Slashdot Mirror
UK High Court Orders ISPs to Identify File-sharers
securitas writes "The BBC reports that the British High Court has ordered Internet service providers (ISPs) to divulge the identities of 28 customers accused of music file-sharing to the British Phonographic Industry (BPI), the UK equivalent of the RIAA. The court order issued by Mr Justice Blackburne is a big victory for the BPI and its umbrella oranization, International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), especially after recent setbacks in Canada (CRIA) and the USA. Blackburne is quoted as saying, 'On the face of it this appears to be a powerful case of copyright infringement.' The ISPs have 14 days to comply with the court order. More coverage at the Guardian/Reuters and the Register."
when push comes to shove, will it turn out this way here too? This really changes things if ISPs are going to have to police their users. This should cause ISP rates to go up as well, which is bad for everyone.
CB$#@*(
free ipod and free gmail!
You know what, you can spare all of your music should be free hippy bullshit, if these were the 14 biggest file sharers out of a population of fifty million plus British internet users, then so be it. It's not like anybody can say that they didn't know it was illegal, that they didn't know they were violating international copyright laws.
That would make it rather difficult to nail crackers & spammers on their network. What would happen in the case of a billing dispute?
Trolling is a art,
"They are uploading music on a massive scale, effectively stealing the livelihoods of thousands of artists and the people who invest in them."
Yet they chose Brittany Spears to be the front-person for the anti-pirating campaign. How about paying some of those starving artists to play frontman instead?
Well the British High Court will issue a request through their government agency to the FBI, which will make diplomatic contacts with China so they send some people to seize these 28 customers' hard disks. What's wrong with this?
Cue the +5 Funny jokes about the British Pornographic Industry!
First they need to find one of those 'starving artists' who are happy that they have signed over their rights to the songs they have written or performed over to the local equivalent of the RIAA. Or at least happy enough about the deal that they will play the front man for the local anti-pirating campaign.
Nope, I don't think they will find many either.
-Rusty
You never know...
For those of us that don't surf porn on the internet (me and this other guy over there), it would probally half or less our ping times and 5x our download rates....
Why doesn't everyone put up files named Madonna_Like_a_Virgin.mp3 or Britney_Spears_Takes_it_Reel_Good.mp3 filled with random data? A few hundred thousand of those on the peers should give the BPI a headache.
You could plead you innocence quite legitimately.
They would then have to copyright file names....
Stick Men
What happens when the ISP is accused of illegal activity (kiddie porn, phishing, etc.) because said activity occured on an IP it owns? Without logs, it has no way of proving that one of its users is at fault, right? What ISP would put themselves in that position?
ISPs don't keep logs as some kind of service for the users (though, of course, logs can be used to diagnose customer issues). They keep them for their own protection.
Yes. File sharing (i.e. running a P2P client) may well be permitted. I can assure you "copyright infringement" is not. And now we're back to the Betamax case.
In the US, the ACLU would be screaming bloddy murder, and lawyers would be flocking over this like vultures over a rotting elephant.
And to think ive just bought a cd that wont even rip onto my mp3 player thats sick. I'll probably have to download the same cd in mp3 format and get sued for something i have bought.
Are you talking about the same Canada that charges a tax (oops, levy) on all blank media (including data CD-Rs) that is paid out to the record industry?
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
To clarify.
...now isn't it simple to see...even the slashdot kiddies should be able to understand this.
While I believe the criminals should be turned in, I do not think that 'bulling' ISP's for 'suspects' is right. If they can show the ISP the IP has illegal file sharing in place, then a court order for the info of THAT IP is warrented. To only subpoena is not enough. The burdon of 'reasonable' cause is on those asking for the info, and the court can deside if an actual WARRENT is needed.
The ISP is not violating anyones privacy, and anyone on Slashdot that thinks they have a right to privacy within someones elses network, is delusional (you people know better, and if you don't, you need to get back to reality). Your computer with a firewall is secure, but opening the wall to allow others to access your SHARES means ANYONE that wants those files can get them, and it is NOT PRIVATE at the point. If it is setup as a private ftp, then anyone that downloaded the files and you, are guilty of conspiricy to defraud/steal from the copyright owners.
Those that are not 'sharing' and have a wall up, are still PRIVATE. Those sharing, are NOT private.
And there are probobly good reasons for wanting ISPs to keep this information.
For example, things like child porn.
Or like scumbags or perverts in chat rooms.
I think a good answer is to have the law such that you need a court order to get the logs.
That would mean that the BPI can still get the logs to sue people but only after they have gone to court to prove that was in fact sharing illegal files.
What if it isn't open and someone breaks in can you be held liable? We have too many people out there that have open doors are we going to expect all those people to become knowledgable about houses and close it up?
Criminalising criminals is a dangerous game?
Absolutely, especially when you live in countries where people elect the representatives who define what is criminal. It's much too early to predict how this will all shake out in the end but it's probably safe to say that the percentage of people who want to share files today is roughly in the same neighborhood of those who wanted to drink during prohibition.
The *AAs and their government cronies, instead of trying to find ways to meet these wants while still protecting their interests, are doing everything in their power to just stop it completely.
One smart thing to do would be to go back to requiring registration of copyrights and provide a searchable database so people can determine just what is and what is not in the public domain.
Another would be yearly renewals, much the same as car registrations, for a nominal or even no fee. Most people probably wouldn't care if copyright owners kept their rights for eternity as long as they actively showed an interest in doing so.
And finally, two more. Clarify and set in stone the meanings of deravitive works and fair use. Is it seven notes? Six? Obviously if it is one nobody would be able to create another song again. Oh, that brings up another thing...just what is the minimum length of a copyrighted work? There are people out there who claim exclusive rights to one second recordings of doorbell chimes and door creaks. Really now, how much more ridiculous can you get?
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.