hi, I run a small label and am a member of the BPI.
I have to say I don't agree with this move. Over the years labels have been very successful at persuading the public to buy all types of music. Unfortunately, the rules have changed. They failed to take note of the changes that were happening and found out that their business models no longer worked. They just wouldn't listen.
Either give it away or let advertising on the tracks pay for it!

Horace
25-07-2008, 23:18
ok this might be a numpty way of looking at things. Say i make quite a few say a few gigs of dummy files, some look like a full cd and lots of single dummy files all names different but have song artists names and do not download anything say from limewire. I then allow people to upload from me. Then a few more do it and a few more would that be wrong ? and could i get a letter ? if so what for? and somewhere along the line i am sure it would fill thier inbox up with spam...

And doesn't channel 4 use p2p for it tv ? would you get a letter for that ?

Who knows i don't use p2p but its the start and in a few years time we could all be under the ISP's boot.

I suspect the following will happen which should help clear things up for you.

The BPI's investigators log onto Limewire for example. They download the latest album by Coldplay, they check it's legit and log the IP's of everyone else who's uploading the same file. Files on P2P use a hash to ensure you're participating in sharing the same file. Filenames are fairly irrelevant and if you used Emule you'd see the same file with multiple different names. It's the hash which is composed from the file's binary code that's important and no two files can have the same hash unless they're identical.

They then take all the IP's coming from Virgin's IP ranges and send them to Virgin, Virgin then match up the IP to the customer who had that IP at the time the upload was made.
Assuming Virgin do log which IP's are tied to which customers (I'm pretty sure they have to for legal reasons) then the whole thing is water-tight.

Berealwith
25-07-2008, 23:29
thanks bud it cleared it up for me smiles

Barton71
25-07-2008, 23:36
I suspect the following will happen which should help clear things up for you.

The BPI's investigators log onto Limewire for example. They download the latest album by Coldplay, they check it's legit and log the IP's of everyone else who's uploading the same file. Files on P2P use a hash to ensure you're participating in sharing the same file. Filenames are fairly irrelevant and if you used Emule you'd see the same file with multiple different names. It's the hash which is composed from the file's binary code that's important and no two files can have the same hash unless they're identical.

They then take all the IP's coming from Virgin's IP ranges and send them to Virgin, Virgin then match up the IP to the customer who had that IP at the time the upload was made.
Assuming Virgin do log which IP's are tied to which customers (I'm pretty sure they have to for legal reasons) then the whole thing is water-tight.

Water tight as far as finding out the name and address of the account holder, but not the person sharing files. If you have 4 students sharing a flat, and an internet connection, and only one is file sharing, how can you tell which one is file sharing? It may even be the landlord who is the account holder, and he has nothing to do with what his tenants do online. Unless (and iam not sure about the legalities), the account holder is responsible for what passes though his networks. But, if the acount holders were responsible, that would open up a whole new can of worms, with regards to privacy, and/or one person being sued for the crimes of another.

---------- Post added at 22:36 ---------- Previous post was at 22:33 ----------

Hi, I run a small label and am a member of the BPI.
I have to say I don't agree with this move. Over the years labels have been very successful at persuading the public to buy all types of music. Unfortunately, the rules have changed. They failed to take note of the changes that were happening and found out that their business models no longer worked. They just wouldn't listen.
Either give it away or let advertising on the tracks pay for it!


How does your company make its money? Are you exploring other ways to make music pay?

Hugh
25-07-2008, 23:56
Water tight as far as finding out the name and address of the account holder, but not the person sharing files. If you have 4 students sharing a flat, and an internet connection, and only one is file sharing, how can you tell which one is file sharing? It may even be the landlord who is the account holder, and he has nothing to do with what his tenants do online. Unless (and iam not sure about the legalities), the account holder is responsible for what passes though his networks. But, if the acount holders were responsible, that would open up a whole new can of worms, with regards to privacy, and/or one person being sued for the crimes of another.

---------- Post added at 22:36 ---------- Previous post was at 22:33 ----------




How does your company make its money? Are you exploring other ways to make music pay?
My daughter has VM in Leicester, and it is usually one of the tenants whose name is on the contract, rather than the landlord.

And on this VM T&C page (http://allyours.virginmedia.com/html/legal/oncable/terms.html) (re your comment about the other "sharers" in the flat/house

"You are responsible for the way the services are used. You must not use the services to do any of the following acts or allow anyone else to use the services to do such acts:
Send a message or communication that is offensive, abusive, defamatory (damages someone's reputation), obscene, menacing or illegal;
Cause annoyance, nuisance, inconvenience or needless worry to, or break the rights of, any other person;
Perform any illegal activity;
Break, or try to break, the security of anyone else's equipment, hardware or software;
Deliberately receive, use, own, post, transmit or publish obscene material (including, but not limited to, child pornography);
Upload, post, publish or transmit any information or software that is protected by copyright or other ownership rights without the permission of its owner;
Copy or distribute any software or services we provide (but you may make a backup copy of the software we provide for your personal use); "
and

"You agree to take responsibility for all liabilities, claims and losses which are in any way connected with misusing the services supplied to you under this agreement"

Also, in VM's AUP (http://allyours.virginmedia.com/html/legal/oncable/acceptableuse.html) (section 3)
3.2. You must not use the Services in any way that is unlawful or illegal or in any way to the detriment of other Internet users. You also must not allow anybody using your connection to use the Services in any way that is unlawful or illegal or in any way to the detriment of other Internet users.
3.3. During an investigation, if we believe that a violation of this AUP or our Terms and Conditions has occurred, we may take immediate remedial action. Such action may include temporary or permanent removal of material from our servers, the cancellation of newsgroup postings, warnings to the User responsible, and the suspension, restriction or termination of the User's account. We will determine what action will be taken on a case-by-case basis. Please note that we have a policy of open co-operation with all relevant authorities and regulators.
3.4. In addition to and without prejudice to your obligations pursuant to our Terms and Conditions, you agree to comply with (and ensure that others using the Services comply with) all applicable laws, statutes and regulations in connection with the Services. As the User of record, you are responsible for all use of your account, irrespective of use without your knowledge and/or consent.

