Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Music Media Movies Your Rights Online

UK ISPs Near Agreement On Illegal File Sharing 97

ISPreview UK writes "UK Music's chief executive, Feargal Sharkey, claims that progress has been made on a deal between the music industry and broadband ISPs to tackle illegal file sharing. The comments came during yesterday's annual Internet Service Providers' Association conference in Eversheds, with an ISPA spokesman confirming that 'some kind of agreement between rightholders and ISPs can be reached,' adding, 'everyone wants to work together to make legal online models work.' The news follows July's crucial Memorandum of Understanding agreement between copyright holders and six of the UK's largest ISPs, which account for roughly 90% of the country's broadband market. The initial agreement approved a principal of sending warning letters to customers who have been accused of downloading illegal music or movies."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

UK ISPs Near Agreement On Illegal File Sharing

Comments Filter:
  • No problem. (Score:4, Funny)

    by theaveng ( 1243528 ) on Wednesday November 05, 2008 @08:05AM (#25638941)

    I already downloaded the Billboard Hot 100 for every year from the 1930s to 2007. I'm all set.

    As for the newer stuff, they won't see a single dime from my pocket. I think I will survive just fine if I never-again hear Britney's or Rihanna's voices.

    • 1930s??? WHAT are you?

    • I already downloaded the Billboard Hot 100 for every year from the 1930s to 2007. I'm all set.

      As for the newer stuff, they won't see a single dime from my pocket. I think I will survive just fine if I never-again hear Britney's or Rihanna's voices.

      If only unauthorized copying really were stealing. Then you could burn all those songs on a few DVDs, nuke them from orbit (only way to be sure), and rid us of them for good. If only...

    • by Ponyegg ( 866243 )
      Or for that matter, Feargal Sharkey's!
  • by sentientbeing ( 688713 ) on Wednesday November 05, 2008 @08:10AM (#25638977)
    In the news today 80s popster Feargal Sharkey was complaining of the dearth of legal pay-for-download music companies:

    "A good Mart these days is hard to find" he sang
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by juiceboxfan ( 990017 )

      In the news today 80s popster Feargal Sharkey was complaining of the dearth of legal pay-for-download music companies:

      "A good Mart these days is hard to find" he sang

      Yes, I'm concerned by the political undertones [wikipedia.org] of this;-)

  • Illegal (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Threni ( 635302 ) on Wednesday November 05, 2008 @08:13AM (#25638987)

    Are they going to be spending much of my - as a customer - money on lawyers, differentiating between illegal downloads of current releases, and, say, rips of long out of print vinyl such as the Avant Garde Project (www.avantgardeproject.org) ? I rather imagine they'll just be trying to stop anyone who is bypassing the cosy tv/mp3/movie deals they've done with studios, broadcasters and publishers.

    Some sort of blanket encryption on *everything* sent from/received by people's PCs is sorely needed. Perhaps if every PC were running TOR (or something functionally very similar) there would be less of a problem here.

    • Re:Illegal (Score:5, Insightful)

      by theaveng ( 1243528 ) on Wednesday November 05, 2008 @08:30AM (#25639075)

      If Atari, Activision, Sega, and Nintendo can sue gamers for distributing "out of print" 8-bit games from the 70s and 80s, I'm sure RIAA will just-as-happily sue you for copying out-of-print records. Reason: Even out-of-print stuff is still copyrighted. It's not fair but that's the way it works.

      • Re:Illegal (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Gr8Apes ( 679165 ) on Wednesday November 05, 2008 @09:11AM (#25639967)

        This is a facet of copyright they need to fix. If you publish something, then take it out of print, you lose your copyright. Charging usurious fees for a print should also be considered "out of print" (like more than 30% of the initial run's street price, not MSRP:)

        And yes, this would directly remove most Disney works from copyrighted status, as this is their ploy to create artificial scarcity and increase demand for their products.

      • And given that I received legal downlaod offers from Atari for two games I already bought and registered and surprisingly none for any of their other games, I'm kinda expecting these morons to unleash their lawyers on me soon.

      • And what of an individual who copyrights something without intent to ever distribute? Should they no longer retain the rights to what they created?

        I agree with the spirit of what you're saying, but there needs to be considerations.

        • If there is no intent to distribute, then there is no intent to profit from it, is there ? Copyright becomes moot.

        • Re:Illegal (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Duradin ( 1261418 ) on Wednesday November 05, 2008 @12:42PM (#25645583)

          If the work isn't distributed you wouldn't need a temporary monopoly on the distribution of the work.

          Copyright was intended to provide a temporary benefit to people who distribute things so that they _would_ distribute things.

    • Re:Illegal (Score:4, Insightful)

      by evilandi ( 2800 ) <andrew@aoakley.com> on Wednesday November 05, 2008 @09:22AM (#25640299) Homepage

      spending much of my - as a customer - money on lawyers

      I can absolutely guarantee that they won't spend a penny on lawyers, mate. They'll spend it on solicitors and barristers [bg-map.com].

