Ofcom Unveils Anti-Piracy Policy For UK ISPs 234
krou writes "Under plans drawn up by Ofcom, UK ISPs are going to draw up a list of those who infringe copyright, logging names and the number of times infringement took place. Music and film companies will then be allowed access to the list, and be able to decide whether or not to take legal action. '"It is imperative that a system that accuses people of illegal online activity is fair and clear," said Anna Bradley, chair of the Communications Consumer Panel.' The Panel, in partnership with Consumer Focus, Which, Citizens Advice, and the advocacy body the Open Rights Group, has released a set of principles it believes should govern the code of practice. The principles say sound evidence is needed before any action is taken, consumers must have the right to defend themselves, and the appeals process must be free to pursue. The code shall come into practice by 2011, and initially applies only to ISPs with 400,000 customers or more." Update: 05/29 09:11 GMT by T : As an anonymous reader points out below, that's 400,000 users, rather than 40,000 as originally rendered.
Piracy clarification (Score:5, Interesting)
Im just curious on how it is illegal to download content that is copyrighted.
I understand being prosecuted for uploading content to the internet but am I breaking the law if I watch something on youtube that was placed there illegally? Or if someone emails me a photo and they do not have the rights to it?
I'm pretty certain when I take a photo of my girlfriend in the city there is something in the background that I dont have the copyright of. If I post that on facebook am I doing something illegal?
Seriously I feel like no matter what I do Driving, browsing the internet, or taking photographs I feel like at any given moment I'm breaking the law and just waiting for it to be my turn to get caught doing something idiotically illegal.
Access to detailed information (Score:2, Interesting)
Music firms and movie studios can request details from the list so that they can decide whether to start their own action against serial infringers.
If music firms and movie studios can request such information i hope it is available to the account holder as well.
I imagine a large percentage of 'serial infringers' will be under age and living at home. Parents - and all account holders - should have access to this information if they and going to be handed on a platter to music firms and movie studios.
Re:How? Passive traffic analysis? (Score:4, Interesting)
Indeed, why don't torrent sites and trackers already run over https? Wouldn't that kill this idea entirely, plus any other ISP-based snooping?
List details (Score:2, Interesting)
What's to stop anyone getting access to this list?
I'd be more worried about what's recorded in that list - I don't read anything in the article that says person-identifying data is hidden / kept in a separate, inaccessible list until a court orders such data be handed over.
If all details are free for checking by 3rd parties, that would mean they could get private and/or identity data without any involvement of a court. Basically sidestepping any legal checks & balances. That is bad for many reasons. And of course once they have such data, they have it, period.
IMHO, ISP's should only turn over private/identity data on direct order of police/intelligence authorities in acute, life-threatening cases (terrorism, kidnappings, that kind of thing). For non-lifethreatening cases, anyone fingered should be able to defend themselves, and a court deciding, before the other party gets private details. Anything else should be regarded as careless handling of customer data on the part of the ISP. And I wouldn't want to be a customer of an ISP that handles private data (mine or anyone else's) carelessly.
Re:Piracy clarification (Score:5, Interesting)
Even if you have a complete list of all files that are copyrighted and require a license to distribute, it becomes hard. For example, my publisher and I frequently exchange files that are illegal for most people to distribute, but not for us because one of us owns the copyright. This system would be required to spot when two people exchange the file, determine that it is copyrighted, and then note that we are the copyright owners and so are legally able to distribute it so should not go on the list.
Requiring a system to do two impossible things is generally considered a case of bad specification design.
Just make sure.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Just make sure all your windows are closed when you play the radio in your car and you should be OK.
Re:Piracy clarification (Score:5, Interesting)
This is just some ISP's PHB having a wet dream after being wined and dined by the RIAA. It's going to be impossible to put into practice. I've heard the boss of Spain's leading ISP ranting about this sort of thing and he's a barely coherent old codger who obviously doesn't have a clue about anything technical.
As a protest we should create a screen saver which maxes out an Internet connection 24/7 transferring random data to random people. Get your friends to install it ... let's see if the ISPs who sign up to these schemes can provide the bandwidth they've sold.
Re:That's fine... (Score:5, Interesting)
Do you know why train stations are usually at the outskirts of towns? Nooooo, not because of the steam engines causing so much pollution. You're kidding? Back when these things were fashionable, the average steel mill in the middle of the town blew more black smoke constantly into the vicinity than the occasional train possibly could.
The reason is that hackneys and cabs were fearing that they'd go out of business. They immediately noticed that they will (and did quickly) lose all the business between towns. Nobody wanted to be transported like cargo when they can sit comfortably in the "luxury" of a train waggon. So they campaigned and clamoured, citing the most impossible and unbelievable dangers and threats of those horrible machines (look it up, some are quite entertaining. Like claiming that just watching "zip" by at that breathneck speed of 40 mph will send people into seizures and a delirium furiosum and that train tracks have to be shielded off so nobody gets to see these trains) until the politicians caved in and put the stations at the edges of towns, to protect their failing business.