Toto
26-07-2008, 02:33
The goverment aren't involved with the BPI/ISP collaberation, in fact the goverments privacy laws are probably the only thing stopping them.

Well, that's not totally correct. The government have put significant pressure on ISP's to work with the BPI and other rights holders representatives, otherwise they have said that they will force legislation.

This latest deal, was brokered by BERR.

Here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7522334.stm).


Six of the UK's biggest net providers have agreed a plan with the music industry to tackle piracy online.
The deal, negotiated by the government, will see hundreds of thousands of letters sent to net users suspected of illegally sharing music...

I have, in that OTHER thread offered my views on the subject, both as an Internet user and an interested party. In my opinion what this represents in this first stage is basically a carpet bombing exercise without any collateral damage. If that doesn't significantly "educate" Internet users in the UK, and I wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't, the next stage will likely see the worst offenders in each of the big six getting court orders dropping through the door.

---------- Post added at 01:33 ---------- Previous post was at 01:17 ----------

ok this might be a numpty way of looking at things. Say i make quite a few say a few gigs of dummy files, some look like a full cd and lots of single dummy files all names different but have song artists names and do not download anything say from limewire. I then allow people to upload from me. Then a few more do it and a few more would that be wrong ? and could i get a letter ? if so what for? and somewhere along the line i am sure it would fill thier inbox up with spam...

And doesn't channel 4 use p2p for it tv ? would you get a letter for that ?

Who knows i don't use p2p but its the start and in a few years time we could all be under the ISP's boot.

Would it be wrong? Probably not, but extremely annoying for other sharers :)

Could you get a letter? Very unlikely. Part of the evidence gathering actually requires the files to be examined for content, in other words if the file says it is a work by an artist then that has to be confirmed by listening to it, you can't rights protect a song title.

Horace
26-07-2008, 02:33
Water tight as far as finding out the name and address of the account holder, but not the person sharing files. If you have 4 students sharing a flat, and an internet connection, and only one is file sharing, how can you tell which one is file sharing? It may even be the landlord who is the account holder, and he has nothing to do with what his tenants do online. Unless (and iam not sure about the legalities), the account holder is responsible for what passes though his networks. But, if the acount holders were responsible, that would open up a whole new can of worms, with regards to privacy, and/or one person being sued for the crimes of another.


Well things haven't gone far enough for that example to be meaningful but I guess the landlord would cut the connection completely if he was smart and tell the tenants to find their own alternative.

Marloe
26-07-2008, 02:37
I fully admit my whole music collection has been downloaded illegally, being from the slightly older generation I started my collection by buying records (a rather large collection)

They then had this great new invention called the walkman. I saved my money and replaced all my records with tapes.

Then to my surprise an even better way to listen to music came out called the CD. Again I had to pay for exactly the same music which I had already paid for on Record and Tape so I could upgrade to CD.

Now they have this even better way to listen to music called MP3. Basically the buck stops here. I’ve paid for the same music three times. Why should I have to pay for the same music again? Yes I could convert the CDs to MP3 or record the Records to tape but at the end of the day for me it’s the same thing making a copy of music I already have.

I’m just waiting for that letter to tell me that I’ve been illegally downloading and I will be happy to take my large collection of LPs Tapes and cds to prove that I have actually more than paid my dues to the artists.

Rant over.

Pedro1
26-07-2008, 12:40
As far as i go, if i am denied my downloads and stuff then VM can ram there 20MB.
Everyone likes the down and up speed we are getting.. More would be cool>>>> LOL...
Jings these isp's must know what they are gonna loose.
If we all canny download and do what we like, then who is going to meet the demand for the broadband?
Am sure isp's have the right and are bound by the data protection act to say screw you.


Us are creating the demand for broadband technology these days. if they want to keep it that way then they will protect us. This aint America.

I talk for millions here i think, cap me, reduce, send me letters whatever then stick it up yer ********SSS.

knet2020
26-07-2008, 12:49
For me the quote of the year in all this can be read in an article by Andy Burnham, although slightly more focused on the other hot topic on the net 'child saftey' he does include this corker:

In different ways, government is beginning tentatively to articulate a new way forward. Wherever possible, it should be voluntary, self-regulatory or co-regulatory, such as the successful way in which the advertising industry has operated for many years.

This approach was at the heart of Dr Tanya Byron's excellent report about child safety online and it can be seen in yesterday's announcement on illegal downloading.

If we can't make copyright work in the new age, the prospects look bleak for young creative talent and good for those who seek to make money off the back of them.


http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/andy-burnham-in-a-lawless-zone-we-must-protect-the-vulnerable-876679.html

Toto
26-07-2008, 13:28
As far as i go, if i am denied my downloads and stuff then VM can ram there 20MB.


And go where?

BT?
Sky?
Tiscali...?

The big six are doing this, to prevent the possibility of government intervention or possibly an expensive court case. They are not trying to prevent you from D/Uloading, re-read the title of this thread. :)

Fatec
26-07-2008, 13:34
And go where?

BT?
Sky?
Tiscali...?

The big six are doing this, to prevent the possibility of government intervention or possibly an expensive court case. They are not trying to prevent you from D/Uloading, re-read the title of this thread. :)

Read the p2p report, it's not just about sending warning letters out, those 6 isps are having meetings on how to stop downloaders completely (through application throttling, speed throttling or just a total download cap)

So yes, they are :p:

Toto
26-07-2008, 13:46
read the p2p report, it's not just about sending warning letters out, those 6 isps are having meetings on how to stop downloaders completely (through application throttling, speed throttling or just a total download cap)

so yes, they are :p:

lol, ok ;)

Bonglet
26-07-2008, 13:47
Then people will realise why the hell cant i access stuff to download or why can i not use my 100mb connection to the full when im capped to 10k i feel ripped off, then all the isp's loose customers in droves as will be the case in a couple of months ;).

Toto
26-07-2008, 13:49
Then people will realise why the hell cant i access stuff to download or why can i not use my 100mb connection to the full when im capped to 10k i feel ripped off, then all the isp's loose customers in droves as will be the case in a couple of months ;).

Albeit that may have been a tounge-in-cheek comment, but its a wildly speculative. :rolleyes:

Barton71
27-07-2008, 14:58
My daughter has VM in Leicester, and it is usually one of the tenants whose name is on the contract, rather than the landlord.

