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."
What is the difference... (Score:0, Interesting)
Re:Why they bother to try? (Score:3, Interesting)
To scare off the average joe user.
Its not about hardcore techies, that isn't the market they are after.
Re:Why they bother to try? (Score:3, Interesting)
We can encrypt bit-torrent files so they wouldn't be able to tell the difference between P2P to normal traffic. Sheesh.
Enjoy your throttled HTTPS / SSH / everything else that isn't standard port 80 HTTP...
Re:Why they bother to try? (Score:4, Interesting)
But if the technical solutions find their way into mainstream programs as default settings, what then?
If Limewire and uTorrent and such were to adopt, as default, new technology to disguise file-sharing (and it'd be in their interest to, if ISPs were blocking these programmes en mass), most people would use it. Most people would use it and not even know they were using it.
Re:I don't get it (Score:4, Interesting)
Bureaucrats think in terms of selecting a niche that has endless and lifelong traction and income.
Re:Why they bother to try? (Score:5, Interesting)
Most of the ISP filtering nowadays isn't based on protocol specific filtering... it's based on the idea that if you have multiple incoming connections all at once, you're probably using BitTorrent, so they filter you.
If you can get around that, you're a smarter man than I.
Re:I don't get it (Score:3, Interesting)
In the old days we pirated stuff directly, via a phone-based network of BBSes. Perhaps something similar will arise if the ISPs block torrenting.
Freenet (Score:2, Interesting)
Shitty laws like this will only give a rise to anonymous P2P-networks like Freenet (freenetproject.org). Freenet is much more harder to block at ISP level and ensures anonymity of both downloaders and uploaders. The warez,mp3,movies etc trading will continue there.
Re:Why they bother to try? (Score:5, Interesting)
Wait until bittorrent is a popular method for delivering licensed content. WoW patches are BT aren't they? Wasn't the BBC talking about content delivery via BT?
Re:So... (Score:3, Interesting)
Hard to come by? I got my region free DVD player for £30 off Amazon. But maybe it's different in the USA.
P.S. WTF is up with Slashdot not supporting Unicode. Manually escaping characters sucks.
It is still theft (Score:4, Interesting)
We are all a bunch of hypocrites. Of course I strongly disapprove of blocking P2P or throttling. It may become a big problem. However it is hypocritical to pretend that P2P is used mostly for legal purposes.
Say what you like, but downloading music and movies for free is still theft, no matter how you look at it. So, you don't approve of the current content owners' distribution policies, you think that CDs are overpriced, and that DRM sucks, and that everything should be available cheaply and conveniently online. I completely, 100% agree. However this is no excuse for stealing. Don't like the policies - don't use the product. End of story. Anything else is simply unethical.
Come on people, it is unethical. If I try to sell you a piece of crap for $1000 you are not obliged to buy it, but you don't have the right to steal it either.
Let's face it, illegal downloading of movies and songs is really rampant. I have more than a few acquaintances in Europe who have collections of many thousands songs, movies (and software packages), without having _EVER_ bought a single one. They will never buy a CD or a movie, for any price, while they can download it for free. They never go to the cinema either because they download all new movies. They act as if they are entitled to this product for free, just because they consider it too expensive or too inconvenient to buy. Personally I find that disgusting (even though I agree with the expensive and inconvenient part).
Distribution of pirated software is a subject that I find close to my heart. It takes a _lot of_ money to develop software. Perhaps not everybody realizes it, but programmers need to pay rent and eat. So do musicians and movie makers.
Re:I don't get it (Score:4, Interesting)
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".
You'll always have the choice of not buying. There's a lot of free stuff available and there are also indie labels that are not affiliated with RIAA and buddies.
Oh, they're already well down the road to dealing with those problems.
Audience not buying? Place a tax on blank CDs, DVDs, hard drives, etc and give the proceeds to the labels and movie studios.
Indie means of marketing & distribution allowing artists to bypass the media cartels? Pass a law such as was done in the US to impose disproportionately-large "broadcasting" fees on things like internet radio collected and managed by a recording industry company (SoundExchange), and by collecting these "license fees" on non-RIAA affiliated artists, force them to either sign up or lose that money. The only way an internet radio station may avoid paying these much-higher-than-over-air broadcast fees is if they file ahead with a copy of a contract with each individual artist for each individual work, making record-keeping and administration costs skyrocket. Both sides, the indie artists and the internet broadcasters, are therefor punished, discouraged, and harassed.
As can be seen, they are already working on eliminating or severely limiting any alternate means of artists to market & distribute their work without them getting the lions' share of the money.
I'm waiting to see what they'll try next. Maybe DRM-enabled instruments that automatically deduct micropayments whenever certain copyrighted note combinations (which can be as few as three notes based on court cases) are played?
Ok, I gotta stop. I'm depressing myself.
Strat
Re:I don't get it (Score:3, Interesting)
>>>Refreshed with the blood of patriots. So, is it you who will stand up and take a couple of bullets in the chest for your beliefs?
Okay.
Like my forefathers did in the 1770s (against an oppressive government), 1810s (against a foreign power kidnapping citizens), and 1860s (on both sides). I'm going to die anyway, and rather than die an old man gasping for his last breath, I'd prefer to die in service to Liberty and Human Rights. RIAA is an organization that threatens citizens with extortion - pay us $5000 or else. They need to be eliminated.
Re:It is still theft (Score:4, Interesting)
Just because I have a different opinion, and am not afraid to express it, and am not posting as an AC, does not make me a troll. Not that I give a rat's ass about how you would hypothetically moderate me.
Don't be ridiculous. I believe that I have the right to steal your car. Enough said.
This is wrong on several levels. Firstly, nobody is forcing you to pay for copyrighted content, if you don't like it. Don't listen to copyrighted songs. There are enough bands who are willing to to give their music for free (and I applaud them for it), so it is not like you don't have a choice. Similarly, there is plenty of free software.
Secondly, the notion that the "goods" are infinite is provably wrong. A movie may take, say, 30 man/years to create. Who is going to do it for free? If you come up with an alternative way for compensating that work (compulsory licensing, whatever), and creators decide to adopt it, then I am all for it.
Wow, I have never heard that argument before. And as usual it is so full of substance. You do realize that currently copyright pays the salary of most developers? There aren't many successful businesses who rely entirely on free software. Most either sell non-open source versions of their products, or have some entirely non-free add-ons, or rely on hardware sales.
To take a random example, how many high profile free games have you seen? Oh, yes, all game companies should immediately listen to you and close down because they can't figure out how to make money without copyright.
Don't get me wrong, I would like to live in an utopia as mush as the next guy, and I find idealism charming, but come on...
Re:I don't get it (Score:3, Interesting)
This is quite an interesting one. I was talking to an American friend after Obama's inauguration, and she was telling me how she felt more proud to be American than ever before. She actually said "I feel more nationalistic than ever", because patriotism has become such a dirty word with the left in America.
Of course, as a European, I told her to say patriotic, because I can't hear the word 'nationalist' without thinking of fields with graves as far as the eye can see...