  • by PhilJC ( 928205 ) on Wednesday November 05, 2008 @08:16AM (#25639003) Homepage
    FTA: although some ISPs have tested warning letters with suspected customers.

    I would have thought the first steps in correctly policing illegal filesharing was firstly to have a firm grip on who exactly your customers are..

    And while I'm being pedantic:

    The initial agreement approved a principal of sending warning letters to customers who have been accused of downloading illegal music or movies

    And who's doing the accusing? the ISP or the music industry? Cos if I was the music industry I'd just accuse everyone in the UK three times and hey presto the UK is offline.
    • At least one ISP sends letters naming the accusor as "a third party monitoring service". So not at all shady then.

      • A third party can be owned by the same people, and paid from the same money. It just operates under a different name.

    • And who's doing the accusing? the ISP or the music industry? Cos if I was the music industry I'd just accuse everyone in the UK three times and hey presto the UK is offline.

      Careful, though. If you say their name three times whilst looking in a mirror, they'll pop out and sue you.

      • Careful, though. If you say their name three times whilst looking in a mirror, they'll pop out and sue you.

        Wouldn't that only be a concern if the accuser's name was Hastur...

        Hastur...

        Hastur?

  • Sharkey and those from the ISP community seemed optimistic that "some kind of agreement between rightholders and ISPs can be reached."

    Unless Feargal Sharkey's seeming optimism is somehow newsworthy now that THE ELECTION (tm) is finally over.

  • priorities (Score:2, Insightful)

    by senorpoco ( 1396603 )
    if half the resources were put into combating online identity theft, pornography or malicious hacking, these problems could be stamped out.
    • Re:priorities (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Thanshin ( 1188877 ) on Wednesday November 05, 2008 @08:36AM (#25639173)

      > if half the resources were put into combating online identity theft, pornography or malicious hacking, these problems could be stamped out.

      How exactly is pornography a problem?

      • i meant child pornography, oops
      • by I cant believe its n ( 1103137 ) on Wednesday November 05, 2008 @09:56AM (#25641191) Journal

        > if half the resources were put into combating online identity theft, pornography or malicious hacking, these problems could be stamped out.

        How exactly is pornography a problem?

        GP was refering to the problem of pornography theft.

    • Re: (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      You want yo ban pr0n?

      You insensitive clod!
  • Having and Eating (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Spad ( 470073 ) <slashdot@s[ ].co.uk ['pad' in gap]> on Wednesday November 05, 2008 @08:31AM (#25639091) Homepage

    The BPI and the various other rights groups in the UK want to have their cake and eat it. They want ISPs to police their users for illegal downloads, send out warnings & then cut them off completely AND they want them to pay for all the costs of doing so in addition to the potential lost income from cutting off the users.

    Understandably the ISPs aren't overly happy about this arrangement, which is why I'd be very surprised if this was anything more than vague agreement of "Yes, we should probably do something about all those people paying us large monthly fees to download your music illegally".

    • Seems like a perfectly natural response to me. If you had a cake, wouldn't you want to eat it too?
    • These music companies should get a clue. They've been overcharging for music for decades. They should just be happy that they were able to rip us off for so long and and retire. They can't stop the invisible hand of economics. The supply of an MP3 file is infinite, which means price will approach zero. They must find another way to make money.
  • Downloading music is just teenagers getting their kicks. There was a time you knew something about that, apparently. A good heart really *is* hard to find.
  • 6 ISPs Involved (Score:5, Informative)

    by lobiusmoop ( 305328 ) on Wednesday November 05, 2008 @08:35AM (#25639169) Homepage

    Interesting to view the 6 ISPs involved - BT, Virgin Media, Orange, Tiscali, Carphone Warehouse (TalkTalk, AOL) and BSkyB - on this independent UK ISP ratings site [dslzoneuk.net]

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Tony Hoyle ( 11698 ) *

      The large ISPs in the UK do tend to suck. It seems the bigger they get the less they care about individual customers.

      • ...that the people who go to ISP rating sites tend to be the most upset with the performance of their ISP, not the ones who are most satisfied. If the same %age of users have gripes, then the largest ISP's are going to have the largest absolute numbers of complainers.

        Pure anecdotal evidence here, but I've been delighted with my Orange Livebox for about a year. Getting a consistent > 6Mbps download rate (on a '8Mbps' line) and get a second (free 24/7 VOIP) phone line, free international calls to 30 cou
        • I just checked the list against your theory:

          ADSL24(#2 from the top of the list) received 922 votes with an average rating of 9.40
          Orange received 973 votes with an average rating of 4.05
          Sky Broadband received 1179 with an average rating of 7.43

          The list does show that Orange is crappier than most others on the list.
    • Hang-on, aren't at least half of those also the ISPs who want to spy on their users with Phorm? I've seen BT and Virgin mentioned, I'm not sure about Orange and Tiscali, and I'm fairly sure I've seen Carphone Warehouse mentioned but I can't remember whether they were saying "we won't do it" or "it'll always be opt-in".