And on this VM T&C page (http://allyours.virginmedia.com/html/legal/oncable/terms.html) (re your comment about the other "sharers" in the flat/house

"You are responsible for the way the services are used. You must not use the services to do any of the following acts or allow anyone else to use the services to do such acts:

Send a message or communication that is offensive, abusive, defamatory (damages someone's reputation), obscene, menacing or illegal;
Cause annoyance, nuisance, inconvenience or needless worry to, or break the rights of, any other person;
Perform any illegal activity;
Break, or try to break, the security of anyone else's equipment, hardware or software;
Deliberately receive, use, own, post, transmit or publish obscene material (including, but not limited to, child pornography);
Upload, post, publish or transmit any information or software that is protected by copyright or other ownership rights without the permission of its owner;
Copy or distribute any software or services we provide (but you may make a backup copy of the software we provide for your personal use); "

and

"You agree to take responsibility for all liabilities, claims and losses which are in any way connected with misusing the services supplied to you under this agreement"

Also, in VM's AUP (http://allyours.virginmedia.com/html/legal/oncable/acceptableuse.html) (section 3)
3.2. You must not use the Services in any way that is unlawful or illegal or in any way to the detriment of other Internet users. You also must not allow anybody using your connection to use the Services in any way that is unlawful or illegal or in any way to the detriment of other Internet users.
3.3. During an investigation, if we believe that a violation of this AUP or our Terms and Conditions has occurred, we may take immediate remedial action. Such action may include temporary or permanent removal of material from our servers, the cancellation of newsgroup postings, warnings to the User responsible, and the suspension, restriction or termination of the User's account. We will determine what action will be taken on a case-by-case basis. Please note that we have a policy of open co-operation with all relevant authorities and regulators.
3.4. In addition to and without prejudice to your obligations pursuant to our Terms and Conditions, you agree to comply with (and ensure that others using the Services comply with) all applicable laws, statutes and regulations in connection with the Services. As the User of record, you are responsible for all use of your account, irrespective of use without your knowledge and/or consent.

Yeah, but that is only VM's terms and conditions, not the law of the land. As the BPI can only provide the IP address to the ISP's, which can only lead to the ISP's finding the name and addess of the account holder, the question remains, is an account holder responsible for what passes through his or her network, or is the account holder, like the ISP's and the Post Office, just a conduit through which the information passes? In other words, is an IP address sufficiant enough evidence to secure a proescution against an individual? If it is, and the BPI are going to use IP addresses as evidence to sue people, then i would argue that the BPI arent interested in suing file sharers, but that they are more interested in the publicity which surrounds suing someone for file sharing, whether that person was actually the person file sharing or not.

Hugh
27-07-2008, 15:23
I was only referring you to VMs T&C - how you wish to interpret them is entirely up to you.

Although VM (and all other ISPs, who seem to have fairly similar T&Cs) may have taken some legal advice, don't you think? ;) (and this Policy Proposal has been raised by HM Government)

Kymmy
27-07-2008, 15:29
Barton71 though does have a point...

According to VM's T&Cs the account holder is responsible for what goes through the modem, but if the action brought by the BPI is a legal action then does VM's T&Cs matter as then it'll be upto different rules and nothing to do with VM...

In simpler terms you can use the "it was someone else on my connection" excuse with VM but you probably could in a legal case...

Kymmy

Toto
27-07-2008, 15:36
Yeah, but that is only VM's terms and conditions, not the law of the land. As the BPI can only provide the IP address to the ISP's, which can only lead to the ISP's finding the name and addess of the account holder, the question remains, is an account holder responsible for what passes through his or her network, or is the account holder, like the ISP's and the Post Office, just a conduit through which the information passes? In other words, is an IP address sufficiant enough evidence to secure a proescution against an individual? If it is, and the BPI are going to use IP addresses as evidence to sue people, then i would argue that the BPI arent interested in suing file sharers, but that they are more interested in the publicity which surrounds suing someone for file sharing, whether that person was actually the person file sharing or not.

The IP address would have appeared to be sufficient in previous cases where the BPI have taken civil action, what I can't seem to find is a recorded civil case where the defendant has argued that whilst they are the account holder, they are not responsible for every piece of traffic through their network, and won. Anyone know of any?

Currently ISP's can claim "mere conduit" under EU law, but as far as I can tell, not the end user.

It's an interesting point though, and one that could have serious implications, and probably why there has never been any criminal action to date due to the burden of prove.

Hugh
27-07-2008, 15:40
We should remember that the ISPs (not just VM) are requesting that account holders stick to the T&Cs and AUP, and will then throttle/disconnect if these T&Cs are not adhered to (which include managing what happens at your end of the IntraWeeb pipe) - it will only become a legal issue if an account holder fights against being throttled/disconnected, and then wouldn't the account holder have to prove that the ISP was in the wrong in a civil case?

Berealwith
27-07-2008, 15:51
I fully admit my whole music collection has been downloaded illegally, being from the slightly older generation I started my collection by buying records (a rather large collection)

They then had this great new invention called the walkman. I saved my money and replaced all my records with tapes.

Then to my surprise an even better way to listen to music came out called the CD. Again I had to pay for exactly the same music which I had already paid for on Record and Tape so I could upgrade to CD.

Now they have this even better way to listen to music called MP3. Basically the buck stops here. I’ve paid for the same music three times. Why should I have to pay for the same music again? Yes I could convert the CDs to MP3 or record the Records to tape but at the end of the day for me it’s the same thing making a copy of music I already have.

I’m just waiting for that letter to tell me that I’ve been illegally downloading and I will be happy to take my large collection of LPs Tapes and cds to prove that I have actually more than paid my dues to the artists.

Rant over.

what a comment so true......I have loads of LP's and tapes

and sorry to go of topic.

these days on this forum the slightest so called duplication or just a bit of topic gets crushed. i hardly feel the rigth to post anymore. It must be the "VirGrim" virus:)

Maggy
27-07-2008, 16:46
what a comment so true......I have loads of LP's and tapes

and sorry to go of topic.

these days on this forum the slightest so called duplication or just a bit of topic gets crushed. i hardly feel the rigth to post anymore. It must be the "VirGrim" virus:)

YOU are always free to start a thread of your own..on a topic of your choice PROVIDED it is not against the site's T&Cs.

