UK ISPs Could Be Forced To Block Or Restrict P2P 231
MJackson writes "The UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) has published a draft set of proposals for tackling illegal broadband file sharing (P2P) downloads by persistent infringers, among other things. The proposals form part of a discussion piece concerning the role that a UK Digital Rights Agency (DRA) could play. UK Internet Providers will already be required to warn those suspected of such activity and collect anonymised information on serious repeat infringers, though they could soon be asked to go even further. The new discussion paper, while not going into much detail, has proposed two potential example solutions to the problem. UK ISPs could employ protocol blocking or bandwidth restrictions in relation to persistent infringers. In other words, P2P services could be blocked, or suspected users might find their service speeds seriously restricted."
I don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is there such a big push to punish infringers outside the court system?
How many other types of civil crimes get treated the same way?
Due process (Score:2, Insightful)
This sort of thing isn't unreasonable if the people it hits are actually breaking the law. If the law is unreasonable, then getting the authorities to enforce that law uniformly and against everyone breaking it will make those authorities very unpopular and show the law to be flawed. Such laws rarely last much beyond the following election. On the other hand, if the law is reasonable, then impartially punishing those who break it is also reasonable. Personally, I don't have much sympathy for freeloaders.
Of course, we know that governments always follow due process in these cases, provide timely hearings where someone accused has an opportunity to defend themselves, and provide fair compensation if they screw up and an innocent party is damaged as a result, so there's really nothing to worry about.
I don't DL from P2P (Score:2, Insightful)
when I do DL something, it is because I seek it out using google.
"nameOfBand"+"nameOfRecord"+download, inurl:blogspot
gets me a hit on someone who has a blog that features the music I want and has a link to the music on rapidshare or some other online file repository system.
There is nothing "peer to peer" about it at all.
These links will break, but are often replaced by other links. The download is fast, but not superfast, simply "fast enough".
The whole P2P thing is so 2001. So yesterday. So "who cares? I've moved on from there..."
RS
Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
> Why is there such a big push to punish infringers outside the court system?
Because there are so many infringers that the court system would be clogged for years with nothing else and the cost for the justice system not bearable.
So... (Score:5, Insightful)
That really sucks.
Re:I don't get it (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, when in the past has two extremely wealthy industries had their 'work' stolen by the unwashed masses before? How are they expected to keep having ginormous profits if they have to sue every Tom, Dick and Harry for copyright infringement?
They have to protect their profits by getting the gov't to put us back under their thumb again.
Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a frightening prospect. The penalties are significant, but there's no due process of law.
So why the push? I'm not sure, but I think it has to do with how easy it is to block things at the ISP level (whether workarounds exist, it's easy enough to block things in a way that you have to look for a workaround). It's just easier for the government to inflict the burden of enforcement upon ISPs that to deal with the problem through the courts. As the saying goes: "Out of sight, out of mind."
Re:And in other news ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Since we keep getting told to think about the artists, why is no-one listening to what they're saying?
Because most of the artists in question willingly and quickly signed away the right to have a say on the matter when their first contract was placed infront of them.
Easy (Score:3, Insightful)
Because doing it this way bypasses peoples legal rights and opens the door to other easy abuses down the road.
No legal restriction to having an ISP throttle you for any reason, as long as its in the contract.
Re:I don't get it (Score:4, Insightful)
..how easy it is to block things at the ISP level..
It's funny that they think they will be able to install some equipment and then all P2P is automagically blocked. There are plenty of brilliant people out there that will find a way to bypass this system. It's just like trying to take down torrent sites - take down 1 site and 3 more will pop up somewhere else.
Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other hand, the sheer number of "infringers" means that there is a demand for something that is not satisfied by the normal market. So, either you can beat down on the "infringers" by any means, or you try to make them part of the regular market. You already know where the profit would be.
The traditional view of "property" and "limited monopoly" is turned upside down with the commoditization of communication. If you cannot control the distribution channel, then all attempts on artificial scarcity will be in vein too. The only sustainable way out is to rethink the way we see creation and exploitation of it.
Re:I don't get it (Score:3, Insightful)
>How many other types of civil crimes get treated the same way?
Until other markets get their dirty money into politicians pockets.
I'm doing my own war on the music industry by not buying any new music. I haven't bought a new cd from a music store for years. I mostly go to my local Cash Converters and get used cd's for $2.