Of course the whole deal completely floundered when cars started to become the next big thing (and again, accompanied by similar ridiculous laws, like requiring a man with a lantern running in front of the car to warn others). But by then the train stations were already at the outskirts of towns, and of course they stayed there because by then nobody wanted to spend the money to lay tracks through the growing towns.
A perfect example how an outdated business model keeps progress at bay with harebrained claims and artificial scaremongering. People don't want to adapt. That's nothing new. And companies even less so. Who likes to change his job? But standing in the path of progress for the sake of retaining your comfy job makes you nothing more than a sponger. You contribute nothing to the progress and expansion of the economy but you leech off it.
Re:Just make sure.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Spanish RIAA (SGAE) has people going to small businesses like hairdresser's or gyms to see if they're playing music (or radio) and employers have to pay a fee if they're. The odd thing is that if customers were listening to portable media players with headphones, they aren't required to pay.
Re:Harvesting low hanging fruit? (Score:3, Interesting)
I also think it may be an example of "copyright theatre" - OFCOM is seen to "do something" which in reality has very little effect on anything at all, and - crucially - puts the legal ball in the copyright holders' court. You wanna sue somebody you suspect of downloading your movie? Go ahead and have lots of fun proving it, just don't complain that OFCOM got in your way.
It just could be an example of some crafty legislation to get the crazy music and recording industries off the government's back while actually protecting the voting public. Nice!
Re:Piracy clarification (Score:3, Interesting)
> am I breaking the law if I watch something on youtube that was placed there illegally
If you are aware of the content, certainly you would be in the UK (UK copyright law, last time I read it, even made it illegal to rip CDs you owned to MP3 for your own use, because it's a copy). You could almost certainly make a strong defence against such charges if the content was mis-represented (I don't mean if it's labelled "Not the latest blockbuster movie, lolz", I mean "Videos of my cat") and you stopped once aware of the true nature of the content, but if you're knowingly copying (by requesting YouTube send you a copy) copyrighted content that you do not have a right to, it's illegal.
On the other hand, at the time these laws were written, the sort of invasive monitoring being suggested here wasn't even a consideration. I don't think they were ever intended to catch someone who might genuinely make a mistake about this.
As someone whose day job is creating digital content, I want people to stop pirating content (and I want to strangle anyone who thinks they have some sort of moral high ground by illegally copying stuff - if it's overpriced, don't buy it, but don't copy it either). However, I also think the effort being put into stopping piracy is misguided, and vastly disproportionate to actual damage done. I would much rather see an emphasis on teaching people to make their own content, to show them the value of it, rather than this ineffective negative-reinforcement approach.
Re:Piracy clarification (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:FTFY (Score:1, Interesting)
I want a copy so I can sue for slander if I'm on it.
Re:Piracy clarification (Score:3, Interesting)
It's a morally disgusting one. And won't work. But I couldn't say I didn't like reading it. Copyright enforcement has become so ridiculous that it is expected to inspire violence in many people.
Re:Piracy clarification (Score:1, Interesting)
Are you sure it wouldn't work? And morally disgusting - more so than the extortionist and illegal practices used by pigs like ACS:Law for instance? How do you fight the bad guys if you don't want to get your hands dirty?
Or maybe you're just making up an excuse not to fight, huh? Is that so, loserboy nerd? Then kiss your precious internet goodbye, because they'll be taking it. Lock, stock and barrel. They will OWN it, completely. They will own your very lives, in the end, because a great lot of your lives will depend on the internet and those who control it will be supreme masters over your lives.
So, either realize that it's high time to take the fight to the next level, or get used to the taste of jackboot.
Seriously, do you think the partisans in occupied Europe got all fussy about moral high grounds so long as it helped put nazis six feet under?
Fight or lose. Jocks fight. Nerds can only lose.
Re:Piracy clarification (Score:4, Interesting)
Morally disgusting? I don't know. Here in the US, our ancestors started shooting at Englishmen who were just enforcing the law, collecting exorbitant taxes. Morally disgusting? Maybe it IS time for some Englishmen to start offing those corrupt bastards for imposing what amounts to exorbitant taxes. Call it a "sin tax". If you enjoy it, you've got to pay for it, over and over and over and . . .
Re:Piracy clarification (Score:2, Interesting)
Exactly: there's far more at stake than P2P, and that's the ability to keep the internet a free place. Big Money doesn't want it, governments do not want it, so it WILL be wiped out and replaced with a corporate-friendly e-place where you will be able to say that all is well and watch commercials. Moreover, the internet can be turned into the most powerful of all Orwellian devices: keep the populace under automatic watch 24/7, keep an eye on what they say, what they buy, threaten to punish them if they commit thoughtcrime, threaten to take away what they have, and you have the perfect tyranny over them. You have essentially command over their minds, you make them so afraid to speak out for fear of the consequences of stating the wrong opinion that they'll be forced to think your way.