Stuart
27-07-2008, 16:59
And doesn't channel 4 use p2p for it tv ? would you get a letter for that ?



Channel 4 does. As does Sky and the BBC's iPlayer download service (the web streaming service doesn't). They use a P2P system licenced from a company called kontiki, who specialise in P2P services for commercial distribution. It is unlikely the BPI are montoring this network, as the users cannot use it to download stuff not from these companies

Also, the files are protected by DRM, so even if you did manage to download something, you would still require a licence from the relevant broadcaster to play it.

Finally, it's worth noting that P2P itself is legal. As long as you only use it to download stuff that is not copyrighted.

Horace
27-07-2008, 20:52
I fully admit my whole music collection has been downloaded illegally, being from the slightly older generation I started my collection by buying records (a rather large collection)

They then had this great new invention called the walkman. I saved my money and replaced all my records with tapes.

Then to my surprise an even better way to listen to music came out called the CD. Again I had to pay for exactly the same music which I had already paid for on Record and Tape so I could upgrade to CD.

Now they have this even better way to listen to music called MP3. Basically the buck stops here. I’ve paid for the same music three times. Why should I have to pay for the same music again? Yes I could convert the CDs to MP3 or record the Records to tape but at the end of the day for me it’s the same thing making a copy of music I already have.

I’m just waiting for that letter to tell me that I’ve been illegally downloading and I will be happy to take my large collection of LPs Tapes and cds to prove that I have actually more than paid my dues to the artists.

Rant over.

If you're downloading those MP3's from P2P sites then you're also sharing the same MP3's with the world and his wife. You'd be better off ripping to a lossless format such as FLAC from your own CD's anyway if you care about quality, quality of MP3's on most P2P systems is dire to say the least.

dev
27-07-2008, 22:10
The IP address would have appeared to be sufficient in previous cases where the BPI have taken civil action, what I can't seem to find is a recorded civil case where the defendant has argued that whilst they are the account holder, they are not responsible for every piece of traffic through their network, and won. Anyone know of any?

Currently ISP's can claim "mere conduit" under EU law, but as far as I can tell, not the end user.

It's an interesting point though, and one that could have serious implications, and probably why there has never been any criminal action to date due to the burden of prove.

i expect the ISPs can get away with it because of the number of people involved, they themselves don't use the connections and they have a database of what connection belongs to who. now if you're a landlord and provide your tennants with a connection from VM (and so landlord is account holder) it would be up to them to show who was the culprit, and i would expect them to be let off

eth01
27-07-2008, 22:13
it's a very responsible motive, and I applaud those ISP's in question.

piggy
27-07-2008, 23:17
it's a very responsible motive, and I applaud those ISP's in question.

do you think the isps want to do this?

for the average user what is the point of fast bb if you dont download, the new generation of users have never bought vinyl/tape/cd they see the latest mp3/film as throwaway the rules have changed thats why im a big believer in paying a copyright tax (say £30 a year) then also charge for the quantity downloaded this will keep the isps happy then let everybody get on with it and share what they want.

jtaylor06
28-07-2008, 00:13
Whats the point of (soon to be) 100Mbps just for browsing and checking email.
What are you supposed to download when you can't download much anymore.

I'm new to the forum btw :)

Kymmy
28-07-2008, 09:12
There's lots of legitimate reasons to use high speeds, even P2P reasons..

I think that most people are tarring P2P here with the "It must be illegal" brush, where as it's already been pointed out that P2P apps such as iPlayer which will not be on the BPI's or the goverments targets (http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/12/33636605-leaked-british-government-letter-p2p-will.html)

So please stop this "we won't be able to download anything scaremongering" as it's only the illegal downloaders that should be effected (hopefully :( )

Kymmy

eth01
28-07-2008, 09:18
do you think the isps want to do this?

for the average user what is the point of fast bb if you dont download, the new generation of users have never bought vinyl/tape/cd they see the latest mp3/film as throwaway the rules have changed thats why im a big believer in paying a copyright tax (say £30 a year) then also charge for the quantity downloaded this will keep the isps happy then let everybody get on with it and share what they want.

er, they do :)

dev
28-07-2008, 12:31
do you think the isps want to do this?

for the average user what is the point of fast bb if you dont download, the new generation of users have never bought vinyl/tape/cd they see the latest mp3/film as throwaway the rules have changed thats why im a big believer in paying a copyright tax (say £30 a year) then also charge for the quantity downloaded this will keep the isps happy then let everybody get on with it and share what they want.

if that happens, you can pay my copyright tax then

Impz2002
28-07-2008, 13:49
The way this will be enforced will be exactly the same as it is now. the high profile artists will be the target of this. They will be monitoring the trackers like they do already. You will be much more likely to be done for downloading an amy winehouse or arctic monkeys album than some obscure artist. Technology is always going to outsmart any restrictions they try to impose. The only way they could practically control this would be with DPI but that is a long way from being approved as a standard thing without the users consent.

Impz

iFrankie
28-07-2008, 14:13
what is file sharing? is it sharing illegal files with others? and does this include downloading illegal content yourself?

Kymmy
28-07-2008, 16:00
File sharing is commonly called P2P (based on the mothod it uses) and it's basically using P2P software to give others access to your files (they might be illegal or they might not be)

Some people will scream and shout that they just use P2P to download, but the nature of MOST P2P software means that anything you are downling is also shared to give more instances for others to download. So if you download a copyrighted MP3 lets say on Emule as you're downloading each completed section becomes available for others to download, hence you end up file sharing a copyrighted file as well as downloading.

iFrankie
28-07-2008, 16:26
File sharing is commonly called P2P (based on the mothod it uses) and it's basically using P2P software to give others access to your files (they might be illegal or they might not be)

Some people will scream and shout that they just use P2P to download, but the nature of MOST P2P software means that anything you are downling is also shared to give more instances for others to download. So if you download a copyrighted MP3 lets say on Emule as you're downloading each completed section becomes available for others to download, hence you end up file sharing a copyrighted file as well as downloading.

right i understand now this is the same with torrents aswel isnt it, but what about usenet isnt that something totally different?