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by sjwest ( 948274 )

      Somehow when this starts working i can see a sudden enhanced retarded-ness that only a big isp can engage once they realise that there losing clients by the boat load.

      I was thinking about a mobile internet 3g thing from orange but it seems that choice is made and i now cannot buy from them now. Not to worry though Im sure they wont mind.

  • ... they don't do anything really annoying like have a mandatory "music and movie tax" on all broadband connections.

    For someone like me, that happily pays for movie and music that I enjoy, I wouldn't want to be helping to line the pockets of Leona Lewis, Leon Jackson, and all the other shit that is so prominent in the charts right now.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by evilandi ( 2800 )

      don't do anything really annoying like have a mandatory "music and movie tax" on all broadband connections.

      You may be joking, but there are proposals to change the TV licence fee [independent.co.uk] to do exactly that.

      • And, if they enact such a thing, it's only a problem for people who never download any kind of movies or music.

        For everyone else, it's a win, since paying that tax means you've paid the copyright holder for the content, and you can then download it from anywhere you want. As long as the ISPs don't shut down P2P, such a tax is a good deal for music buyers.

        I'm sure the media companies will argue that such a tax doesn't allow you to download anything you want, but if it ever comes to a lawsuit, I suspect that

  • How will the ISPs know that torrent file being downloaded is an mp3 if the line is encrypted?
    Lets say I use some sort of inherent tool inside of limewire(in theory for now) which change the file enough that it can not be recognized as a legitimate mp3, only a .lol file extension.... this in turn avoids detection....unless they will be pouring 100 million dollars into R&D for catching files hidden inside images...I mean uhhhhh wait.....I heard this story before.....deja vu!

  • by mrpacmanjel ( 38218 ) on Wednesday November 05, 2008 @09:01AM (#25639705)

    So how is this actually enforced?

    As I currently understand it:

    1) "Lawyer" firms trawl P2P traffic and compile list of "illegal" file sharers and thier details (e.g.IP addresses, time/dates, torrent files)

    2) Contact ISP, handover "evidence" of illegal activity, ISP monitors user's activity and examines previous usage logs.

    3) If activity is "confirmed" then "warning" letter is issued to user.

    4) ISP continues to monitor user's activity and "liase" with "lawyer" firm.

    5) If user's activity ~= "illegal" then possibly issue further letters and/or throttle user's bandwidth.

    I'm tempted to type "6)....Profit!" :)

    What if the user contests the evidence?
    What if a mistake was made identifying the user?
    Will it entail an expensive legal battle to prove innocence (I thought *guilt* had to be proven)?

    This raises many questions and I doubt this is a workable solution.

    If it is only P2P traffic that is monitored then I will not be to concerned at the moment. There are many other ways illegal content can be obtained and quite frankly let them monitor P2P.
    It will make "lawyers" feel they are doing their job, Copyright owners will feel "justice" is served, ISPs keep our Orwellian Govt of their backs and smart users will find alternatives.

    Business as usual.

    I'm more worried that the Govt want a central database of email and internet usage rather something short-sighted like this.

    As usual the Govt and content holders are one step behind the internet generation and will continue to stumble through all this "new-fangled" technology.

    • by evilandi ( 2800 )

      It'd be monumentally unwise for the UK music industry to hire "lawyer" firms to trawl UK broadband providers. That'd breach the European Union data protection laws right away, using American legal firms to examine British data.

      Did you mean "solicitor" [bg-map.com] firms?

    • I'm curious too, but more along the lines of:
      - If I get torrent files over SSL or similar
      - And only access trackers via encrypted methods
      - And use RC4 encryption on the transfers (to obscure the content)

      How are they going to prove I downloaded anything. Even if they manage to show you downloaded a torrent, how can they correlate that to actual data being downloaded.

      The chain of evidence for this sort of thing seems to be incredibly weak.

    • 3) If activity is "confirmed" then "warning" letter is issued to user.

      What if the user contests the evidence?
      What if a mistake was made identifying the user?
      Will it entail an expensive legal battle to prove innocence (I thought *guilt* had to be proven)?

      The moment they threaten to stop delivering the service your contract entitles you to, sue them for breach of contract.

      Yes, it will entail an expensive legal battle, and as I understand law, contract law is a civil matter so you need the evidence to lean in your favor. If there's no admissible evidence at all from the ISP side, and you can show the letter from the ISP, I think you'd win. Standard rules for custody of evidence applies.