This is what it's at stake. It WILL happen. We will be all in thrall of the economical-political mob, forever. Or we act now.
Re:Piracy clarification (Score:1, Interesting)
Although I'm not entirely sure about the details, but wouldn't the distribution of this personal information to unrelated third parties also be a direct violation of the Data Protection Act?
Re:Piracy clarification (Score:3, Interesting)
Reminds of Bill Clinton's 2000 quote on China censoring the web "Good luck. That's sort of like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall." [washingtonpost.com] Well, Bill Clinton was wrong, and as the article note the Jell-o is now quite firmly on the wall, with hardly a single drip. Your comment is of a similar kind: "Ha, ha! I can't imagine any government/corporation/entity being able to censor the internet( that I became familiar with in the 1990s), therefore they won't be able to censor it(as it exists today)."
Well you are probably very, very, very wrong.
Remember this is the UK where 90%+ of all internet connections are censored by the Internet Watch Foundation [wikipedia.org]. It's a minor step to retrofit this system to monitor urls for "infringement activity" and take steps accordingly. This was in fact the whole point of the child porn filter [wordpress.com] all along. Here's the relevant quote(the speaker is a copyright industry representative):
The IWF works. It is a perfect censor: completely inscrutable and opaque, accountable to no-one, no appeal against decisions, no overseeing body, no audits, no way of reviewing lists. It's like something right out of China or the old Soviet Union (Actually that's not really fair. Their censorship organisations were/are actually accountable). The brits embraced all this with open arms, so if you think they're going to raise a fuss about a similar system for music, I say you're living in a fantasy land.
We no longer live in a age of governments accountable to the people. We live in a age of corporations accountable to their shareholders. As such, it's no real surprise that the primary drive to control and censor people in the modern age is coming from the corporate world. The big difference between censorship systems like the IWF and this proposed copyright system is that they are, ostensibly, completely private enterprises. In other words, they are subject to no laws but those made by the corporations they serve. Ultimately, such a system will prove far more effective than anything a government could devise. The philosophy of the market and the laws of free enterprise will shield these new tools of oppression from all attempts to stop them, ironically as (the spirit of) these same laws will be what people will actually be fighting to win back.
This system is going ahead. It's going to work. Once it works in the UK, it will shortly thereafter be applied everywhere else. Once the system is in place, its remit will be extended and the internet as you know it and beleive it to be invincible will be shut down and turned into little more than a glorified cable network with a few Geocities-type sites and the odd decaying blog. Commerical copyright will ultimately prove to be the most effective force for censorship the world has ever seen. It's already more important than national security concerns [bbc.co.uk]. Money talks a lot louder than most people, or even states, can be bothered to.
Re:It's been done (Score:1, Interesting)
I'd say they worked out pretty well, since their activity led to the Anglo-Irish Treaty that put an end to British rule on Eire. ;)
Or do you believe the Brits would have folded tents and run if the Irish had come to them begging for a little freedom pretty please? Those who have the power and know it, see absolutely no need to come to the negotiation table. Why should they? They can only lose. They must be forced to negotiate - or to capitulate - by the use of force.
Right now the media industry knows it has the power: it has the politicians in their pockets, it can bully entire states into changing their laws (see Sweden), it has the economic and legal power to blackmail and extort thousands of citizens with either the indifference or the complicity of the State.
To force them to negotiate or, better, to defeat them no amount of technological savvy can avail us. They have more assets that we have, and they can make any technical countermeasure illegal by simply buying a new law. Where does cryptography help you when you can be forced to reveal your passwords or go to jail? And it will become worse.
The only thing that can turn the tide now is to put fear into them: fear for their lives, fear for the lives of their families. Outlaws do not obey laws by definition, so no law bought by them will save their hide. We'll see if they value their money more than they value their lives.
Re:That's fine... (Score:3, Interesting)
They tried a similar stunt here. Only that the town decided to give them the finger and build the train to the airport. Taxis went on strike. So the town ran the public transport round the clock. You had to buy extra tickets for the "Nightline" and they were more expensive than the ordinary tickets, but still, where do you get by cab for 4 bucks? The people were happy, and, and that's the funny part, so was the town because the whole deal was actually profitable. The cab union caved in but the town decided to keep the night busses and trains running. Oh, and thanks for supplying us with that great idea, dear Union.
Never again they went on strike...
Re:Reality shear (Score:1, Interesting)
We get past this by recognizing that the real value of those physical objects (CDs, DVD's, etc) is in the speech they contain. The object and the speech were separate things all along, it's just that we now have advanced to the point that everyone can easily interact with them separately. It should still be wrong to steal the physical object, and should still be wrong to censor someone repeating the speech that they heard.
Unfortunately, there will be a lot of resistance to this idea since the physical object without the speech is worth nothing, while the speech without the physical object retains all of its value. It will no longer be possible to make money by selling the speech and the object as one thing.
Legal liability, for ISP (Score:2, Interesting)