Kymmy
28-07-2008, 16:37
Usenet is based on propogation. A person uploads a file to a news-server, this file then gets propogated to all news-servers connected to that one news server and so on. A new client (program on a downloaders PC) gets a list of all the files available on a news group and then selects the files to download, so in essence only the original uploader is the file sharer and the news server hosts for some reason aren't held accountable ;)

So for P2P anyone downloading a file is then file sharing that file along with the original sharer, where in usenet only the original uploader is counted as the file sharer. Also as P2P you make a direct connection to the sharer thier IP is visible where in usenet the originators IP is only known by thier usenet provider...Hence the BPI are targetting PSP filesharers as it's simple to get thier IP

iFrankie
28-07-2008, 16:39
Usenet is based on propogation. A person uploads a file to a news-server, this file then gets propogated to all news-servers connected to that one news server and so on. A new client (program on a downloaders PC) gets a list of all the files available on a news group and then selects the files to download, so in essence only the original uploader is the file sharer and the news server hosts for some reason aren't held accountable ;)

So for P2P anyone downloading a file is then file sharing that file along with the original sharer, where in usenet only the original uploader is counted as the file sharer.

got it now thanks for ya help:D

dev
04-08-2008, 15:37
Usenet is based on propogation. A person uploads a file to a news-server, this file then gets propogated to all news-servers connected to that one news server and so on. A new client (program on a downloaders PC) gets a list of all the files available on a news group and then selects the files to download, so in essence only the original uploader is the file sharer and the news server hosts for some reason aren't held accountable ;)

So for P2P anyone downloading a file is then file sharing that file along with the original sharer, where in usenet only the original uploader is counted as the file sharer. Also as P2P you make a direct connection to the sharer thier IP is visible where in usenet the originators IP is only known by thier usenet provider...Hence the BPI are targetting PSP filesharers as it's simple to get thier IP

the usenet server owners will use the same excuse as ISPs / YouTube etc do, there is simply too much data to check and it's not their job to censor the net

peanut
04-08-2008, 15:45
the usenet server owners will use the same excuse as ISPs / YouTube etc do, there is simply too much data to check and it's not their job to censor the net

But it wasn't that long ago NTL blocked access to the main binary groups which had the most commonly wanted illegal material yet when there is a clampdown they open the access again. To me that doesn't make much sense.

dev
04-08-2008, 16:03
But it wasn't that long ago NTL blocked access to the main binary groups which had the most commonly wanted illegal material yet when there is a clampdown they open the access again. To me that doesn't make much sense.

true but aren't these new newsgroups ran by different people? it could have been simply overlooked and if anyone complains or whatever the access will be removed again

peanut
04-08-2008, 16:06
true but aren't these new newsgroups ran by different people? it could have been simply overlooked and if anyone complains or whatever the access will be removed again

That would make sense, but overlooked by a company like VM etc, when someone like myself (and everyone else) can see it would then make those in charge look a bit thick by any standards. But then again we are talking about VM here so I'll take that back. :D

dev
04-08-2008, 16:49
That would make sense, but overlooked by a company like VM etc, when someone like myself (and everyone else) can see it would then make those in charge look a bit thick by any standards. But then again we are talking about VM here so I'll take that back. :D

i doubt VM are in total charge of the servers

Hugh
19-08-2008, 17:31
It's now moving on to game filesharing.

Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7568642.stm)

Maggy
19-08-2008, 17:48
What an absolutely pathetic and rubbish game to get done for...:rolleyes:

Hugh
19-08-2008, 18:04
What an absolutely pathetic and rubbish game to get done for...:rolleyes:
A "interesting" quote from the law firm involved, on it's website
DavenportLyons (http://www.davenportlyons.com/html/legal_services/articles/it_newmedia/file_sharing.html)
"Davenport Lyons has recently been asked by media rights owners to obtain further disclosure orders against Internet service providers. These claims mostly relate to computer games, but films, software and music will also be involved.

Several thousand names and addresses have already been ordered by the High Court of London to be released by the ISPs concerned. Another application is set to be issued at court in relation to a further 7,000 IP addresses.

The evidence supporting the disclosure applications and subsequent proceedings is obtained by forensic computer experts Logistep AG, based in Switzerland, who have developed software programs to search for and accurately identify the IP addresses used to upload the copyright owners’ work.

All UK claims brought are civil actions under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. There have been similar actions in other jurisdictions throughout Europe (although different procedures are often used)."

peanut
19-08-2008, 18:06
That sounds like the result from the http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/25/33611570-have-you-received-letter-davenport-lyons.html thread.

Toto
19-08-2008, 18:54
I've said it before, but its worth saying again.

We have been warned! This action is the result of somebody thinking it could not happen to them, even after the summons have dropped through the door. What was likely a request for a few hundred pounds is now the value of a 10% deposit on a modest size home.

When are people going to sit up and learn?

Phormic Acid
19-08-2008, 21:11
What an absolutely pathetic and rubbish game to get done for...:rolleyes:You say that, but… honestly, what would you do if one of the next seven thousand letters from Davenport Lyons arrived on your doormat, accusing you of having distributed Dream Pinball 3D? It might be a mistake on the part of one or more of Logistep, Topware Interactive, Davenport Lyons and Virgin Media. It might be a security breach of your computer or home network. But, how would you proceed, especially with so many parties involved? Would you pay the initial amount demanded by Davenport Lyons? Or, would you spend many months and many thousands of pounds defending yourself in court, with no guarantee of winning and with the very real prospect of having to submit all your computing and data storage equipment for months of forensic examination?

Maggy
19-08-2008, 21:51
You say that, but… honestly, what would you do if one of the next seven thousand letters from Davenport Lyons arrived on your doormat, accusing you of having distributed Dream Pinball 3D? It might be a mistake on the part of one or more of Logistep, Topware Interactive, Davenport Lyons and Virgin Media. It might be a security breach of your computer or home network. But, how would you proceed, especially with so many parties involved? Would you pay the initial amount demanded by Davenport Lyons? Or, would you spend many months and many thousands of pounds defending yourself in court, with no guarantee of winning and with the very real prospect of having to submit all your computing and data storage equipment for months of forensic examination?