Title a tad misleading (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't agree with the punishments being handed out by the ISPs, but what if the restriction was part of a court-imposed penalty? Perhaps lawyers could argue to get the P2P blocking imposed in exchange for dropping some stiff financial penalties? I'm not a lawyer, and I'm sure those filing the suits would want the P2P blocking on top of everything else, but there could be a potential less-negative thing out of this if it is used instead of other penalties. I don't agree with internet restriction, especially with how the UK is handling it, but if someone IS violating copyright using P2P and it is shown to be such in court, I don't see a problem with this.
Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
"What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must from time to time be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural fertilizer." - Thomas Jefferson, founder of the Democratic Party.
Wise words.
In this case the tyrants would be the CEOs behind RIAA and MPAA and the Author's Guild. Jefferson in 1816 wrote a friend, "I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country". ALSO: "I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale."
Sometimes I wonder if this guy had a crystal ball. Almost everything he said has come true. Today we spend 2000 billion dollars, and tomorrow our children and grandchildren are expected to pay their parents' debt. Nice. And corporations exert more power over government than do the People for which government exists! Of course Jefferson knew his history - everything he warned against had already happened in the past.
We just keep repeating the same mistakes.
Re:And in other news ... (Score:1, Insightful)
Willingly? Well more of an choice of signing away your creative soule or starving to death (or, oh no, get a "real" job) due to not being able to crack the payola wall of the promoting media which funny enaugh the RIAA put up in the first place to keep out the independant artists.
Re:I don't get it (Score:3, Insightful)
Just wait. Pretty soon the Used CD market won't exist, because corporations will wisely only make songs/albums available by download. You'll have no choice but to "buy new".
Yay.
Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
If there are so many infringers, then the law does not serve the people...
Stop it (Score:2, Insightful)
illegal broadband file sharing (P2P)
P2P is not synonymous with illegal file sharing.
Don't repeat the MAFIAA's propaganda.
Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
Because there are so many infringers that the court system would be clogged for years with nothing else and the cost for the justice system not bearable.
The reason "Western" countries thrive because the police & judiciary are strong, respected, and are (mostly) corruption free. Removing any segment of society from the State's protection is short sighted and wrong.
When a law cannot be practically enforced by the police or the courts, the proper response is to revisit the law, not to move enforcement outside the State's legal system.
Fuck, even the Magna Carta says:
To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay, right or justice.
Re:I don't get it (Score:3, Insightful)
On the other hand, the sheer number of "infringers" means that there is a demand for something that is not satisfied by the normal market. So, either you can beat down on the "infringers" by any means, or you try to make them part of the regular market. You already know where the profit would be.
There's a huge demand for free Ferraris too, that is not satisfied by the normal market. Why? Because supplying what the market wants at the prices the market is willing to pay would lose money, that's why. So please show me the revenue/cost statement that will turn a profit. I'll give you a template:
Revenue = 0$ * units = 0$
Distribution cost = 0$ * units = 0$
Initial cost: x$
Total profit: 0$ - 0$ - x$ = -x$
Marketing? More units at 0$ profit. And your fans on a different continent is never going to visit your local pub.
Face it, if you're going to go on tour and cover the cost of touring, you'd better be pretty famous already. A million people that like your album and is willing to give you 10$ for it is a lot. Yet it's still only 1/300 of everyone in the US. If you went to a million person city that's 333 people - minus everyone that never heard you were going on tour, or that are busy that weekend, or didn't have the cash right then and so on. Maybe it's music people like to listen to while they're driving or exercising or feeling blue but not going to a concert to hear. And the idea that people like to donate for free stuff in any significant amount is contradicted by pretty much everything I've heard whether it's software projects or otherwise.
Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
SSL VPN P2P "darknets" already exist.
My question is, how would a P2P blocking/throttling methodology at the ISP level effect those content producers who distribute via P2P?
Re:I don't get it (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I don't get it (Score:4, Insightful)
And what is PATRIOTISM?
When did American become a religion as opposed to a nationality?
Re:I don't get it (Score:1, Insightful)
i thought that was called blackmail.
Re:Why they bother to try? (Score:1, Insightful)
- Are you connecting to a number of IP addresses which are known to be in blocks allocated to domestic DSL/Cable connections? This is made particularly easy when most ISPs around the world set up PTR records like 123.123.123.123.domestic.dsl.customer.london.isp.com.
- Are you sending a small amount of traffic upstream to a small number of servers and receiving much more back?
- Is the connection kept open for a significant length of time (more than a few minutes)?
Right, so I hope these ISPs don't like customers who play online games.
Re:I don't get it (Score:2, Insightful)
Face it, if you're going to go on tour and cover the cost of touring, you'd better be pretty famous already. And the idea that people like to donate for free stuff in any significant amount is contradicted by pretty much everything I've heard whether it's software projects or otherwise.