      Courts have in the past accepted log files as evidence. I tried to peti

  • Libel or defamation? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by anexium ( 591672 ) on Wednesday November 05, 2008 @09:11AM (#25639971)

    If you're sent one of these letters that alleges that you've been 'pirating' film/music/whatever but you haven't been trading/downloading in anything copyrighted - and therefore innocent against these allegations - is there not a case for bringing some kind of libel or defamation action against your ISP, the lawyers and the BPI?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by IBBoard ( 1128019 )

      Doubtful, because they almost certainly won't publish the list of who they sent letters to and so they won't have done anything to impact your reputation. I'd imagine that'd be one thing that Legal were keeping a close eye on (as well as how to do it to reduce their bandwidth while not getting caught in any other legal issues).

      • What if its a shared flat/house, or it goes to the wrong address, or somehow gets openned by anyone but the intended reciever? And does a libel case ever need anyone else to find out, if a company starts sending letters to you that are making blatent lies about yourself I'd say its libel wether anyone else sees it or not.
        • It depends where the court falls on the legal definition. The dictionary definition is unclear, but half of them state publication (which a single letter isn't)

          a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression b (1): a statement or representation published without just cause and tending to expose another to public contempt (2): defamation of a person by written or representational means (3): the publication of blasphemous, treasonable, seditious, or

  • The news follows July's crucial Memorandum of Understanding agreement between copyright holders and six of the UK's largest ISPs, which account for roughly 90% of the country's broadband market.

    looks like the other 10% is going to be seeing an increase in business.
  • ...the on purpose business model of price gouging and imposed by law artificial scarcity in order to keep "per unit" profits high, at a simply astoundingly way above what it costs level to make a copy, which is in essence near zero. Digital copies are our first human product from a "replicator" star trek type society/potential, one where wants are eliminated cheaply and easily. And so far, we-business and governmental laws "we"- utterly fail it. These sorts of artificial scarcity laws are a war on the futur

  • by Anonymous Coward

    I always thought that spying on/viewing of personal data is protected by the European Convention on Human Rights? Surely even ISP's can't just view packets for the sake of it?

    If you do receive one of the letters haven't you got a case to take the ISP's to court for snooping.

  • Data cannot be illegal.
    It is distributing data which may be illegal or not, depending on the rights you hold upon the data. It is also illegal to receive data from an illegal distributer, since that makes you an accomplice.

    Depending on your country, you may also be able to distribute data in a limited way without acquiring distribution rights from the copyright holder. This is known as fair use.

    All systems that want to check whether someone is distributing some data illegally are necessarily doomed to have

  • by Simonetta ( 207550 ) on Wednesday November 05, 2008 @01:54PM (#25646983)

    The Music Industry is so happy that they could come to an 'agreement' with the ISPs.

    But they don't understand that the 20th-century business model of corporations 'owning' music recordings is outdated and irrelevant as we enter the 21st-century (there's always a 10-15 year lag between the calendar year and the consciousness awareness that things are different in the new century). Everyone has the ability to copy everything that the music industry 'owns' quick, discretely, and easily. Everyone has the ability to exchange these copies freely. This isn't going to change regardless of how much what's left of the 20th-century music industry clamps down on the exchange of what they have deluded themselves into believing is their 'property'.

        The best, the very best, that they can hope for is to lock up the music recordings of the 20th-century. Which turn a profit for them now, but won't when they are removed from circulation because they don't fit into 21st century business models and are forgotten. The music industry will, in 50 years, still 'own' the rights to control distribution of the Beatles and Brittany Spears. But by then that right will be as profitable and as relevant as the right to distribute 17th-century Bulgarian folk songs is today.

        If you don't like the music industry and their RIAA goons, then make your own music recordings (and musical events), and keep them hidden from all the 'cool' people who make their living off the music industry.

        The music industry is imprisoned by this idea that music consists of marketable individual disk units of audio recordings. Which they claim is form of property that they own. Music is an arrangement of repetitive audio patterns which are perceived by people as pleasant primarily according to their cultural training. Music is the one thing that can never be property. As the technology of the 21st century reduces the influence of audio disk recordings as the definer of music, the RIAA will become less of a burden as each year passes.

        So let them have what they want; let them think that they've won their war, and move on to other forms of cultural enlightenment through music.

        But, as you do, for Goodness sakes, don't tell anyone in the music industry about what you are doing.

  • Dear Feargal,

    I think "Teenage Kicks" by your band The Undertone is one of the best pop songs ever. I confess I have downloaded the best of The Undertones illegally. I also tried very hard to like your solo work (True, O'Neill brothers later stuff has also vanished from my playing lists).

    I am a fan of yours, but I am going to download your stuff illegally and, mark my words: there is nothing you can do about it.

One good suit is worth a thousand resumes.

Working...