Simple! I don't file share and the police are perfectly free to look at my PC and all my records...And then I'll get my brother-in-law who is a solicitor onto their case...

Agent47
19-08-2008, 21:53
**** Vm and all these all ******s. I will continue to use newsgroups.

Toto
19-08-2008, 22:02
**** Vm and all these all ******s. I will continue to use newsgroups.

Not exactly VM's fault, they were ordered by the courts to supply customer data, although we don't know if that woman who was fined was with VM.

Phormic Acid
19-08-2008, 22:46
Simple! I don't file share and the police are perfectly free to look at my PC and all my records...And then I'll get my brother-in-law who is a solicitor onto their case...It wouldn’t be the police, but a private firm that Davenport Lyons choose and you don’t object to, presumably Logistep AG. Unlike yourself, I doubt that Isabella Barwinska has a brother-in-law expert in English copyright law. Similarly, I have no relatives suitably qualified. And, I do object to having to give up all electronic privacy for something so relatively unimportant. This is not a criminal matter.

If it were to follow the American model, you’d also have to give a list of all your friends and family who could possibly have accessed your computer or network connection, so they can all be vigorously pursued. I don’t know if an English court would allow that or not. It’s also not clear whether you’d be liable in a case where your security had been compromised. Davenport Lyons’ position has been that you are.

Maggy
20-08-2008, 00:15
It wouldn’t be the police, but a private firm that Davenport Lyons choose and you don’t object to, presumably Logistep AG. Unlike yourself, I doubt that Isabella Barwinska has a brother-in-law expert in English copyright law. Similarly, I have no relatives suitably qualified. And, I do object to having to give up all electronic privacy for something so relatively unimportant. This is not a criminal matter.

If it were to follow the American model, you’d also have to give a list of all your friends and family who could possibly have accessed your computer or network connection, so they can all be vigorously pursued. I don’t know if an English court would allow that or not. It’s also not clear whether you’d be liable in a case where your security had been compromised. Davenport Lyons’ position has been that you are.

So what's your beef with me?Just what is it you are taking issue with?

A throwaway remark about a game that no one in their right mind would want to play so desperately that they would file share it?

I've no objection to you keeping your privacy.However I do contend that the originator of software,artwork and music does have some right to be PAID for that which they produce.

Not anything posted in a forum though...that's taking the micky to think you have an intellectual right to that which you post in a forum...;)

Phormic Acid
20-08-2008, 04:39
So what's your beef with me?Sorry. I don’t have a beef with you. I apologise for quoting you. I could have made my post without referring back to yours.

Sirius
20-08-2008, 07:47
**** Vm and all these all ******s. I will continue to use newsgroups.

Safest option. They would have to raid the Newsgroup servers to be able to catch you.

Newsgroups are far more secure than the likes of Limewire and Bittorrent.

CrowmanUK
20-08-2008, 10:09
How would you stand if you hadnt seeded 100% of the file you were accused of sharing? As anybody knows who has used p2p software if you've got 99% of something then it wont work, so if you've only shared an incomplete file then you've given somebody a lot of data that in effect is useless.

zing_deleted
20-08-2008, 11:16
seeding just a block is still breach and distribution which is the main offence

Hugh
20-08-2008, 11:17
I thought that the downloader (the recipient) received the file from a number of uploaders (seeders), so you wouldn't be uploading the whole of the file, only part of it; so, in answer to your question, "you're nicked, chummy".

btw, it just escalated.
TimesOnline (http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/gadgets_and_gaming/article4569180.ece)
"Five of the world’s top games developers will serve notice on 25,000 people across the UK, requiring each one to pay £300 immediately to settle out of court. Those who refuse risk being taken to court. The companies will target their initial legal actions on 500 people who ignore the letters."

BenMcr
20-08-2008, 19:15
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/20/davenport_lyons_25000/


In possibly related news, customers of Be Unlimited, BT, Easynet (Sky), Entanet, KCom (Karoo and Eclipse) Orange, Plusnet, Thus (Demon) and Tiscali were all fingered for filesharing in an application for personal details granted by the High Court on 30 June. IP addresses were seen participating in peer-to-peer networks sharing copyright material.

But not Virgin ;)

Toto
20-08-2008, 21:12
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/20/davenport_lyons_25000/


But not Virgin ;)
Yet!

Pedro1
11-10-2008, 09:26
Sure Sure. Bring it on. If we cannot download then the broadband industry will go down the drain. Not sure our ISP's want that. LOL. We are meeting the current demands for faster broadband. And we want it for downloading. Deep down i think ISP's know that and therefor should protect us. If they don't then it's there loss.

Toto
11-10-2008, 10:44
Sure Sure. Bring it on. If we cannot download then the broadband industry will go down the drain. Not sure our ISP's want that. LOL. We are meeting the current demands for faster broadband. And we want it for downloading. Deep down i think ISP's know that and therefor should protect us. If they don't then it's there loss.

Downloading isn't the issue here, its the uploaders they are chasing, still your point is well made. :)

Enuff
11-10-2008, 12:33
But I thought everybody just downloaded Linux distros? ;)

cook1984
22-10-2008, 01:30
Interesting article:

http://torrentfreak.com/the-pirate-bay-tricks-anti-pirates-with-fake-peers-081020/

So now TPB are framing random IP addresses. Expect a flood of bogus claims any time soon.

books
22-10-2008, 04:34
Sure Sure. Bring it on. If we cannot download then the broadband industry will go down the drain. Not sure our ISP's want that. LOL. We are meeting the current demands for faster broadband. And we want it for downloading. Deep down i think ISP's know that and therefor should protect us. If they don't then it's there loss.

Yes. The day they stop people from downloading illegal films/games/music, is the day probably 98% of their customers leave.

Even sending letters is likely to cause a shift.

Toto
22-10-2008, 08:39
Interesting article:

http://torrentfreak.com/the-pirate-bay-tricks-anti-pirates-with-fake-peers-081020/

So now TPB are framing random IP addresses. Expect a flood of bogus claims any time soon.

No, remember that part of the evidence gathering process is to take some or all of the file from an IP address. Flooding a torrent request with fake IP's doesn't work because you wouldn't be able to get evidence from it.