You must work for a record label, because this is exactly the sort of nonsense they spout in order to try and prop up their failing business model through legislation.
Here [techdirt.com] is a great example of how giving away things can make you a lot of money in the long run. You don't have to be famous to begin with...you just have to be talented and smart enough to figure out how to make money with that talent.
I suspect this last part is the major reason there are so many musicians whining about file sharing taking food out of their mouth...the reality is that they just aren't talented or smart enough to keep producing music in a way that people are willing to pay for.
Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
you'd better be pretty famous already
...and I'm sure it's much easier to get famous when people have to pay you just in order to listen to your music. In fact, why not extend the point? It is, in fact, harder to give something away for free than sell it for extortionate sums! And incidentally, I am a musician and would never, ever charge for my music, beyond the costs of distribution - just with my laptop, a few bits and bobs and my trusty SM57 I could make an album tomorrow, master it the next day, and be giving it away the day after with no capital outlay whatsoever outside of what I have spent on treats for myself - and I'm learning to program almost specifically for the purpose of not charging for it. So, that's your experience out the window. So...
Revenue = ($0 * units) + donations = $some
Distribution costs = ($x * units) - ($x * units) = $0
Initial costs = $0
Money from playing live = $quite a bit - $a little bit = $some
Total profit = $some + $0 + $0 + $some = 2*$some
Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
In Jefferson's time, people regularly fought and died for their beliefs. Today, you may be right, but when Jefferson wrote those words, HE was right. And he still is. If no one is willing to risk death for freedom, then liberty will wither away (like it has been doing).
This seems like a reasonable proposal (Score:1, Insightful)
I really fail to see the issue here. If you're caught red-handed engaged in copyright infringement, I see nothing wrong with ISPs throttling your bandwidth and access in relation to certain protocols (after a few warnings, of course). The legitimate uses of P2P technology would be unaffected.
As for due process, the high degree of entanglement between government and the telecom industry (especially with Ofcom) would probably open up any of these policies to judicial review as any decision by a minister would.
Also, regardless of what you think about Labour, though they've expanded the prerogative of the police to act, they've also expanded judicial oversight of such powers. I doubt this will be any different.
Re:I don't get it (Score:1, Insightful)
Yes, because every law-abiding citizen who chooses not to believe in fairy tale miracle success stories is clearly a shill with some kind of hidden agenda.
You must be a pirate, because that is exactly the sort of nonsense they spout in order to try and prop up their failed business model through criminal behaviour.
Here [instablogs.com] are great examples of how not giving things away can make you a lot of money in the short AND long run. You don't have to be famous to begin with...you just have to be talented and smart enough to figure out how to make money with that talent (ie. by not giving your stuff away).
I suspect this last part is the major reason there are so many pirates whining about file sharing being absolutely necessary for their survival...the reality is that they just aren't talented or smart enough to produce their own music in a way that people are willing to pay for.
Re:I don't get it (Score:3, Insightful)
For the same reason you have to pay a television licence fee in the UK, even if you NEVER watch the stations financed by that licence.
Because corporations, not individuals, determine what the law is and isn't.
Re:I don't get it (Score:2, Insightful)
Likening some fifteen year old spotty kid who wants the latest Linkin' Park album to people who faught and died protecting their freedom is, to be honest, a bit insulting. There is no deep meaningful argument supporting illegal free downloading. Basically it comes down to a rather primal 'I want it free and I can get it free so I will'. Services cost, and if people don't want to pay anything at all then they don't need the service.
Please note - this is not in support of the music publishers, which I totally disagree with. The idea of them making so much money off the backs of others is wrong, but that needs a resolution in isolation to the problem of free downloaders.
Re:I don't get it (Score:3, Insightful)
As someone who has toured with a band (an unsigned one, but also spent time with some people who have been signed to a label) I can assure you at the bottom end it's hard to even break even.
Yes, it is, but the more exposure you get, the more people will be interested in paying to hear you play. If your band was getting airplay on radio stations, would you demand to be paid for that, or would you call it "promotion"?
There are many older, established musicians who want to get paid for radio airplay. This is because most aren't creating anything new anymore. Of the "ten richest bands" that the AC pointed out, only U2 really is putting out anything new on a regular basis. Seven of them are merely riding on their 20+ year old reputations. Bands like this can tour without any new exposure, and for them, getting paid for everything is fine, because free doesn't help them much anymore.
For smaller bands, though, it's all about exposure, so being willing to give some things away for free to get that exposure is a far better strategy.