UK court to unmask 150 'file-sharers'

[TheBlueRaja]

Ten internet service providers have been ordered to hand over the details of 150 UK customers accused of illegally sharing software.

The High Court order follows a 12-month covert investigation by the Federation Against Software Theft (Fast).

Among the internet providers are BT, NTL, Telewest and Tiscali.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4663388.stm

Bar Stewards!

Big Ocean remember.

[scrotnig]

Hang on, this is software sharing, not MP3s.

Not that I'm in favour of illegal MP3 sharing but the industry rather brought a lot of that upon themselves.

Software theft though? Different "cup o' fish, 'arry".

[MadGamer]

So how long are we talking here, in the last 2/3 years maybe?

[DocDutch]

okay how many of the downloaders of "linux distro's" are going to hide soon?

[paul11974]

how can they tell what we are downloading ?

[driver_problems]

Originally Posted by paul11974

how can they tell what we are downloading ?

that's what baffles me. I can't see how data protection act holds any water at all if ISPs can be compelled to reveal what is being shared by who - as it must be carefully looked into I would speculate

[danielf]

Originally Posted by paul11974

how can they tell what we are downloading ?

I think it's the uploaders that get targeted.

The federation accuses the 150 individuals of breaking copyright law by uploading software and sharing it online.

[driver_problems]

The way I see it the 'music industry' has largely brought it on itself by consistently charging way over the odds for all music over a period - well, since music started being sold. I can remember as far back as 7inch vinyl discs costing 7 and a half shillings (a fortune basically) and then they did the same with CDs. The market has been artificially cornered by the media giants over the years and if they had charged a palatable price from the off then this state of affairs would never have occured

Originally Posted by danielf

I think it's the uploaders that get targeted.

That's the reason why i never use any of the p2p systems that you have to constantly upload on. Newsgroups do just fine for me.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Bill C

That's the reason why i never use any of the p2p systems that you have to constantly upload on. Newsgroups do just fine for me.

Yes, I have sharing disabled. I'm a leech... (Not that I download much)...

[Anonymouse]

Originally Posted by driver_problems

The way I see it the 'music industry' has largely brought it on itself by consistently charging way over the odds for all music over a period

And by persecuting music lovers, many of whom download MP3s for the sole purpose of 'try before you buy', i.e. they download one or two from a particular artist/album/collection, decide they like what they're hearing and then decide to buy - buy, not steal - the track or even the entire CD. I've done it myself. It's an excellent way of discovering new artists - new to you, anyway - from different countries, whom you might never have even heard of otherwise.

]How many people here have heard of NY Loose, Bif Naked, Letters To Cleo, Vixen, Fiona Apple or Local H? I hadn't, until I discovered Audiogalaxy (this dates back to when it was free, and didn't install that damn Gator spyware). As a direct result, I now own:

Year of the Rat - NY Loose
I Bificus and Bif Naked - Bif Naked (well, duh!)
Aurora Gory Alice - Letters to Cleo
Vixen - Vixen
Tidal and When The Pawn... - Fiona Apple, a greatly underrated talent IMO
As Good As Dead - Local H

- as original CDs, not downloads. I have several other albums by more familiar artists - Metallica, The Sisters of Mercy, Rainbow - which I sampled first before buying them. I am far from unique in this practice, although I haven't downloaded an MP3 in over 3 years. Even the RIAA in the States is finally starting to admit that so-called piracy has not caused a downspiral in CD/album sales, their claims to the contrary over the last five years notwithstanding. If anything, the opposite has occurred.

And don't even get me started on the whole Sony fiasco. Van Zant is reputedly livid about the whole affair, and I can't say I blame him. The affected album has been getting Amazon's lowest ever rating for reasons having nothing whatsoever to do with the album per se - I'm quite sure that'd tick anyone off however good (or not) they were as an artist. I've been debating over Life For Rent for a while, but I'm sure I heard somewhere it's on the suspect list. I'll have to look very carefully at that beforehand.

Pretty soon, it seems, we're going to need something like the EFF in this country...if we don't already.

[driver_problems]

yeah - its a bit like those authors banging on about having their work shown on google but at the same time having to contemplate the fact that their stuff will have a much larger exposure and possible sale quantity. They want it both ways. They want you to just know that they exist and buy their stuff "pig in a poke" style. That's the way I see it anyway - besides, if these 'artists' are in it predominantly for the sake of their 'work' then should that not be that in itself?

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by driver_problems

that's what baffles me. I can't see how data protection act holds any water at all if ISPs can be compelled to reveal what is being shared by who - as it must be carefully looked into I would speculate

The usual way of finding copyright infringers is to search the p2p networks for specific files and note the IP's of users that they can download the file from. They know from the IP which ISP is being used and get a court order which makes the ISP reveal details of the customer being leased that IP address at the time.

[driver_problems]

Originally Posted by ian@huth

The usual way of finding copyright infringers is to search the p2p networks for specific files and note the IP's of users that they can download the file from. They know from the IP which ISP is being used and get a court order which makes the ISP reveal details of the customer being leased that IP address at the time.

so there is no duty of care that the ISP has towards its customer? Or is it a case of the big corparate boys being above the law and making the laws they want with fancy lawyers in sharp suits?

...also - if you actaully have that tune you are sharing bought and paid for, what's the story then. e.g there is a seting in Itunes where you can 'share all' so what's that all about then?



...come to think of it - its my account in the house but 4 people use the router so by that rationale it me that presumably gets shot at dawn if any file sharing monkey business goes on?

[etccarmageddon]

Originally Posted by levig

okay how many of the downloaders of "linux distro's" are going to hide soon?

no but the the UPloaders will.