Of course, this doesn’t work when the pirate-tracking company requires itself to connect to the peer, before the IP-address is collected, since it is impossible to connect to a non-existing peer

The methods used by the BPI mean that they can produce file evidence because they have collected it, which means they have connected to the peer.

piggy
22-10-2008, 16:27
"The methods used by the BPI mean that they can produce file evidence because they have collected it, which means they have connected to the peer."

this has not been tested in a court of law yet, or has it?

Hugh
22-10-2008, 17:46
"The methods used by the BPI mean that they can produce file evidence because they have collected it, which means they have connected to the peer."

this has not been tested in a court of law yet, or has it?

Be careful what you wish for..... ;)

Nugget
22-10-2008, 17:49
Be careful what you wish for..... ;)

Absolutely - have you still got that 12-inch pianist?

Toto
22-10-2008, 17:56
"The methods used by the BPI mean that they can produce file evidence because they have collected it, which means they have connected to the peer."

this has not been tested in a court of law yet, or has it?

Yes, they have, you'll need to scan "The Register" for some articles, but I'm not sure if the validity of the evidence has ever been tested. However, in the context of this discussion no they haven't produced files in court, simply because they don't need to as this is a voluntary agreement with the ISP's.

I found this article (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/27/uk_p2pers_fined/) quickly, there may be more.

cook1984
22-10-2008, 19:43
No, remember that part of the evidence gathering process is to take some or all of the file from an IP address. Flooding a torrent request with fake IP's doesn't work because you wouldn't be able to get evidence from it.

Depends, Media Defender and others were just using IP addresses. AFAIK no further evidence has ever been produced in a UK court.

The methods used by the BPI mean that they can produce file evidence because they have collected it, which means they have connected to the peer.

How do they prove it was you though, and not someone else in the family or someone using your wifi connection? I work in a computer shop and we get people coming in all the time saying that they use someone else's wifi.

Keep in mind that even if it's someone you allowed to use your connection, you are still not guilty. It's like if someone borrows your car and gets snapped by a speed camera - they get the points, not you.

Hugh
22-10-2008, 19:43
Be careful what you wish for..... ;)

Absolutely - have you still got that 12-inch pianist?

No - but I wasn't happy when I went down that slide and shouted "Weeeeeeeee!".

Toto
22-10-2008, 19:54
How do they prove it was you though, and not someone else in the family or someone using your wifi connection? I work in a computer shop and we get people coming in all the time saying that they use someone else's wifi.

Keep in mind that even if it's someone you allowed to use your connection, you are still not guilty. It's like if someone borrows your car and gets snapped by a speed camera - they get the points, not you.

This subject matter has been discussed to death. I think its a given that until a court case happens we may never know how good an unsecured Wifi defence is,or whether the account holder and not the user is responsible..

We've provided you with some very sound advice, don't ignore the letter, get legal help or lick your wounds and pay up, its your choice.

dev
22-10-2008, 20:10
This subject matter has been discussed to death. I think its a given that until a court case happens we may never know how good an unsecured Wifi defence is,or whether the account holder and not the user is responsible..

We've provided you with some very sound advice, don't ignore the letter, get legal help or lick your wounds and pay up, its your choice.

i expect the unsecured defence won't work at all, unless you can point the finger elsewhere. Saying someone else did it is just as bad as saying 'i didnt do it'. It's the reasons why ISPs aren't sued, they can point out who actually did it, or, who is responsible for the offending IP.

Bonglet
22-10-2008, 21:07
O rly? lets drag up the old cloned modem adage up again heres a quote taken from one of the most popular cloner sites.

"newmalden mac swap
Postby alebastra on Sun Oct 19, 2008 8:47 pm
ubr15, new malden, nmal.ubr15, blueyonder. anyone?"

Loads more quotes like that if anyone wants more.
Now with any of this evidence produced can vm state 100% that someone else cannot be stealth using someone elses connection?.
Then you have people with unblocked wif-fi even wi-fi hackers where does it all lead to.

piggy
22-10-2008, 21:38
This subject matter has been discussed to death. I think its a given that until a court case happens we may never know how good an unsecured Wifi defence is,or whether the account holder and not the user is responsible..

We've provided you with some very sound advice, don't ignore the letter, get legal help or lick your wounds and pay up, its your choice.

good advice

cook1984
23-10-2008, 01:14
This subject matter has been discussed to death. I think its a given that until a court case happens we may never know how good an unsecured Wifi defence is,or whether the account holder and not the user is responsible..

Does anyone want to prove this with me? Set up a case demanding £1 for infringement of copyright, argue the wifi defence and see what happens?

Seriously, I'm up for it. I'll even be the accused. Make a test case to force the issue. It seems like the only way we will ever put a stop to this.

AppleSauce
23-10-2008, 14:46
I actually know someone who received one of these BPI letters last week.

piggy
23-10-2008, 17:19
Does anyone want to prove this with me? Set up a case demanding £1 for infringement of copyright, argue the wifi defence and see what happens?

Seriously, I'm up for it. I'll even be the accused. Make a test case to force the issue. It seems like the only way we will ever put a stop to this.

i thought you were the accused :erm:

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/12/33640325-defending-myself-against-bogus-copyright-infringement.html#post34658625

is it me??

cook1984
25-10-2008, 00:00
i thought you were the accused :erm:

I have been accused in the past, but they always drop the claims when I write back to them.

What I mean is, I'd like it to actually go to court so a president can be set.

Is there some way I can get an injunction against Davenport Lyons to stop them harassing me?

whydoIneedatech
25-10-2008, 00:14
I have been accused in the past, but they always drop the claims when I write back to them.

What I mean is, I'd like it to actually go to court so a president can be set.

Is there some way I can get an injunction against Davenport Lyons to stop them harassing me?
Do you want to be President or do you want to set a Precedent.;)

Sirius
25-10-2008, 00:16
Do you want to be President or do you want to set a Precedent.;)

:LOL:

Turkey Machine
25-10-2008, 00:43
I have been accused in the past, but they always drop the claims when I write back to them.

What I mean is, I'd like it to actually go to court so a president can be set.

Is there some way I can get an injunction against Davenport Lyons to stop them harassing me?

I'm not a lawyer, but wouldn't Citizens Advice Bureau know more? My first inkling would be a civil claims court.

Pedro1
25-10-2008, 08:07
Citizens Advice Bureau are just unpaid volunteers i have been to them in the past about stuff and they aint got a clue.

Turkey Machine
25-10-2008, 11:19
In that case, cook1984 should speak to his solicitor, as they'll know what to do. :)

CrowmanUK
25-10-2008, 13:00
The first line people you see at citizens advice take your details and then you see someone with experience in your problem, I've found them invaluable in the past and they do have some very skilled people in there, whether this would be too different to what they normally deal with and therefore unable to help you with I couldnt comment on.

cook1984
25-10-2008, 23:39
I asked Citizens Advice, apparently anyone can just randomly sue anyone else for anything they like at any time and the other person has to defend themselves or loose by default.

Sounds like a brilliant money making scam. Say you claim £500 from each person, and each letter costs 50p to print, put in an envelope and post, you only need more than 1 in 1000 to pay up and you are making money.

whydoIneedatech
25-10-2008, 23:47
I asked Citizens Advice, apparently anyone can just randomly sue anyone else for anything they like at any time and the other person has to defend themselves or loose by default.

Sounds like a brilliant money making scam. Say you claim £500 from each person, and each letter costs 50p to print, put in an envelope and post, you only need more than 1 in 1000 to pay up and you are making money.
I hope the Nigerians are not reading this:D

On a serious note that shows how important it is that you refute any claims made against you and never to ignore any such claim as the Civil Court Judge will find in favour of the plaintiff every time if you bury your head in the sand.

cook1984
26-10-2008, 21:37
I would be tempted to ignore it until they actually take me to court, just so I can argue it and win.

Hugh
26-10-2008, 21:49
Good luck - please let us know the outcome.

Kymmy
03-11-2008, 17:51
Going back to the 3 strikes rule the French might be on the verge of making it law

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7706014.stm

Toto
03-11-2008, 18:21
Going back to the 3 strikes rule the French might be on the verge of making it law

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7706014.stm

I seem to remember some UK government interest in this also, it was on the BBC technology section, but can't find it now. :(

Kymmy
03-11-2008, 18:25
I seem to remember some UK government interest in this also, it was on the BBC technology section, but can't find it now. :(

Perhaps this one??

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7258437.stm

Toto
03-11-2008, 18:55
Perhaps this one??

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7258437.stm

Nice find, thanks, but the one I had in mind had Lord Triesman in it, and he said that he or the government were looking at the Sarkkozy three strike proposal very closely.

I'll keep looking, shouldn't take long, I think the article was from early last year.

CrowmanUK
03-11-2008, 19:09
That could be interesting, if something like that came into play and was enforced would there be any customers left on the top two tiers at VM? ;)

joglynne
03-11-2008, 19:53
Nice find, thanks, but the one I had in mind had Lord Triesman in it, and he said that he or the government were looking at the Sarkkozy three strike proposal very closely.

I'll keep looking, shouldn't take long, I think the article was from early last year.

France's deal could set a precedent, however. Rights holders have been pressuring UK ISPs to join them in setting up a similar scheme. Government minister Lord Triesman has threatened new laws to force broadband providers to act against illegal file-sharers if a voluntary agreement can't be reached, though said that talks were progresssing well.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/11/23/france_isps_record/

Lord Triesman, the minister for intellectual property, said that if ISPs can't agree a voluntary scheme with the music and film industries by the end of summer, he will press Gordon Brown to introduce legislation in the next Queen's speech.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/01/08/triesman_isps_legislation_timetable/

Toto
03-11-2008, 20:18
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/11/23/france_isps_record/


http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/01/08/triesman_isps_legislation_timetable/

Yup, the second article.

He also revealed that the UK government is working with the French on their anti-infringement legislation (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/11/23/france_isps_record/) - measures which Nikolas Sarkozy promised in his presidential manifesto.

mercyground
05-11-2008, 14:07
Anyone else think its rather an abuse of influence that the Media Mafia are pushing a civil matter via criminal courts and pushing for penelties that are higher than most severe crimes?

Nice racket if you are in the pigtrough.

Its about time that someone properly investigated them and the pricefixing and abuse of their artists. All the moneys claimed back in these cases NEVER go back to the artists and the media mafia are still claiming they are being bled dry.

If they had properly managed the "Napster" effect they could have had a proper content delivery and would not be in this position. Also the artists would get a fairer deal.

I would seriously hope that more artists will go with a "direct to public" method and cut out the industry completely. Its the only way that the existing monoploy will be broken and evicted. (and hopefully be an end to the manufactured "pop" crap that is spewed on our tv. <for the love of god someone shoot simon "Xfactor". Its all his fault>)

side note. I love my V+ box. Adverts? what are they. I'm sick of being sold loans, adverts and other crap... and why do kids need them? Boomerang 4tw :P

Toto
05-11-2008, 18:57
Anyone else think its rather an abuse of influence that the Media Mafia are pushing a civil matter via criminal courts and pushing for penelties that are higher than most severe crimes?

Nice racket if you are in the pigtrough.

Its about time that someone properly investigated them and the pricefixing and abuse of their artists. All the moneys claimed back in these cases NEVER go back to the artists and the media mafia are still claiming they are being bled dry.

If they had properly managed the "Napster" effect they could have had a proper content delivery and would not be in this position. Also the artists would get a fairer deal.

I would seriously hope that more artists will go with a "direct to public" method and cut out the industry completely. Its the only way that the existing monoploy will be broken and evicted. (and hopefully be an end to the manufactured "pop" crap that is spewed on our tv. <for the love of god someone shoot simon "Xfactor". Its all his fault>)

side note. I love my V+ box. Adverts? what are they. I'm sick of being sold loans, adverts and other crap... and why do kids need them? Boomerang 4tw :P

The last reported case of Davenport Lyons taking an Internet user to court was actually in a specialist Patents county court (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/19/file_sharing_gamer_fined/) apparently.

Games maker Topware Interactive was awarded £6,086.56 in damages and £10,000 in lawyers' fees by the Patents County Court in LondonNot aware of criminal courts being used, or whether it actually makes a difference in the end result.

AND I have just realised this is the wrong thread, apologies to mercyground....OOPS.